Mike Manghelli wrote:
>
> Dave and List,
>
> Ok, I have been working on the yard for two days moving rocks (Keith are fake
> rocks lighter than the real ones?) and return to find 195 emails. Most of
> which are on the rotary factor rule change.
well Mike to be honest maybe 30 or so?? I have copies of
everything and can find like 20 from the last 3 or 4 days
but hey that's sorta beside the point..And if it started
some discussion that's better than silence in my book.
>
> Dave keeps asking why there is no comments to his thread from the SCTA board
> members, Rules committee members and the folks on the LSR list. Let me set
> some things straight. First, I have been Emailing Dave (not via the list) to
> try and resolve this. Second, Other than my other volunteer, Dan Warner, I am
> the only SCTA board member that is involved with the rules on this list.
> Third, I think most folks on the list have given you an answer, they are not
> that interested.
Yes they have the real disturbing part was that members of
the rules committee were equally silent. To be rather candid
this whole discussion was started in August 2000 and little
if any progress has been made other than it will be
considered in another year 2002... i equally suspect that in
a month if this is not discussed it will do as many hope
just go away. i do appreciate that all the work at SCTA is
done on a volunteer basis and that the racers all race in
LSR because it is fun and they like it. But when things seem
to move so slowly things can be more than a tad frustrating.
It is not just frustrating for me I have e-mails from over
25 people( off list) that are equally frustrated and as
curious as i am to see how the whole rules thing works out
on this so they have a better education for the future. This
is a time to either shine or not i think. The ball on that
is really in SCTA's hands not mine. So I would hesitate to
say that no one is interested or no one cares, only that 1
of 2 things, they are not looking to take a side on this
issue in public, or they are being as polite as they can and
just staying out of public discussion on this matter for
now.
>
> Now let's explore a few things. When the SCTA made the factor of 3 for
> rotaries it was made based on performance of the rotary and other racing
> organizations factors at the time.
Which ones? What other racing organizations? Why would you
base it on performance? Doesn't a 350 Chevy run in the same
engine class as a 352 Ford FE?? I am real sure they are
miles apart in performance, it seems like engine selection
is a matter of choice or availability. For me I'll pick the
most efficient one.
At that time the rotaries were competitive
> with this factor, they held several records at both Bonneville and El Mirage.
> Obviously, the small block Chevy and foreign mulitvalve engines have come a
> long way since this factor was created and rotary development has not. If it
> had, we may not be having this discussion.
I want to discuss the way they are measured and want no
break because they are a poor performing out classed engine.
The only issue I have is how the displacement is calculated
no more no less. To be real honest i have no personal plans
at this time of running one (Wankle) and if I wanted to run
a 'F' class car it would be with a piston engine. A 2.65
liter cosworth would do just fine. 1100 hp with turbo and
alky..The Mazda would struggle to get past 800... the 3
liter turbo Nissan will make 1000 hp on gas and do it for 24
hrs so the Mazda is a poor second cousin at best.
So we come to today. Rotaries are
> now at a disadvantage, should we change the factor. Let's consider a few
> things.
>
> (this is an excerpt from an earlier Email)
> Currently:
> So the SCTA uses a factor of 3 and gets
> 10 982 X 3 = 2946cc F class
> 12 1146 X 3 = 3438cc E class
> 13 1308 X 3 = 3924cc E class
>
> You want 2.1?
>
> 10 982 X 2.1 = 2062cc F class
> 12 1146 X 2.1 = 2406cc F class
> 13 1308 X 2.1 = 2746cc F class
>
> So all rotary engines will run in the "F" class under your proposal?
Yes all the ones that you have listed, there are some that
are smaller and some that are larger than what is listed
here. I can provide to you a comprehensive list if desired.
I have do that for this e-mail group. Also sent to me was a
wonderful dos based program and do know if it copyrighted or
not . If not I will be glad to e-mail you or anyone else
that wants a copy. it shows exactly how the engine works
using very nicely done graphics.
>
> The E/BMS record at Bonneville is 260.809 (ref pg. 78 2000 rule book) set by
> a blown rotary engined car. What do you propose we do with this record?
Just leave it it was a legal car at the time the record was
set wasn't it?
There is an existing record in G/Pro set by racing beat in
'73 that record still stands, it is listed on the SCTA-BNI
web site so I will have to say I 'assume' it still stands.
By the way how did that car run in 'G' ?? It was a Mazda
rotary to my knowledge. I called them and it was a RX2 with
a rotary, done for car and driver magazine according to
their sources. So the real question is when did the rule
change and possibly why?
> Note it is faster than the AA record in this class. If we move it to "F" I
> think the record will stand for a long, long, long time.
The record book is riddled with cars of a higher engine
class going slower than a car with a smaller engine. Seems
like nothing unusual to me. i would think you would leave
the record where it is, SCTA didn't change the G/Pro record
when they changed the factor. Why wasn't that one moved to
'E' is the the other side of the coin.
Or do we "handy
> cap" blown rotary cars one class? Obviously the blown rotaries can make
> plenty of HP!.... Not sure where to go now....
What other cars do you handicap a class if blown? if i build
a blown gas 2 liter does it race heads up in F or do I run
G/Blown..???
> (end of excerpt)
>
> Let's look at a few Facts:
> 1. When the SCTA/BNI rules committee makes rules changes that affect
> specific records, those cars are either reclassified or loose records. e.g.
> when blown cars ran against unblown cars with a 2 X handicap. When the
> records were split out if a blown car had taken the record away from unblown,
> the record was returned to the unblown car. (what do we do with the E/BMS
> record at Bonnneville?)
> 2. The committee looks at the big picture:
> a. How many records does this affect?
2 records that i found...
> b. How many people are running these motors?
What does that have to do with anything? If a rule is unfair
to 1 person it is unfair to the entire membership of the
organization isn't it? Hopefully you are not saying that if
it is not in my backyard then I don't care sort of thing??
> c. Are the people running this at a disadvantage? How much.... (The
> E/BMS record says NO)
Why does this all hinge on one record set by one car? How
many entries do you get in E/BMS that are a borderline
serious effort? That car made 700 hp.. it can be done a
dozen different ways if anyone is curious enough to do it
and willing to work as hard as racing beat did and I am sure
was a very heavily sponsored effort.. Is there some sort of
animosity against some one that tries real hard and has the
backing to make their dream come true..
> d. etc... The rules committee spent 2 complete Sundays discussing
> this and other recommendations.
> 3. This was presented to the Rules committee by Dan Warner at the first
> meeting in October. The rules committee recommended to the board that the
> factor not be changed at this time.
Why is sort of the question that goes with that. One of the
real issues is the one way communication. Some one asks for
a rule change and it goes to the committee and an answer is
given. yes or no and it seems like it is the end of the
conversation. Seems almost like the wizard of oz thing to
me.. The rules committee is in SoCal the racers are all over
the world.. I have not asked Dan how he presented it, I
will do that next. I can ask John Beckett too he was there
also from what i understand.
> 4. The SCTA board voted on recommendations from the rules committee at the
> December board meeting. This must be done to get the rule book out in a
> timely manner. I (your elected SCTA President) failed to accomplish voting on
> all of the recommendations at the December board meeting. Because of this the
> rule book will be late this year (mid March), but it was needed to resolve
> some other issues that effect several hundreds of competitors. The final
> rules recommendations will be finished tonight (Friday, 5 January 01). We
> will not reopen this issue since it was voted on by the board at the December
> meeting. The board voted to accept the rules committee recommendation and not
> change the factor.
>
Who is on the rules committee or how might I find that out?
> What can you do now?
> 1. Write a letter to the Technical committee (Steve Batchelor) requesting
> the change for 2002. Include your technical dissertation on why the factor
> should be changed. Include all of the other racing organizations that allow
> rotaries with their factors. Include recommendations for existing records.
> Stick to the facts, leave the sarcasm out.
The address is?
And I never try to be sarcastic but if someone starts to
preach I don't lay down and die so to speak either. I ask
questions that a good engineer would ask because i am one. I
hope to hear answers based on facts and not conjecture or
gut feeling. If "I really don't know why" is the answer, for
me that is valid one. if someone at whatever level in any
organization starts with, "it is the way it is because that
is the way i see it in my opinion" then well I probably am
not going to polite. Might be an East Coast thing so close
to NYC and all that.
> 2. Best way to get everyone to take notice is to have 10 rotary powered cars
> show up. Tom Bryant said it best, "rotaries should have their own class" and
> not be factored. Best way to accomplish this is to have participation! ( I
> have not seen a rotary powered car for several years at either venue)
>
It is I am sure a self fulfilling thing. The engine breaks
are unfair so why would you build one? BTW Jim Burkdol has
one.. Does this not also effect all the dry lakes cars the
SCTA cars the USFRA cars and the ECTA cars?? there are no
rotaries that you have seen in all these venues? I honestly
don't know 10 people willing to build an un-competitive car
so that the rules might be changed at some point.. Even a
cheap car is 50k these days.. that's a half million to try
to change the rule, no thanks till the rule changes. Even if
this rule changes and not one car shows up is that a failure
of some sort? It still changed an unfair rule, that would
seem victory enough for most anyone i would think and a
worthy accomplishment by any group entrusted to make rules
for others..
> I know this is long, I hope it will help. I want to say one last thing, THANK
> YOU Dan Warner for all the time and energy that you put into our rules
> process.
>
> Mike Manghelli
> SCTA President
> (BTW even though you all think I do not read my Email, I do and my be a
> lurker, but I do respond every now and then when appropriate)
I personally did think you read your mail or would not of
CC'd the mail i sent to you. I did not expect you to
personally respond to everything that was said only that a
later date you would be on the same page in the
conversation. It was a Courtesy Copy..
Dave Dahlgren
|