The New Hot Rod Lincoln!

In article <7hzmh.1748$oW4.408@trndny05>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an
>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the ethanol
>> doesn't come from oil, it works, even if it turns out be nothing more
>> than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power to be used in a
>> car.

> The Ethanol Illusion

Here we go again....

> To begin with the facts: Some 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced
> from corn

Hint: Corn isn't the only thing you can make ethanol from.

> in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline
> that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in that
> year. But here's the rub. Ethanol's energy content is significantly less
> than gasoline's. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance
> you go on a gallon of gasoline.

The problem is the fuels are different, so you can't directly use the
rough 66% of the energy per unit volume like this unless one has a rather
poorly designed E85 vehicle that acts like it's burning gasoline. Plus,
E85 isn't straight ethanol, but 85/15 ethanol/gasoline.

> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of the
> fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil energy used in
> U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there is significant net
> savings in terms of oil use.

And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce
ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article <7hzmh.1748$oW4.408@trndny05>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
>>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an
>>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the
>>> ethanol doesn't come from oil, it works, even if it turns out be
>>> nothing more than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power
>>> to be used in a car.
>
>> The Ethanol Illusion
>
> Here we go again....
>
>> To begin with the facts: Some 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were
>> produced from corn
>
> Hint: Corn isn't the only thing you can make ethanol from.

Right. They're fighting down here with the sugar growers to try to use
sugar cane for it.

>> in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline
>> that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in
>> that year. But here's the rub. Ethanol's energy content is
>> significantly less than gasoline's. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol
>> to drive the same distance you go on a gallon of gasoline.
>
> The problem is the fuels are different, so you can't directly use the
> rough 66% of the energy per unit volume like this unless one has a
> rather poorly designed E85 vehicle that acts like it's burning
> gasoline. Plus, E85 isn't straight ethanol, but 85/15
> ethanol/gasoline.

No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
straight gasoline.

>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of
>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil
>> energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there
>> is significant net savings in terms of oil use.
>
> And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce
> ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil.

Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than
gasoline. As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
developed.

Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article <7hzmh.1748$oW4.408@trndny05>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>>>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an
>>>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the
>>>> ethanol doesn't come from oil, it works, even if it turns out be
>>>> nothing more than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power
>>>> to be used in a car.
>>> The Ethanol Illusion
>> Here we go again....
>>
>>> To begin with the facts: Some 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were
>>> produced from corn
>> Hint: Corn isn't the only thing you can make ethanol from.
>
> Right. They're fighting down here with the sugar growers to try to use
> sugar cane for it.
>
>>> in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline
>>> that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in
>>> that year. But here's the rub. Ethanol's energy content is
>>> significantly less than gasoline's. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol
>>> to drive the same distance you go on a gallon of gasoline.
>> The problem is the fuels are different, so you can't directly use the
>> rough 66% of the energy per unit volume like this unless one has a
>> rather poorly designed E85 vehicle that acts like it's burning
>> gasoline. Plus, E85 isn't straight ethanol, but 85/15
>> ethanol/gasoline.
>
> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
> straight gasoline.
>
>>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of
>>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil
>>> energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there
>>> is significant net savings in terms of oil use.
>> And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce
>> ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil.
>
> Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than
> gasoline. As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
> developed.

The internal combustion engine is inherently a poor choice as a power
plant. It simply releases too much energy as hot exhaust gases through
the tail pipe. If we want to really look at shaking things up then fuel
cell technology or some other non-combustion process is the way to go.
Basically eliminate the moving parts of the energy producing part of the
engine should be the goal. We would be better off with this type of
technology even if we used oil to create the fuel (i.e. hydrogen etc.)
for it. At least we would be getting more usable energy from every
barrel of oil and with far less pollution.

As for using our food production resources for energy production, I
think it is a bad habit to get into. The logistics of generating an
amount of alcohol based fuel to make a difference would require an
extensive infrastructure and probably consume more energy than it is
worth. I could also see the impact on the environment to be very bad if
ethanol production is done on an industrial scale.

IMO, the economic development China will drive us to a solution for
energy production. There just isn't enough oil, or production capacity,
to support two 800 lb. oil consuming gorillas and we are the only one of
the two that can make the move to alternative fuels. So the good news
is that development of alternative, clean energy will happen eventually
but we may not live to see it.

In article >, Joe wrote:

> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
> straight gasoline.

No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those
made for pump gasoline.

>>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of
>>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil
>>> energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there
>>> is significant net savings in terms of oil use.

>> And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce
>> ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil.

> Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than
> gasoline.

The analysis provided ignores various factors to arrive at that
desired conclusion.

> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
> developed.

Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric
mustang with little power and/or little range?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Joe wrote:
>
>> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
>> straight gasoline.
>
> No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those
> made for pump gasoline.

And who blew that smoke up your you know where?
Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient
than those made for pump gasoline.
I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than
those made for pump gasoline.


>
>>>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of
>>>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil
>>>> energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there
>>>> is significant net savings in terms of oil use.
>
>>> And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce
>>> ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil.
>
>> Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than
>> gasoline.
>
> The analysis provided ignores various factors to arrive at that
> desired conclusion.
>
>> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
>> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
>> developed.
>
> Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric
> mustang with little power and/or little range?

Electric, no power? You do realize how most all modern trains (hint
diesel/electric) are moved, don't you?

In article <kDDmh.3069$T%3.1504@trndny08>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>
>>> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
>>> straight gasoline.
>>
>> No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those
>> made for pump gasoline.
>
> And who blew that smoke up your you know where?

Two semesters of thermodynamics, a semester of heat and mass transfer,
and basic knowledge of 4 stroke internal combustion engines.

> Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient
> than those made for pump gasoline.

It's basic knowledge, it's not my fault you're ignorant and aggrogant
about it at the same time.

E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition.
The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression
can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency.

> I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than
> those made for pump gasoline.

And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent
flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing.
Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as
found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that
are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe)

>>> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
>>> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
>>> developed.

>> Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric
>> mustang with little power and/or little range?

> Electric, no power? You do realize how most all modern trains (hint
> diesel/electric) are moved, don't you?

Having trouble reading? Sure, you can make a fast electric, good luck
having a enough juice to get home after a couple dragstrip runs though.
That's why it reads with little power and/or range. Electric motors
aren't the problem, it's the energy storage and delivery. Now by the time
you overcome those problems with a hybrid set up as in your locomotive
example, you have something that is so big, it's only suitible for
locomotives, city buses, and other vehicles that weigh a lot and are
quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather slow on the
acceleration numbers.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <kDDmh.3069$T%3.1504@trndny08>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than
>>>> straight gasoline.
>>> No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those
>>> made for pump gasoline.
>> And who blew that smoke up your you know where?
>
> Two semesters of thermodynamics, a semester of heat and mass transfer,
> and basic knowledge of 4 stroke internal combustion engines.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know
what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient? I thought
the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were
compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Some tubing, seals etc. can
corrode or deteriorate in the presence of alcohol so the designation was
developed to differentiate the component upgrades to burn alcohol.

>> Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient
>> than those made for pump gasoline.
>
> It's basic knowledge, it's not my fault you're ignorant and aggrogant
> about it at the same time.
>
> E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition.
> The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression
> can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency.

You are talking about programing differences I presume. I have never
heard of any alternative fuel engines that can vary the CR depending on
the fuel used. Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can
run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these
engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline.

FFV vehicles

>> I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than
>> those made for pump gasoline.
>
> And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent
> flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing.
> Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as
> found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that
> are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe)

FFV vehicles can detect the amount of alcohol in the fuel and adjust the
tune accordingly. This does not change the CR at all and since they
must also run on 100% 87 octane I would assume the FFV engines have the
same CR as their non-FFV counterparts.

>>>> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and
>>>> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is
>>>> developed.
>
>>> Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric
>>> mustang with little power and/or little range?
>
>> Electric, no power? You do realize how most all modern trains (hint
>> diesel/electric) are moved, don't you?
>
> Having trouble reading? Sure, you can make a fast electric, good luck
> having a enough juice to get home after a couple dragstrip runs though.
> That's why it reads with little power and/or range. Electric motors
> aren't the problem, it's the energy storage and delivery. Now by the time
> you overcome those problems with a hybrid set up as in your locomotive
> example, you have something that is so big, it's only suitible for
> locomotives, city buses, and other vehicles that weigh a lot and are
> quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather slow on the
> acceleration numbers.

Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...ybrid_mini.php

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know
> what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient?

E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one
would racing gasoline.

> I thought
> the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were
> compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Some tubing, seals etc. can
> corrode or deteriorate in the presence of alcohol so the designation was
> developed to differentiate the component upgrades to burn alcohol.

They do, but control systems can take advantage of E85's properties too.

>> E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition.
>> The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression
>> can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency.

> You are talking about programing differences I presume. I have never
> heard of any alternative fuel engines that can vary the CR depending on
> the fuel used.

They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction.

> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can
> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these
> engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline.

That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than
with the combustion chamber volume.

>> And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent
>> flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing.
>> Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as
>> found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that
>> are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe)

> FFV vehicles can detect the amount of alcohol in the fuel and adjust the
> tune accordingly. This does not change the CR at all and since they
> must also run on 100% 87 octane I would assume the FFV engines have the
> same CR as their non-FFV counterparts.

I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write
"advance the timing".


> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...ybrid_mini.php

Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get
one or the other, exactly what I stated previously.

Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine
to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration
also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which
are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank.

Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey,
it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know
>> what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient?
>
> E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one
> would racing gasoline.

IF the CR is basically the same for an FFV and a normal engine how is
the FFV engine more thermally efficient?

>> I thought
>> the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were
>> compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Some tubing, seals etc. can
>> corrode or deteriorate in the presence of alcohol so the designation was
>> developed to differentiate the component upgrades to burn alcohol.
>
> They do, but control systems can take advantage of E85's properties too.
>
>>> E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition.
>>> The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression
>>> can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency.
>
>> You are talking about programing differences I presume. I have never
>> heard of any alternative fuel engines that can vary the CR depending on
>> the fuel used.
>
> They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction.

The higher boost in needed just for the E85 fuel to produce as much hp
as 100% gasoline. I found that it was better for me to use 100%
gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my
supercharged Mustang. I made more hp this way and still ran 16 psi of
boost. Even Ford's website admits that the mileage of their FFV engines
using E85 is lower than the same engine using 100% gasoline. The only
real benefit of FFV engines is lower overall emissions according to them.

>> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can
>> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these
>> engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline.
>
> That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than
> with the combustion chamber volume.

I'm not sure turbo/supercharging is very relavent to this discussion.
Most FFV vehicles are not high performance models.

>>> And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent
>>> flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing.
>>> Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as
>>> found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that
>>> are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe)
>
>> FFV vehicles can detect the amount of alcohol in the fuel and adjust the
>> tune accordingly. This does not change the CR at all and since they
>> must also run on 100% 87 octane I would assume the FFV engines have the
>> same CR as their non-FFV counterparts.
>
> I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write
> "advance the timing".

You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient. Then said this was
because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out
why FFV engines are more thermally efficient.

>> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...ybrid_mini.php
>
> Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get
> one or the other, exactly what I stated previously.

And exactly what mileage does a gasoline engine get while busting
through the 1/4 mile? I can tell you that there are times with my '89
LX that I was lucky to see 80-100 miles from a tank (14.5 gallons).
BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you
see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric
and gasoline capacity. It gets up to 80 mpg AND does 0-60mph in 4.5
seconds. Read the entire article. The car is quite impressive, IMHO.

> Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine
> to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration
> also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which
> are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank.

It can't be THAT heavy if it gets 80 mpg and does 0-60mph in 4.5
seconds. Did you see where the wheels have no conventional brakes? It
switches the motors in the wheels to generator mode and uses the braking
energy to charge the batteries. I can't imagine the performance to had
from this type of drive train. Each wheel can be controlled
independently and in a very precise manner. I like it!

> Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey,
> it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game.

Since the gasoline engine in the car is a 250cc two cylinder four stroke
I doubt it contributes much to the car's 4.5 0-60mph time. From what
I read it runs this time mostly on the batteries. A 200-250 mile
all-electric range isn't too shabby and would suffice for most daily
driving needs. Also, it can be recharged through an external electrical
connection so the on-board engine doesn't have to be used at all.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one
>> would racing gasoline.

> IF the CR is basically the same for an FFV and a normal engine how is
> the FFV engine more thermally efficient?

You keep wanting to mix and match. Where I say E85 only you say FFV.
Where I say FFV you say gasoline... where I say electric you say hybrid.

But in any case. Figure it out from the ford and other manufacturers'
press releases because I am running out of ways to say the same thing
over and over and over and over and over again.

Advance the timing, increase the boost as octane (ie %ethanol) allows.
That's about as simple as I can put it.

>> They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction.

> The higher boost in needed just for the E85 fuel to produce as much hp
> as 100% gasoline.

NO! CITE? You produce the same amount of horsepower by injecting more
fuel. That's all you need to do. (alcohol has O2 in it)

> I found that it was better for me to use 100%
> gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my
> supercharged Mustang. I made more hp this way and still ran 16 psi of
> boost. Even Ford's website admits that the mileage of their FFV engines
> using E85 is lower than the same engine using 100% gasoline. The only
> real benefit of FFV engines is lower overall emissions according to them.

MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of
fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out.

>>> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can
>>> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these
>>> engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline.

>> That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than
>> with the combustion chamber volume.

> I'm not sure turbo/supercharging is very relavent to this discussion.
> Most FFV vehicles are not high performance models.

Fine, you are against ethanol, great. I don't care. You asked how it's
done, I told you and you don't like the answer so you are digging for
reasons to call it irrelevant. You're mind is made up so this pointless.

>> I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write
>> "advance the timing".

> You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient.

I said they can be.

> Then said this was
> because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out
> why FFV engines are more thermally efficient.

No, you're mixing and matching and confusing things as you slice either
through ignorance or on purpose and I don't care which. It's pretty clear
your mind is made up on the subject. And no, I didn't say FFV. I said
E85. As in something designed for E85 can increase the static compression
ratio. FFV vehicles at the very least advance timing, some mess around
with forced induction as well.

>>> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...ybrid_mini.php

>> Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get
>> one or the other, exactly what I stated previously.

> And exactly what mileage does a gasoline engine get while busting
> through the 1/4 mile? I can tell you that there are times with my '89
> LX that I was lucky to see 80-100 miles from a tank (14.5 gallons).

Your mustang doesn't eek out it's range by very gentle acceleration the
way an electric does. Do a couple of those runs and the battery is going
to be flat if it's anything like other electrics. Given the fact it's
using capacitors it's going for fast discharge.

> BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you
> see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric
> and gasoline capacity. It gets up to 80 mpg AND does 0-60mph in 4.5
> seconds. Read the entire article. The car is quite impressive, IMHO.

Disprove my statement about electrics with a hybrid... disprove my
statements about E85 vehicles with FFVs. How about I introduce the grey's
flying saucers? This isn't some 500hp monster, it's just a light weight
little car. When you want a lot of power on demand without storage as per
the locomotive concept that was introduced, things get big. This doesn't
fit the statement on locomotive style hybrids either because it uses
energy storage.

>> Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine
>> to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration
>> also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which
>> are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank.

> It can't be THAT heavy if it gets 80 mpg and does 0-60mph in 4.5
> seconds.

I stated it's heavier than stock when they were trying to make it seem
like it would be lighter. That's all, heavier... weighs more than. Like a
GT500 mustang weighs more than GT.

> Did you see where the wheels have no conventional brakes? It
> switches the motors in the wheels to generator mode and uses the braking
> energy to charge the batteries. I can't imagine the performance to had
> from this type of drive train. Each wheel can be controlled
> independently and in a very precise manner. I like it!

There is nothing other than maybe the capacitors here that wasn't done a
decade ago.

>> Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey,
>> it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game.

> Since the gasoline engine in the car is a 250cc two cylinder four stroke
> I doubt it contributes much to the car's 4.5 0-60mph time.

You're great at assigning me arguments I didn't make. If it's got
electrics on the wheels it probably has no mechanical connection between
the ICE and the wheels anyway.