ReMan
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 07:46 AM |
|
|
Interesting engine idea
http://www.shaneengines.co.uk/home
|
|
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 07:53 AM |
|
|
Might well be a single cylinder, and it will be very lumpy. I cant see how that will work personally, but im sure they are more enlightened than
I.
If it were three cylinders firing sequentially, that might work, but both cylinders firing at the same time like that, you would have to have a huge
flywheel to get the cam to turn under the pressure of both cylinders.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 08:35 AM |
|
|
Interesting idea but, if they say they have run it on a test bench with a 50p standing on it, why not show the video? All you can see is animations,
so I would be sceptical about its existence and/or whether it really is as smooth as they claim
|
|
|
richardlee237
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 09:02 AM |
|
|
Having read the magazine article it keeps saying that the engine is more efficient but does not mention specific fuel consumption, which is the most
important factor.
Perfectly balanced engines always seem to be a nice goal but not necessarily one you can sell.
Given that you have 2 cams, plus 2 camfollowers and a swinging link per cylinder I cannot see how they can claim it is simpler and with fewer parts
than a conventional engine
That said you have to admire the guy for thinking outside the box.
Quote Lord Kelvin
“Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be tolerated only in race horses and women.”
Quote Richard Lee
"and cars"
|
|
|
splitrivet
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 09:05 AM |
|
|
Patented in 2003 and still looking for development partners, sounds like a British invention, shame.
Cheers,
Bob
I used to be a Werewolf but I'm alright nowwoooooooooooooo
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
Err, haven't they just swapped a nice smooth running crank with a sliding (ie heavy on friction) cam and follower where the crank was?
personally I would never buy one just because of the name. Imagine if they fitted that engine to a TVR? it'd be the Shane powered Trevor 
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
Doesn't look any different in principle to a boxer engine.
Same piston action could be made with a crank and split rods, much the same as them massive ship engines.
If its the induction, not sure how they can call a 4 cycle engine a 2 stroke, then why not apply it to a boxer engine??
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 10:21 AM |
|
|
If one cylinder missfires, does it's piston stay up the 'top' of it's bore as there doesn't seem to be anything apart
from compression to push it back down and then how is it going to draw in a new charge and is it going to get belted by the rotor/cam next half
rotation. I can see terrible things happening if the pistons don't follow the rotor/cam i.e. at startup.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 24/4/10 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
In the event of a misfire the piston will not stay at the top of the cylinder as the gudgeon pin appears to have roller bearings at the ends, which
are retained in guide grooves in the f'lywheels'.
It may be 15% more efficient as a stationary engine but it would be one bloody big lump to put in a bike. It would make a BMW bike engine look
positively petite.
No figures as to BHP/Ton I notice.
If it does all it claims would you put money in when it only has UK and Spanish patents? If it works the Chinese will be knocking them out in the
thousand at a quater of the price that you could produce them.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
