Re: USAC RPM Story
 

Originally Posted by ImissAscot:
I think the point is to try and increase car count's by Esslinger making a incredible motor for the Micro/Mini Sprint or TQ guy to go up the ladder and be able to afford to run a full-size midget in a competitive manner against some of the bigger funded team's. All the high dollar motors are by no means obsolete they are just going to be on the level now and the RPM limits didn't drop much HP on the dyno on any engine.

The problem with this theory is that people in the micro and tq world still aren't going to spend 18k on a motor, then another 5k to 10k for a car. That could be almost 30k on the complete deal with spares. It's great in theory, but just not feasible. The people that cannot afford to move up to the next level just can't afford it. A 10k micro sprint is usually a deal where it takes everything to keep it going. And the people that can afford to move up, aren't going to skimp pennies because they can afford what they want, and more often than not, they are going to go race a sprint car if they do anything because you can race them more than you can a midget.

Make the tires skinnier, and start running weekly shows somewhere, and you may grow car counts that way.

Re: USAC RPM Story comments
 

Great discussion! Don't forget you can join the NSSN community and post on our site too.

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

I am not an engine guy, just a crew chief & racer who runs an esslinger XT.
It seems that to me the issue of RPMs, with respect to an Esslinger is more about where you are in the RPM/power band getting off the corner? Not at the end of the straight for a brief moment. Given they are torque challenged on short tight tracks. How many guys really run IRP, Iowa or Phoenix? Why all the emphasis on HP developed? Yes its a means of measurement. However we found we turn up the RPM's when competing to get up on the cam or the torque curve to get off the corner better.
So I have to ask doesnt any one think the R & D guys down there dont know what to do cam wise and phasing wise to shift the power band down in the range now allowed by this rule? Bet they do or they will find it this winter. Remember when NASCAR instituted RPM limits? Do those motors make any less HP? Nope.... theyre better than even before and all it took was lots money.
So.... I think the big guys will send their motors in late winter to get those R & D benefits. Sorry if I didnt offer a solution but I dont think this new rule is the right one in this case. Maybe it will help the pushrod motors live longer but.....Wont save any money for guys who own the stuff already.
Just my .02 cents worth.

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

Originally Posted by thebus79h:
The problem with this theory is that people in the micro and tq world still aren't going to spend 18k on a motor, then another 5k to 10k for a car. That could be almost 30k on the complete deal with spares. It's great in theory, but just not feasible. The people that cannot afford to move up to the next level just can't afford it. A 10k micro sprint is usually a deal where it takes everything to keep it going. And the people that can afford to move up, aren't going to skimp pennies because they can afford what they want, and more often than not, they are going to go race a sprint car if they do anything because you can race them more than you can a midget.

Make the tires skinnier, and start running weekly shows somewhere, and you may grow car counts that way.

I agree completely and even had a previous post about the need for weekly racing for midgets.

I do not think the RPM thing will work because I simply do not think engines are the problem. I amazed at how many people think all midget racers have $30,000 to $40,000 motors. Other than the top national teams, I do not think the majority of midget racers have motors more than $20,000, there are ALOT of $10,000 to $15,000 motors being used and are competitive.

(I took this from one of my previous posts because I am to lazy to type it all) The demise of midget racing is more of a preceived problem rather than reality. Given that midgets are a touring series and have no local weekly racers to drawn upon for their shows and yet they get 25 to 35 midgets in this economy is quite amazing. The WOO would only get about 15 cars if not for the local weekly racers to draw from for their shows.

If tommorrow a $8,000 midget engine was available that produced 320 HP and did not need to be rebuilt for at least two seasons there still would be only a marginal increase in midget car counts over the next couple of years. Why, because ENGINES are not the MAIN issue and things such as tires, travel (because no weekly programs) testing, etc.

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

Originally Posted by thebus79h:
The problem with this theory is that people in the micro and tq world still aren't going to spend 18k on a motor, then another 5k to 10k for a car. That could be almost 30k on the complete deal with spares. It's great in theory, but just not feasible.

They're more shooting for the Focus or Ecotec racer. Same car, different motor. The other cool thing about the EST is that it uses about 1/3 less fuel (!!!) and it runs WAY cleaner oil-wise. It should be a way lower maintenance engine...at least that's how it looks so far.

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

We plan to be on the scene with an upgraded version of the RRE ECOtec as well. Our objective is, and always has been, to provide a modern, state of the art engine featuring improved fuel efficiency, longer duty cycle and better driveability at lower cost than conventional designs. Our current engine features a factory stock rotating assembly and sells for $11K, air filter to muffler. It has proven to be perhaps a little better than we expected vs. traditional Midgets even though that is not what it was designed for. Our ST2 engine will be intended to run competitively with the Esslinger EST and ST.

The ECOtec has tremendous potential. What we want to do, is bring something out that is competitive, durable and very affordable. We don't want to turn this into yet another very high powered, expensive, fragile Midget engine. What would be the point of that? So, our hope here is that somehow, some sanity will return to Midget racing and an engine capable of running with the 330HP ST/EST motor will be all you need to go have some fun and be competitive. If we can find a way to do that, I think the sport can start growing again.

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

Originally Posted by Revolution Racing:
Our ST2 engine will be intended to run competitively with the Esslinger EST and ST.

The ECOtec has tremendous potential.

Gonna have to dump the MEFI and get a better crank if you want to play with the big boys. :2:

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

That crank, after polishing and rebalancing, is supporting over 400HP in several applications right now.

The MEFI 5A supports variable camshaft timing, multiple event sequential fuel injection, multiple event sequential ignition timing, fully interactive acceleration/deceleration enrichment/enleanment routines and many, MANY more highly sophisticated technologies. The problem with MEFI 5A has not been with the controller, it's been with the calibration software. We have that resolved.

I have produced hundreds of engines using the Electromotive HPX. I know they guys at Electromotive well - they are great people and they produce an outstanding product. When I began the ECOtec project I fully expected to be doing it with the Electromotive system and the ONLY reason I'm not using it is that the MEFI 5A, as pertains to the ECOtec at least, is a FAR better controller. The fact that it also happens to costs a lot less was just icing on the cake. If there was a better controller on the market for this application, I would be using it.

We certainly will need to change and/or modify a lot of stuff to catch up with the 'big boys', but the crank and the controller are actually a couple of the items that are good to go.

Keith Iaia
Revolution Racing Engines
805-238-3930
http://www.revolutionracingengines.com

Re: USAC RPM Story
 

Originally Posted by Revolution Racing:
the crank and the controller are actually a couple of the items that are good to go.

That's good to hear. :6:

The stock Ecotec cranks were pretty fragile (hollow rod journals?) when the sport-compact guys were running them back when.