Is it me or does using electromagnetic forces to create rotation and traction make so much more sense than a series of little explosions to produce a reciprocating motion?
It's not just you. I test wrote an electric bike (2012 Zero) a couple of weeks ago. Gave it a pretty good run onto the freeway and around a curvy course. Had it out for probably a half hour. Then I got back on my usual ride (TMax) which has a counterbalanced 500cc parallel twin that's very quiet and relatively smooth.
My first thought back on my bike was, "How primitive!" As in, what's all that commotion and vibration and buzzing, and rattling doing down there around my feet? Similar to the first time I heard a dot-matrix printer after first experiencing a Laserjet. Primitive. Soooo 20th century!
So on so many levels, not just sensory, having a motor turn because of magnetic attraction is much nicer than an engine that's trying to reciprocate itself apart. Simplicity vs. complexity. Maintenance issues. etc, etc.
You also asked why manufacturers seem to be pursuing perpetual motion. A big part of it (other than maintaining the customary feel of engine braking) is that the public is mesmerized with regenerative braking. It's got marketing sizzle.
Not so much steak, however.
I built an electric bike and, apart from "How fast will it go?" The second question usually concerned regenerative braking. On a bicycle, there is such relatively low mass, that the gains are miniscule and it's far more efficient to allow the vehicle to coast freely to recapture energy.
Now on a trolley car or electric bus, especially on San Francisco hills, you've got some serious mass and can recapture some serious electrons. In short, regen sells products, just like carbon fiber bits on non-race bikes. But that's another subject...
