This forum is for questions, comments and rules discussion related to the U6SA (Universal 600cc Sprint Association).

Please keep non-related discussion in the Micro Sprint General discussion or tech forum.

Thank You
rm-rf

:)One previous concern was cars running under the tail tank, so a hoop was added underneath to address that problem. Now it seems we have seen a couple of incidents where the tail tank was damaged above the rear nurf and the suggested solution was to go fuel cell. However, we could place an additional hoop to the rear nurf to prevent contact with the tail tank which would be a more economical solution no doubt.

Current rules don't allow use of newer cylinder heads on older engines. I would like to see allowances to update older engines to the newest allowed engines meaning cylinder heads, associated parts, and CDI boxes.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/20/latest-600cc-sportbikes-down-on-power/

"According to a recent test by Motorcycle.com, both the 2009 Yamaha R6 and the 2009 Honda CBR600RR are down a bit on the dyno compared to their 2008 siblings. Why? The Honda's issue may be related in part to U.S. noise regulations and the tricks that cycle manufacturers employ to get their screamers down to lawful decibel levels at their high-rpm power peaks.

For its part, Yamaha has tried hard to boost the weak mid-rpm power that the ultra-aggressive R6 has been saddled with the last few years, but that retuning may have yielded too high a penalty at higher revs. This small problem doesn't seem to be affecting Kawasaki, though, as Team Green was able to punch out an impressive 107.7 horsepower at 14,100 rpm from the '09 ZX-6R's 599cc powerplant, all the while remaining competitive in the mid-range."

So it appears that improvements were made in the mid-range rpm through variable black box controlled inlet venturis which I understand Guhl has incorporated probably meaning better corner exit power over the 2008 engines. My guess the max power is probably the same since the engines do not suffer from restrictive exhaust systems on micros.:cool:

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/05/09-fastrack-may.pdf

More guys are using video cameras to review their on track performance and/or to share videos on line, so it appears we may need to include rules concerning their use and attachment in 2010 rules.

The question is "what kind of modifications" should be allowed for a stock engine? To the basic engine I would think none!

Item 4 under Head and cams, we see non stock cams, adjustable timing gears, non stock valves, compression boasted by head resurfacing and allowing thinner head gaskets.

Item 5 under Pistons, here we go again allowing non stock pistons to most likely boost compression ratios.

Item 8 under Ignition there really is no problem. However, a greater timing advance should be allowed when running alcohol like 10 degrees.

Item 13 under Fuel there has been a hard debate as there happens to be alternative solutions to maximizing fuel tank safety. Currently a bladder is to be housed inside of a plastic outer shell. Other types of racing like NASCAR call for a steel shell with a hard rubber bladder. Tough call here...

"Blue printing" an engine is probably just as expensive, so we don't clearly have a "win-win" situation.

"Blue printing" an engine is probably just as expensive, so we don't clearly have a "win-win" situation.

Back years ago when parts were ran on older analog cnc and screw machines tolerances were higher and their was room to increase horsepower via blueprinting. Modern day engines are produced on digital cnc machines and digital cnc grinders so tolerances on most all machined surfaces are so tight from the manufacture that it would be darn hard to gain any performance at all by modifying machined surface dimensions within manufacturers tolerances.

Original Rule:
5. Pistons
• Any Piston may be used, must be within cc limit specified under bore and stroke.

Proposed change:
5. Pistons
• Any piston, piston rings, and wrist pin, may be used, must be within cc limit specified under bore and stroke.


In what way does this rule change help keep the cost down ? The only people benifiting from this rule are the engine builders and the people that can afford to have it done..The motors run just fine without any mods.
Theres a Conflict of Interest in so many levels in this sport. How about a rule not allowing motor builders to be tech's. How many time was there a valid reason to not be teched because an engine builder other then your own was teching.
As Mike Dicely said "Vote according to what is best for the class and not what is best for you. " To include the engine builders ??