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
> >
|