9 ms·

Between this, camless motors, motors that can switch between different combustion cycles and variable compression ratios there is technically still a lot of imp

Between this, camless motors, motors that can switch between different combustion cycles and variable compression ratios there is technically still a lot of improvement to be had. Whether or not the political climate will allow those improvements to come forth is unfortunately uncertain

clarry 6y ago
I think it's less a matter of political climate and more just that these improvements are "too little, too late" when electrics are already taking over markets. How long would I need to wait for these theoretical improvements to go from lab to reliable, mass market cars? Why aren't they here already, why would I wait a decade or two (for what, a 10%-20% improvement?) if I can buy a full electric car tomorrow? I don't object to improvements, but it's a race, and it seems like ICEs are losing that race unless they can do something impressive on a very short timescale.
- close04 6y ago
  I don't think this benefits ICs at winning the race, that ship has sailed. Rather it benefits "us". ICs are going to be around for a while depending on the application. They might as well get more efficient and less polluting. We're still improving on DSL and coax as long as they have to be around even if fiber is better.
  - clarry 6y ago
    I'm not sure that's an apt analogy; if you have DSL instead of fiber, it's probably because fiber wasn't available at your location (or would've required you to pay some company thousands to dig up trenches and lay new infra). If electrics take the mass market, as I think they will, then new ICEs will largely just vanish from the market, and anyone who needs a normal family car can and will buy electric. Improvements to ICE tech don't go into old used cars because we don't upgrade their engines. The only ICEs that would be sold new are ones built to meet special needs, but they're probably going to be uncommon enough that improvements in them don't benefit "us" in a meaningful way; instead they become something you can largely ignore. Like, nobody is campaigning for fuel efficiency / pollution mandates for ATVs, tractors, supercars, or excavators, because they aren't a blimp on the radar. In these applications, fuel economy tends to be a very secondary concern anyway.
    - avhon1 6y ago
      I think it's reasonably apt. I wouldn't buy an electric car if charging wasn't available in my area[1], just like I currently don't buy fiber because it's not available in my area. Over time, more areas will have fiber, and more people will be able to make the choice, or even have no choice but to buy fiber. Likewise, over time, charging access will grow and gasoline access will shrink, and more people will own electric cars. During the transition, there will be lots of people who might yearn to own an electric car (just as I currently yearn for fiber), but don't because the vehicles will be expensive, they won't be able to charge at home, and their routine places won't offer car charging. For those people, having access to less-dirty ICE cars will be a strict, if less-than-maximum, improvement over owning older, dirtier ICE cars. [1] I can't charge at home because my neighborhood only has street parking, and the parking spots are on the other side of the street from my home.
    - close04 6y ago
      > it's probably because fiber wasn't available at your location EV charging infrastructure in many countries is rarer than hen's teeth. It's also much more expensive compared to fuel infrastructure that's already paid for and in place for decades. > fuel economy tends to be a very secondary concern anyway Fleets of vehicles always have fuel consumption as a prominent concern. But the pollution might also be since legislation could very well start covering construction or industrial equipment. > If electrics take the mass market "Mass" never meant 100%. We are surrounded by outdated tech that is still around because it fills a need even if just in a niche. Despite people insisting the fixed phone and snail mail have been superseded by mobiles and email, both of those legacy options are still there. Even selling 10% of the current volumes of ICEs still justifies improving them.
- safgasCVS 6y ago
  ICE motors have been evolving for over a century now so the improvements will become ever smaller. Despite that slowdown in progress, the energy density advantage of fuel over batteries still vast. Regulation should, in my opinion, be be aggressively pushing towards reducing vehicle size and weight instead of focusing on the fuel. Having a 2 ton car to move a 60kg person from stop light to stop light is just insane
  - avhon1 6y ago
    One of my personal fantasies is that the United States imposes a maximum road speed limit of 45 miles per hour (72 kilometers / hour). As a result, cars get lighter, more efficient, and safer, and trains become more popular and practical means of traveling long distances. 45 miles an hour seems like a reasonable compromise speed. At 65% the common highway speed limit of 70 mph, it's still fast enough to cross most states in a day, to travel between nearby cities in an hour or so, and to do errands in an afternoon. But a car at that speed has only 41% the kinetic energy as at 70 mph, making colisons less lethal, and has similarly less wind resistance, requiring smaller engines and less fuel. Maybe I just think trains are romantic...
    - clarry 6y ago
      I'm conflicted on this because I'd like those gains in safety and efficiency. I think it'd also allow us to live with smaller & curvier roads, which I think are romantic and kinda relaxing. (I'm quite bored with the wide straight flats they build; those also ruin the scenery and generate lots of noise) On the other hand, cars have been getting safer and faster and more efficient, roads have been getting wider and safer.. only speed limits haven't been lifted to match. A part of me wants to live the utopia where I can get where I want to be in less than half the time it takes today. That'd make the difference between going to my parents for a coffee after work vs having to reserve a full day (if not a full weekend) for the trip. Trains are not really a solution around here.
      - avhon1 6y ago
        I think speed limits have informally (and unevenly) been rising to match the capabilities of new cars and roads. I visited a new area recently, and was shocked to see that traffic was flowing at 90 mph (!) in a 70 mph zone. I was glad I wasn't driving, because not only is that a greater posted-vs-actual speed difference than I've seen before, but I've never actually driven that fast in my life. I'd have been torn between driving 80 in the right lane and being constantly passed at 10-15mph, or being white-knuckled behind some other vehicle and setting a personal landspeed record.

clarry 6y ago

I think it's less a matter of political climate and more just that these improvements are "too little, too late" when electrics are already taking over markets. How long would I need to wait for these theoretical improvements to go from lab to reliable, mass market cars? Why aren't they here already, why would I wait a decade or two (for what, a 10%-20% improvement?) if I can buy a full electric car tomorrow? I don't object to improvements, but it's a race, and it seems like ICEs are losing that race unless they can do something impressive on a very short timescale.

close04 6y ago
I don't think this benefits ICs at winning the race, that ship has sailed. Rather it benefits "us". ICs are going to be around for a while depending on the application. They might as well get more efficient and less polluting. We're still improving on DSL and coax as long as they have to be around even if fiber is better.
- clarry 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's an apt analogy; if you have DSL instead of fiber, it's probably because fiber wasn't available at your location (or would've required you to pay some company thousands to dig up trenches and lay new infra). If electrics take the mass market, as I think they will, then new ICEs will largely just vanish from the market, and anyone who needs a normal family car can and will buy electric. Improvements to ICE tech don't go into old used cars because we don't upgrade their engines. The only ICEs that would be sold new are ones built to meet special needs, but they're probably going to be uncommon enough that improvements in them don't benefit "us" in a meaningful way; instead they become something you can largely ignore. Like, nobody is campaigning for fuel efficiency / pollution mandates for ATVs, tractors, supercars, or excavators, because they aren't a blimp on the radar. In these applications, fuel economy tends to be a very secondary concern anyway.
  - avhon1 6y ago
    I think it's reasonably apt. I wouldn't buy an electric car if charging wasn't available in my area[1], just like I currently don't buy fiber because it's not available in my area. Over time, more areas will have fiber, and more people will be able to make the choice, or even have no choice but to buy fiber. Likewise, over time, charging access will grow and gasoline access will shrink, and more people will own electric cars. During the transition, there will be lots of people who might yearn to own an electric car (just as I currently yearn for fiber), but don't because the vehicles will be expensive, they won't be able to charge at home, and their routine places won't offer car charging. For those people, having access to less-dirty ICE cars will be a strict, if less-than-maximum, improvement over owning older, dirtier ICE cars. [1] I can't charge at home because my neighborhood only has street parking, and the parking spots are on the other side of the street from my home.
  - close04 6y ago
    > it's probably because fiber wasn't available at your location EV charging infrastructure in many countries is rarer than hen's teeth. It's also much more expensive compared to fuel infrastructure that's already paid for and in place for decades. > fuel economy tends to be a very secondary concern anyway Fleets of vehicles always have fuel consumption as a prominent concern. But the pollution might also be since legislation could very well start covering construction or industrial equipment. > If electrics take the mass market "Mass" never meant 100%. We are surrounded by outdated tech that is still around because it fills a need even if just in a niche. Despite people insisting the fixed phone and snail mail have been superseded by mobiles and email, both of those legacy options are still there. Even selling 10% of the current volumes of ICEs still justifies improving them.
safgasCVS 6y ago
ICE motors have been evolving for over a century now so the improvements will become ever smaller. Despite that slowdown in progress, the energy density advantage of fuel over batteries still vast. Regulation should, in my opinion, be be aggressively pushing towards reducing vehicle size and weight instead of focusing on the fuel. Having a 2 ton car to move a 60kg person from stop light to stop light is just insane
- avhon1 6y ago
  One of my personal fantasies is that the United States imposes a maximum road speed limit of 45 miles per hour (72 kilometers / hour). As a result, cars get lighter, more efficient, and safer, and trains become more popular and practical means of traveling long distances. 45 miles an hour seems like a reasonable compromise speed. At 65% the common highway speed limit of 70 mph, it's still fast enough to cross most states in a day, to travel between nearby cities in an hour or so, and to do errands in an afternoon. But a car at that speed has only 41% the kinetic energy as at 70 mph, making colisons less lethal, and has similarly less wind resistance, requiring smaller engines and less fuel. Maybe I just think trains are romantic...
  - clarry 6y ago
    I'm conflicted on this because I'd like those gains in safety and efficiency. I think it'd also allow us to live with smaller & curvier roads, which I think are romantic and kinda relaxing. (I'm quite bored with the wide straight flats they build; those also ruin the scenery and generate lots of noise) On the other hand, cars have been getting safer and faster and more efficient, roads have been getting wider and safer.. only speed limits haven't been lifted to match. A part of me wants to live the utopia where I can get where I want to be in less than half the time it takes today. That'd make the difference between going to my parents for a coffee after work vs having to reserve a full day (if not a full weekend) for the trip. Trains are not really a solution around here.
    - avhon1 6y ago
      I think speed limits have informally (and unevenly) been rising to match the capabilities of new cars and roads. I visited a new area recently, and was shocked to see that traffic was flowing at 90 mph (!) in a 70 mph zone. I was glad I wasn't driving, because not only is that a greater posted-vs-actual speed difference than I've seen before, but I've never actually driven that fast in my life. I'd have been torn between driving 80 in the right lane and being constantly passed at 10-15mph, or being white-knuckled behind some other vehicle and setting a personal landspeed record.