Search Results
6/13/2025, 5:40:07 PM
>>28456615
I speak fluent autist so let me elaborate for OP:
>you just have repetitive parts.
Thats what OP was getting at: he likely doesn't know rotaries use different crankshafts whenever you go from a 1 to 2 rotor, or 2 to 3, or 3 to 12 rotor engine. However what he is correct about after watching 4-rotor videos is 3 of those "cylinders" are identical, 3 of those cylinder walls are identical. I'm not well versed in rotaries but I thought I saw Dahm's 4 rotor is somewhat modular where the individual lobes are modular and splined but the overall crank is not. I may be mistaken because rotaries are cool on paper and idiotic in practice and don't care all that much.
What likely came to him in a vision is a V2 engine for example and if you wanted to go to a V4, V6, V8, or V10 you just bolt on another V2 cylinder section, and use a longer crank and longer cylinder head or just individual cylinder heads like you sometimes find on the massive (25 liters and up) diesel engines on generators or tractors for example. (pic related). Maybe you could spline crank shafts to work in different lengths but that doesn't seem as strong to me?
That all makes sense as a theory only: but what OP isn't considering is the machining and casting time to make many small parts instead of 1 big part such as a V8 block. Then on top of that you have so many machining tolerances and mating surfaces, it could never be as reliable as a traditional V8 engine for example. Someone else >>28456562 pointed out one of rotary's many flaws: even if a master engine builder puts it all together, you have so many fucking failure points it just cannot work long term and certainly not as a performance application.
I speak fluent autist so let me elaborate for OP:
>you just have repetitive parts.
Thats what OP was getting at: he likely doesn't know rotaries use different crankshafts whenever you go from a 1 to 2 rotor, or 2 to 3, or 3 to 12 rotor engine. However what he is correct about after watching 4-rotor videos is 3 of those "cylinders" are identical, 3 of those cylinder walls are identical. I'm not well versed in rotaries but I thought I saw Dahm's 4 rotor is somewhat modular where the individual lobes are modular and splined but the overall crank is not. I may be mistaken because rotaries are cool on paper and idiotic in practice and don't care all that much.
What likely came to him in a vision is a V2 engine for example and if you wanted to go to a V4, V6, V8, or V10 you just bolt on another V2 cylinder section, and use a longer crank and longer cylinder head or just individual cylinder heads like you sometimes find on the massive (25 liters and up) diesel engines on generators or tractors for example. (pic related). Maybe you could spline crank shafts to work in different lengths but that doesn't seem as strong to me?
That all makes sense as a theory only: but what OP isn't considering is the machining and casting time to make many small parts instead of 1 big part such as a V8 block. Then on top of that you have so many machining tolerances and mating surfaces, it could never be as reliable as a traditional V8 engine for example. Someone else >>28456562 pointed out one of rotary's many flaws: even if a master engine builder puts it all together, you have so many fucking failure points it just cannot work long term and certainly not as a performance application.
Page 1