3 ms·

actually a two stroke, 2 opposing pistons in a common cylinder cycling through compression stroke-combustion-power stroke. no connecting rod to bend or break, a

by rolph 3y ago

actually a two stroke, 2 opposing pistons in a common cylinder cycling through compression stroke-combustion-power stroke. no connecting rod to bend or break, and large cams replacing the crankshaft https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/07/14/innengine-1.gif?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440 https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/07/14/innengine-1.gif?... [Now, here's the thing: this motor isn't a one-stroke engine. It has a compression stroke and exhaust stroke, making it a two-stroke cycle. INNengine acknowledges this and has said that it brands the motor as such because people would assume that a two-stroke engine would need to have oil mixed in along with fuel.] the goal seems to be a hybrid ehicle that places more duty reliance on electric propulsion, but keeping the long range capabilities of petrol fuel in a combustion-over-electric design. [adndm] this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine stuff

ksaj 3y ago
Indeed. My old bike had 1400cc and was rated at only 94 hp.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  'old' may have something to do with it here, engine tech has seen all kinds of improvements over the last two decades resulting in tiny engines with ridiculous levels of output while still having reasonable life span. A pretty common small car engine that has .9 L displacement and a turbo yields 105 HP, that's 120 HP/L, vs 67 HP/L for your bike. A few years ago I had a 660 CC 4 cylinder engine in a car that did 67 HP so that's about 100 HP/L. This engine is pretty clever, it avoids one nasty problem of swashplate drives and their cousins: the piston travel is only half here of what it would be otherwise. But there is a lot of extra complexity.
  - windexh8er 3y ago
    We should probably call a spade a spade here. This is a 2-stroke motor. In today's powersports world it's normal for a factory 650cc motor to be putting out over 135HP. It's not impressive in terms of the performance to engine size and, as I mentioned in another comment, this engine will be extremely weak on the torque side of the equation which will make those ponies virtually useless.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's fair, for a two stroke it isn't substantially better than what's out there. As for weak on the torque, for a generator that may not matter all that much. What I'm more curious about is the powerband, in other words how wide the RPM range is over which it produces max power. If that range is wide it might be a very useful engine (because you can simply couple it with an appropriate gearbox for torque), if it is very narrow then it really only will work well as a generator producing high frequency AC. That's one reason why specialty generator engines tend to run with very sharp cams on the camshafts: they only need to work in a very narrow RPM range and opening them earlier or later is just going to waste fuel so for maximum efficiency you want the valves to be open just long enough to take in enough air or to exhaust the expended fuel/air mixture. edit: apparently this engine also has a super charger, which isn't quite 'atmospheric'.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    The Ariel Atom V8 did ~160hp/liter in a 3L NA engine. I'm sure its pretty high strung, but its also older and more "conventional" than exotic supercar engines.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      The Atom is an absolute beast.
- dieselgate 3y ago
  There are 1.9L/1900cc turbo diesel engines rated at 95hp - funny to think about
merth 3y ago
why I feel like this would put pressure on one side of cylinder block due to non-linear force against bottom wave-plate and cause wear and tear?
- timlarshanson 3y ago
  Agreed. Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for intake?)
  - pengaru 3y ago
    > Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for intake?) In lieu of combustion you still have the air spring rebound from the compression... (at least until the exhaust opens)
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    Presumably an electric starter, much like a traditional engine - only it’ll turn the driver shaft instead of a cam shaft.
windexh8er 3y ago
> this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine stuff HP-wise, maybe. But the reality is this is not a performant engine you'll see replacing high performance 2 or 4 stroke motors anytime soon. First is that the company has lied a lot in their marketing. They imply that the motor is naturally aspirated and then show a car, with said plant running a very obvious supercharger. They also lie about the motor type - there is no viable 1-stroke motor and there likely never will be based on the laws that govern our planet. They even admit to their own lie in the name of marketing (a non-oil burning 2-stroke is not a 1-stroke by default). The real reason this motor will not touch a comparable superbike cc-to-cc is that this motor has no claimed torque specs. It really doesn't matter at all if they're able to put out 120HP in 500cc if it has low torque. And we know it has low torque based on the fact that this motor has no crankshaft, and therefore the mechanical advantage that adds. I currently have 650, 800 and 850cc 2-stroke motors today that have similar HP-to-cc today compared to the 120HP they've claimed from 500cc. The difference is that all these motors have the torque required for driving performance. While I would love to see something bridge the gap of small heavy 4-stroke vs light oil burning 2-stroke this is, unfortunately, not it.
userbinator 3y ago
this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine stuff The real question you should be asking when you see suspiciously high power densities is "for how long?" A car and a truck engine can have the same HP rating, but the former is not going to last very long producing that power continuously, while the latter is essentially designed to spend most of its time at full power.

by rolph 3y ago

ksaj 3y ago

Indeed. My old bike had 1400cc and was rated at only 94 hp.

jacquesm 3y ago
'old' may have something to do with it here, engine tech has seen all kinds of improvements over the last two decades resulting in tiny engines with ridiculous levels of output while still having reasonable life span. A pretty common small car engine that has .9 L displacement and a turbo yields 105 HP, that's 120 HP/L, vs 67 HP/L for your bike. A few years ago I had a 660 CC 4 cylinder engine in a car that did 67 HP so that's about 100 HP/L. This engine is pretty clever, it avoids one nasty problem of swashplate drives and their cousins: the piston travel is only half here of what it would be otherwise. But there is a lot of extra complexity.
- windexh8er 3y ago
  We should probably call a spade a spade here. This is a 2-stroke motor. In today's powersports world it's normal for a factory 650cc motor to be putting out over 135HP. It's not impressive in terms of the performance to engine size and, as I mentioned in another comment, this engine will be extremely weak on the torque side of the equation which will make those ponies virtually useless.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's fair, for a two stroke it isn't substantially better than what's out there. As for weak on the torque, for a generator that may not matter all that much. What I'm more curious about is the powerband, in other words how wide the RPM range is over which it produces max power. If that range is wide it might be a very useful engine (because you can simply couple it with an appropriate gearbox for torque), if it is very narrow then it really only will work well as a generator producing high frequency AC. That's one reason why specialty generator engines tend to run with very sharp cams on the camshafts: they only need to work in a very narrow RPM range and opening them earlier or later is just going to waste fuel so for maximum efficiency you want the valves to be open just long enough to take in enough air or to exhaust the expended fuel/air mixture. edit: apparently this engine also has a super charger, which isn't quite 'atmospheric'.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  The Ariel Atom V8 did ~160hp/liter in a 3L NA engine. I'm sure its pretty high strung, but its also older and more "conventional" than exotic supercar engines.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The Atom is an absolute beast.
dieselgate 3y ago
There are 1.9L/1900cc turbo diesel engines rated at 95hp - funny to think about

merth 3y ago

why I feel like this would put pressure on one side of cylinder block due to non-linear force against bottom wave-plate and cause wear and tear?

timlarshanson 3y ago
Agreed. Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for intake?)
- pengaru 3y ago
  > Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for intake?) In lieu of combustion you still have the air spring rebound from the compression... (at least until the exhaust opens)
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  Presumably an electric starter, much like a traditional engine - only it’ll turn the driver shaft instead of a cam shaft.

windexh8er 3y ago

> this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine stuff HP-wise, maybe. But the reality is this is not a performant engine you'll see replacing high performance 2 or 4 stroke motors anytime soon. First is that the company has lied a lot in their marketing. They imply that the motor is naturally aspirated and then show a car, with said plant running a very obvious supercharger. They also lie about the motor type - there is no viable 1-stroke motor and there likely never will be based on the laws that govern our planet. They even admit to their own lie in the name of marketing (a non-oil burning 2-stroke is not a 1-stroke by default). The real reason this motor will not touch a comparable superbike cc-to-cc is that this motor has no claimed torque specs. It really doesn't matter at all if they're able to put out 120HP in 500cc if it has low torque. And we know it has low torque based on the fact that this motor has no crankshaft, and therefore the mechanical advantage that adds. I currently have 650, 800 and 850cc 2-stroke motors today that have similar HP-to-cc today compared to the 120HP they've claimed from 500cc. The difference is that all these motors have the torque required for driving performance. While I would love to see something bridge the gap of small heavy 4-stroke vs light oil burning 2-stroke this is, unfortunately, not it.

userbinator 3y ago

this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine stuff The real question you should be asking when you see suspiciously high power densities is "for how long?" A car and a truck engine can have the same HP rating, but the former is not going to last very long producing that power continuously, while the latter is essentially designed to spend most of its time at full power.