Howdy,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, J. Brett Howell 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 based that statement on dyno testing we did on my '94 and '96 RS125
roadracing bikes. Two exhaust cans, one 2" longer than the other,
otherwise identical. HP difference was in the noise range of the dyno and
not repeatable.
> 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?
So you really think that the folks in question had those cans on there to
increase power?
> 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),
You're certainly not implying that above.
> >.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.
I'm sorry, I was in fact assuming this to be the case, based on the ease
of which it could be fixed. So you're saying that the protestor went over
and told the protestee that "I'll protest you if you don't fix your
exhaust" prior to the runs?
If so, I apologize for misleading everyone. I find it hard to believe,
but there are stubborn people everywhere. :-)
> >.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.
My post was my take on what happened and presented as such. If it was not
100% accurate then I apologize. In fact, if you reread the first line you
quoted above, it says "So am I missing something?" That was a serious
question. If the F500 motors respond to stinger length differently than
the two stroke motors I have experience with, that'd help to explain the
ruling.
Mark
/// 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
|