SCCA takes the Mazda rotary and does this...
1 swept volume(654cc) X 2 rotors X 2 Handicap = 654 X 4 = 2616 cc
dahlgren
Dan Warner wrote:
>
> What if you stack two or more rotors? Wouldn't the formula then be SW x 4 x
> n for the total displacement? - 654 x 4 = 2615 x 2 = 5230 = class 'C' What
> is the x4 factor?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan Warner
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: New Category
>
> > SCCA national office got back to me they measure it by using the swept
> > volume of 1 rotor by 4 in this case it comes out to be 654cc X 4=2615 a
> > little closer to reality at least..
> > Dahlgren
> >
> > Dan Warner wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > See if you can get the SCCA factor. Originally, it was x3 as was NHRA
> and
> > > that's what we came up with. We don't see many, don't like to hear too
> many
> > > either. Racing Beat seemed to think that the factor was OK. They, like
> many,
> > > came, set record and left. Their record has been on the books since '86,
> > > E/BGT - looks like the factor is working if the piston guys can't beat
> it.
> > >
> > > Dan Warner
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New Category
> > >
> > > > Has any thought been put into the handicap for rotary engines I have a
> > > > few guys i work with that run rotaries and were thinking about coming
> > > > out but did not want to bother for time only as there is little hope
> of
> > > > setting a record with one because of the handicap.. I understand this
> to
> > > > be currently displacement X 3..If I am wrong plaese correct me on
> this..
> > > > To point out the unfairness of it.. I have a customer with a 1300cc
> 13b
> > > > rotary.. It makes currently about 750 hp at 10000 rpm single turbo..
> we
> > > > are going back to the dyno to see if we can find some more hopefully
> get
> > > > it to 850 hp.. If we use the handicap of X3 it is pointless as a turbo
> > > > piston engine that is 3.9 liters will make this power all day long
> even
> > > > at X2 it is almost not worth the effort. it seems like the piston
> engine
> > > > technology has progressed to the point that the handicap system
> > > > basically says don't bother with a rotary.. A naturally aspirated one
> > > > makes about 310 or so.. the same as Goodman's 1995cc Cosworth with
> > > > similar technology.. Would you think that X 1.3 or so to be a more
> > > > realistic handicap?? I thought that SCCA had this handicap factor but
> > > > will see if i pry this piece of info out of them.. I guess what i am
> > > > trying to say is they really make about as much power as a good 'G'
> > > > engine..but certainly not as much as a good 'E' of 'F' engine..
> > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > >
> > > > Dan Warner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I stated in an earlier posting J D Tone has approached some of
> the
> > > > > Honda/Toyota kids he has in his area (Orange County - a real center
> of
> > > this
> > > > > type) and they are not interested in our deal. They indicated that
> it is
> > > too
> > > > > far to go, too dirty and not providing the showcase they want.
> > > > > The SCTA office has had no inquiries from this segment of the sport
> > > either.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have some in your neighborhood that want to join us sent them
> > > along.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan Warner
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > > > To: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
> > > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:55 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: New Category
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you Doug lots easier to find a 1995 camero than a 1968
> and
> > > > > > cheaper too for the 1995.. It sure seems to me if you want to get
> > > young
> > > > > > racers involved you have to have classes for what they want to
> race..
> > > > > > Most I have seen are hot roding all sorts of import and smaller
> cars..
> > > > > > The kids are all into computers and everything that goes with it.
> In
> > > my
> > > > > > opinion give them a place to race a turbo toyota or honda and let
> them
> > > > > > play with the computer stuff and enigne some and seems like there
> > > would
> > > > > > be more. Didn't this whole thing start with a bunch of young guys
> > > > > > wanting to see how fast the old cars they fixed up would go?? What
> > > makes
> > > > > > anyone think it would be any different now.. Might want to look at
> > > this
> > > > > > new blood thing through 22 year old eyes and not our own.. Most of
> > > these
> > > > > > kids could probably care less about a 1980 Camero than they do a
> 59
> > > > > > Edsel.. I'd bet they both look the same to them for the most
> part..
> > > > > > My opinion useless as it is..
> > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARDUNDOUG@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In a message dated 09/11/2000 4:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > > > > > dwarner@electrorent.com writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > << Doug,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your input. While your observation has valid
> points I
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > opposite side. The current Modified Category has a year break
> of 51
> > > > > years,
> > > > > > > this increases annually. While someone may have picked a '53
> Stude
> > > to
> > > > > begin
> > > > > > > their LSR career in 1970 it is now obvious that the vehicle is
> at a
> > > > > > > disadvantage. Why not open an area for this person to run his
> car?
> > > He
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > have a couple of sons that want to join us. As their interests
> and
> > > > > 'need for
> > > > > > > speed' develop over a period of time they(the sons) will surely
> > > build a
> > > > > > > car/bike to meet the demands of increased speed and challenges.
> I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > that by adding under 50 classes we may be increasing the
> > > involvement in
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > beloved sport by younger generations which we all admit we need
> to
> > > > > attract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dan Warner
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > Dan,
> > > > > > > I agree with regards the older "modern" cars as defined by
> the
> > > > > present
> > > > > > > rules. A class change will make many "older" race cars
> competitive
> > > that
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > at a disadvantage by todays rules, hopefully getting them back
> into
> > > > > > > competition, possibly in the hands of the next generation of LSR
> > > > > competitors.
> > > > > > > Beyond those cars that could be "recycled" into competitive
> form
> > > by
> > > > > > > additional classes I see little value in additional classes. If
> > > someone
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > is getting into LSR today and didn't have access to an "older"
> race
> > > car
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > would tend to start from scratch with one of the better
> aerodynamic
> > > > > designs.
> > > > > > > Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're starting from scratch,
> building a
> > > LSR
> > > > > car
> > > > > > > based on a production body/chassis, isn't the initial "carcass"
> cost
> > > of
> > > > > > > anything 1975 to the early 90's pretty constant? It seems that
> the
> > > > > > > "carcass"cost of a 1949-75 production car to use in LSR would be
> > > high
> > > > > due to
> > > > > > > the demand among restorers and street rodders for these cars.
> > > > > > > I haven't gone back and reviewed all of the previous
> postings on
> > > the
> > > > > > > subject, so I may have my cutoff dates wrong. I do believe,
> however,
> > > > > that I
> > > > > > > have a pretty good handle on what the rule change is trying to
> > > > > accomplish.
> > > > > > > Regards the electronics and equipment restrictions on the
> > > proposed
> > > > > > > classes, that's all pretty much over my head. I just run a
> homemade
> > > set
> > > > > if IR
> > > > > > > injectors, a 1950's Vertex mag, and no sensors or other data
> > > gathering
> > > > > > > equipment. My concession to "high-tech" is my weather station
> and a
> > > > > hand-held
> > > > > > > calculator to interpolate "pill" changes and density altitude.
> > > > > > > Please explain your thoughts regards the next generation of
> LSR
> > > > > > > competitors being inhibited by the present rules and encouraged
> by
> > > more
> > > > > > > classes. Other than recycling an LSR car handed down by their
> > > > > predecessors I
> > > > > > > can't figure how the proposed rule change would encourage them.
> > > Maybe
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > missing something.
> > > > > > > As you know, my son Brian is now taking an active part in my
> LSR
> > > > > program,
> > > > > > > setting records in my XXF/MR at Muroc and Bonneville this year.
> > > Keeping
> > > > > him
> > > > > > > motivated and involved is one of my goals............Ardun Doug
> > > King,
> > > > > #1313
> > > > > > > XXF/MR
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
|