Engine animations

Unified Field Theory...duh.

 

Hmmm. Don't hold your breath...

 

Champ wrote

A propellor may be thought of as a rotating wing working along the
lateral axis. Thrust is in fact lift wot is 90 degrees out of touch with
reality. Or some shit like that.

 

Kewl. With mini-bombs?
That would freak out the neighbours (and the AEC).

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#16? FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19

 

I thought they *did* pull, being an aerofoil. I mean, the other word for
them is "airscrew".

 

It's no use.

I sense a definite reluctance on the part of the jap 4 stroke afficianados
to engage in this debate.

I wonder why ;-)

 

What *are* you on about? There is no debate, surely?

Did you not watch any MotoGP races this year?

Yes, you probably do.

 

It's a while since the Norton Rotary was last winning races Dodger

At least I know what I'm wondering about.

 

Who was talking about the Norton Rotary?

If we were, then the Norton was, iirc, rated @ 588cc, making it
ineligible for GP500 racing.

Now, would that make it a 588cc 2 stroke? In which case it'd be too
big. Not that it'd matter, as it made feck all power compared to what
is now needed.

Should they want to compete in MotoGP, they'd have to organise a rule
change, and design a whole new motor.

You must be very happy.

 

Salad Dodger <> spouted the following in

Most of the rest of us in the thread ^ up there ;-)

IIRC (and I'm not an anorak when it comes to racing) There was a 600cc
supersports class which the FIM controlled. They let the 588cc Norton
Wankel in, but when it wiped the floor with the opposition, the
opposition complained so the FIM banned it.

The power to wieght ratio of Wankel engines means it has a big
advantage. If the FIM had accomodated it, maybe it would have been
further developed and be competitive today.

Nah, they just went and won the 1 -2 in the senior TT with it to prove
the point.

<Raises bottle of snecklifter and waves joint at Dodger>

 

tallbloke muttered

He's talking about the Roton GP entry but getting that mixed up with
the Crighton Norton entry in the F1 and British Supercup. Didn't
exactly "wipe the floor" in GP - 1 point in 1991 (in 1 race). As ever
with Norton, what killed a promising bike was erratic and evaporating
financial backing, not the FIM or other teams complaining about it,
whether it was well screwed together or not..

 

Andy Wegg <> spouted the following in

Thanks for putting me straight on the GP and Supercup Andy. If no-one
had complained, perhaps the FIM wouldn't haved banned it. ;-)


Senior TT 1st and 2nd? I guess at least those two bikes were well
screwed together ... and ridden with a passion.

 

Oh, for heavens sake!

Yes, Norton made some fine machines in their time. No, their time isn't
now.

Why bang on *constantly* about the past glories which are all >10 years
old?

Anyone would think it was something important like having seen Bill
Hicks live...

 

spouted the following in

Lol!

<Snips smelly bait>

Take that!

http://www.ttwebsite.com/features/mgp0025.htm

and as for Andy

http://www.jpsnorton.com/results.asp

Hah! Let battle commence!

 

Or "valid points" as we call then in the 21st Century.

An individual is planning to race his Rotary in 2002, is he?

How did he get on?

I note he needed to bolt some Suzuki suspension on it, though.

I must say, 1993 looks *particularly* successful.

I'm sure if HRC made a list of all the events they'd taken part in,
including obscure national championships, and invitation races, they'd
stretch to over a page.

To my mind, if it's a good idea, Honda will a: copy it, b: make it
better than you do, when it comes to racing. If, and it's a big one,
they can see some commercial benefit from it.

 

Salad Dodger <> spouted the following in

Picked up again in '94 though.

Take another look at http://www.jpsnorton.com/results.asp Dodger. mostly
big championships aren't they? To me, it looks like a results record any
bike works team would be proud of.

Suzuki fucked it up with the RE5, the rest got scared....

Well, that never really was the prime mover of the privateer racer I
guess.

I just like the fact that a Norton wankel rotary engined bike was
winning TT's and getting lots of top three placings in the other
championships into the late eighties and early nineties.

And other privateers are still running them competitively to this day.

It's such a neat vibration free design, Injection technology will one
day make them viably fuel efficient I predict. There should be a bright
future for rotary engines as long as they're not bought out and stifled
by the big competitors.

 

tallbloke said....

Suzuki were nearly bankrupted by the development and warranty repair
costs of the RE5, that's why it was never a reliable bike and why Suzuki
gave up on it. It took Norton many years of spending alot of peoples
money to get it to the stage they did.

I have to admit that the Norton Rotary was a fantastic bike, in it's
day. I lusted after a roadgoing JPS Norton F1 I saw in a Letchworth
dealers in 1991.

 

Lozzo wrote

Still do.

 

steve auvache said....

I wouldn't say no if one came along at the right money

 

It wasn't the lighter weight that won it races. It was more the
power-to-rated-capacity equation.

This is certainly true. However, the "dirty" nature of the Wankel means
that it's still a non-starter where bikes are concerned, given modern
emission regs. I think mazda fill the RX series with all sorts of
anti-polluting kit, so it can be done, but on a bike the extra plumbing
would negate the advantages a Wankel has to offer.

Also, the race winning Wankel had a venturi exhaust and was seriously
loud. Street versions with conventional exhausts could never match the
power.

Incidentally, did you know I lurk on alt.2eggs?