Why would they not run out of steam? Have you seen a torque curve from a Wankel? It looks very much like a reciprocating torque curve, but with smaller numbers on the Torque scale, and slightly higher numbers on the RPM scale.
And with the air restrictor you can only use about 7000rpm anyway, so all you get is less torque = less performance = slower = raped (figuratively speaking).
Sho, I dont know wat the rebuild intervals were, but I assume it was after every race. Well Ive talked to guys that have racew rotary powered cars, and they said the torque curve is pretty much constant, it just keeps on accelerating. An ja obviously if it is limited to such low rpms, then it wont make so much. What I would like to see if a turbocharged rotary on the game. A turboed rotary, really kicks the competition
Not if the standard equivalency rules are used. 1.5 for rotary (so a 1.3l rotary = 2l NA recip.) and 1.4 for turbo. That means a 950cc rotary against a 2l recip.
Assuming rebuild budgets aren't an issue, and no restrictors are used then it might work in a race environment. But I wouldn't put money on it.
There is nothing really wrong with the design of the Rotory engine. It is a little more fuel hungery and its a motor that does its work with revs not raw torque much like the engine in the S2000. Its weak points in stock form are its expensive and diffacult to apply combustion chamber lining, its fuel ecconomy (The fuel is part of the cooling system) and its sandwhich construction of dis-similar metals.
The main reasons for failure are not unlike that of a traditional engine. Overheating being the primary one. Many people don't understand that with this engine it is vital to allow the engine to warm up before stressing it. The sandwhich of steel and aluminum heat at different rates so you need to let the engine warm up to opperating temp, if you don't you get excessive ware. Conversly overheating it also accelerates ware and can warp the block.
Over reving is also detrimental, since the fuel used to feed the engineis also vital to the cooling abilities of the engine if you bang it off the revlimiter, (At least in the second gen) it cuts fuel flow not spark. With the engine still turning at high speed the lose of fuel causes overheating, which is a design flaw. There are aftermatket piggyback systems to prevent the revlimiter from cutting fuel.
So if you keep the engine in the correct temp range the engine will last a long time. Run it hard when its cold or run it hot and you will rapidly wear out the lining, the apex seals and can warp the block. Disable the rev limiter and run an ECU able to deliver the needed fuel and it will rev till the cows come home.
except that due to the design it needs to be gently warmed up... and down. and not bounced at the rev limiter, which most other engines survive rather happily. and you need to keep it at a precise temperature range. also there is the design flaw of cutting fuel, not spark. and the sandwiching of alloys. plus, the seals are sensitive and it eats fuel like a mofo. plus it burns oil too.
This reminds me of someone who said way back in the day with absolute certainty, that there will never be more than 50 (or whatever small number) cars in Europe. The truth is there is no way of knowing what would (or will) happen. You can't seriously argue that the Wankel has had even one fifth of the research and evolution the piston engine enjoys.
As for bike engines, true they can give you about the same power/displacement ratio as a rotary engine BUT... Take a look at their torque curves. Almost non-existant since bikes don't need much torque due to their very low weight.
Anyway I don't necessarily support either side of the discussion, but I'm once again seriously annoyed by the close mindedness of certain ppl here, and by their thinking that it's somehow their right to decide what's good for or has a place in LFS or not (not talking about you here George). I'll just have to stop returning to these forums... And yes I totally expect some of these ppl to quote my previous sentence and write sth amazingly clever like "bye".
BTW, F1's do 6G's in turns? Where did you get that from man?
Dude, what do you mean about 6G in the turns, nobody even mentioned g-forces on this page . And this post is just about possible vehicle that would be nice for the game, it is opinion based so dont get all errotated, because if nobody stated their opinions the game may miss a vehicle that might have been put in if some1 mentioned it
it has inherent flaws that can't be overcome without spending ridiculous amounts of money and effort. even then (after mazda has almost gone bankrupt after all it has done) the engine hasn't seen a lot of use. even though everyone almost touts is as the second coming of christ. all i see is a rather sensitive, thirsty but light and rev-happy engine. it would matter years ago, but now that piston engines rev >10K rather easily and are made rather light i don't see what is the fuss about the wankel. like the hemi, perhaps. good idea, but obsolete.
also the argument about not knowing, i didn't say i know. i said i think. if i would say i know i would prove it rather concretely. the analogy with the number of cars in europe is rather weak anyway. just because he was wrong doesn't mean anyone else who thinks something is wrong. it's a logical fallacy.
so? i haven't yet looked at dynos but something tells me that the zzr 1400 engine which revs till 11K happily and outputs something more than 180hp is all around a far better engine than a 1.4l engine in a usual car that will rev up to (being very generous here) 8K. and outputs... what? the TFSI 1.4l engine (TFSI!) outputs about 175hp and revs till 6.5K and certainly weighs more than the kawa engine. ok so it has more torque. but if we are to compare the wankel for revs, power, weight, the bike engines beat it. (both have relatively weak torque)
You're biased and it shows. I reckon the early RX7 rotaries match or beat today's Kwak 1400 engine. The only good applications for bike engines in cars are in the ultra light customs or smart-car franken builds.
The rotary hasn't gotten piston engines' development time, period. Only today, after so many man-hours, has the piston configuration gotten to the point where it is, in production and at the leading edge experimental set ups.
personal attack, you are trying to discredit me. this is a hit below the belt.
numbers please. (i am willing to forget that the early rx7 engines are notoriously sensitive)
comparing a 1.4l that is usualy found in cars with the 1.4l kawa engine, the kawa engine has more power (any n.a. 1.4l that outputs 180hp?) revs higher (11Krpm) and is very light (it's obvious, i think). even if it has somewhat less torque, i think almost double the revs make up for it and consider it is lighter too.
that is what i am comparing. i am not trying to fit bike engines in cars.
it took mazda decades and it nearly went bankrupt... to advance the design. where did it end up? in one production car which isn't something incredible anyway. replace the rx8 engine with a normal engine. you think it'll change much? i gather it wouldn't.
it does not have any significant advantage. not anymore.
Ja, if we want to be very pickey and choosey about what field a rotary would be good in, one of them is drag racing. If a rotary is well tuned and has a big fat turbo( which they can handle far better than piston engines because of their better exhaust flow capabillities ) it is a formidable opponent, able to beat the likes of a 5.7L V8 running on METHANOL
It just means that you can't possibly predict what will happen after say, 50 years of evolution. Esp since (I imagine) you are not a Mazda mechanic working on Wankel's evolution.
Let's see... First of all and most important: revs alone mean nothing. They are a means to sth (power) not the goal. So strike that.
Power: ZX-14: ~190hp, RX-7: 280hp, RX-8 (to exclude the benefit of the turbo): 240hp
Torque: ZX-14: 154Nm, RX-7: 313Nm, RX-8: 211Nm.
And that's with 100cc less.
I'd say the torque figures are not close enough to claim that both have relatively weak torque. The rotary has much more than the bike (even the N/A RX-8 has 37% more). And that's with the rotary revving a good 3-4000 less than the bike. Imagine at the same RPMs.
I will give you the weight since I don't know the exact figures but I imagine the bike is lighter. I don't think that the difference is big though.
You should keep in mind however that race engineers and engine manufacturers/tuners, when rating an engine as to how successful/advanced it is, or how suitable it is for tuning or racing, the first two things they look at is it's power/displacement ratio and the piston's speed. the latter cannot be fairly compared between the two types of course.
Regarding the TSI, as you know VW strives for safety and reliability, that's why the rev limit is so low. If they went higher it would be even more powerful.
Finally, about the Wankel's reliability. Sure, especially with the old ones, you have to warm it up good, change the oil regularly, keep an eye on the oil and water temps, etc. However you have to do that with every engine, esp if you push it a lot. Sure the rotary will break earlier than the others if abused, but make no mistake, piston engines will break just fine when abused like that. Just a little later than the Wankel (usually).
Also I completely agree with what Breizh said.
It just saddens me to see that (again) ppl seem to fear and bash what they don't understand (make that "don't have too much experience in").
Not really, it is actually a 1.3l, the fact that it is twice as efficient, that it does double the work in the same time or that certain racing regulations put it in the 2.6l class to remove any unfair advantage does not automatically double it's actual displacement. Same goes for piston 2 strokes.
To clarify - it isn't twice as efficient. In terms of energy in versus useful energy out it's less efficient than a reciprocating engine, just like a two-stroke is less-efficient than a four stroke. The terrible combustion shape of a rotary sees to that, and it's not something that can be developed out.
If you measure the engine by performance per litre of fuel used it wouldn't hold a candle to a four stroke. Even an old one with vaguely comparible developments.
I know you weren't exactly correcting me, but I didn't mean exactly that as you probably imagined. I meant it produces power twice as many times as a piston engine in a given amount of time. The amount of power produced is another matter of course.
Personally I wouldn't measure it like that, why would I? In a sportscar fuel consumption would be the last thing on my mind, it's built for speed not economy. In a race it's a different matter since it affects strategy, but still it depends on how much faster (if at all) it would be.
The way I see it, to have a piston engine with a vaguely comparable development we must compare to pre 1950 V12's with 200hp.
Im glad 2 see that Kosmo has some time for the Wankel Rotary. Sure it has its downfalls, but so do all other engines. Its just that there is something special about a rotary, and I belive that anyone who sees one in full race spec, and tuned to perfection will appreciate that.
The other thing is that in the game you dont need to worry about poor fuel economy etc, and engine blocks warping, because if that was the case, we would all have cars blowing up down some of the long straights on the game.
Yes I know realism is important and it makes the game such a great one, but nobody is going to waste their time trying to simulate a warping engine block
and down. and not bounced at the rev limiter
. And this post is just about possible vehicle that would be nice for the game, it is opinion based so dont get all errotated, because if nobody stated their opinions the game may miss a vehicle that might have been put in if some1 mentioned it