A Fastrack question/response ???
- Thread starter ddewhurst
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I think it means there was a letter requesting that rotaries not be allowed to overbore their....????
specifically: ITCS 17.1.4.D.2.b includes a reference to 17.1.4.D.1.j, which allows reciprocating engines to be bored 0.040 inch oversize.
Rotaries aren't reciprocating....an overbore would require a new eccentric shaft, rotors, apex seals and so on....
The consensus was that the request wasn't relevant to rotaries, and the rules are fine as is. No further action was required. It wasn't going to be tabled, it wasn't going to have a rewroding of a rule, it was a "No action" item.
Or, maybe it should have said "Denied".
specifically: ITCS 17.1.4.D.2.b includes a reference to 17.1.4.D.1.j, which allows reciprocating engines to be bored 0.040 inch oversize.
Rotaries aren't reciprocating....an overbore would require a new eccentric shaft, rotors, apex seals and so on....
The consensus was that the request wasn't relevant to rotaries, and the rules are fine as is. No further action was required. It wasn't going to be tabled, it wasn't going to have a rewroding of a rule, it was a "No action" item.
Or, maybe it should have said "Denied".
Maybe someone just wanted to correct that error. Or maybe, God forbid, someone has come up w/ something really extreme!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
This is the request:
ITCS 17.1.4.D.2.b includes a reference to 17.1.4.D.1.j, which allows reciprocating engines to be bored 0.040 inch oversize. I believe this is an oversight and should not be allowed for rotary engines.
This was written by a IT.com member, maybe he will chime in with his concern.
ITCS 17.1.4.D.2.b includes a reference to 17.1.4.D.1.j, which allows reciprocating engines to be bored 0.040 inch oversize. I believe this is an oversight and should not be allowed for rotary engines.
This was written by a IT.com member, maybe he will chime in with his concern.
So (it sounds like) someone proposed the removal of nonsensical language in the ITCS and the Board decided it was fine the way it is...?
M'kay.
It's interesting to imagine how this might have happened, including someone quite literally not reading - or misreading - the request, and assuming it was asking for an allowance rather than trying to eliminate one.
K
M'kay.
It's interesting to imagine how this might have happened, including someone quite literally not reading - or misreading - the request, and assuming it was asking for an allowance rather than trying to eliminate one.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Nonsensical Kirk? Have you read the sections of concern?
The section that the letter pertains to is critical to the Recep section. Since Rotaries can't be overbored it's moot.
The letter had no suggestion for correction so it is hard to understand the concern or intent of the issue. Swapping sections J and L and then changing D.1.2.b to read "Rules D.1.a.-k., and D.1.l-s., also apply would solve an issue - but who knows if that is the issue? Again, it's moot.
The section that the letter pertains to is critical to the Recep section. Since Rotaries can't be overbored it's moot.
The letter had no suggestion for correction so it is hard to understand the concern or intent of the issue. Swapping sections J and L and then changing D.1.2.b to read "Rules D.1.a.-k., and D.1.l-s., also apply would solve an issue - but who knows if that is the issue? Again, it's moot.
I'll fess up to putting in the request. I had hoped that 9.1.3.D.1.j (2007 version) would be removed from the allowances in 9.1.3.D.2.b.
I completely agree that that section doesn't logically apply to rotaries, which is why it seems very odd that 9.1.3.D.2.b would specifically allow it.
Since we agree this doesn't make sense, why not fix it?
Grafton
This comment is not directed towards Grafton. Thanks to everone who did comment. 
***an overbore would require a new eccentric shaft, rotors, apex seals and so on....***
Jake I presumed what you posted ^ is what might have been ment or the rule may be leaving something not clear.
***Rotaries aren't reciprocating....***
Jake, this ^ is correct therefore I'll write a letter to the CRB requesting that the word 2 cycle in the GCR glossary be up dated to include the rotary motor.
Have Fun
David
***an overbore would require a new eccentric shaft, rotors, apex seals and so on....***
Jake I presumed what you posted ^ is what might have been ment or the rule may be leaving something not clear.
***Rotaries aren't reciprocating....***
Jake, this ^ is correct therefore I'll write a letter to the CRB requesting that the word 2 cycle in the GCR glossary be up dated to include the rotary motor.
Have Fun
David
Ok, I'll stretch the glossary a bit to prove my point (not nearly as bad as the traction bar guy either!):
Bore - The diameter of a cylinder.
Rotary Piston - See Rotary Engine Rotor.
The Wankel housing has two chambers that appear to be cylindrical. It could be argued that the housing could be over-bored 0.040" per 9.1.3.D.1.j. Since the rotor is defined as a piston in the glossary, it can then be replaced with an oversize version per the same rule. The diameter clause may still apply since each of the three faces of the rotor appear to by cylindrical as well, and thus have a diameter.
Will this work? Honestly I have no idea, but I'd certainly be looking into it if I had a rotary...
Can we think a little more seriously about fixing this now?
Bore - The diameter of a cylinder.
Rotary Piston - See Rotary Engine Rotor.
The Wankel housing has two chambers that appear to be cylindrical. It could be argued that the housing could be over-bored 0.040" per 9.1.3.D.1.j. Since the rotor is defined as a piston in the glossary, it can then be replaced with an oversize version per the same rule. The diameter clause may still apply since each of the three faces of the rotor appear to by cylindrical as well, and thus have a diameter.
Will this work? Honestly I have no idea, but I'd certainly be looking into it if I had a rotary...
Can we think a little more seriously about fixing this now?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
You have to have a much better understanding of the parts that make up the rotary to understand what you are comparing is apples to oranges and is impossible.
Daryl DeArman
New member
It's akin to leaving a rule on the books that says a 2 stroke can't have a larger camshaft than stock.
No pistons in a rotary, no cylinders, no need to worry about an allowance/loophole that needs closing. It is a senseless rule to apply to rotaries so why not admit it is an error and delete it?
No pistons in a rotary, no cylinders, no need to worry about an allowance/loophole that needs closing. It is a senseless rule to apply to rotaries so why not admit it is an error and delete it?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I have a feeling most of you haven't seen the actual error, most can't even find it if they were looking for it. Yes, it is confusing and could be fixed by swapping some sections in the GCR but it isn't a 'delete' situation. It will get fixed for the next GCR but isn't a priority because it isn't possible to act on the issue. We obvioulsy have more important things cooking right now.
Daryl DeArman
New member
Good enough....thanks for the response. Rather than "delete" maybe I should have said "delete the reference to...."
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
While they're fixing that part of the GCR ya think they could fix the part about not allowing rotaries any porting? It appears we are unfairly being discriminated against by our reciprocating brethren. 