RE: All-electric Caterham Seven promised
Discussion
otolith said:
Why? They'd only get driven more if someone else owned them!
The point is, yes, those are luxuries. I'm not in denial about that. I'm about to spend several hundred quid fitting a few grand's worth of supercharger to the Elise, which will make a car already unnecessarily quick somewhat quicker and somewhat more thirsty. This is utterly unnecessary. This is a luxury. This is me being a man-child and spending my money on toys I don't need.
Unlike some, I'm not crying because the grown-ups have said that this is going to have to come to an end.
No, you’re commenting how wasteful we all are, whilst owning three cars yourself? The point is, yes, those are luxuries. I'm not in denial about that. I'm about to spend several hundred quid fitting a few grand's worth of supercharger to the Elise, which will make a car already unnecessarily quick somewhat quicker and somewhat more thirsty. This is utterly unnecessary. This is a luxury. This is me being a man-child and spending my money on toys I don't need.
Unlike some, I'm not crying because the grown-ups have said that this is going to have to come to an end.
otolith said:
Yeah - and they think that their arbitrary line delineating what fripperies they wouldn't care to give up is objectively correct and everyone else's is wrong.
I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
There are the basics somewhere warm, dry, secure and comfortable to live; sufficient quantity of palatable food.I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
Then personally I need enough space from other people and sufficient mental stimulation to make me still want to keep breathing. Then designing and building stuff is what makes existing enjoyable, it has the advantage of keeping me off the dole too.
Toltec said:
There are the basics somewhere warm, dry, secure and comfortable to live; sufficient quantity of palatable food.
Then personally I need enough space from other people and sufficient mental stimulation to make me still want to keep breathing. Then designing and building stuff is what makes existing enjoyable, it has the advantage of keeping me off the dole too.
Then personally I need enough space from other people and sufficient mental stimulation to make me still want to keep breathing. Then designing and building stuff is what makes existing enjoyable, it has the advantage of keeping me off the dole too.
otolith said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
otolith said:
So - what is your alternative solution to decarbonise personal transport?
I don't have one, and don't believe there is one, especially when we are increasing the numbers of us, who will want to have and consume resources, and consequently produce emissions.Still I suspect that `trying' to do that, does make some people feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves.
king up the climate then? That's your answer?Did you know that the global energy consumption for computers, and the emissions coming from their manufacture, and use (not even taking into account the heated, cooled and illuminated buildings that most computers are used in) is greater than the energy consumption and emissions attributed to global aviation, Does this mean we must stop using our computers, as well as trying to reduce global aviation?
Why do people make the mistake of focusing on just one part of what the global population has done, and is doing to the planet, and seem to ignore all the other things, that a colossal global population does to the planet? Doing this, makes their stated aim of saving the planet weak, and not really believable. it seem like they only want to play at saving the planet at best.
Max_Torque said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
These are just a few of the questions that no one seems to have any real answers for at present.
No answers? really:But will we be seeing increased deaths from pedestrians being run over by quiet EV`s driver ?
No. Because to kill someone with a car you really have to hit them at some speed. Realistically runing into someone at 3mph is not actually going to kill them. EVs make just as much noise as an ICE when at >15mph because most of the noise comes from the tyres and the air being pushed out of the way.
And of course, since 202o, new EVs by law must be fitted with low speed noise makers to avoid minor injury from low speed collisons with pedestrians
Will we run out of the rare and expensive raw materials needed for the batteries?
No for two reasons:
The major chemical elements used i a battery are not in any way rare. The "rare" elements do not make up a large proportion of the battery. A typical EV battery has around 10kg of Lithium in it. Worldwide identified Lithium reserves in 2020 and 2021 were estimated by the US Geological Survey (USGS) to be 17 million and 21 million tonnes. And as we know, if an element becomes in short supply, it's price goes up, and that gives an incentive to go out and find some more.
A battery does not "use up" any of the chemicals it is made from, and hence can be recycled and reused. As EV volumes ramp up, and there start to be large end-of-life batterys available it's going to be cheaper and eaiser to simply recycle those (As we already do with the conventional 12v lead acid battery in our cars)
Will the generation, and power grids be able able to cope with the massively increased demand?
Simple answer: YES. (see my other posts in this subject)
In fact a large private EV ownership is BENEFICIAL to a grid,because that massive storage capacity can be used to load level a dynamic grid that is made up from less predictable renewable sources.
what effect will increased generation have on emissions, will we have to go nuclear to meet anywhere near the increased demand?
EVs will allow reduced generation emissons because they can be used to load level a highly renwable grid, enabling that gird to be made up from a much more dynamic mix of generation assets. That load leveling also helps replace highly polluting but quick reacting generators such as gas turbine plants, or plants otherwise kept idling simply to enable a quick start
What does an EV driver who was not diligent in recharging their vehicle do when their battery runs out, whilst stuck for a long time in a traffic jam?, EV`s cannot easily be towed.
Assuming they have got to a totally flat battery (which is actually pretty hard to do, because modern EVs slow down gradually with lots of warning before they actual stop completely) they call a recovery service. Today, most services now include portable generators that are used to put enough charge into that cars battery to get it to a source of power (either a charger or just any 13a plug you can borrow).
And EVs can be towed if done correctly, and in fact, you can "Tow charge" an EV with the recovery truck as long as the battery isn't completely flat. Most recovery firms already have a "wheels lifted" service for recovering crashed and damaged cars anyway.
How many of the currently available motor technicians, will the motor industry lose, when there are no more ICE motors to work on? a failed electric motor wont need much work to replace, so will we just have electric motor fitters, and factories, churning out electric motors
Most car mechanics are already "fitters". Few mechanics actually carry out major rebuilds or reworks because modern cars are too complex, too expensive to pay for the amount of time it takes to actually properly rebuild a modern engine. Those fitters can easily change a battery pack module or cell if they can currently change a clutch or a set of brakes.
Will there be any point in motor sport any more, if everyone is just driving a hair dryer (see I am doing it now) The electric car racing seen so far, is just boring, soul less, and hardly worth watching.
Frankly, i find most modern motorsport boring. Rich people driving round in circles following each other in a series that has so many rules that the race itself becomes irrelevant. The winner of most modern motorsport is the team with the deepest pockets. The driver is already a "bit part" player ime.
ICE motorsport is increasinly hobbled by some vane attempt to be green, with fuel economy targets, quieter cars, and lets be honest, most motorsport is now at a level of performance where the key skill is "tyre management" and hence the old days of drifting around spectacularly are long gone.
Is EV motorsport any more boring? Probably, but i personally think all motorsport has had it day tbh. It grew up to replace the risk taking of the world wars immediately prior to it's mass interest, when you had a choice of "doing nothing" or "watching someone else do something". Today, thanks to better quality of life and more disposable income, most people can afford a hobby to do themselves rather than vicariously watching someone else do theirs, and thanks to virtual and online capabilities, the average teenager is going to find simple watching motorsports incredibly boring. Much more fun to race there mates virtually and be included in the action, even if virtual action!
Will there be any point in having tuning workshops and the skilled staff who currently work in them.
You can tune an EV, just like you can tune an ICE. Most ICE modifications these days are either stick on visuals (bigger wheels, body wraps etc) or electronic tuning of control units, and that won't change for an EV. A huge number of "tuners" are simply reflashers, and have little or no knowledge of how an engine works....
Pan Pan Pan said:
Of course there are always an arrogant few, who believe they know all the answers, aren't there?
If educating yourself, and going out of ones way to find and work out the answers is arrogant, then so be it.Edited by Max_Torque on Friday 21st May 13:27
For example a driver killed his daughter by reversing into her on his own driveway at 1 mph. the moment `any' vehicle is moving at an speed it has enough energy in it, to kill or seriously injure whatever it hits, Speed only increases the certainty of its ability to kill.
The rest just seems like unsubstantiated optimism, rather than true reality, especially if the demand for vehicles of any kind, outstrips the Earths ability to provide the base materials for them, and even more importantly the ability of some, to pay for them.
In the 60 s many thought we would be driving turbine, or nuclear cars, or even flying cars, in the future. That too was a case of unsubstantiated optimism. I will believe it when I actually see it .
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only if a person is so arrogant they believe that the answers `they' come up with are always correct, I don't believe your answers above are.
For example a driver killed his daughter by reversing into her on his own driveway at 1 mph. the moment `any' vehicle is moving at an speed it has enough energy in it, to kill or seriously injure whatever it hits, Speed only increases the certainty of its ability to kill.
The rest just seems like unsubstantiated optimism, rather than true reality, especially if the demand for vehicles of any kind, outstrips the Earths ability to provide the base materials for them, and even more importantly the ability of some, to pay for them.
In the 60 s many thought we would be driving turbine, or nuclear cars, or even flying cars, in the future. That too was a case of unsubstantiated optimism. I will believe it when I actually see it .
So basically you're already convinced of what the issues are an no amount of reasoned argument is going to sway you.For example a driver killed his daughter by reversing into her on his own driveway at 1 mph. the moment `any' vehicle is moving at an speed it has enough energy in it, to kill or seriously injure whatever it hits, Speed only increases the certainty of its ability to kill.
The rest just seems like unsubstantiated optimism, rather than true reality, especially if the demand for vehicles of any kind, outstrips the Earths ability to provide the base materials for them, and even more importantly the ability of some, to pay for them.
In the 60 s many thought we would be driving turbine, or nuclear cars, or even flying cars, in the future. That too was a case of unsubstantiated optimism. I will believe it when I actually see it .
Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
SWoll said:
So basically you're already convinced of what the issues are an no amount of reasoned argument is going to sway you.
Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
He has a valid point. Max_Talk’s posts are very biased and he’s obviously one who cannot consider any other option. There’s so much with EV that nobody can qualify right now. But, the main issue is there is not a single electric car that matches what is already called the dinosaur. EV IMO is Betamax. Porsche have already invested in bio fuel, why would we think a nuclear power station is the answer to clean power generation Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
it’s an engineers wet dream. But it’s be great if our resident expert could just clarify the fundamentals concisely instead of doing what he does best.....
ddom said:
SWoll said:
So basically you're already convinced of what the issues are an no amount of reasoned argument is going to sway you.
Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
He has a valid point. Max_Talk’s posts are very biased and he’s obviously one who cannot consider any other option. There’s so much with EV that nobody can qualify right now. But, the main issue is there is not a single electric car that matches what is already called the dinosaur. EV IMO is Betamax. Porsche have already invested in bio fuel, why would we think a nuclear power station is the answer to clean power generation Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
it’s an engineers wet dream. But it’s be great if our resident expert could just clarify the fundamentals concisely instead of doing what he does best.....
EVERY SINGLE TIME I TRY TO POST DIRECT, CLEAR INFORMATION YOU TROLL ME
I'M out. Thanks PH, but i can't be bothered anymore.
To the genuine, interesting posters, thanks, the last 20 years on here has been a laugh, and the true petrolheads have been a pleasure to meet.
To the Trolls, i hope you get stuck under your bridges and drown in the flood.......
Bye all,
SWoll said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only if a person is so arrogant they believe that the answers `they' come up with are always correct, I don't believe your answers above are.
For example a driver killed his daughter by reversing into her on his own driveway at 1 mph. the moment `any' vehicle is moving at an speed it has enough energy in it, to kill or seriously injure whatever it hits, Speed only increases the certainty of its ability to kill.
The rest just seems like unsubstantiated optimism, rather than true reality, especially if the demand for vehicles of any kind, outstrips the Earths ability to provide the base materials for them, and even more importantly the ability of some, to pay for them.
In the 60 s many thought we would be driving turbine, or nuclear cars, or even flying cars, in the future. That too was a case of unsubstantiated optimism. I will believe it when I actually see it .
So basically you're already convinced of what the issues are an no amount of reasoned argument is going to sway you.For example a driver killed his daughter by reversing into her on his own driveway at 1 mph. the moment `any' vehicle is moving at an speed it has enough energy in it, to kill or seriously injure whatever it hits, Speed only increases the certainty of its ability to kill.
The rest just seems like unsubstantiated optimism, rather than true reality, especially if the demand for vehicles of any kind, outstrips the Earths ability to provide the base materials for them, and even more importantly the ability of some, to pay for them.
In the 60 s many thought we would be driving turbine, or nuclear cars, or even flying cars, in the future. That too was a case of unsubstantiated optimism. I will believe it when I actually see it .
Glad we've finally got that sorted out.
Some people don't want to see what is at the root, of just about every environmental issue facing the planet, especially when they have done, or even just like doing, or will continue to want to do the very things that are affecting the planet/climate.
Still they have been successful, in getting certain groups to squabble amongst themselves about minor issues, whilst taking attention away from, and allowing the root cause of what is damaging the planet, to carry on doing what it has always done, and will continue to do.
DonkeyApple said:
ddom said:
Such a miserable outlook. I don’t believe anyone would think like that tbh. As for environmental damage, until certain parts of the globe tow the line it’s just pissing in the wind.
Yup, those terrible little third world chaps making all the tat that Westerners demand. 
. We, as a Western society must understand that we've reduced our pollution by outsourcing it to the third world. All those dirty factories in Asia filling the holds of ships with goods for us innocent chaps in the West and our little credit cards. All those terrible people ripping and digging up the planet for the materials to make the things we fill our homes with. 
Which was why for centuries the UK was known as the `workshop of the world'.
This means that for centuries, other countries were exporting `their' emissions to the UK.
It is only in the last few years of the 20th century that the UK was outsourcing its pollution to other countries.
But as repeatedly stated people only want to moan about, or play with their tiny part of the picture, because that then allows them to ignore what is at the root of what many believe is destroying the planet and it climate.
otolith said:
In the sense that creating a depression would put the brakes on consumption, definitely!
It's not even as dramatic as a depression. Just pulling back money supply slightly has a positive impact on pollution. It's really interesting when you overlay GDP with consumer spending, consumer borrowing and pollution.
The most recent clear event was 2009/10 post the credit crunch. Pollution fell because consumption fell and you can track this back through the data.
What we're not talking about here is crippling the economy but de frothing it. Again at this point we can look at the UK housing market in 2010 when it was de leveraged. It didn't collapse but what the changes did was to remove some of the excess debt that was fuelling an excessive asset inflation.
So, carry this forward to private cars and what you can see is that the most polluting vehicles have their use procured via credit. Fuel taxation doesn't work other than to migrate more users of large cars to diesel. VED doesn't work as the premium gets wrapped into the debt so magically disappears. But placing a cap on debt assigned to non EVs would make big CC cars vanish from the shelves overnight. Simply capping car related finance to £20k for example would have zero impact on the market in terms of essential mobility but your £40k plus non EVs would practically evaporate. You wouldn't be taxing anyone, you wouldn't be giving grants to anyone. Anyone wanting a big, expensive car would have no option other than to switch to EV so as to get the lend they need.
Lax credit is the true driver of pollution but the tax receipts from the lax credit is what the State is built upon. It's precisely why consumer credit has been systematically deregulated since the 80s by successive governments. It's the quickest way to create synthetic wealth and the feel good factor that goes with it followed by the rampant consumption, asset inflation and ultimately votes and tax receipts to boot. It's exactly why property lending was deregulated in the late 90s to allow a bank to sell on its exposure to the secondary market. That single change released excessive lending and an asset boom that made everyone feel far richer than they were and so went shopping. At the turn of the century consumer lending was then further deregulated for the exact same reason to increase shopping and so on and so on. China didn't suddenly start spewing out tonnes of pollution because everyone in China wanted vast amounts of tat but because we outsourced the manufacturing of our tat to it on a monumental scale over the last theee decades of debt deregulation and rampant shopping.
You point out quite rightly that Caterham is pretty irrelevant and also quite rightly that they are caught up in the drive to EV and must evolve but all I am highlighting is that when you apply common sense and honesty the reality is that nothing Caterham ever sell can ever be considered remotely environmental due to the fact that it sells non essential, luxury goods which are bought only ever with excess capital.
You'd have to mental to buy an EV Caterham on environmental grounds as there are none so the key, in reality, and what is the exciting bit is will an electric drivetrain in this type of vehicle offer us excess consumers, excess polluters a different and good experience as we consume and pollute?
. I think an electric Caterham could be an awful lot of fun. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff