Mike
The FIA factor I have been talking about is not part of their LSR rule
structure. With LSR you are correct they have there own Group.
John Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Jenkins" <MikeJ@speedrecordclub.softnet.co.uk>
To: "LSR List" <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Rotary Engines
> For record breaking the FIA put rotary engines into their own groups, each
> with the normal capacity class breaks. Group V for 'engines with rotative
> Otto cycle with or without supercharger' and Group VI for 'engines with
> rotative Otto cycle without supercharger'. This could be academic though
> because on the FIA records list I've got there don't seem to be any
records
> established in Groups V or VI.
>
> Mike Jenkins
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> To: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
> Cc: <dwarner@electrorent.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Rotary Engines
>
>
> > Then why do the 2 strokes run heads up.. aren't there some small engine
> > liner records set with 2 strokes that had an unfair advantage?? does FIA
> > also factor them as well??
> > Dahlgren
> >
> > John Beckett wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > Don't know that I disagree with your logic exactly. However
> sometimes
> > > progress is made in small increments. I would most certainly be in
favor
> of
> > > changing the current factor from 3.0 to the FIA factor of 2.1. They
run
> > > these engines frequently in endurance events around the world and feel
> the
> > > 2.1 factor is fair (relative term).
> > > That would make a 13B equal to 2746cc and for us an "F". That's
the
> > > equivalent of bumping it up two engine classes. The current factor or
> 3.0 is
> > > probably why we don't see more of these engines on the salt.
> > >
> > > John Beckett, LSR #79, E/FCC
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "dahlgren" <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > To: <DrMayf@aol.com>
> > > Cc: <dwarner@electrorent.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:57 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Rotary Engines (was Re: New Category)
> > >
> > > > If the technology is better than a piston engine whats that got to
do
> > > > with anything???? do we have a handicap for a twin cam engine ?? How
> > > > about a hemi handicap how would that go over.. i think everyone with
> a
> > > > hemi has to go up 2 classes.LOL hey time marches on things get
> better..
> > > > Look at the message i sent again and tell me if you see the logic in
> it
> > > > vs a two stroke piston engine..
> > > > Dahlgren
> > > > DrMayf@aol.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I really know squat aboit hummer engines, but it seems to me that
> the
> > > engines
> > > > > of any sort should have equivalent displacements. For instance, my
> 302
> > > Fors
> > > > > has well, 302 CID, right? Well a hummer engine should be allowed
the
> > > same
> > > > > displacement, me thinks. That displacement on my 302 is obtained
in
> 2
> > > crank
> > > > > revolutions. so how many times does a hummer single rotor displace
> air?
> > > > > Aren't the rotor to crank mechanics such that the crank makes
> several
> > > > > revolutions for a complete rotor sweep? Like does it take two
crank
> revs
> > > for
> > > > > 3 displacement changes?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now does the rotary engine have technology advances that make it
> more
> > > > > efficient than the piston engine? I think yes, and I think this is
> where
> > > some
> > > > > of the handicapping comes from. But this is an interesting
> discussion.
> > > Chuck,
> > > > > where are you?
> > > > >
> > > > > mayf
> >
>
|