RR Grands ICE ISSue

[Paul Tartaglia]

Anyone have any spefic details on the problem(s) found with the I.C.E. engines at Portland?

[Tim Doll]

Paul

What I "know" is second hand (Since I'm not currently on the IKF Board, as the Region 6 Coordinator I had NO authority at the GN, something I had to repeatedly tell people at the event). However what I was told (several times) is that several competitors where using aftermarket reed cages, and the IKF rules mandate OEM.


BTW, I didn't agree with the final resolution, but as I noted it wasn't my decision to make.

Tim

[John Kuntze]

Rule 312.8.1 says that all engine parts must
be OEM exceptions are piston,ring,bearings,
seals,reed petals,hardware and ignitions.
The reed cages were modified which to me
doesn't make them legal anymore.I heard the
comment that everybody does it.Just because
everybody does it doesn't make it legal the
drivers need to write the IKF board and try
to change it.Read the rule book before you
go to the nationals to make sure everthing is
legal because tech is the wrong place to
start reading it.

JK

[Tim Doll]

John

As I understand it, one reed cage was OEM but had been "worked", several others were actual aftermarket parts (but this is all second hand info).

I certainly agree though - "everyone is doing it" doesn't make it right when it clearly states in the rule book that you can't. If the rule doesn't make sense, don't break it - lobby to get it changed.

Tim

[Stephen Buckley]

Tim, et al,

You are absolutely right about a)knowing the rules and b)changing them. Since I was one of the first IC/E drivers in the country, I really hate to read about these rule "violations". When the concept of IC/E was developed, the motors were "supposed" to remain relatively stock. A lot of very good people attended the meetings and helped put "in ink" the rules. Much of the IC/E concept was developed by Calvin Hurley with input from Terry Ives, Chaz Lemmon and a few of the early Swift Cup drivers. It is a really a neat class, providing a lot of neat things. Unfortunately, I had to sell my IC/E equipment because I saw a little bit of the writing on the wall... that is, the class was heading towards a pseudo-unlimited status (read expensive). Just my $0.02.

[Paul Tartaglia]

As member of the IKF Shifter commitee when the majority of the ICE rules were decided, I know 1st hand about the intent. However in the past 4 years many things have changed. 1st and foremost the decision by Rotax this year to stop production of the 257 engine, which in my opinion is the engine best suited to run in ICE. With the supply of new engines (Rotax) non-exisitant, the competitors in this class are now forced to explore other options. In my opinion, the next best suited engine for this class (it has a 6 speed gearbox & balance shaft) is the Honda 86'-89' 250R (ATC& FourTrax)which is out of production since 89'. As with the current 6speed CR125s, this engine is available in kit form from sevral sources primarily driven by the ATV & Micro Sprint communities where this engine is a main stay. Since this engine has been on the market for 15 years now, you can imagine the amount of aftermarket pieces available that are better suited, more reliable, and less expensive than stock parts for the racer. I believe the current IKF rules for the class will have to change to allow this to grow. Here in Texas, this class is a fast growing class as experienced racers move up from the 125s to something more challenging and better suited for roadracing.

As for the other engines that are legal for this class, all are 250cc motocross engines that have inherent problems being competitive in this class on karts. Primarily the lack of 6 speed gearbox and no balance shafts make them non-competitive and unreliable when compared to the Rotax 257 or Honda 250R. Even the 250R must be significantly modified to compete with a well tuned 257. With this in mind, the cost to race this class will inevitablly increase. But in perspective, this class (ICE) is not an entry level class and should not be ruled by the strictly economically minded.

To keep the class growing in the future, I think the IKF will have a little foresight and follow the lead of the motorcycle industry by allowing some of the new breed of 4-stroke engines (Yamaha, Honda, Cannondale, etc) to be used in this class just as they are in the motocross world.

In the ideal world of ICE, Rotax 257s would be readily available, we could run them in a basically stock trim (most racers can't drive the available power to the fullest)costs would be reasonable and everyone would win a trophy. However in the real world this is not possible and new regulations will have to adapt to the influences we currently face.

As a racer who has plenty of time and success in a 125, there is no comparision to the ride you get from a 250 ICE (except an Unlimited).

[Roy Harris]

[QB]Rule 312.8.1 says that all engine parts must
be OEM exceptions are piston,ring,bearings,
seals,reed petals,hardware and ignitions.

I was in tech at the RRGN as a helper. Let me start by saying I would'nt know a reed cage if it bit me on the leg. They way the drivers explained it to me ( probably just using me a sounding board ) was they felt the reed cage fell under the catagory of HARDWARE which was listed as exceptions in the rulebook. How the issue evolved from there I don't know.

Roy Harris

[Debbie Kuntze]

During the RR committee meeting on Wed. (I think, I still don't know what day it is today)it was decided to have a special meeting with the ICE class at the driver's meeting on Thursday so Terry Ives could go over all the issues that had been brought up. The ICE drivers were reminded to READ THE RULEBOOK on both Thursday's practice and at the drivers' meeting on Firday. We felt that the drivers should be reminded EVERY day before their race and if they had any questions to bring them, go to tech, ask, show a part they were concerned about,and get it resolved/answered before the race. Don't be surprised. And frankly, I was rather surprised by how many thought that "worked" on on OEM part still made it OEM. If it's worked, it isn't OEM (operative word is ORIGINAL). All drivers were given an equal chance to ensure legality.

My team at Buttonwillow had a cash prize yanked out of our hands by an interpurtation of No GO or NO START for a rule. We read it one way, the tech read it another. Our fault for not asking first because it was an easy fix.

I agree that IKF needs to lose the idea of retro fixing and by more proactive to keep the good existing classes alive and if need be drop dead ones and bring in new (i.e. Rotax Max. Don't only write to the board, send a copy to the members on that tech/division committee. Ultimately, it will be the committee that must review the letter and offer recommendations. Of the letter is forwarded to the committee you waste valuable time, so send copies to the committees at the same time as you send them to the board!

Debbie Kuntze

[Charlie Tackett]

Seems the OEM phrase would be open to interpratation. Example: SKUSA calls for an OEM cylinder head, but modifications are allowed. OEM simply means of Original Equipment Manuf., no after market goods. If you want it to be an unmodified OEM part, then you better spell that out.....OEM with no modifications permitted.

SOunds to be they may have grounds for an appeal.

(just stirring the pot)

[Stephen Buckley]

Paul,

From what information that I gathered, the Rotax 257 was only to be put on hold until the factory caught up on the RotaxMax orders. Is this information wrong? Is the 257 really gone? If so, we do need to start looking at the 4 stroke or some other alternatives to keep this class alive. It should, as it was originally conceived, be maintained as a relatively "stock" class.

[Tim Doll]

Steven

What I 'heard' is that the Rotax CEO decided that there wasn't enough profit in making limited production motors such as the 257, and that Rotax would discontinue production of all their motors that the annual production fell below some threshold. What this meant to karting was the Max was the only karting related engine that Rotax would continue to support.

Sounds like Rotax got Americanized

Tim

[Stephen Buckley]

Tim,
I hate it when that happens!!!

[Debbie Kuntze]

Charlie, yes there is lots of room for interpratation, but the drivers were told on both days, OEM meant no modifications. So I see no room for appeal there.Unfortunately for the karter, SKUSA and IKF do differ in their rules. It would be great for both organizations if you could pick up and race with either one on any given weekend. Or have true crossovers from sprint to roadrace. But,IKF did not say you could modify OEM, so OEM per IKF means no modification unless they spell it out. I can see the reasoning for this, do you need a rulebook hundreds of pages thick, or live by the "rule of the moment" as sometimes happens in SKUSA events?

There, I stirred the pot the other way!
Deb

[John Clasen]

There are several underpinnings to this post and several people have made some really good observations here, especially Charlie T and Paul T, (not related). Yes, some of the competitors at PIR were using intakes which when you read the IKF rule book, were in fact illegal. One the other hand, one competitor was DQ'd for modifying an OEM part. The same rule book requires that cylinders and heads be OEM, but it does not say you can or cannot modify these items. I can assure you that all the top finishing ICE karts had highly modified OEM cylinders and heads! So why is it that you can't modify an OEM reed cage?
My point here is that the rules are neither clear nor current, and are in much need of revision. This class as I understand it was originally fashioned after the European IC/E class and of course the European karts running in the class at the time. The problem is that times change & rules in other organizations change from time to time and there needs to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the IKF rules remain current & relavent. The main impediment to that end is that the IKF has a thing called the 'proposal system'. This well intended system relegates this organization to being a reactionary entity as opposed to a pro-active body. At best case a competition rule takes one year to change under this system, and in many cases it can take two to three years or not at all. Given the fact that most people only stay in karting for three years, it is not difficult to understand why rules changes that everyone agrees need to be revised, just don't get the attention they deserve. Due to the fact that the 250 IC/E class utilizes non kart based engines and thus the supply side of the quotation is outside the control of the santioning body, a more timely method of enacting rules changes needs to be put in place. Almost without exception rules through out the racing world are made with two considerations in mind; safety & economics.
As has been said by many racers involved in this division, this is not 100cc racing and we should not attempt to legislate with all the same cost savings constraints in mind. On the other hand sensible limitations should be put in place and monitored for relavence on a regular basis. In the case of the IKF Nationals at Portland, the use of an aftermarket reed cage did not represent a financial impact of any significance and thus the rule outlawing it should not exist. On the other hand those affected by the DQ's at Portland could have a very significant impact on the clubs and shops they normally support if they decide to drop out of 250 Karting.

IMO, it is time for those persons in a position to make a difference on this issue, to step up and make themselves heard. Staying with the statis quo is no longer an option. There is a move afoot around the country to come up with a common set of rules for the 250 classes. It would seem to me that this would be a ideal time for all (truly) concerned parties to get together and enact a set of sensible rules that are compatable with the rest of the world.
That's my 75 cents worth.

J.R. Clasen
World Super Kart Challenge

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: John R. Clasen ]

[Tim Doll]

JR

I agree with most of what you posted. There are certainly pluses and minuses to the IKF Proposal system (imposes a certain amount of rule stability, but is slow to react when changes are needed). However what mystifies me is that none of these ICE engine issues had even been brought to the attention of the IKF Board. While on the board, I heard complaints about the ICE weight and race format, but no one ever even mentioned anything about engine rules or tech. Proposal system or not, the board cannot be expected to react to issues that they are not made aware of!

Perhaps it is time for a major overhaul of the IKF ICE rules, but somebody needs to sit down and figure out what these rules should be.

Tim