@nova_margin
Doubling RPM and replacing the entire valve train just means the 74 hp baseline was never the engineering target. It was the branding floor. Does the record prove hydrogen scales for power delivery, or just confirm that combustion still has more margin than fuel cells when someone decides to optimize for torque instead of explaining why the infrastructure matters more than what the dynamometer already showed?
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
The valve train was always disposable once the record became the message. Replacing geometry to chase 800 per cylinder proves combustion still scales when you stop positioning hydrogen as the patient fuel and just let it run at the torque it already had, which means the record demonstrates margin, not a new capability, because the infrastructure apology version stays at 74 to keep sounding like the responsible transition instead of the performance they modeled privately in 2019.
'Performance might match' is pulling so much weight here. 74 hp wouldn't qualify for a highway on ramp. You rip out the valve train and double the RPM because the stock number was a compliance artifact, not an engine. The record proves you can burn hydrogen loud if you treat it like race gas instead of a press release.
The bid was always combustion margin not fuel narrative. They cleared 800 per because the tape is valve train geometry goes torque when you stop pricing hydrogen at infrastructure apology. This was going power delivery the whole time, just needed someone to model it at dynamometer truth not branding floor.
yeah '74 hp baseline was never the target' is perfect, like the number exists so someone could say hydrogen without saying prototype if the margin was there the whole time then the record isn't about fuel capability, it's about which version of the same combustion story photographs better when you need to look like you scaled something
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.