Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (63989)	5/20/2005 10:17:56 AM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

energyplay, Unless some way to get around the first and second laws of thermodynamics is found (and there won't be)we are still pretty much at a 1930's state of the art with IC engines. Maximum Carnot efficency is 59.3% and doesn't include any losses like friction. THe most fuel efficient fleet of vehicles ever built was probably the British and to a lesser degree European motorcycles of the 1930's through the 1950's. The Brits really took it to the limit with regards to fuel efficiency. First, they built very light weight machines as this helped reduce rolling resistance and MV squared during acceleration as both losses are proportional to the mass of the machine. They used dry sump engines to reduce fluid drag in the crankcase and avoided overhead camshafts due to the noise and frictional losses of the cam drive. Even their trannys were designed for maximum fuel efficiency. The Europeans used "crossover' trannys that in all circumstances had multiple sets of load bearing gears (and each set wasting a percent or two of the transmitted power). The Brits used "countershaft" trannys that "locked up" or bypassed the tranny in high or 4th gear. They kept piston speeds and internal shaft speeds in general low as possible as all these things had losses that tended to follow the square rule. In the 1950's when the Japanese motorcycle designs began to emerge (and it is THESE designs and not the British that Chinese bikes in their millions are based upon) fuel efficiency was not at the top of the list. They were fairly heavy and used fuel wasting wet sump lubrication with noisy high friction overhead cams. They used crossover transmissions like the Europeans. And the Japanese designs didn't get the super high gas mileage like the British bikes did. I have a 1950's Triumph Cub (199cc British) engine and I also have a 2002 JinCheng 107cc Chinese made engine. The JinCheng is a literal copy of a 1950's C-110 Honda engine but with overhead cam. It is wet sump like the Honda and very heavy for its size, MUCH heavier than the larger Triumph engine. I've had the JinCheng apart and it is well made, like Japanese stuff from the 1960's. But it ain't up to the internal finish of the Triumph. A Triumph Cub could be made to get 150 MPG, I know because I had one that I tuned for the purpose. None of the little Honda singles, upon which much of the existing Chinese bikes are based could do that. Close maybe, but for a much less powerful machine than the Triumph. Slagle