mheslep said:
I say required because setting all of the century's improvements aside for moment and looking only at the problem of individual transportation from A to B, and seen only as a self-contained engineering project, the internal combustion engine is a mistake, a disaster. No I'm not talking about all the environmental issues. I refer only to the engine itself and what's required on an auto-mobile.
(...)
Still doesn't change my view that the combustion engine is twisted joke of an engineering solution to the problem of moving things around, as compared to elegance of the electric motor.
xxChrisxx said:
Just like the car replaced the work horse. And horses were used for pleasure. The EV will be the work horse of tomorrow, leaving petrol engines for pleasure.
I am also a realist, we can't continue to burn oil at the rate we are. I also understand the concept of diminishing returns. The IC is 120 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept.
(...)
the power generation, and delivery systems are both more efficienct for moving you along the road. Not only that but the characteristics of an electric motor make it acutally better than an IC engine for general driving. They have 100% torque from 0 RPM up to about 80% max 'revs'.
Just a little history note from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicles#History":
Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage, powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.
Electric vehicles were among the earliest automobiles, and before the preeminence of light, powerful internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many vehicle land speed and distance records in the early 1900s. (...) and at one point in history out-sold gasoline-powered vehicles.
So EV are 175 years old. They were 'replaced' by the 'new and improved' ICE technology about 75 years later, even if they already had all the advantages of low RPM torque and better efficiency over the ICE. A good thing that, back then, nobody said
"The EV is 75 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept." or we wouldn't be here having this discussion about your 'new' concept.
People did not choose ICE over EV for personal use just for the fun of it, there were major advantages.
Mech_Engineer said:
The only thing holding electric vehicles back is energy storage.
mheslep said:
which is about where we are today - average car can do nearly 400 miles, average EV 100 miles. Start adding to that story the ability to charge over night
xxChrisxx said:
Currently there simply are no drawbacks for electric vehicles apart from:
infrastructure.
energy storage.
cost.
Thats it's,
(...)
Conversely EV will have their flaws too. Suc has hot battery packs, and the stuff listed above.
energy storage, infrastructure, hot battery packs, limited range, 'filling up' measured in hours instead of minutes, cost. Oh yah, and you forgot battery performance variation with outside temp (I live in Canada, what can I say).
That's it? These are the ONLY problems to solve? After 175 years of development? You're kidding right? Cost! ... Cost! Whether right or wrong, in today's world, that's the only concern that people have on their mind, and this is a minor drawback? A 100 miles range where you have to plug-in for 1-2 hours to charge @ 80% capacity is a salable concept for an everyday car for the average family? Come on, get serious, you don't truly believe what you are all saying?
xxChrisxx said:
No it's not becuase its popular that it's true. It's true becuase it's true. End of.
With an argumentation like that, I guess the Earth would still be flat.
xxChrisxx said:
Saying you should 'ban the electric car' becuase you should be developing something else it's utterly stupid. It's product lifecycle 101. To be good and sucessful you need a product or technology on each strange of the cycle. To try to artificially extend one at the expense of a new product with more potential it's simply stupid.
If I didn't make myself clear, let me correct that: I'm not against EV and I certainly do not want to ban them. Good for us if something good came out of this. Like I said, I think the future of EV lies in railroad development and cleaner air by removing ICE long range carrier (either for people or merchandise), but not for vehicle needed for personal use. Except for some urban people that never get out of the city, I don't think EV will reach the practicality needed (for a fair price) by the average family.
It's like everyone has a 5-seater even if most of the time there is just 1 or 2 people in the car. But, once in a while, you need the 5-seater, so that's what you have. Same thing with mileage range, most of the time, you have enough of 100 miles, but once in a while you need 200 miles (and even more) and that's what your vehicle must be able to do.
IMHO, thinking that ICE is a thing of the past is pure dreaming at this point that can only lead to disappointment.
Mech_Engineer said:
I'm not understanding this obsession with rotary engines? They are in the end an internal combustion engine, nothing special. If they were capable of higher compression ratios they might have a chance, but they just aren't (9:1 compression is a real challenge, diesels hit 20+ without trouble).
What "R&D" are you hoping to do on a rotary engine that wouldn't benefit any number of standard piston engines?
mgb_phys said:
Even with perfect sealing a Wankel engine is fundementally limited in the compression ratio it can achieve just form geometry. A piston engine is only limited by the strength of the metal so you can make small economical diesels with 20:1 compression getting half that in a Wankel is real feat of engineering.
Yes piston engines have had a lot longer R&D, but all that R&D has also benefited rotary engines. Mazda weren't exactly workign with stone age tools to design their engine.
No so long ago, I was like everybody else: I looked at the numbers for the Mazda engine and concluded that they were no match for traditional engine. Since then, I had to study them a little bit more, and I found them more and more attractive (I didn't say perfect). Even if they achieve the same goal, the challenges with a rotary engine versus piston engine are world apart. So, no, you can't use R&D from one to apply blindly on the other. It's a whole other way of thinking.
Everybody seems to be stuck with the CR. Yes, it is a limited factor on the WANKEL engine. But this is not the only form of rotary engine, and some designs can achieve higher CR (I'm currently studying one model that can go up to 50:1). Even so, like I said earlier, you can pre-compress the air. For example, a two-stroke diesel engine has no compression stroke and air is compress by an external compressor before entering the cylinder. And please, don't try to figure all the flaws and saying that it will never work, this is why I'm saying R&D is important in that domain also. Again, not instead of EV R&D, but with it, concurrently. It shouldn't be as easily discarded as you're trying to do in this thread.
Whether ICE or EV, at this point in history, there will be no easy answers and a lot of R&D needed.
