Condor Posted June 2, 2008 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2008 My brother sent this to me and it's definately something to ponder. And they're building bikes!! http://www.coatesengine.com/ http://www.coatesengine.com/videos.html http://www.coatesengine.com/motorcycle.html I wish the motorcycle video were of a better quality, and from what I could hear the thing sounded kinda funky. But they're taking orders.... Wonder how a Venture V4 would behave.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dray Posted June 2, 2008 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2008 sounded like a bunch of rubber bands and screamin squirels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipshot Posted June 2, 2008 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2008 i was completely underwhelmed, by the sound of the harley clone. just jt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freebird Posted June 3, 2008 Share #4 Posted June 3, 2008 Sound aside, I think it's a remarkable technology. If it comes close to doing all that they say it will do, I think there are some real possibilities there. I am impressed with the simplicity of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freebird Posted June 3, 2008 Share #5 Posted June 3, 2008 OK...I hadn't actually watched the motorcycle video...I agree...that sound would drive me NUTS. Surely it's something in the recording and not the actual sound of the bike. I tell you, I would prefer a Venture with a whine or chirp over that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaWhiskey Posted June 3, 2008 Share #6 Posted June 3, 2008 LOL, that is a funny sounding bike. Wonder what it is really supposed to sound like. Still laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orrin Posted June 3, 2008 Share #7 Posted June 3, 2008 A couple of comments: 1: I would not worry about the sound too much. I am sure that at speed the sudden release fo exhaust gas would sound about right and exhaust tuning should take care of modifying the sound of the engine to our liking. 2: They talk about how great the engine is and fuel savings and increased fuel eficientcy. What they don't seam to discuss, at least I didn't hear it, was longevity. Hold long will those valve seals hold up with out some kind of cooling and lubrication. If this is so great I am sure that rotary valves have been thought of before this. Just my 2 cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condor Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted June 3, 2008 I wonder why every other video and pic on the website is first class, and then they come up with this MC video that's supposed to attract potential buyers and it looks like it was done by a 10 year old..... No.. 5 year old... Another thing is that after reading a couple of the press releases they were dated 1999. Wonder why we haven't heard about them sooner???? Still an interesting concept, and I can't believe that engine sounds that bad. Explosions make noise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captnmidnight Posted June 3, 2008 Share #9 Posted June 3, 2008 Sounds like a fart in a bath tub to me. . . .... not that i've ever done that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrood Posted June 3, 2008 Share #10 Posted June 3, 2008 Video and audio sampling rates reduced to almost nothing to... save download time? The result is rather comical... Alvin, Theodore and Simon sound REALLY upset... and the rocks bouncing around in the squirrel cage with them must make it difficult. The idea has merit but, like many, I want to know REAL results of testing, cost -vs- peformance, MTBF and repair costs. Higher compression seldom leads to long life. A neighbor bought a very used diesel pusher motorhome... couldn't stop talking about all the benefits of diesel power... then had to have an overhaul... yeah, few rotating parts but an overhaul was basically a full rebuild... any savings hoped for went out the window. In the LONG run a diesel can be economical... especially if you sell it just before it needs an overhaul (grin!), Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7Goose Posted June 3, 2008 Share #11 Posted June 3, 2008 I thought it was pretty obvious that the motorcycle video had major sound problems - you can even hear the voices breaking up. Seems really dumb for them to use that on their web site - makes me wonder about the overall intelligence of the company. And even if it was good recording, what the hell is the point of watching someone ride a prototype bike around and around a parking lot????? They lost my interest quick. Goose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condor Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share #12 Posted June 3, 2008 Higher compression seldom leads to long life. A neighbor bought a very used diesel pusher motorhome... couldn't stop talking about all the benefits of diesel power... then had to have an overhaul... yeah, few rotating parts but an overhaul was basically a full rebuild... any savings hoped for went out the window. In the LONG run a diesel can be economical... especially if you sell it just before it needs an overhaul (grin!), I donno Mike. I put 365K on a 6.9 F250, and now have 240K on the 7.3 F250...it'll be lucky to hit 241 @ $5 bucks a gallon...., but high compression doesn't neccessarily mean an early death. High compression in a gas engine that isn't designed to handle the high compression will. Before the F250's I owned a '73 GMC 350 3/4T 4x4 that I put 350K on, but I rebuilt that motor 5 times. Wore 2 builds out and broke the other 2. From what I understand #5 is still going strong in the foothills above Sacramento. 100K was the most I could expect out of a build. For the money I spent on the gas 350's I could have rebuilt the 6.9 a couple of times. Economical? I seriously doubt that anything except a rubber band can be considered economical any longer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrood Posted June 4, 2008 Share #13 Posted June 4, 2008 Thanks for the data, Condor. I was really referencing the video REALLY pushing that they used VERY high compression... on a gas engine... I'm always wary of these "new" innovations that push everything to the wall. Had a Chrysler Laser... the original design engine was "ok" for a 2 liter but they wanted "more", so they tossed on a turbo... no beefing up the engine, no increased bearing surface on the crank... at 30k it blew the crank... cracked it. I called around and everybody said, "Yep, they do that..." You have to have sound mechanics, is what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegscraper Posted June 4, 2008 Share #14 Posted June 4, 2008 "Increased engine efficiency." Really? Good breathing efficiency requires a nice straight air flow path. The air path is always changing direction in those things. "Substantially lower emissions." Oh really? How? Probably because the breathing efficiency is so bad. If it can't get air and fuel in, it won't be putting any exhaust out either. This is nothing more than an eye catcher. "Reduced lubrication requirements." With that much sliding surface area? Not buying it. Especially on the exhaust side with the high temperatures. Our standard valves don't require any lubrication at all. "Reduced manufacturing costs." A ha! Here's the ringer. Fewer moving parts and cheaper and easier to make. And if it only lasts 30,000 miles, that means that they can sell another one before very long. Good for the manufacturer. Not good for the consumer. Anyone remember the Wankel? "Adaptable to multiple fuel types." So is most any other engine. Nothing more than another eye catcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaWhiskey Posted June 4, 2008 Share #15 Posted June 4, 2008 Anyone remember the Wankel? I am in agreement with all the other stuff you said but it is the Wankel that caught my eye. In the early Mazda's (Cosmos (10A), RX2 (12A)/3/4 and any other in the late 60's and early 70's) had perty much a 40k engine life before needing to be rebuilt (I still dug em, they ran nice and hard). Rebuild kit , mostly all seals, at about 1980 was about $425 if you got a deal. When the RX7 (13B) came out, they had a life expectancy of 150k+. Don't know what the seal price got up to. A company in California called Racing Beat (Top Mazda Builder) built some single rotor engines for NASA. Picture found here Am I trippin'? No. It is just rare that I get a chance to spit out all that old info in my head. So the answer to your question is Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeze Posted June 4, 2008 Share #16 Posted June 4, 2008 The Mazda RX8 even has a Turbo Charger mounted on its rotary Heart. Seals aren't a Problem anymore, since the new Materials have taken Place in the Automotive Industry. These Motors are high Perfomance and you can expect a long Life out of them. The Fuel Consumption is slightly less than on comparable Motors/Cars. Effiency is not only a Question of Seals, but also on Drag of Bearings on any moving Parts and Losses due to moving a Cam Timing Device. Also, because there's no BANG !! in the Motor, you can not only use less Bearings, but also dimension the needed ones smaller. These Rotary have their Share, but they never will get broad Attention. Why ?? I don't know ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5bc608c29d230c44c77c79acb0510cd8.jpg){kind=avatar}
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now