Dave,
Write it up in the form you want. Email to me and I will put it on the table
at the rules meetings next month.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Rotary Engines (was Re: New Category)
> Dan whether it may or may not bring a car back is not really the
> question is it?? The question is the factor fair .... The question is
> how do i present this for a fair consdieration to the factor and to
> whom.. I have pointed out how other LARGE sanctioning bodies do it. I
> have done my homework on this.. I have given honest answers as to the
> real power these things make.. How do i get this moving is the real
> question. I am not up for a years worth of trading e-mails to see what
> the people here think ..I am asking for an honest review and
> consideration from the rules committee on the basis of the facts
> presented.. maybe it would bring out new cars maybe it would not.. In
> the end though if it were changed it would put SCTA in line with the
> rest of the racing world on the classification of these engines. I am
> sure it would also but SCTA in a position of working to maintain a fair
> set of rules that follows the mainstream of the racing community and
> shows the ability to adapt their rules to fit realistic data. A side
> issue here is also when the the X3 factor was put into effect the
> development of piston engines was not where it is today and i will grant
> that maybe in 1975 X3 was suitable as a handicap although did still not
> represent how the engine worked. The piston engines have come a long way
> since then.. How do the roatries get an even playing field???
> Dahlgren
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > >
>
|