Rotaries

[stevanford1]

Originally Posted by starfox07

Caterham Replica with a stock S3 13B (138hp engine in my car)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwU3hrcj57s&feature=PlayList&p=86A45E48557E9AF1&index=3[/YOUTUBE]

A few years ago i was reading an american car magazine (not sure which one) and they had a 500+ hp 13BT caterham replica.

[starfox07]

Thought I'd post in this thread too!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx_14hpQRMQ[/YOUTUBE]

My 13b with open header.

please excuse how filthy the car is. Stupid pecan trees.

[stevanford1]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuDDKFd8lec[/YOUTUBE]

[thedguy]

I'm not 100% thats an improvement, if it's RWD, then yes. If it's still FWD, one must ask, what the fuck for?

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by starfox07

Thought I'd post in this thread too!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx_14hpQRMQ[/YOUTUBE]

My 13b with open header.

please excuse how filthy the car is. Stupid pecan trees.

no flames.

[starfox07]

Originally Posted by argatoga

no flames.

Damn EFI!!

[Rowdie]

Originally Posted by Rowdie

If it's that unreliable of a design then wtf is the sky car doing using them. It'd never pass FCAA regs. No?

I guess they do have like eight of the little buggers, maybe that's so they can deal with four of them going out.

Seems like with eight you've guaranteed yourself issues.

So I got some -rep for this.

I hope you realize that you are talking utter bullshit

Now I have to ask, what part was utter BS? The Sky car uses 8 rotary engines, two housed in each nasal. No?

The department incharge of airline safety wants to know how reliable your engines are. They have strict regs on maintenance and such. So the last thing you'd want is an engine that's not reliable. Any of that BS yet?

So, to fly across the Atlantic they use to require four engines such that two could go out and the plane could still fly. No? BS? To too long ago the first two engine plane was OKed for commerical transport, 767 maybe?

So two engines per nasal, that means one can give out and the nasal still works.

One engine has x change of breaking on any given trip, 8 would have 8x chance? Been awhile since I had a proper math class but I believe that's correct.

So what exactly was BS in that post that was mostly just questions?

[thedguy]

Rowdie, it's best not to put too much thought into neg reps, 99% of 'em come from ass hats who know nothing anyway.

[argatoga]

Wow. And no I don't plan on going that route.

+ YouTube Video

[starfox07]

3 rotors really do sound the best...especially with peripheral ports...

[argatoga]

Are rotaries still banned from the 24 Hours of Le Mans. I know they are allowed in the ALMS, but that series isn't run by the Great Satan of Motorsport.

[Lupin_IV]

Originally Posted by Rowdie

One engine has x change of breaking on any given trip, 8 would have 8x chance? Been awhile since I had a proper math class but I believe that's correct.

8x chance of a single engine failure
x/8 chance of losing all power

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by argatoga

Are rotaries still banned from the 24 Hours of Le Mans. I know they are allowed in the ALMS, but that series isn't run by the Great Satan of Motorsport.

They were never actually banned, but ruled put in place to give them a huge disadvantage, not that they didn't already have enough.

[starfox07]

Originally Posted by thedguy

They were never actually banned, but ruled put in place to give them a huge disadvantage, not that they didn't already have enough.

FIA loves to keep the status quo...for whatever reason. If it was Mercedes or Porsche that had won that race in '91 with a rotary, the FIA would have embraced it.

[crookie]

The rules for forcing the 3.5 liter formula that eventually destroyed group c were out before Mazda even took the 91 win and it made just about everyone elses current engines just as useless. The Mazda rotaries never really achieved anything in sportscar racing besides that win so the common argument that rotaries were ruled out for being too good is bullshit. The same ruleset that put rotaries at disadvantage basically made 962s even more useless than they already were in 1991 and caused Mercedes to pull out of group c so that status quo thingy's not true either.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by crookie

The rules for forcing the 3.5 liter formula that eventually destroyed group c were out before Mazda even took the 91 win and it made just about everyone elses current engines just as useless. The Mazda rotaries never really achieved anything in sportscar racing besides that win so the common argument that rotaries were ruled out for being too good is bullshit. The same ruleset that put rotaries at disadvantage basically made 962s even more useless than they already were in 1991 and caused Mercedes to pull out of group c so that status quo thingy's not true either.

Rotaries dominated US road racing for 8 straight years (IMSA champions from 79-87 or 80-88, can't recall which). A prototype 13b engine won (class) at Le mans in 84 with a huge disadvantage of A) proper tread street tires and B) a severe fuel economy vs power and C) 20mph reduced top speed vs competition.

RX cars have always been a PITA for the other makes in the Japanese racing series' as well as in Australia. The FD wasn't called "Godzilla killer" for nothing.

[crookie]

Well I did first type prototypes but changed it to sportscar racing for some reason. I meant group c and IMSA GTP as there was talk about the 787 and everyone tends to say the 4-rotor was some kinda super engine that got banned for being too good. The 767, 787 and RX-792P weren't very succesful with the 4-rotor. The 3.5 liter formula that basically outruled the 787 had nothing to do with 2 and 3 rotor GT cars.

[The_Finn]

it's not that the 26B was some kind of super engine that was too good it was just more reliable and as crazy as this is got better gas mileage than it's pison counterparts but it was down on power by something like 60+/-bhp

Originally Posted by stevanford1

A few years ago i was reading an american car magazine (not sure which one) and they had a 500+ hp 13BT caterham replica.

you might be thinking of the Viking SRX-7 it was a contender in the Sport Compact Car Ultimate Street Car Challenge back in like 2002 IIRC it posted a DNF as a result of the age old equation Rotary + Boost + Shit Cooling system = POP

[starfox07]

The RX792P was sadly a failure, but the 767B and 787B did relatively well. RX7's won around 100 IMSA races, so you can't say the rotary isn't a good racing engine. The current grand am RX8's are doing pretty well.

[crookie]

I didn't say it's not a good racing engine, but it's not the second coming of Jesus that destroys all piston engines easily like some seem to think. And like I said was only talking about 4 rotor prototypes, not the smaller GT car engines.