Are rules in SCTA based on fact or opinion then ? As you say
you are standing by your opinion rather than the facts. Your
opinion is based on total volume not swept volume per rev..
I fear you have them mixed up. IN your opinion I also take
it you feel that FIA and SCCA have no clue what they are
doing then. I am sure they based their rules on sound
engineering principles and SCTA chooses not to, is that your
opinion? How does one get a vote in the opinion poll then?
Why is everyone else so quiet on this matter also? I am
sorry if you or anyone takes this as a flame but I am an
engineer, and have spent my whole adult life racing
professionally cars, bikes, boats and most anything with an
IC engine. I base all decisions on facts and not opinions. I
have learned a long time ago you can not solve any thing
until you know how it works in the first place. I do suspect
you do not know how this engine really woks to be honest and
are only looking at the surface of the problem. As an aside
to all of this i don't really have any love affair with
rotary engines, but in fact saw a rule that was unfair and
misinformed within the structure of the SCTA rules and
thought if brought to light with good engineering principles
that it might be changed to be in line with what the rest of
the informed racing community also sees as being fair and
correct. It is a matter than would put a greater value to
every SCTA record and accomplishment as it aligns SCTA with
the rest of the racing world and makes things easier to
compare as far as relative accomplishment, degree of
difficulty, and merit in the world community. Does SCTA
have any interest in this at all? My personal first guess
on this is, probably not.... Oh well I anxiously await the
response from the rest of those CC to this message to see if
all decisions are based on fact or opinion.
Dave Dahlgren
Gary Allen wrote:
>
> I stand by my opinion. The best method for equating the engines is swept
> volume and 3X best represents the swept volume of the rotary engine.
> GA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> To: "Gary Allen" <gallen@relia.net>
> Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
> "Lee Kennedy" <leekenn@pacbell.net>; "Mike Cook" <beauty1@hughes.net>; "Mike
> Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:43 AM
> Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
>
> > Gary thanks for replying.
> > The two strokes I agree on completely no question on that.
> > Displacement X 2 as they process twice as much air and fuel
> > as a 4 stroke engine of equal displacement in 2 revs. I had
> > brought this up with Dan Warner a long while ago on this
> > group. But I fail to understand your logic on the rotary.
> > From what i can see your logic is not based on facts at all.
> > It is based on what it looks like rather than how it works.
> > The engine sizes have been historically based on 4 cycle
> > piston engines. That infers that it is the amount of air and
> > fuel that can be processed in 2 revs as this is typical. had
> > you picked the amount of air and fuel that can be processed
> > in 1 rev then you would have had cylinders left over over.
> > had you picked 3 revs you would have been short cylinders.
> > Is an engine that processes 175 cu in of air and fuel in 1
> > rev with 4 cylinders not done yet, the same as a 350 cu in
> > engine in 2 revs and a 525 that processes all the air and
> > fuel in 3 revs? I suspect they are as they are all 350 cu in
> > engines using the standard displacement per 2 revs.. It is
> > just a matter of how you measure them and the only fair
> > yardstick is how much air and fuel in a given # of revs.
> > Just like it is miles per hour and feet per minute and
> > gallons per hour so is displacement per # of revs. Otherwise
> > there is no comparison at all. If you get a fuel pump do you
> > as for a 100 gallon pump or do you ask for a 100 gallon PER
> > HOUR pump???? Is your car is going 150 miles or is it going
> > 150 miles per hour.... The relationship of displacement per
> > 2 revs has always been inferred and not written out. I am
> > asking for finish writing it out. No more and no less. It
> > all seems very logical to me and ought to to everyone else.
> > I think you have to compare things that are dynamic in a
> > dynamic situation not a static one. What something seems
> > like while stationary has little to do with how it behaves
> > dynamically.
> >
> > In other words.....
> > What you are saying is, if I understand correctly, the
> > rotary is like a 6 cylinder because it has 6 faces total
> > from the 3 rotors. But in only has 2 firings per rev. That
> > means it takes 3 revs to fire them all. Well I have a 4
> > cylinder engine that has 500 cc per cylinder. In 3 revs it
> > fires 6 cylinders... 500 x 6=3000 cc. can I run against the
> > F class records too then? If you do not compare engines by
> > the amount of air and fuel that is processed per revolution
> > then how do you compare them fairly? The simple thing about
> > using that type of comparison is that it is all encompassing
> > and no new rules have to made no matter what type of engine
> > is run. It is the reason that SCCA and FIA use factors of X
> > 2.1 and X 2.2 because that is a fair way to compare
> > engines. It also matches by the way the relative amount of
> > power from this type engine also. If I had a 1300 cc piston
> > engine and a 1300 cc rotary I would expect the the rotary to
> > make about twice as much power as the piston engine. A good
> > 1300 cc piston engine makes about 220 hp. ask any of the
> > bike guys i bet i am pretty close here. if anything a little
> > conservative. A 1300 cc rotary makes about 360 hp. I have
> > dyno sheets of some of the better ones on hand here. using
> > those #'s it puts the rotary at a disadvantage at X2. If the
> > rotary was truly twice as good it would make 440 hp. with
> > your factor it would be expected to make 660 hp. Does this
> > seem realistic? I suspect not! That is because the engine
> > only has 2 firings per rev and the only place and time that
> > any power came be generated is when there is a firing. The
> > rest is a lot of monkey motion with parts going around and
> > around but no power being generated. I hope to hear back
> > from you on these comparisons.
> > Dave Dahlgren
> >
> > Gary Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > I diagree with your logic. I consider a 2 rotor, 3 lobe rotary engine
> the
> > > equivilent to a 6 cylinder engine with 654 cc in each cylinder for the
> total
> > > displacement of 3924 cc. This is the total swept volume (key term) of
> the
> > > engine just like piston engines are measured. If your recommended logic
> is
> > > accepted, then I would expect the 2 stroke engines to be measured as 2
> times
> > > their actual displacement because they fire on every stroke if one is
> to
> > > only count number of firings per revolution. Engines that run with an
> > > intermitant combustion cycle should be measured based on their total
> swept
> > > volume, not on the number of firings per revolution. Rotary and 2 stroke
> > > engines already have an advantage because they get more power strokes
> per
> > > revolution that the 4 stroke engines.
> > > Gary Allen
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > To: "Gary Allen" <gallen@relia.net>
> > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> > >
> > > > I did not even mention in my last reply what the issue
> > > > really is with the mazda rotary factor. It is currently
> > > > engine displacement times 3 for the class it has to run in.
> > > > This does not represent how the engine really works. it
> > > > takes 3 rev to complete 1 cycle for 1 rotor face. Typical
> > > > there are 2 rotors. This gives you 2 firings per rev the
> > > > same as a 4 cylinder piston engine. Each rotor face is 654
> > > > cc in a mazda 13b for example. That means that it processes
> > > > in 2 revs 654 X 2 rotors X 2 revs=2616 cc of air and fuel.
> > > > Exactly the same as a 2616 cc piston engine. Currently this
> > > > engine has a rating of 1308 X 3=3924 cc. I suspect it had to
> > > > do with the 3 faces on the rotors so everyone said just make
> > > > it times 3 or that it looks like it ought to be X 3....This
> > > > does not seem fair and reasonable to me. SCCA and FIA both
> > > > use an engine displacement Factor of just over 2 to adjust
> > > > the size of engines built like this when comparing them to
> > > > piston engines. In essence treating them the same as every
> > > > other 4 stroke engine by sizing them according to how much
> > > > air and fuel can be processed in 2 revs.
> > > > I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter
> > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > >
> > > > Gary Allen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not on the landspeed list but did know about the rule change
> > > suggestion
> > > > > from the rules meetings. It was rejected at the preliminary meeting
> > > because
> > > > > there was no data supporting the change. I am not sure where the
> > > request
> > > > > even came from and also not familiar with the current factor history
> or
> > > > > where it came from. Dan Warner is th best authority on the subject
> and
> > > its
> > > > > history.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the issue / question?
> Gary
> > > Allen
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > > > To: <gallen@relia.net>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:33 PM
> > > > > Subject: mazda rotary engine factor
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wes Potter suggested i drop you a line about the current
> > > > > > dispalcement factor for Mazda Rotary engines.. Have you been
> > > > > > following the land=speed e-mail on this or do i need to
> > > > > > forward a bunch of it to you?
> > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
|