So what you are saying is that you want a Wankel, but without simulation of the problems a wankel faces (that are inherent in it's design, and not solvable my research and development)?

So in other words, you don't want a wankel, but you want the parts of the wankel output that appeal to you. Mostly the noise and ability to rev. Right.

what's the point then if even the uf1 revs like ****..?

Tristan do you mean that none of the real engines modeled in LFS have as many problems as the best real rotaries, or that rotaries could never do what they would need to do in LFS?
Are you saying no rotary design was ever manufactured right, or that the design is flawed such that it's not feasible to improve it (without ignoring the laws of physics) to be reliable enough that it could do what would be required of it in LFS?

Quote :

So in other words, you don't want a wankel, but you want the parts of the wankel output that appeal to you. Mostly the noise and ability to rev. Right.

Where did I say that? I meant the rotary would add variety, and that I saw no reason enough to prevent its realistic (considering everything else presently in the game) inclusion in LFS.
IIRC, rotary engines have run and won Le Mans's 24 hours.

No, rotaries have problems inherent in the design. The lack of torque is never going to be solvable with small diameter rotors (N * m remember, is m is small, Nm will be small). The ability to rev is great, but is required to provide anywhere near decent performance.

But, at the end of the day, LFSs engines are just torque curves and rev limiters. So all you want is a funny torque curve, a high rev limit, and a different sound effect.

By all means include a rotary, but you won't really notice any difference, apart from the word Rotary on one of the cars.

Yes, they won Le Mans. Yes they were turbocharged. But what were the equivalency rules? The playing field was most certainly not level. Nothing has ever been banned for being 'too good'. They get banned because they are far too costly or far too unsafe. If only one team in F3 could afford a 400hp (with restrictor) engine, do you think the organisers would turn a blind eye?

FFS PEOPLE!

Jesus! There'd be virtually no difference between a wankel powered and a pot powered car in LFS, aside from the sounds and the torque curve.

It'd just be "another car", and we already have so many that end up unused.

Watching how this thread's progressed, it's turned into a bunch of elitist rotary lovers ranting and raving about how great the damned things are, and how much of a travesty it is that the engines aren't in LFS.

Sound pack + xrt and you have your beloved RX7 wankel dankel. Hell, it's a fake car anyway, so you can just pretend that the torque curve on that specific engine was engineered to be less wankely.

If I understand right, a rotary engine would not be worth adding to LFS because there would be less difference between it and the present LFS cars, than between the present LFS cars themselves?
An easy solution to the lack of rotary torque is to put it in a lightweight car. It worked for the puny LX4 and FOX.. which have little torque themselves, and yet were added to the game. Why are those exempt from the anti-variety rule you guys seem to favor?

There's no elitism or circle jerk or any sort of that stuff sinkoman, the rotary engine is attractive because it would add variety to LFS. This is just a forum for people to type their ideas into and see where those ideas go or don't go. Everyone knows the devs don't take too seriously or pay much attention to this forum, so this isn't meant to be a campaign, just a discussion. That's all.
At the moment the TBO class is all 4 cylinder engines. Is it just a freak happenstance that none of the cars in the class have the same drivetrain?
Same odd variety for the LRF class, except there we have both drivetrain and engine variety. Did the devs make a mistake in not making all the cars more the same rather than differentiate them? Nope.

There are still some redundancies: as mentionned, the TBO's all 4-bangers, all turbos, the GTR class is two thirds Turbo-4cyl's, (the LRF class is great already), there is no exotic sports/supercar (the RAC is borderline but not quite exotic), no big muscleish car, the small GTRs are both FWD (i'd concede this one is debateable), the UF could use a RWD competitor (something like a Fiat500 or an old beetle) as the XFG has in the XRG. Was it a bad idea to match the RWD XRG with the FWD XFG? I think there's no chance of my point not being clear now..
Is LFS supposed to not add any new cars? Nope. Should the new cars be the same, not have character or anything unique about each of them, like the FZ5 has? Nope - the game will only get better with more variety of cars to choose from rather than less.

The only reason I see left for not considering one is if it were a headache to model or if the TBO was considered complete enough with three cars. A fourth car would be easier to fit into the class (performance balancing-wise) than the third car was (the more cars you add, the denser the performance spread), and the TBO class could use something else than a front-engined and/or 4cyl, though.

Quote from Breizh :

If I understand right, a rotary engine would not be worth adding to LFS because there would be less difference between it and the present LFS cars, than between the present LFS cars themselves?
An easy solution to the lack of rotary torque is to put it in a lightweight car. It worked for the puny LX4 and FOX.. which have little torque themselves, and yet were added to the game. Why are those exempt from the anti-variety rule you guys seem to favor?

There's no elitism or circle jerk or any sort of that stuff sinkoman, the rotary engine is attractive because it would add variety to LFS. This is just a forum for people to type their ideas into and see where those ideas go or don't go. Everyone knows the devs don't take too seriously or pay much attention to this forum, so this isn't meant to be a campaign, just a discussion. That's all.
At the moment the TBO class is all 4 cylinder engines. Is it just a freak happenstance that none of the cars in the class have the same drivetrain?
Same odd variety for the LRF class, except there we have both drivetrain and engine variety. Did the devs make a mistake in not making all the cars more the same rather than differentiate them? Nope.

There are still some redundancies: as mentionned, the TBO's all 4-bangers, all turbos, the GTR class is two thirds Turbo-4cyl's, (the LRF class is great already), there is no exotic sports/supercar (the RAC is borderline but not quite exotic), no big muscleish car, the small GTRs are both FWD (i'd concede this one is debateable), the UF could use a RWD competitor (something like a Fiat500 or an old beetle) as the XFG has in the XRG. Was it a bad idea to match the RWD XRG with the FWD XFG? I think there's no chance of my point not being clear now..
Is LFS supposed to not add any new cars? Nope. Should the new cars be the same, not have character or anything unique about each of them, like the FZ5 has? Nope - the game will only get better with more variety of cars to choose from rather than less.

The only reason I see left for not considering one is if it were a headache to model or if the TBO was considered complete enough with three cars. A fourth car would be easier to fit into the class (performance balancing-wise) than the third car was (the more cars you add, the denser the performance spread), and the TBO class could use something else than a front-engined and/or 4cyl, though.

Thank goodness for a sensible post.

Do you understand how many cars we already have that go unused?

I'm saying that the only difference you'd see when racing a rotary against a pot in LFS is that the rotary would sound different, and the power bands and torque curves and revs and shit would be different.

Aside from that there'd be really no difference.

And on rotary Circle Jerk? Just read everything Mako and Glyph have posted...

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a rotary in the game, but i'm saying that we've already got so many cars that don't get used half the time, that I don't think that having a "rotary engine" would be enough reason to add another.

I already said in this thread that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just change the torque and rev characteristics of one of the existing cars and brand it as a rotary..

Quote from sinkoman :

Do you understand how many cars we already have that go unused?

That's a player-side problem. Are you saying those cars would be used more if they were nearly identical to each other?
Would a 787 LeMans racer be a garage queen, if added? Would a first gen RX7 80-HP (just making a point, not quoting exact numbers) with antique design not matched to any car class get any use? A new car's popularity would not depend solely on whether it was rotary powered.

Quote :

I'm saying that the only difference you'd see when racing a rotary against a pot in LFS is that the rotary would sound different, and the power bands and torque curves and revs and shit would be different.

Sort of like the difference between the LX4 and TBOs', or the LRFs' power bands and torque curves and revs and shit ? You mean it would make no difference to you if the cars in LFS had their engines permutated?
And supposing it doesn't, in fact, make a difference.. What's the difference to you? You're arguing for less diversity just for the sake of it.

Quote :

And on rotary Circle Jerk? Just read everything Mako and Glyph have posted...

Whooptie doo.. Passionate motorsports enthusiasts sharing common interests, imagine that!

Quote :

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a rotary in the game, but i'm saying that we've already got so many cars that don't get used half the time, that I don't think that having a "rotary engine" would be enough reason to add another.

I'll tell you what - add something as different from what we have as (e.g) a rotary mid-engine or an FR muscleish/saloon GT with a big meaty block (features unseen in LFS yet) to the TBO, LRF and/or GTR classes, balanced to fit right into the class balancing, and I'll respect whatever wager you can think of that those cars see as much use as the cars they're meant to compete with; i.e. as much use as the present TBOs, LRFs, and GTRs.
In fact, I'll say that if these two new cars were made to be easy to drive fast, they would revive the LRF class.

Quote :

I already said in this thread that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just change the torque and rev characteristics of one of the existing cars and brand it as a rotary..

That's not how things are done in LFS. Physics aren't fudged like that.

Im another advocate for implementing the rotary into the game. I for one enjoy the diversity that another type of engine can bring to the game. Whether or not it gets "used" is a different story alltogether.

My roommate has a '80 GSL 12A. Supertrapp exhaust and a 3" diameter exhaust piping, dual webber's. Unbelieveable how snappy it is and how rev-happy the engine is. yeah, fuel consumption is the pits, but he's an avid lover of the rotary design. I don't see anything wrong with someone's opinion of having this engine type put into the game. Where's the people crying for the v10's, v12's? Game designers can do anything they want, essentially. Hell, im sure they can make a v11tybillion. I'm sure everyone would "try" it out just for fun. It is a game. Just a game.

Can't we all just get along? Fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

ITs game guys. LFS need his own engine like lfs cars. Not all cars are in real life. Only this cars like LX XRT FXO F08 BF1 MRT this cars I saw in real life but other cars its just amaizing fantazy and I love this.(sry if i am not right) So LFS need own engine where we can make it 1000hp and 450hp
And will be just how bether u know mechanik to make ure engine powerfull.
This will be bether. To make special race class like cars only with 450hp

UF1 200hp champion ship. Damn good idea

Its means u can make engine under 200hp but not ower. So its will be fight about who are bether in mechanik not only in race.


(dreams dreams dreams but my dreams are in life but not in my)

The fact that some here assume that a rotary powered TBO F/R car will no different to an XRT with a different power curve all goes to show the level of ignorance or inexperience we're dealing with here.

Do a simple test. Get 2 cars of similar power to weight ratio, e.g. an RX-7 and Nissan 200SX. Test them both THEN tell me that they handle the same. Better yet, get a properly tuned FC3S with a reliable 350hp THEN another FC3S with similar power and weight but achieved by butchering the car with a bulky V8 engine.

If rotary engines are PROPERLY implemented, the rotary powered car should enjoy better F/R mass balance AND lower polar moment of inertia.

I would love to see a rotary powered car in LFS. I cannot see it happening though.

Screw the wankel, what we need is a diesel and a Miller Cycle engine!

Also, I bet a sawbuck that the majority of people who want a Wankel in this game are drifters and / or Initial D geeks. like me.

Being serious now, I have no interest in a torqueless engine in a road car.

Quote :

But people are too ignorant on here, like you have V-8 oldschool carb guys hating on imports and saying that computers are nothing more than fancy gizmos, blh blah blah.

What a foolish and ignorant thing to say. You best sit down and learn your automotive history, boy.

THIS COMMON MIS-CONCEPTION IS BULLS*IT: 'Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races'

Here is some good info on torque:
http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html

Wanna know how much torque an F1 car makes with peak power of say approximately 900bhp at 18,000rpm or so?

Power = (torque x rpm)/5252

900 = (torque x 18,000)/5252

Torque = 263lb-ft

or in metric units, 357Nm of torque at peak power.

Guess Ferrari got it all wrong - they should have been using turbo diesel landrover engines all along, cos they make heaps more torque, and as we know torque wins races.


To suggest that you need lots of torque to accelerate quickly, is simply a fallacy. More low rpm torque allows a vehicle to be geared such that it can still accelerate well, but can also cruise / dawdle around at low revs. It's got little / nothing to do with absolute accelerative ability though.

Mazda's three rotor 20B engine makes, in stock form... wait for it... no torque at all:
300HP and 300lb/ft.. Torque-less engines, indeed.

The two rotor 13B-REW can do 255HP (or about 300HP in the last production years it seems) and 195lb/ft in stock form, which is about on par with present LFS cars:

There's already cars in LFS that are pretty wheezy in the low RPM ranges, and no one is complaining about them to the point of questioning if they ought to even be in the game, e.g. the slow turbo GTRs or RAC.
Almost no one complains that the LX4 is slow because of it's high reving qualities either. It's part of its character and makes the carset less bland.

Hehe.. I guess that settles it.