Good info thanks, just sharing what heard. Les and I have been friends since 1975 and his engines are legendary, but longevity is not one of his strong points. I enjoyed this weekend and it would have be the right one to be running.
It would be very interesting to know what the customer's stated requirements in this instance were. And how the engine builder planned to address those requirements.
I'm certain you gents know this, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it. Very high specific outputs
usually preclude "longevity", depending on what is meant by that ambiguous term. Racing sanctioning bodies are now mandating longer "service intervals" for engines that compete in their series.
What happens from a practical standpoint is this:
A/ For professional, cost is no object racing, (you decide which series those might be, but F1 for certain), well, cost is no object, SO, unobtanium and tohellwithcostium get utilized.
The expense rivals the total GNP of small third world nations . . . . . . .
2/ For professional racing where cost IS a consideration, compromises are made between cost and longevity/output.
Serious engineers and "bean-counters" might negotiate with officials of sanctioning bodies about what sort of performance is desired Vs longevity.
d/ In amatuer sports, ie, where the competitor writes the checks, the size of the competitor's wallet determines what the level of performance achieved might be.
This is, of course, the widest range of performance variation, based on the wide range of competitor's ability to "pay the freight".
I have been doing this for almost 50 years now, and I'm thankfully at the end of my run, soon to be "fly-fishing centric". BUT, my memory remains sharp and focused, and I do not remember a time when competitive racing endeavors were cheap. Competitiveness has
ALWAYS been expensive, both in cost and longevity.
JMHO and 2ยข,
Fordboy
