翠星石 on Nostr: cream queen >You put an unreasonable amount of wear on your starter motor, Yes, the ...
cream queen (npub1x6h…c3yv) >You put an unreasonable amount of wear on your starter motor,
Yes, the starter motor needs to have a high enough duty cycle to last the life of the car without failing, but any non-garbage electric motor will last >300,000 cycles just fine.
If you have enough cylinders, one cylinder will always be in position to turn over the engine, or if the cylinders are stopped in the right position, engine start via combustion without using the starter is possible.
>idling does not even use a lot of fuel.
Idling does use quite a bit of fuel and nets an efficiency of ∞ Litres/100km.
>It costs more fuel to start your car than if you remained idling.
Very false.
It only takes negligibly more fuel to start an already warm engine than the idle consumption and so idling burns significantly more fuel than the 0 litres a non-running engine burns.
The fuel costs are negligible really, the question is engine wear vs starting costs.
Running an engine for 5 minutes wears it, while starting only wears out the starter motor and battery (1/80th charge), so going off rough calculations, if you are going to be stopped for more than 15 seconds, it costs less to turn off the engine than to idle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system?useskin=monobook
Yes, the starter motor needs to have a high enough duty cycle to last the life of the car without failing, but any non-garbage electric motor will last >300,000 cycles just fine.
If you have enough cylinders, one cylinder will always be in position to turn over the engine, or if the cylinders are stopped in the right position, engine start via combustion without using the starter is possible.
>idling does not even use a lot of fuel.
Idling does use quite a bit of fuel and nets an efficiency of ∞ Litres/100km.
>It costs more fuel to start your car than if you remained idling.
Very false.
It only takes negligibly more fuel to start an already warm engine than the idle consumption and so idling burns significantly more fuel than the 0 litres a non-running engine burns.
The fuel costs are negligible really, the question is engine wear vs starting costs.
Running an engine for 5 minutes wears it, while starting only wears out the starter motor and battery (1/80th charge), so going off rough calculations, if you are going to be stopped for more than 15 seconds, it costs less to turn off the engine than to idle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system?useskin=monobook