Stupid Question But Wth
03-27-2005, 06:50 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 907
[quote name='little rotary 14' date='Mar 27 2005, 04:49 AM']formula one cars have a 3liter v10 but they could be downsized to a 2.4liter v8 if the governing body has its way with things
[/quote]
Exellent timing
Mark
[snapback]691343[/snapback]
[/quote]
Mark
03-27-2005, 07:48 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 907
[quote name='Signal 2' date='Mar 27 2005, 07:15 PM']Sorry Mark, I just noticed your in Ireland. Not sure what your used to but using my handy calculator:
159 ft/lbs = 215.5 Joules or 21.98 Kg-meters
164 ft/lbs = 222.3 Joules or 21.68 Kg-meters
[/quote]
Thanks, we actually come across both here (Newton metres specifically but they're almost the same thing). I happen to think this is quite an interesting question, sure you can't like for like compare a rotary to a piston engine, but they still work under the same internal combustion principles. Those torque levels put a rotary in line with what a normal 2.3 litre engine would produce @ 70lb/ft/litre, which is strange. The only explanation I can think of is that displacement of 1.3l is not the whole story, I've read somewhere that it's hard to accurately define a rotaries displacement - but I'm at a loss to why this is, you still have a min and max compression.
Mark
159 ft/lbs = 215.5 Joules or 21.98 Kg-meters
164 ft/lbs = 222.3 Joules or 21.68 Kg-meters
[snapback]691525[/snapback]
[/quote]
Thanks, we actually come across both here (Newton metres specifically but they're almost the same thing). I happen to think this is quite an interesting question, sure you can't like for like compare a rotary to a piston engine, but they still work under the same internal combustion principles. Those torque levels put a rotary in line with what a normal 2.3 litre engine would produce @ 70lb/ft/litre, which is strange. The only explanation I can think of is that displacement of 1.3l is not the whole story, I've read somewhere that it's hard to accurately define a rotaries displacement - but I'm at a loss to why this is, you still have a min and max compression.
Mark
03-27-2005, 09:21 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 791
[quote name='inanimate_object' date='Mar 27 2005, 08:47 PM']I've read somewhere that it's hard to accurately define a rotaries displacement - but I'm at a loss to why this is, you still have a min and max compression.Mark
[/quote]
Well, we're getting a bit, but IIRC, there has been a mini-debate on rotary displacement ... something to do with the number of combustion cycles per rotation?? Some say based on that (IIRC) it should be 2.6. I'm not smart enough to understand any more than that. It doesn't really matter to me anyway.
[snapback]691597[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, we're getting
03-27-2005, 09:31 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 791
Mark,
I just checked your sight for the first time. Cool project car. Could your interest in the Renesis hint at an alternative to the Honda CBR900? I guess the engine packaging would still be pretty bulky...
I just checked your sight for the first time. Cool project car. Could your interest in the Renesis hint at an alternative to the Honda CBR900? I guess the engine packaging would still be pretty bulky...
03-27-2005, 10:05 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bayou-self Louisiana
Posts: 947
wow you cats bomb on that guy. He probably was a Honda dude that was looking for an answer to some street talk. if ya dont know about the rotary you just know the srd20 **** thats probably why the 1.3 kickin *** on the 2.0 brings the questions. Oh well welcome to NP.