Well in my humble opinion I think it is entirely fair to
compare engines on the basis of how many cubic inches of
volume they process over a given number or crankshaft
rotations.. It's all physics and there really isn't any bs
at all in my mind. If you run against other rotaries then
comes the argument as to what classes they are allowed in...
i think that the rules committee just plain does not want to
deal with it or they just don't know how these things work
in the first place period. is everyone that terrified in an
'F' class car that this thing will blow the doors off what
they are doing??? In my experience going to Bonneville there
did not seem to be all that much interest in the entire
engine size to be honest..Most of the records are 10 to 15
years old... Other than a couple of roadster classes and i
think Rick Byrnes car...
Dave Dahlgren
"Parks, David" wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I was at the rules committee meetings so I am familiar with the sentiments
> of both sides.
> Frankly, I think that comparing different types of engines with ANY factor
> is a bunch of b.s..
> It can only be arbitrary at best, and one side or the other is always
> unhappy.
> I personally think that the best solution is to have separate classes for
> the two sizes
> of rotary engines, at least in some of the catagories. They already have the
> "omega"
> engine classification for "non-otto cycle" engines, so I don't think it
> would be much
> of a stretch to add R1 and R2 classes for the rotaries. This approach might
> make it easier
> to avoid the 'what number would be good?' arguments. They may not want to
> add the rotary
> engines in all catagories, but that is another discussion. I think it might
> help if you
> got a bunch of rotary lovers to request the separate engine classes instead
> of trying to
> change the factor. But then again, what do I know, I run a V8. Good luck!
>
> David
|