Quote from tristancliffe :

http://www.speadsracecars.co.uk/

Is that what you drive?

No Tristan has a 1988 (?) Reynard Single Seater and a Mazda MX5 for Road Use.

</stalker>

Quote from IlGuercio :

Oh come on.You know that wankel is banned from lemans right?And guess why?Because it gives an amazing power to weigh and size ratio just on the engine itself.Wankel engine deserves more development.We are talking about an engine that only mazda knows and makes.Isnt the lightness and the small size an advantage?Lower center of gravity,less mass to move around.
And it may perform like an engine larger twice as much,but in fact it isnt,this is the best thing about it.

Technically it was banned due to not beinga way of measuring the air intake into the engine.

Quote from ssm :

Is that what you drive?

As Jakg says, I drive a car engined F3 car - last year and this year a 1988 Reynard, and next year a 1998 Dallara. But the other race in my club has bike engined cars in it, which do sound nice - instant revs, and shifting at ~14,000rpm...

The aero on the Speads is pretty much for show. Removing the front and/or rear wings slows lap times by less than quarter of a second. It's just styling designed to sell (on the basis it looks a bit like a mini-F1 car, and is therefore more desirable).

ok ok sorry...

Weird - George left the forum some months ago as an intelligent, respected member of the community, and has returned a stupid, spam-tastic idiot?

What's going on George. Surely you've heard of Dallara - one of the biggest and most successful manufacturers of carbon tubbed racing cars in the world.

I think he was thinking of Tony Dallara

Quote from tristancliffe :

and next year a 1998 Dallara.

Well he certainly seems happy about it. Not sure he'll like wearing a green cape, stockings and suspenders though .

What else did you expect me to say ? something serious ?!?

F398 though, nice, very nice. Must cost a bob or two.

I've been playing with my crystal balls quite a lot recently, so i reckon if you give it a few years you'll be running you're own fully fledged professional racing team Tristan. You'll see...

wow, this is damn hard to write when you can't see what the hell it is you're writing

Quote from bbman :

White is so yesterday for hidden messages...

You guys are going WAYYY off topic.

Rotary engines suck, they are an attempt to cheaply manufacture racy engines such as the high end Honda engines. They melt and warp easily. Therefore, they fail. End of convo.

Rotarys suck , what u mean. Lets take the 1991 LeMans winner the Mazda 787b, powered by the pinnacle of all rotaries, the Mighty R24B 4 rotor rotary engine. A 2.6L engine that was naturally aspirated and kicked out 700Hp!, how can u say they suck, they are unique, sound great and when tuned propperly, will destroy nearly anything that get in their way

Quote from M3THANOL :

will destroy nearly anything that get in their way

including nearly destroying an entire company that tried for decades to make the design usable.

with that much money and time thrown at an idea, they could've manufactured an engine that runs on ****ing watermelon seeds.

Quote from M3THANOL :

Rotarys suck , what u mean. Lets take the 1991 LeMans winner the Mazda 787b, powered by the pinnacle of all rotaries, the Mighty R24B 4 rotor rotary engine. A 2.6L engine that was naturally aspirated and kicked out 700Hp!, how can u say they suck, they are unique, sound great and when tuned propperly, will destroy nearly anything that get in their way

Must be good. No one had ever managed to get 700hp out of a 2.6 reciprocating engine before.... Or had they?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Must be good. No one has ever managed to get 700hp out of a 2.6 reciprocating engine before.... Or have they?

in before the 1991 old technology argument for the n-th time

Quote from tristancliffe :

Must be good. No one had ever managed to get 700hp out of a 2.6 reciprocating engine before.... Or had they?

erm, tristan, it's non forced induction

So? Are you saying that without forced induction no one had ever got that much specific output from a reciprocating engine? 270hp/litre.

Quote from tristancliffe :

So? Are you saying that without forced induction no one had ever got that much specific output from a reciprocating engine? 270hp/litre.

give an example, cause i sure top out at a 105hp/600cc that the 2008 yamaha r6 outputs at 14K rpm...

oh yeah and f1 engines that have... what? 300bhp/l?

Quote from george_tsiros :

oh yeah and f1 engines that have... what? 300bhp/l?

Huh ? You've just answered your own question.

Forced induction has been banned from F1 since 1989. And since 2006 the naturally aspirated 2.4lt engines have been producing way over 700bhp.

yeah, it would appear that i answered my own question, but it isn't that way.
besides. a 2.6 wankel is actually a 5.2 engine. you can think of it as a two-stroke.

Well if you look at it that way, the old 2 stroke 500cc GP bikes were producing 180+ hp. So if extrapolate that up to 5.4lt (ish) thats over 900bhp....(i think, maths has never been my strong point)

But again back to the topic. Mazda have only continued to use and develop the rotary engine for marketing purposes, and maybe a touch of engineering prowess. Engineers can be funny like that sometimes, they're a weird bunch.

Slightly off topic, but does that new Furai use a Wankel engine ? will check..[quick edit] yes it does, it produces 450bhp, not sure of the capacity though, more checking needed..

they could make more than 180bhp, it's just that that era's tyres couldn't handle it.


yeah, your calculations were weird, but reached a correct result...

( 5.4 / 0.5 ) * 180

10.8 * 180 = 1,944

(That's 1,944 HP btw)