Jackie they havnt been 3 ltr nor 1000hp for yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by jackiewilson
Printable View
Jackie they havnt been 3 ltr nor 1000hp for yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by jackiewilson
That's what I was trying to say -----you do not need capacity to raise H.P. progress has been made everywhere except in rotaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
I still think the design is fatally flawed somewhere.
According to Ferrari blurb they have available 26,000 RPM but will limit output to 15,600 so as to make the motor last for the required 5,000 race miles, this is from a 1.5 turbo lump which produces some 750 HP with a further 160 for 20 seconds from the KERS -----thats over 900 HP and the season has only just begun, by 2015 it will be back up to 1,000 again.
I do not agree with the current formula at all ----- you can get 1,000,000 HP for a brief moment going down this road, it' just a very expensive balancing act.
Tell you something very interesting I read the other day comparing a nascar 6.0 ltr and the just replaced 2.5 f1 v8
Many things similar as in they are both at their design peaks etc
They said that about the Coventry Climax in 1939, same thing when Mercury brought out 100 HP, but it seems progress marches on in everything ( except the ROTORY it seems).Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
Hi John just curious to ask were you at the Windermere Race in 1973 when the Rotaries ran` my memories pretty good for this race my co driver in the Paris 6hr race 2 weeks before the Windermere race had wrecked our new boat and we only just made the race as we had to repaint and fit out a 4yr old boat to use and I remember how old it looked against the new boats and how slow it ran.The sound of those Rotaries would not have been out of place on a airfield I thought they had a very Gruff exhaust note I can remember James Beard had his new Cougar fitted with one and I stood in the pits when he set off for practise and boy did he have lift off.Now I know we were not used to anything over 99cu in` so it did seam impressive at the time whats your take on this you would have watched them testing at Brugge I know Beards Cougar was a smaller boat and lighter than those Scottis.Now back to the race I remember rounding the bottom turn buoy and Beards Cougar passing me on the outside he was very close and his boat was really twitching from side to side under hard acceleration it did look a rather lively drive.When you were at Brugge did the drivers that were doing the testing give you any feedback comparing the different power deliveries with the 2.0V6 engines against the Rotaries?.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotary John
An open exhaust wankel rotary is one UNPLEASANT sounding engine. It doesn't matter weather you put it in a car, an outboard motor or an airplane. I have heard them in all of those applications and they are nasty. The v-10 viper motors are only a little better in my opinion.
Yes I was at Windermere and Brugge for set up. I remember Beards boat as it was the first time he had it in the water and it had stepped sponsons. The Scotties were older boats. The rotary had a lot more HP particularly at the lower RPM range than the V-6 of the time and would out accelerate them. I think Sanders said the 2-engine Merc was the only thing that gave you the "push" of the rotary.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEVERINO
Well if the maths are to be believed-----seems quite a simple sum to me 2x2litre outboards = one four litre ROTORY, Horsepower should be around 400 for each, yeah I can agree to that, the "Push" factor would be pretty close, 'bout the same as the Cosworth I would say Johnno, I could always come out of the hole first, felt like I had push AND pull.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotary John
I wonder how the rotaries would have fared against the V8's in performance?
I guess you would have to move a generation forward such as the Moller and find out with all the new tools, FEA CFD and EFI etc. what can be achieved?
John wrote somewhere how much HP the Moller ones are I think he said 300 for 2 rotor so 4 would be 600 and you dont have to change the rod bolts every heat.
I eliminated the crank bolt on the latest version. Also added 2 center main bearings while reducing weight by 20 lbs. Never broke the new setup. Moller is getting 105 Hp from a single which would give approx. 450 from a 4. I don't know what hp the race V-8 had at the time; Nerstrom would know. I could always add 2 more rotors (3 l) and get 600 HP.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
Jackie: I guess I can never teach you anything about a rotary. My engine was 2 l; not 4. Its measured just like the 2-strokes; displaced volume per crank revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackiewilson
Tell me again how you measure the ROTORY Johnno , if I remember rightly this was always a bone of contention, I also loved to buck the establishment, and the best feeling in the world was to Stuff it to the factories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotary John
Theres a guy who has finally figured out all the flaws with these rotorys and has been experimenting with the combustion flaws and spark. It looks like there going to give it another go. This time looks promising that the stroke can have a much better compression and combustion making them way more efficient. Ernie Brink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3pCLjHZmhM