Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: The only 4 rotor wankel ever made,,,

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    3,919
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rick130 View Post
    ....then promptly outlawed by the FIA.
    Why was it outlawed ?
    2024 RRS on the road
    2011 D4 3.0 in the drive way
    1999 D2 V8, in heaven
    1984 RRC, in hell

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferret View Post
    Why was it outlawed ?
    The cynics would say as it was Japanese and threatened the Eurocentric domination of Sportscar racing, (even though I think the chassis was by either March or Lola ?) but whatever the reason, the rules were changed to only allow reciprocating piston engines.

    [edit] according to Wiki, Mazdaspeed, Mazda's motorsport arm were the manufacturer, but the chassis and engineering was done in the UK.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,101
    Total Downloaded
    0
    well in the 70's when cars were toping out just above 400km/h down the Mulsane straight (ie Porchse 917k30 1500bhp Qual and 1000 in race trim) they brought in a fuel consumption limit.....just when Porchse were about to unlesh a engine twice as big with twice the power.........so making restrictions is the organisers way of controling competition in racing to keep it interesting etc.

    IMO CanAm was the pinicle of motor sport!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    It is said that this years 1000cc MotoGP machines will top out @ 360km/h at Mugello with a tow and a slight tail wind

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Safety Bay
    Posts
    8,041
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferret View Post
    Why was it outlawed ?
    It was outlawed because there is no class or rules for wankel engines,they are smaller in capacity but produce the same Hp as bigger four stroke engines so they fit into a lighter wieght bracket but have the same power as the heavier cars so they have a huge advantage,the reason it won. Pat

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    On The Road
    Posts
    30,039
    Total Downloaded
    0
    It ran in that class quite legally,,

    It was outlawed for exactly the same reasons the Nissans were outlawed in Australia,,

    It was technically FAR superior to the rest of the field.

    cant upset the status quo ,, can we,,
    "How long since you've visited The Good Oil?"

    '93 V8 Rossi
    '97 to '07. sold.
    '01 V8 D2
    '06 to 10. written off.
    '03 4.6 V8 HSE D2a with Tornado ECM
    '10 to '21
    '16.5 RRS SDV8
    '21 to Infinity and Beyond!


    1988 Isuzu Bus. V10 15L NA Diesel
    Home is where you park it..

    [IMG][/IMG]

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Safety Bay
    Posts
    8,041
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Each class of vehicle runs an engine capacity limit and a wieght/fuel tank capacity limit to suit each class,the wankel is a small capacity engine but has the power of a larger capacity engine so effectively it had the power of the large vehicles but ran in the small capacity engine wieght/fuel tank size class meaning it was lighter and had a bigger tank.The Nissan GTR's that Gibson ran in Oz are the most expensive touring cars there has ever been at 1 million dollars a piece,more exxy than DTM cars.Considering that the Holdens and Fords at the time were worth $250,000 turn key you would expect the GTR's to win,and like the wankel they were a smaller six cylinder engine so had more power but ran in a lighter wieght class.It's well worth reading up on Fred Gibson and how he developed the GTR,and how Nissan stopped supplying parts because he wouldn't hand over all his work to them for free. Pat

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PAT303 View Post
    Each class of vehicle runs an engine capacity limit and a wieght/fuel tank capacity limit to suit each class,the wankel is a small capacity engine but has the power of a larger capacity engine so effectively it had the power of the large vehicles but ran in the small capacity engine wieght/fuel tank size class meaning it was lighter and had a bigger tank.The Nissan GTR's that Gibson ran in Oz are the most expensive touring cars there has ever been at 1 million dollars a piece,more exxy than DTM cars.Considering that the Holdens and Fords at the time were worth $250,000 turn key you would expect the GTR's to win,and like the wankel they were a smaller six cylinder engine so had more power but ran in a lighter wieght class.It's well worth reading up on Fred Gibson and how he developed the GTR,and how Nissan stopped supplying parts because he wouldn't hand over all his work to them for free. Pat
    None of that refutes the statement that they were technically superior and were banned because they upset the status quo.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    As far as I can recall under FIA rules, wankel's always used a x2 equivalency formula as they are effectively a two stroke, there's no dead exhaust cycle.

    There's probably an article on the car in one of my old Race Car Engineering's, but I can't be bothered digging them out

    The GTR's ran in the same class as the V8's Pat, with the same weight and fuel limits as they were twin turbo'd.
    Again, the equivalency formula.

    There were lots of things turned off in them too, they were just too sophisticated for a race vehicle at the time as it costs so much to go testing.
    Things like the four wheel steering were never, ever tested, it was locked in place.
    A mate of mine spannered on the Bob Forbes/GIO car that Mark Gibbs and Rohan Onslow raced.
    They are nice cars.
    AFAIK Bob still owns it, and it comes out to play sometimes.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Safety Bay
    Posts
    8,041
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by isuzurover View Post
    None of that refutes the statement that they were technically superior and were banned because they upset the status quo.
    Technically superior in what way?,they were lighter and had a bigger fuel tank,how's that ''technically superior''?. Pat

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!