3 ms·
Must have been two stroke, 4 stroke motors are too large and heavy for an application like that.
by _yb2s 10mo ago
Must have been two stroke, 4 stroke motors are too large and heavy for an application like that.
- Epa095 10mo agoAccording to Wikipedia > The engine was an air-cooled, 4-stroke, 155 cc engine over the front wheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoped https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoped
- _yb2s 10mo agoGuess I was wrong, that’s a shocking engineering choice, that engine looks massive and heavy. A four stroke engine is about twice the weight and size for the same power output, but much more fuel efficient.
- gerdesj 10mo ago"Fuel efficient" - that's probably why. If the fuel efficiency more than off sets the additional weight, for range then four stroke might be indicated. There are lots of other factors to consider.
- _yb2s 10mo agoFour stroke engines are also quieter, last longer, and have lower emissions, but cost a lot more to make as they are much more complex.
- SR2Z 10mo agoI guess this is an old engine, but it's bizarre to me that fuel efficiency could be a factor for something this slow and light.
- saaaaaam 10mo agoPresumably carrying fuel on the device was a consideration so greater fuel efficiency helps reduce the amount of petrol you’re lugging around.
- _yb2s 10mo agoA major factor if you actually are using it to get anywhere, because it’s likely not practical to carry more than a liter or so of fuel.