C5 Golfer Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Even tho I am not a fan of motorized 2 wheelers -- this one would be one of my favorites if I was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 That's actually a rotary engine bike? Dang, that's even cooler than the bike with a v8 in it I'm pretty sure.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V*L*A*D Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 actually, it's a radial engine...a rotary is a wankel or other non-articulated piston-train engine. a radial is, conceptually-speaking, a series of v-twin engines arranged, as petals, in full-bloom:D ... not that i'm into either v-twin engines or flying..... (note that the motorcycle has 8 cylinders, while the airplane has 10...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Actually it looks like it's 7 cylinders? Maybe I'm being optically deluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Actually it looks like it's 7 cylinders? Maybe I'm being optically deluded. Check here - http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/11/radial-engine-motorcycle-2/ and also here -- http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/10/radial-engine-powered-motorcycle/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 actually, it's a radial engine...a rotary is a wankel or other non-articulated piston-train engine. Yeah, I didn't think that sounded right, but I couldn't come up with the word radial for some reason. I'm familiar with wankels and the rotary type engines. One of the mazdas (rx8 I think) has the rotary engine, as do a few snowmobiles. Not even counting the number of cylinders, I'd still like the radial better than the v8. I wonder how it feels to ride... Theoretically I think all of the forces made by one cylinder are neutralized by it's opposing cylinder, so I'd imagine it's actually a pretty smooth ride. Still alot of engine for a cruising bike like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 i think you'd have to be a wankel to ride that stupid thing. looks like 10 lbs of ****e in a 5 lb bag. just because you can, doesn't mean you should... I wonder if your comment applies here as well???? http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 How else are you going to make a beetle cool??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywhit Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ...that's exactly what my coach used to say about "eurocarving" and "freecarving"... doesn't make it a golden rule....;) because we can....... Al - Certified Old Fart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 sweet bike the engine is an AUssie design built for the home built airplane crowd it is like 155 horsepower and very smooth you should see the other side of the bike each cylinder has its own straight pipe. very cool and very loud. Jesse JAmes also built a bike with this motor in it and its actually facing forward like it would in a plane. It looks like if you laid it down it would go clear over and come up the other side:lol: THis one is much cleaner and sweeter looking than jesse's here's one of jesse james radial and one of the reverse side of this bike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 cleaner and sweeter, but Jesse's has handlebars... Also mentioned somewhere on some page was cooling, which Jesses would probably do pretty alright in, but the other one might have some hot rear cylinders.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 the manufacturer Rotec says that the engine has enough surface area to cool adequately no matter how it is mounted provided that there is airflow. So on a bike its no problem to mount it either way. AMerican Iron had a centerfold right up on this bike in Dec 06 issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 I wonder how the torque of this bike shown above affects the rider when the it is WOT and accelerating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 I wonder how the torque of this bike shown above affects the rider when the it is WOT and accelerating ouch sounds like work keeping it on its wheels. 172" displacement 110 HP 160 ft/lbs of torque. incidentally the smallest engine of this type actually in production WWII was a 600 cubic inch monster four feet in diameter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin A. Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 the problem with the above configuration (NS crank) is torque-pull, which, at any good throttle-blip, would pull the machine over, gyroscopically...very scary.... Quite possibly not...that would be a MAJOR consideration, but if you used the proper wheels-fairly heavy and well balanced-then the gyroscopic forces of the engine revving up would actually be insignificant compared to those of the wheels. The gyroscopic presession of the wheels is actually what causes bikes to lean in the first place, and then right themselves at the other side of the corner. Rim-heavy/large wheels would certainly negate any adverse torque pull from the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 ouch sounds like work keeping it on its wheels. 172" displacement 110 HP 160 ft/lbs of torque.incidentally the smallest engine of this type actually in production WWII was a 600 cubic inch monster four feet in diameter. Dr D-- if that was the smallest == Damn! what was the biggest? At approx $4000 a little model airplane radial motor would be my choice for an R/C fun... but that is too much money for something I'd crash at takeoff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V*L*A*D Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Quite possibly not...that would be a MAJOR consideration, but if you used the proper wheels-fairly heavy and well balanced-then the gyroscopic forces of the engine revving up would actually be insignificant compared to those of the wheels. The gyroscopic presession of the wheels is actually what causes bikes to lean in the first place, and then right themselves at the other side of the corner. Rim-heavy/large wheels would certainly negate any adverse torque pull from the engine. ....you do realize that between stop and go, groundspeed is often slow (ie wheels turning very slowly), while the motorspeed is fast, right? early High-performance BMW motorcycles (boxer config..) give one torque-roll issues at slow speed/start, when the throttle istwisted with any glee. ...and these had extremely well-balanced/blueprinted flywheels.cranks.... and these were mere flat-twin engines (as opposed to 7 cyl. radials:eek: ).... 'gyroscopic presession' of the wheels has nothing to do with torque-roll (esp. considering the fact that it occurs at standstill, as well), which is the predisposition of a flat or tran-V mount (ie cylinders on either side, like a Guzzi or a BMW Boxer) to twist the motorcycle's attitude with the rotation of the crankshaft. torque-roll is the weird sensation of your motorcycle leaning to one side with each twist of the thottle. with that radial so-mounted, it would be.... significant. my bad for my poor descrition in my earlier post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin A. Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 ....you do realize that between stop and go, groundspeed is often slow (ie wheels turning very slowly), while the motorspeed is fast, right?early High-performance BMW motorcycles (boxer config..) give one torque-roll issues at slow speed/start, when the throttle istwisted with any glee. ...and these had extremely well-balanced/blueprinted flywheels.cranks.... and these were mere flat-twin engines (as opposed to 7 cyl. radials:eek: ).... 'gyroscopic presession' of the wheels has nothing to do with torque-roll (esp. considering the fact that it occurs at standstill, as well), which is the predisposition of a flat or tran-V mount (ie cylinders on either side, like a Guzzi or a BMW Boxer) to twist the motorcycle's attitude with the rotation of the crankshaft. torque-roll is the weird sensation of your motorcycle leaning to one side with each twist of the thottle. with that radial so-mounted, it would be.... significant. my bad for my poor descrition in my earlier post. I was talking more about torque roll at speed...highway speeds and hitting the throttle, of course taking off from a stoplight would be a mess...I was honestly just talking about say...60-80mph acceleration. And no, Gyroscopic Precession has nothing to do with the torque roll whatsoever, I should have been clearer there. I'm just saying that having two big rotating discs would counteract most if not all of the torque roll from the engine while the bike is in motion. My thoughts don't always come out correctly through my fingers . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I was talking more about torque roll at speed...highway speeds and hitting the throttle, of course taking off from a stoplight would be a mess...I was honestly just talking about say...60-80mph acceleration. And no, Gyroscopic Precession has nothing to do with the torque roll whatsoever, I should have been clearer there. I'm just saying that having two big rotating discs would counteract most if not all of the torque roll from the engine while the bike is in motion. My thoughts don't always come out correctly through my fingers . These are the times when would it not be nice to be sitting at a big round table with a couple of cold ones and talk about it face to face? Also would be nice if had that bike there and we could prove out these theories on a closed track after we had a few cold ones, we’d end up a lot of material for Youtube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Actually, wouldn't a radial engine have much less rotational inertia than, say a v of the same size? The radial's drive shaft is much shorter and has just about the same throw, so that'd be less mass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Actually I was comparing the east-west configuration of the radial engine (jesse james version) to the v8 engine with the drive shaft being in the front to back position.. LIke so: The rotational mass on this configuration should be greater than the rotational mass on a radial I would think. Also, this is why I became an engineer. I enjoy discussing **** like this. Cold beers just make the convo flow more freely. On a bad note, being an engineer ruins a few things, like, say, movies... "That could never happen... Why don't they do it this way... It wouldn't work like that..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theduckllr Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I love custom bikes. I made this a few years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I love custom bikes. I made this a few years ago... no you didn't. nice Photoshop work though! :p Tesi + MH900e.... that'd be about a $100k custom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 ...magazine did a story on Jesse James' version recently. Neat looking, but 39hp/liter.... yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djtrussny Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Hahaha, nice catch. At initial site I was like Holy S**T, then I read the above post and realized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.