Reply to post: Re: Ban chips in cars

Sitting idle while global chips fry: US car industry asks Biden to earmark cash for automotive semiconductors

Jellied Eel Silver badge

Re: Ban chips in cars

These are american cars, they should have 4.8 liter (or whatever that it is in cubic hogsheads)

Ah, so a fun car might have a BBC (Big Block Chevvy, not the UK's bastion of wokeness) with the 454 cubic inch model being a modest little number that converts to a tad over 13 pints. Being a Brit, I find that easier to visualise as it's ethanol consumption rate vs those namby pamby EUnits, ie 7.4l. Ok, that gets a bit more complex after factoring in drinking aids, such as turbos, superchargers or straws.

But it also demonstrates a limitation of ICEs, ie a hogshead is 54 gallons, so around 15,000 cubic inches, thus would require NHRA certfied tracks to extend staging lanes for 1/4 or 1/8th mile events considerably, as well as probably ending the ability for competitors to beat their opponents by a car length. There would be safety advantages however, like virtually eliminating the risk of wheelies for both front and rear-engined cars.

So rather than shooting for the moon, I propose a more modest starting point. So the 2,500c.i V-Lots engine. This has several marketing advantages, ie people may think it's 2,500 cc, and then triggering the subliminal 'iWant' response in a petrolhead who thinks bigger is better, after explaining their error. There would be further benefits, ie the reaction of 'look at that firkin car go!'.

And of course to pacify the other BBC, it'd also be sustainable. So engine management systems utilising current, standard CPUs would have ample capacity to manage a few extra cylinders per car. Thus fewer chips would be needed for a given engine volume than say, lots of screaming 2JZs.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon