RE: Driven: MINI E
Discussion
MrTrilby said:
People seem to think that car manufacturers are capable of achieving all this on their own without any regulatory incentives, yet it's funny how Volvo, Vauxhall, Ford et al can suddenly produce "eco" variants at pretty short notice, with pretty big jumps in economy using only small tweaks to cars.
You're being a bit naive here - the 'eco' variants are mainly tweaked to give better results in the standardized EC 'drive cycle' test which is far fram realistic (for one, the average speed on the cycle is 37.3 km/h and the test stops right after gently accelerating to 120 km/h - you're right, there's no driving at constant motorway speeds for any length of time in the test; oh, and if there's a shift indicator the operator must shift up when the light tells them to do so even if anyone with an ounce of mechanical sympathy would decline) and the differences become rather marginal in real-world operation. Before being heavily penalised for every single excess gram per kilometre, manufacturers rightly assumed that the marginal difference in real-world fuel consumption would not be enough compansation for the loss in ride comfort (lowered suspension, 'eco' tyres) , dry grip ('eco' tyres again) or driveability (over-tall gearing) these 'eco' versions foist upon consumers.
But hey, it looks good on paper ('xxx tons of CO2 saved!') and that's all politicians are interested in...
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 24th October 13:26
900T-R said:
MrTrilby said:
People seem to think that car manufacturers are capable of achieving all this on their own without any regulatory incentives, yet it's funny how Volvo, Vauxhall, Ford et al can suddenly produce "eco" variants at pretty short notice, with pretty big jumps in economy using only small tweaks to cars.
You're being a bit naive here - the 'eco' variants are mainly tweaked to geve better results in the standardized EC 'drive cycle' test which is far fram realistic (for one, the average speed on the cycle is 37.3 km/h and the test stops right after gently accelerating to 120 km/h - you're right, there's no driving at constant motorway speeds for any length of time in the test; oh, and if there's a shift indicator the operator must shift up when the light tells them to do so even if anyone with an ounce of mechanical simpathy would decline) and the differences become rather marginal in real-world operation. Before being heavily penalised for every single excess gram per kilometre, manufacturers rightly assumed that the marginal difference in real-wrodl fuel consumption would not be enough compansation for the loss in ride comfort (lowered suspension, 'eco' tyres) , dry grip ('eco' tyres again) or driveability (over-tall gearing) these 'eco' versions foist upon consumers.
But hey, it looks good on paper ('xxx tons of CO2 saved!') and that's all politicians are interested in...
It's a bit like the Euro Ncap test.
Cars are built to handle the exact type of crash tested in the ncap test.
How many times have you seen a car hit a deformable barrier head on or at 50% off est?
Real world crashes are all different.
But hey, at least you get to look all smug as you die horribly in your own unique crash
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 24th October 13:15
MrTrilby said:
Right. So standardised tests might not be perfect, but you're suggesting they don't help focus manufacturers on improving safety or economy? I think you're being overly cynical.
I think you are being naive if you think otherwise(I have spent years working for car manufacturers and know how they think.)
the government sets a challenge and the industry finds the cheapest way of satisfying that requirement or finding a loophole or exclusion.
In case of fuel economy, all the ever expanding legislation and tax structures imposed on the car industry and their customers does is grossly distort the market regardless of actual CO2 output in usage.
For the industry, a figure of 50 euros per tonne CO2 has been set. If you know that figure, and you roughly know how much oil we've got left, you can pretty much calculate what a litre of petrol or diesel should cost at the pumps (given that 1 litre of petrol always returns the same CO2 output no matter if you burn it in a Hummer or an Aygo), right?
But noooooo, that would be too easy. Far better to penalize Ferrari buyers who just want to put another car in their private collection to the tune of tens of thousands of euros even if they use hardly any fuel in the first place, and subsidize Prius buyers with tax breaks even if they do 100,000 miles a year - reinforcing the notion with some that it's more about envy and meddling in peoples lives than anything else...
For the industry, a figure of 50 euros per tonne CO2 has been set. If you know that figure, and you roughly know how much oil we've got left, you can pretty much calculate what a litre of petrol or diesel should cost at the pumps (given that 1 litre of petrol always returns the same CO2 output no matter if you burn it in a Hummer or an Aygo), right?
But noooooo, that would be too easy. Far better to penalize Ferrari buyers who just want to put another car in their private collection to the tune of tens of thousands of euros even if they use hardly any fuel in the first place, and subsidize Prius buyers with tax breaks even if they do 100,000 miles a year - reinforcing the notion with some that it's more about envy and meddling in peoples lives than anything else...
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 24th October 14:16
odyssey2200 said:
XitUp said:
CO2 and MMGW have sod all to do with it.
so you say that the sudden increase in green cars has nothing to with MMGW and Eco crap?yeah right
r1ch said:
I think the electric powered car will have its place in the future.It would be handy for people who don't do lots of milage, and potter around town.
If everybody in the world got an electric car. While it doesn't give out and pollution, surely lots and lots of power stations would have to be created to cope with the demand of all these vehicles. So solving one problem, and creating another. So the concept of the electric car isn't very eco friendly at all?
If we built more nuclear power plants it would be very eco friendly.If everybody in the world got an electric car. While it doesn't give out and pollution, surely lots and lots of power stations would have to be created to cope with the demand of all these vehicles. So solving one problem, and creating another. So the concept of the electric car isn't very eco friendly at all?
And most people would charge at night when power stations have spare capacity so not many would need to be built.
odyssey2200 said:
Whats their unique advantage over a normal small car?/
You either have an extremely short memory, or haven't read this thread and just jumped in to troll. The unique advantage of an EV car over a conventional car is that they produce zero emissions at the point of use. Which is "good" when you're trying to clean up air quality in polluted cities.MrTrilby said:
odyssey2200 said:
Whats their unique advantage over a normal small car?/
You either have an extremely short memory, or haven't read this thread and just jumped in to troll. The unique advantage of an EV car over a conventional car is that they produce zero emissions at the point of use. Which is "good" when you're trying to clean up air quality in polluted cities.What many here seem to be overlooking is we don't know what the future actually brings.
Lets be honest the first car invented was actually a V12 lambo. It was a slow unreliable wheezy noisy beast of a thing that was significantly more expensive and difficult to run and slower then a horse.
If the same head in the sand attitude had been taken with the cars/horse debate as many are taking with the electric car/petrol car debate that we are currently having this site would be call hooveheads and the roads would be waist deep in horse poo
Lets be honest the first car invented was actually a V12 lambo. It was a slow unreliable wheezy noisy beast of a thing that was significantly more expensive and difficult to run and slower then a horse.
If the same head in the sand attitude had been taken with the cars/horse debate as many are taking with the electric car/petrol car debate that we are currently having this site would be call hooveheads and the roads would be waist deep in horse poo
XitUp said:
900T-R said:
XitUp said:
You need to read more.
You need to question whatever you're reading more. 
The electric car is little more than a pipe dream for electricity providers (who'd do better to clean up their act concerning renewable engergy sources), politicians and a whole host of hopeful entepreneurs who in the main are extremely naive about what it takes to be competitive with current OE vehicle manufacturers.
As it stands, electrification of road transport is the 'solution' providing the least bang for buck by far both in terms of energy conservation and reduction of air pollution. The difference with actions that would provide far more drastic inprovements is that governments think they can pass the cost onto the consumer (and the industry thinks they can make a good buck out of it) instead of having to deal with unwilling industrial relations...
Edited by 900T-R on Sunday 25th October 09:35
XitUp said:
That would be all well and good if it wasn't total rubbish.
Show me one well to wheel study where ICE cars come out on top.
If you've got no regard at all for cost (let alone practicalities), well... Show me one well to wheel study where ICE cars come out on top.
In the real world there's a price for every g/km saved, and we can't afford to do that with electric propulsion... not where every EU citizen owes about a million euro to a Chinese...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff