Rotary Engine wrote:

     > 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



Two separate n-rotor engines.  4 wheel drive.  Cuts the problem in half.

Yes, but then you don't get to see what you can do with a single
"Dagwood style" rotary.  That's part of what I'd like to see -- the
reciprosaur crowd trying to wrap their minds around the concept that if
you want more power, just bolt on more engine!

Keith



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