No mention of the man who developed the first racing engine Brian Crighton b did all the work Norton we’re not interested Brian did all in his own time 🥰🇬🇧🇬🇧
I'm not sure you can really call a wankel efficient. I think the better description would be inherently inefficient in terms of the fuel consumption and incomplete burn. Yet well suited to road racing due to the small number of moving parts and the likelihood of a rotory engine to survive an endurance race in one piece. If it were truly efficient it would burn cleaner and make more power for the amount of fuel consumed. They will take a lot of boost however and are a light weight power plant.
I agree. The rotary engine is a novelty. It is inherently inefficient and creates a lot of air pollution. However, it does run like a raped ape and is lighter than piston engines of equal displacement. It loves high rpm's and it is durable in the short run but wears out much quicker than piston engines. Most rotarys have worn out apex and side seals by the time they have about 50K miles. So it is probably well suited for racing where engines are torn down and rebuilt at much shorter intervals. And, if your racing to win, who cares about how much fuel you burn.
@@allthehandlesweretaken not talking about power to displacement efficiency, referring to power to fuel consumption and emissions. Frankly, it's a dirty engine that gets lousy fuel mileage. EPA killed them.
@@twcaldwell1951 he said you cant call a wankel efficient. that might be true in terms of fuel consumption. but as i stated, not true in terms of power to weight and displacement ratio. calling a wankel inefficent is simply a to broad and vauge statement to be accurate in my opinion.
@@allthehandlesweretaken never said they weren't efficient in producing usable power. I was expressing the fact that they ain't a good choice for longevity or economy. Maybe I just ought to delete my post.
Blame BSA, they bought the rights to manufacture from Fitchel and Sachs in 1968 iirc who owned the patent and then Norton in Shenstone inherited the POS after BSA group failed via the soon to fail NVT nonsense, spending so much on it they could have developed a full range of piston engined motorcycles and still be here and not put through the mill by that charlatan Phillipe LeRoux and criminal Stuart Garner (with other unmentionables in-between) and now owned by the Indians. Comes to summat when just about everything is owned by the Indians here in UK, even an Indian Prime Minister, looks like the Indians finally sorted out the cowboys (Brits 😂😂)
Ideal for racing, .... and banned by the authorities.
two stokes feel your pain.
Thanks for posting this. Cheers
You just wouldn't think it would work by looking at it.
Trevor nation a giant and a gentleman
It's engine must gain the most advantage on each straightaway, no matter how short.
They didn’t only astonish the opposition they literally obliterated it on the track lol 😂
Poderoso este motor rotativo👍👍👍👍
And a bit of The Stone Roses, too!
Can you imagine a rotary powered gsx-r
No mention of the man who developed the first racing engine Brian Crighton b did all the work Norton we’re not interested Brian did all in his own time 🥰🇬🇧🇬🇧
IT IS A ROTARY ENGINE MAN, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM
its 2021 . how did it all go wrong , 21 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but it’s 30 years
@@bobertfrankenberry1905 and it was shit
This motor is burning oil, like 2stroke that's why Mazda abandoned it.
I'm not sure you can really call a wankel efficient. I think the better description would be inherently inefficient in terms of the fuel consumption and incomplete burn. Yet well suited to road racing due to the small number of moving parts and the likelihood of a rotory engine to survive an endurance race in one piece. If it were truly efficient it would burn cleaner and make more power for the amount of fuel consumed. They will take a lot of boost however and are a light weight power plant.
I agree. The rotary engine is a novelty. It is inherently inefficient and creates a lot of air pollution. However, it does run like a raped ape and is lighter than piston engines of equal displacement. It loves high rpm's and it is durable in the short run but wears out much quicker than piston engines. Most rotarys have worn out apex and side seals by the time they have about 50K miles. So it is probably well suited for racing where engines are torn down and rebuilt at much shorter intervals. And, if your racing to win, who cares about how much fuel you burn.
theyre extremly efficient for their size (both physical and capacity) and weight.
@@allthehandlesweretaken not talking about power to displacement efficiency, referring to power to fuel consumption and emissions. Frankly, it's a dirty engine that gets lousy fuel mileage. EPA killed them.
@@twcaldwell1951 he said you cant call a wankel efficient. that might be true in terms of fuel consumption. but as i stated, not true in terms of power to weight and displacement ratio. calling a wankel inefficent is simply a to broad and vauge statement to be accurate in my opinion.
@@allthehandlesweretaken never said they weren't efficient in producing usable power. I was expressing the fact that they ain't a good choice for longevity or economy. Maybe I just ought to delete my post.
I can't believe how primitive the Norton workshop is. There's no way they could compete against the Japanese.
The video just proved they did and win, backing was the problem?
Land Cruiser, oh yeah?
It's just a Wankel.
Wankel engines were a dead end so why did Norton spend millions on it!
Oh youre a wanker
Lol
@@wellmike3369 get your head out of the lavatory?
Blame BSA, they bought the rights to manufacture from Fitchel and Sachs in 1968 iirc who owned the patent and then Norton in Shenstone inherited the POS after BSA group failed via the soon to fail NVT nonsense, spending so much on it they could have developed a full range of piston engined motorcycles and still be here and not put through the mill by that charlatan Phillipe LeRoux and criminal Stuart Garner (with other unmentionables in-between) and now owned by the Indians. Comes to summat when just about everything is owned by the Indians here in UK, even an Indian Prime Minister, looks like the Indians finally sorted out the cowboys (Brits 😂😂)
No way is that a 600, its a not particularly powerful 1800, And it's a German design ffs