Diesel scrappage scheme

[culpz]

Devil2575 said:

The reason they haven't is because there has not been the driver to do so, after all petrol and diesel are relatively cheap so why would a manufacturer go to the expensense of developing electric cars when they don't need to. What banning diesels from major cities and CO2 targets is doing/will do is create a business justification to invest heavily in electric. Just look at how much the technoloy has come on in the last 10 years. Diesel was what car makers were banking on to enable them to hit emissions targets, now that is under threat they are going to be even more motivated to invest in electric technology.

Of course there has. It's been an ongoing battle to find a replacement to the internal combustion engine for a number of years now. This sudden abomination of diesels is just the Government putting their hands up and realising they were wrong to encourage the wide-spread use of them in the first place.

Manufacturer's DO need to though. Electric cars have been around and were still being made way before the latest scandal came out. Something like this may well be more of a push for car makers, i agree, but it's not purely influence from the powers that be that causes the technology to move forward.

Also bear in mind that no manufacturer has yet to actually crack a proper electric vehicle that would be deemed a suitable alternate from a generic petrol or diesel. It's a really a race to be the first because, at the end of the day, who will be profiting most when this does eventually happen?

What i'm saying is that this "rush" for a breakthrough in technology has been happening for donkey's years now and yet there's still nothing to shout about. For all we know, it might not even be electric power that becomes the heart of the car in the end anyway. I'm not even sure if electric really is the future. They're not exactly faultless.

[DonkeyApple]

culpz said:

Of course there has. It's been an ongoing battle to find a replacement to the internal combustion engine for a number of years now. This sudden abomination of diesels is just the Government putting their hands up and realising they were wrong to encourage the wide-spread use of them in the first place.

Manufacturer's DO need to though. Electric cars have been around and were still being made way before the latest scandal came out. Something like this may well be more of a push for car makers, i agree, but it's not purely influence from the powers that be that causes the technology to move forward.

Also bear in mind that no manufacturer has yet to actually crack a proper electric vehicle that would be deemed a suitable alternate from a generic petrol or diesel. It's a really a race to be the first because, at the end of the day, who will be profiting most when this does eventually happen?

What i'm saying is that this "rush" for a breakthrough in technology has been happening for donkey's years now and yet there's still nothing to shout about. For all we know, it might not even be electric power that becomes the heart of the car in the end anyway. I'm not even sure if electric really is the future. They're not exactly faultless.

VW's announcement re their US market will be the first of it goes ahead. However, the volume is almost certainly going to be derived via hybrids as per Toyota. The concept of significant growth in pure EV is still some way off, despite what those with agendas will argue, because of the cost of powering them precludes them from being cars for the masses and the forward growth of the raw materials needed to bring that price down to a low enough level is not secure. The materials don't even have a forward trading contract market and not do the major car manufacturers have solid contracts for guaranteed deliver so the basic risk of having to shut down all production puts a real downer on forward planning.

In reality, the tech is here. They can churn out EVs cheaper and quicker than ICE cars but it's the fueling of them that firstly makes them far too expensive for the common man and the as of yet undeveloped material control/supply and manufacturing infrastructure that means they aren't yet viable as generic road transports and won't be for some time given all the time it takes the mining and manufacturing industries to change.

[300bhp/ton]

Devil2575 said:

Evanivitch said:

they're nowhere near as fun on single carriageway roads as an equivalent petrol

Which matters in a car that's designed to be fun. So a 2 litre diesel in an MX5 is going to miss the point somewhat. However most cars are not designed with fun in mind and for those diesel is better, emissions issues aside.

I'm still of the opinion that a tuned diesel MX-5 could actually be rather entertaining.

[otolith]

culpz said:

Also bear in mind that no manufacturer has yet to actually crack a proper electric vehicle that would be deemed a suitable alternate from a generic petrol or diesel. It's a really a race to be the first because, at the end of the day, who will be profiting most when this does eventually happen?

I got a taxi home the other night - it was a Nissan Leaf. It was a perfectly acceptable alternative to a diesel.

[Trabi601]

culpz said:

What i'm saying is that this "rush" for a breakthrough in technology has been happening for donkey's years now and yet there's still nothing to shout about. For all we know, it might not even be electric power that becomes the heart of the car in the end anyway. I'm not even sure if electric really is the future. They're not exactly faultless.

Gas powered seems to be the big way forward - LPG / CNG are 'clean' fossil fuels, cheap to produce and relatively easy to transport and dispense. Hydrogen is also a big focus for the fuels industry - up to 1000km range with a fill time of seconds, not hours.

[culpz]

otolith said:

I got a taxi home the other night - it was a Nissan Leaf. It was a perfectly acceptable alternative to a diesel.

Ah right, that's alright then. Problem solved.

[otolith]

culpz said:

otolith said:

I got a taxi home the other night - it was a Nissan Leaf. It was a perfectly acceptable alternative to a diesel.

Ah right, that's alright then. Problem solved.

For that use case, yes it is. There are other scenarios for which an EV is not suitable. The idea that we won't have a "proper" EV until it can replace all IC cars all the time misses the way that cars are actually used. That taxi couldn't have done the airport run, but that's not what it was used for. I've got a big diesel estate car, which is rubbish for what I use the Elise for, and vice-versa.

[culpz]

Trabi601 said:

Gas powered seems to be the big way forward - LPG / CNG are 'clean' fossil fuels, cheap to produce and relatively easy to transport and dispense. Hydrogen is also a big focus for the fuels industry - up to 1000km range with a fill time of seconds, not hours.

I think you could be right. I've got a feeling that electric cars have got to, or are getting to, their absolute limits of what they can achieve. This would explain why the technology hasn't developed the way it should have done by now, which was my whole point here.

Electric cars are expensive in general to buy. Battery's are also are very expensive to replace and their life expectancy isn't too great, range really isn't good enough and i don't think these fast-charging points are going to solve much either on the whole.

[Devil2575]

culpz said:

Devil2575 said:

The reason they haven't is because there has not been the driver to do so, after all petrol and diesel are relatively cheap so why would a manufacturer go to the expensense of developing electric cars when they don't need to. What banning diesels from major cities and CO2 targets is doing/will do is create a business justification to invest heavily in electric. Just look at how much the technoloy has come on in the last 10 years. Diesel was what car makers were banking on to enable them to hit emissions targets, now that is under threat they are going to be even more motivated to invest in electric technology.

Of course there has. It's been an ongoing battle to find a replacement to the internal combustion engine for a number of years now. This sudden abomination of diesels is just the Government putting their hands up and realising they were wrong to encourage the wide-spread use of them in the first place.

There has been a move towards a replacement for the internal combustion engine but it has largely been driven by the Japanese, and Elon Musk. In terms of meeting C02 targets European car manufacturers have been hanging their hat very much on diesels. If diesels are banned then this will create much more urgency to come up with a viable mainstream alternative.

culpz said:

Manufacturer's DO need to though. Electric cars have been around and were still being made way before the latest scandal came out. Something like this may well be more of a push for car makers, i agree, but it's not purely influence from the powers that be that causes the technology to move forward.

I think that legislation plays a large part, much larger than say pressure from buyers. After all a manufacturer only has to offer an EV alternative to keep buyers who want one happy, but if the normal Diesel alternatives are not availible/banned then they have to offer and EV that meets everyone's requirements.

culpz said:

Also bear in mind that no manufacturer has yet to actually crack a proper electric vehicle that would be deemed a suitable alternate from a generic petrol or diesel. It's a really a race to be the first because, at the end of the day, who will be profiting most when this does eventually happen?

What i'm saying is that this "rush" for a breakthrough in technology has been happening for donkey's years now and yet there's still nothing to shout about. For all we know, it might not even be electric power that becomes the heart of the car in the end anyway. I'm not even sure if electric really is the future. They're not exactly faultless.

I don't think there has been a rush. It has picked up pace in the last decade or so but I don't think it has ever been a rush. Manufacturers have been happy to rely on the fact that the majority of buyers are still happy to buy Petrol/Diesel and they have been able to meet their CO2 targets. If diesel is banned in a significant number of locations it is going to hit sales hard and that will create a rush.

[otolith]

How much range is enough?

[culpz]

otolith said:

For that use case, yes it is. There are other scenarios for which an EV is not suitable. The idea that we won't have a "proper" EV until it can replace all IC cars all the time misses the way that cars are actually used. That taxi couldn't have done the airport run, but that's not what it was used for. I've got a big diesel estate car, which is rubbish for what I use the Elise for, and vice-versa.

A car can be used for a plethora of reasons but can also do pretty much everything (within reason), whether it be petrol or diesel. So, if EV's are going to become widespread and replace all diesel and petrol cars then they need to be able to do just that.

Your example accounts for one minor use which was, presumably, a small trip. A taxi firm, by nature, needs to be able to do a range of short and long journeys without much hassle. At current, EV's cannot do that which is why you don't see many as taxis.

Edited by culpz on Monday 5th December 11:38

[otolith]

Yes, the point is that a significant proportion of cars do not need to do the edge cases that currently require ICE cars. When people realise that they are paying through the nose for capabilities they don't really need and that an EV is better at what they do use it for, they'll shift.

[Trabi601]

culpz said:

otolith said:

I got a taxi home the other night - it was a Nissan Leaf. It was a perfectly acceptable alternative to a diesel.

Ah right, that's alright then. Problem solved.

How does that work?

He does a few trips then has to find a charger! Whilst electricity is relatively cheap, time isn't when you're self employed.

Would be very interesting to see his accounts vs time spent driving and charging.

[Trabi601]

otolith said:

Yes, the point is that a significant proportion of cars do not need to do the edge cases that currently require ICE cars. When people realise that they are paying through the nose for capabilities they don't really need and that an EV is better at what they do use it for, they'll shift.

Until they have to make an unexpected long trip, or just an unexpected trip with a flat battery. Or just want to leave the frozen North for a holiday in Cornwall. But find out they can't, or it's a massive ball ache to organise, or that they'll need to plan ahead and hire a car.

As a 2nd car, electric may make sense for some people some of the time. But ICE works for all people all of the time. That's a very compelling reason to stick with ICE right now.

[otolith]

I have no idea, but it turned up when we called it and drove us the 3.5 miles home with no problems. It's all urban and 30mph or less. When you just want to get home from the pub, you really don't give a toss what powers your transport.

It's supposed to have a 150 mile range. If it gets 2/3 of that, and averages 20mph, and has no downtime waiting for fares, that's a five hour shift.

Taxi the other way was a Prius.

[otolith]

Trabi601 said:

otolith said:

Yes, the point is that a significant proportion of cars do not need to do the edge cases that currently require ICE cars. When people realise that they are paying through the nose for capabilities they don't really need and that an EV is better at what they do use it for, they'll shift.

Until they have to make an unexpected long trip, or just an unexpected trip with a flat battery. Or just want to leave the frozen North for a holiday in Cornwall. But find out they can't, or it's a massive ball ache to organise, or that they'll need to plan ahead and hire a car.

As a 2nd car, electric may make sense for some people some of the time. But ICE works for all people all of the time. That's a very compelling reason to stick with ICE right now.

Don't look at me, I've got three cars to myself, two of which are completely impractical. But when it was the two of us, we could have got by with the Saab and a leaf. My wife's commute was less than ten miles (OK, she did it in a Z4M, but if she had not been a petrolhead a Leaf would have been a far more suitable vehicle).

Most people don't really need any more range than a Leaf offers. A Tesla even more so. For once or twice a year, you can hire a car. Or get the train. Or fly. You would still end up in pocket.

[Loyly]

otolith said:

I got a taxi home the other night - it was a Nissan Leaf. It was a perfectly acceptable alternative to a diesel.

It's not though, really. Many taxis run 24 hours a day. When one driver hangs up the keys, another jumps in the seat and takes it out. That just wouldn't work with a Leaf, unless every bit of downtime you have is spent at a charger. For that sort of work, the electric cars we have at the moment aren't good enough.

There is a firm local to me that had a Leaf, but it was only used for booked jobs so it could be left on charge. I wonder if there was a council incentive to take on an electric car. They also used hybrids, which obviously don't need to be tethered down to a charger between jobs, and they previously used LPG Saabs.

For taxis, I like a hybrid.

[otolith]

What can I say - it was a taxi. It was a Leaf. It turned up and took us home, and since it was fking freezing and my girlfriend had stolen my jacket, I wasn't going to pick holes in it. It was warm, quiet and comfortable and it got us from A to B. For all the nonsense us petrolheads care about, that's the core requirement. It's obviously working for that taxi driver.

[davepoth]

Trabi601 said:

Until they have to make an unexpected long trip, or just an unexpected trip with a flat battery. Or just want to leave the frozen North for a holiday in Cornwall. But find out they can't, or it's a massive ball ache to organise, or that they'll need to plan ahead and hire a car.

As a 2nd car, electric may make sense for some people some of the time. But ICE works for all people all of the time. That's a very compelling reason to stick with ICE right now.

I haven't made a journey in this country for ten years that I couldn't have done in a Tesla - and that includes driving to Stornoway from Somerset. I'm lucky to have a driveway and car park at work, so if I had an electric car it would be trickle charging for 22 hours a day, keeping it somewhere over 90% charge at a minimum.

But a lot of people do a similar thing, and frankly after 250 miles of driving I'm ready to stretch my legs for half an hour. The "edge cases" where a pure electric car wouldn't work are getting more and more extreme - if charging time was halved or range doubled I think we'd be well past the tipping point.

[Trabi601]

davepoth said:

I haven't made a journey in this country for ten years that I couldn't have done in a Tesla - and that includes driving to Stornoway from Somerset. I'm lucky to have a driveway and car park at work, so if I had an electric car it would be trickle charging for 22 hours a day, keeping it somewhere over 90% charge at a minimum.

But a lot of people do a similar thing, and frankly after 250 miles of driving I'm ready to stretch my legs for half an hour. The "edge cases" where a pure electric car wouldn't work are getting more and more extreme - if charging time was halved or range doubled I think we'd be well past the tipping point.

We're back to some of the people, some of the time again.

I don't have half an hour to spend kicking around using a charger when I'm on a journey. For that one, you'd lose an hour to 90 minutes of travel time to supercharge a Tesla.

And again, you're in the small proportion of people who can charge both at home and at work. Lots of people can't charge in either place.

'If charging time was halved or range doubled' is the challenge and we're at the point of diminishing returns - the tech. just doesn't seem to have this capability, every step now is very small and increasingly expensive to achieve.