Death knell for petrol and diesel cars?

Wibbs

kceire wrote: »

A lot of waffle in response to a question on whether 2 kids in an EV reduces the range significantly ??????

A lot of waffle in response to the retarded statement that "weight is not an issue with electric".

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

A lot of waffle in response to the retarded statement that "weight is not an issue with electric".

Only in relation to 2 x 30/40kg kids :pac:
Different kgs to the kilogram that's the unit of weight presumably

cnocbui

Wibbs wrote: »

The more I read the pronouncements of the EV faithful the more I realise they know and understand even less about cars than the average uninterested ICE driver and significantly less than those interested in cars.

Weight is always an issue. As the well known Colin Chapman quote goes; "simplify, then add lightness" and his other one; "adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere". Now this was in relation to race cars, but it's just as pertinent to road cars.

One of the biggest problems currently with EV tech is weight. Batteries don't have the energy density per volume and weight of fossil fuels so they're much heavier than the equivalent ICE with equivalent range. To paraphrase Mr Bugatti when he was talking about Bentley; "Mr Musk makes exceedingly fast trucks". Weight means more energy required to move the vehicle and less energy put into moving goods and passengers(it's why Musk's truck is a total nonstarter outa the gate) and decreases range. To take it to an extreme, if you took two identical models of ICE car and removed everything but the driver's seat from one(seats, entertainment systems, soundproofing etc), the stripped down one will be faster and will consume less fuel. Weight also increases wear and tear on the vehicle and it also makes roadholding and cornering and braking more difficult dynamics to address. Weight also means more "stuff" in a car, more stuff you have to extract, process and manufacture. Weight is an issue with all cars, including EV. There's only so much magic pixie dust to go around.

Nailed it. I saw a YT video of a drag race between a Tesla S Performance and a Porsche Taycan. One of them weighed About 2,200 Kg and the other 2,300 Kg. I've had a car that was about 980 Kg. My Civic is only 1,239 Kg.

The thing that gets my goat is that road wear and damage isn't a linear function of vehicle weight, it's a 4th power, so a Tesla SP doesn't cause twice the damage to roads as my car, it causes nearly 12 times as much!

Guess which of us will be paying the lower road tax? I have always thought that road tax should be a function of weight, not whether it's petrol, diesel or EV. Not only would it be logical, but for each vehicle type there would be an incentive for manufacturers to make lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles, which of course would relate to their emissions.

Seweryn

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Everyone knows removing all weight from a combustion car means it performs better. That's why for years car manufacturers have been taking weight out...

Oh, really? That is something new to me.

Volkswagen Golf Mk1 - 800 kg, Golf Mk7 - 1,400 kg.

I must have missed all these weight saving years in between the generations .

pburns

GreeBo wrote: »

>33% of which is generated from renewable sources in Ireland

how much of your Petrol or Diesel is from renewables?

Pfft sounds like Eirgrid figures��!

Renewable energy is a subsidy-driven scam. Wind power for example..back up diesel generators & only work at optimum wind speeds (have to be turned off in high winds).

Look...whether it's ICE, EV, Hydrogen or whatever comes next, there is gonna be an environmental impact somewhere or in some way. 'Peak' capitalism and it's inherent built-in obselance is the real problem. Look at the bridges built in the 17/18th Cen for a pony & trap still in use today bearing 40 foot artics. That level of over-engineering is unthinkable today.

In a post-Catholic Ireland driving an EV is just another form of penance.

Seweryn

Seweryn wrote: »

Oh, really? That is something new to me.

Volkswagen Golf Mk1 - 800 kg, Golf Mk7 - 1,400 kg.

I must have missed all these weight saving years in between the generations .

I don't think manufacturers have tried to reduce weight at all, with the exception of some small EV's where they try to compensate for the battery weight by using lighter trim.
The simple answer is that body is bigger and has much more stiffening and structural safety built in, the engine is certainly bigger, then there all the extra accessories, airbags A/C and so on.
Easy to see where the extra weight is coming from when you compare the specs & sizes.

Gumbo

Wibbs wrote: »

A lot of waffle in response to the retarded statement that "weight is not an issue with electric".

Relative weight about carrying 2 additional passengers or not.
We’ve all been there in our younger track years, stripping out interiors etc. it in this case it was a relatively simple question and reply about carrying kids in the car.

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

They are ridiculous requirements.



Google Ionity :P

I googled it. All it says is "fast", but no definition. What car is charged up in even 20 minutes? I read maybe a Porsche that doesn't exist.

Wibbs

kceire wrote: »

Relative weight about carrying 2 additional passengers or not.
We’ve all been there in our younger track years, stripping out interiors etc. it in this case it was a relatively simple question and reply about carrying kids in the car.

I'd agree K, save for the fact he went on to compound and further illustrate his mindboggling ignorance by posting this:

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Your trying to sound intelligent but you failed.

Everyone knows removing all weight from a combustion car means it performs better. That's why for years car manufacturers have been taking weight out. As above with the ID VW have been able to use a steel frame to reduce cost because it is electric and not combustion.

He appears to be under the strange impression that weight and basic physics are somehow different between EV's and ICE. That reducing weight of an ICE makes a difference, but because of magic electric pixies it doesn't in an EV. Never mind the blindingly obvious fact to anyone with even a passing interest in cars that car weights have been going ever upwards. And then has a neck as hard as a jockey's bollocks to suggest other's should read more?

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I googled it. All it says is "fast", but no definition. What car is charged up in even 20 minutes? I read maybe a Porsche that doesn't exist.

Why do you need to fill up the car?

Majority of people in combustion engine throw in 20 or 30 euro worth of fuel....same principal with a 15-30 Min charge

Strange these concept seem completely alien to people just because the car is electric, at the end of the day it’s just a fuel

Shefwedfan

cnocbui wrote: »

Nailed it. I saw a YT video of a drag race between a Tesla S Performance and a Porsche Taycan. One of them weighed About 2,200 Kg and the other 2,300 Kg. I've had a car that was about 980 Kg. My Civic is only 1,239 Kg.

The thing that gets my goat is that road wear and damage isn't a linear function of vehicle weight, it's a 4th power, so a Tesla SP doesn't cause twice the damage to roads as my car, it causes nearly 12 times as much!

Guess which of us will be paying the lower road tax? I have always thought that road tax should be a function of weight, not whether it's petrol, diesel or EV. Not only would it be logical, but for each vehicle type there would be an incentive for manufacturers to make lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles, which of course would relate to their emissions.

Road tax by weight? Not a great idea really

Road tax should be based on distance.....

Seweryn

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Road tax by weight? Not a great idea really

Road tax should be based on distance.....

Or just leave all taxes in fuel. Further benefit would be lower administration cost. It would also promote lower usage of resources, lower congestion, etc.

Shefwedfan

Wibbs wrote: »

"Have a read.......you might learn something" indeed, because you're coming across as utterly clueless. To state that "for years car manufacturers have been taking weight out" is beyond an utter nonsense and again demonstrates your ignorance/EV blinkers on the matter. Cars are heavier today than they were twenty years ago. Car weights have been going up. A couple of hundred kilograms up. As for that article:

This aligns with Tesla’s strategy of using mostly steel on the cheaper Model 3 rather than an aluminum-intensive body design like those of the Model S and Model X. By contrast, the probably over-ambitious BMW i3 had a body structure made entirely of carbon fiber, but that, according to Car and Driver, may be a thing of the past thanks to battery advancements, quoting head of BMW’s i Division Robert Irlinger as saying:


“At the time of the BMW i3, the capacity of batteries was still quite low, and so we tried to get every kilogram out of the car to reduce the amount of energy we needed [to power it]...But, with the improving energy capacity of batteries, you don’t need to look for the last 500 grams.[emphasis mine] There it is in plain english. So yes have have a read.

They're using steel simply because it's cheaper and easier to make parts from. The battery capacities have gone up enough that they can, but the fact remains that if the same platform was made from far more expensive composites it would be faster and travel further on the same charge. This is a basic fact of simple physics.

You seem to believe that some magic occurs with EV's that changes the basic physics that only applies to ICE in your world. It's beyond daft and I remain confident in my previous statement that too many EV fanboys are woefully ignorant of how vehicles actually work.

Still doesn’t change the fact I answered a post about the weight of a family in a car.....no matter how long your response is

I didn’t even bother reading it....too long :-)

Old diesel

Wibbs wrote: »

The more I read the pronouncements of the EV faithful the more I realise they know and understand even less about cars than the average uninterested ICE driver and significantly less than those interested in cars.

Weight is always an issue. As the well known Colin Chapman quote goes; "simplify, then add lightness" and his other one; "adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere". Now this was in relation to race cars, but it's just as pertinent to road cars.

One of the biggest problems currently with EV tech is weight. Batteries don't have the energy density per volume and weight of fossil fuels so they're much heavier than the equivalent ICE with equivalent range. To paraphrase Mr Bugatti when he was talking about Bentley; "Mr Musk makes exceedingly fast trucks". Weight means more energy required to move the vehicle and less energy put into moving goods and passengers(it's why Musk's truck is a total nonstarter outa the gate) and decreases range. To take it to an extreme, if you took two identical models of ICE car and removed everything but the driver's seat from one(seats, entertainment systems, soundproofing etc), the stripped down one will be faster and will consume less fuel. Weight also increases wear and tear on the vehicle and it also makes roadholding and cornering and braking more difficult dynamics to address. Weight also means more "stuff" in a car, more stuff you have to extract, process and manufacture. Weight is an issue with all cars, including EV. There's only so much magic pixie dust to go around.

The more I read the fossil faithful the more I'm convinced that they don't understand wider climate issues and what causes climate change.

And they don't understand that so much of what we do now will change.

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

That's why you see a move towards wind turbines lower energy use in new homes and the talk about EVs.

The way we work and live has to try and evolve to a lower emissions set up.

There are problems in doing that but the wider issue is having a planet that future generations can actually live on.

I'm not an expert myself but the basic issue is that the planet is getting too hot due to man made global warming.

This causes weather events like flooding - big storms, more extreme temperatures.

This will in longer term make it harder to sustain life on our planet.

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why do you need to fill up the car?

Majority of people in combustion engine throw in 20 or 30 euro worth of fuel....same principal with a 15-30 Min charge

Strange these concept seem completely alien to people just because the car is electric, at the end of the day it’s just a fuel

You seem incapable of understanding basic chat that doesn't fit your agenda. It takes 2 minutes to put 20 of petrol in, 20 for the equivalent to a battery IF there is no one in front of you. I note you don't describe what car is fast charged in 20 minutes, like you said, which is what I asked.

Shall I presume the evasion in all your posts is because you actually have no answer?

Old diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

I googled it. All it says is "fast", but no definition. What car is charged up in even 20 minutes? I read maybe a Porsche that doesn't exist.

The Porsche actually exists - it's the new Taycan - and we can expect* that technology to evolve to lower end VW group EVs over time. Porsche use 800 volt battery technology and this allows quicker charging.

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

The more I read the fossil faithful the more I'm convinced that they don't understand wider climate issues and what causes climate change.

And they don't understand that so much of what we do now will change.

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

That's why you see a move towards wind turbines lower energy use in new homes and the talk about EVs.

The way we work and live has to try and evolve to a lower emissions set up.

There are problems in doing that but the wider issue is having a planet that future generations can actually live on.

I'm not an expert myself but the basic issue is that the planet is getting too hot due to man made global warming.

This causes weather events like flooding - big storms, more extreme temperatures.

This will in longer term make it harder to sustain life on our planet.

You are of course correct. But battery cars are not going to help. All they do is relocate the problem to the poor of the planet

M256

Seweryn wrote: »

Oh, really? That is something new to me.

Volkswagen Golf Mk1 - 800 kg, Golf Mk7 - 1,400 kg.

I must have missed all these weight saving years in between the generations .

Yes, you have, the new golf is bigger and has more equipment.

peasant

Old diesel wrote: »

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

I think the most important and most overlooked unit of measurement when it comes to that is not necessarily just Carbon, but Jones'.

You know, them Jones' that we supposedly have to keep up with.

When you look at personal transport i.e cars these days, I think we can all admit that they actually are way too heavy, too big and too powerful for what their basic function is. Doesn't matter if they're electric or suck-bang-squeeze.

Who really needs, or can even utilise a car that can reach 100 km/h in 3 seconds?
Nobody ...it's just pure and undiluted Jones'-ery...yet the green god Tesla builds just that.

Who needs a SUV coupe?
Who needs a SUV coupe that weighs 2340 kg empty? (looking at you BMW X6)
Only the Jones' ...nobody else.

Something has seriously gone out of whack here. By running after the Jones' for decades, we consumers have allowed car makers to sell us ever bigger, ever more wasteful cars for ever more profit.

If we really want to do something about our carbon footprint and cars, we need to tell the Jones' to go *** themselves, be prepared to be laughed at for a few years until the mood swings and everybody agrees with us and in the meantime drive the smallest, lightest and most economical vehicle that meets our needs...the real ones...not the imagined ones.

Hopefully by then the industry will be willing and able to supply us with economical, environmentally friendly cars that are built to our needs and that of the planet.

creedp

Old diesel wrote: »

The more I read the fossil faithful the more I'm convinced that they don't understand wider climate issues and what causes climate change.

And they don't understand that so much of what we do now will change.

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

That's why you see a move towards wind turbines lower energy use in new homes and the talk about EVs.

The way we work and live has to try and evolve to a lower emissions set up.

There are problems in doing that but the wider issue is having a planet that future generations can actually live on.

I'm not an expert myself but the basic issue is that the planet is getting too hot due to man made global warming.

This causes weather events like flooding - big storms, more extreme temperatures.

This will in longer term make it harder to sustain life on our planet.

This is not just about the fossil fuel faithful versus the EV saviours. It about whether EV's provide a decent alternative for as significant number of drivers. I think it's fair to say that as of yet the answer is no. That doesn't mean to say that anyone who doesn't accept that an EV suits them are anti EV or anti progress, it's just that it doesn't currently work for them. Nothing wrong with that IMO. It's a bit like say a EV supporter should refuse to fly unless a more environmentally friendly plane is developed or refuse to buy wine transported all the way from New Zealand, etc, etc.



The reality is that if an EV suits you bully for you. You can benefit from much cheaper transport while being able to bask in the knowledge that you are a climate activist and doing good for future generations. Don't worry this VIP status won't last forever as in the not too distant future the majority of drivers will probably drive EVs as guess what they will actually suit peoples needs and therefore they will be better off, as EV drivers currently are, driving them

cnocbui

Old diesel wrote: »

The more I read the fossil faithful the more I'm convinced that they don't understand wider climate issues and what causes climate change.

And they don't understand that so much of what we do now will change.

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

That's why you see a move towards wind turbines lower energy use in new homes and the talk about EVs.

The way we work and live has to try and evolve to a lower emissions set up.

There are problems in doing that but the wider issue is having a planet that future generations can actually live on.

I'm not an expert myself but the basic issue is that the planet is getting too hot due to man made global warming.

This causes weather events like flooding - big storms, more extreme temperatures.

This will in longer term make it harder to sustain life on our planet.

If you look at the history of life on this planet, the current average global temperature is comparatively arctic and the CO2 levels aren't even a third of the long term average. Not only that, but apart from deep ocean vents, all life on Earth ultimately depends on photosynthesis. With a global average temperature of only around 14.5° C, it's only about half the optimum temperature for photosynthesis. If the planet gets warmer with higher levels of CO2, life on Earth will thrive, as it has in the past under those conditions, not become extinct!

The extinction movement adherents are just really, really f'n thick .

cnocbui

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why do you need to fill up the car?

Majority of people in combustion engine throw in 20 or 30 euro worth of fuel....same principal with a 15-30 Min charge

Strange these concept seem completely alien to people just because the car is electric, at the end of the day it’s just a fuel

I'd love to do a poll on your assertion. As usual, I must be odd man out because I fill it to the brim every time, bar probably a single occasion per year when I would part fill to top u[ for a long trip if I hadn't pre filled it.

Seweryn

Old diesel wrote: »

There is an actual need to change to a low carbon society.

That's why you see a move towards wind turbines lower energy use in new homes and the talk about EVs.

The way we work and live has to try and evolve to a lower emissions set up.

Electric vehicles or wind turbines are not going to move us to a "lower carbon" (read - lower CO2 emission) society. These are fossil fuel dependent industries (which one isn't really?), driven by subsidies and are based on very high energy and resources consumption per head regardless of whatever you hear in the media. You said we need to move towards lower energy use per capita, and yes, that should be our goal. But we are not going to achieve that by making more and more stuff and by moving our 70 kg bodies in 2 ton of steel vehicles everywhere we go. Lower CO2 emissions means lower consumption of energy and resources.
EVs are not going to lower emissions overall or solve congestion problems. They only move the problem sideways. It's like cleaning your own household and then throwing your rubbish into the neighbour's garden.

Leonard Hofstadter

cnocbui wrote: »

I'd love to do a poll on your assertion. As usual, I must be odd man out because I fill it to the brim every time, bar probably a single occasion per year when I would part fill to top u[ for a long trip if I hadn't pre filled it.

I always fill to the brim as well, I have better things to be doing with my time than waiting in petrol stations.

geminiman63

Same here, always fill up too.

The Bishop Basher

peasant wrote: »

I think the most important and most overlooked unit of measurement when it comes to that is not necessarily just Carbon, but Jones'.

You know, them Jones' that we supposedly have to keep up with.

When you look at personal transport i.e cars these days, I think we can all admit that they actually are way too heavy, too big and too powerful for what their basic function is. Doesn't matter if they're electric or suck-bang-squeeze.

Who really needs, or can even utilise a car that can reach 100 km/h in 3 seconds?
Nobody ...it's just pure and undiluted Jones'-ery.

Or the fact that some people just really like cars..

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

I always fill to the brim as well, I have better things to be doing with my time than waiting in petrol stations.

Likewise I only ever fill up. Why would you keep going back to put small amounts in ? That doesn’t make any sense.

Although I used to get a lift with a lad who kept a flask in the boot and used to let the tank run dry. Then he’d hop out, top it up and off we’d go to the next filling station where he’d stick a tenner in and refill his flask. Bizarre behaviour but I think he thought he was saving money. Wasn’t you shedwedfab was it ?

elperello

Down to just below the quarter mark and fill to the brim.
Three to five minutes.
Usually shows 950 km range after filling on the diesel car.

Wibbs

Old diesel wrote: »

The more I read the fossil faithful the more I'm convinced that they don't understand wider climate issues and what causes climate change.

I'm well aware of it OD and for the record I'm not "fossil faithful". I think EV's have huge potential on a few levels. About the only issue I have with EV's are the EV fanboys.

But as others have pointed out OD, going electric will do eff all for what is the single biggest issue; our rate of consumption. It may even make it worse. Some have compared the progress in EV to the progress in smart phones. Since say the iphone came out(07 IIRC?), how many new phones have people bought? If EV tech becomes more like a white good that is constantly getting better(according to the makers anyway), the churn could get worse not better.

I'm "guilt free" on this score at least as my car is 21 years old and can easily get 40mpg in old money on long journeys and costs eff all to run(save for the insurance industry pricks) and as I noted earlier in the thread, since the invention of plastics, half of all plastics ever produced have been produced since my car rolled off the production line. That's a sobering thought right there. And there's no end in sight for that either. I mean our bloody teabags have placcy in them FFS. Every item we buy made from the finest chinesium is made of plastic and wrapped in plastic we chuck in the bin(even the cardboard boxes have plastic in them).

The only real solutions are:

A) reduce the future population by having fewer kids(the single biggest thing you can do for the environment is have one less child), but governments and the financial sector are telling us we need more people, they'll even import them from overseas.

make stuff last longer, much longer. EV's are a charm for this. Far fewer moving parts and the motors should theoretically last many decades. Hell there are electric motors from a century ago still going strong. But I can't see the motor industry going for this. No way in hell. They increasingly want us to buy new cars on finance and swap them out after four or five years for yet another new one and are piling on the toys which adds to the complexity and failure rates and obsolescence. It's not in their interests to be green. It's actively against their interests. Goes for all the other consumer stuff we have in our lives. I mean fridges, cookers, washing machines et al should last a lifetime(at least), yet they don't and wear out more quickly than they did 30 years ago(and are harder, if not impossible to repair. Deliberately so).

We need a near complete reset. I mean as it stands people are buying a rapidly depreciating asset on credit. How daft is that? The problem is I can't see any of this happening in the near future unless there's serious top down pressure to make industry change. EV's might make it worse in the short term as we all go around all happy because we don't need to huff on our inhalers because that dirty fossil burning exhaust is gone, and many will think job done.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I didn’t even bother reading it....too long :-)

If a couple of paragraphs taxes you, then no wonder you're clueless about basic physics.

Wibbs

geminiman63 wrote: »

Same here, always fill up too.

I'd be a partial filler TBH. I'd throw 20 quid in every week to ten days kinda thing, as the majority of my driving would be within Dublin county with forays into Wicklow. I'd only fill to the brim for a long trip, like driving from Dublin to Cork say.

creedp

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Or the fact that some people just really like cars..



Likewise I only ever fill up. Why would you keep going back to put small amounts in ? That doesn’t make any sense.

Although I used to get a lift with a lad who kept a flask in the boot and used to let the tank run dry. Then he’d hop out, top it up and off we’d go to the next filling station where he’d stick a tenner in and refill his flask. Bizarre behaviour but I think he thought he was saving money. Wasn’t you shedwedfab was it ?

I used to know a guy who every evening drove to a garage and put exactly £3 worth of petrol into the car and bought a packet of fags and then stopped off at the chipper on way home. His argument was that he could only afford £3 a day on petrol but it seemed alien to him that he could then throw in £20 a week and save all the trips to the garage. Other problem was that he regularly ran out of petrol if he had a diversion to/from work and his father had to come with a Jerry can to get him home. No matter how many times it happened he refused to change this habit. Just shows you how stubborn people can be!!

Shefwedfan

I love the EV fanboy BS....

Read any of the posts for electric car drivers and they all say we need a balance, post on the electric forum and people will tell you if you should/shouldn’t look at electric

I think the real fanboys are the combustion engine or ICE fanboys

The absolute fear of electric or even hybrid is hilarious. The convoluted requirement they come up with so they can’t use electric, spinning stories about xyz on the car and rehashing the same BS stories which got debunked years ago

creedp

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be a partial filler TBH. I'd throw 20 quid in every week to ten days kinda thing, as the majority of my driving would be within Dublin county with forays into Wicklow. I'd only fill to the brim for a long trip, like driving from Dublin to Cork say.

That's the real advantage of an ICE. You don't have to brim it all the time for you std commute but at any point you have to make an unexpected long trip just brim it and be on your way. Currently with the crop of affordable short range EVs having a standby ICE for longer journeys gives you the best of both worlds. Cheap and clean motoring for short regular journeys and the ICE for the rest

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem incapable of understanding basic chat that doesn't fit your agenda. It takes 2 minutes to put 20 of petrol in, 20 for the equivalent to a battery IF there is no one in front of you. I note you don't describe what car is fast charged in 20 minutes, like you said, which is what I asked.

Shall I presume the evasion in all your posts is because you actually have no answer?

All cars can fast charge....

You have come up with a BS requirement....doesn’t matter what anyone answers you will twist with some more
BS

I haven’t even mentioned in this imaginary little island place so they have no electricity?? You could just plug in a granny charger all day to a standard socket :-)

I suppose you will say it has no plugs next

The someone in front of you is crap as well....IONITY has a bank of charger so your chances of been blocked are minimal but you keep up that argumen
The fear is strong young padawan

Shefwedfan

creedp wrote: »

That's the real advantage of an ICE. You don't have to brim it all the time for you std commute but at any point you have to make an unexpected long trip just brim it and be on your way. Currently with the crop of affordable short range EVs having a standby ICE for longer journeys gives you the best of both worlds. Cheap and clean motoring for short regular journeys and the ICE for the rest

Honest question, in the last 10 years when have you had an unexpected long trip to do? I’m not disagreeing with you just wondering?

Personally I never had, maybe with 24 hours notice I had to move stuff around

Mike9832

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I love the EV fanboy BS....

Read any of the posts for electric car drivers and they all say we need a balance, post on the electric forum and people will tell you if you should/shouldn’t look at electric

I think the real fanboys are the combustion engine or ICE fanboys

The absolute fear of electric or even hybrid is hilarious. The convoluted requirement they come up with so they can’t use electric, spinning stories about xyz on the car and rehashing the same BS stories which got debunked years ago

Not really true

EV forum is full of lunatics doing 40k km+ per year, living in cars basically and very pro EV, absolutely slating hydrids/Toyota

Only benefit of EV's are cost savings

People putting in €20 diesel a week (half the bloody country) have no business buying an overpriced EV, they'd be better saving that €20 switching broadband providers, shop in lidl more etc

Don't want to hear environmental impact, what we do here is irrelevant, look at New Delhi ffs

Shefwedfan

Mike9832 wrote: »

Not really true

EV forum is full of lunatics doing 40k km+ per year, living in cars basically and very pro EV, absolutely slating hydrids/Toyota

Only benefit of EV's are cost savings

People putting in €20 diesel a week (half the bloody country) have no business buying an overpriced EV, they'd be better saving that €20 switching broadband providers, shop in lidl more etc

Don't want to hear environmental impact, what we do here is irrelevant, look at New Delhi ffs

How many are doing 40k km+? I can’t think of many off top of head

People putting in 20 euro of diesel a week shouldn’t be driving a diesel in the first place.....

Mike9832

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How many are doing 40k km+? I can’t think of many off top of head

People putting in 20 euro of diesel a week shouldn’t be driving a diesel in the first place.....

Mad_Lad, Phil, KCross from memory , almost every new poster looking for an EV

That is true, Government was a major force there and it still is with 10c a litre more and motor tax

Shefwedfan

Mike9832 wrote: »

Mad_Lad, Phil, KCross from memory , almost every new poster looking for an EV

That is true, Government was a major force there and it still is with 10c a litre more and motor tax

That’s 3....so the full of lunatics is not really true?

How are you getting on with buying your electric car? Which one you buying now?

Seweryn

Wibbs wrote: »

The only real solutions are:

A) reduce the future population by having fewer kids(the single biggest thing you can do for the environment is have one less child), but governments and the financial sector are telling us we need more people, they'll even import them from overseas.

make stuff last longer, much longer. EV's are a charm for this. Far fewer moving parts and the motors should theoretically last many decades. Hell there are electric motors from a century ago still going strong. But I can't see the motor industry going for this. No way in hell. They increasingly want us to buy new cars on finance and swap them out after four or five years for yet another new one and are piling on the toys which adds to the complexity and failure rates and obsolescence. It's not in their interests to be green. It's actively against their interests. Goes for all the other consumer stuff we have in our lives. I mean fridges, cookers, washing machines et al should last a lifetime(at least), yet they don't and wear out more quickly than they did 30 years ago(and are harder, if not impossible to repair. Deliberately so).

We need a near complete reset. I mean as it stands people are buying a rapidly depreciating asset on credit. How daft is that? The problem is I can't see any of this happening in the near future unless there's serious top down pressure to make industry change. EV's might make it worse in the short term as we all go around all happy because we don't need to huff on our inhalers because that dirty fossil burning exhaust is gone, and many will think job done.

If a couple of paragraphs taxes you, then no wonder you're clueless about basic physics.

Well said and all true. The core issue for the above is our social and economic model with capitalist driven monetary system based on credit and money printed from tin air. Until we change it, there is no hope in hell we are going to get anywhere.

We need to massively reduce consumption for sure. But unfortunately our model of economy is based on consumption - the more the "better". So, this is why we have washing machines built last month that are on their way to scrap yards already and the factory workers are now making new ones earning money so they can spend it on new phones, etc.

Taking care of the environment would mean doing the exact opposite, kind of U-turn move, 180 degrees back. We can either have growing economy or sustainable environment to live in. We can't have both. Any % of growth means we are in trouble sooner or later, it is just a question of time.

There are a few "weirdos" still driving their 19 year old ICE car and using a 17 year old phone, or about 25 year old jacket (bought second hand at the time), because it all still works perfectly fine and is a lot more sustainable. But that "doesn't suit" the type of economy we are in. To achieve our environmental goals we need some type of resource based economy, not the sh!te consumerism society we have developed. A complete system reset.

type85

Seweryn wrote: »

There are a few "weirdos" still driving their 19 year old ICE car and using a 17 year old phone, or about 25 year old jacket (bought second hand at the time), because it all still works perfectly fine and is a lot more sustainable.

Who are these "weirdos"? Or more importantly why are you calling them "weirdos" ?

cnocbui

type85 wrote: »

Who are these "weirdos"? Or more importantly why are you calling them "weirdos" ?

People like me, that dreadful environment destroying climate skeptic - who generates only 4 bags of rubbish a year from a household of 3, drives his cars for at least 10 years, wears a Karrimor jacket he bought in 1997 because it only looks a year old, who does his best to repair things, rather than throw them out and buy new stuff, and who is still using a phone he bought in 2010.

My absolute favourite person is the EV proselytizer who's on his second or third EV, saving the planet from CO2.

Seweryn

type85 wrote: »

Who are these "weirdos"? Or more importantly why are you calling them "weirdos" ?

Those weirdos are people like... me . Why am I calling them...? Because they are not the usual norm and they do not do "well" to our current system. We are being told from right, left, top and centre that we really need to buy all the stuff we don't need with money we don't have. Just turn on the TV and look at the ads...

elperello

I am Spartacus.

Wibbs

Seweryn wrote: »

There are a few "weirdos" still driving their 19 year old ICE car and using a 17 year old phone, or about 25 year old jacket (bought second hand at the time), because it all still works perfectly fine and is a lot more sustainable.

Pffft amateurs, I have an old Barbour oilskin I got in 1986. Though the jacket is illustrative of the changes n the last few decades. Once Made in the UK and designed to be very long lasting, now the majority of their stuff is made in places like China and made of cheaper not so long lasting materials and massively overpriced.

My phone is five years old, so I'm letting the side down there.

Wibbs

cnocbui wrote: »

My absolute favourite person is the EV proselytizer who's on his second or third EV, saving the planet from CO2.

I've a neighbour like this(I think I mentioned the chap here before). He's very well meaning and got into hybrids from way back, but he's upgraded every few years and now is in the latest 2019 Leaf(nice car BTW, much nicer than the hideous looking yoke the previous model was). We've talked about this subject a few times and yes we agree that buying an EV instead of ICE is a step in the right direction, but he can't quite get his head around that buying one every four years is taking a few steps backwards. "But they're getting better and more efficient" etc, but when I point out the tonnage of CO2 pumped out producing a new car, any new car, is far more than keeping any car around four a decade or more he just can't see it. He'd not be alone by any means.

Mike9832

Shefwedfan wrote: »

That’s 3....so the full of lunatics is not really true?

How are you getting on with buying your electric car? Which one you buying now?

Many more

Not great, every new EV interested in is a rip off

Leaf62, Ioniq 38, ID 3 58 etc

Shefwedfan

Mike9832 wrote: »

Many more

Not great, every new EV interested in is a rip off

Leaf62, Ioniq 38, ID 3 58 etc

Leaf62? I thought you only drove fast cars?

Anyway I’m going off topic....will leave you to trolling the electric car forum

Mike9832

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Leaf62? I thought you only drove fast cars?

Anyway I’m going off topic....will leave you to trolling the electric car forum

Leaf62 is fast

218bhp

Large bottle small glass

Wibbs wrote: »

Pffft amateurs,

@Seweryn has a bicycle with higher mileage that a lot of cars!

cnocbui

Wibbs wrote: »

I've a neighbour like this(I think I mentioned the chap here before). He's very well meaning and got into hybrids from way back, but he's upgraded every few years and now is in the latest 2019 Leaf(nice car BTW, much nicer than the hideous looking yoke the previous model was). We've talked about this subject a few times and yes we agree that buying an EV instead of ICE is a step in the right direction, but he can't quite get his head around that buying one every four years is taking a few steps backwards. "But they're getting better and more efficient" etc, but when I point out the tonnage of CO2 pumped out producing a new car, any new car, is far more than keeping any car around four a decade or more he just can't see it. He'd not be alone by any means.

He's a bit like Norway - making sure every person in Norway is persuaded into an EV and paying for it from oil revenues they get from pumping every drop from the ground and selling to non Norwegians - as if all the CO2 eventually produced from that oil is going to magically end up on some other planet rather than the one containing Norway.

And climate twerps hold up Norway as a shining example of how EV's are the future and how conscientious and green Norway is.