- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I just got my 39mm carb for my ICC, and now I hear we wont be able to run them next year. I think that is a bad choice, the ICC needs the carb to run with the motos.
As far as rules,
SKUSA with big carb, 375 lbs, Bridgestone ( what ever superpro runs)What do you think?
Doug
If you listen to many over of e karting forums, the ICC with a 30mm carb have a clear advantage over the motos! I do know that an ICC done right with the big carb, a new pipe and the head is much faster than the moto. An ICC in full CIK trim, is very, very close to the moto. I am pushing for the ICC to be kept in full CIK trim, 30mm carb homologated pipe/ silencer and head volume. In that trim, I think the two engines will be very, very close.
By the way, I have switched to a CRS engine package. I too would like to see the 375 weight as I have 50+ pounds of lead on my karts and I’m tired of lifting that much weight!
ICC motors do not need a 39mm carb to be competitive, in fact contrary to popular beliefs bigger carbs do not make for more power and faster karts!! I think you will find that the intake restriction on an ICC engine is in the reed cage and the intake tract, they are designed to use the 30mm carb. So bolting on a 39mm carb will probably not gain you anything … in fact you will probably lose a lot of bottom end and may see a very marginal incease on top ( that is if you don’t spend all race day fiddling with the jetting!!). I also believe that AJ Noud ran a 30mm carb at steamboat last year he didn’t seem to have too many problems keeping up did he?
As for rules keep the CSC as close to SKUSA S1 rules as possible this will save us all from having to have a setup for SKUSA and a setup for CSC.
Of course this means SKUSA would actually have to publish some rules!!!
I assume by SKUSA combining ICC and Moto in S1 the head volume restraints on moto are out and the PI is still in?
Jon, I now have both carbs, the 39mm is alot faster. Now I can keep up with the motos at Bandamier, with out it there is no way. The reason for the restriction in the reeds is for the smaller carb, you take out the restriction with the big carb. And in Steamboat you could see A.J. was down on power compaired to Sams moto, and Bobbys 39mm ICC. At tracks like IMI, and GJ, the 39mm may be better, but not at small tracks.
Doug, you put drivers like A.J., and Bobby in 39mm ICC and thay may have an atvantage. But for most of us it makes us competitive with the motos. I also believe A.J. ran a 30mm at Bandamier, and got his butt kicked by the motos.
Doug,
that’s interesting, do you find you lose any bottom end with the big carb? is it much more of a pain to jet?
Doug
The reason AJ and my son Jeff were in the back at Bandimere that day was because the other guys all straight lined the chicane going up the hill. It had nothing to do with the motor. The second trip to Bandimere, Ryan Bailey was running the 30mm and he was all over and faster than Kyle who did win. Did you happen to see the prefinal the second time to Bandimere? It was a 4 kart train at the stripe and a 30mm ICC was right in the thick of it.
The Pro class is going to be full of very fast young drivers. Both my kids will be there and I’m sure both Scarrberrys and Ray will be there. Add in AJ and Ryan, that is certainly the start of one very fast class.
Our team, KGB has done extensive dyno testing with motos and ICC in various configurations. The ICC to CIK spec (30mm carb and homologated exhaust) is very, very close to a full tilt SP level moto. The major differences are the moto has much more torque while the ICC has a broader powerband (it revs significantly higher). Allowing the big carb takes the ICC to a whole different level. It produces 3 to 4 more hp than our best moto package. An average ICC as from the out of the box will not be competitve with a moto, they do need the services of a tuner. But a fully tuned ICC will more than compete with a moto.
Mr. Stevens,
A 30mm carbed ICC is plenty competitive with motos, i did some reasearch about ICC’s in 03
IMI #1 AJ won with a BIG carb
GJ2 Novice class had Micheal Mcgrath win, not sure if it was a FC carb or not
Aj also was close to bobby for a while in his CRS
Bandimere 1. Micheal got 2nd in novice, Galegor got 4th in a 30 mm pavesi
IMI #2 Bailey 2nd TM (not sure if it had a 30mm or not)
In novice, mcgrath got 2nd
Bandimere 2, Bailey 2nd with lap record in a 30mm
in novice, galegor got the 2nd fastest lap with a 30mm, i belive he retired for a motor overheating?????? (let me know on that one)
SSGP Bobby won with a FC basically, ryan 2nd (after sam got a bag on his tires and AJ avoided him, both bailey and AJ had 30mm, with the 2nd fastest lapif i had any info wrong, correct me please
I want to have our ICC as a CIK spec, thats why its ICC, not SICC or FC, a 30mm is fine, no need to bolt on a 39, i hope the rules are for CIK spec for icc’s for this reason alone.doug and doug
y do u wanna change the weight from last years 385 to 375 this class is more like an S1 class than Super Pro. So keep the weight at 385 for sum of the bigger drivers, last year i was weighing in at 400 at sum tracks, and droping the weight is gonna hurt sum of the older/heavier drivers who wouldnt have ne comp. in the sr. /heavy class (G1).
I agree with Kyle, the weight should be the same, if the TaG’s are going to be at that weight, the shifters might as well too. not going to be easy to drop pounds when you do pushups for a grade 😡 this is still a state series, it should accomodate other drivers, since the scales at each track are so %$#@#$ up, it is only a good thing for some, and for doug, i know a good chriropracter, Just kidding, i know how it feels, ever try to carry chad corkens leopard, DO NOT EVEN GET CLOSE
Doug,
I had quite a long conversation with Paul Leary on this subject of 30mm versus 39mm carb on ICC packages. According to Paul most stock ICC packages that he has tested ( by stock I mean out of the box with stock silencers and pipe, proper timing and 30mm carb adjustments ) have dynoed in the 37 to 40 hp range, by no means 41 to 44hp claimed by many of the top moto engine builders of today. They are also down on torque about 1 1/2 ft.lbs. We can put some credence to this as our BONE STOCK SGM delivered 37.2 hp. and 17.1 ft.lbs. of torque on a chassis dyno. This package can be quite competitive at the local level if driven smoothly but in our opinion cannot compete on a consistent level (the operative word here is consistent ) with the national level drivers that we saw in the state series last year in the CSC. At minimum to run with these top calibre moto packages you need an after market silencer and a blue printing by a knowledgeable engine builder. At this level of tune Paul has told us that the 2 engines are very competitive with one another. But to say that a stock CIK ICC package given equal drivers are similar, is not what I have been told or have expierenced. The Engines supplied to Kyle and Bobby at the Steamboat race were well in excess of 46 hp. according to info verbally quoted to me over the phone, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Paul. He claimed that one reason that Bobby did not yard the competition was that he had all kinds of problems controlling wheel spin off apex ( either due to power or inadequate grip or both ). I cannot verify this as I was not personnally in the seat of Bobby’s kart, but none the less this is the info that was passed along to me. I feel that as long as moto’s and ICC’s are run together this will continue to be a bone of contention, and I see no way of totally erradicating this issue.
John/Josh Ferguson
J2Motorsports
Westminster, Colo.John
You are quite right. I too have talked with Paul, and he has told me the very same things. (At least he tells the same lies to everyone 😆 ) But I can also back that up with the extensive dyno testing our team, KGB, has done on 3 different ICC engines. They have found that both the Pavesi and the TM vary quite a bit stock. The TM more than the Pavesi. They can be as much as 4hp down. So they do need a tuner to make then top notch. I can say that the CRS engine appears to be much closer and the factory tuned engines do not appear to need any blueprinting.
Our Pro class will continue to see top caliber drivers and engine packages. Of course we will be using top level ICC engine packages and I’m sure many others will also. We will continue to see Swedetechs and other SP level moto engines as well. The stock, out of the box ICC engines will be at a disadvantage to the rest. But a blueprinted big carb ICC will deliver much more power than a top level moto because it is basically a Formula C engine and they can put out close to 50hp (Paul’s numbers again)
The bottom line is, a top level ICC in CIK trim and a top level moto package are fairly close. Close enough that I think it will be the better driver that puts it in front.
Oh defintly there is a large differance between any of the icc’s, from what I have found out by speaking to Rodney at Champion in Norman, a TM K9 has 38hp out of the box on the chassis dyno, so it will be down a few compared to most engine dynos, when they get the building done, and all the work associated, its about 42 on the same dyno. I cannot speak for a Pavesi or a CRS or anything else out there (Vortex, VM, Seven….) But perhaps doug can fill us in on the CRS, and John has already shown us that the SGM gets 37 out of the box. It will be an interesting set of races this year, and the first GJ race may have a surpirse in the pro class (not rudolph or wilson, or any of them). We will see
Doug:
I don’t know of a series that ran CIK spec ICC’s with moto motors. The SKUSA spec ICC’s seem to be compatible with the motos, from what I heard of the outcome from the S1 class from Vegas. As far as your extensive testing goes, we all know the truth about dyno numbers, and that is there really isn’t any truth. I would believe on track results more than someones so called dyno numbers.
Hey track owners.
Have a meeting make the rules, there is no way to please us all. Don’t wait till the end of Winter, and expect us to be ready the first of spring.Bill
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.