OK thats good.
Now what is the swept volumn of a 12A vrs. a 13B?
Dan Warner
----- Original Message -----
From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: New Category
> SCCA takes the Mazda rotary and does this...
> 1 swept volume(654cc) X 2 rotors X 2 Handicap = 654 X 4 = 2616 cc
> dahlgren
> Dan Warner wrote:
> >
> > What if you stack two or more rotors? Wouldn't the formula then be SW x
4 x
> > n for the total displacement? - 654 x 4 = 2615 x 2 = 5230 = class 'C'
What
> > is the x4 factor?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Dan Warner
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: New Category
> >
> > > SCCA national office got back to me they measure it by using the swept
> > > volume of 1 rotor by 4 in this case it comes out to be 654cc X 4=2615
a
> > > little closer to reality at least..
> > > Dahlgren
> > >
> > > Dan Warner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > See if you can get the SCCA factor. Originally, it was x3 as was
NHRA
> > and
> > > > that's what we came up with. We don't see many, don't like to hear
too
> > many
> > > > either. Racing Beat seemed to think that the factor was OK. They,
like
> > many,
> > > > came, set record and left. Their record has been on the books since
'86,
> > > > E/BGT - looks like the factor is working if the piston guys can't
beat
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Dan Warner
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: New Category
> > > >
> > > > > Has any thought been put into the handicap for rotary engines I
have a
> > > > > few guys i work with that run rotaries and were thinking about
coming
> > > > > out but did not want to bother for time only as there is little
hope
> > of
> > > > > setting a record with one because of the handicap.. I understand
this
> > to
> > > > > be currently displacement X 3..If I am wrong plaese correct me on
> > this..
> > > > > To point out the unfairness of it.. I have a customer with a
1300cc
> > 13b
> > > > > rotary.. It makes currently about 750 hp at 10000 rpm single
turbo..
> > we
> > > > > are going back to the dyno to see if we can find some more
hopefully
> > get
> > > > > it to 850 hp.. If we use the handicap of X3 it is pointless as a
turbo
> > > > > piston engine that is 3.9 liters will make this power all day long
> > even
> > > > > at X2 it is almost not worth the effort. it seems like the piston
> > engine
> > > > > technology has progressed to the point that the handicap system
> > > > > basically says don't bother with a rotary.. A naturally aspirated
one
> > > > > makes about 310 or so.. the same as Goodman's 1995cc Cosworth with
> > > > > similar technology.. Would you think that X 1.3 or so to be a more
> > > > > realistic handicap?? I thought that SCCA had this handicap factor
but
> > > > > will see if i pry this piece of info out of them.. I guess what i
am
> > > > > trying to say is they really make about as much power as a good
'G'
> > > > > engine..but certainly not as much as a good 'E' of 'F' engine..
> > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan Warner wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I stated in an earlier posting J D Tone has approached some
of
> > the
> > > > > > Honda/Toyota kids he has in his area (Orange County - a real
center
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > type) and they are not interested in our deal. They indicated
that
> > it is
> > > > too
> > > > > > far to go, too dirty and not providing the showcase they want.
> > > > > > The SCTA office has had no inquiries from this segment of the
sport
> > > > either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have some in your neighborhood that want to join us sent
them
> > > > along.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan Warner
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > > > > To: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:55 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: New Category
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you Doug lots easier to find a 1995 camero than a
1968
> > and
> > > > > > > cheaper too for the 1995.. It sure seems to me if you want to
get
> > > > young
> > > > > > > racers involved you have to have classes for what they want to
> > race..
> > > > > > > Most I have seen are hot roding all sorts of import and
smaller
> > cars..
> > > > > > > The kids are all into computers and everything that goes with
it.
> > In
> > > > my
> > > > > > > opinion give them a place to race a turbo toyota or honda and
let
> > them
> > > > > > > play with the computer stuff and enigne some and seems like
there
> > > > would
> > > > > > > be more. Didn't this whole thing start with a bunch of young
guys
> > > > > > > wanting to see how fast the old cars they fixed up would go??
What
> > > > makes
> > > > > > > anyone think it would be any different now.. Might want to
look at
> > > > this
> > > > > > > new blood thing through 22 year old eyes and not our own..
Most of
> > > > these
> > > > > > > kids could probably care less about a 1980 Camero than they do
a
> > 59
> > > > > > > Edsel.. I'd bet they both look the same to them for the most
> > part..
> > > > > > > My opinion useless as it is..
> > > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ARDUNDOUG@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In a message dated 09/11/2000 4:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight
Time,
> > > > > > > > dwarner@electrorent.com writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > << Doug,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for your input. While your observation has valid
> > points I
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > opposite side. The current Modified Category has a year
break
> > of 51
> > > > > > years,
> > > > > > > > this increases annually. While someone may have picked a
'53
> > Stude
> > > > to
> > > > > > begin
> > > > > > > > their LSR career in 1970 it is now obvious that the vehicle
is
> > at a
> > > > > > > > disadvantage. Why not open an area for this person to run
his
> > car?
> > > > He
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > have a couple of sons that want to join us. As their
interests
> > and
> > > > > > 'need for
> > > > > > > > speed' develop over a period of time they(the sons) will
surely
> > > > build a
> > > > > > > > car/bike to meet the demands of increased speed and
challenges.
> > I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that by adding under 50 classes we may be increasing the
> > > > involvement in
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > beloved sport by younger generations which we all admit we
need
> > to
> > > > > > attract.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dan Warner
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > Dan,
> > > > > > > > I agree with regards the older "modern" cars as defined
by
> > the
> > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > rules. A class change will make many "older" race cars
> > competitive
> > > > that
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > at a disadvantage by todays rules, hopefully getting them
back
> > into
> > > > > > > > competition, possibly in the hands of the next generation of
LSR
> > > > > > competitors.
> > > > > > > > Beyond those cars that could be "recycled" into
competitive
> > form
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > additional classes I see little value in additional classes.
If
> > > > someone
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > is getting into LSR today and didn't have access to an
"older"
> > race
> > > > car
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > would tend to start from scratch with one of the better
> > aerodynamic
> > > > > > designs.
> > > > > > > > Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're starting from scratch,
> > building a
> > > > LSR
> > > > > > car
> > > > > > > > based on a production body/chassis, isn't the initial
"carcass"
> > cost
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > anything 1975 to the early 90's pretty constant? It seems
that
> > the
> > > > > > > > "carcass"cost of a 1949-75 production car to use in LSR
would be
> > > > high
> > > > > > due to
> > > > > > > > the demand among restorers and street rodders for these
cars.
> > > > > > > > I haven't gone back and reviewed all of the previous
> > postings on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > subject, so I may have my cutoff dates wrong. I do believe,
> > however,
> > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > have a pretty good handle on what the rule change is trying
to
> > > > > > accomplish.
> > > > > > > > Regards the electronics and equipment restrictions on
the
> > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > classes, that's all pretty much over my head. I just run a
> > homemade
> > > > set
> > > > > > if IR
> > > > > > > > injectors, a 1950's Vertex mag, and no sensors or other data
> > > > gathering
> > > > > > > > equipment. My concession to "high-tech" is my weather
station
> > and a
> > > > > > hand-held
> > > > > > > > calculator to interpolate "pill" changes and density
altitude.
> > > > > > > > Please explain your thoughts regards the next generation
of
> > LSR
> > > > > > > > competitors being inhibited by the present rules and
encouraged
> > by
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > classes. Other than recycling an LSR car handed down by
their
> > > > > > predecessors I
> > > > > > > > can't figure how the proposed rule change would encourage
them.
> > > > Maybe
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > missing something.
> > > > > > > > As you know, my son Brian is now taking an active part
in my
> > LSR
> > > > > > program,
> > > > > > > > setting records in my XXF/MR at Muroc and Bonneville this
year.
> > > > Keeping
> > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > motivated and involved is one of my goals............Ardun
Doug
> > > > King,
> > > > > > #1313
> > > > > > > > XXF/MR
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
|