Why Do Rotaries Suck?

[DRD-00F]

That's been said like 3 times in this thread...

and that's where the displacement classification problem stems from...

a 2 stroke does 360 to complete its cycle and come back to the exact same position

a 4 stroke does 720 to complete its cycle and come back to the exact same position

a rotary does *** to complete its cycle and come back to the exact same position

so how many is it? I say 1080 as that matches up all rotor faces into the same position it was when it started, others say 360 as they don't think it matters WHICH rotor face is where cause they're all identical twins or some shit...

[Marcus89]

with the whole displacement debate if your trying to compare the 2 motors (which has already been stated as a pointless exercise and has turned this thread into almost 50 pages now) i would go with the rotary being equivalent to a 2.6l piston motor as that makes me the most sense to me by the facts that have been stated.

[Birds]

Excellent! So we all agree it's a Wankel and nothing else!?!?!?! I'm happy with that. As Doof said the cycles and turns thing has already been said heaps in this thread. This information is nothing new; it didn't work 40 pages ago it won't work all of a sudden. People are still divided on what constitutes a complete cycle of the rotary. And people are still divided on what constitutes an engine revolution. All you can actually do is use equivalence and relatives in motorsport for working out classes, which is already being done anyway, so that's nice and settled.

P.S. Doof, others say the different face matters because even though the rotor is in the same position the new face magically brings with it another 1.3 litres worth of engine displacement...or is that just another 1.3 litres of air/fuel mix to combust in the single combustion chamber?

[JayTay]

GT-R32 - the RPM crack was a gee up, pure and simple.

Birds - I think you're making a rotary to be a far more complicated thing than it is, an internal combustion engine. You say that you have to counter my argument about using piston engine terminology because I used it first. Not really the greatest way to debate a point. The fact is it works on the same principles as a piston engine.

Of course it's not the same type of engine, no-one ever suggested that. The principles are however the same. I know that you understand how engines work, I also know that a number of pages ago you admitted to being completely unable to let go of a point once you start arguing it.

There are many things in scienctific fields that while not identical, have enough similarity that an equivalence of operation or structure can be drawn.

Rotary vs. Piston is not apples compared to granite. The points of a cycle in a rotary can be correspondingly mapped to a piston engine's cycle of operation. If you disagree with this, you disagree with how any engine operates. When you map the points corresponding to one another the twin rotary mimics the operation of a six cylinder engine. (did not use the word two stroke) Six ignition events in a twin rotor after a COMPLETE cycle - six ignition events in a 6 cylinder after a COMPLETE cycle.

I do hope you don't disagree with this, because if you do, I will know for sure you are taking the p!ss and trying to throw rocks at the hive for giggles. I think that's what Jez13 is doing.

If you do disagree...... well, I offer this.

CAMS, FIA, and any other motor racing bodies you could car to name, who have promoted a handicapping system for rotary competition, almost certainly agree that the displacement of a 13b rotary is 3.9 litres.

The only way, mathematically and logically, to approach a figure of between 1.6 and 2 times the specified manufacturer capacity of a rotary (for a 13b - ~2.1-2.6 Litres) is as follows.

**PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY AND THINK ABOUT IT, IT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE.**

1. One complete cycle of a 13b, yields six ignition events. each one of these events occurs in a combustion chamber with a displacement of 654cc. So in one full cycle the motor DISPLACES 3.9 litres of capacity. Please consider the word DISPLACES carefully.

2. A Rotary engine MUST go through 1080 degrees to complete ONE full combustion cycle, with the specific face at inlet returned to the exact same point within 3 dimensions after this 1080 degree rotation/cycle. (Please dont argue the semantics of the words i have chosen, ie. rotation/cycle, i know how then engine works and you know what i mean.)

3. In motor racing, a comparable two stroke motor when pitched against a four stroke motor will have half the capacity of the four stroke. This is evident in MotoGP, probably the only motorsport series any of us could name that had the two different styles of engine in direct competition with one another.

4. To compare a four stroke, to what many would refer to as a six stroke, (this is the rotary, this acknowledges the 1080 degrees of rotation to complete a FULL cycle) the ratio for comparison is no longer a doubling as the stroke count increases, but an increase of 4 : 6 or to simplify 2:3.

Now, let's put what we all seem to agree on together.

When a full cycle of a 13b rotor engine occurs, displacing 3.9 Litres over a complete cycle, which in itself, encompasses 1080 degrees of rotation to complete, which, is at a ratio of 3:2 when compared to a 4 stroke piston engines rotation completing a full combustion cycle, we apply the ratio of 2:3 to the figure of 3.9, which can be accomplished by multiplying by .66 recurring, or dividing by the inverse of the ratio 1.5.

Drum roll, what do we have here?

That's right 2.6 Litres.

It is indisputable that rotaries have inherent inefficiencies, it is largely agreed that these encouraged motor racing bodies to adopt a capacity penalty of anywhere up to 20% to competing four stroke engines.

Adjust for this?

2.08 Litres

So there it is. Mathematically and logically you cannot reach the figures any other way.

I don't KNOW that this is why motor racing bodies reached the conclusion over relative classes for rotary engined vehicles, but I would be willing to bet the house on it. As it is the only logical possibility.

I am asking that those who wish to continue to argue the displacement of a rotary engine over one complete combustion cycle please read this carefully and dismiss it out of hand because you have reached a different conclusion to me. I have offered you the same courtesy by reading the entire thread last night and being grumpy at work today.

To misquote Fight Club "Listen, don't just wait for your turn to speak".

If you still wanna argue displacement after that frigging rant i just did, try these topics on for size:

The sky is not blue (blue is relative to my perception of it)

Evolution and fossil records are false (God put them there to test our faith/The scientists lied because it would put them out of a job)

etc.

I think that's about it, hopefully for good, but most likely for now. Going to go and hit my head against a wall for an hour or two.

Peace.

Jesse.

Edited January 8, 2010 by JayTay

[Birds]

You expect me to listen to your examples when you don't bother addressing mine? Heed your own advice from Fight Club...go back, read my post and reply to the points I made instead of just restating yours as if that's a valid argument. I had the decency to address your points, all you've done here is ignore them and restate your position on it. Saying that I must be taking the piss just because I disagree is silly. That's right, your opinion is the only factual one lol.

Hurt your head writing such a long post? I've done it about 20-25 times throughout this thread. Welcome to the rotary thread. Why do you think that you are writing something new that hasn't been presented before in this thread? I've read it all before.

All you are doing here is what everyone else in this thread has done; trying to pass off their own opinion as indisputable fact. "A Rotary engine MUST go through 1080 degrees to complete ONE full combustion cycle." How about NO? I disagree with that. Why you feel the need to put that down as if it were well known fact is beyond me. Can't we agree to disagree on this sh**? Why does there have to be a definitive answer to this? Atleast my opinion acknowledges there are no certainties, beyond equivalences, to measuring and applying rotary theory due to difference. Thus far all I've seen from opponents in this debate is someone passing off their piston powered opinion as indisputable fact.

[GT-R32]

Cool so it pretty well looks like we all agree, LOL.

[N I B]

Rotors Suck because I hate them! Thats all. Nothing intelligent.

[JayTay]

Hey birds, re-read through a few of your posts and came across this gem on the last page:

Racing classes are what half of this debate was about so let's not ignore that at all...the point of me comparing a two stroke piston to a four stroke piston is a flawless example of how we use measures of displacement outside of the everyday 4 stroke piston engine. Converting a 1.3 litre rotary engine to a 3.9 litre just so you can understand how a rotary's displacement works in piston engine terms is worthy of a childrens picture book. It is no different to saying a 1 litre two stroke is really a 2 litre because it completes twice as many combustion cycles in the same time as a four stroke...how ridiculous does that sound? In motorsport we use equivalence but we don't actually say the engine is really 2 litres when it's really 1 litre two stroke! And I'm not comparing rotaries to pistons here, it's piston to piston. If you so much as think of a piston engine when you're deciding rotary capacity for yourself then you're guilty of pistonism and suffering from a severe case of pistonitis.

No misqouting, no out of context, just read what you have written and apply it to what i said about the classes that rotary engined cars are placed in for motorsports competition, and the way in which this figure is arrived at.

When you look at the relative classes for rotary engined vehicles there is no way that any of the major motorsports bodies agree that a Rotary engine is classed as being in any way comparable to a 1.3 litre piston engine, couple this with the knowledge that rotaries have inherent inefficiencies when compared to piston engines it becomes clear as day that the displacement COULD NOT be 1.3 litres.

If by some miracle the design of a rotary allowed the engine to be twice as efficient as its piston counterparts, then yes. I would absolutely concede that the displacement of a rotary is 1.3 based on the equivalent displacement class of 2.6 for piston engines.

Everyone knows this is not the case though.

If it was, every car maker on earth would adopt a rotary engine as standard and pistons would be completely obsolete. You know this.

Furthermore proof you will discount by not addressing in your weak retorts:

Taken directly from the ATO website:

Rates per business kilometre

Engine capacity Cents per kilometre

Ordinary car Rotary engine car

1600cc (1.6 litre) 800cc (.8 Litre) 63

or less or less

1601cc - 2600cc 801cc - 1300cc 74

(1.601 litre - 2.6 litre) (0.801 litre - 1.3 litre)

2601cc (2.601 litre) 1301cc (1.301 litre) 75

and over and over

Link:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content....mp;st=&cy=1

Interestingly, when the government assess the relative capacity of a rotary engine to a piston engine they apply THE EXACT SAME THEORY as CAMS, FIA etc.

The very same one I wrote down in the plainest terms possible so you might have a hope of understanding it.

When you want to argue back again address this point as I just addressed one of your major earlier ones as you asked me to, and oh hey, handed it right back to you with a creamy dollop of logic sauce.

I thought when I started replying to this thread you were relatively intelligent, but I'm starting to seriously question that.

Here's one last question for you, as you seem to love ridiculous hypotheticals.

If HYPOTHETICALLY the rotor was static and the housings maintained the elliptical rotation around it would you finally feel more comfortable about admitting the true displacement?

Dont just address this last point either, your subjective selection of facts is getting tiresome and desperate.

[Birds]

Mudslinging will get you nowhere so stick to the facts instead of trying to dumb me down with remarks...calling me unintelligent, WTF is that shit? If you wanna base my intelligence on a single online discussion with me I guess that's your perogative but it's pretty narrow minded in my opinion. Anyway, you accuse me of selecting facts and not addressing your points? Mate I'm still waiting for replies to mine. Why should I start on your fresh ammunition, which for most part was actually just a reiteration of the old, when my old points haven't even been challenged yet. When did I ever say a rotary was equivalent to a 1.3 litre piston engine? Sure you're not mistaking me for someone else? How closely did you actually read through this thread? Sounds like a skim job to me. I've maintained the whole time throughout this thread that it should be classed with a 2.6 litre piston engine at the most. And they are inefficient engines. That's right, I'm in agreeance with the ATO and the racing bodies about where it should be classed. What I don't agree with is your displacement theory which discounts the fact other engine configurations, like two stroke piston engines for example, can have the same displacement as a four stroke yet produce twice the power strokes and yet not be the engine of choice for car manufacturer due to engine emissions/inefficiencies/outputs. This is the same sort of theory Mazda and I apply to the rotary when we refer to it as 1.3 litre engine. It's a different configuration; displacement is used differently and like the two stroke piston engine it can have something of a deceptive feel to it when someone who has only ever known four stroke piston engines glances upon 1.3 litres and feels cheated by it. The same people get caught out thinking Aprilia RS250's are slow learner bikes.

As for your hypothetical, well while I'm still waiting on a reply to mine...I won't call yours ridiculous, I'm far too open minded to say that and it's definitely an interesting way of looking at the engine. It doesn't change anything though: housings rotating around the rotor...combustion still occurs in the same single chamber (i.e. the one with spark plugs going into it), no matter what position around the rotor those housings may be.

[JayTay]

Fair call on the unintelligent comment, it was a dick move on my part and contributes nothing to the discussion.

I was hungover and grumpy yesterday.

If I can address the points you are making in that last post?

I've maintained the whole time throughout this thread that it should be classed with a 2.6 litre piston engine at the most

This is good, in terms of capacity with respect to racing we are in agreement on this point, I understand you disagree with my displacement theory, and yes, it's just a theory and not indisputable proof. If you disagree I ask you to come up with an alternative method to arrive at the 2.6 figure so widely agreed on as being equal to a 13b twin rotor engine. It must be mathematically and logically sound.

And they are inefficient engines. That's right, I'm in agreeance with the ATO and the racing bodies about where it should be classed.

Cool, so we both agree they have inherent inefficiencies. When this is applied to motor racing it is what has caused arganisations to increase capacity penalties against equivalent 4 stroke motors from 2.6 anywhere down to 2.1.

What I don't agree with is your displacement theory which discounts the fact other engine configurations, like two stroke piston engines for example, can have the same displacement as a four stroke yet produce twice the power strokes and yet not be the engine of choice for car manufacturer due to engine emissions/inefficiencies/outputs.

This is where I think we are reaching the standoff. For starters, no-one from the general public, and even very few car nuts would tolerate a two stroke car engine. Regular rebuilds and a lack of reliability, coupled with high emissions and the need to mix your own fuel would be enough coffin nails to keep it down for good.

As best as I can see, your argument is that a rotary only takes 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle. I have read your posts closely as I do want to understand what your opinion is based on. I think this seems to be it. If I am wrong in this assumption please let me know, as obviously you would know what you're thinking better than i do.

If this is the case of taking 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle, then when assessing relative capacity for equivalence to 4 stroke engines in competition it would pit a 13b against a 654cc 4 stroke. And that would just be silly. By the same argument it would pit it against a 327cc two stroke. Silly again.

To continue this comparison, without allowing for inefficency penalties (ie 2.6 litre 4 stroke vs 13b rotary) what displacement class for a 2 stroke would you apply for rotary equivalence? I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar you'd say 1.3 litres.

The idea of deceptive power from a relatively low displacement is true, however cannot be applied to rotary engines without admitting they are a two stroke design, which, coincidentally would be the only other mathematically sound way i could see to reach an equivalent capacity figure of 2.6 litres for competition with four strokes.

I think at this stage we all know that rotary engines aren't a two stroke piston engine. Despite sharing a great deal of similarities, they are something else entirely. I think this has been one of your major arguments for comparison.

As for the RS250, couldn't agree more, would love one of those stinky little chainsaws to thrash around.

So yeah, really interested to hear your reply, as I think we're actually starting to understand how each other is thinking about this.

Apologies for any non productive slurs that (with apologies to SK) "muddy" the topic.

Cheers,

Jesse

[JayTay]

Also just found this while looking further into rotaries and calculations applied.

Pretty much bang on with what I'm saying, but has pretty pictures i lack the skill or inclination to create.

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html

PLUS it's a rotary site, so I'm sure all the rotor fanboys (not directed at you birds) will shrink faster than doodles in the antarctic.

Note the part where they admit the six faces each with a displacement of 40ci (654cc) do equal 3.9L or 240ci through a complete thermodynamic (combustion) cycle.

This is what I'm saying. A rotary displaces 3.9 litres through a combustion cycle. It is comparable to a 2.6 litre 4 stroke inefficiencies notwithstanding.

On a side not I came across this while looking into the firing order of the rotors relative to one another and it states that the rotors are 180 degrees offset from one another in the twin rotor 13b. Interestingly, through application of the flawed logic that you can only count the area where combustion is occuring at in the motor, a 13b is actually a 654cc motor as only one combustion chamber exists at any one time.

[PM-R33]

Ladies and gentleman, looks like this thread is back in action

[PM-R33]

*double post*

Edited January 10, 2010 by PM-R33

[JayTay]

And boy am I sorry for doing it. I'm just a nerd, who has learnt a lot from it and wanted to contribute something. (read as: shout opinions in a consequence free environment)

Thank god for forums ey?

[Birds]

*56k warning*

To make this easier to read I've put my responses in bold for your first post

Fair call on the unintelligent comment, it was a dick move on my part and contributes nothing to the discussion.

I was hungover and grumpy yesterday. Apology accepted!

If I can address the points you are making in that last post?

This is good, in terms of capacity with respect to racing we are in agreement on this point, I understand you disagree with my displacement theory, and yes, it's just a theory and not indisputable proof. If you disagree I ask you to come up with an alternative method to arrive at the 2.6 figure so widely agreed on as being equal to a 13b twin rotor engine. It must be mathematically and logically sound. See response to your other post below.

Cool, so we both agree they have inherent inefficiencies. When this is applied to motor racing it is what has caused arganisations to increase capacity penalties against equivalent 4 stroke motors from 2.6 anywhere down to 2.1. Agreed.

This is where I think we are reaching the standoff. For starters, no-one from the general public, and even very few car nuts would tolerate a two stroke car engine. Regular rebuilds and a lack of reliability, coupled with high emissions and the need to mix your own fuel would be enough coffin nails to keep it down for good. I think you misread me again because I stated "two stroke piston engines for example, can have the same displacement as a four stroke yet produce twice the power strokes and yet not be the engine of choice for car manufacturer due to engine emissions/inefficiencies/outputs", i.e. 2 strokes aren't popular (read: next to no use) in mainstream cars just like rotaries. In other words, in agreeance with what you just said.

As best as I can see, your argument is that a rotary only takes 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle. I have read your posts closely as I do want to understand what your opinion is based on. I think this seems to be it. If I am wrong in this assumption please let me know, as obviously you would know what you're thinking better than i do. You are correct in your assumption, I believe that in 360 degrees worth of eccentric shaft rotation the rotor housing has completed a single combustion cycle. One example of my rationale for this is that hypothetically (here's another one) if you were to put only one 654cc shot worth of air/fuel mix through one of the rotor housings, it would go through the complete otto cycle in 360 degrees of rotation with no more air/fuel needed to do so...and the only combustion chamber inside the housing has has produced a single power stroke...thus a combustion cycle has been completed. We can't possibly call this 1/3 of a combustion cycle, when the otto cycle has been completed with 360 degrees of shaft rotation. The animation on the rotary website you posted in your following post is good at demonstrating this. Add another 654cc shot of air/fuel mix straight after the previous shot and all the engine does is start completing another power stroke in another 360 degrees...because it can...the rotary is a fast cycling engine. You can see in the animations on that website that the crankshafts are moving at the same speeds yet the liquids/gases are moving through the rotary housing twice as fast as in the four stroke engine.

If this is the case of taking 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle, then when assessing relative capacity for equivalence to 4 stroke engines in competition it would pit a 13b against a 654cc 4 stroke. And that would just be silly. By the same argument it would pit it against a 327cc two stroke. Silly again. Nah it's the other way around...when assessing for relative capacity it pits a 13B against a 2.6 litre 4 stroke because we are recognising the four stroke requires twice the crankshaft travel/rotation as the rotary to complete its power strokes in all cylinders / combustion chambers so we give the four stroke twice the displacement to make up for this. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question, I didn't totally understand this one at first...only arrived at that response by assuming you did the 360/720 degree equation around the wrong way and halved the rotary capacity.

To continue this comparison, without allowing for inefficency penalties (ie 2.6 litre 4 stroke vs 13b rotary) what displacement class for a 2 stroke would you apply for rotary equivalence? I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar you'd say 1.3 litres. That's correct, I would place 1.3 litre 2 strokes with 1.3 litre rotaries barring inefficiencies etc. Reason being is that they both produce a power stroke every 360 degrees of the crank so bar the inefficiences of the engine designs, their displacement and frequency of power strokes are well on par with each other.

The idea of deceptive power from a relatively low displacement is true, however cannot be applied to rotary engines without admitting they are a two stroke design, which, coincidentally would be the only other mathematically sound way i could see to reach an equivalent capacity figure of 2.6 litres for competition with four strokes. Not two stroke design, but they do share one important thing in common with a 2 stroke piston engine. And it's the reason why so many people mistakenly refer to rotaries a two stroke in the first place: both engine designs produce a power stroke every 360 degrees of crankshaft (or eccentric shaft) rotation. It is mistakenly assumed to be a two stroke, because as we know there are four seperate strokes which occur inside the rotary housing and none are interwined. Therefore it's neither two stroke nor four stroke - these are piston engine terms. It's a Wankel cycle with its own wonderful properties and deserving of its own special classification. Alot of people don't like to hear this because we live in a largely pistonist and four-strokist world where people try to assimilate things into existing categories...well actually people do this with more than just engines lol. The only place two engines of different design can ever meet up or be compared is in their outputs...which is where the crankshaft comes in handy. But, if you start bringing those magic 3:1 eccentric shaft ratios into this discussion like some folk did earlier in the thread I will cry because I hoped I would be finished with that part of my life for good!!!

I think at this stage we all know that rotary engines aren't a two stroke piston engine. Despite sharing a great deal of similarities, they are something else entirely. I think this has been one of your major arguments for comparison. Yup, agreed, paragraph above explains this one.

As for the RS250, couldn't agree more, would love one of those stinky little chainsaws to thrash around.

So yeah, really interested to hear your reply, as I think we're actually starting to understand how each other is thinking about this.

Apologies for any non productive slurs that (with apologies to SK) "muddy" the topic.

Cheers,

Jesse

Also just found this while looking further into rotaries and calculations applied.

Pretty much bang on with what I'm saying, but has pretty pictures i lack the skill or inclination to create.

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html

PLUS it's a rotary site, so I'm sure all the rotor fanboys (not directed at you birds) will shrink faster than doodles in the antarctic.

Note the part where they admit the six faces each with a displacement of 40ci (654cc) do equal 3.9L or 240ci through a complete thermodynamic (combustion) cycle.

This is what I'm saying. A rotary displaces 3.9 litres through a combustion cycle. It is comparable to a 2.6 litre 4 stroke inefficiencies notwithstanding.

On a side not I came across this while looking into the firing order of the rotors relative to one another and it states that the rotors are 180 degrees offset from one another in the twin rotor 13b. Interestingly, through application of the flawed logic that you can only count the area where combustion is occuring at in the motor, a 13b is actually a 654cc motor as only one combustion chamber exists at any one time.

Ok well I'll start with this being just one rotary site. They're entitled to their opinion which is fine...we had some of the AusRotary people infiltrate our thread here and from memory they share much the same view I do with regards to displacement, so even amongst the rotary community (and the rest of the world) there's ambiguity with regards to this topic. Which brings me to another thing...this tech article is pretty ambiguous in itself. They state "Each rotation of the engine (360°) will bring two faces through the combustion cycle." and shortly after this they state "This said, it takes 1080° or three complete revolutions of the crankshaft to complete the entire thermodynamic cycle." So they are actually in agreement with me that 360 degrees will bring two faces through a full combustion cycle. Yet they appear to be also in agreement with you about the other two faces needing combustion cycles in order to complete the "entire thermodynamic cycle" (I'm assuming this is what they mean anyway). And I agree with both you and the website that after this "entire thermodynamic cycle" is complete our engine has moved 3.9 litres worth of air/fuel, there's no doubt about this. But (there's always a but) I believe this to be an irrelevant cycle and quite flawed to start and finish a measurement of displacement there...given that A. our single combustion chamber has already seen a measurable and complete combustion cycle and B. once that third face has received its own combustion stroke...the first face is right there behind it already beginning to compress another air/fuel charge. It's a continuous cycle of faces once this engine starts spinning - another reason I don't think the rotary should be measured beyond an individual combustion cycle occuring inside its combustion chamber.

Now onto rotor offset. It's not that you can only count the area where combustion is occurring...it's that you can only count the area where combustion CAN occur...and that is in two places in the 13B engine. Rotor offset in an interesting thing. We need to take two things into account: 1. We have single rotor engines which obviously discount the relevance of offset (twin rotors are often considered to be "two engines put together"). 2. It is no more than the equivalent of cylinder firing order in the four stroke piston engine; serving a purpose of balance (well four strokes need the offset to actually work).

So now I arrive at the conclusion that whilst you and this RX7 website worked out your 2.6 litres equivalency by multiplying 1080 degrees by 2/3, I in contrast arrived at 2.6 litres equivalency based on doubling piston engine capacity because the rotary has twice the power strokes in the same amount of rotation. Both methods will arrive at the same conclusion...just using different means. Neither is an incorrect formula, because well, you can rotate that rotary crankshaft 2160 degrees and multiply it by 1/3 if it pleases you. I just like to use the lowest common denominator; 360 degrees, which I also believe to be a full combustion cycle in the rotary engine.

Also I know the fanboy comment wasn't directed at me but I'll take this opportunity to admit I'm not a rotor fan at all...I don't like much about them beyond their clever little design lol.

And boy am I sorry for doing it. I'm just a nerd, who has learnt a lot from it and wanted to contribute something. (read as: shout opinions in a consequence free environment)

Thank god for forums ey?

Hahaha we share alot in common mate. And don't worry it's racking my brain dealing with the physics and philosophies at 4am. Don't regret getting involved, people learn more from arguing than they do from agreeing. Even if you feel you're in the right it's good to question oneself once in a while...or have somoene else do it for you. And just look at how many people have learnt from this thread and the stubborn pricks involved in it...but what praise do we get?

[DRD-00F]

NONE!

NOT YOURS!

[Jez13]

Oh dear. The initial conclusion to this thread was dicided a while ago. It simply came down to an 'opinion' on what constitutes a rotaries combustion cycle. If you beleive that a a rotoaries combustion cycle is one combustion from each rotor and turning the essentric shaft one full turn then it is a 1.3L (my opinion) or if you beleive that the rotaries cycle is comprised of 3 combustion cycles from each rotor and turning the essentric shaft 3 full times then you beleive it is a 3.9L. In my hypothesis and conclusion I went into alot more detail including strokes, angles and capacities etc. Not going to re-state. Its just new people wanting to re-argue said points and stir the fieces back up again.

[mad082]

this thread makes baby jesus cry then throw a tantrum and kill a fluffy kitten.

[DRD-00F]

meh, we're only 1 post away from a 50 page thread about this shit... it's quite an achievement!

[astrotristan]

woah this thread made 50pages! shiiiiiit