Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Rotary, yep Rotary motorcycle...

Discussion in 'Multimedia' at netrider.net.au started by ward_4e, Jun 13, 2007.

  1. #1 ward_4e, Jun 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
  2. oh btw.. the music halfway through makes you start to twitch... 70's minimalist japanese techno... :)
  3. Grrrrr bloody captains of industry! THAT is not a Rotary engine, in is a Wankel engine and a mis-use of the term...

    The entire engine rotates around the stationary crankshaft in a true rotary,

  4. Point taken... Well I guess Suzuki produces the best wankel motorcycles then... :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
  5. It cost them millions in R&D and promotion, millions more fixing what didn't work, and millions more when they quietly dropped it and hoped no-one noticed. One of the grand failures of the industry, and one of the rare occasions when a Japanese manufacturer came a gutser on a product.
  6. Arrr actually no Norton did. http://www.nortonrotary.org.uk/

    And I think it's still not a bad idea. A smaller rotary with a turbo, would be quite good.

    Oh and Inc, are you sure. I was taught that radial could be stationary or rotating housing and what you have shown there is a rotating housing radial engine.

    A rotary, as far as I knew was a Wankel, but apparently the original design did have a rotating outer housing.
  7. Which the British then promptly copied :LOL: (and people wonder why the British motorcycle collapsed). Still you have to give Suzuki credit for trying to be different, after all if they hadn't of taken risks we'd have never had the Katana or even the GSXR.
    And now that Mazda has sorted the Wankel engine out fairly well with their new Renesis engine perhaps it's time bike manufacturers had another look at the technology. Rotarys may still use a lot of fuel but would suit a small, light, nimble bike - in fact sounds the perfect replacement for 2-stroke 125/250s which will soon be killed off by emissions regs.
  8. Yeah the suzuki rotary was pretty big and the Norton one was well underdeveloped. Norton by then was a shoe string affair. Rotaries respond well to turbo's, so like I said a smaller turbo charged rotary would be good.
  9. Inc's right, in a chronological context.

    Rotary means (meant) the whole engine rotates around a fixed crank, that isn't the case with the NSU-Wankel
    Radial means the cylinders are radially mounted around a crank,m as opposed to "inline", which at the time also meant "V" engines, "W" and Delta config.. all "inline" as opposed to "Radial". They didn't care to compare with the earlier rotary, as it had already died it's natural death, due in part to the constant loss lube system and poor potential to improve torque/power output without the resulting centrifugal forces making the plane un-flyable.

    Seeing the original rotary died from natural causes, I guess NSU-Wankel and eventually Mazda and Suzuki thought that the term Rotary was more appealing than "wankel" or "epitrochoidal combustion chamber, with eccentric rotor"

    The things chewed thru spark plugs like they were malteasers! Really expensive when there are two plugs per rotor

    The model plane motor maker "OS" makes a luverlly little 30cc (nominal) NSU-Wankel engine, very pretty.

    The steam engine people are looking at a two rotor (one large, one small on common crank) device that is putting out very impressive torque at fairly low steam pressure, but like the Internal Combustion version, gas sealing and seal life are difficult and expensive

    Also hard to make that rotor(s) light, they need to have a reasonable mass to keep spinning at lowish) revs
  10. Yes, I am sure, the rotary design originated in 1889 when Lawrence Hargrave first developed one using compressed air as the power source. It first went into production as the Balzer aero engine in 1899 because at the very low power outputs of the day, a large flywheel was needed to 'carry over' between power pulses, and it was simply logical to use the entire engine as the flywheel. If Balzer could also have designed a viable airframe he would have beaten the Wrights by four years.

    The Radial is a different concept altogether, with stationary cylinders and a rotating crank. The main difference (besides the obvious one) is that a Rotary could not have a carburettor or throttle, the fuel simply flowed down the hollow crankshaft via a fuel shutoff valve, and was thrown up into the cylinders via copper intake tubes using centrifugal force. There was no ability to control revs whatsoever, it was either flat-out or stopped. All control was by 'blip switch' which shorted out the ignition magneto. The lubricating oil was likewise thrown up the cylinders and out the exhaust in a total loss system. I have flown an aircraft so powered, and trust me it is not a simple task.
  11. Yep, but the new Renesis engine is putting out nearly as much power in non-turbo form as a turbocharged 13B so using the new design a turbo might not actually be necessary (which would certainly reduce the complexity).
  12. I wasn't criticising Suzuki for having a go at the Wankel; after all van Veen and Norton flirted with it too. And if manufacturers didn't have a go we'd still be riding single-cyliner-engined bicycle thingies! But it was a HUGE risk, and perhaps with the problems that car manufacturers were having with the Wankel at the same time, maybe someone should have said, "Hey, is this such a good idea??" (In Japanese, of course!)
  13. did someone say Rotary...Brap, brap, brap or is that wank, wank wank.
    I can never tell.

    Either way Wankel's suck.
  14. True but persistence can pay off Hornet, just look at Mazda. Sure it took them a long time to get the Wankel engine up to a reasonable standard - but in the process they also created a niche market of die-hard rotary fans (who aren't likely to be swayed by other manufacturers). There's already rumours that they're going to start offering the Renesis engine in the MX-5 and possibly even some of their other vehicles like the CX-7 to cash in on this market.
  15. Ahh yes. Nothing like constructive criticism. The truth is their ability to rev, light weight and simplicity makes them ideal motorcycle engines.

    Their thirst doesn't. Solve that problem, and Mazda has, then why wouldn't you put one in a bike?
  16. Only the thirst for fuel - still drinks plenty of oil though. Once again perfect replacement for a 2-stroke :).
  17. Your right that the RX8 is putting out good power for an unopened NA factory motor but its not more powerful than a turbo 13B in stock trim. the FD RX7 (13B-REW 206kw) and cosmo (20BTT) still make alot more power stock. The RX8 motor is a different style of exhaust port which may not be as turbo friendly but it has had the desired effect in bringing down fuel consumption.

    A well soughted NA 13B can make alot more than the RX8 but with the downside of high idle and stupid fuel consumption, or a stock S4 13BT motor with a new ecu and a bit more boost can make close to 200rwkw on stock internals (and in my case on a unopened 22yr old motor on 14psi :shock: )

    Recently for IPRA racing a few teams have made single rotor engines (eg half of a 138) and turboing them so they can get the car in the under 2L class. they are making 150+ rwks and this sized motor could fit in a bike no probs :wink:

    You mate are a good excuse for birth control. If anyone is wanker around here it is you for being so stupid. you would be suprised what a well soughted rotary would do to you either on your piston slapping bike or car :idea: :twisted:
  18. The motor consumes no more oil than a normal poiston motor apart from the fact you run OMP on the motor. If the car is a purpose built car you can either use a remote OMP which doesnt use sump oil or run premix fuel to lubricate the seals.

    In anycase even when your using omp the sump level shouldnt drop more than 400ml over a 5000km duration (and the motor has a total capacity of nearly 6L!)

    either way still uses less oil than a Gen III lol :p
  19. Yeah you're right. I should have said it produces more power than some turbo 13b's (ie the early ones) - after all there's not many people in this country that would have owned an unmodified FD RX-7.
  20. So thats why they sound like they are cutting out when they land. I always wondered