Crossplane Crank in a TDI ???

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
Ok so curiosity has gotten the best of me, so I figured I would make a thread to hopefully shed some light on my questions.

I've been wondering if the crossplane technology used in the Yamaha YZF R1 would translate into a TDI engine.

Wondering with that firing pattern how it would work with the Turbo setup and if there would be any positives or negative advantages to a setup like this.

I'm assuming that since there isn't a spark that needs to be timed exactly with this crank it would make things somewhat easier to get the timing correct for getting this to work in a diesel.

Would really like to hear some thoughts and opinions on the subject. Hell even if you think it's way in left field post it up. I wanna know what people think of this technology and how it translates for diesels.

Where I'm getting these questions from.
http://www.ashonbikes.com/cross-plane_crank
http://www.ashonbikes.com/inertial_torque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossplane
 

Gearhead51

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Location
Suwanee (Atlanta), GA
TDI
2000 Jetta
The R1 sounds wicked.

How would you get the IP to fire at the right time? I bet the grouped pulses would make the turbo wacky. I guess you could work to equal them with runners, but I dunno.
 

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
Gearhead51 said:
The R1 sounds wicked.

How would you get the IP to fire at the right time? I bet the grouped pulses would make the turbo wacky. I guess you could work to equal them with runners, but I dunno.
Yeah an R1 is pretty sweet. My brother actually got to ride a friend of his R1 and he said it's insane in the "hyper" mode. They have 3 levels and even in the street mode it's a fast bike.

There are so many things that I'm not sure how the whole system would work together that I figured that there was some insight here. I'm also curious with the exhaust pulses how the turbo would react.........

So many questions:D
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Forgive my ignorance, but aren't most motorbike engines very VERY short stroke (oversquare) engines? I am not sure this would translate well to an automotive diesel.
 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
You're right. It would shake itself to smithereens. Balance shafts would help.
 

RiceEater

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Location
96595
TDI
gray 2k2 Jetta GLS
Mathematically the primary balance cannot be restored but can be "adjusted for" using massively large counterweights on the crank throws (don't know if the TDI crankcase will accomodate?) but the secondary harmonic will be larger. I know its been done on v8s but memory escapes me (been too long since advanced college vibrations classes). I don't think its been done on straight 4s. One of the problems with doing it on v8s is achieving a satisfactory balance such that the engine can still attain high revs.

Balance shafts will not solve the problem. Balance shafts "hide" the vibration, not get rid of it. With balance shaft(s) the misbalance is still there, you just don't feel it (or its too small for you to sense).

Update: I just finished reading about the new Yamahahaha R1. I guess its now being done on small 4 cylinder motorcycle engines.
 
Last edited:

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
RiceEater said:
Mathematically the primary balance cannot be restored but can be "adjusted for" using massively large counterweights on the crank throws (don't know if the TDI crankcase will accomodate?) but the secondary harmonic will be larger. I know its been done on v8s but memory escapes me (been too long since advanced college vibrations classes). I don't think its been done on straight 4s. One of the problems with doing it on v8s is achieving a satisfactory balance such that the engine can still attain high revs.

Balance shafts will not solve the problem. Balance shafts "hide" the vibration, not get rid of it. With balance shaft(s) the misbalance is still there, you just don't feel it (or its too small for you to sense).
This crank is currently in a Yamaha R1 Super bike.
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/products/modelfeatures/499/0/features.aspx
So I'm curious if a fairly high revving super bike can make this crank work, would this crank also be a possibility of working in a TDI like our inline 4s?
 

shizzler

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Location
Ann Arbor MI
TDI
05 BEW Wagon
Exhaust pulses reaching the turbo would be the same... the crank angle interval between firing events is not changed, just the relative association of position between pistons. If the reason for this re-design is to dampen the torque pulses as a result of piston/rod acceleration and kinetic energy transfer back and forth to the crankshaft, then you certainly wouldn't want to have unevenly spaced combustion events. Talk about a torque variation. The firing order would change, but that could be accounted for in manifold design, obviously.

Vibration would be the biggest problem though, as was noted.

This kind of over-engineering wouldn't translate especially well to our TDIs though. How many of us are complaining of how we can't properly modulate wheelspin at the very limit of traction coming out of track corners due to minute torque output variations...? Can't recall any complaints myself. :)
If you had a TDI in your racing bike, then maybe it would be something to think about.

Interesting topic though!
 

RiceEater

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Location
96595
TDI
gray 2k2 Jetta GLS
We are talking about building an UN balanced machine. Sure there is a lot of balancing we can do on our computers before even firing it up but we are talking about achieving a satisfactory balance, a small enough misbalance if you will; who knows how many prototypes we need to go through before achieving a satisfactory balance. Whatever balance we achieve will affect revability.

If anyone can do it it would be a motorcycle manufacturer such as Honda, Kawasaki, etc who can afford to build several prototypes to achieve a smaller misbalance every cycle. But you are talking about a much bigger and hence much large misbalance from the very beginning.

Thousands and thousands of years ago after a meteorite destroyed all the dinosaurs, I wented to college. There were stories of backyard engine builders with cross plane cranks for v8s. There were lots of engines flying apart unexpectedly maiming its builders and loved family members. Very, very few achieved a satisfactory balance.
 
Last edited:

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
shizzler said:
Exhaust pulses reaching the turbo would be the same... the crank angle interval between firing events is not changed, just the relative association of position between pistons. If the reason for this re-design is to dampen the torque pulses as a result of piston/rod acceleration and kinetic energy transfer back and forth to the crankshaft, then you certainly wouldn't want to have unevenly spaced combustion events. Talk about a torque variation. The firing order would change, but that could be accounted for in manifold design, obviously.

Vibration would be the biggest problem though, as was noted.

This kind of over-engineering wouldn't translate especially well to our TDIs though. How many of us are complaining of how we can't properly modulate wheelspin at the very limit of traction coming out of track corners due to minute torque output variations...? Can't recall any complaints myself. :)
If you had a TDI in your racing bike, then maybe it would be something to think about.

Interesting topic though!
I know that traction isn't as big an issue as it is for Super Bikes, but I was thinking that for efficiency the Crossplane makes sense, since there will be less as far as pumping losses, which in turn might make for a better torque curve and make more power compared to a "flat" crank.

Pretty much ever since I saw the new engine in the R1 I was mulling over the thought of how would this work 1st in a inline 4 TDI and then also what about just other inline 4 cylinder engines such as other passenger cars, etc.
I figured there would be people with more knowledge than myself that could elaborate on the possibility of this being feasible..........
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Automotive inline 4 cylinders have been around for 100+ years. And they pretty much all have the same basic crank arrangement. One would think if there was something left to improve on that front, it would have happened long ago. :confused:
 

shizzler

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Location
Ann Arbor MI
TDI
05 BEW Wagon
3L3M3NT said:
I know that traction isn't as big an issue as it is for Super Bikes, but I was thinking that for efficiency the Crossplane makes sense, since there will be less as far as pumping losses, which in turn might make for a better torque curve and make more power compared to a "flat" crank.
? There should be no difference in pumping losses. If we idealize the crankshaft and con-rod bearings as frictionless interfaces, then the transfer of kinetic energy between rods/pistons and the crankshaft (varying rotational speed of crank as described in your link) has no losses. The real frictional losses in these bearings due to this phenomenon is small. Or at least small enough that trading overall engine balance for the minuscule gains is NOT worth it. I like where your mind is going though. Every idea should be examined!

Riceeater.... who's got the closed mind?
 

UFO

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Location
A mile high
TDI
2001 Beetle
RiceEater said:
Thousands and thousands of years ago after a meteorite destroyed all the dinosaurs, I wented to college. There were stories of backyard engine builders with cross plane cranks for v8s. There were lots of engines flying apart unexpectedly maiming its builders and loved family members. Very, very few achieved a satisfactory balance.
A V8 is a completely different machine. Flat plane V8s have even firing just like the standard cross plane designs; the only different is they get even exhaust pulses across individual banks, unlike "normal" V8s.

Just in case you got lost in this conversation, the engine we are talking about is a cross plane inline 4, which is inherently uneven firing. Unless you make it a TWO STROKE!!! :D
 

Pat Dolan

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Location
Martensville, SK
TDI
2003 A4 Variant, 2015 Q7
The whole purpose of changing the firing impulses from one every 180 degrees, evenly spaced to a large period of interruption is to allow the wheelspin during superbike accleration (which are traction limited much of the time) to be ever so slightly interrupted (breakaway friction being greater than sliding friction). No TDI has anywhere near the power/weight ratio to gain any significant advantage from this. When you see F1 cars (that have optimum number of cylinders/displacement ratio, bore/stroke ratio, etc.) going to uneven firing intervals, then you know it will be time to look at this when TDIs reach the same 2 lb/HP range.

The inspiration came from observing the ability of much less powerful twins out-accelerating four bangers coming out of corners. Why not just build big singles (which any dirt racer knows have fantastic traction)? No where near enough valve area available to make specific output needed.
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
The R1 engine is not exactly turning out to be a world-beater, so why copy it, but that aside ...

COULD you make a 4-cylinder of your wishes like this? Sure, although integrating the balance shafts into the design could be tricky; means the entire crankcase needs to be redesigned to incorporate them. Question is, WHY, and what would the other bad side effects be?

A motorcycle engine can get away with an irregular firing pattern without too many driveability problems, because it's normally spinning fast enough that the irregular firing isn't noticeable from the point of view of having unacceptable vibrations, etc. You don't pull away from a stop at 900 rpm with a Yamaha R1. I can take my ZX10R (even-firing!) down to 3000 rpm when puttering around town at next to no load on the engine, but if you want acceleration, it wants to be at 5000 plus. Heck, even my little CBR125 single feels smooth at 6000+ rpm, which it is always doing except at idle.

But with a high-compression diesel engine ... ! ! !

At idle speed say 900 rpm, the engine is turning 15 times per second, which means 7.5 repetitions of the 4-stroke cycle per second. If that has an uneven firing pattern, that is a lot of torque fluctuation due to compression strokes and a lot of vibration transmitted to the chassis. Remember that with a gasoline engine at idle, in addition to the compression ratio being lower to begin with, it is also running at significant intake vacuum, so the compression strokes are much less violent. What you can get away with on a gasoline engine like the R1, you probably can't do with a diesel and have vibration characteristics that are even remotely tolerable.
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
Pat Dolan said:
When you see F1 cars (that have optimum number of cylinders/displacement ratio, bore/stroke ratio, etc.) going to uneven firing intervals, then you know it will be time to look at this when TDIs reach the same 2 lb/HP range.
I'm pretty sure that F1 rules require the use of a V8 engine although I'm not sure if they regulate the firing pattern. But, there's another issue to discuss in that particular application. Uneven-firing engines inherently have fluctuations of output torque, both above and below the average. If the gearbox is sized right to the limit - which F1 gearboxes are - the fluctuations above the average torque are likely to smash up the gearbox unless you beef it up and add weight, which is the enemy in that application.

Back when MotoGP (actually, 500 GP two-stroke at the time, the predecessor to MotoGP) went through the "big bang" phase - on the way to "long bang" and then "irregular" - smashed up gearboxes were a big problem area, which was in part dealt with by spreading out the firing pattern from "big bang" to "long bang".

If you want an interesting discussion about engine layouts, the MotoGP Technology book is an interesting read. Honda's V5 with one bank of three cylinders and one bank of two, inherently had an irregular firing pattern, but apparently achieved perfect primary balance without requiring the use of a balance shaft. Surely this was one of the oddest engine layouts in recent memory.
 

mysql

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Location
United States
TDI
Jetta wagon
the new r1 makes less power than the 2008 model.

if you watch the firing order, you'll see the last two sparks happen very close to each other - so it's not an evenly timed setup like you might think.

overall, none of that prevents me from considering buying a new r1, but I know a lot of bikers who'd prefer the older model since there's no sense in getting a newer, slower bike and paying top dollar for it instead of buying used.

It does have a nice midrange though.
 

RiceEater

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Location
96595
TDI
gray 2k2 Jetta GLS
Again, balance shafts will not help. If you cut up and reweld a crankshaft to change firing order in pursuit of whatever you probably have created a huge misbalance. That misbalance will cause destructive vibrations. Historically balance shafts are designed to create a counter vibration to cancel out some other vibration. That destructive vibration is still there. Its just with the balance shaft countervibration, its now smaller or hopefully cancelled. The true solution is to remove the misbalance thus removing the destructive vibration. Balance shafts are afterthoughts.
 

Pat Dolan

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Location
Martensville, SK
TDI
2003 A4 Variant, 2015 Q7
GoFaster said:
I'm pretty sure that F1 rules require the use of a V8 engine
I think you are right. The period of optimization for 3.0 litre formula came up to 10 cyl as ideal, but I think Bernievision has re-written the rulebook. Got to remember, F1 is 90% entertainment, 10% motorsport.[/quote].........................Uneven-firing engines inherently have fluctuations of output torque, both above and below the average. If the gearbox is sized right to the limit - which F1 gearboxes are - the fluctuations above the average torque are likely to smash up the gearbox unless you beef it up and add weight, which is the enemy in that application.[/quote]Germain to our particular engines: it is not just uneven, but percentage of crankshaft rotation covered by power delivery. Four cylinder, four cycle engines are already in deep doo-doo for gearbox requirements, because at the end of each power pulse there is a torque reversal. That's why 5 cyl is the perfect minimum for 4 cyle and 3 for 2 cycle. Drastic reduction in shaft size requirements. Gear tooth/wheel size is determined by where in the cycle power is delivered by multiple firings - thus where the big bang and not quite long enough bang engines have a problem there.

Back when MotoGP (actually, 500 GP two-stroke at the time, the predecessor to MotoGP) went through the "big bang" phase - on the way to "long bang" and then "irregular" - smashed up gearboxes were a big problem area, which was in part dealt with by spreading out the firing pattern from "big bang" to "long bang".

If you want an interesting discussion about engine layouts, the MotoGP Technology book is an interesting read. Honda's V5 with one bank of three cylinders and one bank of two, inherently had an irregular firing pattern, but apparently achieved perfect primary balance without requiring the use of a balance shaft. Surely this was one of the oddest engine layouts in recent memory.
As you are aware, GP and bikes in general are far, far more creative and resourceful than F1, since they make do with a lot less budget and it generally is the reputation of a major manufacturer on the line.
 

Ski in NC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Location
Wilmington, NC USA
TDI
2001 Jetta ALH 5sp stock
I don't think balancing would be a big issue. The old four cylinder in line mercury outboards used a 90 degree spaced crank. Even though two stroke, the balancing issues are the same. Half of a v8 looks the same. A three and five banger uses a similar crank, although at 120 and 72 degrees between throws. Each has first order excitations that can be handled at least partially with crank weights.

The deal killer is the oddball firing in a four cylinder. Where are you going to find an injection pump with such a goofy shaped cam? Did they ever make a ve pump for 8 cylinders? Then you could use the ports you want and return the rest. Never seen a v8 ve pump. Stanadyne and roosa make v8 rotary pumps...geez.

That thing would shake at low rpm like a normal alh with a dropped valve. No advantage to it.
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
With a pumpe-duse or common-rail system, the injection pump is a non-issue. But yeah, trying to find a rotary distributor pump that gives firing intervals of 90 / 180 / 270 / 180 might be a bit challenging.
 

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
oilhammer said:
Automotive inline 4 cylinders have been around for 100+ years. And they pretty much all have the same basic crank arrangement. One would think if there was something left to improve on that front, it would have happened long ago. :confused:
I guess I looked at it that if nothing ever changed we would still all be riding around in covered wagons pulled behind horses, because hey they did that for 200 years give or take so why change that?

I guess it's people like me that like to think outside the box that come up with ideas that might be the next big thing.

RiceEater said:
Not only a small mind but a very small closed mind.
I'm not quite sure why my curiosity with putting a Crossplane crank in a TDI makes me closed minded...........
IMO it's people like you that are the ones that are closed minded an aren't willing to look outside the tried and trued methods of doing something.

And NO I don't plan on building a TDI with a Crossplane crank to experiment with. Just figured I would see what other people thought of this concept.

shizzler said:
? There should be no difference in pumping losses. If we idealize the crankshaft and con-rod bearings as frictionless interfaces, then the transfer of kinetic energy between rods/pistons and the crankshaft (varying rotational speed of crank as described in your link) has no losses. The real frictional losses in these bearings due to this phenomenon is small. Or at least small enough that trading overall engine balance for the minuscule gains is NOT worth it. I like where your mind is going though. Every idea should be examined!

Riceeater.... who's got the closed mind?
Thanks for atleast understanding that people like to think unconventional and explore new technology and see where it might lead us. I feel that your about the only one that understands why I posted this:D

Ski in NC said:
I don't think balancing would be a big issue. The old four cylinder in line mercury outboards used a 90 degree spaced crank. Even though two stroke, the balancing issues are the same. Half of a v8 looks the same. A three and five banger uses a similar crank, although at 120 and 72 degrees between throws. Each has first order excitations that can be handled at least partially with crank weights.

The deal killer is the oddball firing in a four cylinder. Where are you going to find an injection pump with such a goofy shaped cam? Did they ever make a ve pump for 8 cylinders? Then you could use the ports you want and return the rest. Never seen a v8 ve pump. Stanadyne and roosa make v8 rotary pumps...geez.

That thing would shake at low rpm like a normal alh with a dropped valve. No advantage to it.
I wasn't sure with the new Common rail technology if that would make getting the fuel into the cylinders any easier and there are things that are outside of my knowledge, which with just making this thread shows:D

I'm posting my questions here will either confirm that it would be possible or disprove that a crossplane crank will never working in a TDI.

I guess my curious mind had to know if it had potential or not.............;)
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
3L3M3NT said:
....
And NO I don't plan on building a TDI with a Crossplane crank to experiment with. Just figured I would see what other people thought of this concept.
...so don't complain when you get other people's thoughts. You asked. :cool:
 

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
oilhammer said:
...so don't complain when you get other people's thoughts. You asked. :cool:
That's definitely not me complaining, but stating that if things never changed or that people didn't explore ideas that they had we wouldn't be where we are today.

I was just thinking out loud and wondering with the new Common rail technology, 3-D modeling, FEA, machining tolerances in the thousands, etc...... that it would be a possibility. Then again I don't have the background to be able to quantify if something like this would be possible. With the wealth of knowledge on here I was hoping that some people could explain to me why it was or wasn't possible, which people have for the most part.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Your idea is sound, but your comparison to a motorbike engine is a stretch at best. That is all I was trying to point out.

There are other ways to improve the piston engine, but all the manufacturers are really going to be winding down much R&D on that front because electrics are just around the corner. I know we've heard that for years, but seriously it is. Cars like the Nissan Leaf, like it or not, are going to become more commonplace in the next 20 years.

There really is not anything new on piston engines, gas or diesel. Rather the implementation of existing (and often OLD) technologies because they have finally become cost effective. Personally, I think the VAG diesels have a LOT of room for improvement. If we had access to other diesels here like the rest of the world has we'd see a wider range of engine technology than what we see from VAG and MB and BMW. The French have some pretty neat stuff, and Mitsubishi has applied their MIVEC system to a diesel (despite Mitsu using VAG diesels in some models in some markets :confused: ). And if Toyota would get off this silly hybrid kick, I have no doubt they could make some really neat diesels too. They have some, but are always playing second fiddle to others.

I think variable valving, with a camless design, using duty-cycled solenoids to open and close valves, will be the next and possibly final quantum leap in piston engines, both gas and diesel.
 

3L3M3NT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Location
Sturgeon Bay, WI
TDI
04 Jetta GLS TDI, 04 RTDI
oilhammer said:
Your idea is sound, but your comparison to a motorbike engine is a stretch at best. That is all I was trying to point out.

There are other ways to improve the piston engine, but all the manufacturers are really going to be winding down much R&D on that front because electrics are just around the corner. I know we've heard that for years, but seriously it is. Cars like the Nissan Leaf, like it or not, are going to become more commonplace in the next 20 years.

There really is not anything new on piston engines, gas or diesel. Rather the implementation of existing (and often OLD) technologies because they have finally become cost effective. Personally, I think the VAG diesels have a LOT of room for improvement. If we had access to other diesels here like the rest of the world has we'd see a wider range of engine technology than what we see from VAG and MB and BMW. The French have some pretty neat stuff, and Mitsubishi has applied their MIVEC system to a diesel (despite Mitsu using VAG diesels in some models in some markets :confused: ). And if Toyota would get off this silly hybrid kick, I have no doubt they could make some really neat diesels too. They have some, but are always playing second fiddle to others.

I think variable valving, with a camless design, using duty-cycled solenoids to open and close valves, will be the next and possibly final quantum leap in piston engines, both gas and diesel.
Hmm interesting read there. I'm always fascinated with what is expected to be available to consumers and what actually makes it to production line. I think it would be phenomenal if we had more diesel offers here in the US, but like you said don't expect it to soon.

Also completely behind you on the electric car becoming more viable. After watching some shows on discovery channel and some reading online it's quite amazing what these cars can do. I mean how can you beat 100% torque from the word go:D

It should be pretty interesting to see where the Auto Manufacturers go with vehicles in the next 10 years:)
 

mrchill

TDIClub Enthusiast, Super Secret Diesel Ninja Vend
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Location
MASS! home of THE WORLD SERIES CHAMPION RED SOX! x
TDI
96 B4v red \ 98 Mk3 green\98 Mk3 Jetta black\ 99 Mk4 Jetta green x2\ 99 Mk4 Golf silver x2\ 99 Mk4 Jetta black\ 97 B4 sedan green\04 JSW gold\03 JSW silver
Electricity by and large is made by piston devices....period. The piston engine is no where near 80 percent efficient...there is plenty of room for improvement for those who "think outside the box". The reason for the slow march to on road technology, is that those who ACTUALLY INVESTED THE COIN need to get thier money back before new stuff makes the old obsolete. That is why often proven technologies take years to come to the fore. Its about money. Its expensive to march forward. Much cheaper (read:profitable)to be stagnant and used "proven" technology. It is also easier for the repair folks, who by and large are less interested in new technology(thus buying new tools and achieving training) and more interested in whatever their life is and the enjoyment thereof.

Electric cars have been around for 100 years....and still account for less than one percent of one percent of the market. Why do you suppose that is? Electrics will eventually become a reality...but till then, pistons are still the king. I personally like turbines as they can use nearly any moving gas or liquid for power. I also like nuclear power as it makes the most electricity per reaction. THAT would make electric cars viable......that and decent batteries. Not TALK of decent batteries...but actual ones.
 
Top