Another question, exactly which cars would this bring back out? Do you want
to race against Racing Beat in a lower class? I can see the cars that would
come back if the new category is put into place but am at a loss concerning
the missing RXs, 3,4 & 7.
Dan Warner
.
----- Original Message -----
From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: <Land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Rotary Engines (was Re: New Category)
> heads up might be an advantage but it is an advantage to the 2 strokes
> to run heads up too.. at 2.1 or 2.0 they would move to an F car.. It
> seems appropriate that if FIA and SCCA both use a factor of 2 why
> doesn't SCTA ?? It does not matter if it is 2 or 2.1 as the engine class
> would remain the same.. They make less power than a 3 liter piston
> engine but more than a 2 liter..typical is 350 hp from a very good 13b
> NA engine on gasoline.. Some may argue this is high but have the dyno
> sheets to prove it... a good 2 liter makes about 304hp and a good 3
> liter makes about 450hp..even a mediocre 3 liter ought to make more than
> 350hp...It would seem to me that the X2 factor would give the rotaries a
> fighting chance at least and maybe bring some cars back out that were
> hopelessly handicapped. NHRA now runs them I think anyway in the IMPORT
> class and it is pretty much a bracket race so engine size does not mean
> much. Do yo think it is a good idea to factor them the same as other
> large sactioing bodies do? If so then is it possible to make the a X2
> instead of a X3 for 2001?? If not why not? It seems that X2 is the most
> sensible # as SCCA has the most experience with the engines over the
> years and it is the factor they use. I suspect they played with it a lot
> before they settled on it and it makes the most sense when you look at
> how the engines actually work. Is a formal letter of review of the
> factor appropriate?? If so where does it get addressed?? do the other
> people on the rules committee read this newsgroup?
>
> Dave Dahlgren
>
> Dan Warner wrote:
> >
> > I keep asking questions. Do I read right that if rotaries run heads up
or at
> > 2.1 they make gobs more HP than a piston engine? Kinda defeats your
premise
> > that the rotaries are 'handicapped' beyond all usage.
> >
> > Dan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > To: <V4GR@aol.com>
> > Cc: <DrMayf@aol.com>; <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 12:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rotary Engines (was Re: New Category)
> >
> > > To be candid with you a rotary is not like a turbine in that it does
not
> > > purely rotate. The eccentric shaft gets it forces from the rotor going
> > > around a statioary gear in a wobble sort of motion and the rotor does
> > > climb from the bottom of the housing to the top and does not rotate in
> > > the sense a turbine does.. BTW what class you race in??? Does this
> > > affect the competition in that class.. Not that it really matters but
> > > want to know if there are any untold factors.. To be honest if they
run
> > > heads up my racing pal Mike Allen has a problem on his hands and I
have
> > > a ton of effort in that car to set a record, and if they run at 2.1 my
> > > racing pal John Goodman has a problem too with his 2 records and some
> > > future plans...I am starting to think thwere are two classes 'US' and
> > > 'Them' LOL Dan you have been very quiet on this...
> > > Dave Dahlgren
> > >
> > > V4GR@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the distinction should be reciprocating engines verses
rotating
> > > > engines. Then the Wankel engines would run with the turbines. Rich
Fox
> > >
>
|