In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.

You seem to be falling into the dribble 'technique' of not actually
reading a post. Or following the thread.

Dribble started with the efficiency of an engine running at its 'sweet
spot' for generator use. That's what I was referring to.

If a car engine spends time idling in traffic, the efficiency is zero -
apart from any battery charging or cabin heating. So there is no such
thing as an 'average'.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything like the sweet spot' most of the time.

I am always right!

So a 'car engine' used as a range extender won't be running at its 'sweet
spot'?

You need to decide who you are going to agree with and why. They are after
all, *very* thin on the ground.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything like the sweet spot' most of the time.

I am always right!

So a 'car engine' used as a range extender won't be running at its
'sweet spot'?

Such confused babble.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.




JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

--
Tony Sayer

On 21/09/2012 16:16, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

Are you suggesting the atmosphere is alive then?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/09/2012 11:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Only to you it would seem. Perhaps you would explain the chemistry to us
less enlightened?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?
It might be sound for a bit but not long.

On 20/09/2012 21:58, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/09/2012 11:30, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:37:57 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:

Yeah - what sports car did he claim to have too ?

DB5 or other exotic?

That I do have.

and it's made by Dinky - do they allow metal objects in your
secure facility?

Its probably like the one I have - there is a button to push on the
side that makes the little plastic man fly out of the ejector seat ;-)

Chav do you still have one?

Which part of "Its probably like the one I have" did you not understand?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
uppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

Your engine will be very much more than 25% efficient at maximum power
output. The efficiency varies at different loads and engine speeds. When
it is idling, of course, it produces nothing like 100 kW. And so on.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.




JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..


all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.

Why do you think cars have ****ing great fan blown radiators on them?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?

noise.

It might be sound for a bit but not long.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?

noise.

It might be sound for a bit but not long.

I know TNP likes to state the bleeding obvious, but in the same reply is
getting bad.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?

noise.

It might be sound for a bit but not long.

I know TNP likes to state the bleeding obvious, but in the same reply is
getting bad.
I assumed it was more dennis spik like 'in fact cars are actually quite
sound for a while, but not for long'

You don't think anyone else actually reads what you write, to the end,
do you?



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Please feel free to give a reference to a peer-reviewed journal that
states that carbon particles cause cancer.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Go on Drivel, post a reference that supports your claim, for once in
your miserable existence.

harry wrote:

You should have paid more attention at school.

I did, that's why I have a long list of qualifications in science and
engineering. You OTOH are a complete ****nugget who can't even express
himself in the English language.

Andy Champ wrote:

It's not toxic at all.


Steve, I don't always know what I'm talking about. But this time I do.
JFGI.

In this instance you don't. If you think that CO2 is a toxin then no
doubt you consider water, nitrogen, argon, helium, oxygen, xenon, neon
to be toxic.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Try reading the article. I agree, diesel exhaust causes cancer. Diesel
exhaust also contains particulates. There is no evidence that the
*carbon particles* in diesel exhaust cause cancer.

Diesel exhaust contains 3-nitrobenzanthrone, a powerful mutagen and a
fiarly unique signature of diesel exhaust. That is a much more likely
cause of cancer from diesel exhaust than the carbon particles in the
exhaust.

You, and others, seem to be reasoning as follows:

Diesel exhaust causes cancer, diesel exhaust contans carbon particles
therefore carbon particles cause cancer.

Association does not imply causation.

By your logic since diesel exhaust contains nitrogen then nitrogen must
cause cancer.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Actually, with hydrogen, it isnt.

Its BULKY. Light but BULKY. that makes it unsuitable for aircraft. Too
much tank, too much drag.

There are ways around that. The passengers won't like them though. The
Skylon shows how you can do it. Push the engines to the ends of the
wings, fill the fuselage with fuel and do away with the pilots. Sit the
passengers in a module in the centre of the aircraft without any
windows. Oh and get back to the days of charging several ordinary annual
salaries for a single trip across the Atlantic.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.

How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

On Sep 22, 5:58*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:20 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of
god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of
the electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which
adversely affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight.
Brakes add to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can
be fitted inboard on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.

What difference should a car being electric make?
These hub motors have significant weight.

Not this senile one again. You have been told, and even in the link you
gave, that the motor-in-hub can, and will, be lighter. *Even the hydraulic
motor/brakes was super light. Can you remember all this?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So how is wheel lighter than wheel +hub?

On Sep 22, 9:21*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus





On Sep 21, 7:14*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And where can we put ours then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Thats practical of course...

And energy efficiency.

Yes we know your gaff has walls a metre thick, but how can you retrofit
all that ??...

What's the problem? It's exactly what I have done.

On Sep 23, 12:31*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* Doctor *Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."

Say it as often as you wish. It still doesn't make it true.


This one sounds interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Engine

On Sep 23, 2:01*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus





Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *Doctor *Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.

On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?

noise.

It might be sound for a bit but not long.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

What else can it go to?

noise.

It might be sound for a bit but not long.


Noise ends up as heat too.

On Sep 23, 5:30*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
You should have paid more attention at school.

I did, that's why I have a long list of qualifications in science and
engineering. You OTOH are a complete ****nugget who can't even express
himself in the English language.

Well dementia must have set in. You have forgotten all you (maybe)
once knew.

On Sep 23, 5:30*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
It's not toxic at all.

Steve, I don't always know what I'm talking about. *But this time I do.
JFGI.

In this instance you don't. If you think that CO2 is a toxin then no
doubt you consider water, nitrogen, argon, helium, oxygen, xenon, neon
to be toxic.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Try reading the article. I agree, diesel exhaust causes cancer. Diesel
exhaust also contains particulates. There is no evidence that the
*carbon particles* in diesel exhaust cause cancer.

Diesel exhaust contains 3-nitrobenzanthrone, a powerful mutagen and a
fiarly unique signature of diesel exhaust. That is a much more likely
cause of cancer from diesel exhaust than the carbon particles in the
exhaust.

You, and others, seem to be reasoning as follows:

Diesel exhaust causes cancer, diesel exhaust contans carbon particles
therefore carbon particles cause cancer.

Association does not imply causation.

By your logic since diesel exhaust contains nitrogen then nitrogen must
cause cancer.

There have ben three or four links from several people confirming
that carbon nanopartcles from diesel exhaust causes lung cancer.
So this shows your dementia is well advanced.

On Sep 23, 5:30*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.

How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

The US government say 30% for petrol, 45% for diesel.

Running constantly at optimum conditions. In real world driving 20% for
petrol and a little more for the soot emitting crap engines. Diesels are
a waste of time in vehicles. Heavy and dirty and more complex than petrol
engines. Petrol engines in hybrid buses are far better and also in
hybrid trucks.

Some large, low speed, turbocharged two stroke diesels manage over 50%.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...sel_engine.pdf

My God! It says 45 percent and "further advances are possible". The 45%
is a static constant peed job like in a ship or generator.

Slow speed marine diesels have been doing slightly better than 50% since
the 1950s.

Thank you. The average is 20% to 25% in road use.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."


Say it as often as you wish. It still doesn't make it true.

IDIOT, it is TRUE!!!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
My God another person of great senility. The senile Jocko wrote "highly
inefficient piston engine". There is no such thing.

You're right.

Thank you. You are still senile.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."

No matter how many

This man is senile.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Exactly what Our Dave said. Can't you read? We know you can't write.

My God another person of great senility. The senile Jocko wrote "highly
inefficient piston engine". There is no such thing.

20% efficiency is not "highly inefficient"? You are Humpty-Dumpty AICMFP.
I bet you look like him too.

Of couse. He is Humpty.

On 21/09/2012 23:40, Doctor Drivel wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_h...eight_concerns

It concluded there were no concerns in unsprung weight.

It's also flagged "citation needed".

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Pumping losses which turns into heat in the engine and exhaust. The IC
engines more a heat engines as it creates more heat than turning motion.

The best you will ever get is around 50%. That is a two-stroke diesel
running at a constant speed and constant load. In road vehicles

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

Yes.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

Maxie the atmosphere is fines and healthy. Lots of CO2 it put into
there atmosphere and them it is sick.

Is this English?

To Maxie, yes.

Well you wrote it,

Idiot, for Maxie.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/09/2012 16:16, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

Are you suggesting the atmosphere is alive then?

The rambling thoughts of a Chav.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/09/2012 11:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Only to you it would seem.

The rambling thoughts of a Chav.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

You should have paid more attention at school.

I did, that's why I have a long list of qualifications in science and
engineering.

C&G eh. Fantastic!

snip drivel

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Please feel free to give a reference to a peer-reviewed journal that
states that carbon particles cause cancer.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Go

This proves you are a knobhead. Have you framed your C&G in woodwork?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 5:58 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:20 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of
god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of
the electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which
adversely affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight.
Brakes add to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can
be fitted inboard on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.

What difference should a car being electric make?
These hub motors have significant weight.

Not this senile one again. You have been told, and even in the link you
gave, that the motor-in-hub can, and will, be lighter. Even the hydraulic
motor/brakes was super light. Can you remember all this?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

So how is wheel lighter than wheel +hub?

Such senility.