I think it might be helpful to pass on a few graphs showing the breakdown of friction for a typical engine and a comparison of a typical engine with my configuration.
The numbers for the first graph are from the Automotive Research Center at the Univ. of Michagan. Type 1 is a typical engine and Type 2 is the Brickley configuration. The numbers for the Brickley configuration are based on reducing the the number of bearings on the crankshaft and increasing the number of pinned joints. The overall reduction in friction in this comparison is 36%. My impression is that it could be reduced even further if in the case of a four cylinder engine two roller bearings were employed on the crank and a much smaller oil pump were used because of the much reduced demands of squeeze film lubrication which used at all of the pins. There is a possibility that the oil pump could be eliminated altogether further improving the reduction.
Because the most frequent criticisms of my engine configuration concern questions involving pin friction and reciprocating mass I must say that a good SAE paper to look at regarding the losses in pinned joints (piston pins specifically in this paper) is SAE 2005-01-1651. The authors ask a very valuable question: Because pin friction shows up as heat, how much heat can be dissipated from a bearing that is lubricated by splash, has no oil flow to take away heat, has a very hot piston sitting right next to it and has very tight clearances? Regarding reciprocating mass it must be pointed out that while my configuration does involve more mass the configuration does not respond the same as a typical configuration to increased mass for a number reasons (1) there are no piston skirts (the place where much of the reciprocating friction shows up) (2) squeeze time and the movement at the joint rotation at the end of the squeeze time allows for a different friction response and (3) the connecting rod performs a very different function in my configuration because the cylinders are already connected to each other through the linkage, to mention a few differences.
Also, I am including a few additional graphs relating to the 1.9 L TDI diesel for an example of projected gains. I used a diesel so I could simply use a Willans line for the friction determination.
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll130/biodeez/BSFCMapwcruisingload.jpg
From this graph a Willans line for 1500 rpm looks like this:
Using y=mx +b; m=(2753-1680)/(11.97-6); m=179.7
Inserting m and solving for b we get 2753=(179.7)(11.97) +b ; b=602
602g/hr is the amount of fuel consumed at idle (zero power, y intercept)
The x intercept would then be -602=(179.7)(x) ; x=-3.35kW (friction power)
A 36% reduction in the 3.35kW shows up on the ordinate as (1-.36)(602) which equals 358g/hr now instead of 602g/hr at idle (-244g/hr)
The new formula is now very close to y= 179.7x + 358
A common point to measure for average fuel economy is 1/6 throttle 1500 rpm. In this case that point is 5.23 kW.
The fuel consumption for this point is y= (179.7)(5.23) +358 ; y=1298 g/hr.
The fuel consumption for the original engine is y= (179.7)(5.23) +603 ;y=1543 g/hr.
This is a reduction in fuel consumption of 15.8 %.