Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London
Discussion
philmots said:
That's the issue IMO
It's funny but for me the ease and convenience of fuelling is an issue with ICE cars and a major draw of electric ones. Having to drive to a petrol station every couple of weeks, wait for a pump to be free, then fill up and pay takes up far more of my time than plugging the car into the wall every night would. You say you can fill up with fuel almost everywhere, but I can't realistically do it in my garage.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th July 09:32
Some diesel engines already comply with Euro 6:-
http://www.mazda.com/technology/skyactiv/engine/sk...
Nonetheless, comparing the complexity of that engine with the equivalent petrol helps illustrate one reason that using diesel engines for cheap cars is stupid - they will break in costly ways and make the car uneconomic to repair!
http://www.mazda.com/technology/skyactiv/engine/sk...
Nonetheless, comparing the complexity of that engine with the equivalent petrol helps illustrate one reason that using diesel engines for cheap cars is stupid - they will break in costly ways and make the car uneconomic to repair!
Pisses me off, I go to London once a year, and don't mind paying to drive into the zone on the Friday from the M1, our hotel is just south of Southwark Bridge, so when I leave on the Monday, I am stung again to drive about half a mile to leave the zone.
And why is it called the congestion charge, it's still bloody congested.
Question guys, if once in the zone, provided you don't move your car for 24 hours, do you have to pay, ie does it clock you when you go in and out, and charge for every day you were in whether or not the car moved.
And why is it called the congestion charge, it's still bloody congested.
Question guys, if once in the zone, provided you don't move your car for 24 hours, do you have to pay, ie does it clock you when you go in and out, and charge for every day you were in whether or not the car moved.
As somebody who drives into London once a week or so (weekend evenings) and lives within the M25 be forced to change my car (that I've only just pumped £2k into) or pay an extortionate amount to keep it on the road where I live....
I can't afford another currently, especially when mine runs well and cleanly, all 4.4 litres of it...just because its 2 years too old
Think I need to start sticking leaves to my number plates/removing them again...
I can't afford another currently, especially when mine runs well and cleanly, all 4.4 litres of it...just because its 2 years too old
Think I need to start sticking leaves to my number plates/removing them again...
Edited by kiethton on Tuesday 29th July 10:00
Sheepshanks said:
POORCARDEALER said:
Theres no evidence that an electric car will take me from yorkshire to london in the next few years on a single charge, and thats the problem.
For 3 of the 4 drivers in our family, an electric car would be fine 99%, if not 100% of the time.The problem is that people have it in their minds that they might need to suddenly drive a long distance so they want that capability to be always available.
Firstly as you say it's a mindset issue. Our small runabout is hardly ever used for anything more than local runs. Round trip of 20 miles in a day is exceptional and it's usually 10-12. In the twelve years we've had it a longer journey, say round trip of 200-300 miles in a day has only been 5 occasions max. Yet the mindset is that because of those five occasions when we had to use it for various unplanned reasons is why it needs to have this long distance capability.
It would perhaps make more sense to have an electric vehicle and use a rental if a longer journey is needed and no alternative is available.
But then for many years the second issue comes into focus and that of cost. A small inexpensive ic petrol vehicle is capable of fulfilling both demands compared with the expense of an electric vehicle. There is very little chance of a financial case stacking up for a private user in a normal situation. If congestion charging, benefit in kind for a business car starts to come into the equation then that starts to even things up. Especially with plug in hybrids but at high capital cost.
I still don't understand why we don't use diesel/electric hybrids more.
You could have the diesel engine running at its most efficient RPM, generating electricity while the motors provide the power to the wheels.
Ideal for HGVs, busses and long distance courier vans surely? You could run around an LEZ on electric only, and have the generator kick in once you're out and on a motorway, to recharge.
You could have the diesel engine running at its most efficient RPM, generating electricity while the motors provide the power to the wheels.
Ideal for HGVs, busses and long distance courier vans surely? You could run around an LEZ on electric only, and have the generator kick in once you're out and on a motorway, to recharge.
Fastdruid said:
Good luck for diesels come Euro 6 though. That's going to be very complicated and expensive to get them to pass.
Not for all manufacturers it isn't - Mazda's SkyActiv diesel can run at Euro6 without the need for any after treatment for NOX, as the low compression ratio leads to a very low NOX output anyway.kambites said:
gizlaroc said:
Doesn't Nissan do a scheme where if you know you are going away, as an owner of one of their electric cars, they will lend you a Juke or similar for up to a month?
I thought that was BMW? Someone certainly does. Superhoop said:
Fastdruid said:
Good luck for diesels come Euro 6 though. That's going to be very complicated and expensive to get them to pass.
Not for all manufacturers it isn't - Mazda's SkyActiv diesel can run at Euro6 without the need for any after treatment for NOX, as the low compression ratio leads to a very low NOX output anyway.Mazda are laughing right now as they're ahead of the curve but I doubt many of the other makes are, they're either going to have to design something like the SkyActiv-D or add extra (expensive and potentially unreliable) gubbins to their Diesels to pass. I suspect a number would buy engines from Mazda but that leaves the makers of the larger engined Diesels out in the cold.
POORCARDEALER said:
Theres no evidence that an electric car will take me from yorkshire to london in the next few years on a single charge, and thats the problem.
Well a Tesla has up to a 300 mile range which is comfortably more than enough and Musk has stated they have the tech to make one with a 500 mile range and are going to.Fastdruid said:
What are you on about? It's not about the fuel itself it's about what comes out of the tailpipe. Specifically it's about nitrous oxides which unlike CO2 is actually nasty and which diesels pump out 20x that of petrols.
I've replied specifically to those comparing diesel with asbestos.I'm simply asking why, out of the two fuels would you choose to compare the fuel that was not known to be carcinogenic, and even then it has only proved to be so from tests on people who have worked underground (where petrol engines would far too dangerous to use) and not the fule that has always known to have carcinogenic and dangerous substances added to it.
If you're looking for the new asbestos, surely you'd choose lead or benzene, the substance known to cause leukaemia?
On lead: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615
i live in zone 1. most private cars in 1&2 are local or from within 30 miles.
If you came from as near as Reading (40miles) you'd park there and take the train.
Cars are a luxury for cities. London is an easy place to get around in.
I find the south-east more frustrating - too much traffic but public transport not viable.
If you came from as near as Reading (40miles) you'd park there and take the train.
Cars are a luxury for cities. London is an easy place to get around in.
I find the south-east more frustrating - too much traffic but public transport not viable.
heebeegeetee said:
Fastdruid said:
What are you on about? It's not about the fuel itself it's about what comes out of the tailpipe. Specifically it's about nitrous oxides which unlike CO2 is actually nasty and which diesels pump out 20x that of petrols.
I've replied specifically to those comparing diesel with asbestos.I'm simply asking why, out of the two fuels would you choose to compare the fuel that was not known to be carcinogenic, and even then it has only proved to be so from tests on people who have worked underground (where petrol engines would far too dangerous to use) and not the fule that has always known to have carcinogenic and dangerous substances added to it.
If you're looking for the new asbestos, surely you'd choose lead or benzene, the substance known to cause leukaemia?
On lead: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615
Lead started being phased out 40 years ago in the US, was banned totally in 1996 and was banned totally in the EU in 2000 (UK in 1999) that's 15 years ago that it was banned (at which point the amount of leaded sales was something like 0.6%).
BJG1 said:
POORCARDEALER said:
Theres no evidence that an electric car will take me from yorkshire to london in the next few years on a single charge, and thats the problem.
Well a Tesla has up to a 300 mile range which is comfortably more than enough and Musk has stated they have the tech to make one with a 500 mile range and are going to.I've always wondered how diesels get a good rap in built up areas, in theory. Trying to walk the space of a mile in the city and you can smell and sometimes see the tainted fumes too.
On a london based theme, I got stung back in May as I didn't realise they dropped the co2 limit to now cover ULEV / purely electric vehicles. Would have quite liked them to check out their licensed black cabs first!
On a london based theme, I got stung back in May as I didn't realise they dropped the co2 limit to now cover ULEV / purely electric vehicles. Would have quite liked them to check out their licensed black cabs first!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff