Quote:
Originally Posted by NSXR
The claim is that additional start/stops do not increase appreciable wear. Imagine Nike said something utterly stupid like additional steps do not increase appreciable wear on your shoes.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZL9M2
The start/stop function obviously causes more wear on the starter. Source = common sense.
|
The problem with this "common sense" argument is that it's overly simplistic and ignores engineering realities.
Yes, if you take a machine that was designed to live for a certain number of cycles and you run it twice as often, it will wear out twice as fast. Sure.
However, and this is the important part, if the "certain number of cycles" is so high that even at a much higher rate of use you will realistically never reach it, then it does not matter in the slightest.
Starters intended to be used in auto start/stop systems are not identical to old school ones. They and the engines they're mounted to were built to a different set of requirements. They will not fail any faster, indeed most will not fail before the whole car is headed to the junkyard.
If your Nike shoes were designed to last for five billion trillion steps (I made that number up, please don't fact check me) and you walk 10,000 steps per day, then you will not see any increased wear from walking 20,000 steps instead, because you will be long dead before the shoes wear out at that rate. See what I mean?