@Eff yore Feelings patents expire in 30 years and since this is 1930 technology even if that would be true about buying patents it would be free to use since 1960s. not to mention jumo did a lot of opposed piston engines napier deltic was also one... so no clearly you are talking bs
@Eff yore Feelings and you must be somebody who belong in mad house. but wait government didnt stuff you there yet did it? so... you must be nobody than non important.
@@gooser__43 Yes, they are connected by gears on this configuration. The British had one that used rocker arms connecting the pistons to connecting rods to a single crankshaft. Complex but it worked. Look up Comber.
This one is 4 cylinder and its on 25%. Better consumption/heat conversion has seen in 3 cylinder, same brand, like the one they put into Ford truck, up to 55%.
The Opposed Piston 2-stroke design provided much fewer points of failure than in a conventional engine design: No cylinder head(s). No cylinder head gasket(s). No cam box / rocker cover gaskets No valves. No camshaft. No valve gear (cam followers, push-rods, cam timing gears, valve springs, keepers and collets, cam bearings etc). Six pistons, but only 3 cylinders and 3 diesel injectors. The Opposed Piston, twin Rocker Lever architecture also provided less than 5 degree conrod angularity at the pistons, so there was virtually no side thrust generated on each firing stroke. This meant the levels of cylinder bore and piston skirt wear, plus the related motoring losses (friction losses generated when the engine is running) were substantially less than all conventional design diesel engines. These combined qualities produced: High power density. High levels of mechanical reliability under adverse / overload operating conditions. Impressive engine life. Very low fuel consumption (.37 lbs per HP per hour).. Low overall operating costs. Known variously as: Rootes TS3.
Sure but what about connecting the 2 crankshafts? They can run like 10 gears on both sides and thats a lot of bearings to fail. Or if they run a chain, chains stretch and one could only imagine if that stretches even a fraction of a inch the timing would be completely screwed up and probably wouldnt run. Sure it doesnt have all the things listed above, but those arnt issues usually. From the outside looking in it seems like less things to go wrong but 1 new major thing that can go wrong.
It has been tried before though. Not sure this engine offers anything different to the RR K60 or Leyland L60. Still has piston rings crossing the ports, heavy crank gears, and very basic 'valve' timing.
You can also have very very big strokes without crazy piston speed at higher rpm (each piston covers half the distance). There was an opposed piston 2 stroke 3 cylinder inside an Ford truck at an autoshow recently. Could be configured for gdi or diesel (not both at the same time) and claimed the diesel could get about 40 highway mpg.
@@gooser__43 In the video you see a black disc on the right side of the engine and that is one of the crank's vibration dampers. When the video finally looks around the engine so you can see the "back" side of it with the single silver output shaft that comes from a central gear that is driven by gears on the end of the cranks (note the round boss around the perimeter of the engine centered on that output shaft).
I loved going down to the engine room to see the Fairbanks do its start up routine. Its amazing how such a big engine runs so smooth. It really was not that loud in operation either for such a big engine.
Imagine taking (2) kx500 motors and making an OP kx1000 dirtbike or a 1700cc rotax OP made from (2) 850 rotax etecs! This would would great technology for the snowmoble, dirt bike jet ski market as well.
The six cylinder, 1500HP variant that he talks about at the end of this video has recently been confirmed to be the powerplant inside of the newly announced "AbramsX" tank by General Dynamics. The tank is just a tech demonstrator for right now, but it is definitely using the six cylinder, 1500HP version of this Cummins engine in addition to battery packs for a hybrid type of design. I can't wait to see what happens in the future with our military armored vehicles.
@@AmericanThunder Take to rotax 850 etec turbo skidoo engine and make a 1700 OP and lay it down in an MXZ chassis. How about a KX1000 OP 2 stroke made from 2 KX500 engines. That would make a sick enduro bike or supermoto.
I lived in Claremont, CA in the 90s, when you could see the smog wafting like fog across a football field. Today, the smog is about 1/3 as bad. Thanks EPA! I can breathe now.
@shooter7a emmisions laws and equipment on gas vehicles aren't really bad at all, new diesels emmisions laws are so restrictive they sacrifice the majority of reliability and power. EPA is necessary but needs to loosen their grip a little
What do you drive a F650? Peterbuilt? these engines are 10.6 & 14.3 liters if you could fit it in the engine bay the front suspension couldn't support the weight and the transmission likely couldn't support the torque load. Not to mention custom bell housing/adapter plate, flywheel, etc. Upgraded driveshaft and rear diff, frame reinforcement.
"Electric vehicles are the way of the future" Maybe, but there's still Heck of A lot of advancement to be made in internal combustion engines that they'll stick around in most industrial and military applications for decades
yes 2 stroke designs that is, they could be driven by water arc explosions tapping the ZPE aether like Nicola Tesla mentions. Joesephs papp's pulsed plasma inert gas 2 stroke who got suppressed for it, there is more than one way to power a 2 stroke as its just an energy converter!
Yep, you still have to charge an electric vehicle... on the battlefield, where does that power come from? ICE generator? probably. Solar? what if you're above or below the arctic circle in winter? Wind? what about a calm day. Wave? what if your 500 miles from the ocean. Electric vehicles are only practical as a second car for commuters. They are only green when they are actually on the road. But, hopefully the military applications are exempted from all this Tier IV Final regen EPA BULLSHIT!!!. Enemy is moving north, pursue now, move, move, move!!! But sir, I have to finish a 15 minute high idle regen on my DPF... Do you have any of that blue stuff?
A modern version of the British Leyland L60 power unit produced in the 1950's / 60's and used as a mulrifuel engine in the Chieftain Tank. 6 Cyl, 12 piston, 19 Litre , 750 HP @2100 RPM and 1,460 lb⋅ft of torque (1,980 N⋅m) at 1,320 rpm . 60 Years to make a comeback. Happy days!
it can generate enough power to run many crysis. 1 HP = 746 watts. 1000 HP = 746000 watts. assuming each PC is using 500 watts, you could run Crysis using 1492 computers from this engine.
for all you engine guys, check your history, cylinder opposed configuration was first designed by a company called Tilling Stevens , (commonly known as the TS3) Commer trucks part of the Rootes group used them in the 1960`s mainly two stroke cycles,
@@jlo13800 Yes I do remember them well as a fuel delivery company in our town had a International truck (1977) that was re-powered by one 180 hp, which had this 8 ton run like it was on steroids.
Cummins is on the right track to make durable engines more compact to fit more types of vehicles. What we don’t know yet is how well they Work or accelerate in actual field conditions. It would be nice to see some videos where these engines are installed and demonstrated.
@@graham2631 And they were light weight enough that they didn't last nearly as long as desired. They also slobbered oil. Light, high power, long lasting. Pick any 2.
The tank engines had a bad crankshaft design the arcades\cumins version uses two crankshaft and drive gears like the junkers airplanes from ww2 and they worked really well
@@oscarwalton1188 Theres the 6TD5 ukrain tank OP 2 stroke that makes 1800 hp. American tanks still use gutless 4 joke cummins 903 at barley 900 to 1000 hp. Now imagine a kx1000 OP 2 stroke dirtbike made from (2) kx500 motors!
Never if the EPA has anything to do with it. I'd love to have on in my truck but as soon the emissions crap starts being put on it, reliability will go out the window like current engines. Stay safe out there.
Turbines are so small I don't think it would compare. The current Abraham's engine is 1500HP and the size of a microwave. It burns a heck of alot of fuel though.
@@lllateralus Heavy? Its more compact then V shape engines or boxer engines. It's making more hp per weight than standard piston engines with head and valves....
Fairbanks Morse was one of the most famous builders of these sorts of engines, they were used in locomotives, surface ships, and submarines. Being a two stroke design, there is quite a bit more concentration of power for a given footprint, but historically emissions have been an issue. With modern common rail computer controlled fuel systems hopefully this can be overcome. That lower turbo outlet is so close to the fuel pump, though, there has to be some sort of shielding in between or it'll cause some issues.
Plenty of scope for experimentation. Number of cylinders, bore to stroke ratio, differing capacities for small car applications to the largest ships and power generation. The design seems to have a propensity for torque over horsepower and hi revs. Could a light compact hi revving short stroke version be designed for snow mobiles, jet skies, outboard motor boats and motorcycles?
In Britain the COMMA Knocker engine was a 3 cylinder 6 piston type. The British also had Rolls Royce and Leyland opposed piston engines over a long period of time. The Deltic engine was a 3 crank triangular format 6 cylinder long with 9 in all and was line 3 V12s joined in a triangle at the head gasket faces. Little new apart from I expect the electronic common rail fuel system. I would like to know, is it a 2 crank geared engine or like the COMMA engine a single crank with large rocker arms ro operate the pistons? As I see the output drive is central.
@@andyharman3022 the engine in the video is not a comma knocker. Rolls Royce used a 2 crank design in military vehicles in the 1960s. Nothing new apart from may be fuel control.
@@rushymoto I never said the engine in the video is a Commer Knocker (better known as the Rootes TS3.) The output drive is central because it is integrated with the gear drive system that phases the cranks together.
Take an achates OP 2.7l and mount it in a custom stretched yamaha banshee. or buggy. or make a 1700cc OP from 850 rotax etec engine, that would make one nice sick trail sled!
Or like a Fairbanks-Morse engine on its side. Actually, for its horsepower and torque, this engine is not heavy, and it can be built out of the same materials that any conventional engine are made from. Because there is no valvetrain, there are 50-60% less parts, whats left is very easy to machine..
@@burnerjack01 It could be made out of billet/die-cast aluminum 6061 alloy, cast iron liners sleeves, split roller bearings on the crankshaft, rods and and main's.
Horsepower doesn't really mean much for military, industrial, or commercial use. It's all about the Torque. Also, horizontal pistons always have issues with sufficient and consistent lubrication. Just ask Subaru WRX STi owners about the horizontal engine issues. Cummins could easily take their 6.7 and build it into a 1000hp+ reliable engine. Head stud it, larger turbo or compound turbos, larger injectors, more fuel pressure, that's about it. Also, emissions delete it. My Duramax is a daily driver. Been deleted and tuned. 520HP and nearly 1000ft/lbs of torque. Gets over 20mpg fuel economy.
These are dry sump and are more than twice the displacement of the 6.7 in a smaller footprint. You don't have to worry about this being hindered by emissions, it's the Gov't, they're exempt in the name of national security.
Horsepower is quite important. Horsepower is that rate of doing work and it takes a lot of work to move armor with decent speed. You seem to know nothing of duty cycle. 6.7 liters is not enough to reliably make 1000 hp for long periods of time with current technology. Your Duramax may make 520 peak hp, but it won't do that for long periods of time. If you want that much power for long periods then you end up in the 14-liter class of truck engines. Subaru boxers don't have lubrication problems. They have bearing area problems and some head gasket problems. The rod bearings are simply too small for long periods of high speed and load. If it was a problem of horizontal engines then Porsche would also have the same issues. They don't.
WTF with bearing issues my OMC small block v8 runs horizontal and oil injection, could your cum-a part for durajoke do that. i could get one from a junkyard and tilt to any position and synthetic 2 stroke oil injected into it. 6.7 is a poppet valved loop charged 2 stroke anyways which uses crankcase and turbo for scavenging. the oil is separate and is synthetic as it runs on split roller bearings. those small cummins can spin insane rpms, more than my omc v8 or detroit 8v92. 7 gals of xd-100 synth 2 stroke oil just got for my 8v92 2 stroke detroi from a boat dealer and its the best oil i used so far. i got my 7.3 [powerjoke poppet valved 2 stroke on amsoil dominator shell rotella combine to cut cost. it burn some too. My 7.3 powerjoke is on needle rollers SKF bearings and ticking over 330km! i got to keep the revs on it at times though.
the V-12s we had in the USCG 82s were 900hp, the 903s we had in the 41s were 345hp, and had a 280hp V6 in a 30 utility boat... I wanna go back and play with these - WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LOL
my dream 6x6 vehicle.... this Cummins motor, automatic Alison semi transmission, a mega beefy 4wd transfer case with high/low gears, 3 wide independent suspension crane axels all steering one pass through axle all with air lockers and disk brakes (hopefully portals too), high articulation custom fox suspension (maybe air suspension because of the weight though), bead locked huge wide tractor tires maybe the front tires on a john deere 6 series tractor (if possible a central tire inflation system), built like a hummer with the motor and running gear up inside the chassis so the bottom is completely flat, all body panels and skid plates made of ar-500 steel, bulletproof windows, a custom truck bed over the rear axles with a built-in huge fuel tank right behind the cab (all ar-500 steel construction), massive dual hexagon shaped front intake snorkels with cyclone filters, dual rear smoke stacks hexagon shaped with rain flappers, train horn with interior manual metering valve (Nathan k5la), raycore x60's mounted flush recessed just under the roof 2 each on front back and sides (they are mining lights basically bulletproof and put out 60'000+ lumens), 6 baja designs lp9's as the headlights lower bumper mounted, nice premium semi truck suspension seats in front and rear of the crew cab, warn hydraulic winch 30xl front and rear, massive thick tube brush guard bumper frame mounted. imagine a flat-fronted cab over the front wheels and the engine is underneath the rear seats or floor in between the front and first rear axle mounted as low as possible probably having to run the front drive shaft centrally overtop of the motor and then back down to the axle after. so yeah i spent way too much time making this comment hopefully Cummins reads this then builds it and gives it to me for Christmas lol :)
I think one of the main points is that it balances itself out because it has two Pistons per cylinder when they fire at each other because they're opposed they opposing each other the Pistons supposed each other and then combustion like a boxer engine 2 Pistons per cylinder
I could see this as a powerplant for a series hybrid-electric for both the Oshkosh Pro-Pulse equipped HEMMT A-3, and a follow-on version of the Striker using Pro-Pulse powertrain...
1000hp, but over 2000ft/lbs of torque is the thing that wasn't mentionned. So it could be coupled with more poweful electric generators and this produce more output for 25% longer. That is the beauty of opposed-piston engines. Aslo: no cylinder head, no roads, no cams, so much less complex system to maintain and easy to beef-up for say military usage.
Why would you think that? Just because its 2stroke? It's GDI (Gas Direct Injected) No fuel/air mix through the crankcase. Internal pressured oil system just like standard automotive.
I think they should have said the main part of this is to have two Pistons per cylinder so I'm not sure whether he's talking about a three cylinder with six Pistons which would be like a B6 engine or reset a 6 cylinder that would be 12 Pistons like a 12 cylinder engine because each cylinder has two Pistons
@@DDBmaster Yes i would love to have one of these, got an 8v92 2 stroke v8 i tinker with, imaging this thing modified for some dune buggy project! i would run tuned pipe on it.
Deutz did this a LONG time ago . Air-cooled Diesel on this design . VERY LOUD . Known as Knockers or Knocker-Boxes . Bulletproof . It's a Great design , then and now . Great to see the Mighty 903 is still around too .
Commer actually- 3 cyl 6 piston- TS3- or Tilling Stevens. Reliable? - questionable, but they got it semi ok towards the end. You had to keep them revving hard, don't lug them down like you''d expect to with a diesel...Quill shafts snapping was the usual malady, plus the sparks and flames from the exhaust!!
2:00 dodged his question over power/volume ratio increase compared to conventional engines. 2:46 implies that it has a ~25% increase in power/volume ratio over the V903, which is a 70s design. That's not very much. Does anyone know the power density of this?
Depends what you mean. The question was a bit irrelevant, the cylinder displacemnet/power comparison is a bit meaningless between two completely different types of engine. What should have been asked is how the physical volume of the complete engine/power compared. Opposed piston engines should be somewhere approaching twice the power density of a convential V.
Damnit i could just burn holes through an old 855 block with a plasma cutter or laser, only intense energy and anger will form a a 2 stroke i guess! i have the port pattern from a yz250, cant wait to try it
Dear Cummins. Please remember. A company is built on, substantiated by, thrives & survives by two simple Facts. Supply & demand , coupled with customer satisfaction. Now Supply what we are demanding, and we'll be satisfied. Thank you
They wont let us have them in our cars trucks semis because the engine would last a million miles before needing the rings swapped out. It would last forever and get 4x better fuel millage
Coast Guard Ice Breaker I was on had six FM 2000 hp opposed piston engines with 10 cylinders each. 810 Rpm flat out. Had problems with cracked cylinder liners, but new metallurgy can cure that. Maybe.
Looks like a copy of the rotax engine opposed cylinder engines. If I remember right they made diesel opposed single cylinder engines for submarines in the past.
Some WWII submarines ran 4 Fairbanks-Morse opposed cylinder engines, I assume they were diesel. Why they chose 4 engines I do not know, but the USS Pampanito is still on display, and available for tours at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. It's a great visit!
Hmmmm, how easily is it serviced? Durability ? ? Replace that turbine in the Abrams Main Battle Tank and save a whole lot of fuel? Also, this is a 2 cycle engine, right? Is there any hope of meeting EPA standards for use in commercial or construction vehicles? This sure looks like an Achates engine.
The boxer engine is an opposed cylinder, not opposed piston. They are COMPLETELY different engine designs! A boxer engine is nothing more than a flat V config engine!
@@TechnikMeister2 $170K is much less expensive than a turbine engine and cheap for a custom limited run engine too. Go price a new 500 HP Volvo D13 and see what it sells for. Also cheap for how much power it puts out. Go price a Cat 3512. These things would be much less expensive if Cummins was building a few hundred thousand of them.
The Germans engineered these & used the engines pre war 2 in Junkers bombers diesel aero engines. They could flight up to 30,000 feet... The Rootes group also made these until purchased by GM. These designs powered the old Commer trucks.
... and the Brits used them in the Chieftain. Just don't mention that engine. And the Deltic... do mention that one. A triple crank, 6 cylinder per bank engine. Powered trains and ships. Also the T-84 has an opposed piston engine.
MAP tractors (French) Simca. Used this design. Smooth and sorta quiet "not", but tre, tre thirsty and a breakdown was certainly a breakdown. Novel for sure, but ?!
@Dave Pawson true to a degree. But that is like saying without rpm you have no HP. And I know for sure that isn't so. When I was fifteen I had a 8hp low reving old car that could pull / tow the socks off friends much higher reving bigger HP vehicle, sure it couldn't out race them, but then they couldn't follow me up a hill without a huge run up with speed. I spose it comes down to " horses for courses "
@@jlo13800 cheers mate, been working with torque and HP all my life, one how to use either with advantage but still find it confusing at times. I use more Newton metres than i do rpm, low gear ratios do it for winch design.
I feel like this kind of falls into that similar thing that happens to a lot of cool or unique ideas. The rotary is probably the most well know example that comes to mind right now. But anytime there is a new idea or a different design that is not the tried and true design we see with the "normal" kind of engine design. Pistons, single one piece crankshaft, cylinders, heads with valves and spark plugs or injectors, suck smash bang boom etc. If there is something that is build around that similar design it will be generally accepted. But any unique design like this opposing piston style, or a Wankel rotary with no pistons, or any of the really intriguing designs that we see out there, the fact that it is something different makes it hard to accept as being a very possible idea. I feel like that hesitation or that lack of familiarity is what hold back any development or advances in what truly is possible to achieve. Granted there are going to be stumbles along the way of development and not every design or idea works. Even the best of designs came through finding the flaws and engineering a way to either eliminate or minimize those flaws. That's how anything can evolve to be better and better as each success comes along the way. I just wish that people could actually get a chance, the underdogs, the people that design and create ideas that come from non-typical, or outside the box thinking. Try their ideas. There will never be big advances if you keep limiting yourself to doing the same thing. Sure that idea will absolutely and undeniably be perfected. But that can only go so far. It's like hitting top speed, then creating a second gear because you see how limited the first gear is. But then because it worked so good you stick to that design and perfect it. But you become so focused on that design that you never consider what else you could do. So even though you have this perfect working design, you are still limited. All while those others are trying to make a 3rd gear. Or a CVT. Or adding electric motors. Or all of those other possibilities that could be developed. I need to stop my rant. I am just very passionate about this stuff and I always find myself sticking up for the underdog. It sucks always hearing people tell you what you cannot do instead of trying to see and support what you can do. And it really sucks knowing that you can make a difference but you are always held back or restricted or shunned for being different. That's exactly the kind of negativity that tears people down rather than lifting people up. That's why I am proud to be a Teacher. I know that I can make a difference for some people at least. I can be the one to compliment their talents and build up their confidence, while helping them improve their skills and give them more knowledge to be able to understand what their doing better. And also teach them strategies and techniques to figure out what they don't know. And I absolutely encourage and support people to try out their own ideas and strategies. I have even learned some new things from my students. Well, I guess I wasn't done with my rant haha.
Opposed pistons, a blast from the past and the wave of the future. I don't know why it has taken so long for this design to be rediscovered.
Well i think you dont really have to rush things
Big oil is the answer
@Eff yore Feelings patents expire in 30 years and since this is 1930 technology even if that would be true about buying patents it would be free to use since 1960s. not to mention jumo did a lot of opposed piston engines napier deltic was also one... so no clearly you are talking bs
@Eff yore Feelings and you must be somebody who belong in mad house. but wait government didnt stuff you there yet did it? so... you must be nobody than non important.
@@gooser__43 Yes, they are connected by gears on this configuration. The British had one that used rocker arms connecting the pistons to connecting rods to a single crankshaft. Complex but it worked. Look up Comber.
25% better fuel economy is very important, that makes a big difference in the logistics.
yeah so can beat the shit out of this engine with oil injecton.
This one is 4 cylinder and its on 25%. Better consumption/heat conversion has seen in 3 cylinder, same brand, like the one they put into Ford truck, up to 55%.
@@DDBmaster it's still impressive for a tank
@@DDBmaster Wonder what the oil consumption is like.
@@agt155 Near nothing.
Dear Cummins, I would be most happy to test your 4-cyl (or, ESPECIALLY the 1,500hp 6!!) in my ol' RV ... Thank you!
@Stevo Reno LOL
Lets drop one of these in a custom built stretched banshee!
It's an op it has 8 pistons
Travis Grooms *speak (sorry, had to)
@@lastone3926 Yes but it's considered a 4 cylinder. Now imagine the 6 with 12 pistons or an 8 cylinder version with 16.
The Opposed Piston 2-stroke design provided much fewer points of failure than in a conventional engine design:
No cylinder head(s).
No cylinder head gasket(s).
No cam box / rocker cover gaskets
No valves.
No camshaft.
No valve gear (cam followers, push-rods, cam timing gears, valve springs, keepers and collets, cam bearings etc).
Six pistons, but only 3 cylinders and 3 diesel injectors.
The Opposed Piston, twin Rocker Lever architecture also provided less than 5 degree conrod angularity at the pistons, so there was virtually no side thrust generated on each firing stroke.
This meant the levels of cylinder bore and piston skirt wear, plus the related motoring losses (friction losses generated when the engine is running) were substantially less than all conventional design diesel engines.
These combined qualities produced:
High power density.
High levels of mechanical reliability under adverse / overload operating conditions.
Impressive engine life.
Very low fuel consumption (.37 lbs per HP per hour)..
Low overall operating costs.
Known variously as:
Rootes TS3.
Thanks for the additional information :)
Sure but what about connecting the 2 crankshafts? They can run like 10 gears on both sides and thats a lot of bearings to fail. Or if they run a chain, chains stretch and one could only imagine if that stretches even a fraction of a inch the timing would be completely screwed up and probably wouldnt run. Sure it doesnt have all the things listed above, but those arnt issues usually. From the outside looking in it seems like less things to go wrong but 1 new major thing that can go wrong.
It has been tried before though. Not sure this engine offers anything different to the RR K60 or Leyland L60. Still has piston rings crossing the ports, heavy crank gears, and very basic 'valve' timing.
agt155 well Junkers did this in the 40th on their bombers, way way before RR or Leyland
You can also have very very big strokes without crazy piston speed at higher rpm (each piston covers half the distance). There was an opposed piston 2 stroke 3 cylinder inside an Ford truck at an autoshow recently. Could be configured for gdi or diesel (not both at the same time) and claimed the diesel could get about 40 highway mpg.
There are various opposed-piston engines used in trains and ships over the years. They are known for durability, reliability, and simplicity.
@@gooser__43 In the video you see a black disc on the right side of the engine and that is one of the crank's vibration dampers. When the video finally looks around the engine so you can see the "back" side of it with the single silver output shaft that comes from a central gear that is driven by gears on the end of the cranks (note the round boss around the perimeter of the engine centered on that output shaft).
I loved going down to the engine room to see the Fairbanks do its start up routine. Its amazing how such a big engine runs so smooth. It really was not that loud in operation either for such a big engine.
It's really cool how the pump is directly mated to one of the flywheels no belt at all. Neato
Imagine taking (2) kx500 motors and making an OP kx1000 dirtbike or a 1700cc rotax OP made from (2) 850 rotax etecs! This would would great technology for the snowmoble, dirt bike jet ski market as well.
The six cylinder, 1500HP variant that he talks about at the end of this video has recently been confirmed to be the powerplant inside of the newly announced "AbramsX" tank by General Dynamics. The tank is just a tech demonstrator for right now, but it is definitely using the six cylinder, 1500HP version of this Cummins engine in addition to battery packs for a hybrid type of design. I can't wait to see what happens in the future with our military armored vehicles.
yes 2 stroke 1500HP in a new tank brappp, now lets mount one on a stretched banshee
The sad part is that we will probably never see this engine in a new truck for civilian use. Thanks EPA!
Or miniaturized versions in compact cars.
@@AmericanThunder Take to rotax 850 etec turbo skidoo engine and make a 1700 OP and lay it down in an MXZ chassis. How about a KX1000 OP 2 stroke made from 2 KX500 engines. That would make a sick enduro bike or supermoto.
I lived in Claremont, CA in the 90s, when you could see the smog wafting like fog across a football field. Today, the smog is about 1/3 as bad. Thanks EPA! I can breathe now.
@shooter7a emmisions laws and equipment on gas vehicles aren't really bad at all, new diesels emmisions laws are so restrictive they sacrifice the majority of reliability and power. EPA is necessary but needs to loosen their grip a little
I didn’t see where they explained the cooling system or water jacket locations. That would be interesting to see how it circulates.
Deltic had triangular opposed pistons on their locomotive engines back in the 1960's.
Talk about a Cummins swap in the future?
Is that a straight 6 diesel? No, its a square 4 opposing.
Tell me something I didn’t already know.
If it doesnt puke black smoke, its not going in any ford with lo-pro mud tires lmao
What do you drive a F650? Peterbuilt? these engines are 10.6 & 14.3 liters if you could fit it in the engine bay the front suspension couldn't support the weight and the transmission likely couldn't support the torque load. Not to mention custom bell housing/adapter plate, flywheel, etc. Upgraded driveshaft and rear diff, frame reinforcement.
"Electric vehicles are the way of the future"
Maybe, but there's still Heck of A lot of advancement to be made in internal combustion engines that they'll stick around in most industrial and military applications for decades
yes 2 stroke designs that is, they could be driven by water arc explosions tapping the ZPE aether like Nicola Tesla mentions. Joesephs papp's pulsed plasma inert gas 2 stroke who got suppressed for it, there is more than one way to power a 2 stroke as its just an energy converter!
Yep, you still have to charge an electric vehicle... on the battlefield, where does that power come from?
ICE generator? probably.
Solar? what if you're above or below the arctic circle in winter?
Wind? what about a calm day.
Wave? what if your 500 miles from the ocean.
Electric vehicles are only practical as a second car for commuters. They are only green when they are actually on the road.
But, hopefully the military applications are exempted from all this Tier IV Final regen EPA BULLSHIT!!!.
Enemy is moving north, pursue now, move, move, move!!! But sir, I have to finish a 15 minute high idle regen on my DPF... Do you have any of that blue stuff?
I agree, getting my ass shot off because some lower rank "forgot" to charge the vehicle kinda rubs me the wrong way
Coming soon, the environmental disaster as first gen solar powers approach the end of their life.
@@johnharris6655 Not to mention Prius/Tesla/Leaf batteries.
A modern version of the British Leyland L60 power unit produced in the 1950's / 60's and used as a mulrifuel engine in the Chieftain Tank. 6 Cyl, 12 piston, 19 Litre , 750 HP @2100 RPM and 1,460 lb⋅ft of torque (1,980 N⋅m) at 1,320 rpm . 60 Years to make a comeback. Happy days!
Those are way better than the same sized 4 joke stroke figures which are very overratted.
Which is just a copy of a Junkers Jumo 204-208....
We still use fairbanks morse opposed piston engines in marine applications.
But can it run Crysis?
it can generate enough power to run many crysis. 1 HP = 746 watts. 1000 HP = 746000 watts. assuming each PC is using 500 watts, you could run Crysis using 1492 computers from this engine.
Great 2018 video linked in a 2023 article!
for all you engine guys, check your history, cylinder opposed configuration was first designed by a company called Tilling Stevens , (commonly known as the TS3) Commer trucks part of the Rootes group used them in the 1960`s mainly two stroke cycles,
Just imajine taking 2 850 rotex etec for a 1.7 l 2 stroke or better 3 3.2l optimax 60 deg v6 dor a 608 CID deltic 2 stroke
edwin c crisp. Thanks for your knowledge on the TS3 Commer truck engine.
@@steigerpower they can all run modern 2 stroke oil and feed to air intake or fuel for total loss
@@steigerpower Any of you all heard of a Nissan UD 2 stroke diesel?
@@jlo13800 Yes I do remember them well as a fuel delivery company in our town had a International truck (1977) that was re-powered by one 180 hp, which had this 8 ton run like it was on steroids.
I want that in my Peterbilt
Cummins is on the right track to make durable engines more compact to fit more types of vehicles. What we don’t know yet is how well they
Work or accelerate in actual field conditions. It would be nice to see some videos where these engines are installed and demonstrated.
its a uniflow scavenge egine 2 stroke big deal, just get rid of it.
Great improvement in diesel deltic variant.
Patton would love this engine.
Id like to know if such a motor would work in a marine environment. More engine room more power more distance = win win win.
They use jet turbines in marine use when they want to go fast. I dont doubt it could be used as a marine engine of some type though.
They got marine Diesel engines that make this thing look like a lawn mower
The English deltic was a triangular opposed piston engine used in marine and train applications.
@@graham2631 Thanks for the insight, not exactly what I was looking for but I learned something new.
@@graham2631 And they were light weight enough that they didn't last nearly as long as desired. They also slobbered oil. Light, high power, long lasting. Pick any 2.
Interesting engine. As many will know, the Leyland L60 engine that cursed the Chieftain tank was six cyl,19ltr opposed piston design.
It never worked well in the Soviet T64 too , it's successor either used either V diesel or gas turbine
Drop this op 2 stroke in a sled
The tank engines had a bad crankshaft design the arcades\cumins version uses two crankshaft and drive gears like the junkers airplanes from ww2 and they worked really well
@@oscarwalton1188 Theres the 6TD5 ukrain tank OP 2 stroke that makes 1800 hp. American tanks still use gutless 4 joke cummins 903 at barley 900 to 1000 hp. Now imagine a kx1000 OP 2 stroke dirtbike made from (2) kx500 motors!
Abrams uses a gas turbine engine...
Man just beautiful motors works of art 🖼
Can't wait to hear it
Opposed piston diesel engines have been used for many years, specifically in the Deltic diesel engine used in railway engines.
When will this be available for the heavy truck market?
Never if the EPA has anything to do with it. I'd love to have on in my truck but as soon the emissions crap starts being put on it, reliability will go out the window like current engines. Stay safe out there.
1500hp ... the same of the leopard 2. Are you thinking tho swap the abrams turbine with an 1500hp cumins diesel engine?
Oil injected 2 stroke here with roller bearings, just like the rotax 850 ETEC or my OMC rotaries!
I want this in all my vehicles! Now :)
about time cummins builds a real 2 stroke
mount that cummins op 2 stroke on a motorized sofa.
finaly a cummins worth a shit, klotz 2 stroke oil in it hehe, thats what i will use if i could get one
Just wait till Gale Banks gets a hold of it.
gail stuff sucks. look into it no truck pullers will use his crap only wanna be truckers and city boy clowns
How come this is the only video of the new engine/old you of it?
How does the power-to-weight ratio compare to a gas turbine engine with the same horsepower? Are there applications to aviation?
Turbines are so small I don't think it would compare. The current Abraham's engine is 1500HP and the size of a microwave. It burns a heck of alot of fuel though.
I like that Cummins keeps it simple and clean cut straight forward not a madusa of hoses and pipes all over the place like Ford.
I would like to see a smaller marine & possibly aircraft version .
Philip Freeman -> marine application would be awesome. Much to heavy for any aircraft I
would think.
@@lllateralus Heavy? Its more compact then V shape engines or boxer engines. It's making more hp per weight than standard piston engines with head and valves....
Fairbanks Morse was one of the most famous builders of these sorts of engines, they were used in locomotives, surface ships, and submarines. Being a two stroke design, there is quite a bit more concentration of power for a given footprint, but historically emissions have been an issue. With modern common rail computer controlled fuel systems hopefully this can be overcome.
That lower turbo outlet is so close to the fuel pump, though, there has to be some sort of shielding in between or it'll cause some issues.
who cares about emissions when at war!
FM still produces OP engines at their beloit Wisconsin of plans. The latest design with Achates technical help is to four compliant.
Plenty of scope for experimentation.
Number of cylinders, bore to stroke ratio, differing capacities for small car applications to the largest ships and power generation.
The design seems to have a propensity for torque over horsepower and hi revs.
Could a light compact hi revving short stroke version be designed for snow mobiles, jet skies, outboard motor boats and motorcycles?
Wow 6 cylinder 12 pistons. That's insane. It's like Intel hyper threading
Its an OP 2 stroke!
Didn't Fairbanks do this a long time ago?
Since 1938...
they still do, the new trident OP 2 stroke over 5000 hp!
Are there any plans to sell this for the general public transport sector?
So is it going to replace the AGT 1500 turbine engine in the Abrams tank?
Not really,for the Bradley and the wheeled combat vehicles the Marines and Army use.
I didn't think the 903's were still in production.
In Britain the COMMA Knocker engine was a 3 cylinder 6 piston type. The British also had Rolls Royce and Leyland opposed piston engines over a long period of time. The Deltic engine was a 3 crank triangular format 6 cylinder long with 9 in all and was line 3 V12s joined in a triangle at the head gasket faces. Little new apart from I expect the electronic common rail fuel system. I would like to know, is it a 2 crank geared engine or like the COMMA engine a single crank with large rocker arms ro operate the pistons? As I see the output drive is central.
It's a 2-crank design. You can see the torsional dampers on the front of the engine in the video.
@@andyharman3022 the engine in the video is not a comma knocker. Rolls Royce used a 2 crank design in military vehicles in the 1960s. Nothing new apart from may be fuel control.
@@rushymoto I never said the engine in the video is a Commer Knocker (better known as the Rootes TS3.) The output drive is central because it is integrated with the gear drive system that phases the cranks together.
So it like a German junkers bomber engine from ww2 cool
Take an achates OP 2.7l and mount it in a custom stretched yamaha banshee. or buggy. or make a 1700cc OP from 850 rotax etec engine, that would make one nice sick trail sled!
@@jlo13800 Might need to make it out of something much lighter than iron and such. Maybe Unobtainium. Sounds expensive though.
Or like a Fairbanks-Morse engine on its side. Actually, for its horsepower and torque, this engine is not heavy, and it can be built out of the same materials that any conventional engine are made from. Because there is no valvetrain, there are 50-60% less parts, whats left is very easy to machine..
@@burnerjack01 It could be made out of billet/die-cast aluminum 6061 alloy, cast iron liners sleeves, split roller bearings on the crankshaft, rods and and main's.
The Chieftain and Ukrainian Oplot use older engines of this design
Where's the Thorium Salt reactor?
That what they us to start it. 😯
How can I get one into my pickup?
Fits nicely under the floor of a passenger train as well like the Hitachi Class 8XX running in the UK
Horsepower doesn't really mean much for military, industrial, or commercial use. It's all about the Torque.
Also, horizontal pistons always have issues with sufficient and consistent lubrication. Just ask Subaru WRX STi owners about the horizontal engine issues.
Cummins could easily take their 6.7 and build it into a 1000hp+ reliable engine. Head stud it, larger turbo or compound turbos, larger injectors, more fuel pressure, that's about it. Also, emissions delete it.
My Duramax is a daily driver. Been deleted and tuned. 520HP and nearly 1000ft/lbs of torque. Gets over 20mpg fuel economy.
You are a fucking idiot!
These are dry sump and are more than twice the displacement of the 6.7 in a smaller footprint. You don't have to worry about this being hindered by emissions, it's the Gov't, they're exempt in the name of national security.
Horsepower is quite important. Horsepower is that rate of doing work and it takes a lot of work to move armor with decent speed. You seem to know nothing of duty cycle. 6.7 liters is not enough to reliably make 1000 hp for long periods of time with current technology. Your Duramax may make 520 peak hp, but it won't do that for long periods of time. If you want that much power for long periods then you end up in the 14-liter class of truck engines.
Subaru boxers don't have lubrication problems. They have bearing area problems and some head gasket problems. The rod bearings are simply too small for long periods of high speed and load. If it was a problem of horizontal engines then Porsche would also have the same issues. They don't.
they use roller bearings which are much sturdier!
WTF with bearing issues my OMC small block v8 runs horizontal and oil injection, could your cum-a part for durajoke do that. i could get one from a junkyard and tilt to any position and synthetic 2 stroke oil injected into it. 6.7 is a poppet valved loop charged 2 stroke anyways which uses crankcase and turbo for scavenging. the oil is separate and is synthetic as it runs on split roller bearings. those small cummins can spin insane rpms, more than my omc v8 or detroit 8v92. 7 gals of xd-100 synth 2 stroke oil just got for my 8v92 2 stroke detroi from a boat dealer and its the best oil i used so far. i got my 7.3 [powerjoke poppet valved 2 stroke on amsoil dominator shell rotella combine to cut cost. it burn some too. My 7.3 powerjoke is on needle rollers SKF bearings and ticking over 330km! i got to keep the revs on it at times though.
Why has oppositional piston tech advanced recently?
the V-12s we had in the USCG 82s were 900hp, the 903s we had in the 41s were 345hp, and had a 280hp V6 in a 30 utility boat...
I wanna go back and play with these - WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LOL
The guy looks like diesel engine!
my dream 6x6 vehicle.... this Cummins motor, automatic Alison semi transmission, a mega beefy 4wd transfer case with high/low gears, 3 wide independent suspension crane axels all steering one pass through axle all with air lockers and disk brakes (hopefully portals too), high articulation custom fox suspension (maybe air suspension because of the weight though), bead locked huge wide tractor tires maybe the front tires on a john deere 6 series tractor (if possible a central tire inflation system), built like a hummer with the motor and running gear up inside the chassis so the bottom is completely flat, all body panels and skid plates made of ar-500 steel, bulletproof windows, a custom truck bed over the rear axles with a built-in huge fuel tank right behind the cab (all ar-500 steel construction), massive dual hexagon shaped front intake snorkels with cyclone filters, dual rear smoke stacks hexagon shaped with rain flappers, train horn with interior manual metering valve (Nathan k5la), raycore x60's mounted flush recessed just under the roof 2 each on front back and sides (they are mining lights basically bulletproof and put out 60'000+ lumens), 6 baja designs lp9's as the headlights lower bumper mounted, nice premium semi truck suspension seats in front and rear of the crew cab, warn hydraulic winch 30xl front and rear, massive thick tube brush guard bumper frame mounted. imagine a flat-fronted cab over the front wheels and the engine is underneath the rear seats or floor in between the front and first rear axle mounted as low as possible probably having to run the front drive shaft centrally overtop of the motor and then back down to the axle after. so yeah i spent way too much time making this comment hopefully Cummins reads this then builds it and gives it to me for Christmas lol :)
I think one of the main points is that it balances itself out because it has two Pistons per cylinder when they fire at each other because they're opposed they opposing each other the Pistons supposed each other and then combustion like a boxer engine 2 Pistons per cylinder
how many of these are required to carry a rosie odonnel?
I could see this as a powerplant for a series hybrid-electric for both the Oshkosh Pro-Pulse equipped HEMMT A-3, and a follow-on version of the Striker using Pro-Pulse powertrain...
I hope they will make some smaller versions of it.
1000hp, but over 2000ft/lbs of torque is the thing that wasn't mentionned. So it could be coupled with more poweful electric generators and this produce more output for 25% longer. That is the beauty of opposed-piston engines. Aslo: no cylinder head, no roads, no cams, so much less complex system to maintain and easy to beef-up for say military usage.
Haven’t heard boo about how this test worked out. It showed promise but I would like to know if excessive oil consumption killed this idea?
Why would you think that? Just because its 2stroke? It's GDI (Gas Direct Injected) No fuel/air mix through the crankcase. Internal pressured oil system just like standard automotive.
We'll see if those mpg numbers actually pan out given it has two crankshafts and thus much more rotational mass.
I think they should have said the main part of this is to have two Pistons per cylinder so I'm not sure whether he's talking about a three cylinder with six Pistons which would be like a B6 engine or reset a 6 cylinder that would be 12 Pistons like a 12 cylinder engine because each cylinder has two Pistons
How does it sound??
Like a 2 stroke diesel. That's what it actually is
@@DDBmaster Yes i would love to have one of these, got an 8v92 2 stroke v8 i tinker with, imaging this thing modified for some dune buggy project! i would run tuned pipe on it.
But does it have a pump jet? And can it stay underwater for more than 14 minutes?🤔
Snorkel optional...
"Sergeant we're not going to make it into battle, we've been derated to 5mph, we're a sitting duck"
No DEF in war
@@graham2631 I know, just shows how unreliable it is that military and emergency vehicles don't use it.
When this engine is finally available i'm fairly certain it will be modified and installed in air crafts right away.
Probably too heavy for aircraft.
@@andyharman3022 Damn you're right it's 3500 pound.
Not new Fairbanks morse already had opposed engines.
That would be a nice power plant for farm tractor or chopper
Yes there is a 750 hp 3 cyle, a 1000 hp 4 cyl and a 1500 hp 6 cyl OP 2 strokes!
Anyone aware of the weight as it sits in the video?
Deutz did this a LONG time ago . Air-cooled Diesel on this design . VERY LOUD .
Known as Knockers or Knocker-Boxes . Bulletproof . It's a Great design , then and now .
Great to see the Mighty 903 is still around too .
Commer actually- 3 cyl 6 piston- TS3- or Tilling Stevens. Reliable? - questionable, but they got it semi ok towards the end. You had to keep them revving hard, don't lug them down like you''d expect to with a diesel...Quill shafts snapping was the usual malady, plus the sparks and flames from the exhaust!!
Häää ???
this is a very old system
In german is it a gegenkolben engine.
Ferdinand kindermann patend 1877
Blah Blah Blah..so why didnt yall build them?.. or the dozen other great designs college kids thought of..
@@venusreena2532 They did, Junkers put one in an aircraft (or two).
T64 same engine...and look the same 🤭
Of course, no hamsters were harmed in the making of this concept.
1:40 did he just describe what a normal operating piston is ?
Love to have one fitted to my fishing boat!
2:00 dodged his question over power/volume ratio increase compared to conventional engines. 2:46 implies that it has a ~25% increase in power/volume ratio over the V903, which is a 70s design. That's not very much. Does anyone know the power density of this?
He also said its in testing right now, so real numbers are coming.
Plus this is a new engine, and will not be the production version.
now lets convert thev-903 into a 2 stroke! poppet valve loops scavenged ur cut ports into it as it has enough room.
Depends what you mean. The question was a bit irrelevant, the cylinder displacemnet/power comparison is a bit meaningless between two completely different types of engine. What should have been asked is how the physical volume of the complete engine/power compared. Opposed piston engines should be somewhere approaching twice the power density of a convential V.
ok.ok.ok fine when do i get to go to my dealer and pick one up? and how much?
A 2 stroke pickup, i would love that
Who said anything about a 2 stroke? It's a 4 cycle
It’s a 2 stroke opposed piston like a jump junkers aircraft motor or Fairbanks Morse
@@matttucker5786 when exactly did anyone mention that opposed piston engines are 4 stroke? No valves mate, no need for 2 extra strokes.
If you need to ask how much these engines cost, you can't afford it. I would love to get my hands of a 1500 hp unit.
This is the Achates Power Advanced Combat Engine with a paint job.
Damnit i could just burn holes through an old 855 block with a plasma cutter or laser, only intense energy and anger will form a a 2 stroke i guess! i have the port pattern from a yz250, cant wait to try it
they have bean working together Achates are designing it but Cummins is the one that will be producing it.
Need to hear this running!
Lets drop this in a new skidoo snowmobile
I've got one of these in my smart car. Nice little unit
So it's 2-Stroke?
Yeah Detroit Diesels the world over just went HOOORAAAH
Yes OP 2 stroke uniflow scavenged!
Dear Cummins. Please remember. A company is built on, substantiated by, thrives & survives by two simple Facts. Supply & demand , coupled with customer satisfaction.
Now Supply what we are demanding, and we'll be satisfied.
Thank you
They wont let us have them in our cars trucks semis because the engine would last a million miles before needing the rings swapped out. It would last forever and get 4x better fuel millage
This is now on the 'Need' list!
Dear santa i have been good this year can i have this engine as my christmas present ill give you a plate of cookies and milk
Better fuel economy and smaller than the venerable Class 8, ISX15???
Coast Guard Ice Breaker I was on had six FM 2000 hp opposed piston engines with 10 cylinders each. 810 Rpm flat out. Had problems with cracked cylinder liners, but new metallurgy can cure that. Maybe.
Looks like a copy of the rotax engine opposed cylinder engines. If I remember right they made diesel opposed single cylinder engines for submarines in the past.
Some WWII submarines ran 4 Fairbanks-Morse opposed cylinder engines, I assume they were diesel. Why they chose 4 engines I do not know, but the USS Pampanito is still on display, and available for tours at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. It's a great visit!
Rotax 850 etec made into 1700 OP 2 stroke, 360hp n/a and 780hp with turbo!
A thousand hp Bradley? That sounds fun.
If it's for a Bradley why the hell did they put an M1A1 on the thumbnail? M1A1's have jet turbines.
Hmmmm, how easily is it serviced? Durability ? ? Replace that turbine in the Abrams Main Battle Tank and save a whole lot of fuel? Also, this is a 2 cycle engine, right? Is there any hope of meeting EPA standards for use in commercial or construction vehicles? This sure looks like an Achates engine.
Yes, a joint venture between Achates Power and Cummins.
i had no idea that they still made the 903.
Agree, I had a 903 in an International 3070 truck. Great engine. I bet a 2020 version would be very strong and reliable.
@@tutekohe1361 true bro i remember them and they sounded awesome.
Can I put this in a boat?
Can I get this engine for my 1993 dodge W250 because why not
So they made a diesel boxer engine?
The boxer engine is an opposed cylinder, not opposed piston.
They are COMPLETELY different engine designs!
A boxer engine is nothing more than a flat V config engine!
So when can I put this in a kenworth?
There are a few 10.6L op 2 strokes undergoing trials now in a peterbuilt 579, achates power.
Are we looking at a future Class 8 truck engine ? 20% better fuel economy than a VT903.
Not at $170k. Only the military can afford it.
@@TechnikMeister2 $170K is much less expensive than a turbine engine and cheap for a custom limited run engine too. Go price a new 500 HP Volvo D13 and see what it sells for.
Also cheap for how much power it puts out. Go price a Cat 3512.
These things would be much less expensive if Cummins was building a few hundred thousand of them.
I was going to say once the R&D and especially the tooling costs get paid down...
The Germans engineered these & used the engines pre war 2 in Junkers bombers diesel aero engines.
They could flight up to 30,000 feet...
The Rootes group also made these until purchased by GM. These designs powered the old Commer trucks.
Yes
... and the Brits used them in the Chieftain. Just don't mention that engine.
And the Deltic... do mention that one. A triple crank, 6 cylinder per bank engine. Powered trains and ships. Also the T-84 has an opposed piston engine.
US WW2 Gato/Balao Submarines used Fairbanks-Morse engines vertically, similar to this...
MAP tractors (French) Simca. Used this design. Smooth and sorta quiet "not", but tre, tre thirsty and a breakdown was certainly a breakdown.
Novel for sure, but ?!
I wonder if it will fit in my suburu.
^.^
I want one of those turbos for my 5.9l Cummins!
mkae a 11.8 L 2 stroke out of (2) 5.9 cummins and dry sump feeding xd-100 2 stroke oil!
Why the need for HP when torque is what's required?
@Dave Pawson true to a degree. But that is like saying without rpm you have no HP.
And I know for sure that isn't so. When I was fifteen I had a 8hp low reving old car that could pull / tow the socks off friends much higher reving bigger HP vehicle, sure it couldn't out race them, but then they couldn't follow me up a hill without a huge run up with speed. I spose it comes down to " horses for courses "
@@kezzatries More hp will more more mass faster.
@@jlo13800 cheers mate, been working with torque and HP all my life, one how to use either with advantage but still find it confusing at times. I use more Newton metres than i do rpm, low gear ratios do it for winch design.
I feel like this kind of falls into that similar thing that happens to a lot of cool or unique ideas. The rotary is probably the most well know example that comes to mind right now. But anytime there is a new idea or a different design that is not the tried and true design we see with the "normal" kind of engine design. Pistons, single one piece crankshaft, cylinders, heads with valves and spark plugs or injectors, suck smash bang boom etc. If there is something that is build around that similar design it will be generally accepted. But any unique design like this opposing piston style, or a Wankel rotary with no pistons, or any of the really intriguing designs that we see out there, the fact that it is something different makes it hard to accept as being a very possible idea. I feel like that hesitation or that lack of familiarity is what hold back any development or advances in what truly is possible to achieve. Granted there are going to be stumbles along the way of development and not every design or idea works. Even the best of designs came through finding the flaws and engineering a way to either eliminate or minimize those flaws. That's how anything can evolve to be better and better as each success comes along the way. I just wish that people could actually get a chance, the underdogs, the people that design and create ideas that come from non-typical, or outside the box thinking. Try their ideas. There will never be big advances if you keep limiting yourself to doing the same thing. Sure that idea will absolutely and undeniably be perfected. But that can only go so far. It's like hitting top speed, then creating a second gear because you see how limited the first gear is. But then because it worked so good you stick to that design and perfect it. But you become so focused on that design that you never consider what else you could do. So even though you have this perfect working design, you are still limited. All while those others are trying to make a 3rd gear. Or a CVT. Or adding electric motors. Or all of those other possibilities that could be developed. I need to stop my rant. I am just very passionate about this stuff and I always find myself sticking up for the underdog. It sucks always hearing people tell you what you cannot do instead of trying to see and support what you can do. And it really sucks knowing that you can make a difference but you are always held back or restricted or shunned for being different. That's exactly the kind of negativity that tears people down rather than lifting people up. That's why I am proud to be a Teacher. I know that I can make a difference for some people at least. I can be the one to compliment their talents and build up their confidence, while helping them improve their skills and give them more knowledge to be able to understand what their doing better. And also teach them strategies and techniques to figure out what they don't know. And I absolutely encourage and support people to try out their own ideas and strategies. I have even learned some new things from my students. Well, I guess I wasn't done with my rant haha.
Hope they're better than what they used in the prostars and other linehauls