Now here's a thought - instead of all this bitching about how to measure the capacity of the rotaries, why not have a class just for them? Then we'd see some superb racing.....
With a true engine capacity of nearly 1.8 Litres it was never going to be allowed in racing for long. Even if you down rate them by 2/3 which I believe is what the FIM did on account of the poor engine efficiency they are still crap compared to piston engines. Which is why you dont see rotarys in main stream production other than the rx8.
@Manoo62 the real reason you dont see them in production cars any more is maintenance- its (in comparison) extremely difficult to machine vs standard engines. Its exceptionally efficient cause this '588cc' rotary WILL run with open class bikes (1000cc) not even to mention how much lighter the bike is. how do you get the indicated 1.8 from this 588? isnt it just measured via the rotated compression side of the wankel?
@Ryknfjor I think Mazda would disagree with you on the maintenance side, the all new RX9 will be out soon. You dont get them in racing because the governing bodies are aware of their true engine capacity. Manufacturers only ever quote the capacity of one side of the rotor when clearly it has 3 (3 x 588 = 1764). They do this to make the engine performance look more impressive because they are exceptionally inefficient engines. Which is the real reason you rarely see them in production.
@Manoo62 only one side is the compression.. thatd be like saying on a traditional engine when its pulling intake- count that capacity, then compression too, so a 302ci would be a 604ci. i would love to see you bore or stroke a wankel with out completely redesigning the engine, as it isnt so difficult on piston engines. as for machining, no machine shop (that i know of) would. piston engines are like 1+1 easiness in a shop, you have varying convolutes in a wankel, piston engine- just circles
@Ryknfjor Not really, you get all 3 sides firing in one complete revolution of the rotor so why wouldnt you count them? I agree you would be hard pushed to find a machine shop that would touch a rotary but how many typical car owners get engines rebored?
@Manoo62 yeah i was thinking that- its all in time, BY the time the rotor hits compression its already intaking. your right.w many engines get bored in racing applications. but you gotta hand it to the rotary for its lightness/power. Godspeed.
@Renceau Using Mazdas own figures, they quote a chamber size of 654cc, there are 3 chambers on each rotor and there are 2 rotors so 654 x 3 x 2 = 3924cc simple.
No, no jap would have exploited this motor at the time, Remember, the big 4 need to sell bikes..And the wankel has a bad reputation,,(Mazda Motors had worked on developing the wankel rotary for years), then all the nonsence surrounding Rotary Cubic Capacity,,Anyone Remember this,? But it was one hell of a motor,,on the straight !! couldnt be touched !! Fantastic,, remember The Robert (rip) and Joey Dunlop (rip) Dice at the UGP,? WOW,,
The reason that you don't see these bikes racing anymore is because they used to thrash the Japanese bikes into obscurity.The rotary department of Norton was bought out by the Japanese and shelved to allow Honda,Suzuki,Yamaha and Kawasaki to fight out the races amongst themselves where before the best podium they could ever attain was second!
So Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, and Kawasaki all bought it out in 4 equal parts...that's the only way it could be done and pan out the way you put. That's a really bold statement. If one of the big 4 bought them out you'd think they'd exploit the rights and build these things if it was so clearly successful as you put.
@TheBones48 hmm.. i thought it was because the cc's of the bike couldnt be matched in another class bc of its supreme power/cc ratio and was banned from racing bc it was essentially cheating. Norton is planning to build some wankel race bikes and on top of that thinking of going into a street production version. so getting bought out isnt true.
@TheBones48 Yamaha and Suzuki hold the liscense to build rotary engines. I do not believe that they " bought out " Norton . I believe someone who didnt hold this liscense put EXTREME pressure on the FIM to firstly misread their swept capacity , and when that didnt really work, just ban them. The motor HAS no stroke as it is not reciprocating it is ROTARY. The Suzuki RE5 and Yamaha rotaries were very reliable, and would NOT have been relased otherwise .
@lmlmlml yes, Norton have been building rotaries for years. ( this is relevant how ? ) . My point was that Honda do not hold a liscense to build rotaries, and a completely undeveloped engine scared Honda so much that they wagged the dog ( FIM ) . This is the opinion of very experianced journo's, and one which I share.
The article starts " Barry Sheene Doesnt Know Shit ".....and he doesnt. The race meeting was Aus GP 92, where Mr Sheene called it a Ropon. What a plonker
wish i could get my hands on one...
ItsBuradorii 4 months ago
Norton owners - it worked with Yamahas years ago.......
Factnotfictionpeople 5 months ago
Now here's a thought - instead of all this bitching about how to measure the capacity of the rotaries, why not have a class just for them? Then we'd see some superb racing.....
Factnotfictionpeople 6 months ago
@Factnotfictionpeople Who would enter???
Manoo62 5 months ago
With a true engine capacity of nearly 1.8 Litres it was never going to be allowed in racing for long. Even if you down rate them by 2/3 which I believe is what the FIM did on account of the poor engine efficiency they are still crap compared to piston engines. Which is why you dont see rotarys in main stream production other than the rx8.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 the real reason you dont see them in production cars any more is maintenance- its (in comparison) extremely difficult to machine vs standard engines. Its exceptionally efficient cause this '588cc' rotary WILL run with open class bikes (1000cc) not even to mention how much lighter the bike is. how do you get the indicated 1.8 from this 588? isnt it just measured via the rotated compression side of the wankel?
Ryknfjor 9 months ago
@Ryknfjor I think Mazda would disagree with you on the maintenance side, the all new RX9 will be out soon. You dont get them in racing because the governing bodies are aware of their true engine capacity. Manufacturers only ever quote the capacity of one side of the rotor when clearly it has 3 (3 x 588 = 1764). They do this to make the engine performance look more impressive because they are exceptionally inefficient engines. Which is the real reason you rarely see them in production.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 only one side is the compression.. thatd be like saying on a traditional engine when its pulling intake- count that capacity, then compression too, so a 302ci would be a 604ci. i would love to see you bore or stroke a wankel with out completely redesigning the engine, as it isnt so difficult on piston engines. as for machining, no machine shop (that i know of) would. piston engines are like 1+1 easiness in a shop, you have varying convolutes in a wankel, piston engine- just circles
Ryknfjor 9 months ago
@Ryknfjor Not really, you get all 3 sides firing in one complete revolution of the rotor so why wouldnt you count them? I agree you would be hard pushed to find a machine shop that would touch a rotary but how many typical car owners get engines rebored?
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 yeah i was thinking that- its all in time, BY the time the rotor hits compression its already intaking. your right.w many engines get bored in racing applications. but you gotta hand it to the rotary for its lightness/power. Godspeed.
Ryknfjor 9 months ago
@Manoo62 So your saying a 13b would actually be 3900cc? Come off it!
reknod 8 months ago
@reknod ?!?!?!The 13b is a 3.9Ltr, Google 'rotary displacement' and look as the first site, paragraph 3.
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 13b is 1.3ltr.
Renceau 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Renceau Using Mazdas own figures, they quote a chamber size of 654cc, there are 3 chambers on each rotor and there are 2 rotors so 654 x 3 x 2 = 3924cc simple.
Manoo62 4 months ago
Suzuki made their RE5 rotary production model in the mid 1970s already, a whole decade before the first Norton rotary.
PaulKasner 1 year ago
No, no jap would have exploited this motor at the time, Remember, the big 4 need to sell bikes..And the wankel has a bad reputation,,(Mazda Motors had worked on developing the wankel rotary for years), then all the nonsence surrounding Rotary Cubic Capacity,,Anyone Remember this,? But it was one hell of a motor,,on the straight !! couldnt be touched !! Fantastic,, remember The Robert (rip) and Joey Dunlop (rip) Dice at the UGP,? WOW,,
brznzzy 1 year ago
The 4stroke 2stroke,, or 2stroke 4stroke,,??
No No No, dont b getn all silly now with ur replys,
brznzzy 1 year ago
The 4stroke 2stroke,, or 2stroke 4stroke,,??
brznzzy 1 year ago
The reason that you don't see these bikes racing anymore is because they used to thrash the Japanese bikes into obscurity.The rotary department of Norton was bought out by the Japanese and shelved to allow Honda,Suzuki,Yamaha and Kawasaki to fight out the races amongst themselves where before the best podium they could ever attain was second!
TheBones48 1 year ago
@TheBones48
So Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, and Kawasaki all bought it out in 4 equal parts...that's the only way it could be done and pan out the way you put. That's a really bold statement. If one of the big 4 bought them out you'd think they'd exploit the rights and build these things if it was so clearly successful as you put.
kiroc89 1 year ago
@TheBones48 hmm.. i thought it was because the cc's of the bike couldnt be matched in another class bc of its supreme power/cc ratio and was banned from racing bc it was essentially cheating. Norton is planning to build some wankel race bikes and on top of that thinking of going into a street production version. so getting bought out isnt true.
Ryknfjor 1 year ago
@TheBones48 Yamaha and Suzuki hold the liscense to build rotary engines. I do not believe that they " bought out " Norton . I believe someone who didnt hold this liscense put EXTREME pressure on the FIM to firstly misread their swept capacity , and when that didnt really work, just ban them. The motor HAS no stroke as it is not reciprocating it is ROTARY. The Suzuki RE5 and Yamaha rotaries were very reliable, and would NOT have been relased otherwise .
tasman763 1 year ago
@tasman763 Norton have been making rotary engines for YEARS! since the RCW588 era. Nothing to do with liscencing or extreme pressure.
lmlmlml 1 year ago
@lmlmlml yes, Norton have been building rotaries for years. ( this is relevant how ? ) . My point was that Honda do not hold a liscense to build rotaries, and a completely undeveloped engine scared Honda so much that they wagged the dog ( FIM ) . This is the opinion of very experianced journo's, and one which I share.
The article starts " Barry Sheene Doesnt Know Shit ".....and he doesnt. The race meeting was Aus GP 92, where Mr Sheene called it a Ropon. What a plonker
tasman763 1 year ago
uuff love this sound!
JorgeNsr80 1 year ago
I want one ! *drools*
redneckpunkmudder 1 year ago
sounds amazing!!!!!!!
roadracer123456 2 years ago 2
I've seen it stripped down at the Isle Of Man last June, it looks awesome! The wankel is tiny compared to a normal 1000cc 4 cylinder.
mrxgonza 2 years ago 2
Very very nice!! Thanks for posting!
harryt140e 2 years ago