Mark Andy wrote:
>.So am I missing something? Muffler / Stinger length on a two stroke
>exhaust doesn't do much, if anything, to power output (as opposed to
>the pipe itself, which has a _large_ effect).
That's an interesting point Mark. I'd be very interested in hearing some
proof of your theory that the effective length of the pipe as results
from the addition of a perforated stinger does not effect power on a two
stroke motor. To the contrary everyone I talked to (including at least 2
very knowledgeable FM competitors) came up with the opposite conclusion
- that a longer effective exhaust pipe could have a profound impact on a
2-stroke motor's ability to produce torque.something that the Rotax
motor is relatively short of compared to the AMW.
>...I've also heard a _ton_ of people bitching about two stroke exhaust
>notes, so you'd think an attempt to quiet them would be received well.
I heard a bunch of people bitching about how loud my car was (but I made
a point of confirming that there were no sound restrictions at Forbes
before showing up). I suppose I should be allowed to install a
turbocharger to reduce the sound level and make those people happier
(the fact that it would have an effect on the power I was capable of
producing should be overlooked since I am only doing it to reduce the
noise level). Sound fair?
>.(Not to mention... Stingers can be removed in about 2 minutes with
>no side effects.
Then why were they not removed before competition began? The primary
reason I can think of is not that someone was attempting to gain an
unfair advantage (I believe Whitling and Phipps deserve respect for the
excellent jobs they did driving, and I do not think they were attempting
to gain an unfair advantage), but rather that all the necessary care was
not taken to ensure that the cars in which they were competing would be
legal. In a formula class this is especially important. The rule in the
GCR is very clear on the point of exhaust length.
>.I fail to understand someone who chooses to protest their competitors
>rather than speak with them prior to their runs and give them a chance
>to fix the problem.
Exactly what are you basing this statement on? To my knowledge the
assertion that at least one of these competitors was not made aware of
rules infractions and given a chance to fix them is untrue. I will let
the people involved specify if they feel so inclined, but I strongly
urge you to get your facts straight before slandering someone with
comments that are not based in fact. Perhaps taking the time to talk to
the person you are slandering first and getting his side of the story
would be due diligence.
>.IMHO, that person has lost sight of what autox (or any type of
>competition) is all about.)
IMHO your post was either misleading or a cheap shot. If you don't know
what you are talking about then do not present your feelings as fact.
J. Brett Howell (who was trying to stay out of this, but could not let
this one slide)
www.PebbleMotorSports.com <http://www.pebblemotorsports.com/>
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|