I've always wondered, why haven't Doritos made a comeback

>>17394725
the whole point of the industry moving to small engines is to save gas, and utility engines are made for torque, which the wankel is lacking.

For small engines, it's all about torque, which a wankel does not have.

>>17394725
>For example the Sachs km24 is a 294cc single rotor making 23-24hp at 6k while only weighing 45 lbs and running on 2 stroke gas
That's not that good, a KX or CR250 makes that much power and weighs the same.

>>17394741
>>17394744
True, but there was also the Sachs km914 which was a 300cc making 18.5hp but It was also known as a low end torquey engine rather than a high end peaky engine. It doesn't rev very high by rotary standards but makes it's torque at the low end.

>>17394756
what's the torque rating?

>>17394752
The km24 was making that in the mid 70s. Imagine what it could do with 45 years of r&d

>>17394761
I can't find the official rating (probably wasn't even in the manual because no one cares abouttorque in a snowmobile) but if you look up the motor all accounts are that it is a torquey motor. Maybe not a torque monster, but still torquey

Not OP but how do y'all think a Wankel would fare as a light-duty/civillian use power generator powerplant? It could just be rigged to run at the ideal RPM for Wankels so it wouldn't be put under any undue stress, and while I'm not an expert on ICE generators I would think for a civilian-level application that you wouldn't need a whole lot of torque. Would they still have an inherently shorter service life than a reciprocating piston engine? I mean hell, doesn't the Abrams have (or is getting) a Wankel APU?

>>17394725
>braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappp

>>17394781
abrams will use one, but it's a Diesel/Avgas model. The APU will only run when the internal batteries get low and the main (now diesel) engine isn't running. the rotary produces good power for it's size and weight, so the Army likely picked it for that reason. They don't really mind about long term reliability in such a case, and it won't be used too often.

>>17394774
2bh 2 strokes haven't really changed all that much since then either, 2 stroke tech could use some advancement as well, but it will never get it since it burns oil, just like a rotary does.
Burning oil is a big no-no.

>>17394853
But why is burning oil bad

>>17394939
It spooks hyper liberals because muh environment

>>17394939
The average consumer will never check the oil often enough, if at all.

>>17394990
2 strokes (including Sachs wankels) don't have oil systems, all the oil is from premix.

>>17394725
it's difficult to make an engine that burns oil by design pass emissions regs

File: re5.jpg (349KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1200x900px

>>17394725
Because space isn't the concern, emissions and fuel economy are. The rotary was only viable in Japan due to displacement regulations that aren't really a thing anymore. In passenger cars they will never be a thing again.

As far as go karts go, I think track karts have certain regulations that probably just don't permit rotaries. They are too expensive for the off road kind when a simple Chinese knockoff of a Honda motor works just as well.

Motorcycles might have a chance because space is very limited, and who cares about fuel efficiency it weights nothing and is a toy for most people. Bikes hardly have shit in the way of emissions either.

>>17394853
This isn't the issue anymore. The issue is unburnt hydrocarbons. Diesel marine ships use direct injection with forced induction so they put oil in the crankcase. 2 strokes are ass at efficiency and let a lot of fuel leave.

>>17394960
Only in America does being environmentally conscious get you labeled as a hyper liberal. Guess that's what you get with first world GDP and third world education.

>>17395178
>aren't really a thing anymore
Except they are?
The issue is emissions in most prefectures is also a thing, hence why new rotaries are not being made.

>>17395128
What if they used old cooking oil to make it carbon neutral?

>>17394756
That may be true, but is it more torque, and less money than a harbor freight 212cc?

>>17395598
>tfw your car literally fries its dorito in cooking oil

>wankels cant have good fuel efficiency and are unreliable
you'd better let
http://www.mistral-engines.com
know

>>17394744
>For small engines, it's all about torque, which a wankel does not have.
this

for this engine to be useful, you would need some serious gear reduction. You can't just run something with this engine only, unless it is something that requires high rpm and has little resistance to movement. Adding a transmission just adds pointless cost

>>17395701
it's not that they can't, I think it's more no one wants to spend money developing more efficient ones.

>>17394744
For small engines it's all about torque? That's why superbikes use low revving high torque engines? Oh wait

>>17395772
they have transmission you fucking retard

>>17395772
superbikes are fucking featherweight, torque is not as big of a concern as in cars. My mate worked in a bike repair shop and lifted the damn things every day with little effort.

Compare a sub-100kg bike with a 1+ ton car and ask yourself if the torque requirements are the same. You mong.

File: file.png (148KB, 550x421px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 550x421px

>>17395701
How do Mazda's rotaries differ from rotaries from other developers, such as Curtiss Wright's? Could you use an airplane rotary engine in a car? From what I understand, automotive rotary development was extremely limited, and most automakers abandoned it not because of reliability concerns or lack of torque, but because of the oil crisis. So we only have Mazda's take on the rotary, a company that makes junk.

>>17395870
Radial /= Rotary

>>17395838
Geo metros and Hyundai excels are such torque machines tho

File: file.png (32KB, 517x150px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 517x150px

>>17395884
>company's logo is a fucking rotary
>radial engine

File: 300px-Wright_R-1820_G.jpg (29KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x301px

>>17395870
>Wright engines
>piston driven rotaries
>same as Wankel triangle bullshit

you fuckin wot m8

File: 52345234614352.jpg (2MB, 3519x2381px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3519x2381px

>>17395909
He LITERALLY said Curtiss-Wright you nonce

>>17395909
did you even look at the post he was replying to, or were you just looking at the pictures

>>17395884
There are both radial and rotary plane engines. The difference being, in radials, the crank spins, turning the propeller with it. Rotary looks similar, but the crank is mounted to the plane, then rest of the engine spins, turning the propeller with it. Both rotary and radial plane engines have been tried in cars. Adams-Farwell, an American car manufacturer in late 19th, and early 20th century built cars with rotary style plane engines. There is one still in existence.

>>17395974
>the difference being asgsjladga hurrrrrr
the difference is that radial engines have pistons and rotary engines have a fucking triangle. That alone makes them two entirely different beasts

>>17395695
Gold

>>17395974
Yes, but that's getting nit-picky. Usually the definitions don't matter as much because aero engines *generally* stay distinct from auto engines, hence a rotary to most av geeks refers to things like the Gnome and Le Rhone of WWI fame while to auto enthusiasts obviously means a Wankel. When getting technical, I generally see people referring to the aero-types as rotary-radials and the Wankels as either Wankels or rotaries. It's more semantics though than anything.

There were some early motorcycles that used rotary-radials too, centered on the rear wheel.

>>17395112
The average person doesn't know what the fuck engine oil is/does. People struggle to bake a cake these days and you expect them to mix oil and gas?

>>17395870
Rotaries, radials, and wankles are all different types of internal combustion engine.

>>17396060
makes me wonder if someone has made a wankel rotary, where the rotor is static and the block spins

>>17394725
There's a small Japanese market Mazda car that has a 300cc or so dorito spinning at optimal rpm being used as a generator to run the electric motor.

>>17395194
>This isn't the issue anymore. The issue is unburnt hydrocarbons
oil is unburned hydrocarbons.....
>Diesel marine ships use direct injection with forced induction so they put oil in the crankcase
>diesel marine ships
Not even close in design to a 2 stroke in say, a moped or a dirt bike.
Conventional 2 strokes pump the fuel air mixture through the crank case, where the oil is, and the oil follows where the gas goes.
Into the combustion chamber.
The cylinder walls and piston rings must be lubricated, the oil used for lubrication will burn.

>>17397073
Meant UHC from oil. Those diesel marine engines still follow a 2stoke cycle, and he asked if 2 stokes have developed. They have, but not in any "conventional" method that you would see outside of industry. Point still stands.

>>17397097
>cheap
I wish

>>17394725
Because in a piston engine the piston is being pushed down at a 90 degree angle, also you have a large area to seal including the side seals.

>>17395772
Dude, motorized bicycles, go karts, and 75% of other small engine vehicles don't have a transmission, they usually have a centrifugal clutch. You're also missing the point that nobody wants to spend more than maybe $400 on a small engine, and most people don't even spend that much on the entire build.

>>17395998
rotary engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYc-H8Wg-MQ

radial engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEbDlNeMtLM

>>17397104
FC's are rather cheap to be honest

>>op just wants a fidget spinner for an engine.

>>17394853
Lol, that's why I run castor 927 in my jet ski.

>>17395256
Only in hypertard land do we ban things because of some kneejerk reaction.

https://youtu.be/yi3erdgVVTw

>>17394853

Ktm has or is developing a FI 2 stroke

>>17400296
>jet ski
2 stroke jet skis are banned from most major lakes lol

>>17401697
So?
Changing the method of metering fuel, wow that's really innovative.

>>17398426
kek

>>17397097
>Cheap

Literally nope. A common misconception is that you can just buy the rebuild kit for a thousand bucks and thats it. That's almost never true, if your engine blew the seals, they impact the housing and drag across, gouging it, usually pieces fly off too. The rotors and housings normally get ruined, but the irons can be unusable too.

>>17397097
should be rx-8.
those things go second hand for like $3k. literally no one wants them

>>17401769
Can you buy "upgraded" doritos? Just the triangle part? Always wondered that and never felt like looking.

>>17401784
Yes. In fact, you pretty much have to buy aftermarket doritos because when the apex seals go they usually take out the rotor with them.

>>17401892
It's almost like you can rebuild anything if you Google instructions and an auto parts store

>>17394744
wanklets, when will they learn?

>>17395256
>Only in America does being environmentally conscious get you labeled as a hyper liberal.
It's because some of the liberal extremists make all the other liberals look bad. Those liberals sabotage not just labs, but infrastructure. They may put spikes hidden under the bark in actual logging areas. They've set fire to research labs in my area's university before too. And they constantly file lawsuits in order to drive the costs up as much as possible. They know they will lose, but as long as they can hype up the wording to get the EPA or some other federal agency to take on the case, it costs them very little as the government is the one spending the money.

>>17395178
New bikes, atleast in europe, have to conform to the Euro 4 emissions regulations now. Plenty of bikes were kill due to this.

>>17395838
>sub 100kg superbike
Really made me think

>>17403493
Wankel is light and small, so you can make the bike narrower and thus even lighter still.

>>17395934
>>17395921
>>17395870
those are RADIAL engines

Felix Wankel was the only guy who could design a decent wankel.
That's why we dont use them anymore. Copycat designs by mazda suck