Smity42

oh noes! one of the rocker stoppers snapped!

those rocker stopper arms do do wonders:

rear admiral joe tried a mountain run too

tristans next birthday cake:

i reckon we need one of these actually

Oh that's rude, I start half the shit on here In other news, Bee*R love . My flatshifting circuit isn't working properly though . Need to troubleshoot it but can't be arsed today Also, S13 towing a 33:

haven't watched that one for ages, but can't be any worse than the shit i just tried to watch

I'm bored too, so i've decided to hook up my Bee*R. Dead turbo here we come... P.S. The office US is shit

Mountain Run? Outrageous! Can't wait! Damn fine, for an older gal

not for another month mang

John, surely she can't be visiting ALL your little pieces of JB?

yay finally paid off the f**king tax man

lol

remember thristan dirty SR is only a 4 banger so will need about 50% more injector for the same power Edit: Though danskis probably aren't anywhere near maxed out yet anyway

Agreed Good question, if we could answer that we could settle this capacity debate Please see my other posts on why it ISN'T a 2 stroke. You are getting it towards the end there, it IS LIKE a 2 stroke, but isn't a 2 stroke. But, when we measure a 2 stroke, we only measure the part of the chamber that is combusted by the 'ignition' step (ie the top half of the chamber. If we are going to measure all 3 faces of a rotary to count the capacity, shouldn't we do the same for a 2 stroke? Please note: I still agree with you that 3.9 is MORE accurate, imo. But I can see the other side of the argument. Agreed Capacity should NEVER depend on the number of 'combustion mediums'. A 6 piston engine with 0.5L per piston is 3L, and a 12 piston engine with 0.25L per piston is 3L. A 6 stroke would be a theoretical piston engine that takes 6 strokes of the piston to complete its thermodynamic cycle. I can't see any way of making this work with an otto cycle, but so what? its a theoretical comparison. And probably the best one if you want to compare a rotary to a piston engine.

How about each face of the rotor performing all 4 steps of the otto cycle in order? Seems to fit that pretty well. I've never tried to call it a 4 stroke however. I have said many times, it is neither. IT IS DIFFERENT. It doesnt even have pistons! No we don't or we'd get double the capacity. Another reason why you shouldn't call a rotor a 2 stroke. ITS DIFFERENT!!!!! You have the same problem when trying to call it a 3.9L 2 stroke or the equivalent of a 7.8L 4 stroke. That physics just doesnt add up. And how does a rotary do 2 strokes again? Oh it doesn't. It just does 1 cycle, which is EQUIVALENT, but not THE SAME as 2 strokes of a piston. I'll give you that they all do the otto cycle. Thats pretty obvious. But face of the rotor does all 4 parts of the otto cycle. Each face of the piston in a 2 stroke DOESN'T. Oh look, another difference. In fact, thats that unique 4 stroke charactaristic again. What if I want to define them that way? That would make it a 4 stroke. Oh, I can't, thats not the definition. well, Neither can you just define it how you feel like either. http://www.answers.com/topic/two-stroke-cycle http://www.yourdictionary.com/two-stroke http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&...on&ct=title http://dictionary.babylon.com/two-stroke http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/two-stroke http://www.allwords.com/word-two-stroke.html http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/two-stroke A 2 stroke, BY DEFINITION, is a piston engine. Set theory again: 2 strokes are a '1 cycle' engine (if 1 cycle = piston up + down) 4 strokes are a '2 cycle' engine (if 1 cycle = piston up + down) wankels are a '1 cycle' engine (if 1 cycle = 1 rotation of the piston) so, wankels and 2 strokes are both SUBSETS of the SET '1 cycle' motors. But this does not mean Wankel = 2 stroke. Eg. 3 is an odd number. 5 is an odd number. But 3 is not the same as 5. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. PLEASE STOP CALLING WANKELS A 2 STROKE You can call it a 1 cycle if you like. You can say its SIMILAR to a 2 stroke if you like. If you can reference me ONE definition of a 2 stroke engine that doesn't refer to pistons, I'll happily revisit this argument. On the capacity argument, I am happy to let you call it a 3.9L wankel. I think that is accurate. But that is NOT THE SAME as a 3.9L 2 stroke!!!!!! I can also see the other side of the argument where 1.3L is derived from too. I personally think a 3.9L is more accurate, for all the reasons you have outlined. But again, that 3.9L is NOT THE SAME as a 3.9L 2 stroke

But we don't call them a once-cycle, we call them a 2 stroke. And you are not trying to call it a one-cycle, you are trying to call it a 2 stroke/cycle. As I have said before, if you want to call it a 1 cycle, please go right ahead, as this is accurate. But please stop calling it a 2 stroke, as this is not accurate.

Please re-read my earlier posts. That is a characteristic of a 2 stroke, not the definition of one. Please note AGAIN. I am not calling it a 4 stroke. It isn't. Nor is it a 2 stroke. Its a wankel. You are doing the exact opposite. You can't call it a 2 stroke and then count all 3/3rds of the combustion process. If you want to compare it to a 2 stroke, you can only look at that 1/3rd of the combustion chamber that actually combusts, and you have to call it a 1.3L. In the same way when we measure a 2 strokes capacity, we only look at 1/2 of the combustion chamber. If we looked at the whole lot, we'd have to double 2 stroke capacity

And its not even close to the equivalent of a 3.9L 2 stroke... Thats just wrong SYDNEYKID, you seem to love calling it a 2 stroke/cycle. IN WHAT WAY DOES 2 CYCLES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ROTORS COMBUSTION PROCESS? It completes its combustion process in ONE cycle of the rotor, NOT TWO

Actually I like that, and it explains why we only count 1 side of the piston when looking at a 2 stroke

Boats don't have brakes

YEESSS!!!!! DOOOO ITT!!!!! John, one for you: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,...5014239,00.html For the record though, I hate iPhones

danski's new hi flow cat vs thristans ride:

thristans ride:

where you at? May be interested in the pump