Very cool. What is missing from the animation is the cylinder, which is still what is driving the whole thing. So whats really different is the replacement of the main shaft set up with the direct cam things. It's not a Wankle variant as I first thought.
I don't get this comment at all "The piston assembly slides rigidly through the block eliminating piston to cylinder-bore contact."
How can you eliminate piston to bore contact. Presumably the piston still has to be tight to the cylinder to facilitate controlled combustion, and preventing fuel from blowing back into the cams (which must require lubrication).
Anyone get what they are talking about?
It looks too bulky for motorycle application.
What's wrong with the Wankle? Why did only Mazda use it?
I think what he means is that the piston is never side-loaded against the cylinder wall. Unlike a conventional engine, all the forces stay in-line with the stroke of the piston.
The problem with the Wankel engine IIRC is in maintaining a good seal between the tips of the triangular piston and the cylinder wall. It tends to get sloppy as the engine ages.
Mazda fixed the problems with it's rotary by replacing the rubber crown seals. My '82 (300,000 mis), 85, (450,000 mis) and the 92 (100,000 still running)and my soon to be RX8 never had anything but oil changes in them.
I think what they meant was that the opposing pistons being ridgidly connected on one shaft are supported on the ends by the rings and the main weight of the whole assembly is supported by the bearings. The cylinder bore wear would be more "perfect circle" (pun) than normal horizontally opposed engines like BMW, VW, Porsche, Subaru, Corvair etc.........
The reference is to the connecting rod forces acting upon the piston when the crankshaft rotation is at 90 degrees to the axis of the bore. The rod tends to push the piston, sideways, against the cylinder wall. It is a particular problem in short stroke engines, such as racing engines that have a high degree of "rod angularity". The longer the rod, the less the connecting rod forces act upon the piston. In this engines case, there is no connecting rod. There is also nothing new.
NSU was the first company to use the Wankel. Subsequent to Mazda's implementation, General Motors bought - but never used - rights.
The original Wankel problem was seal wear. Later, problems centered on emissions - but, this was, again, seal-related. Looking at rated reliability and service costs, I suspect that seals are still a problem. It's a very pleasing engine to drive, but, so far, just not practical; a Mazda salesman recently cautioned me that the latest model should be allowed a few minutes to warm up - get real!
"What's wrong with the Wankle? Why did only Mazda use it?"
The dying gasp of Norton motorcycles was a wankel powered bike.
mazda bought the rights. that’s why it was never developed any better.
Ofcause the ring on the piston is very close to touching the bore to use the combustion, they mean a standard IC engine tries to push the piston sideways as it travels up the bore where the revetec cce does not try to do that so much