land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rules

To: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>,
Subject: Re: rules
From: "Jim Dincau" <jdincau@qnet.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:41:15 -0800
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>