Comments by "markotrieste" (@markotrieste) on "Repairman22" channel.

The "kompressor" engine had a clutch that allowed the charger to decouple at low loads.
232
I wonder why people think it's going to be easier to invent a new ICE after 150 years of failures to radically change it, rather than to just beef up the electricity grid...
5
@juaneer I am referring to the 4 cylinder used on the C class W202 (1993-2000)
3
No, it had four. The 500 and later 126 had two, air cooled. The two cylinder was used also on the first base model of the Panda, soon replaced by the downsized FIRE 750.
3
Why not? the two eccentric top and bottom are the same.
2
@hazard7732 Not upset at all. I just feel bad when I see so much resistance to EV, which are actually a "low hanging fruit" when compared with the low carbon alternatives (as you mention for example the e-fuels). I'd have nothing to object to the video if it limited itself to explain the concept. I do have an issue though if it tries to depict it as a better solution than electrification of ground-based, short-haul transportation.
2
@LawnMower-jv8hg It's a bit off topic. However you can find plenty of reliable information on the web. Start with IPCC report on mitigation. Right this week there was a report released by DNVGL. Also Polestar did a thorough lifecycle assessment of their products, and also joined with other EV manufacturers in an appeal to be open on the topic. Then there is the think tank "Transport & Environment with lots of studies, as well as the "Union of concerned scientists". Finally, remember the approach that IPCC is proposing: avoid, shift, improve. EVs are the "improve" part, but first we need to avoid unnecessary transportation and shift transportation mode, whenever possible, to better alternatives (trains, bikes, ships). EVs are not "the" solution, but one of the many tools we have.
2
To your question on which drive is the best: chain as overall cost vs performance vs reliability. Crown gears and shafts with desmodromic 9r pneumatic poppets if cost is not an issue.
1
@TheNoodlyAppendage I wouldn't judge Merc's engineers as dumb. Fact is, except for very small underpowered cars, all car engines live most of their life at very low relative loads. Therefore, SFOC gains at partial loads are of very high value.
1
@mtcmotorsports4512 And does it have a clutch?
1
@hazard7732 Yes, but they all failed. Opposing pistons, oval pistons, wankel, deltic. What makes people think that this time it will be different? Titanium-made engines, rather than laying down more cables and transformers, really?
1
@KareemFloat Please re-read what I wrote. I don't want anything from anybody. I'm just asking someone to explain me why the video, along with plenty of people, thinks that this way (titanium engines, lol) is more promising than simply laying more wires and transformers, which require zero new unproven technology.
1
@hazard7732 Please re-read what I wrote. I don't question innovation. BTW, your comparison with light bulbs is a straw man. It is a fact that Benz trycicle had a piston in a cylinder with a connecting rod and crankshaft, same as the engines sold today by the millions; I'm just pointing out this fact. There have been dozens of alternative design proposals in the years, which never managed to be better overall than reciprocating trunk piston. It is a matter of probability: how probable is it that this time, with this engine, is going to be any different? Now, back to my initial question: why do you think that this probability of success is higher than the probability 9f success in investing and improving the electric network and charging infrastructure? PS since you like so much bulbs, please note that the step change in efficiency of led bulbs wrt to incandescent is the same as that of EVs vs ICE: in both cases we've managed to get what we wanted without making heat first.
1
@cheesebusiness You are not answering my question. I did not ask why there is yet another (hopeless, IMHO) ICE design, I asked why most people assume that the margins of improvement of ICE are such that they grant an easier path to decarbonisation of cars than the simple build-up of charging infrastructure, which, on the contrary, does not require any new technology or testing.
1
@cheesebusiness but the question was exactly about electric vs ICE, in particular which one has more hopes to achieve rapid decarbonisation of transports. You are contradicting yourself.
1
@marleythechameleonandherbi2724 Ok, tell me a better way to decarbonize private cars, in thermodynamic terms. Hint: biofuels, synthetic fuels and hydrogen all have drastically lower well-to-wheel efficiencies. Feel free to use technical language and papers, I am a MD mechanical engineer.
1
@marleythechameleonandherbi2724 the following is a statement from the last study made by DNVGL: "The route to decarbonization is clear: electrify what can be electrified; what cannot be electrified in the near term should be switched to sustainable advanced biofuels; and prepare for hydrogen-based new fuels to scale through local and regional ecosystems to a global ecosystem from 2035. — What electrifies will be *cheaper*, but hydrogen and sustainable biofuels cannot compete cost-wise with oil and thus need different policy levers to scale."
1
@fireballxl-5748 Fair point, but we can agree that common people should at least refrain from spreading FUD that helps those powers.
1