Talk:Split-single engine

What?

Very intriguing little motor. Article needs a complete rewrite and the diagram of it's operation should be scrapped and replace by something that makes sense. The whole thing leaves us dangling with no explanation. IJSLonginus876 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Garellis Patent?

Can anyone show me Garellis patent from 1912?

I found an US Patent from Ralph Lucas which dates 1909/1910: http://www.google.com/patents/US952706

Something does not work out. Maybe the engine from Ralph Lucas is not a true Split-single or he has the earlier patent.

I mean - may there is an italien patent from mister Garellis, but it would have to to predate 1909 to count as first patent.

Either way - something is wrong in the article.

-- MichaelFrey (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Twingle

Will have to look up the exact reference - but in a 19th century exchange in Notes & Queries 'twingle' is said to be a dialect word for 'twin.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming article

Hello. Since this article also covers engines with four or more cylinders, I propose that the article is renamed to "Split-cylinder engine". Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, per COMMONNAME. When have they ever been called "Split-cylinder engines"? Also, although Trojan (and others) had twins, who used a four cylinder version? (where there were four combustion chambers) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Andy. It is the engines with two or more combustion chambers (Trojan, Puch, Duray and Monaco-Trossi) that I am referring to as not technically being split-single engines.

    Could you please be specific about which clause of WP:COMMONNAME suggests the name should be "Split-single"? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

    • It seems like sources aren't even sure what to call these. The multi cylinder versions are often called U engines, with the addendum that they also have split cylinders. Apparently Arnold Zoller held the patent? And so they're sometimes called Zoller engines? Zoller engine or Zoller two-stroke might be winners, but I'd need to see the terms used more in sources.

      Using our own made up name, like Split-cylinder engine, might be OK if we determine that there really isn't a single term that sources agree on. I'm also comfortable with the possibility that Split-single is the primary article topic here, while the extremely obscure multi-cylinder versions are merely mentioned as related topics that don't belong anywhere else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And yet Trojan always referred to them as 'split-singles'.

I know nothing of Duray and Monaco-Trossi were just weird, but what did Puch do that was multi-cylinder? They used 'twingle' as a marketing name in the US (not in the UK, AFAIK) but that was still just a single combustion chamber.

I know of zero cross-over with U engines, in either meaning of that term. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The Duray's 16 cylinders were arranged in side-by-side pairs, with each pair sharing a common combustion chamber and crankshaft journal—that is, 16 cylinders with 8 chambers and 8 crank throws. First patented in 1912 and known in Europe at the time as the Zoller (after engineer Arnold Zoller) two-stroke, in more recent times this general layout has been called a split-single or "twingle," as used on small-displacement European motorcycles (DKW, Puch et. al.) well into the 1960s"

— https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/a-most-remarkable-engine-the-duray-u16/

There's next to nothing published on the subject. [23]. Some people seem to think the 1933 Puch 500N had a pair of split singles? I can't say it's true.

I think I agree with Andy. These multi-cylinder versions are so obscure that it elevates them too far above the fringe if we rename the article to include them. Yes they did exist, but in the spirit of Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and WP:FRINGE (in spirit, not literally), the fact that somebody somewhere tried a thing once doesn't mean that the whole class of things has to be expanded to include one-offs, or near-one-offs. A title change pushes up against WP:UNDUE, in other words. Unless more substantial sources are shown, we should keep Split-single and merely mention that multicylinder split 2-strokes are not unknown, having been tried here and there, but mostly forgotten. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, they are good points. Thanks for putting the 4+ cylinder versions into perspective. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)