Russian Revolutionary Hybrid car

Jan 27, 2012 443 Replies

yes. There is no perfect solution to the epitrochoidal (or whatever it is) problem. The vanes MUST slide in and out a little and that in the end destroys the seals.

As with so much engineering, its implementation details that get you..CV joints on a mini anyone? Variomatic gearboxes? The battery in a BEV? Nuclear Fusion?

All fantastic ideas...that can't be made reliable or efficint cheaply enough (although these days CVs just about are) and so don't make it to mass production..

On the other hand some things have made it - breakerless ignition, fuel injection, computerised fuel and ignition..ABS, air bags, crumple zones, power steering and brakes.. GPS..electric cooling fans..active suspension...turbocharging, even supercharging, automatic gearboxes....independent suspension.

That was probably because the owners allowed the engine to wear. It was good engine.

just accept it - it is easier that way foe you.

Again for thickos..."the Ruskies have got around that - clever people."

The Ruskies apparently do not have seals on the "rotary vane engine" The opposing pistons are cupped.

You made that up.

So they tell us.

Which is at the end of the year. Even the pres' is behind it and driven one. Brooooom, brooooom.

Electric motors have peak torque at zero revs. brooom, broooom.

Confirmed, You know sweet FA about generators then.

With a continuous torque curve no gearbox is needed, like in electric motors. Have enough power pulses in each rev and the need for a gearbox recedes. This "rotary vane engine" has far more power pulses per rev.

The rubber band on Daf gearboxes? Even on my apparently German engineered (BMW I think) CVT box on my old Roover 45, a bearing went on one of the output shafts. That Cambridge motor vehicle conglomerate so beloved of TNP took one look and said, right, two grand for a new box (of course it happened a month out of warranty).

I kicked up a little and then they remembered they knew an outfit in St Ives (?) who can recondition these. Still £800 for that though - just for a sodding bearing.

No I'm not. It's a red herring.

But an infinity variable one will sit at peak torque - not maximum BHP - until it exceeds the revs peak torque occurs at in the lowest ratio. Then it will accelerate up to whatever revs.

That too is rubbish. A gearbox just multiplies the torque the engine is producing. It doesn't create it.

I'm not the one who's confused. The two are always directly related.

No, it multiplies it. Roughly by the ratio of that gearing.

Correct - that is one of the points you missed in your other reply.

NT

So you don't know the difference between a Moskovich and Wartburg either?

I do identify drivel and knobs.

What tripe. The gearbox is to compensate for the pathetic uneven torque delivered. by piston engines.

Describe what it (the gearbox) is doing to achieve this?

I'll give you a hint. It all revolves around torque.

It is attempting to inefficiently make the output of a crock of an engines that wastes 80% of the energy in the tank operate like the output of an electric motor.

You never knew that.

Are you talking about a normal car? If so, there are two sets of gear effectively. The final drive, which is normally chosen to give the top speed the car is capable of. With the gearbox in direct drive - ie no reduction or step up.

1st gear would normally be chosen to allow the car to start on the steepest hill while carrying the heaviest load. All the others sprinkled in between to choice. It may also have an 'overdrive' gear (lower then 1:1 ratio) to reduce engine speed when cruising at high speeds.

But this is just the norm if there is one - plenty will differ from it.

Makes no difference, though. Maximum torque provides the greatest rate of change in speed, ie acceleration, not maximum BHP.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required