a 12A is 1200 cc give or take a couple and a 13b is 1308 and a 20b 3
rotor is 2000 give or take a few on that one.. The real issue with the
handicap is this..
If we handicap to a X2 because the engine process 1300 cc worth of air
and fuel in 1 rev so that it acts like a 2600cc 4 stroke 4 cylinder then
why don't we handicap a 1300cc 2 stroke 2 cylinder ?? it processes
1300cc of air and fuel every rev. just like a 2600 cc 4 stroke piston
engine.. As far as i know there is no penalty for running a 2 stroke .
>From what i have seen they seem to run in the class that matches the
displacement with no X2 handicap.. So if you handicap the rotary that
works exactly like a 2 stroke of the same displacement seems like the 2
stroke ought to get the same handicap or both engines don't have one..
The physics is the same for both engines.
Does this sound like it makes sense to someone other than me??
maybe the engine class sizes ought to read 'displacement is calculated
by the number of cc or cubic inches that that produce power in 2
crankshaft revolutions..' Or it has to read the 'the number of cc or
cubic inches of 1 swept volume times the number of swept volumes...'
Either way will cover every combination that you could dream up no
matter what type of engine you have.. and no more 'handicaps' to argue
about at all. seems like it ought to be one way or the other but can't
be both.
Does anyone have a problem with the logic in this ???
Dave Dahlgren
Dan Warner wrote:
>
> OK thats good.
>
> Now what is the swept volumn of a 12A vrs. a 13B?
>
> 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 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: New Category
>
> > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
|