Okay, as far as I understand rotaries produce more power per rotor then a cylinder does per cylinder.
So my question is why the fuck are 2 rotor wankels put against V6 and V8s?
Also strictly for race purposes, why don't they stick in a 4 rotor wankel and let it compete against 4 cylinders.
Wankels seem like such an alluring and potential design for all the power in racing and alongside a reliability.
Okay, as far as I understand rotaries produce more power per rotor then a cylinder does per cylinder
Andrew Nelson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Jace Rodriguez
You said it yourself
>rotaries produce more power per rotor than a cylinder does per cylinder
Cars are placed against each other based on power output, among other things.
A 1,200 HP quad rotor monster of a rotary isn't going to be competing against dinky little 250 HP turbocharged I4s. There's just far too much of a power difference.
Gavin Scott
1 rotor = 3 combustion chambers
Connor Lewis
>alongside a reliability (sic)
Yeah they're so reliable they have to be completely torn down and rebuilt after every single race
Evan Diaz
Each rotor fires 3 times per turn of the crank (eccentric shaft), so a 2 rotor fires 6 times per crank rotation.
Pistons only fire once every 2 turns of the crank, so to get 6 power strokes for each rotation, you'd need a 12 cylinder.
This is why rotaries are so smooth. And also why you need to effectively multiply rotary displacement by 2 to get a comparable piston displacement (e.g. a 1.3L rotary is equivalent to a 2.6L piston engine rather than a 1.3L piston engine)
Hunter Sanders
26B 787B Won le mans purely because it was reliable. BTFO
Liam Anderson
I'm still stuck on rotor per cylinder and cylinder per cylinder.
WHAT THE FUCK OP
You mean, hp per liter of displacement??
Jaysus.
Bentley Butler
Seriously, comparing the 650cc (*2=1.3L effectively) rotor of a 13b with a typical piston (500cc) is like apples and oranges. or apples and cantaloupes.
But OP words this like they're a teenager just struggling to understand, so I try to help out.
Grayson Jackson
Formula mazdas last an entire season without any noticeable compression loss
Meanwhile a gm v8 literally can't run around the nurburgring without overheating and shutting down
Owen Campbell
That's not true though, rotaries are notably more reliable in the short term because they have fewer moving parts
Benjamin Taylor
compare how much fuel is needed to how much power it can make
William Miller
reliability!=longevity
Lincoln Sullivan
>fucks dogs
>complaining about anything
Austin Allen
So therefore diesels are GOAT.
Anyway, in racing, rotaries aren't toobad in terms of fuel (plus they run better on low octane anyway, which is nice):
"Mazda was not the favourite to win, but the three Mazdas started 19th (No. 55), 23rd (No. 18) and 30th (No. 56), despite being the 12th, 17th and 24th fastest qualifiers respectively. The new 3.5 litre cars were given the first grid positions, moving everyone else back by seven places. On the day before the race, team manager Ohashi decided to drop his usual conservative strategy and instructed the drivers of the No. 55 car to drive as if it were a short sprint race.
The decision was made based on the reliability of the cars demonstrated in the Paul Ricard tests, as well as the car's exceptional fuel economy, which meant that the carefully learned driving techniques intended to preserve the fuel allowance were no longer a critical part of the team's strategy."
Xavier Clark
But how much more hp per exhaust do they produce?
Joshua Lopez
Well i know everyone shit on it for placing 3rd, but didn't a GM V8 finish le mans like a week ago?
Joseph Stewart
>gm v8
>nurburgring
Carter Price
Exactly
Who cares if an engine can go 300k miles
I want to know if it can handle being beat on for hours at a time, and rotaries can
Nathan Smith
>plus they run better on low octane anyway, which is nice
That is absolutely not true. Rotaries need rich fuel, and are extremely prone to failure (due to damaged or blown seals) when they run lean.
t. FD owner enjoying that sick gas mileage on 93 octane
Xavier Scott
You're confusing AFR and octane here. Rotaries need a rich AFR, but can use a reasonably low octane number. This is because of the seperate exhaust/intake port, which reduces IAT's.
Caleb Smith
They tore down the winning 787b engine after the race for science and determined it was ready to race another 24 hours without repair.
Asher Gomez
No, I know the difference. If you managed to tune a rotary to use low octane fuel without knocking, the output would be so low that it wouldn't be worth it.