Cool Revetech Engine

[DOF_power 0]

They could/should use this in F1.

[monza gorilla 1]

Interesting, but reminds me of the orbital engine of a few years ago. Can't recall the specifics but believe it was Australian. Having said that, I'm all for freedom to innovate in the engine department.

[F1 FANatic 1]

Thx to Max we will never see it even if teams wanted to develop something like that

[DOF_power 0]

Unfortunately it's true. Ironic, since this can save up to 60% fuel, while Max wants 50% fuel reduction.

[Quiet One 15]

Unfortunately it's true. Ironic, since this can save up to 60% fuel, while Max wants 50% fuel reduction.

Very interesting and simple concept (those are the best). My only concern would be durability under heavy strain in F1, but I guess that could be fixed by the engineers.

Again, I think the question is not innovate or not innovate. I think innovation should be given back to the teams. Right now it is in the hands of FIA who decides the (few) developments that can be implemented.

[Yoda McFly 1]

Under the current regime, innovation is only allowed if it's 1) the correct kind of innovation (burn ethanol...), or 2) all the teams have the same epiphany at once, or 3) No one realises it's innovative when you first introduce it. Start winning races with it, and everyone else will either copy it or protest it into illegality.

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

[James T. Conklin 0]

Note that the ReveTech engine has NOT been produced and installed (replacing a standard engine) in a vehicle of known performance... Yet claims of doubling the fuel economy are being made. RED FLAG. That is NOT the method for measurement of fuel economy anyway. When a Professional Mechanical Engineer (like me) evaluates engine performance, the engineer expresses comparative fuel performance in units of: Brake Horsepower-Hours per Pound of Fuel. Units as follows:

[(Foot Pounds/sec)(sec)] / Pound Fuel

= (Foot Pounds) / Pound Fuel

= Feet

This is the same method that has been used to evaluate fuel, propellant, and gun powder for over 1000 years. It is called "impetus". In rocket propulsion it is called propellant impetus with units of Foot Pounds / Pound = Feet.

In ancient gunnery, it was important to know the gun powder impetus in order to calculate gun elevation in order to hit a target at a range. The fort would have a small vertical mortar into which were put: X pounds of powder and Y pounds of iron ball. The mortar was fired and the height of the ball in Feet was measured using a vertical post beside the mortar with someone watching the ball... Thus the expression "Keep your eye on the ball."

SHOW ME THE Reve Tech ENGINEERING EVALUATION NUMBERS IN FEET.

Use a common sense evaluation: How can rotating a crank shaft with cam followers instead of connecting rods reduce fuel consumption "by 60%"? That means using 40% as much fuel. That means extracting 250% as much energy from the fuel. BALONEY!

James T. Conklin, P.E.

[Ash1 0]

Mmmm, someone with brains. Welcome chap, this forum needs you.

[raw 0]

Note that the ReveTech engine has NOT been produced and installed (replacing a standard engine) in a vehicle of known performance... Yet claims of doubling the fuel economy are being made. RED FLAG. That is NOT the method for measurement of fuel economy anyway. When a Professional Mechanical Engineer (like me) evaluates engine performance, the engineer expresses comparative fuel performance in units of: Brake Horsepower-Hours per Pound of Fuel. Units as follows:

[(Foot Pounds/sec)(sec)] / Pound Fuel

= (Foot Pounds) / Pound Fuel

= Feet

This is the same method that has been used to evaluate fuel, propellant, and gun powder for over 1000 years. It is called "impetus". In rocket propulsion it is called propellant impetus with units of Foot Pounds / Pound = Feet.

In ancient gunnery, it was important to know the gun powder impetus in order to calculate gun elevation in order to hit a target at a range. The fort would have a small vertical mortar into which were put: X pounds of powder and Y pounds of iron ball. The mortar was fired and the height of the ball in Feet was measured using a vertical post beside the mortar with someone watching the ball... Thus the expression "Keep your eye on the ball."

SHOW ME THE Reve Tech ENGINEERING EVALUATION NUMBERS IN FEET.

Use a common sense evaluation: How can rotating a crank shaft with cam followers instead of connecting rods reduce fuel consumption "by 60%"? That means using 40% as much fuel. That means extracting 250% as much energy from the fuel. BALONEY!

James T. Conklin, P.E.

Agree with above (as a almost engineer ).

Plus it is said in that video : "This desing takes advantage of the fact that crankshafts are inefficient..."

So what they are trying to say is that it this revetech engine can be up to 60% more efiicient overall due to increase of mechanical efficiency. But mechanical efficiency of modern 4 stroke engine is about 90% anyway, so for me it sounds pretty much unrealistic.

Besides there were many different engine designes over the years (this one actually doensn't look like a completely new idea to me either) - many of them is supposed to be much more efficient than a 4 stroke engine. But somehow none of these designs really turned into mass production. Why is that? Maybe because there are other issues that overshadow increased efficiency just like with a wankel, 2 stroke or 6 stroke engine. Or increased efficiency is made up. That may be a case in revetech as is said in the movie "...and it is just as efficient at idle as it is at full speed" - which is bulls**t.

[Rainmaster 7]

Mmmm, someone with brains. Welcome chap, this forum needs you.

Oh the irony.

Welcome James T. Conklin.

[Ash1 0]

母の膣

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Note that the ReveTech engine has NOT been produced and installed (replacing a standard engine) in a vehicle of known performance... Yet claims of doubling the fuel economy are being made. RED FLAG. That is NOT the method for measurement of fuel economy anyway. When a Professional Mechanical Engineer (like me) evaluates engine performance, the engineer expresses comparative fuel performance in units of: Brake Horsepower-Hours per Pound of Fuel. Units as follows:

[(Foot Pounds/sec)(sec)] / Pound Fuel

= (Foot Pounds) / Pound Fuel

= Feet

This is the same method that has been used to evaluate fuel, propellant, and gun powder for over 1000 years. It is called "impetus". In rocket propulsion it is called propellant impetus with units of Foot Pounds / Pound = Feet.

In ancient gunnery, it was important to know the gun powder impetus in order to calculate gun elevation in order to hit a target at a range. The fort would have a small vertical mortar into which were put: X pounds of powder and Y pounds of iron ball. The mortar was fired and the height of the ball in Feet was measured using a vertical post beside the mortar with someone watching the ball... Thus the expression "Keep your eye on the ball."

SHOW ME THE Reve Tech ENGINEERING EVALUATION NUMBERS IN FEET.

Use a common sense evaluation: How can rotating a crank shaft with cam followers instead of connecting rods reduce fuel consumption "by 60%"? That means using 40% as much fuel. That means extracting 250% as much energy from the fuel. BALONEY!

James T. Conklin, P.E.

Welcome aboard to the engineer

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I'm sorry but there is a much better technology as depicted in this video:

And it uses 100% less fuel than a current F1 car (auto reverses too).

yes it is a rubber-band car

[Jean Todt 4]

I'm sorry but there is a much better technology as depicted in this video:

And it uses 100% less fuel than a current F1 car (auto reverses too).

yes it is a rubber-band car

[mikathegreat2 2]

Welcome to the forums James! Finally someone to keep DOF company !

[Boily 0]

Last time I check for an internal combustion engine to work it needs a 14 to 1 air fuel mixture , so this engine uses 40% less air and fuel ?

And is the rotating mass that much lower then say a rotary engine ?

[James T. Conklin 0]

I'm sorry but there is a much better technology as depicted in this video:

And it uses 100% less fuel than a current F1 car (auto reverses too).

yes it is a rubber-band car.

STOP. A rubber-band car "uses 100% less fuel".

BUT, a rubber band car uses more energy to wind the rubber-band than the work that the rubber-band does to propell the car. There is no free energy.

PS: The compressed air car uses much more energy than the rubber-band car because of the heat lost during air compression.

[monza gorilla 1]

Good Lord. That must be the slowest reply in TF1 history. I look forward to your third post sometime in 2010.