Hi
I don't have any stake in the outcome of this debate myself, and perhaps
should therefore remain a lurker, but since your asking, I will add a
perspective I've not seen discussed so far.
I don't know if the 3x factor is right or wrong, but IF one accepts Daves
explanation that it takes 1080 degrees of revolution (in a rotary) to equal
the displacement that occurs in 720 degrees of rotation in a recriprocating
engine, this then brings up the question of RPM operating range. That is,
can the rotary turn 1080 degrees in the time that that the recroprication
engine turns 720? That discussion of the "time factor" has not really been
discussed. Not saying that this is right or wrong, just that a rational
argument could be made on this basis for some PORTION of the 3x factor.
Another reality factor that I havn't seen anything about is that of package
size. The rotarys that I have seen have "less frontal area" than a
conventional piston engine of similiar displacement. It makes me question
wether or not some portion of the 3x factor is to handicap the rotaty
against being placed in very small streamliners. As a matter of fact, Jim
Burkdoll has been persuing that very path in his 'liner, and the power
output of his naturally aspirated methanol burning rotary is substantally
higher than the motor cycle engines that FIT in his sleek liner. He
couldn't put a 2400 cc piston engine in his 'liner without giving up some
of his aerodynamic advantage. Not saying that this is right or wrong, just
that a rational argument could be made on this basis for some PORTION of
the 3x factor.
Are there any standing records set by rotarys under the 3x rule? If so
maybe its not too far off.
Some perspective on the murky world of the rules changing process. From
what I can see its a glacialy slow process in any racing organization. I
hear the NASCAR racers complaining about how the other guy has it better
and we need more spolier, less spoiler, more of this, and more of that, and
things do change, but slowly.
As with any POLITICAL process, diplomacy, calm rational discussion,
emperical (rather than theoretical) evidence, concensus of the governed,
and a solid understanding of the mechanism for creating change, are ALL
required for success. With out all of these components in place, chances
of causing meaningful change are pretty slim. In the real world, simply
being right doesn't necessarly get much done.
Just my 2 cents.
Dan Wright
It's amazing what you can do if you don't know it can't be done.
|