Interesting. I see there is a central articulation between the ch***is/body halves. We have articulated buses here with the engine and drive in the rear part – strange to have a vehicle powered by its trailer, but not really unprecedented at all. I keep wondering about hydrostatic drive, though. I keep getting told that it's atrociously inefficient, yet I read only in the past week of a French company who are offering a near-bolt-on hydrostatic rear-drive package for front-wheel-drive cars. The amount of power going to the rear wheels is minimal, though – but they have commercial-vehicle versions, which, alas, are rather heavy. Then there are the guys building custom bikes around industrial diesel engines with hydrostatic drive.
I'd still prefer a scenario based on the reduction of mobility demand as such to the predominantly pedestrian through radical economic diffusion and the concomitant spontaneous redevelopment of the built environment, but I think that's a discussion for another place.
I'm just waiting for the day some two bit computer hacker throws a bug into the system and they all just stop, creating a giant gridlock.
You can see all kinds of automotive weirdness on EnglishRussia... funny, for a hyper-controlling society, it seems that, if you can scrounge up the parts and have ANY mechanical ability, you can build whatever car you want there....
It's infinitely far away as long as the predominant tendency is diametrically opposite. Self-obviating systems are surely possible, but the self-driving car isn't one.
Definitely not the tire size, though it would be interesting to see a Bond Bug with Humvee wheels and tires
I see the moderators have done a bit of a cull: fair enough. So, what does a Humvee and a Bond Bug have in common? Both have the engine substantially between the driver and the (front) p***enger. Could the Bug have been the first to have this arrangement, in 1970? Surely many commercial vehicles had for many years before, but what about a p***enger car? Any examples?
Seems like many of the "horseless carriages" in the early days had the engine under the seating area or slightly behind it.....
The highest development of that was arguably the Edwardian dual-crank Lanchesters. Now there is some automotive weirdness:
It would seem that "Stylin' and Profilin'" is nothing new..... that is truly one "laid back" chauffeur
I'd like to see one in operation. I wonder what the supposed advantages of such a design were? Very Odd Indeed
Unlike most flat-twins this isn't a "boxer" layout. The two pistons pretty much move together, so tdc for one coincides with bdc for the other. If both pistons are completely balanced by the crank counterweights there would be a significant vertical imbalance if it had been a single crank layout. In fact it's the perennial single-cylinder engine balance problem turned 90°. With the twin-crank arrangement the vertical imbalances are cancelled out. It's quite an interesting thing. You wouldn't think that a 90° V-twin could be balanced, but it can be. There are racing motorcycle singles which are balanced by a counterweight rocking or sliding at substantially right angles to the bore – effectively a dummy piston performing the same balancing function as a 90° V-twin's second piston.
The Jalopy Journal
