RE: Driven: MINI E
Discussion
MrTrilby said:
Why have you tried to divert the topic onto cost per g/km saving
Because that is the whole effing point! 1) If fuel system costs are about 30x that of an ICE fuel system it's not enough to just state that regarding well to wheel CO2 outputs full electric drivetrains come out 'on top' when the nubers bandied about are ranging from zero(!) to 120 g/km - the latter figure being far from out of range using ICEs and fossil fuels; 2) No one has disputed the higher well-to-wheel fuel efficiency of full electric drivetrains all being equal (although the actual difference is far smaller than some of the self-professed gurus would have you believe;for starters, most calculations conveniently forget the few hundred kg weight diffrence per vehicle or go out from the assumption that we'll all revert to 40 mph limited, 2-passenger milk floats); what I've stated from the start that this comes at a far too high cost (both monetary and in terms of limitations it imposed on the end user) compared to any other method of reducing fossil fuel dependancy. For starters, if the limited autonomy of electric cars is not a problem, how about we eliminate about half of all car journey by hauling our obese arses onto the pavewalk or on pushbikes? That would make a greater contibution to better health than worrying about the marginal remaining air pollution through the usa of ICE-powered car (communal buses excepted
), too. Where it falls down, though, is that it doesn't involve selling people anything 'for our environment'. And selling is what this whole electric car con is about - making people feel they need to throw away what they have and what always has served them perfectly well in favour of the Brave New World at the tune of £20K plus £500 a month for the batteries...
Your ramble is a bit confusing, but you seem to just be pointing out that EV vehicles have an advantage in being more efficient than conventional cars when you look at their overall energy usage from well to wheel, and that they have a disadvantage in being more costly to build and sell for now. I didn't think anyone was disputing that?
MrTrilby said:
Your ramble is a bit confusing, but you seem to just be pointing out that EV vehicles have an advantage in being more efficient than conventional cars when you look at their overall energy usage from well to wheel, and that they have a disadvantage in being more costly to build and sell for now.
Not 'for now' - for the forseeable future. And the 'by how much' is vitally important - high reduction in well-to-wheel energy with low added cost and useage of finite resources in production; great, let's do it right now. Low reduction in well-to-wheel energy usage at very high added cost and useage of finite resources in production - it's a no-goer. And with EVs everything so far hints at the latter rather than the former; making it unwise for a society to put all their cards on in favour of measures that would give better return on investment. If the high initial cost of implementing a new technology before it becomes "mass produced cheap" was a real reason for not doing something, then we'd all still be driving around in Fred Flintstone cars with wheels carved out of stone.
Exactly the same flawed "it's too expensive to make economic sense" reasoning has been used in the past to argue against first diesel cars and then hybrids. Both of which are pretty mainstream and cost effective now.
Exactly the same flawed "it's too expensive to make economic sense" reasoning has been used in the past to argue against first diesel cars and then hybrids. Both of which are pretty mainstream and cost effective now.
MrTrilby said:
If the high initial cost of implementing a new technology before it becomes "mass produced cheap" was a real reason for not doing something, then we'd all still be driving around in Fred Flintstone cars with wheels carved out of stone.
Helloooooooo... he reason why this won't happen with high-pwered batteries has only been outlined a hundred thousand times on this thread! What is it that you don't understand about 'rare earth materials'? MrTrilby said:
Exactly the same flawed "it's too expensive to make economic sense" reasoning has been used in the past to argue against first diesel cars and then hybrids. Both of which are pretty mainstream and cost effective now.
Up until the hybrid, any technical advance only became mainstream after it became an 'advance' to the consumer i.e. better than what we have now. Now we have governments meddling with consumer choice based on emotion and hype rather than science. As it stands, without government intervention (i.e. tax breaks) the additional system cost of a hybrid won't ever pay back for itself in fuel savings during its lifetime. Simple as that. I'd give you the stats but I'm sure you know how to use Google.
900T-R said:
As it stands, without government intervention (i.e. tax breaks) the additional system cost of a hybrid won't ever pay back for itself in fuel savings during its lifetime. Simple as that.
A couple of pages back you claimed hybrids needed subsidies from governments, but declined to back that up with facts. I don't suppose you'd care to justify your claim that a hybrid car benefits from tax breaks? We have one, and receive no tax breaks for it being a hybrid. What tax breaks should we be receiving? Who exactly is relying on emotion and hype in this discussion?
MrTrilby said:
900T-R said:
As it stands, without government intervention (i.e. tax breaks) the additional system cost of a hybrid won't ever pay back for itself in fuel savings during its lifetime. Simple as that.
A couple of pages back you claimed hybrids needed subsidies from governments, but declined to back that up with facts. I don't suppose you'd care to justify your claim that a hybrid car benefits from tax breaks? We have one, and receive no tax breaks for it being a hybrid. What tax breaks should we be receiving? Who exactly is relying on emotion and hype in this discussion?
But at the very least it's in a lower company car tax band than it should be due to its unrealically low EC drive cycle fuel economy figure (the test being geared to start/stop traffic and low average speeds).
In the Netherlands hybrids in addittion benefit from a FIVE THOUSAND EURO registration tax deduction on top of the CO2-output adjected bonus/malus; in addition road tax is based on what the car would have weighed without the additional components for hybridization, not actual weight - hence the high market penetration of the Prius and Civic hybrid, both of which would be uncompatitive in the market at when treated on an equal footing to diesel and petrol cars by the tax man. Everywhere with a high market penetration of hybrids you can bet that similar tax breaks are in place. On a level playing ground, hybrids are simply not cost competitive.
Edited by 900T-R on Sunday 25th October 17:23
900T-R said:
If you don't get any tax breaks or manufacturer 'subsidies' (i.e. the manuacturer makes a net loss on the car for marketing purposes), your Prius will cost you more in terms of TCO than comparable petrol and diesel cars.
WRONG. It doesn't. I've done the maths.900T-R said:
But at the very least it's in a lower company car tax band than it should be due to its unrealically low EC drive cycle fuel economy figure
It's subject to the same EC fuel economy test as all other cars. Someone was moaning earlier in this thread that the new breed of "eco" diesels also cheat in some way. If everyone's cheating on the same test, then it sounds like a level playing field to me. Or will you only argue that the test favours cars you don't like?900T-R said:
In the Netherlands hybrids in addittion benefit from a FIVE THOUSAND EURO registration tax deduction
Well that's very nice for the Netherlands. But it's irrelevant here in the UK where there is no such tax break and the Prius is selling extremely well.So getting back to the thread, people like you argued that diesels and then hybrids wouldn't work economically, yet they've both turned into commercial successes: almost every manufacturer has an "economical" diesel on their price list, and almost every manufacturer has a hybrid announced as "coming soon". If they're actually not economic and not going to make them any money, you best get emailing them now. Mention that they're EV cars will never work either whilst you're at it and save yourself a stamp.
Most of the developments in the motoring industry over the years have one big advantage over the eletric car,they were BETTER than what came before and the EC is not better in any way for the consumer and before anyone says its more economical how can the huge purchase price be ever offset by the tiny advantage it has in pence per mile?
robsti said:
Most of the developments in the motoring industry over the years have one big advantage over the eletric car,they were BETTER than what came before and the EC is not better in any way for the consumer and before anyone says its more economical how can the huge purchase price be ever offset by the tiny advantage it has in pence per mile?
Well, it's £8,500 for a brand new Gwiz, and exactly the same for a Smart Fortwo. So it doesn't take complicated maths for me to show you that one accepts petrol at £5 a gallon, and the other recharges for 90p. If all you are doing is an urban commute, or short shopping runs, a Smart is overkill.I'm not interested in a Gwiz, but it's ideal for my elderly neighbour, which is why he has one. I guess he must at least have his grey-matter still intact. If you can't manage the maths on that one, perhaps it's you that's a little bit senile? Especially since this has been pointed out to you time and time again.
Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 26th October 14:46
Mr Gear said:
robsti said:
Most of the developments in the motoring industry over the years have one big advantage over the eletric car,they were BETTER than what came before and the EC is not better in any way for the consumer and before anyone says its more economical how can the huge purchase price be ever offset by the tiny advantage it has in pence per mile?
Well, it's £8,500 for a brand new Gwiz, and exactly the same for a Smart Fortwo. So it doesn't take complicated maths for me to show you that one accepts petrol at £5 a gallon, and the other recharges for 90p. If all you are doing is an urban commute, or short shopping runs, a Smart is overkill.I'm not interested in a Gwiz, but it's ideal for my elderly neighbour, which is why he has one. I guess he must at least have his grey-matter still intact. If you can't manage the maths on that one, perhaps it's you that's a little bit senile? Especially since this has been pointed out to you time and time again.
Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 26th October 14:46
robsti said:
Mr Gear said:
robsti said:
Most of the developments in the motoring industry over the years have one big advantage over the eletric car,they were BETTER than what came before and the EC is not better in any way for the consumer and before anyone says its more economical how can the huge purchase price be ever offset by the tiny advantage it has in pence per mile?
Well, it's £8,500 for a brand new Gwiz, and exactly the same for a Smart Fortwo. So it doesn't take complicated maths for me to show you that one accepts petrol at £5 a gallon, and the other recharges for 90p. If all you are doing is an urban commute, or short shopping runs, a Smart is overkill.I'm not interested in a Gwiz, but it's ideal for my elderly neighbour, which is why he has one. I guess he must at least have his grey-matter still intact. If you can't manage the maths on that one, perhaps it's you that's a little bit senile? Especially since this has been pointed out to you time and time again.
Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 26th October 14:46
Shock-horror! Some people don't own cars at all!
The thing that irritates me about your posts is that you judge everything on your values and criteria. If it's not good for you, it's s
t. What a wonderful way to see the world...Mr Gear said:
Well, it's £8,500 for a brand new Gwiz, and exactly the same for a Smart Fortwo. So it doesn't take complicated maths for me to show you that one accepts petrol at £5 a gallon, and the other recharges for 90p. If all you are doing is an urban commute, or short shopping runs, a Smart is overkill.
p
Except when you get hit in one...p
Mr Gear said:
I'm not interested in a Gwiz, but it's ideal for my elderly neighbour...
He's old so he it's alright when he dies the first time someone in a real car fails to see his plastic pig? Nice.Funny how car manufacturers have got burdened with ever more draconic safety regulations over the past 25 years for 'the greater good' - which partly expelains why modern cars are way heavier and less efficient than they could be - yet when it's electric and 'ecofriendly' it's perfectly alright to release complete deathtraps onto our roads.
Edited by 900T-R on Monday 26th October 16:34
Mr Gear said:
robsti said:
Mr Gear said:
robsti said:
Most of the developments in the motoring industry over the years have one big advantage over the eletric car,they were BETTER than what came before and the EC is not better in any way for the consumer and before anyone says its more economical how can the huge purchase price be ever offset by the tiny advantage it has in pence per mile?
Well, it's £8,500 for a brand new Gwiz, and exactly the same for a Smart Fortwo. So it doesn't take complicated maths for me to show you that one accepts petrol at £5 a gallon, and the other recharges for 90p. If all you are doing is an urban commute, or short shopping runs, a Smart is overkill.I'm not interested in a Gwiz, but it's ideal for my elderly neighbour, which is why he has one. I guess he must at least have his grey-matter still intact. If you can't manage the maths on that one, perhaps it's you that's a little bit senile? Especially since this has been pointed out to you time and time again.
Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 26th October 14:46
Shock-horror! Some people don't own cars at all!
The thing that irritates me about your posts is that you judge everything on your values and criteria. If it's not good for you, it's s
t. What a wonderful way to see the world...robsti said:
I cant fathom out if you are just a troll or a kid on school holidays?are A4`s good or Gwizi better or no cars better because your ramble of a self contradicting post is unclear.Not every driver lives in the city conjestion zone where EC and Hybrids get a tax break to make them more atractive!Normal people,yourself not included use thier car for more than short city center trips but go on holiday take 4,5,6 pasengers places that are more than 50 60 miles away and low and behold when you need to refuel 10 minutes max later you have extended your range by anothere 600 miles or so in a modern diesel.The flexability of the modern Petrol/diesel car is why i see the world the way i do and if that irritates you so much the better.
I heard a great riposte on Have I Got News For You on Friday: "Don't pretend you don't understand" is how it went. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for you as you are clearly not the sharpest tool in the box, and I don't think you are misunderstanding my posts deliberately, I think you might actually just be a bit thick. As for trolling... that's rich coming from self-confessed troll! Take a look at page 3 of this thread for the abrasive post followed by "GOTCHA" where you obviously found your own joke hilarious. Meh.At least 900T-R has some useful cud to chew on, even if I don't agree with him on everything. However, I do agree with him that the Gwiz is a nasty plastic box that doesn't stand up to much if you crash it. I was merely using the Gwiz to illustrate how wrong Robsti was: you can make an electric vehicle pay from day one if it suits your needs. I know you don't like to hear it Rob, but if you will post without thinking, you're going to look like a tit. Speciality subject for you, I know.
Mr Gear said:
robsti said:
I cant fathom out if you are just a troll or a kid on school holidays?are A4`s good or Gwizi better or no cars better because your ramble of a self contradicting post is unclear.Not every driver lives in the city conjestion zone where EC and Hybrids get a tax break to make them more atractive!Normal people,yourself not included use thier car for more than short city center trips but go on holiday take 4,5,6 pasengers places that are more than 50 60 miles away and low and behold when you need to refuel 10 minutes max later you have extended your range by anothere 600 miles or so in a modern diesel.The flexability of the modern Petrol/diesel car is why i see the world the way i do and if that irritates you so much the better.
I heard a great riposte on Have I Got News For You on Friday: "Don't pretend you don't understand" is how it went. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for you as you are clearly not the sharpest tool in the box, and I don't think you are misunderstanding my posts deliberately, I think you might actually just be a bit thick. As for trolling... that's rich coming from self-confessed troll! Take a look at page 3 of this thread for the abrasive post followed by "GOTCHA" where you obviously found your own joke hilarious. Meh.At least 900T-R has some useful cud to chew on, even if I don't agree with him on everything. However, I do agree with him that the Gwiz is a nasty plastic box that doesn't stand up to much if you crash it. I was merely using the Gwiz to illustrate how wrong Robsti was: you can make an electric vehicle pay from day one if it suits your needs. I know you don't like to hear it Rob, but if you will post without thinking, you're going to look like a tit. Speciality subject for you, I know.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff