I don't think so, the moment the tire drops 2cm, the engine would have to push a little harder to get out of that hole.
Not if you're using it on a flat.
I happen to write for a living and I do not starve, so I'm pretty sure the lack of comprehension displayed above is not due to insufficient clarity on
my part. Besides, others in the thread seem to understand me pretty well.
I am not
talking about using it on a flat. I am talking about turning a downhill gradient into a series of horizontal (or gently inclined)
steps or terraces and installing a hydraulic pressure plate at the edge of each step, forming a kind of lift that carries the car wheels down to the
next level. So (1) I am not
talking about using this on level ground and (2) the lip, I repeat, has been eliminated.
Now, Bedlam: you're still touting this 'use the downhill momentum to push my car up the next hill' line. Yes, you can do that on a long, straight
downgrade followed by an upgrade, so long as you don't have any slower traffic in front of you. But you can't do it in most urban or suburban
situations, which is where traffic density is usually highest (and hence also the potential for this device). Reconsider your position based on
real-world mechanics; nobody is trying to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics here.
You might as well have rolled onto a single plate that dropped the entire distance before you rolled off the other end, breaking it into little
pieces just obfuscates the problem.
Actually, that's a great example: it proves my point. If you had a setup like that, I could drive up the hill with just enough residual momentum to
get me over the crest and on to the plate — which in your scenario is now a hydraulic lift powered by the weight of my car, and which harvests
energy from my descent. With my engine switched off or idling, I actually save gasoline.
Thanks for providing such a vivid conceptual proof of the soundness of the idea. I guess it takes a scientist... Unfortunately your scheme won't work
in practice, because if you had a setup like that there would be a traffic jam at the top of the hill while cars queued to take their turn on the
lift. Breaking the lift up into little pieces, as originally suggested, eliminates that problem.
As for this:
You insult me because I say it will vary and you think this is common knowledge. In the next, you insult me because you think it should NOT
First: I think a careful reexamination of those two exchanges will show that my position is consistent in both cases. I really can't waste time
re-explaining myself to somebody who clearly isn't reading with their full attention.
Second: I've heard of America's love affair with the automobile, but I hadn't realised it was so passionate that suggesting to an American that they
may not drive a car would be taken as a personal insult.
I assume you drive an automatic? I don't. I can just downshift, but I digress.
Downshifting kills momentum just as surely as braking does. But I'm sure you knew that already: a good driver knows that downshifting is a complement
to braking, not a substitute for it.
By the way, you'd get even more free forward motion out of that downslope if you put your gears in neutral. Did you leave engine braking out of your
calculations because you regard it as insignificant?
edit on 2/12/13 by Astyanax because: of lousy driving.