Rich
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. On the one hand your
saying we run 2-cycles heads up no factors and that's OK, but on the other
hand you want to factor rotaries times three!! I guess I'm not be the
sharpest tool in the
shed so I gotta ask why?
If I understand Mazda correctly and you measure swept volume as you
suggested you come up with 1308cc for the current complete two rotor engine
not 3924cc. That's the equivalent of taking a 500cc 2 stroke and making it
run with 1,500cc 4 strokes. We don't do that to two strokes, so why do we do
it to Rotaries?
So lets not factor a rotary at all. No special class, no factors, just
heads up racing. Of course than the H class guys would hate it.
Undoubtedly this discussion will go on until 2002 rules are adopted.
John Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fox" <v4gr@rcn.com>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Fw: Two strokes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>
>
> Date: Friday, January 05, 2001 12:17 PM
> Subject: Two strokes
>
>
> Dale; What I would like to know is where did the idea that two strokes are
> measured or classified differently than Four strokes come from. Its bore
and
> stroke and thats it. A 300 inch 2 stroke is an E motor same as a 300 inch
4
> stroke. Also, displacement is measured by comparing the volume of a
container
> (usually a cylinder but not always) that has at least one movable side, at
> it's greatest volume and its least volume. The difference is the
displacement.
> My Nissan V6 has three of these containers on each side. Since they are
all
> the same we measure one and multiply by 6. A two rotor Wankel has 3
cavities
> per rotor. If you take the difference between the volume of one cavity at
its
> greatest and its smallest, that will give you the displacement of that
cavity.
> If you multiply that times the number of cavities (X3 per rotor) you will
have
> the displacement of the engine. I have never heard and calculation that
> included number of revolutions of the output (crank in an Otto cycle)
shaft in
> the calculations. Except from Dave. I do not believe Wankels are
> improperly classed. Rich Fox
|