Im not sure why it is important to know who out there right NOW has interest in
running rotaries, or what the existing history of records shows. It (to me
anyway) is much more important to have fair laws (class specifications) first on
the books so that those who BECOME interested know what the opportunities are.
The evidence is very clear from sanctioning bodies who regulate MUCH more
competition with rotaries and 4strokes, what a REASONABLE engine classification
(for rotaries) is.
Lets move forward with empirically correct arguements, rather than, thats the
way it has been, it seems ok, and how many interested parties are we up against.
Joe
Jim Dincau wrote:
> I don't know Dave, the Bonneville record book shows 21 F class records set
> in 1990 or later and 10 older than 1990. That shows some interest. How many
> people out there want to run rotary's?
> Jim in Palmdale
>
> -- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> To: Parks, David <David.Parks@lfr.com>
> Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: rules
>
> > 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
|