Can someone scan page 6-4 article 2.1 of the 2006 CAMS manual for me. Im kinda scared by all these rumours of changes to rotary capacity changes and
CAMS havent sent out my manual yet.
PRICKS
I havent got mine either yet,but hopefully they have upped the capacity Ill have more of a chance on the circuit,no problems on
a hillclimb chickenfu.... engines are hopeless..
Give the National office a call, although I imagine you'll get a different answer each time!
They really are the Confederation Againsts Motor Sport...
Im afraid the factor hasnt gone up, its gone down apparently.
This is an email which was forwarded onto me.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The reason there is not many rotaries in hillclimb competition is due to the miultiplication factor for the engine and specifically, the OUTPUT is not
competitive. The only reason there is a multiplication factor has more to do with assumed capacity to enable class setting and therefore parity rather
than swept capacity. I should qualify that, parity is only relative - if you are being beaten then you get the shits, if you are winning it is all
good. Anyway, it has always been pie in the sky stuff when it comes to reaslisticly establishing the assumed capacity of the rotary engine. For
example, differently ported engines will have a differrent capacity, yet still compete in the same class. Hows that possible????? A 12A engine has a
displacement of only 550cc per rotor, and the engine fires 3 times per revolution of the eccentric shaft (crank). And to follow a bridge port or
Perripheral Port (PP) engine has a far larger swept capacity than a standard port engine. The reason for this is the bridge port has a large brow cut
into the end plate enabling more air - and hence more cc into the combustion chamber, the PP has the water jacket punched to allow injection straight
into the chamber. The swept capacity and horsepower increases but the physical displacement is constant. Confused, so is CAMS.
Its never been fair so why now should it be any different.
At least now my RX2 will be a little more competitive.
Umm.... I think you will find tha the rotors effective 'swept" capacity does not vary. The porting arrangements you speak of simply vary the
volumetric efficiency of the given swept volume.
The analogy is to alter the port timing of a 2 stroke or the cam profile of a 4 stroke. Doesnt change squat in swept volume but alters volumetric
efficiency (cylinder filling) enormously.
Above all, thats part of the the fun of running an engine configuration that is NOT "internal conbustion reciprocating engine"
Its the same for 2 stroke versus 4 stroke GP bikes and so-on. That experiment was tried and failed along with 500cc 4 cylinder and 2 cylinder
engines.
Everything will always be subject to and compromised by "parity" and no matter what figure you factor in, the bottom line is that it (rotors) are an
entirely different configuration of engine and no-one will ever be happy with whatever compromise as far as parity is put forward. It will never be
"fair" It really is like comparing apples to oranges.
Sad, but a fact of life for rotor blasters like yourself. Dun get me wrong. I like rotors but they really only compare with...well.....other
rotors.
Your only hope for true(ish) parity is to only race with other rotors of the same capacity.
Harsh, but reality!.
L8tr
E
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh sanity prevails.
http://www.cams.com.au/bulletins/B06-061%20Rotary%20Equivalence%20Factor.pdf