RacerXtreme7

iTrader: (2)

15th century water pump... yes, the rotary was first intended as a water pump by Mr. Wankle. No, water isnt compressed, the inlet and outlets were placed accordingly to move water. ex: were what would be the compression phase on our rotory MOTORS, the pump had an outlet for water to move, not compress. I got it and thoght it was pretty funny, but I guess someone who didn't know the history of these motors wouldnt get it. Either way I didn't make the remark.

~Mike............

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

We shouldn't insult the person who had the idea. Face it, not everyone knows everything automatically. He asked and gets slammed for not knowing. If he had know then he wouldn't have asked would he? Nothing here is new info to most but to the less experienced it is. Give them some slack they'll learn and they don't need to be ridiculed while doing it.

The other thing that chaps my *** is people keeping their setups a secret. Again, there is nothing anyone can do that hasn't been done or tried before.

1987RX7guy

iTrader: (3)

guys the thread is done. It wouldn't work sicne the secondary intake runners wouldn't have enough air to get the fuel to the engine without it falling and running like crap.

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

I know that. Just responding to the people with no manners.

RETed

Technically, you might be right...
But for those set-ups to become "common knowledge" might not be true.


-Ted

Evil Aviator

There is a certain point where the "learner" is simply throwing out every absurd thought in his head. Ridicule is the way of reality, and may help to guide the "learner" to maturity.

Capitalism sometimes relies on secrecy. Also, sometimes the secrecy is there to keep the nubies from ruining their cars or hurting themselves by attempting to copy the pros.

Not true. Feel free to search the internet for "P vs NP" mathematical problems, and you will see that while one certain combination of car parts or modifications may be proven to yield certain results, it is impossible for every combination of every car part or modification to have been tried in the timespan of the human race.

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

I'm not talking about math problems. Show me a single person on this entire forum who has built an engine combo that no one else has either built or thought of already and then ask them to prove it. There isn't anyone. Someone using an IDA throttlebody but says it is a secret really has nothing to hide since there is nothing new about that. If we are talking about race teams that are competing against each other but one has a slight advantage then I can understand. That isn't the case. Look at Acosta's 3 rotor RX-8. The magazine article mentions a secret port job, water passages, etc. I don't know what can be so secret about it since there are already 850hp 3 rotors out there. This isn't capitalism or national security. The same engine has in essence been in production for the past 40 years. It's probably been tried by someone somewhere. There is nothing worth keeping a secret except failures.

Slacker7

iTrader: (2)

Alot of good ideas start out as dumb ideas.
I'm sure when the idea of an aggresive street port first came about everyone was like "maaan you know how dumb that sounds."
I'm sure Felix got alot of flak for his ideas. If you guys were alive back then youd probably criticize the hell out of his ideas.

RETed

I've experimenting with a porting style that I've never seen or have heard of.  Now if you're going to put the burden of proof on me, and what's stopping me from doing the same vice versa on you?

"Thought" versus "execution" is two different things.  You might be technically right about "thought", as all I have to do is "think" about all the possibilities, and that conforms to your theory...somehow I find this unrealistic.

This sounds like my modified flushing procedure that gave everyone an uproar in the Canadian section.  I figured that out by accident, and the majority are against it.  Yet, it *worked* for me (and a few others) - so does that make me a fake?  Just because I made it work and the first to verify it's effectiveness, does that make me the innovator and pioneer?  Somehow I doubt you'd acknowledge that fact...



-Ted

NZConvertible

Why is it that everytime a hopeless idea is critisised, a bunch of people always pop up and complain about how we shouldn't critisise people for trying to think of new ideas?

Let's stop all this generalising and stick to the original idea, which even the originator has realised never had a chance of working. This was not some far out concept that we're just not yet clever enough to understand; it's just simple, proven engineering.

cafcwest

Providing factual information as to why something is not feasible is one thing. Insulting a person’s intellect is another.

1987RX7guy

iTrader: (3)

Ok guys see that? That was the question for the thread. Everyone please let the thread go ok. Even if my intelect is insulted I don't need to get any crap from the mods ok. The one point that made it obvious that it would not work is the one where the member(don't remember which one) posted that at idle the secondary plates aren't open so the fuel would just sit there on the port runner and the car probably won't be able to start like that. I was only interested in the idea. I didn't say "Hey guys I figured out how to get 500hp from swapping injector locations" it was something I wanted to know so I came to the people that know more to see if anything good or bad could come of doing this. I got the answer now so please let the thread go.


Santiago

Evil Aviator

Had you any education in engineering or advanced mathematics, you would realize that it is in fact a math problem, as I have already explained. Since you do not have any education in these areas, and you obviously did not bother to search the web as I recommended, you are going to have to take my word for it. Once again, we are back to reality, where those who are ignorant and refuse to educate themselves have no choice but to rely on the opinions of others.

One of my local mechanics just built a 13B with porting that nobody else has heard of. Like RETed stated, others may have thought of the idea, but there is no way to verify that without ESP.

And no, I am not going to explain the port because it is the mechanic's original idea, it is not patented, and I am not going to potentially hurt his business by explaining how it works to the entire rotary world. We will find out shortly how well it works.

I am aware of quite a few special projects and procedures that I am also not going to share with this forum. Many other forum members are on the cutting edge much more so than I am, and they are not going to share their information, either. It amazes me that some people are so out of touch with reality that they think that they are entitled to butt in on everybody else's business, and have no respect for one's privacy.

Good, then you shouldn't mind that he doesn't want to let you know what he did.

OK, so what are you whining about then? If it is the same engine, then nothing has changed, so you should know what mods the engine has (or potentially has) even if they are not listed.

Failures are also sometimes worth keeping secret, but not as much as untested ideas or successes.

Your original question was a very generalized statement that DID NOT specifiy a stock throttle body.

NZConvertible

The thing is, you provided us with absolutely no background about your idea. We have no idea why you thought this was even worth considering. If we'd known your reasoning, it wouldn't have sounded like some random idea that popped into your head and ended up on the internet before you'd given it any serious thought at all. You're just a little too keen to hit the keyboard before thinking first. Four 1600cc/min injectors sound familiar?
Nah, it's fun watching you swing in the wind.

1987RX7guy

iTrader: (3)

I really don't think its me swinging. Its you all taking wacks at free air. The thread IS done this continuation by all of you is not really usefull.

Piranha

I'm reading this thread because both NZ, Evil, and REted REALLY know their ****, and you should listen.

I think they are trying to tell you to think before you type, and do some basic research.

1987RX7guy

iTrader: (3)

I didn't say they don't know what they are talking about. I very well know that the know more than I and most people on the forum. Thats why I came here to ask becaue I knew these forum members would see it and post what they know about it. This in turn would educate ME. I wouldn't know where to look for documentation about the stock TII intakes and even if I could find it I probably wouldn't know how to translate that data into something understandable to ME. If anyone has any idea on where you can find info/data on the stock intakes let us all know. But in any other case let the thread go. I am not arguing against anyone here. I am telling people to stop arguing about it as its already been discussed and with the stock intake manifolds it would not work.


Santiago

silverrotor

iTrader: (1)

You are In this crud again I see Santiago.

RETed

Hey 1987RX7guy, I think you're taking this a little too personally.

My replies are directed at rotarygod, since we've "got history". I think Evil Aviator is doing the same thing, but you need to clear that with him.

If it's about hijacking this thread, I apologize in advance.

I know there's an SAE paper out there that shows the difference between injector placement along the intake tract, but I haven't been able to find it yet.


-Ted

Evil Aviator

The initial question about injector placement was good, otherwise I would not have spent my time replying to it. I just think that some other parts of this thread lacked forethought.

In my case, "history" is not really an issue because I tend to respond to individual threads and posts rather than individual people. However, I tend to argue with liberals a LOT, so my Evil wrath is sometimes unleashed disproportionately on those who defy the pillars of conservatism, which is the basis of all hotrodding. Otherwise, I consider myself an equal-opportunity antagonist, as RETed and NZConvertible can verify.

Think about it...

Evil
Function: adjective
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>

1987RX7guy

iTrader: (3)

What?

scathcart

Mistakes as successes are extremely rare. Nearly all of the time, dumb ideas end up being dumb ideas. For an example, take a look in the lounge for the people who mixed explosives and let it go off in their hands.

and speaking of stupid... alot is not a word.

Slacker7

iTrader: (2)

yaaay... you called me stupid for something as trivial as that.

Evil Aviator

Shir Hama'Alot (Hebrew, "A Song of Ascents")
ALOT (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas) Angus Association
ALOT (Aggie Leaders of Tomorrow)
Music: Sir Mix Alot and Sir John Alot
The Alot Forum:
http://129.142.16.13/forum/

oregano

iTrader: (1)

hahahaha.

hahahhhahahahah
hahaha

haha.

i think i just reached a hundred posts!!!! now i get an avatar!!!!!

yayayayay!!!!