The end for petrol and diesel vehicles.

zilog_jones

kyote00 wrote: »

I am not suggesting the manufactorers data will play out exactly in the real world driving....BUT.... that the conditions under which it is gathered is more specific, repeatable and evidentially accurate than a bunch or posts on the internet forum.

It is exactly lab conditions ---> it says it in the small print and that is the point. it is the theoretic best case for the engine. It helps us compare one vehicle to another one under what are lab conditions.

Your real world means nothing --- they could be variable wind speed, tyres, road condition, traffic conidtions etc etc --- FFS you don't even say what car you have
(post a pic of your EV so we know)

You were enquiring about the practicalities of owning a Nissan Leaf. Information was provided about what the Leaf can do in real life (and ELM327 did actually say he has a Leaf), based on anecdotal evidence and the more realistic US EPA tests. If you're just going to go off on a rant and reject everything but the NEDC tests but want to know how practical it is to run an EV (which is what your original questions looked like), you're in for a bad time.

Sure the NEDC could be used to compare to other cars, but you weren't even asking about any other vehicles so it's rather academic. It's no surprise that we're missing your point...

oppenheimer1 wrote:

If EV is as great a product as you say it is would you drive one if it was taxed the same as the diesel (i.e. costing about 70-75% of a diesel km)?

I bet you wouldn't. The only reason people are driving EV's is for the tax break on fuel. Furthermore if you ask these drivers how to encourage more EV's on the road it's always about giving themselves more freebies, like driving in bus lanes or free town parking, as if you weren't getting enough already.

Why did so many people move to diesels post-2008? The "chape tax" of course. But when you look at total cost of ownership it often doesn't make sense compared to holding on to older petrol cars (especially when doing lower mileage). With EVs there are genuine savings to be had if you look at the TCO, even if they cost more than they do now.

A lot of people don't care or are against suggestions like use of bus lanes, etc.

I moved from a diesel to a PHEV, which financially made zero sense - running costs are about half, but total cost is nearly twice as much (and I was paying crazy pre-'08 tax on the diesel). But I primarily wanted to get away from diesels. Modern diesels have too many expensive things to go wrong, mostly all those emissions controls that don't work anyway (thanks VW ). And in terms of refinement and performance, 4-pot diesels are a joke IMO.

I'll probably get a full EV once range is over 300km (in real life, not NEDC crap) and within my budget.

uptherebels

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The article the Prof wrote doesn't stand up from an economic argument anyway. If the price of oil collapses that will make ICE more competitive vs EV. Furthermore low cost EV travel will lead to huge traffic congestion therefore the price of EV usage will have to rise massively.

Only government policy will drive the conversion to EV, not the market alone in the next ten years.

There would need to be two orders of magnitude increase in energy density in battery technology for electric trucks to be realistic. Otherwise all they'll be hauling is their own batteries.

yes but when the price of crude collapses, it is then uneconomical to drill for

Tabnabs

uptherebels wrote: »

yes but when the price of crude collapses, it is then uneconomical to drill for

Uneconomical to drill, but still worthwhile to continue to pump out of the hundreds of existing wells. The exploration side of the industry suffers, but the production, much less so.

goz83

Tabnabs wrote: »

Uneconomical to drill, but still worthwhile to continue to pump out of the hundreds of existing wells. The exploration side of the industry suffers, but the production, much less so.

It won't stop cities banning Diesels, so driving a fossil fuel car will become a pain in the butt, because there will be access restrictions. They just won't be desirable anymore unless you live in the arse end of nowhere with electricity.

oppenheimer1

goz83 wrote: »

It won't stop cities banning Diesels, so driving a fossil fuel car will become a pain in the butt, because there will be access restrictions. They just won't be desirable anymore unless you live in the arse end of nowhere with electricity.

Cities are banning all motor vehicles, not just because of emissions, but because car free cities are better cities. Expect this trend to continue, EV or no EV. Given their low running cost EV's have the potential to be a disaster in terms of road congestion so they too will be priced off the road once numbers hit a critical mass.

uptherebels wrote: »

yes but when the price of crude collapses, it is then uneconomical to drill for

There will still be demand for other fractions, particularly for jet fuel. What could happen is petrol and diesel become low value byproducts of aviation fuel distillation.

zilog_jones wrote: »

Why did so many people move to diesels post-2008? The "chape tax" of course. But when you look at total cost of ownership it often doesn't make sense compared to holding on to older petrol cars (especially when doing lower mileage). With EVs there are genuine savings to be had if you look at the TCO, even if they cost more than they do now.

Many people moved to diesel post 2008 because fuel was cheaper and tax was lower. The same is true for EV's then and now and their tax advantage is even greater, yet there is a paltry 2000 of them on the roads in Ireland?

TCO is a difficult calculation and is not the same for everybody. Take todays present day situation for a typical one car household. This notional Dublin family use their car about the suburbs, but take their car to see family down the country once every two months and go on holidays to the west for a week. They drive 12000km per year and their fuel bill is E900 (6.0l/100km @E1.22/l). They decide they want to save money by trading in their car and getting a second hand EV. They start find that their trip to the family down the country is a bit out of range for their EV and stopping for charging is a nuisance with children so they hire a car for the weekends that they need it. They also find that the EV isn't practical on holiday, requiring two stops to make it to their hotel and they tend to drive a lot whilst away, giving range anxiety so they rent an ICE for that week too. Without the long trips, their annual mileage falls to 5000km/year

Thats a total of 19 rental days at a very competitive E30/day which is E570. Add in E135 for electricity and the numbers start to stack the wrong way for EV given the hassle it is.

I'm not against EV though, it is the way of the future, what I don't like are those that advocate it like a religion and take legitimate criticism of the platform like a personal insult. The reason EV has not got widespread acceptance in Ireland is simply because they are not good enough generally. They are great for commuting point to point distances in the daily 100km - 200km range and thats why you find a higher concentration of them per head in the Dublin commuter towns than anywhere else. Then you have to ask, should we be encouraging people to be spending two to three hours of their day in their car?

Thelomen Toblackai

Wibbs wrote: »

They're not. I'd reserve the same ire for someone saying "Electric cars are crap". Though I have found early adopters of any new tech tend to be the more vocal, smug and proselytising.

I do. You seem to have missed the three quarters of my last post where I did. Which pretty much illustrates my point.

Not really. I use all sorts of things that have their fanboys. I use an Apple Mac because I quite simply prefer it to the alternatives(currently), but my idea of the seventh circle of hell would be getting cornered by a Mac fan.

All you quoted was one line about the surprising negativity towards electric cars and you seemed to say that you wernt surprised because despite liking them and wanting them to improve the fanboys put you off.

I wasn't talking about you personally I was talking in general. As in surely if people had an interest they'd support it as you find the same amount of obnoxious people going on about anything if you take the time to discuss it anywhere.

Not sure what you meant by illustrating your point. I'm no fanboy ! And it's a bit different for brands and tv than beliefs and lifestyle. With brands and tv when people dismiss people as "fanboys" it's an image thing or something. With belief and lifestyle it's effort. I use a few vegetarian forums. The "vegans are so annoying" argument crops up daily as an argument against veganism or vegetarianism. Anything that makes sense but involves effort and compromise some people will try to dismiss it rather than argue it.

Seems the same for electric cars. Eveytime there's a discussion some argue the merits others dismiss it, some discuss it and like every discussion on veganism or atheism whether anyone is being a dick about it or not out comes the "yeah but being vegan/atheist/environmentally friendly is edgy now and there's too many "nerdy" types being dicks".

kyote00

Sweet jebus, I was not enquiring... someone else asked if they should change their accord diesel (post 46). I did some maths based on the Nissan quoted figures(post 49) and then the EV fanboys went on the rant about the inaccuracies of those figures.... and here we are 50 (approx number) posts later....

zilog_jones wrote: »

You were enquiring about the practicalities of owning a Nissan Leaf. Information was provided about what the Leaf can do in real life (and ELM327 did actually say he has a Leaf), based on anecdotal evidence and the more realistic US EPA tests. If you're just going to go off on a rant and reject everything but the NEDC tests but want to know how practical it is to run an EV (which is what your original questions looked like), you're in for a bad time.

Sure the NEDC could be used to compare to other cars, but you weren't even asking about any other vehicles so it's rather academic. It's no surprise that we're missing your point...


Why did so many people move to diesels post-2008? The "chape tax" of course. But when you look at total cost of ownership it often doesn't make sense compared to holding on to older petrol cars (especially when doing lower mileage). With EVs there are genuine savings to be had if you look at the TCO, even if they cost more than they do now.

A lot of people don't care or are against suggestions like use of bus lanes, etc.

I moved from a diesel to a PHEV, which financially made zero sense - running costs are about half, but total cost is nearly twice as much (and I was paying crazy pre-'08 tax on the diesel). But I primarily wanted to get away from diesels. Modern diesels have too many expensive things to go wrong, mostly all those emissions controls that don't work anyway (thanks VW ). And in terms of refinement and performance, 4-pot diesels are a joke IMO.

I'll probably get a full EV once range is over 300km (in real life, not NEDC crap) and within my budget.

pwurple

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

who pays for all this "at work" charging?

Depends.

On some sites it is the ESB. On some it is coming off their surplus wind turbine power. On some it's them.

It's considerably less than the kettle boiling most of them cover for staff.

Sleeper12

Heard him on pat Kenny. He really is talking rubbish

pwurple

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

pay BIK on that?

Generally not. Although I have had the discussion before on future state with the finance dept when a large multinational was installing at all sites. It costs them about 50 cent per charge. It is considered staff facilities.

So until you start paying BIK on your work cup of coffee, or pen, I wouldn't see it becoming an issue.

Wibbs

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

All you quoted was one line about the surprising negativity towards electric cars and you seemed to say that you wernt surprised because despite liking them and wanting them to improve the fanboys put you off.

Well they do TBH. To take another angle; I see the attraction in drifting and most certainly the skill involved, but would rather stick pins in my eyes than hang around some industrial estate with drifters waxing lyrical about welded diffs.

Not sure what you meant by illustrating your point.

You wrote "Surely if you think it's a great idea, more environmentally friendly, more efficient, better in the long run and something you'd love to improve you'd just support it ?" after a post of mine where you seem to have entirely missed the majority of my post doing just that, supporting the tech. It reads like a blindspot assumption that someone who isn't going Sheldon Cooper about Leaf charge cycles and ohh petrol is so dirty is automatically attacking your lifestyle. That was my meaning.

With brands and tv when people dismiss people as "fanboys" it's an image thing or something. With belief and lifestyle it's effort. I use a few vegetarian forums. The "vegans are so annoying" argument crops up daily as an argument against veganism or vegetarianism. Anything that makes sense but involves effort and compromise some people will try to dismiss it rather than argue it.

And/or maybe a fair number of [insert lifestyle choice here] proponents are annoying. The notion doesn't come from thin air and has a long enough history. QV the Prius/Pious memes. Even the "anything that makes sense but involves effort and compromise" stuff sniffs of high horsing and patronisation.

Now car fan folk are quick enough to draw lines and set up tribes and have been forever. RWD/FWD, Ford/Opel, Turbo/Supercharger, Ricers/Non-Ricers and so forth. Hell In Australia they can come to all out fistfights over the Ford/Holden tribal stuff. However I have found a significant enough chunk of the EV tribe to be some of the most smug, pious and defensive of the lot.

They're rarely enough car lovers from what I've encountered, online or off. "Lifestyle" folk, not car folk, going from A-B ticking boxes for efficiency. The manufacturers have followed that trend too. Sure, Musk rolled out a small sports car a few years back, but the real sales for the moment are in bland white good style econoboxes and Merc replacements for those who wish to be publicly "green" while showing off their status. I can't think of a single widely available EV aimed at actual car lovers. Hybrids started out the same way. The Prius while a technological marvel was and remains a coma on wheels, bereft of human juices. Latterly we've got the McLarens and Porsches and Hondas and Beemers etc aimed at drivers.

Hopefully that changes like with the hybrids and we see exciting "sporty" nice looking coupes and the like EV's, but the market doesn't seem ready for it yet(or the tech*). The Tesla 3 is a little better, though still looks far more Silicon Valley than Modena, cos that's the current market. I reckon architects are a deep untapped market. To replace the Saabs they covet

I'd give my left spherical organ of generation to see something like this as an EV



Get the Italians in. Well... On the design front, keep the stylish buggers away from the electrics. Get the Germans to build it and either the French or the Brits to do the suspension. Simmer for a year and the Japanese will copy it via their eyes and make it cheaper and more reliable. Sorted. EV's for Petrolheads.



*same goes for the sporty hybrids. The electric motor is mostly just another "supercharger" in the ICE mix. In the EV world the Tesla S is the most powerful(?), but weighs nearly two and half tonnes, so beyond short run drag races(which impresses some reporters and Americans) isn't exactly "sporty". Though to be fair, the lap times set at the Ring weren't too shabby at all for such a heavy lump with dead steering, crappy grip and handling dynamics and a system that closes the taps after a few minutes of full power.

Wibbs

zilog_jones wrote: »

I moved from a diesel to a PHEV, which financially made zero sense - running costs are about half, but total cost is nearly twice as much (and I was paying crazy pre-'08 tax on the diesel). But I primarily wanted to get away from diesels. Modern diesels have too many expensive things to go wrong, mostly all those emissions controls that don't work anyway (thanks VW ). And in terms of refinement and performance, 4-pot diesels are a joke IMO.

Ain't that the truth. Full agreement there.

SpitItOut

He's nothing willing to put his money where his mouth is, but I wouldn't take his prediction any less seriously merely because of that.

In comparison to him, I know nothing, yet my instincts tell that won't be the case. One simple reason - how many people did you hear make statements like that 10 years ago?!