Dave; You are ignoring what I said. I said it fires all 3 chambers in one
full revolution of the ROTOR. I am not relating displacement to crankshaft
revolutions in this discussion. In no other place that I know of is
displacement related to degrees of output shaft rotation. Back to the 3350s
I used to work on they fired all 18 cylinders in two times around but the
output shaft had turned less than 720 degrees because of internal gearing.
They were still 3350 cubic inch engines. You can't stick a crank throw in a
Wankel trapezoid because of the weird way it rolls around in its housing.
But the resulting gear reduction is no way more pertinent than any other
gear reduction between my power source and my tires. At least until now the
SCTA has measured displacement at the power head not at the output shaft.
Rich
---Original Message-----
From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>
Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>Well it does not work that way.on a 2 rotor It really does
>fire 2 rotor faces in 1 crankshaft reveoluton..In 2 revs it
>fires 4 and in 3 revs it fires all 6 faces on a 2 rotor
>engine. I have no reason to kid anyone about this at all. I
>have a small dos based program that shows exactly how 1
>rotor works.If you are interested i will send it to you as
>an attachment. the program is about 50k long so should only
>take a minute or 2 to download.
>Dave Dahlgren
>
>Richard Fox wrote:
>>
>> Dave; Calm down, I have read all of your postings and have not disagreed
>> here or otherwise with your thoughts. I am only correcting a
misconception
>> that there is a difference between 2 and 4 stroke engines in the rules. I
am
>> not claiming any of this as my logic but only trying to explain the logic
>> that was used at the time and to my understanding. I do believe that each
>> chamber fires once in each revolution of the rotor, if not the output
shaft,
>> and fail to see where I made my error. If you can correct me briefly or
at
>> length off list I would welcome the education. I knew I was making a
>> mistake. Rich Fox--Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
>> To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>
>> Cc: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>; Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>;
>> land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>>
>> >THAT MAY BE THE YOUR LOGIC BUT IT S A MYTH.....IT IS NOT THE
>> >WAY THE ENGINE WORKS PERIOD! PLEASE READ MOST OF THE
>> >PREVIOUS POSTS I SENT ON HOW THIS THING WORKS THERE OUGHT TO
>> >BE ABOUT 50 OF THEM...
>> >DAVE DAHLGREN
>> >
>> >Richard Fox wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I know this is a mistake but, As I remember it the logic for the X3
for
>> >> rotaries is that they have 3 chambers that roughly relate to cylinders
in
>> a
>> >> reciprocating engine. Each chamber fires once on one rotation of the
>> rotor.
>> >> So the volume of one chamber is measured at the greatest displacement
and
>> >> than multiplied by 3. As it would be done with a 3 cylinder recip. No
>> >> handicap or advantage is allowed for two of four stroke engines that I
am
>> >> aware of. Its simply the volume of the thing without regard to
>> efficiency.
>> >> Dan can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think SCTA differentiates
>> >> between 2 and 4 stroke engines or ones that go up and down and ones
that
>> go
>> >> round and round. Rich Fox
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
>> >> To: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
>> >> Cc: land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>> >> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 09:57 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>> >>
>> >> >Keith & list,
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course you have a vote! Now with the internet more than ever. We
have
>> >> >covered this before but, for the new people here we go.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is available at each SCTA/BNI/USFRA meet a Rule Change form.
This
>> is
>> >> >in the registration/impound area. It is not a requirement that this
form
>> be
>> >> >used.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is published in the rule book a rule change cutoff date, this
is
>> >> >usually the end of October. This gives me time to collect all the
>> requests,
>> >> >put them into order and prepare the rules committee members for up
>> coming
>> >> >meetings. We generally have two meetings in November to discuss and
>> >> >formulate proposed rules changes.
>> >> >
>> >> >I then put these changes into the format they will appear in the
>> rulebook
>> >> to
>> >> >present to the Board of Directors for voting at the first meeting in
>> >> >December. This will ensure that the rulebook can be published in
>> January.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is a published list of Committee Chairpersons in the SCTA
>> newsletter,
>> >> >the Straightaway News. These people can be contacted for any rules
>> >> >clarifications or suggested change input. The head tech persons for
2001
>> >> >will again be Steve Batchelor for cars and Dale Martin for
motorcycles.
>> >> >Their contact information can be found in the 2000 rulebook. If they
>> cannot
>> >> >answer a question they can point you to the correct committee for a
more
>> >> >detailed explanation. All committee and board persons are unpaid
>> >> volunteers.
>> >> >Unfortunately we cannot force a volunteer to become internet active.
>> >> >
>> >> >With the advent of the internet and this list our little world has
>> become
>> >> >ever smaller. Way back in the '70s when I started LSR the rules were
>> done
>> >> in
>> >> >one night by two people from Southern Cal. and approved without
>> question.
>> >> >
>> >> >Our rules committee now has representation from each category,
Special
>> >> >Construction, Vintage, etc., the USFRA and the ECTA. Through email
ideas
>> >> can
>> >> >be freely exchanged and valuable input from the entrants evaluated.
>> >> >
>> >> >Plans are being formulated for 2001 to improve the process by
addressing
>> >> >each suggestion as it is proposed and becoming proactive. We will put
>> all
>> >> >valid change suggestions out to committee for review as it comes in.
>> This
>> >> >way the suggested change can become a solid recommendation with input
>> from
>> >> >the originator and other interested parties.
>> >> >
>> >> >When making a change suggestion it is helpful that you do some
research.
>> >> >Indicate the old rule and why you think it should be changed with
>> >> >suggestions as to how it should be changed.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think I have run on enough - if there any questions pertaining to
the
>> >> >rules process, please feel free to post them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Dan Warner
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >----- Original Message -----
>> >> >From: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
>> >> >To: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>;
Lee
>> >> >Kennedy <leekenn@pacbell.net>; Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
>> Mike
>> >> >Manghelli <mmanghel@hughes.net>
>> >> >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:18 AM
>> >> >Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Dave I really don't have a dog in this fight... But I would like to
>> see
>> >> >some
>> >> >> of the questions you posed answered....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like how do I change a Rule? What are the Procedures? Who do I
>> contact?
>> >> >> What do I have to Write? What Proof has to be Given of my claim?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And in My humble opinion..... DO WE HAVE A VOICE?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think all concerned here agree that the whole Bonneville
Experience
>> is
>> >> >an
>> >> >> Amatuer and Volunteer effort.... As such do the folks seeking
records
>> on
>> >> >the
>> >> >> salt have a Voice? Can we submit and or seek changes to the
rules...
>> and
>> >> >if
>> >> >> we do can we expect a fair and honest appraisal of our words? I
think
>> >> >it's
>> >> >> important to the health of our sport...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Keith Turk
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
>> >> >> To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "Lee Kennedy"
<leekenn@pacbell.net>;
>> >> "Dan
>> >> >> Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; "Mike Cook"
<beauty1@hughes.net>;
>> >> "Mike
>> >> >> Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:06 AM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > To all that might be interested...
>> >> >> > It's been over 24 hrs... Not a word although 178 previous
>> >> >> > e-mails on the subject not counting the ones i wrote.... Not
>> >> >> > even a public show of hands from people here that are in
>> >> >> > support, against and or think this needs to be addressed..
>> >> >> > message received.. I have my own theories as to why it is so
>> >> >> > quiet on this subject, but in general for peace and harmony
>> >> >> > and good will to all i think the wise thing to do is just
>> >> >> > keep them to myself. everybody have a good day, stand tall
>> >> >> > if you can and if you can't, avoid mirrors as they never
>> >> >> > lie.
>> >> >> > Dave Dahlgren (where it is 8:00 am EST)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dave Dahlgren wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > It has been said that there is a rules meeting in Jan. What
>> >> >> > > do I have to do to bring up a rules change for the
>> >> >> > > Wankel(aka rotary) engine size factor for serious
>> >> >> > > discussion? It has been e-mailed to death all over this
>> >> >> > > group and to many individuals with all sorts of information
>> >> >> > > to support it. can this be done via e-mail? if so to whom? i
>> >> >> > > honestly think that waiting another year is a complete
>> >> >> > > dis-service to the members of the LSR community that are
>> >> >> > > interested or might consider building a car that uses on of
>> >> >> > > these cheap and readily available power plants.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > So how is it done?
>> >> >> > > Can it be done?
>> >> >> > > Can it be done by phone or fax or e-mail?
>> >> >> > > Is there any interest in changing this rule?
>> >> >> > > Is there any information lacking that has not been passed
>> >> >> > > around on the net?
>> >> >> > > Does anyone that makes the rules have any questions at all
>> >> >> > > or is there any info that I have left out in all the
>> >> >> > > e-mails?
>> >> >> > > Out of the people that have been included in this e-mail is
>> >> >> > > anyone that helps make these decisions been left out?
>> >> >> > > If so how are they contacted?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I am hoping for a free exchange of ideas on this subject
>> >> >> > > with some honest thought involved that is based on facts not
>> >> >> > > history and personal feelings. I personally find it very
>> >> >> > > hard to believe that FIA and SCCA is all screwed up in their
>> >> >> > > use of engine factors of 2.1......... They have very good
>> >> >> > > engineers that work on these subjects on a regular basis and
>> >> >> > > represent both national and inter-national competition.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > If the answers to the above questions are no there is no
>> >> >> > > interest and there is no desire to change anything or even
>> >> >> > > consider any change for the benefit of the LSR community or
>> >> >> > > to align SCTA with the rest of the world, please do me a
>> >> >> > > small favor, actually two small favors.
>> >> >> > > First is let that feeling be known publicly on the net at
>> >> >> > > this e-mail group accompanied with the reasons why it can
>> >> >> > > not or will not be changed along with the facts that made
>> >> >> > > this decision the correct one.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > The other favor is small but personal, please leave off any
>> >> >> > > personal attacks. I am not up to another tirade of being
>> >> >> > > called a "Hot Shot wanna-be engineer" or sending out a bunch
>> >> >> > > of crap! I do at times find great humor in it though when i
>> >> >> > > watch Speedvision and ESPN and cars that I have supplied
>> >> >> > > parts, done design work or personally tuned are very busy
>> >> >> > > winning.....
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Dave Dahlgren
|