3 ms·
> In the case of leaded gas we got literally no benefit. There was never a legitimate reason to put lead in motor fuels. That's not true. The benefit was anti-
by nayuki 2y ago
> In the case of leaded gas we got literally no benefit. There was never a legitimate reason to put lead in motor fuels.
That's not true. The benefit was anti-knocking without using more expensive high-octane fuel (or later, ethanol).
It was still a terrible, terrible decision though, given the centuries of knowledge that lead is a poison.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoEthanol was a choice at the time. The fuel companies didn't like the idea of putting what was essentially a competing fuel in their fuel to make it work better and went with the known poison instead.
- int_19h 2y agoEthanol has its own downsides. When thinking about the explanations, keep in mind that leaded gas adoption was near-universal, including economies where "companies" or "competing fuel" weren't really a thing in that sense - e.g. USSR. They still went for leaded gas because of its objective benefits. And even today, we still use leaded gas for aviation... It is a horrible trade-off either way, but it was not done for no gain at all.