I hate to sound hostile but things based on opinion rather
than fact generally make me that way. I am an engineer I
deal with facts make all decisions based on facts! anything
that starts with 'the way it alaways was' or anything that
starts with 'I think' as opposed to the 'I know because the
facts are' really P*** me off..Geez it is simple math to
figure out!!!! That is tha part that amazes me the most.
Please read this section one more time and see if it is
based on fact or opinion..Which you did snip out in your
response...
(excert from original post)
I am more than willing to document what ever need be in
order to see if i can get this passed. I really wish I had
the time to fly out and present it myself. but do think that
the facts ought to be enough. The reality of the situation
is that it takes 3 revs or the crank to process all 3 sides
of the rotor. This means that it takes 2 revs to process 2
sides of the rotor.so if the displacement was 1300cc then in
2 revs it will process 2600cc of air and fuel. In a 4 stroke
engine it takes 2 revs to process 1300cc in a 1300cc piston
engine. It seems that a X2 would be more in line with what
the engine can actually do.
(end of physics class)
Is there anything that even smells of opinion in that
statement?? It is pure and simple the way the engine works.
There is nothing factored in to make a level playing field
other than how much air they process per rev. If there ever
was a way to compare two 4 cycle engines it is the one. It
is the way all other 4 cycle engines are factored now with
all the different engine size classes, by the amount of air
they process in 2 revs.. remember those classes AA..K ????
So what i am asking for is to set the size of the engine
exactly the same way all others are done. If by some chance
this thing has a better breathing characteristic then we
need different classes for pushrod,OHC,2 valve ,3 valve 4
valve ,5 valve etc....It is all about displacement not
opinion and simple arithmitic.
Dave Dahlgren
Jim Dincau wrote:
>
> Gee guys don't get hostile I was just asking for my own edification, I have
> no axe to grind either way. It does seen that you are arguing from both ends
> of the same log here though. If going back to doing records runs "the way we
> always did it" is good how come leaving the engine classes "the way we
> always did it " is bad. I raced for a number of years in the NHRA "pro comp"
> class where they tried to factor various engine designs, fuel and induction
> types into equivalency. The rules changed every year as various combinations
> became ascendant. In any equivalency formula what is fair and logical to one
> is unfair and illogical to another. Saying that the FIA has a better formula
> is still just an expert OPINION.
> Jim in Palmdale, and THEY allow rear steering
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> To: Jim Dincau <jdincau@qnet.com>
> Cc: Parks, David <David.Parks@lfr.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: rules
>
> > What the heck does how many people want to run them have
> > anything to do with anything?? You have completely lost me
> > with the business as usual nonsense.... In many respects it
> > is a matter of credibility, if you are unfair and or
> > illogical on one matter then how do you magically become
> > credible on something else. It is unfair period, absolutely
> > makes no sense and just alienates new comers.. I hear all
> > sorts of stuff about creating interest in LSR well it will
> > never happen by having a bunch of provincial rules 'cause
> > that's the way it has always been. It has nothing to do with
> > that anyway other wise we would have changed a whole bunch
> > of other rules in the meantime... To me one of the biggest
> > challenges of this sport has been ruled out of existence.
> > The same day turn around with an hour to prep the car...
> > That was tradition at it's finest and is now gone. I am sure
> > that it has a lot to do with the amount of salt to work
> > with, but I personally hope it all comes back as the
> > condition of the salt improves!!!!! If you are for or
> > against something that is great and your opinion but please
> > don't start with 'How many people care'. I had thought that
> > if 3 people wanted a new class that it was a viable thing to
> > discuss . I can not believe that under 3 people think this
> > is unfair and therefore not a worthy thing to discuss in all
> > the merits and shortcomings as opposed to how many cars will
> > come..
> > the first four I can think of are Me, Chuck Rothfus, Bev
> > Stanly and Jim Burkdol anyone else out in e-mail land care
> > to add their name???
> > Dahlgren
> >
> > 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
|