Tricks that old racers get up to after retirement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Schubert

My father worked at CW & so did Edgar Rose who left Merc had a non compete, went to CW before joining Charlie Strang at OMC. CW had the NA contract for the Wankel rights. Sold some rights to GMC for on the road use in cars & part to OMC for off road use, thus the snowmobile, outboards & never produced useage for the mini race cars that the Delorean brothers were involved with. We did build the cars for them for their amusement parks, each turn designed from a European F1 track, but we bought the wankels from Sachs their original supplier. When Jim Briggs & I went to visit the Deloreans in Michigan, they let us drive a couple of the cars, pretty sweet & fast. Found out after our Demo that they had the governors disconnected so that we would be impressed. We built them in our little plant in Manawa, WI. Project didn't last very long, the Delorean part went "belly up"!

---

John: slight correction. The GM agreement with CW had no use restrictions and had a non-share after sighing clause that caused the entire rotary club to fall apart. Prior to GM all info/ patents/ideas were sharable with all members without fees. CW gave away the store thinking GM would create the royalties that hadn't been seen previously. Their thinking Ford, AM. Motors; etc. would follow close behind GM and the need for OMC's potential would be small potatoes. Then the 1974 Iranian oil crises and fuel economy concerns. GM abandoned the rotary but the rest of the club had already fallen apart. I believe the OMC contract was for non-automotive, watercraft and recreational vehicles. Another interesting fact, OMC was the only US company to pay CW a royalty.

Some of that I recall after you saying so but you added much more facts about GM. Yes I do remembered the oil/gas debacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Schubert

My father worked at CW & so did Edgar Rose who left Merc had a non compete, went to CW before joining Charlie Strang at OMC. CW had the NA contract for the Wankel rights. Sold some rights to GMC for on the road use in cars & part to OMC for off road use, thus the snowmobile, outboards & never produced useage for the mini race cars that the Delorean brothers were involved with. We did build the cars for them for their amusement parks, each turn designed from a European F1 track, but we bought the wankels from Sachs their original supplier. When Jim Briggs & I went to visit the Deloreans in Michigan, they let us drive a couple of the cars, pretty sweet & fast. Found out after our Demo that they had the governors disconnected so that we would be impressed. We built them in our little plant in Manawa, WI. Project didn't last very long, the Delorean part went "belly up"!

---

Sod my old britches but there was some heavy skullduggery went on in your neck of the woods.
Our old friend “Peter” was it? promised a whole new economy to the Irish people with the promise of high wages, full employment and La La Land.
De Lorean managed to fleece the Irish government out of more money than the English did throughout history.
Rumour had it at the time the De Lorean Would sport a Wankel engine——— there were big numbers being spoken of here.
In reality, it was probably a production run for Back to the future one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackiewilson

Rumour had it at the time the De Lorean Would sport a Wankel engine

---

Say What ?

Attachment 394421

I read that Norton have several new patents on their rotary and have made a few breakthroughs in fuel consumption and emissions

I would be very surprised if Norton are actually patenting anything or even still working on Rotary engines as their new V4 seems to be how they intend to move forward. Like I said before the name Norton seems to have become a catch all to describe several companies who are working on these engines. UAV Engines was born from the ashes of Norton to provide specialist engines to drone and aviation projects and several talented engineers who worked for Norton and UAV have pursued their own versions and developments for their own or other companies. Other companies somehow "inherited" the original Norton designs and produce very similar engines all based around a common architecture. As much as I would love to see a mainstream rotary engine in the marketplace, like an electric vehicle range extender if the likes of Mazda and Audi decide against it I fear that it will remain a very specialized low volume product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techteam

I would be very surprised if Norton are actually patenting anything or even still working on Rotary engines as their new V4 seems to be how they intend to move forward. Like I said before the name Norton seems to have become a catch all to describe several companies who are working on these engines. UAV Engines was born from the ashes of Norton to provide specialist engines to drone and aviation projects and several talented engineers who worked for Norton and UAV have pursued their own versions and developments for their own or other companies. Other companies somehow "inherited" the original Norton designs and produce very similar engines all based around a common architecture. As much as I would love to see a mainstream rotary engine in the marketplace, like an electric vehicle range extender if the likes of Mazda and Audi decide against it I fear that it will remain a very specialized low volume product.

---

Your right its an ex Norton guy
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2...bhp-race-bike/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techteam

I would be very surprised if Norton are actually patenting anything or even still working on Rotary engines as their new V4 seems to be how they intend to move forward. Like I said before the name Norton seems to have become a catch all to describe several companies who are working on these engines. UAV Engines was born from the ashes of Norton to provide specialist engines to drone and aviation projects and several talented engineers who worked for Norton and UAV have pursued their own versions and developments for their own or other companies. Other companies somehow "inherited" the original Norton designs and produce very similar engines all based around a common architecture. As much as I would love to see a mainstream rotary engine in the marketplace, like an electric vehicle range extender if the likes of Mazda and Audi decide against it I fear that it will remain a very specialized low volume product.

---

Thank you the Techteam for clarification on the Rotory situation as it would appear today.
Norton only ever was a manufacturer of old fashioned hand built quality English motor cycles, but since it was sold on, or liquidated, pulverised and pasteurised, the tradename has been kicked from arsehole to breakfast time in association with various products including the wankel. Sometimes it’s in the form of a drone or a sludge pump. Whichever way you look at it, it’s a a far cry from a “Double Knocker”.
I remember seeing UAV filters and oil pumps on the outside of double decker buses with names like—— LEYLAND———AEC——— GUY AND ALBION. Although I can remember the driver and conductor who spun out tickets from a machine that rang a bell every time he twisted the handle, I most certainly do not remember UAV having a lot to do with motorcycles.
Amazing what can get lost in translation and transition———-like Norton ! Ok, so it was “inherited “—-

So my friends the TechTeam——— itwould appear that even today——— there is still no one producing a viable Rotory in any quantity?

Weeeelllll, depends what you consider to mean a decent quantity. More than 500 is still quite a big purchase. Jackie do you mean CAV filters they are different beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techteam

Weeeelllll, depends what you consider to mean a decent quantity. More than 500 is still quite a big purchase. Jackie do you mean CAV filters they are different beast.

---

Prabably was CAV (Rotax rings a bell)
Five hundred is not a lot in Fleas, Bees and flying elephants with yellow toenails——— but I’m sure I don’t have to spell it out ,chapter and verse for you of my version of a Rotory prod line.

I got another Q for the team !
Our controversial and cunning friend named after a naughty feline——-“ Felix” the Rotory . was still a snotty nosed kid at the start of WW1, so can hardly be credited with the early aircraft motors that were called Rotories !
These in truth were probably “Radial engines” but nonetheless were called ROTORIES.
My problem is with Felix and his flawed basic design——— there is absolutely nothing about this engine to recommend it above any other basic engine, in any shape or form! End of.
Its no good quoting any single attribute, because it doesn’t come out top of the class in anything, an egg or a housebrick is a better design———- any engine in the world burns less fuel than a Rotory——- a banshee wailer is quiet by comparison———- sooooo we have determined it’s, noisy, heavy, thirsty.
breaks a lot.
There may only be three moving parts——- but the trick appears to be to keep them all moving at the same time before the Big Bang.
Cant help but think, that little bugger Felix gave us a conundrum in the shape of a Rotory to solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackiewilson

Prabably was CAV (Rotax rings a bell)
Five hundred is not a lot in Fleas, Bees and flying elephants with yellow toenails——— but I’m sure I don’t have to spell it out ,chapter and verse for you of my version of a Rotory prod line.

I got another Q for the team !
Our controversial and cunning friend named after a naughty feline——-“ Felix” the Rotory . was still a snotty nosed kid at the start of WW1, so can hardly be credited with the early aircraft motors that were called Rotories !
These in truth were probably “Radial engines” but nonetheless were called ROTORIES.
My problem is with Felix and his flawed basic design——— there is absolutely nothing about this engine to recommend it above any other basic engine, in any shape or form! End of.
Its no good quoting any single attribute, because it doesn’t come out top of the class in anything, an egg or a housebrick is a better design———- any engine in the world burns less fuel than a Rotory——- a banshee wailer is quiet by comparison———- sooooo we have determined it’s, noisy, heavy, thirsty.
breaks a lot.
There may only be three moving parts——- but the trick appears to be to keep them all moving at the same time before the Big Bang.
Cant help but think, that little bugger Felix gave us a conundrum in the shape of a Rotory to solve.

---

Jackie: Have another drink and mellow out.

Definitely not heavy Jackie. It's all about power density. Anyway the argument is mute as we'll all be driving electric soon. Imagine new drivers out in electric cars with a 0-60 less than 5seconds.

Came across an interesting stat whilst looking through the dot-dot.

Did you know that the Sopwith Camel with the Bentley nine cylinder radial, burned sixteen pints (2 gallons) of oil every twenty gallons of fuel used ?

Smoky old bastards weren’t they——— if the tree huggers had been around the Somme in 1916 Baron Von Klinkenbottom never would have got off the ground.

Only governments could afford such devices as aeroplanes——- bit like today really——- what’s the cost of each present day fighter ——- five ? Six ? Billion ? Obsolete in five years.

No worries——- drones and hi-def screens with plague like killing powers that can be launched whilst supping a pint at The bar, are the order of today———-hey ho says Rolly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techteam

Definitely not heavy Jackie. It's all about power density. Anyway the argument is mute as we'll all be driving electric soon. Imagine new drivers out in electric cars with a 0-60 less than 5seconds.

---

So where the hell are we headed ?my technical friends.
No point in electric power of o——60 in 2secs, it would be like ascending the Empire State Building————except horizontal ? lift interiors optional with Bose implants———- could be we’ll all be so fat in the future we won’t need upholstery.
Maybe we’ll be vacuum packed for travelling?
Glad I lived when I did———— I was the last of the lucky ones——— did everything——-had everything, Never wanted for anything.
Had the boats, had the cars, and the girls———aren’t they still the most beautiful of God’s creations!
I ask you———could it ever have gotten any better than this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackiewilson

Had the boats, had the cars, and the girls———aren’t they still the most beautiful of God’s creations!
I ask you———could it ever have gotten any better than this?

---

Attachment 394495