Nice job, but what's the 0-60 now? Can it spin the tires? I get that it's now a torque monster that can go anywhere, but 100hp won't get you there very fast.

@newtboy ah finally see what you mean. And yes you are right a Coke can would be stable and it could rotate. It is no longer considered a spinning top I think, so that is why the contestants didn't make it that way but for sure it would work.

If the can rotates I think the torque (force due to rotation) is in the same direction as gravity. (Where in the normal spinning top case gravity pulls the cg off center and torque back on.) In the can case both would move the cg back to equilibrium, Ie on center. there would be no precession at all. Every time some small Bump would make the cg move of the center axis it would be pulled back instantly.

I think it would work, and that it would take away the challenge ;-)

Betcha the motors are burnt out. Don't care if water takes some of the heat. Those motors are not supposed to be used for that level of torque.

As per this *related=http://videosift.com/video/home-made-70hp-Rat-Bike-vs-180-HP-CBR1000-Drag-Racing video, low end torque is quite important too. Doesn't matter what your peak power output is if you don't get it until after your opponent is over the line.

doesn't look that dangerous, really. the (what i assume is) stepper bit wouldn't have to rotate very fast to be effective. it would just have to have, and clearly does have, high torque.

Looks like they took a clue from the Nissan Skylines ATTESA E-TS Pro system. (Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain - Electronic Torque Split )

The slap bands don't work because the arms are at angles to each other. Slap bands can only rotate in a straight direction (They are basically tape measure metal), so they wouldn't be able to come back to meet in the center like they illustrate. Also they have the motors all prettily lined up and facing directly off the wrist, that would require the material to be able to twist.

For the rotor size, these are fixed pitch rotors. You can change the pitch of the rotor to give you different flight characteristics and in general you have to match the pitch to the motor to be the most efficient. I may have this reversed, but a lower pitch prop gives you more torque and less overall speed, but a higher pitch prop gives more top speed, less torque. Making a prop that can be injection molded at that size that even works is difficult, making one that is super efficient would be even more so. QC would have to be incredibly exacting. As a gauge, the 2" x 2" quad has 1" props. They can lift it and buzz it around pretty well. Those things were a pain to get correct and I have a hard time imagining anyone making them more efficient than they are. In the case of the 2" quad, we didn't even paint the body because we want to limit the impact on flight time from added weight. All molded in color. That's how sensitive these things can be. There are better motors if you are willing to pay, but even then it may not be enough.
Go Pro records in HD, but doesn't actually broadcast anything (plus it is big enough to keep this thing from flying anywhere). If you want to broadcast video you have to do it in 640x480 tops. To do that you need something like an FPV system that broadcasts on a spread spectrum. If you went bluetooth you have an effect range that is pretty small. Wifi requires more power to get a longer range. A video transmitter system would require a separate device to attach to your phone to receive the signal and translate it to a PPM signal for through the headphone jack. But a VTX is pretty heavy as well.
And things may drain just a little bit of power, but it stacks up. At most you have a 250mAh Lipo battery that can fit in there. That isn't going to buy you a bunch of flight/video time.
Video on the phone is going to be subject to interference, so you would want to record on the quad. this would get you HD quality, but also adds weight, which means more battery draw, which means less flight time.
-B

Well... My mom filled out a raffle ticket on my name when i was two, we won a SAAB 96 and traded it for this model, 99. Almost the same color (metallic paint was for US export model...). My family kept it for 25 years, it served us really well. I learned to drive with it and that thing handles like a dream (it has heavy steering but is is so stable and responsive, just wonderful, plus ours had aftermarket short gearbox from police unit and bored cylinders, small tweaks to oomph the torque for caravan use. Finnish police used SAAB for a loong time, it accelerated like a rocket..).

Seeing the inside of that just brings me memories. Mom, Dad, my big brother and me and a full sized double bass, all inside (you can't transport it outside when it's freezing, the thing can explode..). It meant that i had to ride shotgun, seat fully front and back against the front door, head on dashboard. Backseat folded and mom and bro at the back, equally cramped. We used to say that first comes the bass, then the family if they fit in and there is always room in the boot (joke.. ). The day he started to play cello was a blessing and a curse. Have you ever had to live with a person that learns to play cello? It's horrible but i paid him back when i got full blown PA in my room, cabinets from floor to ceiling.. Musicians family is always a bit eccentric and weird..

My dad still has SAAB (fourth one) as they are just amazing to drive, handles winter conditions like nothing and are great for long roadtrips. I just hope i can get him the Citroen CX he has wanted from his teens...

Also, like a rail dragster, his extended forks allows for acceleration torque beyond the point the CBR would flip over on it's back. The Harley has almost twice the wheel base.

Give the CBR a wheelie bar and grandpa would be looking at tail lights the whole trip.

I think it has more to do with the torque curves of the two engines, and perhaps the lower centre of gravity and gearing ratios. I'd expect the rat bike to do fairly well against a gokart actually... at least over the same distance

The Honda should certainly have smoked him over a slightly longer distance and would win fairly easily on top speed, even if 180hp might be a slight exaggeration.

I'm not sure how much credence I can give the wiki page...I note it claims things that are obviously wrong, like "the design does not have a long lifespan when compared to other engine designs due to large numbers of moving parts" while in fact this motor has far fewer moving parts than normal motors. It did make some good points, like the first one that occurred to me about friction, but also made some bad points such as claiming 'mechanical complexity' as a drawback, while in fact it seems far more simple than normal motors.
"extra complicated machined parts" also exist in normal motors, and can be made fairly cheaply and easily in bulk.
Excess use of oil is an issue, but one they should be able to solve with proper machining and materials. Low RPM is fine for many applications, like a generator, so long as it's efficient it's fine and might even be better. Since you get high torque at low RPM with this design, low RPM seems to be ideal.
They claimed it had comparable horsepower to the same displacement normal motors in the prototype...if true, that point is moot.
Actually, there seems to be less moving mass in this motor, consider the mass of the crank shaft and counterbalances, connecting rods and pistons, the camshaft, rods, lifters, rockers, and valves. This motor only had a compact 'crank' and the connecting rods and pistons, and the output shaft. That's less actually moving to my eye.
The 'potential for explosion' was claimed on Wiki to be a design flaw of the case thickness around the 'crank', which could easily be thickened if it doesn't have to fit inside a torpedo....potential removed.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or necessarily even feasible, but it does seem to have more going for it than you give it credit for and is worth following it's progress to me.

Note, there is a significant weight advantage on that steam tractor. But you just can't deny the sheer power of steam engine, the torque that it outputs at low revs, 0-1RPM is just massive where as combustion engine has really none..

If there is a button the the steering wheel that gives an extra 100hp for overtaking by whatever method, I'm willing to call it push to pass. I expect that hitting the button would switch the engine to a high power torque mapping, use the MGU-H to spool up the turbo faster, and give a MGU-K boost exactly like last year's KERS button. I would also expect that not every team uses a steering wheel button for this function, but if Williams called it "push to pass" over the radio, I expect that they do. You could also have a separate engine mapping to do the same thing, and I expect that probably some teams do.

The RBR infringement was a bit more complicated than that. The FIA sensor was giving them inaccurate readings (it was reading high), and the FIA told them to apply an offset to the sensor values. They chose to use another method to ensure they weren't exceeding the 100kg/hr limit, and were excluded on the grounds that they had not sought permission from the FIA to do so and that it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.

I expect their appeal will be on the grounds that they did not in fact exceed the limit, and gained no advantage from their actions... and despite Christian Horner's level of confidence it could go either way. The last report I heard was that although they have lodged their intention to appeal, they have not yet actually tabled the appeal (but have a few more hours to do so).

Actually Mercedes were warned about the same issue. They chose to turn down their engines a bit to avoid the problem.

Formula one has been about getting around the rules at least since the 80s, and RBR have been very good at it. The camera mounting is very much in the category of satisfies the letter of the law, but very much goes against the spirit. I like the approach of using the camera mount as an extra wing actually (is it only the one team who did this?).

Not exactly.. It is limited by time and amount of energy. There is no "push to pass" button but they have some leeway on how to spread the extra energy around the lap. You can use it more on one corner but for the rest of the lap, you're total power output is reduced.

First race is now over, RBR got disqualified due to too much fuel was being fed to the engine... Also the dreaded "they will save fuel" phase was over in 10 laps. There were lots of technical DNFs, 14 cars made it to the finishline, which was miles better than worst fears. Some of the cars made their first race distance. But the main change was..

Almost unlimited torque at the low revs.. The cars were sliding, they were skittish, there were 3rd gear opposite locks.. They are once again more powerful than the grip what tires and aero can produce. Turns like T2 and T5 in Albert Park used to be "non-corners", they just pointed the nose to apex and floor it.. Now.. totally different thing. Even T9 exit was dangerous, which it hasn't been since 1999.

Eau Rouge will not be a flat out, easy corner but terrifying rollercoaster that eats lives if you don't respect it..

Only thing we lost is the sound, the new V6 uses energy so much efficiently that sound is not as loud.. On the plus side, you can hear the tires squeeling and the audience cheering. It's not V10 screech but low throaty roar.

Sure. There are some in here:
http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/pages/more-documentation/20-one-2-or-3-tracked-rigid-vehicles-light.html

... and about 7/8's of the way down this page:
http://snegohod-tuning.ru/istoriya-snegoxoda.html

We had similar units in Canada in the 60's (with , not quite as speedy as the electric jobby shown here) with I believe (not 100%) some of the early Kohler or perhaps OMC single cylinder gas engines. One could stand on a small foot board that was skidded along behind, steering with two large handles (like a roto tiller), and then behind that there was a sled with high enough walls that you could haul firewood, straw bales, sacks of whatever without them spilling out. They were geared rather high, so not a lot of speed but that's what was required to keep the torque up on these 2 strokes.

Hope this helps a bit.