QuagmireMan

wouldnt a smaller rotor be a better design, fire is basically gonna burn at the same speed and if the are was smaller it would be more effient in my mind. then we could have 4, 5, or even 6 rotor engines (yes i know they already have 4 rotor engines)! i think it would be more effecient of an engine, but there would have to be a different body design or a narrower rotor. i just think if its smaller it would be much more efficient.

comments please

kabooski

sure try it out

would 10A rotors suffice?

QuagmireMan

if i had the resources i would

Jeff20B

iTrader: (13)

10A rotors would be too tall and thin. I think 10A width with a shorter rotor face is what you're thinking of. Basically, a scaled-down 13B rotor.

Then again, the 'stroke' would also be shorter, and the E shaft would also have smaller lobes or whatever. It would obviously have less torque.

QuagmireMan

it wouldnt have less torque if their were 6 rotors

QuagmireMan

plus you dont have as high centrifical force since its lighter, so you could go higher on the rpms !!!

carx7

iTrader: (31)

I think lenght really gets to be an issue with the "more rotors" concept

QuagmireMan

bah, you would just have a shorter drive shaft, and the body would sit a bit higher

scathcart

How about... Cost?

I think we need to start a "pipe dreams" subforum.

88IntegraLS

Leave it to scathcart to crash a newbies dreams!



Pipe dream forum, that's a good idea.

Mr BiG G

can't u just lengthen the front end to fit a 4/6 rotor?

Scalliwag

My thoughts are also the loss of torque. As far as higher RPM with the lower torque less rotational mass theory? Hell Ken Scheepers launches at up to 11k rpm's.
I would like to see more power at lower rpm's which takes us into the opposite direction. The last thing the drive train needs is higher rpm's against it.
Ken broke his spool in his 8.8 rear and even broke the G-Force tranny. I doubt that many people in this discussion has a heavier duty drivetrain than Ken. So even though you could get more rpm's would not neccesarily be a good thing.
So to make a rotary proporionally larger would be better IMHO. An extra thought with that idea is that it gives you more room to play with intake and exhaust ports and timing.
And while you are doing this mind bogglingly expensive project please make the side plates with side exhaust ports but don't siamese them like on the renesis.

As a matter of fact I would like to see a bigger version/ higher torque rotary motor in a sport pickup.... a little 4WD pickup
Hey if we are talking about "pipe dreams"

pinkfloyd

yes it would be better. smaller is better. no Doubt about it. if i had a **** load of money i would find a way to make a 3-4L 12 rotor. or something like that. its just like Pistons, the Indy cars have 3L v12 in Germany. They put out like 500 or so hp. And have a red line of like 16 grand.

Scalliwag

Ah, no it would not be neccesarily better, no doubt about it If your theory was right then the NHRA Top Fuel Dragsters would be running weedeater motors. Try selling that idea to them. Or the motocross circuit would have faster bikes in the 125cc class than the 500cc class if smaller was better.
If you don't mind taking all day to reach peak power then less torque is great.

It does not matter how many rotors you add to it if your torque is low. Everytime you add a rotor you equally multiply weight the entire equation. It does add to power but the horsepower to weight ratio of the motor remains constant.
There are different applications where one is traded out over the other. Lower torque is only good for top end and really high torque is great for monster trucks (but they better have a lot of mass to maintain it)
Finding the balance of engine size, torque, and hp is the trick and there is not a one size fits all.

scathcart

Sometimes people need a subtle dose of reality.

I am not subtle.

Kenku

Y'know, actually, this makes me wonder. Would a 2-liter rotary make more power with 3 13B rotors or 4 10A rotors?

I mean, aside from the fact that an engine based off of 4 10A rotors would impress the hell out of people.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

how about changing the stationary gearing? its 3:1 now if you made it 2:1 you'd get more low end....

QuagmireMan

i said IDEA not MAKING i know how much the simplest of engines cost, its insane thats why they (engine designers/ auto makers) try to keep the engine around as long as possible.

Scalliwag

It's great to think out loud. The Wankel itself was such a bizarre idea that it was discounted by far more people than it was accepted by. It's almost as though it's whole purpose on earth is to completely go against the grain of normalcy.
Even as long as it has been around they recently made a drastic change with side port exhaust. This is the only time in my life I have ever seen a change that made a dramatic increase in power and cleaner emmissions.
Somebody had an idea there that I guaranty you even outdid their expectations. I would have loved to be at Mazda's R&D when they tested that (Renesis) the first time
Take what people say with a grain of salt. You may be the next Wankel for all we know The harshest critics are usually the ones that sit on their *** and have never had an original idea in their life

QuagmireMan

word dude, word

Steel

err... no.

rockshox

iTrader: (3)

i think narrowing the rotor too much would make the shape of the combustion chamber even worse. the wankel is already very bad in this respect. the flame just doesnt propagate well in long and narrow spaces.

ScrapFC

iTrader: (5)

I can see the perfect use for smaller rotors. It's not so you can pack more rotors under the hood. Scalliwag's right: If we're talking about changing the rotor geometry for an automotive application, we'd be better off making a "big bore" rotory with fatter torque. We can figure out how to get a 9-10K redline out of it later.
The real reason for coming up with smaller displacement rotories is for BIKES!! The bike world is seriously lacking for wankel lovin'. I think Norton came closest in the early 90s with their F1. (In fact, their design would probably make a good jumping-off point...) I don't see why we couldn't have a 500cc 2-rotor with a 18-20K redline. (Aside from the ridiculous R&D costs, anyway.) Bike trannies love that.
Yay pipe dreams!

wwilliam54

i still think a 15a based off of 3 10a rotors would be the best comination of torque and hp

or a 20c with 4 rotors, smoooth and not too big

Scalliwag

less problems with the apex seals if you can get more power at lower rpm's also.
But if you insist on higher rpm's use needle bearings in the rotors and mains and you could make a torque monster that would spin up high and fast Then everybody would be happy especially on "dyno day"