Talk:Flat-twin engine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive this talk page, maybe?

This being a quite long talk page, I hereby propose we start archiving it, prefereably using this system: User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do it. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

O.K., have done, I think... Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Crankcase pressure - lubrication

I recall that there was a large 4-stroke single motorcycle engine of at least 500cc, possibly a KTM or Husqvarna, that used crankcase pressure to drive oil from the sump to the ohc cylinder head, with (I think) a one-way flap valve. Apparently it was simple and reliable, and saved weight and cost by eliminating an oil pump. I remember seeing a cutaway drawing about 20 years go. I'm just trying to remember the details - can anyone help? Arrivisto (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Logic thinking

Let me draw a parallel to the logic in that there are TWO possible crank angles for the two cylinder flat engine.(the Lanchester engine does not represent a third configuration in terms of crank angle, the only difference is it utilizes two cranks.)

Have you ever seen a rear engined car with front drive? (4x4 not included)It is of course possible, but no one has ever done it.(Ok, never say never but no such vehicle has ever entered production) Why? Because the result would be of maximum impracticality. The weight of the engine would not contribute to better traction. It would still have a cardan tunnel. It would have least possible space left for luggage, and heavy luggage would have altered its driving capabilities considerably. The list could go on and on.

The same goes for a flat twin engine. With a two throw crank there would simply be no reason for putting the two throws at any other angle than 180 degrees apart. It would emerge the need for balancing weights despite the two throw configuration, which otherwise will eliminate this need. The engine would also have an uneven firing order despite the advanced crank. It would simply be of minimum simplicity and still have maximum disadvantage ratio. It just doesnt happen. Why do you quarrel with me on this? The same goes for any other engine. They have crank configurations like so and so, for this and that reason and have different advantages and disadvantages. The exceptions are very few, like the LaVerda 180 degree triple and the Honda big bang four cylinder engines. Such rarities are more and less always experiments and I dont think they should be incorporated in any articles unless as mentioned as a rarity.

You have a strange behavior. At first you quarreled with me on the one thrower flat engine, removing my edits because they were unsourced, stating indirectly that there was only ONE possible crank configuration for the flat twin engine. Upon discovery of that the second logical configuration in fact does exist, so you have to accept my edit you get all quarrelly again. If there could be TWO configurations there could probably also be MORE since we cant correct you to that theres only ONE. Sometimes I wonder how old you are. Or do you always get out of bed with the wrong leg first?

This reminds me of when I edited an article on the self starter, adding a line on that the Grey Fergie tractor is in fact started with the gear lever. Millions of people living today knows this, but this cranky (no pun intended) editor kept asking me for references. I could of course search the net for such information, but why? There were produced over 500 thousand Grey Fergies of which over half of them survive. If you encounter one at a vintage tractor show, an event that is most likely to occur for a high percent of those reading the article, you could walk over to it and read the big "S" for "Start" cast in iron on the gear box. If no such event occurred, you could still verify it if you bothered to check. But no. Not even the argument that any vehicle comes with an instruction manual that will describe such a feature helped. In the end I got approved by another editor that apparently had a better day. My point is: There are heeps and heeps of such statements on wikipedia that doesnt have any verification. If of such a nature that "everyone" including you will know it, its ok but if you encounter something that YOU dont know you want a verification. And you are experts of being difficult. How would you for instance verify that three cylinder engines are very common in tractors? Ok, same way as to verify that four cylinder engines are very common in cars. But how? By finding a hundred examples? Because you know that such a statement is hard to find despite(or because) it is a common knowledge. Why bother to demand a verification on such things?! I cant remember the English equivalent just now but in Norwegian its "kverulant".

Good night.

--Rolling Phantom (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has three core content policies: Verifiability, wherein all content can be verified by reliable published sources, No original research, wherein content is not derived from analysis (including the exercise in logic you have put forward so painstakingly), and Neutral point of view, wherein differeing theories are weighted in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources and are presented fairly and without bias.

Logical constructs, "common knowledge", basically everything you are using in your argument above, is precisely what should *not* be included in Wikipedia. If you wish to start "Folkloria" and include all of that, go right ahead, but it's not supposed to be done here.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OBTW - here is an example of a rear-engine front drive car: Dymaxion car This was designed by legendary architect and designer R. Buckminster Fuller. Other examples of rear-engine front wheel drive cars can be seen at Rear-engine, front-wheel-drive layout. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few mid- or rear-engine front wheel drive vehicles - mobile cranes and stacker trucks. Like the Dymaxion, they use rear-wheel steering for better manoeuverability of the front jib / forks. As they're slow speed vehicles, they don't care about high speed stability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)