@VampirateYuki Combustion engines have an efficiency of 40%. The first electric automobile to reach 100 km/h in 1899. The problem of all this EV's, they are to heavy and the range is limited with the used PB-batteries.
But today the battery technology has been changed, all system are running with regenerative braking. The only real wearing part(all 5-6Years) on EV's is the battery. The other parts are low-maintenance! I think, that are to much features for the oil-industry...
@ChrisLuxembourg Believe it or not, they had electric cars before they had cars that ran on gas. However they deemed gas cars were more efficient so that's why we use them today.
So even at idling, they consume more. Interesting. I'm beginning to understand now, sort of. Maybe the fact that the rotary design is able to house in more than one cycling process in one stroke is probably the reason why the engine takes in more fuel than the V-engines. Would that be true?
@NaziGOPBallmer The reason why these took more fuel typically was because they spun at a much higher rpm. Where a car stops at around 7,500 rpm these go to 12,000 rpm. It didn't take much more fuel though. There are still lots of cars on the road that use wankles but there more japanese sports cars like the RX7.
Imagine if all major automotive industries switched to that as standard, hehe, think how many jobs will disappear over night to make room for ones that make sense. In anycase, I'm still trying to determine why this engine design uses more fuel than V-engines. I suspect that it was designed more for power than speed, but I could be wrong as this type of subject isn't my forté.
@alconaftika The weight balance of the shafts counterweights and the other rotors spining at different timings stabilises and causes minimal vibration especially at low revs. Its quite astonishing as an engine.
@VampirateYuki Combustion engines have an efficiency of 40%. The first electric automobile to reach 100 km/h in 1899. The problem of all this EV's, they are to heavy and the range is limited with the used PB-batteries.
But today the battery technology has been changed, all system are running with regenerative braking. The only real wearing part(all 5-6Years) on EV's is the battery. The other parts are low-maintenance! I think, that are to much features for the oil-industry...
ChrisLuxembourg 4 days ago
@ChrisLuxembourg Believe it or not, they had electric cars before they had cars that ran on gas. However they deemed gas cars were more efficient so that's why we use them today.
VampirateYuki 4 days ago
2:03 ...it looks like an modern electric vehicle!
If "Felix" could see this, he would pimp out the NSU Ro80 with that engine!
ChrisLuxembourg 2 weeks ago
@7Jfigo
So even at idling, they consume more. Interesting. I'm beginning to understand now, sort of. Maybe the fact that the rotary design is able to house in more than one cycling process in one stroke is probably the reason why the engine takes in more fuel than the V-engines. Would that be true?
NaziGOPBallmer 1 month ago
@NaziGOPBallmer The reason why these took more fuel typically was because they spun at a much higher rpm. Where a car stops at around 7,500 rpm these go to 12,000 rpm. It didn't take much more fuel though. There are still lots of cars on the road that use wankles but there more japanese sports cars like the RX7.
7Jfigo 1 month ago
@7Jfigo
Imagine if all major automotive industries switched to that as standard, hehe, think how many jobs will disappear over night to make room for ones that make sense. In anycase, I'm still trying to determine why this engine design uses more fuel than V-engines. I suspect that it was designed more for power than speed, but I could be wrong as this type of subject isn't my forté.
NaziGOPBallmer 1 month ago
@alconaftika The weight balance of the shafts counterweights and the other rotors spining at different timings stabilises and causes minimal vibration especially at low revs. Its quite astonishing as an engine.
7Jfigo 4 months ago
Soooo, if its not semetrical, wont it also cause vibration?
alconaftika 4 months ago
Haha the bug at then end made my day I love how they didn't edit that out hahahahaha
Staytheredoggy 7 months ago
@ChetCampbell72 let alone the power output of a 1.3l rotary is 286 hp to where a honda or toyota 1.3 would be about 100 hp
50fordman 9 months ago