To all,
I would like to publicly apologize to Gary Allen if I
insulted him it was not the point of the message that was
sent.. I was a pleading for some understanding on the
physics of how something really works.. No more and no less.
I have not included him in the reply here as he asked not to
be included in anymore of the crap from a 'Hot Shot Wanna-be
engineer' his words not mine.. All I can say is this 'Hot
Shot Wanna-be engineer' has to get back to work on the next
pile of designs that have to be ready for the 24hrs of
Daytona where his crap has won many many times.... If any of
the rules committee people think what i want to accomplish
has any merit and thinks that it might be able to be done
this year let me know. I am sure there are other racers that
want the same goal for the rotary engine factor. They have
e-mailed both me and this list and signed requests for a
rule change.
Gary's reply does just beg the answer to more question
though.. What non technical issues go in the rule books or
what non technical things are considered to go into a book
of technical specifications? What I had envisioned during a
rules meeting was that all the members of the committee read
or listened to the presentation of a requested change of the
rules. And after pointed discussion of all the merits and
flaws in the request voted according to the facts
presented...Have I missed anything here?
Your pal,
Wanna-be Engineer
{no sig file detected Windows will now reboot}
Gary Allen wrote:
>
> The SCTA has been making rules for lakes racing for over 50 years and they
> have evolved the process into a multi-level review procedure by a relative
> large number of lakes racers that have much more experience than I have.
> The process tends to assure any rules changes have been fully reviewed and
> are in the best interest of the lakes racers overall. In most all cases,
> changes are not just based on technical issues but also on other
> non-technical issues. The last thing they will do is let some Hot Shot
> Wanna-be engineer dictate to them a rule change - just doesn't get very far.
> However, you are welcome to take your best shot by submitting your requested
> change in writing to the SCTA/BNI office for consideration next November and
> we'll see how far it gets.
> Don't send me anymore of the crap though - I'm just not interested.
> Gary Allen
>
> ----- 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>; "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 5:39 AM
> Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
>
> > 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
|