Until you see a sharp drop in oil stock prices, I think it's safe to say the internal combustion engine will be with us.hou_ge2000 said:Will the internal combustion engine still be around for awhile?
With modern computer controlled, highly efficient, properly sized motors, the difference in efficiency isn't enough to make up for losses through a transmission (CVT or traditional). If you want a really fast car but aren't willing to use high enough voltages, a traditional or CV transmission is a reasonable compromise. But in that case, it's not there for efficiency.hou_ge2000 said:But my question was "doesn't motors have a most efficient RPM" too? So that mean it can be more efficient with a CVT. Unless they have a motor with a flat curve.
Shameful??? What problem(s) does/do the electric motors in diesel/nuclear trains/boats solve? I think it's the need for lots of torque at low speed for a long time? Do cars have the same problems? Note that diesel electric trains don't have storage batteries. Gas-electric and diesel-electric hybrid cars do. Sounds to me like a different set of problems being solved. So I wouldn't call it shameful that cars don't use all the same mechanisms as ships and trains. Or do you also think its shameful that we don't have nuclear powered cars?BIF said:Trains and ships, whether diesel or nuclear, already use electric motors for motive power.
It's just shameful that we have taken so long to develop it for personal land transportation purposes.