Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We noticed you are blocking ads. DO THE TON only works with community supporters. Most are active members of the site with small businesses. Please consider disabling your ad blocking tool and checking out the businesses that help keep our site up and free.
I love the con-rod solution he came up with, though I think it's been done before back around the turn of the century. There were a lot of pretty wacky engine designs. Regardless I think it's neat if for no other reason than he DID it.
If you look at the patent drawing, it's just vague and misleading enough to throw most people off.
As in the drawing I think the upper RPM limit is going to be pretty low, since it shows the 'central' Y-rod doohickie running direct to the central pair of pistons and via linkages to the outer slugs. That's going to require the small ends of the inner joints at the wristpins to be pretty small. I'd bet that's part of the vague and misleading bit...
Mechanically it would be far better to run the Y-rod to the linkages rather than to the pistons. That would allow the same material at the wrist pin on the pistons AND the rods. I'd be willing to bet $5 that's what he's really doing. Never mind the mechanical losses in that link from the inner piston to the linkage then thru a link again to each outer piston. It'd probably work as shown but not efficiently. Without doing an actual study with a real live metal version one can only estimate the losses, though I'd be surprised of it's less that 8-10% mechanical loss...even with roller bearings. At least by balancing the forces applied to pivoting piston link those losses will be evenly distributed.
You guys kidding me? 44 years ago Honda was making and racing 250cc 6 cylinder engines running at a rather insane by any modern standard 18,000 redline. Mike Hailwood rode them.
Way cooler than any concept 8 cylinder modern Ducati
Nifty for sure but still a rather conventional engine layout. Not to ding it, the 250 L6 is cool but how many USABLE v8 bikes are there? Drysdale, 'Guzi....ummm.....
wow! the design is sound, but i bet in practice its going to make a lot less ponies then it would make theoretically.
ingenious con-rod design... why didnt i think of something like that?! only concern i see is the piston finding a way to drive down farther then it should, causing the pivot point to be broken right off. still WAY cool though.
The pivoting link would have to be beefy for certain but levers have been controlling high kinetic loads for oh...a zillion years or so. I think the central Y-rod would be more susceptible to compression failure.
As for making less power than a more conventional design....I dunno. You're probably right simply due to the extra losses in all the joints. Every time you change direction of force thru some mechanical mean you have losses so it stands to reason. The question is.....are the losses going to be more or less than a conventional engine arrangement, and I just don't have a clue. I'll be watching his site....
The way it looks to me is like a bicycle you can clip your shoes in to (power on the up stroke).
It seems the outer cylinders when fired would push the inside cylinders up to the exhaust cycle. So for every one stroke made on the V2, you now get two strokes on the V8 with the same rotations of the V2. This set up also allows for a smaller rotating assembly/ mass in the crank shaft then what you would have from a conventional V6 or V8. I think its supposed to act as a high revving monster with big displacement. I foresee great gobs of power out of the hole and a much higher red line.
Power on the upstroke by use of levers...hhhhmmmmmm very cool.
Anyone ever seen a Puch Twingle ? interesting concept that was used in Puch and Sears Allstate bikes in the mid 60's. I've seen one apart and it looked fragile to me, but aparently they were quite reliable.
Piccy below
As for the Honda NR series of bikes, complexity simply to express thier engineering prowes. Early 80's NR500 GP bike had potential but the complexity didnt give it enough of an advatage compared to the 2 stroke technology of the time....monocoque chassis didnt help matters either LOL.
In reference to the Honda RC motor: Actually that's not the same, just oval pistons driven by two rods.
Those old twingles were a neat concept...should yield a longer power pulse, but I wonder how the weird big ends held up.
In looking at the patent drawing further, and still almost certain that the 'y-rod' will be/is connected to the pivoting link rather than the piston...I think Basement may be onto something. I just sent the guy and email via google translate, maybe he'll respond..
The Puch used one cylinder to pressurise the other and shared combustion chamber.
The swing link wouldn't work if you connected 'Y' link to bottom of it without making an eternal link which would give different stroke length to inner and outer pistons. (or, both pistons rise and fall together which kinda defeats the purpose of having rockers)
It just uses some kind of ball joint or more likely, a universal joint from an ATV or similar.
It means it's going to be heavy which will limit max RPM
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.