Dan, I emphatically feel that the engine classification parameters may just be
the most important (second only to safety) aspect of the land speed racing
rules. I think the handicapping issue with regard to rotaries must be changed
as evidenced by the data provided by Dave D., as it likely gives experienced
based results from years of use from other sanctioning bodies. I have very
little concern over which particular models would be effected. It simply
provides a needed parameter to allow folks a fair playing field with regard to
deciding which powerplant to use. The Racing Beat success is one example of
running under the existing rules. But respectfully I dont think their results
mean one iota in the face of the logic provided by current data about power and
displacement. Another way of looking at it is to say that with the X2 factor
many many more records may be held by rotary, or that it at least opens the
playing field to diversity with respect to powerplants. I dont even think this
rule change should require a vote by the public, its just good sound common
sense.
Joe (those rotarys are tight, light and just might fit into a 2 wheel outfit)
Amo :)
Dan Warner wrote:
> 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
> > > >
> >
|