Where are all the LO206 rules changes?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the drum clutch.
Why would you want to change the rule to allow a $350.00 clutch on a $500.00 engine that makes as much or more power as the competition and last infinitely longer.
The Briggs rule set will stay the same if not forever, for a very loooong time.
 
Yeah, lots of confusion by those that don't know.

The non-rev limited 206 is the animal. Which can generally be ran all season and only need a top end refresh. Going to win 10,000, you would want to spend the little bit to get the entire engine refreshed. Saturday night and you can run it all season Around 6800-7200. They will turn 8 for a longtime but need refreshed more often with little gains. Personal preference there as to what it "needs" to turn.

As far as the rev-limiter, yes the manufacturers or racers generally set those limits. But, in our case as pointed out the clones are being ran with an improvised rev limiting function. So why animosity against the out right Rev limiter that keeps the cost down on rebuilds and keeps the racing consist eNt. That is exactly why people want a Rev limiter. That is what every clone racer wanted supposedly, until you give them the real thing. Outside of that rule set you say you don't like, that is what a pro gas, or builders prepared Animal is for. Why change the rules of what is working when the option exist?

That is what happened to the clone, why do people not realize that? Builder prepared existed, but everyone wanted the Slightly cheaper version then wanted to tweak it and spend the same as the version they didn't want yo pay for. But, run it in the s tock class. It makes absolutely no sense, there are rules for a reason. Then they kept pushing and pushing the limits till now they essentially have a builder preppared engine that still tries to exist under the pretence that it's not.
 
Jimbo said:
Lets not forget about one of the reasons some people don't want to see the LO 206 be successful. They can't make the money on it that they can on building an engine.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things that held back the HPV. That and the, precived , high initial cost. Funny thing is, there were dealers still talking people into blueprinting the HPV. A total ripoff. I had one of the first HPVs. Me and an engine builder friend of mine went through it and found it to be, if not perfect, very near to perfect. The crank was straight, the bore was straight, the piston clearance was perfect, the CC's were perfect. The engine was so close to perfect I doubt any machinist could make it better.
 
I love engine building but i also love the sport that allows me to do that, Karting.
What's good for the average racers is more important to me than blueprinting engines.
The LO 206 is good for all forms of karting.
There really is no debate about that
 
#65 said:
In all of these race series you guys are talking about --F1/WoO/Cup/MX/MotoGP/etc…., who sets the cutout RPM? The governing body or the race team? There is a huge difference between the two. If you are going to make that comparison, it's only valid if the governing body is the one setting the RPM limit.
Click to expand...

You missed the context, as it was taken slightly out of context in the last couple post. The entire discussion was started when Bob Compared the rev Limiter to a governor, and then asked why would you want either period.

Their reasons are different, but the principle is the same. The reason is the RACER, the same as the racers in the other series wanted a Rev limiter. The reason we want one in an introductory class is to keep the cost of rebuilds down and keep on track performance consistent.

They want one to reduce catostrophic failure and also other reasons.
 
It seems most sanctioned race class has some type of govener, wether it be mechanical, electronic, springs, intake or exhaust sizing.
 
Jimbo said:
The LO 206 is good for all forms of karting.
There really is no debate about that
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself, there's always room for debate about anything.
The LO 206 can fill a niche, in my view of karting, but the fun in karting for me was, at least partially, learning how to build engines of my own. For the first 10 years of my karting career finding new ways to put a Mc together made up, at least partially, my interest in the sport. The idea of a factory sealed engine is repulsive to me.

It seems strange to me that so much time is spent on controlling the engines and yet there seems to be no control on the karts, or the tires, or the preps. I'm not against controlling things in the beginners classes, but if you're going to control the engines, why not the price of karts? Or the number of tires you can bring to the track? Or the application of prep and definitely the application of an open flame near a prepped tire. It appears to me, an outside observer, that many priorities are a little skewed.
 
Mainly you have to start somewhere, and limiting chassis tends to really be something that rarely proves it's worth. Most can take any chassis and win in a beginner class. It helps keep numbers up by allowing others to compete with any chassis. A beginner can then take his newer Chassis and move up when they are ready. Or low budget people can get whatever they can afford and have fun. Generally running close with the proper knowledge.

Tires is a whole other ball game, and prep rule is not enforcable.
 
ABR #69 said:
The entire discussion was started when Bob Compared the rev Limiter to a governor, and then asked why would you want either period.

Their reasons are different, but the principle is the same. The reason is the RACER, the same as the racers in the other series wanted a Rev limiter. The reason we want one in an introductory class is to keep the cost of rebuilds down and keep on track performance consistent.

They want one to reduce catostrophic failure and also other reasons.
Click to expand...
In fact, I hadn't made a post in this forum for a good while, I usually let you guys be. My post was in response to your post #15
ABR #69 said:
Lol, that really has more to do with the in the inherent inconsistencies of a cheap spring used for a purpose they shouldn't really be used for.The 206 has a perfect answer for that? Rev limiter, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT COULD BE THAT EASY? Lol, I'm glad to see more drama in the clone world. One day they might realize Briggs just wants to race, not tech all night.
Click to expand...
So I was not responsible for anything other than pointing out that my leg was not wet because it was raining. :)

There are probably several thousand LO206's racing in the US and might include Canada, there are tens of thousands of clones racing in the US with fifteen or twenty thousand more that will be imported this year. Someone is doing something right somewhere.
 
CarlsonMotorsports said:
Yes, Bob, but if fuel prices stabilize (high or low) and are not the impact that you and I suspect, what will be the driving force behind karting participation this year?



Bryan, maybe you aren't against the LO206, but you sure do chime in and accuse those who are supporting the LO206 as "clone haters / bashers / etc."
Personally, I hate the clone. I make no bones about it. BUT, I have to deal with it regardless.

The point of the post was that a "stable" set of rules sure is welcome. As an engine builder and tech man, every time I turn around I have to keep up with constantly changing rules (in other engines - be that what brand they may be.)


Flash is right on:

Keep in mind this is not an either or situation, just another way. Yep, that's the way I see it as well.
Click to expand...

Where did I call you a basher or a hater. Don't start putting words in my mouth in an attempt to help your cause. LOL. I simply said promote your desired engine platform based off the good merits of that platform. Surely you can do that.
 
Hey Bob
Why can't i make a post in the Clone forum?
 
Bob, you were the one that asked who wanted the Rev limiter, lol. Which is what lead to example and the previous posts, didn't mean to imply that you were soely responsible for the rev Limiter discussion. Just how it got brought up comparing to other series that run them.


You are correct, they done something right, then it went oh so wrong. Not blaming anyone or anything. Just people are tired of it and quite a few are switching.
 
..and yet still, despite many threads, the point of the 206 package goes way, way over some people's heads who cant get beyond their own constrained narrative of "what racing should be like"
Those same people who wonder why the sport has stagnated in all but concession karting.
 
The market will tell us what it wants.

I don't even like the clone, the animal would be the best choice, it's a better motor. But, IMO, they're making the same mistakes with the clone they did with the animal, by keeping the rules too tight. Sorta like death by a thousand cuts. My thinking is spec the dimensions and let everyone have at it.
The formula for a successful engine rules package was laid out in the mid 90's with the flathead, but now everyone seems to have a better idea. All I hear is talk about the mistakes in the flathead rules, yet those "mistakes" worked. And Lord knows we don't want to be wasting our time with anything that actually works.

I guess everything has to hit rock bottom before folks will finally look around and start proceeding with any kind of consensus. I just hope there's something left to build from at that point.
 
Bob Evans said:
The market will tell us what it wants.

I don't even like the clone, the animal would be the best choice, it's a better motor. But, IMO, they're making the same mistakes with the clone they did with the animal, by keeping the rules too tight. Sorta like death by a thousand cuts. My thinking is spec the dimensions and let everyone have at it.
The formula for a successful engine rules package was laid out in the mid 90's with the flathead, but now everyone seems to have a better idea. All I hear is talk about the mistakes in the flathead rules, yet those "mistakes" worked. And Lord knows we don't want to be wasting our time with anything that actually works.

I guess everything has to hit rock bottom before folks will finally look around and start proceeding with any kind of consensus. I just hope there's something left to build from at that point.
Click to expand...

Amen Bob couldn't agree more! The flathead rules were written to where even if the average Joe got a bad cast block, carb, whatever he could still pay for a Lil machinework and build a competitive race engine on his own. Man things were so much simpler back then...
 
I have to agree almost 100%. What we need is ONE ENGINE platform, and many people have said that time and time again. I personally think the 206/Animal platform would be best. Would cut down on a lot of bs, classes would grow, but the number of classes would shrink.

A 206 and then an Animal Light, medium, and heavy would again be a viable option again. Then you have the Limited and opens. Many in this very thread have laid out scenario after scenario, but until the racers start demanding it from the tracks it won't change.
 
I like the rev limiter, to me it's the biggest selling point of the Briggs engines. On our 19 turn sprint track getting out of the turns is the key to being fast, the Lo206's and WF's hammer the rev limiter 1/2 way down the straights. The clones hammer their valves when the cheese**** springs float instead. I chewed up my first set of valves in two practice sessions. Come up with a rev-limited coil or add on rev limiter, ditch the spring rule, and I'm happy.
In fact, I'm building a modified predator and I'll be in the market for some kind of rev limiter option for it. Thankfully our track is asphalt and there's very little slip so gearing can prevent over-rev, but I'd still prefer an electronic limiter.
 
Kinda the same thing as running light crappy springs that won't let the motor rev unless you cheat....at least with the lo you can't buy cheater valve springs to gain rpm's
 
^^Hey Jim:)
Clones are getting a lot of pokes in the eye this year with some of the heads being outlawed in AKRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top