Would UK be ready for 2030 new petrol car ban?

[GT119]

Gandahar said:

SWoll said:

Gandahar said:

ZesPak said:

SWoll said:

EV's also play a part in reducing this pollution due to the use of one-pedal driving, especially around town. Very rarely use our brakes in daily driving.

The tyres one is interesting. On one hand the linear way in which EV's deliver their power does appear to reduce the likelihood of wheelspin or tyre scrabble in comparison to ICE but obviously the weight penalty of the EV drivetrain may have a negative affect. All I can say after running a 500bhp, 2 tonne EV for 12 months is that the tyres are barely worn which is a significant improvement on any number of previously owned, significantly less powerful ICE cars.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.
On top of that more powerful ev's are 4wd, which also reduces wheelspin.

And, running a 500+bhp 2.3t saloon for over a year, no wear on the brakes thanks to regenerative braking.
I'd love to see a breakdown of exhaust/tyres/brakes stake in laboratory conditions.

Btw, as mentioned, a lot of these pollutions are hot spot in city with crawling vehicles. So my bet would be that tyre and brake dust play minimal part there.

Poorest excuse ever for EV cars.

Or get an ICE car with something called traction control? Your 2.3 tonne saloon probably had a lot of brake wear on the CAT 789 transporting all that lithium out of the ground ontop of the steel...

This argument has gone down the rabbit hole......

You;re arguing a completely different point, we were discussing local air quality in built up areas?

Every ICE car I referred to had traction control, didn't appear to stop the tyres wearing a lot quicker due to the inherent spikiness of the way power is delivered via the ICE powertrain (and that includes AWD ICE cars).

No I'm not. Re-read it.

Like I said, you don't know the entire life cycle of brakes and tyres polluting the environment with particles including what vehicles were used in getting stuff out of the ground, or even transporting those batteries around....

You have no stats on this at all apart from "appear" in your words. Completely non scientific. It smacks of dragging a feeble argument and stretching it to far just to be righteous on a forum to win a point.

Perhaps back to more sensible things?

Did you see my post about high frequency torsional vibration and its effect on tyre wear?

Traction control will have no impact on this mechanism.

Electric motors significantly reduce this vibration.

[ZesPak]

Gandahar said:

A small ICE car such as an Aygo has 165 15inch tyres and small brake pads, it is light so does not need much braking. How does that compare particulates from road and tyres for a heavy EV on 235s even with regenerative braking.

You know a Renault Zoe has 185's, right?
Or are you talking about all these people that used to buy base level Aygo's and are now in Model S'?

[ElectricSoup]

Why compare an Aygo with a Nissan Leaf, even? I have a Leaf, but if I had an ICE car it wouldn't be an Aygo. It'd be a Focus, or similar sized car. My Leaf will likely, at worst, need one set of replacement brake pads in its lifetime, if any at all. You can't say the same for a Focus, or even a poxy Aygo.

Compare an Aygo with a Honda E, or other smaller EV coming to market. EV does not equal Tesla Model X.

[ZesPak]

ElectricSoup said:

Why compare an Aygo with a Nissan Leaf, even? I have a Leaf, but if I had an ICE car it wouldn't be an Aygo. It'd be a Focus, or similar sized car. My Leaf will likely, at worst, need one set of replacement brake pads in its lifetime, if any at all. You can't say the same for a Focus, or even a poxy Aygo.

Compare an Aygo with a Honda E, or other smaller EV coming to market. EV does not equal Tesla Model X.

That's why.

Edited by ZesPak on Thursday 19th November 13:25

[SWoll]

GT119 said:

Did you see my post about high frequency torsional vibration and its effect on tyre wear?

Traction control will have no impact on this mechanism.

Electric motors significantly reduce this vibration.

Yep, and using physical brakes considerably less due to regen clearly also affects the amount of particulates that braking generates at a the local level we are discussing?

Quite what any of this has to do with mining of components and manufacturing of EV's I don't know.

[anonymous-user]

SWoll said:

Quite what any of this has to do with mining of components and manufacturing of EV's I don't know.

It's DISTRACTION. It's a modern way of still argueing when the facts are stacked against you but you're incapable of admitting you're mistaken in your beliefs or understandings

See also :WHATABOUTERY


For example:

Poster 1) EVs use much less energy than ICEs - with data showing typical EV does about 180 mpg equivalent

Poster 2) Nah, they don't, because, er, because, WHATABOUT tyre wear

Poster 1) EVs have lower tyre wear than ICEs - (lower macro slip)

Poster 2) BUT, brake pad pollution...

Poster 1) EVs have lower brake pad poluution because they regen

Poster 2) Misunderstands existing stufy or scientific report due to not reading it properly, not being a subject area expert, or inbuilt bias in an effort to prove their point - " studies show brake and tyre particulates to be increasing in our cities"

Poster 1) Of course, traffic levels are net increasing over time, and the EV fleet is not yet sufficient to act to limit that increase ie most of those cars are still ICEs

Poster 2) WHAT ABOUT THE LITHIUM MINES......


;-)

[GT119]

SWoll said:

GT119 said:

Did you see my post about high frequency torsional vibration and its effect on tyre wear?

Traction control will have no impact on this mechanism.

Electric motors significantly reduce this vibration.

Yep, and using physical brakes considerably less due to regen clearly also affects the amount of particulates that braking generates at a the local level we are discussing?

Quite what any of this has to do with mining of components and manufacturing of EV's I don't know.

Somewhere along the way it seems that either pub talk, a dodgy soundbite or SM post or some fake newz from a tabloid set some people off on an anti-EV crusade. It's almost like EVs are seen as an insult to one's manliness.

I absolutely love driving my ICE petrol cars, and I don't own an EV, but I'm under no illusion where we are headed and how vastly better in every single way they are at just moving people from one point to another.

To me, the only way to save the situation for car enthusiasts is to ditch every single diesel full stop and every single petrol where an EV is the far better option.

It's not going to be an ideal outcome for a petrolhead by any stretch, but the writing is so clear on the wall, that I can't help laugh every time we get one of these 'EVs are the Devil's spawn' rants.

[ElectricSoup]

GT119 said:

SWoll said:

GT119 said:

Did you see my post about high frequency torsional vibration and its effect on tyre wear?

Traction control will have no impact on this mechanism.

Electric motors significantly reduce this vibration.

Yep, and using physical brakes considerably less due to regen clearly also affects the amount of particulates that braking generates at a the local level we are discussing?

Quite what any of this has to do with mining of components and manufacturing of EV's I don't know.

Somewhere along the way it seems that either pub talk, a dodgy soundbite or SM post or some fake newz from a tabloid set some people off on an anti-EV crusade. It's almost like EVs are seen as an insult to one's manliness.

I absolutely love driving my ICE petrol cars, and I don't own an EV, but I'm under no illusion where we are headed and how vastly better in every single way they are at just moving people from one point to another.

To me, the only way to save the situation for car enthusiasts is to ditch every single diesel full stop and every single petrol where an EV is the far better option.

It's not going to be ideal outcome for a petrolhead by any stretch, but the writing is so clear on the wall, that I can't help laugh every time we get one of these 'EVs are the Devil's spawn' rants.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/driving-a-milk-float-makes-you-impotent-a-man-who-knows-nothing-about-electric-cars-answers-your-questions-20201119202679

[GT119]

I think the other thing that is obvious is how difficult it seems to be to engage in a discussion about them, from all sides.

The full answer to a short, inaccurate throwaway statement usually has significant technical content that may need layman type explanations and need to cover several separate but co-dependent facets.

People either lose interest and disappear from these threads as quickly as they arrived or the responding poster (and I include myself in this) comes across as supercilious and things start to get a bit heated.

[anonymous-user]

GT119 said:

I think the other thing that is obvious is how difficult it seems to be to engage in a discussion about them, from all sides.

The full answer to a short, inaccurate throwaway statement usually has significant technical content that may need layman type explanations and need to cover several separate but co-dependent facets.

People either lose interest and disappear from these threads as quickly as they arrived or the responding poster (and I include myself in this) comes across as supercilious and things start to get a bit heated.

Again, the problem is the modern "short facts" that people seem to see on line, believe and then be incapable of critically considering and thinking about.

Science is complex, which is why most people aren't scientists, and yet we seem to have a socital issue where the layman can be a googleexpert and therefore ignore actual, scientific fact, especially where that scientific fact is very complex.

Take the following statement: "Making an EV battery is more polluting than making an ICE powertrain"

You see it a lot, you'll even see scientific studies showing it to be true, but consider it for a moment.

Ignore for a moment everything you have heard, read, know or believe. Why at a fundamental physical level is a BEV battery more environmentally damaging to make than an equivalent ICE powertrain?

And if you do that, you might perhaps come to a rather interesting conclusion, namely, it isn't ! (or more accurately, it doesn't have to be)


But, the average man in the street or person on forum not only has not got the knowledge, depth of experience, or frankly time and interest to do this. And to refute a claim so complex as this one takes much more effort and time that to make it, so it tends to propagate and expand, until suddenly it's taken as gospel by all and sundry, and once people "believe it" then it's just about impossible to change their minds

I think it also highlights that we as a society take too little heed to EXPERIENCE as well as QUALIFICATIONS.

IE I think i'm preasonably intelligent, i reckon i can reasonably quickly understand most scientific subjects, but i suspect that you'd be pretty wary if i announced i was going to do your heart surgery operation because i've googled it and it doesn't look that hard, as opposed to an actual heart surgen with a Doctorate and 25 years of experience of doing these operations!

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 19th November 15:13

[GT119]

Max_Torque said:

GT119 said:

I think the other thing that is obvious is how difficult it seems to be to engage in a discussion about them, from all sides.

The full answer to a short, inaccurate throwaway statement usually has significant technical content that may need layman type explanations and need to cover several separate but co-dependent facets.

People either lose interest and disappear from these threads as quickly as they arrived or the responding poster (and I include myself in this) comes across as supercilious and things start to get a bit heated.

Again, the problem is the modern "short facts" that people seem to see on line, believe and then be incapable of critically considering and thinking about.

Science is complex, which is why most people aren't scientists, and yet we seem to have a socital issue where the layman can be a googleexpert and therefore ignore actual, scientific fact, especially where that scientific fact is very complex.

Take the following statement: "Making an EV battery is more polluting than making an ICE powertrain"

You see it a lot, you'll even see scientific studies showing it to be true, but consider it for a moment.

Ignore for a moment everything you have heard, read, know or believe. Why at a fundamental physical level is a BEV battery more environmentally damaging to make than an equivalent ICE powertrain?

And if you do that, you might perhaps come to a rather interesting conclusion, namely, it isn't ! (or more accurately, it doesn't have to be)


But, the average man in the street or person on forum not only has not got the knowledge, depth of experience, or frankly time and interest to do this. And to refute a claim so complex as this one takes much more effort and time that to make it, so it tends to propagate and expand, until suddenly it's taken as gospel by all and sundry, and once people "believe it" then it's just about impossible to change their minds

I think it also highlights that we as a society take too little heed to EXPERIENCE as well as QUALIFICATIONS.

IE I think i'm preasonably intelligent, i reckon i can reasonably quickly understand most scientific subjects, but i suspect that you'd be pretty wary if i announced i was going to do your heart surgery operation because i've googled it and it doesn't look that hard, as opposed to an actual heart surgen with a Doctorate and 25 years of experience of doing these operations!

Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 19th November 15:13

Preaching to the converted here.

First principles rule!

[ElectricSoup]

Max_Torque said:

But, the average man in the street or person on forum not only has not got the knowledge, depth of experience, or frankly time and interest to do this. And to refute a claim so complex as this one takes much more effort and time that to make it, so it tends to propagate and expand, until suddenly it's taken as gospel by all and sundry, and once people "believe it" then it's just about impossible to change their minds

Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 19th November 15:13

Quite. See also Trump, Brexit.

[Longboarder1967]

The original topic question was something along the lines of ‘would the UK be ready for a ban on new petrol cars in 2030.’ I would suggest - probably not. The theoretical tech is all there but there is no sign of the pace of adoption meeting that timescale. We’re also recovering from the worst depression ever - albeit one that we may bounce back from. Boris hiding in his bunker and making pronouncements doesn’t mean that it’s going to actually happen and it’s an easy thing for his government to promise. After all - are any of the current cabinet going to be on office in 2030? And if their view is that they won’t be then a 2030 ban is a no brainier for a populist minded politician. It’s a real crowd pleaser with no downside. Let’s see what happens to the red wall when families discover that they’ll have to replace their S-max for a Twizy.

[Toaster Pilot]

Longboarder1967 said:

Let’s see what happens to the red wall when families discover that they’ll have to replace their S-max for a Twizy.

What the juddering fk are you on about? Absolute nonsense.

[Longboarder1967]

Thankyou forn your reply ToasterPilot and I admire your certainty that I am talking codswallop. Maybe you're right or maybe not. Let's see what happens by 2030. My prediction (and I'll admit I'm less certain than you seem to be) is that in a democratic country a forced personal vehicle downgrade in order to support a sudden EV shift won't ultimately fly. But hey maybe I'm wrong and if it makes you feel better do feel free to throw another pseudo expletive my way.

[wisbech]

Longboarder1967 said:

Thankyou forn your reply ToasterPilot and I admire your certainty that I am talking codswallop. Maybe you're right or maybe not. Let's see what happens by 2030. My prediction (and I'll admit I'm less certain than you seem to be) is that in a democratic country a forced personal vehicle downgrade in order to support a sudden EV shift won't ultimately fly. But hey maybe I'm wrong and if it makes you feel better do feel free to throw another pseudo expletive my way.

The thing is, it clearly states that new ICE car sales are over in 2030, and hybrid 2035. This doesn't mean a forced personal vehicle downgrade, as you can keep on running your S-Max, or buy a second hand one. For a historic example, front seat belts came mandatory in new cars in 1968 ISTR. Didn't mean that people were forced to scrap their cars and buy new. In 2020 you can still find, buy and legally drive second hand cars without seat belts, should you so wish. (albeit subject to some restrictions, like not being allowed kids in the car)

Edited by wisbech on Friday 20th November 08:06

[JonChalk]

wisbech said:

Longboarder1967 said:

Thankyou forn your reply ToasterPilot and I admire your certainty that I am talking codswallop. Maybe you're right or maybe not. Let's see what happens by 2030. My prediction (and I'll admit I'm less certain than you seem to be) is that in a democratic country a forced personal vehicle downgrade in order to support a sudden EV shift won't ultimately fly. But hey maybe I'm wrong and if it makes you feel better do feel free to throw another pseudo expletive my way.

The thing is, it clearly states that new ICE car sales are over in 2030, and hybrid 2035. This doesn't mean a forced personal vehicle downgrade, as you can keep on running your S-Max, or buy a second hand one. For a historic example, front seat belts came mandatory in new cars in 1968 ISTR. Didn't mean that people were forced to scrap their cars and buy new. In 2020 you can still find, buy and legally drive second hand cars without seat belts, should you so wish. (albeit subject to some restrictions, like not being allowed kids in the car)

Edited by wisbech on Friday 20th November 08:06

Plus, give or take, anyone who can afford an S-Max now (be it new or secondhand), will be able to afford an S-Max EV equivalent in the future (be it new or secondhand), or a secondhand S-Max equivalent in 2033 (say).

[kambites]

I think the transition to EV will in practice mean an upgrade for 90+% of people. I think the commitment to ban new sales is more about pushing the private sector (especially those elements of the private sector which have a vested interest in the status quo) into improving infrastructure than about forcing individual people to change; for the huge majority of people the latter will probably happen naturally as soon as the former does.

Edited by kambites on Friday 20th November 09:58

[Toaster Pilot]

Longboarder1967 said:

Thankyou forn your reply ToasterPilot and I admire your certainty that I am talking codswallop. Maybe you're right or maybe not. Let's see what happens by 2030. My prediction (and I'll admit I'm less certain than you seem to be) is that in a democratic country a forced personal vehicle downgrade in order to support a sudden EV shift won't ultimately fly. But hey maybe I'm wrong and if it makes you feel better do feel free to throw another pseudo expletive my way.

There is absolutely nothing suggested by the ban of the sale of NEW petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and hybrids from 2035 that suggests you’d need to swap a S-Max for a Twizy under any circumstances. You’re being hysterical for effect just like all of the “OMG THE GRID WILL NEVER COPE” “YOU’RE PRICING THE POOR OFF THE ROADS” “EVERYONE IN THE U.K. LIVES SOMEWHERE WITHOUT OFF STREET PARKING” retards.

[Shieldsy94]

Well they have 10-15 years to sort out charging that takes very little time to replace "petrol stations" or set up new ones, figure out on street charging and how to bill us from anywhere in the country, figure out range and barriers to entry (cost of buying an EV vs a base model petrol car).

Once they have those sorted, which I doubt within 10-15 years, then it will work.