DRD-00F

Yes. A 3 month suspension does not count to the total time on the P's. But she said she could already go for her fulls before the incident.

Why are you arguing with a guy called LeCoq?

R33 Greddy Intake Plenum 850cc injectors GT3076R Turbo Actually, PowerFC Datalogit was in there somewhere too... Next stuff is small in comparison.

haha, I said the same thing to myself! There must just be something about us that keeps attracting us to each other PS: Not a ranga, but thanks

Maaan, even I remember this car from a DECA! Was a beautiful machine then and still is! Good luck in whatever venture you decide to take from here! Hope the new owner sticks around the club too!

In my definition yes. In yours, it's just one of the 3 cycles. one of three 1 of 3 1/3 lol we're both right you know, just 2 different ways to look at it.

Right. But MY point is that that entire process is also 1 cycle. Just 1. Instead of 3 different ones, it's just one big one.

Pretty sure that at the end of a suspension (due to loss of all points, not something like speeding on Ps) then you get all the points back. And by pretty sure I mean, it happened to me... the final straw was no P plates Had no license for 3 months, got it back, had all 6 points, got fulls, have all 12 points. Still have all 12 points to this day

I'm sure they don't mind, that's why we hold driver training days like tomorrow!

Hey birds, just one more thing before the weekend... If you were to do a compression test on a rotary, how many degrees would you turn the E shaft? If it's only got 2 ignition chambers it should only need 360 degrees yeah? That's 1 cycle yeah?? Cause a compression test only requires one cycle of the engine, any more and you're repeating yourself... and we all hate that right?

lol, love to! I'm taking a break from this thread over the long weekend... cbf this

Yes, but it ignites that chamber 1000 times per cycle. so 1300L it is! Which I didn't take into account on my 130L rotary aircraft engine hypothesis so that would be like... carry the one... 13 000Ls big engines... I f**ked up.

So I suppose my 2.5L engine should change what it is advertised as depending on what point the pistons are at? Well if that's the case, it will NEVER be 2.5L Total displacement doesn't assume anything. It's how much air moves through the engine in total. That's what total means. Again, not assuming anything. If an engine moves 4L of air, then it's a 4L engine. Why would i have to state if one chamber had different displacement? What if I didn't know, WHAT IF I JUST WANTED TO ASSUME MY CUSTOMERS ALREADY KNEW THIS??? I though that's what you were all about... assumptions. I still honestly believe your idea of a 'cycle' is inherrently flawed. A cycle can involve a smaller cycle, but for a true cycle, it should not differ from the previous, or the next cycle, which yours does. My cycle incorporates your 3 cycles that you mentioned. So while I've done one cycle, and could do a billion more that are EXACTLY THE SAME, you've done 3, all of which are different. That's hardly a cycle. For simplicities sake, I was focussing on one chamber. As long as it has one, it could have 5 more and make little to no difference. Again, just talking about a single chamber... stay with me. And to be honest, these are pretty simple machines. Whatever screen you're looking at RIGHT NOW is a much more complicated machine then these engines.

Why the f**k would only one ignite with 200 spark plugs? All 100 would be igniting at the same time, then the massive 100 sided rotor would move on to the next one, take in gas, compress, ignite, expell, repeat. it will have to do that 100 times til it gets back to the first 'ignition chamber'. I'm not so sure you got that right...

I've got a better question! Imagine a plane engine, nice and round. Imagine a 100 face rotor inside a round block, and it does it's awesome orbit/rotation thing, but cause it has 100 faces, there are 100 intakes, 200 spark plugs and 100 exhaust ports! It's moving quite slowly around and around... Quite a feat to imagine, but it could indeed work. Now, with it's 100 chambers, would this be a 1.3L engine? Would you rate it on a single chamber, or times it by how many there are to get 130Ls? Or would you be stubborn and just say "It's a 1.3L... but because it's a rotory, let me teach you on how it works and why I now have to state there are 100 chambers... you see, 4 score and 7 years ago..........."

Yes it would, cause the 'cycle' would now be twice as long. You would have the cycle with the first face, then the cycle with the second face. add them together in a loop and you get ONE FULL CYCLE! But then of course motorsport would have to DIVIDE to make it FAIR when racing other cars cause this happens in 1440 degrees.

I don't care how it affects it while it's running, that comes down to too many variables (fuel type, boost pressure etc) all I care about is how much can fit in the cylinders. Say you bored out 4 of 6 piston chambers and had oversized pistons, would you equate the total amount of air it can hold, or average it? If you say average it, then you're simply wrong. It's not something any mechanic would put into practice. Displacement is a simple measure of amount. It doesn't waver because the instrument it's in isn't performing that well. Your description of a 204L engine being labeled a 68L engine cause it 'performs like one' is a load of rubbish. So as engines get older, their displacement is automatically decresed comparative to performance? Instead of this 1.3/1.3/1.4 rotary engine, why not just be simple and say 4.0L? It's like taking a snapshot of an engine and saying that RIGHT NOW it's 1.2L, but if we move the film forward 3 frames, the engine magically turns into a 1.3L! I'm not using piston science, I'm not a mechanic. I'm using simple logic. Compression is still compression, it doesn't matter if it's rolled or pushed, they are still forces acting upon maluable matter to decrease the amount of space it has to take up. It's the same. Ignition is still ignition, it's a spark igniting combusatble substances. Where and how many there are doesn't mean shit. Hence why people can take out 1 of the spark plugs in the rotary. It's the same. And you are clutching at straws with this one. Again, I'm not taking piston engine science, I'm taking internal combustion science and applying. To be honest Birds, you are picking out the finest of details... saying compresseing air by pushing it or rolling it is so immensly different that there is no means for comparison, yet the same thing happens to the same stuff to get the same outcome. That's input, action and output. I really don't understand how you think that compressing air in 2 different ways is so different that it's incomparable. I'm ignoring the fact here that if you were to push a round object, it would roll. Which I shouldn't cause it's proof that sometimes these 2 IMPOSSIBLY DIFFERENT ACTIONS have no choice but to be the same damn thing...

Also Birds, it doesn't matter if a 204L engine performs like a rocket ship or a tonka truck, it's still a 204L engine. Performance has variables that aren't defined by the engine.

A 6 cylinder isn't firing all its cylinders at the same time either, why do we wait til they are all done in a piston engine, but divide it in the rotary engine? Surely some kind of even and fair middle ground, one that was already in place CEMENTER IN HISTORY for several years would have been a better way to go about things then to make up your own way of doing it. And don't say it's cause the rotary is so different, we've proved more then once that it can and does fit into the same boundaries as piston engines. Yes it does have the same inputs and outputs. Is this the only thing you can compare? NO! what about compression? what about ignition? spark plugs? fuel? oil? rotational power? Like I said, the engines are very similar. They take the same stuff in, use the same process to gain power, then throw the same stuff out and finish with the same result. Why, if it is doing so much the same, is it such an impossibilty to compare HOW MUCH of the stuff gets put in? Reply to bold bit: So if we can ONLY compare that a rotary and a piston use air and fuel and expell CO2, how does the rotary come about doing such a thing? I know piston engines use the otto cycle, and that can't be the same as to what's in the rotary engines otherwise we could compare them. So, Birds, how does a rotary change air and fuel into CO2 without the otto cycle?

A 6 stroke is when on after combustion and exhaust in a 4 stroke engine, water is shot into the bore and the heat makes it steam, which makes it expand, which continues the stroke of the piston. This also helps to dissipate heat and saves fuel.

Well done Jez, that's how I saw it a while ago. My definition is obviously the fact that a cycle incorporates 360 degrees of the rotor. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, it's 1/3rd of a cycle, requiring 2 more to get back to where it was.

Yes it happens in one spot, but the medium by which it happens (the rotor face) is DIFFERENT until it comes full cirlce. This, to me, is a CYCLE. It has a beginning, and the end comes FULL CYCLE back to where it was, and starts over again. That's a cirlce, that's a cycle, that's a loop... call it what you want. Are you denying that what I just described is not the most perfect measurment of a cycle in the rotary engine? It's done 100% of what it possibly can, and started at exactly the same spot again. Why would you average it? You don't average the airflow between twin turbos, that's stupid. You add them together. If, for some reason, like above, one chamber held more air then the rest, when you did a flow test, you would physically SEE that! What if you had one chamber that was 3L and the others were 2L? Is it a 7L engine, or a 2.333333333333L engine? If you're having to divide this and that by that and this then you haven't included all the variables (rotor faces/combustion chambers). I tried The Price is Right first, they don't have a wheel Yes you can, and it's been done. And it's not all that different. It uses the same ideals with the same intake medium, outputs the same medium, creates the same rotational force, is used in the same fashion to create the same outcome. It even does all this in the same way (otto cycle). Doesn't matter if you stand on the scales or sit on the scales, you're still going to get your weight. If you want to talk different internal combustion engines, write an essay on the Brayton cycle.

Sometimes things have to be advertised as clearly as possible so there can be no mistakes made (and no 36 page threads about it either). You're only thinking in 2D. Yes the X and Y values will be the same, but the rotation value of Z will be different. And since we're discussing something that both elipses and rotates, you would think that might just be important. Like I've said before, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree that it's the most logical or fair way to judge things. A full rotation is a full rotation, there should be no 'muddy water' there, but alas, there is. This is why I am on the side of a 3.9L pump as it shows how much it pumps in one repeatable cycle. Imagine you had a chip or a score on one side of the rotor, so that 2 of the sides calculate out 1.3L of air, but the other makes it to 1.4L. What would you say then? Oh, it's a 1.3L engine, 66% of the time, every third time it will be 1.4L. Wouldn't it be more logical to just say it's a 4.0L engine?

Hey Jez, was it you that was saying that if the eccentric shaft moves 360 degrees then the rotary is in the exact same position? You said it would be EXACTLY the same. Well it's not, it's VERY SIMILAR, but it's not the same rotor side, as was shown in rice racings pictures that had the walls labeled. I honestly don't get how you can truely believe that there is only 1 side on a triangle. This is pretty basic stuff here. The way I see what you're saying is that if you rotate this gear an amount of P then it will be EXACTLY as it was before, doing a full revolution and coming back to its original state. yeah no... Just cause the gears teeth are in the same spot, it doesn't mean it's as it was. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that one full rotation of the Wheel of Fortune is just from $800 to bankrupt? To be honest, if we're arguing about things like this, then it's never going to be settled.

So if you have formulas for inside of motorsport to make it fair, not having formulas outside of motorsport would make it unfair, correct? It's like an opposites thing. Surely you know what opposites are. You know, inside and outside? Opposites? Birds, you have way too much faith in the general public if you expect them to compare every single thing in a car with the giving stats, except the engine. Which just happens to be the most important part.