(10-06-2017, 09:12 AM)manxmike1 Wrote: I sincerely hope that no-one is still labouring under the impression that the electric bikes are in any way "green". The fossil fuel used to charge the batteries (never mind create the things) far exceeds the amount used by a similar petrol powered machine over a similar distance.

Do you have a source for this? Even a coal-fired power station has better thermal efficiency than a small petrol engine. Gas ones much more so. And close to half of UK grid electricity is produced from non-fossil-carbon sources.

(10-06-2017, 09:12 AM)manxmike1 Wrote: The argument is that "this is the future", well, what about hydrogen power cells? The technology has been around for a long time and powered the NASA moon flights. It is clean, it does not (unlike the battery power) produce great amounts of heat as a waste product. A hydrogen cell could be changed as quickly as a re-fuel allowing more laps, would be lighter than the batteries and eminently recyclable (is that a word?).

I wonder if the Zero rules only allow electric battery power, or is it open to alternatives? Come on Universities, you can't compete with the amount of money Honda San and Mugen San are throwing at the project so think outside the box!

I think when the TTXGP first came in, the rules were quite broad and did allow fuel cells - and no-one attempted one. But now the TT Zero rules specify "stored electricity".

I have to say if hydrogen fuel cell technology was as easy and effective as you suggest, then the electric car and bike market probably wouldn't be entirely composed of battery-powered vehicles. Storage of hydrogen is a major problem. The NASA space applications have used liquid hydrogen at -250°C. To liquefy the hydrogen in the first place requires a large amount of energy.

And as for producing heat as a waste product, if you do a certain amount of work you'll produce a certain amount of waste heat, there's no getting away from that.