Why doesn't a current Motocycle Manufacturer produce a motorcycle with a Rotory engine today??
Disregarding Norton and Suzuki, it makes PERFECT sense.
A high revving engine, super compact, super light, high yield.
The formula is all there. It may suck gas faster, but with the wieght savings and great horse power to cc and wieght, it seems to be a perfect fit.
What are we missing here? If Mazda produced the donor engines, it would be a sweet thing indeed.
http://www.rotabike.com/
Quote from: bobspapa on June 30, 2008, 02:29:17 PM
http://www.rotabike.com/
...and then put it in a cruiser frame... sigh...
Three biggest reasons are emissions, reliability and handling. Pretty much all of which are less than acceptable with a rotary.
Mazda has addressed the former pair, to a lesser extent the reliability from what I've heard, but the handling is a bike-only issue. The fact is they don't handle for crap. You've got one big honking gyroscope right in the middle of the bike. Open or close the throttle mid-lean and that big gyroscope's influence will increase or decrease. Chop it, gyroscope weakens, monumental oversteer. Whack it open, gyroscope strengthens, monumental understeer.
I love the Norton F1. Twin chamber rotary engine beast. In full race trim it spat fire and oil at all its its would be contenders. Nothing in its time could reel this demon in on the straights. They ate flames in the corners and a fine oily dust everywhere else. Where the exhaust of a piped 1098 will make a man weak in the knees, the exhaust note of a race prepped F1 will cause him to piss himself and cower in fear of the evil that has managed to drag itself from the depths of the pit and now howls its supremecy over mere mortals. Truly an incredible motorcycle.
Yet one doomed to failure before its time because of something so frivilous as an inadequate radiator. :-\
That Norton F1 sounds like fun! [evil]
JM
When the Norton F1 came out, I remember falling in love again.
The Rotabike,.. pathetic name, discusting. But to each there own.
Both not unlike NASCAR.
Quote from: the_Journeyman on June 30, 2008, 06:18:13 PM
That Norton F1 sounds like fun! [evil]
JM
http://media.putfile.com/Norton-F1-b (http://media.putfile.com/Norton-F1-b)
http://media.putfile.com/Norton-F1-a (http://media.putfile.com/Norton-F1-a)
^^
O. . .M. . .F. . .G
That is make the beast with two backsing sick!!
Why not just turn the engine 90*, so that the gyroscopic effect doesn't influence things as much. The Rocket III has a longitudinal engine and that thing has ultra quick steering at low speeds (less than 40 mph)
A small rotary mounted longitudinally in a 125gp frame would be disgustingly fun.
WANKEL!!! ;D
sorry... it's just so much fun to say.
and that norton... sweet zombie jesus! :o [evil] [evil]
Fading hope for the future. :-\
(http://www.realclassic.co.uk/bikepix/norton06120100.jpg)
(http://www.realclassic.co.uk/bikepix/norton06120101.jpg)
(http://www.realclassic.co.uk/bikepix/norton06120102.jpg)
http://www.realclassic.co.uk/norton06120100.html (http://www.realclassic.co.uk/norton06120100.html)
Wow, that head is practically touching the radiator...
Quote from: Beyote on June 30, 2008, 02:27:43 PM
Why doesn't a current Motocycle Manufacturer produce a motorcycle with a Rotory engine today??
A high revving engine, super compact, super light, high yield.
As opposed to the current motors which are small, light, and high-revving?
It's been done before - washing machines are rotary power, right?
(http://www.parish-without-borders.net/cditt/cambodia/dailylife/2006/graphics/motordupe28.jpg)
Quote from: NAKID on June 30, 2008, 07:52:49 PM
Wow, that head is practically touching the radiator...
so?
Quote from: NAKID on June 30, 2008, 07:52:49 PM
Wow, that head is practically touching the radiator...
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on June 30, 2008, 10:48:30 PM
so?
I think he meant to say header.
Looks like there might be a relief or a slot in the lower radiator to clear it.
Wankel exhaust is *hot*, so it is an issue.
I've never cared for the sound at all, just nasty to my ears.
They do make serious power, but I haven't seen any comparison of engine weights lately.
And there's always argument over what the displacement actually is...
Quote from: Speeddog on June 30, 2008, 11:57:13 PM
I think he meant to say header.
Looks like there might be a relief or a slot in the lower radiator to clear it.
Wankel exhaust is *hot*, so it is an issue.
I've never cared for the sound at all, just nasty to my ears.
They do make serious power, but I haven't seen any comparison of engine weights lately.
And there's always argument over what the displacement actually is...
You're right, I meant to say header. I didn't notice the mistake til I read Randy's post...
Quote from: Speeddog on June 30, 2008, 11:57:13 PMI've never cared for the sound at all, just nasty to my ears.
That's part of why I like it. ;D
There's no melodic interplay between power pulses, as with a twin. No rheostat smoothness as with a four cylinder. And even the banshee wail of an angered, multi-cylinder two-smoke can't match it.
Its pure malice, a rasping hatred of its own existance. [evil]
Somewhere on th web there's one of those inspiration posters for rotary engines. I can't seem to find it now. It says something like:
The Rotary: In theory, Communism works, too. [laugh]
Quote from: Speeddog on June 30, 2008, 11:57:13 PM
And there's always argument over what the displacement actually is...
seems you could just put a meter on the intake valve and turn the engine manually -- and read how much it pulls..
Meh. They are different for the sake of being different, there aren't that many benefits. You get high horsepower from very little displacement, but you also get a virtually torque-free powerband and ridiculously bad fuel economy and oil consumption. They've also been shown to wear out quickly (rotor tips) despite the whole "less moving parts" card.
As someone said, you have small, light, conventional motors that put out more power than you ever need while running forever and being quite efficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions. So why mess with the formula? Same reason there are no turbo or supercharged bikes -they aren't needed, so why bother spending the money on being the oddball?
Quote from: NeufUnSix on July 01, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
Meh. They are different for the sake of being different, there aren't that many benefits. You get high horsepower from very little displacement, but you also get a virtually torque-free powerband and ridiculously bad fuel economy and oil consumption. They've also been shown to wear out quickly (rotor tips) despite the whole "less moving parts" card.
As someone said, you have small, light, conventional motors that put out more power than you ever need while running forever and being quite efficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions. So why mess with the formula? Same reason there are no turbo or supercharged bikes -they aren't needed, so why bother spending the money on being the oddball?
+1
Eww, rotor seals. :P
As for the turbo, i dunno - my VRSCR "needs" one since 121 HP at the wheel just isn't enough for a touring bike. ;)
Quote from: Speeddog on June 30, 2008, 11:57:13 PM
Wankel exhaust is *hot*, so it is an issue.
I can vouch for that. I've got a Arctic Cat snowmobile with a 303 Wankel Rotary in it, exhaust glows red after a couple of minutes.
Quote from: NeufUnSix on July 01, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
They've also been shown to wear out quickly (rotor tips) despite the whole "less moving parts" card.
It's usually Apex Seals that go out...
I rode one of Kenny Dreers Norton Rotary Engined bikes.It was an F1 , an original F1 not the current bike pictured above.It was cramped as it was made for racing on the TT Circuit.
Fast............OMFG was it fast.
It spooled up so fricking quick it was difficult keeping the thing in the right gear.Handling was not a problem.This thing went round corners like you wouldn't believe............Braking was fricking awesome as well.I feel very honored to be one of only a few to ever ride an F1 in North America.They are a very small bike, full bore race set up, incredibly fast and unbelievably uncomfortable.Still I am so glad I had that experience.I rode the 952 and 961 prototypes as well in various versions of prototype.I am a lucky dog!
guys, everyone is talking about Rotary engines, the thread is about ROTORY engines! come on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBg86bjr8l0&feature=related
Awesome, awesome, AWESOME clip! [clap] ;D
One of the problems with the older suzukis was heat. lots and lots of heat. we did a project on the design in undergrad engineering.
Anyone ex-military? I'm trying to learn more about the rotary engine in this: http://www.aaicorp.com/New/UAS/html/shadowr_200.html
Rotary engine that weights @20lbs and makes 38hp. Aircooled. Uses @ 7liters / fuel per hour at full throttle.
Quote from: MotoCreations on July 02, 2008, 08:58:50 AM
Anyone ex-military? I'm trying to learn more about the rotary engine in this: http://www.aaicorp.com/New/UAS/html/shadowr_200.html
Rotary engine that weights @20lbs and makes 38hp. Aircooled. Uses @ 7liters / fuel per hour at full throttle.
That's 0.32 lb/HP-hr, a little thirsty.
Quote from: Speeddog on July 02, 2008, 09:17:09 AM
That's 0.32 lb/HP-hr, a little thirsty.
But say at 80% throttle and given the weight of the engine itself -- do you know of an engine that is < 20lbs and makes 38hp? Carb'd so somewhat primitive in that aspect.
Quote from: MotoCreations on July 02, 2008, 09:24:59 AM
But say at 80% throttle and given the weight of the engine itself -- do you know of an engine that is < 20lbs and makes 38hp? Carb'd so somewhat primitive in that aspect.
At 80% throttle the engine will be less efficient, fuel consumption liters/hour will go down, but power will go down more % than the fuel consumption.
That engine likely has little or no charging system, and no transmission or clutch, maybe a gear or belt reduction to get prop rpm down to acceptable levels.
Likely no cooling system either, at least that would be effective at typical road speed.
Aircraft motors are usually carefully ducted and reliant on consistent high airspeed for cooling.
Dunno what the latest crop of 450 MX/motard engines weigh, likely the closest to that target.