The death of Derv
- Thread starter Dan-1981
- Start date
It's all marketing ploy ! Modern diesels expel cleaner air than they breathe, its the surplus of petrol left from hydrocraking the crude oil that will drive the Diesel engines out of the city ! The diesel petrol car rivals the lorries as ever increasing demand for cleaner diesel will mean an increase per litre. Currently in mainland Europe almost 8 cars out of 10 produced are powered by diesel fuel...
The new euro 6 standards for diesels are met by modern lorries so if they can do it what makes you think manufacturers cannot filter it down to passenger cars !?
The new euro 6 standards for diesels are met by modern lorries so if they can do it what makes you think manufacturers cannot filter it down to passenger cars !?
Scottyg
Registered User
They'll find something in petrol next that isn't good for us or the environment. Another attack on the motoring public, if it wasn't for us motorists the governments Blackhole in their finances would be a hell of bigger!
The big French manufacturers have said they have no intention of stopping diesel engine manufacture. There are of course fanatical “green lobbyists” who won’t be happy until we are all knitting our own yogurt and revert to using donkeys – until know they have been allowed to have too loud and too powerful a voice/influence.
Always thought diesel was the devils fuel ...
But this isn't just about EU6 diesels is it...its about EU5 diesels and its well evidence they have a big impact on public health.
And you're right...if modern lorries can, why don't manufacturers filter it down?!
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-more-toxic-than-trucks-and-buses-data-shows
Did you actually write that with a straight face....?
It's not just diesels, all internal combustion engines are on the way out. Will miss the V6, but I've read the science and I've taken a pragmatic, not emotional position on the subject. EV are cleaner, more efficient, cheaper, better performing and have better technology. It begs the question, why wouldn't you...?
Of course if you want to live somewhere that looks like China we can carry on and pretend there isn't a problem...?
Highly misleading and silly photo above - that smog in China is caused by burning coal - so unless they have steam driven cars that's nothing to do with diesel cars. Guardian article - says it all 
Highly misleading and silly photo above - that smog in China is caused by burning coal - so unless they have steam driven cars that's nothing to do with diesel cars. Guardian article - says it all
It's pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. Exaggerating to make a point, but a valid point all the same.
And why don't you read the study, not the article, like I did....
http://www.theicct.org/nox-europe-hdv-ldv-comparison-jan2017
There you go...
Last edited:
Recently there was a dit about the emissions produced by all the commuters in traffic just in China on the way to and from work, it was inexcess of all merchant emissions. And now sea going ships have to install massive filters and switch to diesel from heavy oil when entering port even though most Chinese cars don't even have DPF or EGR systems.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
“Exaggerating to make a point” – a common tactic used by the likes of Greenpeace, the Green Party and other Climate Change tree-hugging organisations. Keeping on track with the OP. Diesel passenger cars are extremely rare in China and represent a tiny fraction of total cars on their roads.
Electric Cars – again many exaggerations abound about their range – as long as you don’t get stuck in heavy traffic or turn the lights and radio on. Tesla salesmen are very coy about the heavy batteries bonded low in their chassis (presumably to stop the car falling sideways when cornering) and whether it is terminal for the whole car when they eventually fail?
As said above, modern diesels are efficient and now have mechanicals and fluids built-in to combat most areas of their emissions. In the civilised, western democracy we off course want some freedom of choice without being dictated to by left-leaning, anti-capitalist “green” organisations
Electric Cars – again many exaggerations abound about their range – as long as you don’t get stuck in heavy traffic or turn the lights and radio on. Tesla salesmen are very coy about the heavy batteries bonded low in their chassis (presumably to stop the car falling sideways when cornering) and whether it is terminal for the whole car when they eventually fail?
As said above, modern diesels are efficient and now have mechanicals and fluids built-in to combat most areas of their emissions. In the civilised, western democracy we off course want some freedom of choice without being dictated to by left-leaning, anti-capitalist “green” organisations
Scottyg
Registered User
You could argue about this all day long and never come to an agreement. Is climate change man made or is it evolution of nature and earths weather cycles. Plenty of arguments for and against. New diesel cars are cleaner than ever, clean enough?? That's another debate.
Personally, I'm on the side of climate change is a naturally occurring cycle. Earths temperatures go up, as well as down over decades, centuries and millennia. What caused the last ice age? Yes, this has been the hottest year since records began but what will this year bring? It definitely hasn't got warmer up in Scotland! Taps Aff at 18 degrees up here.
I'm with @Gazwould on this. It's all about money, taxes and control. I'm not debating that emissions can cause illnesses but it isn't the cars that are to blame. Cars only make up a tiny fraction of harmful emissions. Lorries, cruise ships, freighters, aeroplanes, busses and industry all contribute to the other 98% of harmful emmsions. But as usual, cars and families are an easy target to tax and make money from.
Not everyone will agree on this or what I've said or has been said above. However, if everyone agreed it would be a boring place.
On the Tesla front, to manufacture a Tesla and run one is more harmful than it is to build and run a standard family car! Also the standard family car is a hell of a lot cheaper in the first place. The picture posted above by @Retroman is exactly what the EV brigade don't want you to think like.
Personally, I'm on the side of climate change is a naturally occurring cycle. Earths temperatures go up, as well as down over decades, centuries and millennia. What caused the last ice age? Yes, this has been the hottest year since records began but what will this year bring? It definitely hasn't got warmer up in Scotland! Taps Aff at 18 degrees up here.
I'm with @Gazwould on this. It's all about money, taxes and control. I'm not debating that emissions can cause illnesses but it isn't the cars that are to blame. Cars only make up a tiny fraction of harmful emissions. Lorries, cruise ships, freighters, aeroplanes, busses and industry all contribute to the other 98% of harmful emmsions. But as usual, cars and families are an easy target to tax and make money from.
Not everyone will agree on this or what I've said or has been said above. However, if everyone agreed it would be a boring place.
On the Tesla front, to manufacture a Tesla and run one is more harmful than it is to build and run a standard family car! Also the standard family car is a hell of a lot cheaper in the first place. The picture posted above by @Retroman is exactly what the EV brigade don't want you to think like.
Yo still haven't suggested why my point is wrong...? Burning fossil fuels causes pollution. If not reduced, can lead to severe smog like seen in China, and other cities. If thats not a clear indicator that we need to move away from burning fossil fuels, then what is? Why would it need to be that severe to be a problem?
I had a feeling you wouldn't actually read the study...
Unfortunately no, modern diesels aren't all created equal. If you read the study you would of come across this graph:
This to me shows how woefully redundant the EU emission testing is. It assumes that modern cars are all clean, but in fact in the real world they are not. The massive variation in EU6 cars and their real world emissions highlight how pointless these test targets are.
Plenty of evidence showing that diesels produce more NOx than petrol, and that NOx are very likely to be linked with respiratory health problems, including lung cancer. Plenty of basic science shows that NOx is a known carcinogen, and that pumping out the amount of NOx from diesels is having a massive impact on public health, likely contributing to premature deaths, as in this report form the World Health Organisation:
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf
You're are not arguing with me, I am merely pointing out the evidence from the scientific literature. If you disagree with the science and therefore the findings, go right ahead and prove why. As far as I am concerned, these are the facts of the matter.
On to your points about EV. Don't know about the failure rate thing due to batteries. Plenty of EVs have been about, any figures to suggest this is a known common problem that fundamentally cripples the idea of owning a EV? Always happy to look at evidence to help me make an informed decision.
As for your picture about about how EV are just as dirty, well this is actually quite ironic since you are trying to tell me on the one hand that ICE are fine and not that dirty, then on the other tell me that EVs aren't the answer because they pollute just as much...which is it...?
And unfortunately, when you look at the whole picture, again this isn't true...
The amount of energy required to refine fuels (amongst other things) is extraordinarily high. Further still, this energy is almost 100% provided by fossil burning sources, largely coal power. You then have the energy used to create the car, which can come from any mixture of energy sources, but typically its about 70% renewable clean energy, and 30% coal and oil. Then obviously finally you have the pollution caused when the car creates its own energy by burning that fuel. Importantly, the cars do this in built up populated areas, like inner cities, hence why they are banning diesels in cities as it has the biggest impact on human health.
Now the most damaging parts of this entire process in terms of pollution is the bit where the fuel is refined, and the bit where it is burnt by the car, neither of which is needed with EVs. The energy used to make the EV car ( and indeed any car) could potentially be 100% renewable (as with the Tesla and their Gigafactory, which uses 100% solar), and like wise the energy used to charge an EV could be 100% renewable. So EVs have the potential to be 100% clean, while ICE cars will always be extremely polluting due to the need for fuel. In reality, EVs still rely on some dirty energy, but it is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than ICE cars.
I'm not going to address anti-capatilist, green thing, as everyone agrees they are over the top and not helpful in the debate.
You could argue about this all day long and never come to an agreement. Is climate change man made or is it evolution of nature and earths weather cycles. Plenty of arguments for and against. New diesel cars are cleaner than ever, clean enough?? That's another debate.
Personally, I'm on the side of climate change is a naturally occurring cycle. Earths temperatures go up, as well as down over decades, centuries and millennia. What caused the last ice age? Yes, this has been the hottest year since records began but what will this year bring? It definitely hasn't got warmer up in Scotland! Taps Aff at 18 degrees up here.
I'm with @Gazwould on this. It's all about money, taxes and control. I'm not debating that emissions can cause illnesses but it isn't the cars that are to blame. Cars only make up a tiny fraction of harmful emissions. Lorries, cruise ships, freighters, aeroplanes, busses and industry all contribute to the other 98% of harmful emmsions. But as usual, cars and families are an easy target to tax and make money from.
Not everyone will agree on this or what I've said or has been said above. However, if everyone agreed it would be a boring place.
On the Tesla front, to manufacture a Tesla and run one is more harmful than it is to build and run a standard family car! Also the standard family car is a hell of a lot cheaper in the first place. The picture posted above by @Retroman is exactly what the EV brigade don't want you to think like.
Come on Scotty...! None of what you have said is backed up by the scientific literature!
Anthropogenic climate change is very well evidence, and your comment that a Tesla is more harmful to build and run than a standard car is plain wrong.
People need to stop just stating their opinion and be more scientific on the matter. Present evidence, argue your point, suggest why any literature thats says otherwise didn't come to the same conclusion.
The debate is just pointless otherwise....Scientific debate like this isn't about opinions, its about evidence and fact.
Likewise, I had a feeling that you were one of the "green" brigade. The old saying with statistics is “rubbish in then rubbish out”. I’m sure you can provide reams of documents all day long from “non-profit organisations” funded behind the scenes by mysterious “green” lobbyists and “climate change” EU funded organisations.
Fossil fuels are plentiful and cheap and with technology can be used cleanly. Glad to see you’ve used the words “likely to be linked to respiratory problems” in relation to NOX. In other words (and less verbosely) it is a GUESS.
China has a problem because they have undergone massive industrialisation with millions moving from the country to crowded cities. The UK had the same sort of city pollution when he underwent the same sort of change in Victorian times. No doubt if the climate change brigade were in charge at that time they would have forced us to carry on using horse & carts until today.
Electric cars may well improve when battery technology improves but at the moment they are rubbish for everyone other than a few rich, virtue signalling London-based luvvies.
Likewise, I had a feeling that you were one of the "green" brigade. The old saying with statistics is “rubbish in then rubbish out”. I’m sure you can provide reams of documents all day long from “non-profit organisations” funded behind the scenes by mysterious “green” lobbyists and “climate change” EU funded organisations.
Fossil fuels are plentiful and cheap and with technology can be used cleanly. Glad to see you’ve used the words “likely to be linked to respiratory problems” in relation to NOX. In other words (and less verbosely) it is a GUESS.
China has a problem because they have undergone massive industrialisation with millions moving from the country to crowded cities. The UK had the same sort of city pollution when he underwent the same sort of change in Victorian times. No doubt if the climate change brigade were in charge at that time they would have forced us to carry on using horse & carts until today.
Electric cars may well improve when battery technology improves but at the moment they are rubbish for everyone other than a few rich, virtue signalling London-based luvvies.
Unfortunately for you I am a statistician, so I'll go out on a limb and say I probably understand the nuances behind statistical methodology slightly better than yourself. No offence...
Again, rather than bash me as 'greeny' (who drives a 3.0 V6 S5 no less...) perhaps you should point me in the direction of evidence to prove your wild allegations of the validity of these studies? Or perhaps other studies that show differing results to prove that they are misleading?
And again, as a medical statistician I used the words 'likely' when referring to the WHO report because I understand the concept behind statistical significance and the methods used. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate into what you suggest, a "guess". Statistics like these are based on statistical theorem known as 'likelihood' theory. It is part of the frequentist branch of statistics. Because all studies can realistically collect data of the entire world, they have to collect data samples. The larger the sample, the more precise it is likely to be. We can quantify this with statistical significance. Whenever a point estimate is given from the data (in this case a hazard ratio), likelihood theory is used to estimate the variation around this point estimate, typically in the form of 95% confidence intervals. If the 95% confidence intervals do not cross the null effect (with a HR, this is 1) then you have what is referred to as a statistically significant result (at an alpha of 0.05). That is to say, there is a less than 5% chance that the estimate is due to sampling bias, and could reflect the true population effect (anywhere between the 95% confidence intervals). For the WHO report, the effects were statistically significant and therefore there is very strong evidence that this is the reality. Nevertheless, the terms 'highly likely' still have to be used, since it is an observational study. Unlike studies such as randomised controlled trials, which can more directly measure cause and effect, observational studies are hindered by a large number of confounding effects. These can (and were) adjusted in the WHO report analysis through multivariate analysis techniques, but nevertheless the overarching limitation of observation study design still stands, since any number of unknown and unmeasured confounders could exist.
This does not mean they are guessing, or that the cause and effect is unlikely. Quite the opposite. The basic science shows that NOx is carcinogenic, and these population based studies show increased risk of respiratory disease in areas exposed to high levels of NOx from diesel emissions.
How can EV cars improve if you are hell bent on suggesting they are useless and rubbish? It is clear you have no scientific basis for your opinions, they are born out of some irrational and illogical agenda involving political ideologies and sweeping generalisations that people who appreciate the merit of EV and accept the science behind climate and pollution are left-leaning hippies.
As a result, you come out with spurious nonsense, such as the fact that you think you know how scientific research works, but as I acutely point out (someone that has trained and works in the field), you very bluntly don't know your behind from your elbow.
As I keep saying, nothing of what I am typing is my opinion. It is fact and evidence from independent reports that I read on the matter. If you disagree with the science or the findings, state why and we can have a reasoned debate. And no...unfortunately spurious claims that they are all rich green lobbyists with conflicts of interest is not a reasoned and well formed debate...
Yea I was waiting for another uneducated and ill informed reply (complete with condescending emojis no doubt) but it seems the thread has gone awfully quiet now....funny that...
ANYWAY.....
I would love to buy a decent EV next. My father in law has been leasing a Nissan Leaf for the last couple of years and the cost of the lease was less than the petrol he used to spend, so it's saved him a small fortune. The downside is you have to drive a Nissan Leaf...!
Unfortunately I have to stick to petrol because I live in a Victorian terraced house, so charging from home is not possible. This is probably one of the biggest hurdles for EVs, particularly in the U.K. That and, other than the Model S, no EV or even hybrid has got me excited...
There is a clear demand for decent looking, decent ranged affordable EVs. The hype around the new Tesla Model 3 shows that. It makes me wonder why manufacturers like Audi don't release an EV A3 with a decent range for the same price as their E-Tron, and then it dawned on me....no manufacturer of petrol or diesel will invest in EV properly since they will be shooting themselves in the foot. They have spent the last half century investing in R&D for ICE cars...it's a bitter pill to swallow I'm sure...
I can't help but draw parallels with the music industry. Technology completely changed the face of how music was produced and consumed, and the industry were oblivious to act and adapt, and ultimately were left behind. I get the feeling that the longer standard car manufacturers ignore the EV market, the more risk they run of being left behind. We can see that the major source of EV is coming from these random start up companies from Silicon Valley, funded primarily through Chinese investors, Faraday, Lucid...BMW, Nissan and Toyota have been quite active in this market, so that's positive.
But anyway...I'll be looking at the Model 3 closely, hopefully for when I'm in a property that can facilitate owning an EV, but for the moment I am sticking with petrol. S3 is likely on the cards next.
ANYWAY.....
I would love to buy a decent EV next. My father in law has been leasing a Nissan Leaf for the last couple of years and the cost of the lease was less than the petrol he used to spend, so it's saved him a small fortune. The downside is you have to drive a Nissan Leaf...!
Unfortunately I have to stick to petrol because I live in a Victorian terraced house, so charging from home is not possible. This is probably one of the biggest hurdles for EVs, particularly in the U.K. That and, other than the Model S, no EV or even hybrid has got me excited...
There is a clear demand for decent looking, decent ranged affordable EVs. The hype around the new Tesla Model 3 shows that. It makes me wonder why manufacturers like Audi don't release an EV A3 with a decent range for the same price as their E-Tron, and then it dawned on me....no manufacturer of petrol or diesel will invest in EV properly since they will be shooting themselves in the foot. They have spent the last half century investing in R&D for ICE cars...it's a bitter pill to swallow I'm sure...
I can't help but draw parallels with the music industry. Technology completely changed the face of how music was produced and consumed, and the industry were oblivious to act and adapt, and ultimately were left behind. I get the feeling that the longer standard car manufacturers ignore the EV market, the more risk they run of being left behind. We can see that the major source of EV is coming from these random start up companies from Silicon Valley, funded primarily through Chinese investors, Faraday, Lucid...BMW, Nissan and Toyota have been quite active in this market, so that's positive.
But anyway...I'll be looking at the Model 3 closely, hopefully for when I'm in a property that can facilitate owning an EV, but for the moment I am sticking with petrol. S3 is likely on the cards next.
One of my Oppos was going to get the Mitsi PHEV, but when they surveyed his house they could not fit the power supply and he can not guarantee he will park right outside.
I think the normal (Petrol / diesel ) car industry has miles left in it, i'm not too fussed about what powers my car as long as it is cost effective and convenient, If fossil fuel was that much of a concern then respective governments would take charge and stop using which ever fuel it is causing the issue, but in the mean time think of all that tax generated (fuel, purchase, road etc)
I think the normal (Petrol / diesel ) car industry has miles left in it, i'm not too fussed about what powers my car as long as it is cost effective and convenient, If fossil fuel was that much of a concern then respective governments would take charge and stop using which ever fuel it is causing the issue, but in the mean time think of all that tax generated (fuel, purchase, road etc)
xpoweruk
TTTS 8J Smile Machine
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 2,436
- Reaction score
- 1,770
- Points
- 113
Despite people feeling sufficiently insecure to publically disclose that they are a professional bean-counter in a last ditch effort to claim the intellectual high ground, 
I wouldn't touch a 100% electric car with a barge poll at the moment. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to service and the maximum range (when new and with favourable wind) is around 300 miles. OK if you live in a big city close to the plug-in points. I'm sure Madonna would have one in somewhere like Hollywood. 
I wouldn't touch a 100% electric car with a barge poll at the moment. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to service and the maximum range (when new and with favourable wind) is around 300 miles. OK if you live in a big city close to the plug-in points. I'm sure Madonna would have one in somewhere like Hollywood.
Despite people feeling sufficiently insecure to publically disclose that they are a professional bean-counter in a last ditch effort to claim the intellectual high ground,
Not my fault the vast majority of what you posted was factually wrong...?!
You're the one that was trying to suggest I was wrong with silly emojis. Was I supposed to ignore you? Here's an idea, if you don't understand something, then don't go on forums pretending that you do...just a thought....
I agree, EVs are far to expensive. But battery costs are falling, while capacity increases. So that's good news. Not sure servicing is expensive though? Haven't looked into that, so that's a good point. I've always been under the impression they have very little to service as it's less complicated than a standard ICE?
As for range, 300 is more than plenty! Not sure I know anyone that drives 300miles a day? Charging points are also not that important. I always thought that too, but talking to my father in law, and indeed data collected from current EV owners, the vast majority of owners charge them over night at home. Think of them like a phone. It's very different to how we run ICE, and arguably far more convenient IMO.
It's the current range, and as you say cost that is prohibitive for me. That and the outrageous depreciation. My father in law is very very happy he decided to get his on a cheap lease deal, and not buy it!
After your message above (21 Jan. 12.12 pm) I decided to gracefully retire from the thread as your language and lengthy posts suggested were clearly getting “hot under the collar” with anybody with the temerity to hold a different view to you. However, a day later (and completely unprovoked) you are still calling people “Ill-informed and uneducated”. You must be “fun” in work meetings. In the circumstances I think that some further jovial banter is merited – which of course I will win!
Attachments
I'll try one more time...
Science does not care what your, mine or anyone else's opinion or view is. It's about evidence. I have presented evidence, not my view....
Oh and that picture is spot on but the way! I have to spend my career trying to convince people that I do it properly! Moving to work for big pharma certainly doesn't help
Sir Clive Sinclair there’s a clever chap; - mere, “uneducated” mortals like me could only press our cold, peasant noses against his office window in wonderment at the brainy, enlightened people inside. He forecast (what clever people call the likelihood theory – see above) that we would all be driving around in C5s. Surprise, surprise we aren’t – thank goodness. Perhaps we should resurrect their production and export to China to replace “the factually incorrect” diesel smog in the post (Jan 20 9.55pm) above.
Attachments
Adbul has cut the nox emissions on newer engines so I think we'll have diesels for quite a few years yet. By that time, hopefully, electric vehicles will be a viable option for the majority.
It is estimated (a nuance meaning totally accurate in clever-person language) that transportation fuels account for around 50% of (human-caused) NOx. What human activity causes the other 50%? What percentage of the total atmospheric NOx is the direct consequence of transportation fuels? The reports above are incomplete in that respect. A figure of 50% sounds a large figure – but “uneducated “people like me like to know how this relates to the total NOx – otherwise we might suspect that the “greenies” are pulling the wool over our eyes and exaggerating because they don’t like cars! 
Very good...not quite the right use of likelihood theory but good effort. Although you suggest that I'm predicting we will all drive C5s, then say we aren't....a forecast is about future events, so the present is irrelevant. And I never said it was diesel smog, that picture was in relation to my point about pollution due to burning fossil fuels in general. Still a good effort...
Ive never been good at 'banter'..but I've gone to the trouble of compiling some websites for you. They often present the same arguments you do when someone has the audacity to know more about a scientific area than they do...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
http://vaccineresistancemovement.org
****** scientists...forcing these crazy ideas of 'immunity' and 'gravity'...
How true it is i don't know, but i heard when you buy a new electric car you don't actually own the batteries, also they last around five years then cost thousands to replace.
Just what I've heard.
Just what I've heard.
May well be right, the sales people are a bit coy when you ask things about battery life, how much they cost to replace and how they cope with colder temperatures. Probably supply a special key
Both Nissan and Tesla offer an 8yr warranty on their batteries. Tesla's is unlimited mileage while Nissan has an 80,000 mile limit.
The battery lease thing was adopted by Renault and Nissan on their Zoe and Leaf. You can either rent the battery separately, or just add it to the price of the car.
Found this for battery degradation:
"An electric vehicle advocacy group called Plug In America surveyed Tesla Model S owners. The survey used data from 495 vehicles that traveled 12,588,649 miles in total, and 17,214 miles per year on average. You can access the full report on the survey website, but the summary is promising. The survey showed that on average the Model S lost about 5 percent of their power in the first 50,000 miles and that the degradation then slowed. Tesla's Model S hasn't been available longer than four years, but among several with 100,000-plus miles, the battery pack degradation was less than 8 percent."
Indeed...you're still at the mercy of a car dealership to get warranty work approved....always fun!
When the Nissan Leaf came to market in late 2010, Nissan projected a range of about 100 miles. Nissan shortly after modified (technical term for reduced ) the range to around 85 miles and cited absolute worst case-best case range of 50 to 130 miles.
In a recent test by owners in a warmer region, some got as little as 60 miles on a full battery charge. They’ve been worried because 12 to 14 months into their cars lives, they’re seeing one or two segments of the 12-segment charge indicators not light up, even after a full charge (each bar representing 15% fall off in capacity.
) the range to around 85 miles and cited absolute worst case-best case range of 50 to 130 miles.In a recent test by owners in a warmer region, some got as little as 60 miles on a full battery charge. They’ve been worried because 12 to 14 months into their cars lives, they’re seeing one or two segments of the 12-segment charge indicators not light up, even after a full charge (each bar representing 15% fall off in capacity.
I've no technical knowledge or understanding of these matters. But I'm interested in Dr Eskimo's comment about a 300 mile range being ample. A dozen or so times a year, I will make journeys of more than that, from one end of the country to another; holidays, family visits etc. My current car has a practical range of about 300 miles, so I have to stop to refuel en route. I'll use the loo, maybe get a coffee; that takes about 10 minutes, I then queue for petrol. Filling the tank takes three minutes, and I'm on my way. There's about 12 or pumps at a typical motorway service station. That means, roughly speaking, 240 drivers can re-fuel and be on their way in an hour.
If I have an EV, I suspect it going to be quite a while before there are a dozen charger points installed at every service station. Then, once I can use one, how long will my EV take to re-charge after a 300-mile run, so that it's ready to complete the rest of the journey? It certainly won't be a three-minute job, and there's no way 240 EV drivers will be on their way per hour. So, taking availability and through-put into account how long am I likely to have to wait until a charger point becomes free and how long will I be plugged into it?
My fifteen-minute stop might suddenly become two hours, and depending on where I'm going, my one-day journey might become an overnight-stop. Now, speaking personally, there's just me, the wife and the dog. But what if you had three kids with you? What are you and they going to do for two hours while your EV is re-charging? What's the betting there's a health and safety rule that says children can't stay in the car while it's charging?
Still want that Tesla?
If I have an EV, I suspect it going to be quite a while before there are a dozen charger points installed at every service station. Then, once I can use one, how long will my EV take to re-charge after a 300-mile run, so that it's ready to complete the rest of the journey? It certainly won't be a three-minute job, and there's no way 240 EV drivers will be on their way per hour. So, taking availability and through-put into account how long am I likely to have to wait until a charger point becomes free and how long will I be plugged into it?
My fifteen-minute stop might suddenly become two hours, and depending on where I'm going, my one-day journey might become an overnight-stop. Now, speaking personally, there's just me, the wife and the dog. But what if you had three kids with you? What are you and they going to do for two hours while your EV is re-charging? What's the betting there's a health and safety rule that says children can't stay in the car while it's charging?
Still want that Tesla?
I've no technical knowledge or understanding of these matters. But I'm interested in Dr Eskimo's comment about a 300 mile range being ample. A dozen or so times a year, I will make journeys of more than that, from one end of the country to another; holidays, family visits etc. My current car has a practical range of about 300 miles, so I have to stop to refuel en route. I'll use the loo, maybe get a coffee; that takes about 10 minutes, I then queue for petrol. Filling the tank takes three minutes, and I'm on my way. There's about 12 or pumps at a typical motorway service station. That means, roughly speaking, 240 drivers can re-fuel and be on their way in an hour.
If I have an EV, I suspect it going to be quite a while before there are a dozen charger points installed at every service station. Then, once I can use one, how long will my EV take to re-charge after a 300-mile run, so that it's ready to complete the rest of the journey? It certainly won't be a three-minute job, and there's no way 240 EV drivers will be on their way per hour. So, taking availability and through-put into account how long am I likely to have to wait until a charger point becomes free and how long will I be plugged into it?
My fifteen-minute stop might suddenly become two hours, and depending on where I'm going, my one-day journey might become an overnight-stop. Now, speaking personally, there's just me, the wife and the dog. But what if you had three kids with you? What are you and they going to do for two hours while your EV is re-charging? What's the betting there's a health and safety rule that says children can't stay in the car while it's charging?
Still want that Tesla?
Nope, very valid point. My point about 300miles being ample is based on the fact that, on average, people drive less than 100miles per day. This has also been declining.
I certainly think the infrastructure is no where near as good to accommodate long journeys. But it's improving. 10yrs ago there were barely any chargers, battery's could do about 30miles and took 5hrs to charge. Today there are millions of chargers, batteries can do 300miles and charge 80% in 30mins.
I guess it depends on exactly how long of a distance you are doing, but Brighton to Newcastle, for example, is 340miles. You could happily do 150 miles in a Tesla Model S. That would mean two stops at 15mins. Could do the same on the way back to be safe. Considering the journey would cost you about £5 I think that's pretty good...!
But on the whole, yes I agree. EVs today are not suitable for long distance driving.
When the Nissan Leaf came to market in late 2010, Nissan projected a range of about 100 miles. Nissan shortly after modified (technical term for reduced
In a recent test by owners in a warmer region, some got as little as 60 miles on a full battery charge. They’ve been worried because 12 to 14 months into their cars lives, they’re seeing one or two segments of the 12-segment charge indicators not light up, even after a full charge (each bar representing 15% fall off in capacity.
The first bit is hardly new is it..Audi claim my S5 can get up to 40MPG on motorway driving. I have yet to get above 22...
That's the problem with the standardised methods for getting figures on range, MPG and emissions.
The last bit is certainly a cause for concern. My question would be how widespread this issue is, and how have Nissan dealt with them. Again this isn't something specific to EVs though. If you read these forums you wouldn't touch a multitronic gearbox due to their failures, or a 2.0tfsi on the B8 platform as they drink oil...
Dealers exaggerate figures and hate doing warranty work, and cars have failures. EVs won't solve this...
