Rotary Engine wrote:

The Speed channel commentators are now complaining that the RX8 frontal area is less
than the Porsche and that is why the RX8 is ten MPH faster on the
straight away.

But you don't get it.

Rotary engines DON'T WIN RACES -- that's GOSPEL to the reciprosaur
crowd.  Therefore, when the RX-8 is faster than the Porsche, it's
because of the shape of the CAR, and has nothing to do with the engine.

I want to see someone build a 6-rotor engine and take it to Bonneville.
  Then, after the first set of runs, pull the engine, ADD 4 MORE
ROTORS, reinstall then get back on the salt the next day.

Then do it again the NEXT day, then the day after that if necessary,
until you have a new speed record for non-turbine cars.

But the real thing that we would see is where the power/weight curves
go.  Is there a point where adding rotors becomes less effective?  Or
MORE effective?

The perfect car for this would probably look like a Tootsie Roll on
wheels!  I wonder if you could get them to sponsor . . ?

Keith

The problem is the e-shaft gets torque overloaded near the back end.
Two four rotors back to back with the power taken out of the center
would work.
Paul Lamar

Okay, so what you do is make a PTO (gear driven) that takes the place of
an intermediate housing, and feeds a straight shaft drive.  When you
have just the 4 rotors, this housing is at the front, then you stack
more rotors in front of it.  When you get to 12 rotors, you put on
another PTO (with shaft stacked on the end of the other shaft), and then
you can go all the way to 16, if you can get the thing started.

The thing is that you are adding a lot of HP per additional pound of
engine.  Since a speed run is a straight line 10 miles long, with a
wide, slow turnaround at the end, you don't need to worry too much about
side loads on your long engine assembly.

Keith

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.