RE: All good things come to an end in 2035

RE: All good things come to an end in 2035

Author
Discussion

monty quick

211 posts

188 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
rick.e said:
Surely the challenge of getting it to the kerbside can't be that hard to solve.
I keep sounding totally negative but I honestly cannot see how enough charging points for 40million vehicles can be achieved.

Sorry for the daft statistic but at the moment each UK household has 1.4 cars and this average is increasing.
OK, for a detached house with a drive, it is easy to understand how the owners could charge their 1.4 cars.
But in a terraced street, high rise apartments, country lane cottages, city centre mews, over-shop flats, etc., etc. it is literally impossible.

Your point about street lights seems reasonable except many areas do not have street lighting and due to energy concerns the number of light points is being reduced. A further problem is that a street lantern is wired for a total load of about 400Watts so clearly the wiring will not support EV charging.

The obvious answer is that mass parking areas will have to be provided with charging points. Perhaps the power companies would be prepared to make the necessary investment to make this happen. Even if this was the case they would charge 'through the nose' for the privilege and we would all need to drive to a supermarket or the like to charge our cars.

Your points about Hydrogen are mostly correct, except - only a fraction of the development costs have been put into Fuel Cell vehicles compared to EV (therefore advances must be possible); it is a sustainable method of powering vehicles (I have seen no evidence to suggest battery technology is sustainable); the current Petrol & Diesel Infrastructure could easily be adapted to utilise Hydrogen; storage and transportation of Hydrogen can be as safe as dealing with High Octane Petrol, LPG, etc. (although at the moment it would be more expensive).
I do not claim to know all the answers. Unfortunately, I know enough to make me incredibly sceptical about the possibility of successfully having 40million EV's in the UK.

otolith

40,357 posts

156 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
There are certainly advances to be made in fuel cell efficiency. We know the theoretical maximum efficiency and they are not achieving that. But we also know that the theoretical maximum is rubbish, and already beaten by real world battery efficiency.

Black S2K

976 posts

201 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Just to throw another 1/2" AF into the gearbox, there are currently problems with FC degradation, too; they like very pure air as well as H2.

I'm sure the likes of GM/Honda will gradually fix that and FCs are likely a good solution for HGVs, whereas buses probably suit being BEVs, since they largely move air around with some bodies in it. But there will still be places an ICE cannot be beaten.

TL/DR: Chrysler were still messing round with steam turbines in the early 1960s. The ICE is in decline but with hybridisation (yech!) and further development, it'll be with us a very long time yet.

Oh - and an adjustable wrench: if abiogenic oil theory is correct, we'll likely not run out. It may get too expensive to burn (except by petrolheads) but it'll still be around for other stuff. Chances seem to be that we'll run out of sufficient reserves of fresh water first, unless it starts raining properly and we conserve it a bit better.



nightflight

798 posts

169 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
monty quick said:
I am not pro EV nor anti-EV. I just feel that 'banning' petrol and diesel is too heavy handed. Yes, I know ICE are inherently inefficient but look at the improvements that have been made over the last 15years and then consider what might be possible in another 15 years.

The whole life carbon cost of a typical small EV (at the moment) is far worse than the whole life carbon cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle (in sheer whole life calculations a Tesla X would equate to something like two Range Rovers) AT THE MOMENT!!! Of course this will improve.
All battery chemistries have a defined (and relatively short) life and the faster you charge the batteries the shorter life gets. Therefore, EV charging will always need many minutes.

My problem is therefore infrastructure. Just for my doomsday scenario bear with me. Imagine that in 2038 almost all of the 40million + cars in the UK are now EV's.

Now imagine just about any street, in any town that has 1930's - 1960's terraced houses both sides of the road. Almost every house has one car on the front garden and a second car crammed somewhere on the street (two wheels up the kerb to allow traffic to flow). Now imagine all of the heavy duty cables running to those cars from charging points in the houses (somewhere else??); imaging the old electricity infrastructure almost glowing red due to being overloaded; imaging the thieves at night coming along and stealing all that expensive copper wire, etc., etc. OK, not all the cars can get connected at home - that's OK they can drive to the dedicated public charging points (somewhere??) but 'oh no' there are already 25 cars connected and another 5 waiting - damn! Some of those cars are fully charged but the owners have gone off shopping!

Yes of course I am painting a 'worst case' picture but tell me; with reducing fuel tax revenues juts how is the EV infrastructure going to avoid my doomsday scenario??

This is why I keep hoping that Hydrogen Fuel Cells can be rapidly and dramatically developed because then some of those 40million vehicles could still just pop into the service station for a 'fill-up'.
Well said. I accept that the majority of cars are going to be EV, and I think that is where the problem will be for petrolheads who want to continue with their toys just for weekends etc. Will it be viable for the petrol companies to still produce petrol and deliver it to petrol stations? Perhaps if we go for hydrogen vehicles (which seem a more practical answer), then we can have petrol pumps and hydrogen pumps at the same points.

Pan Pan Pan

5,754 posts

63 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
marky911 said:
Dog Star said:
There's some really vehement and irrational anti-ev stuff on here - I think a lot of this is this sheep-like PH "V8 weekend toy" adenoidal fantasist nonsense.

The piston engine is an anachronism - it really shouldn't exist any more. If we were starting with a blank slate right now and designing cars for the first time do you really think they'd have IC piston engines? I really doubt it.

I love my cars and bikes but the whole electric thing makes more sense. The day they get 300 mile range and 5 minutes recharge time to 80% I reckon they've nailed it.
See, I find it’s the “pro EV” guys who are going on like a dog with a bone.
I’ll say it again for clarification, I’m not against EVs and was looking into them just a few weeks ago for my wife.

The main point for me is that yes for commuting I don’t care what I drive and would be happy with electric and eventually Autonomous.
My hobby and passion is cars though (although I appear to be massively in a minority on here even though it used to be a petrol heads forum) and I spend my time and money enjoying them.

A guy earlier got berated for mentioning soul. Soul is maybe not the right term but surely most car guys rate excitement and character highly and a huge part of that for most is a manual gearbox and good petrol engine.
An EV will never have that.

So I’m happy to move with times as long as petrol cars for car guys are still useable and accessible.

I’m guessing the guys on here saying “Bring it on” and “Tough titties” to the ICE fans, have either wandered into here from elsewhere or simply don’t like cars anyway.
That’s all well and good but tell us what your passions are and then tell us how you’d feel if they were outlawed.

As Mr JWW said in his podcast the other day (before this announcement). Commuting is just something we have to do and get through. EV or autonomous is fine for that, but real driving is about fun and passion.
So again, I’m happy to drive whatever on my boring commute, but if I’m heading to the Alps or Scotland I want a screaming flat6 behind me.



Edited by marky911 on Thursday 6th February 22:05
Let us not forget, that unlike the majority of people who come to this site, that for most people, a car is just another one of the ticks in the boxes on their white goods list.
They really really don't give a stuff about cars, as long a they have got one, and it is newer, bigger, or more expensive, than next doors.
However a lot of people (even the white goods `specialists') have too much of their hard earned tied up in their current vehicle to be happy if government does something which wipes out its value over night.
I am optimistic that for those who will want to keep their ICE, alongside their EV for high days and holidays they will be able to do so.
I would have no problem with using an EV for my every day driver, and keeping the ICE cars for the nice days out.
Just wish they could come up with something which solves the range / quick re charge problem, which exists at present, because I know that several of my current regular journeys would not be possible, with the current crop of affordable EV`s. Unfortunately a Taycan is way, way out of my price range!

Zener

16,775 posts

173 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Oh fk It frown lets bring back super heated steam power hehe

Max_Torque

14,607 posts

169 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
monty quick said:
I am not pro EV nor anti-EV. I just feel that 'banning' petrol and diesel is too heavy handed. Yes, I know ICE are inherently inefficient but look at the improvements that have been made over the last 15years and then consider what might be possible in another 15 years.

The whole life carbon cost of a typical small EV (at the moment) is far worse than the whole life carbon cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle (in sheer whole life calculations a Tesla X would equate to something like two Range Rovers) AT THE MOMENT!!! Of course this will improve.
All battery chemistries have a defined (and relatively short) life and the faster you charge the batteries the shorter life gets. Therefore, EV charging will always need many minutes.

My problem is therefore infrastructure. Just for my doomsday scenario bear with me. Imagine that in 2038 almost all of the 40million + cars in the UK are now EV's.

Now imagine just about any street, in any town that has 1930's - 1960's terraced houses both sides of the road. Almost every house has one car on the front garden and a second car crammed somewhere on the street (two wheels up the kerb to allow traffic to flow). Now imagine all of the heavy duty cables running to those cars from charging points in the houses (somewhere else??); imaging the old electricity infrastructure almost glowing red due to being overloaded; imaging the thieves at night coming along and stealing all that expensive copper wire, etc., etc. OK, not all the cars can get connected at home - that's OK they can drive to the dedicated public charging points (somewhere??) but 'oh no' there are already 25 cars connected and another 5 waiting - damn! Some of those cars are fully charged but the owners have gone off shopping!

Yes of course I am painting a 'worst case' picture but tell me; with reducing fuel tax revenues juts how is the EV infrastructure going to avoid my doomsday scenario??

This is why I keep hoping that Hydrogen Fuel Cells can be rapidly and dramatically developed because then some of those 40million vehicles could still just pop into the service station for a 'fill-up'.
A few problems:

1) Can we "improve" the internal combustion engine further.

ANSWER: Yes

PROBLEM: the cost do so is prohibitive. A modern Formula 1 engine reaches around 50 to 60% thermal efficiency, about twice that of a typical production car in service today. But that is only reached under a very narrow range of operating conditions (F1 cars go flat out everywhere!) and an F1 engine and supporting electrical assistance systems costs today around £750,000 per unit. That isn't a solution for the real world. And it's worth remembering that F1 engines do not need, or have any exhaust aftertreatment (Catalysts, GPF etc) so their tailpipe pollutant emissions are TERRIBLE by comparison to a modern road car. Adding aftertreatment limits overall efficiency by a significant margin (backpressure, and AFR limitiations etc)

PROBLEM: a Battery electric vehicle is typically around 85% efficient in turning electricity supplied via its charging cable into useful work (carting you and your stuff around the place in a nice warm cabin). So even that F1 engine is nowhere near that efficiency level, despite being absolutely cutting edge.

PROBLEM: a Battery electric vehicle has little vehicle speed dependancy in its operating efficiency zones. Between 0 mph and Vmax, it has high efficiency everywhere. Even at very low load it's efficient, and at zero speed, it's 100% efficient. An ICE which has a minimum idling speed and requires a gearbox can never get close to this. ICE have best effficency at around 40 mph, above or below this speed, their efficiency tumbles. In the real world that's a massive problem

PROBLEM: A Battery electric vehicle has a fundamentally bi-directional powertrain. Power can flow both into and out of the battery at any time, and it requires no additional hardware for this to happen. In the real world, where we don't drive at a single, fixed speed, but are always changing our speed, this is an enourmous benefit, and one that no ICE, even an impossible 100% efficient one can match


2) The only way to try to match pure BeV efficiency with an ICE is to hybridise it (which is what a modern F1 engine actually is) ie to add an electrical element to the powertrain?

ANSWER: this is possible and is done with modern hybrid vehicles.

PROBLEM: COST & COMPLEXITY - all the parts required for an ICE, and all the parts required for BeV. Nightmare at times, from development costs, assembly costs, servicing requirements and end-of-life recycling etc

PROBLEM: Benefits do not scale linearly with costs - When you do the analysis, it's immediately clear that the larger the electrical assistance, the larger the gain in efficiency and the reduction in consumption. That leads to the obvious case as the best thing being to completely ditch the ICE and just fit more batteries in its place! This also massively reduces the problem of optimisation, ie trying to decide when to use each bit of the powertrain, and this is a very real problem, with a complex and expensive solution. With a BeV, that simply dissapears competely, because you don't have an engine at all..


3) Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles

To be clear, any practical HFC vehicle is actually a Battery Electric Vehicle! HFC vehicles require batteries! Ok, slightly less than a pure BeV, but not that much less. They just happen to charge those on-board batteries from a HFC, rather than a charging lead..... When you do the analysis, again, they fall into all the same problems as a ICE hybrid. Again, better to ditch the complex HFC and just stick some more batteries in! HFC has some merit as system size increases, and today is realstically the only way to make electric ships and (perhaps) trucks, but it's not the solution for passenger cars...


4) Reducing fuel tax.

two words: ROAD PRICING! It's clear that a system of road pricing, where you are directly charged for the roads you drive on is the future. Given that all new cars have GPS / SAT NAV, and most are now network connected, it's a practically zero cost (infrastructure wise) move to simple require manufacturers to have your car report where and whens it's been driven. Every month you get a bill from .gov for your useage.


5) Charging time:

This is the biggest non-issue for EVs and once you've driven one for a while, you realise it! You only think you need to charge in "5 min" because that's how you currently fill you car with fuel, simply because you can't fill up at home. Yes, under certain circumstances, having a reasonably fast charge,lets say 30 to 45min would be useful, but it's not the deal breaker you might think. Most people, having driven for 200 or 300 miles (which thanks to our traffic density is taking longer and longer to do) are happy to stop for 30 mins for a break!. Don't get me wrong, the "away from home" charging network needs improvement, and extra capacity in some places, but it's far from un-useable, and data shows that most people simply don't use it, because home charging will always dominate. It's also worth noting, that as average battery capacity in BeVs increases, people DON'T drive any more miles, so what their overall energy consumption is not increased. Commute 20 miles a day in a Tesla, and you'll only need to charge once every 10 days at wors, or alternatively, add just 5 kWh per day (taking less than 1 hour on a 7kW home charger)

GSE

1,267 posts

191 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Change is coming with the switch to BEV, and although not a panacea, it’s a step in the right direction. It will at least eliminate the disgusting air that we have to breathe in our cities caused by ICE vehicles, particularly diesel powered ones.

To have any hope of reducing co2 emissions and slowing down climate change, we need to drastically reduce energy consumption across the board. Huge changes in society will be needed to achieve this (probably best debated elsewhere) but in my opinion one of the changes needed is that personal transport has to get a lot smaller and lighter.

BEVs are often touted as being way more energy efficient that ICE vehicles (which is true) but in the big scheme they are still waste a huge amount of energy. Look at the payload to vehicle weight ratio: The typical human weighs 62kg and a Tesla model 3 weighs 1600kg.

So of all the energy being pumped into the batteries, how efficient is the vehicle in propelling its occupant from A to B? Just 4% is being used to propel the occupant, with a whopping 96% of the energy being used to …….. propel the vehicle itself. What a waste!

2 wheeled electric transport is the future (e-bikes) It’s much lighter and needs far less energy to propel in the first place, with the vehicle weight to payload ratio being near 50:50.

Of course there will be endless complaints from the powerfully built type on here saying that such transport wouldn’t suit their routine or their image, or they couldn’t possibly manage the weekly shop without using a 2 tonne SUV. But change is coming and it’s time to start getting ready for it wink



GTS440

87 posts

147 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
uncleluck said:
With battery packs gradually dying from day one of purchasing your new EV, you want to be out of them well before any notable degradation sets in.

I’d imagine something like a 5-10 year old Taycan is going to be a tricky sale. Can you see a scenario where people are going to want to buy used EV’s over 5 years old when battery packs could be £10k plus? I’d imagine (knowing porsche parts) their pack would even be more than that? Would people be buying even new panameras today if it was a given the engine would weaken over the coming years and in 5-10 you’d need a whole new engine?

It’d be a bit like buying a 5-10 yr old M5 today knowing the engine needs replacing. What would that do to the value of the car?
I would have have thought that in 5-10 years there will be quite a big battery replacement/refub aftermarket to deal with such issues.

fblm

17,449 posts

215 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
GTS440 said:
uncleluck said:
With battery packs gradually dying from day one of purchasing your new EV, you want to be out of them well before any notable degradation sets in.

I’d imagine something like a 5-10 year old Taycan is going to be a tricky sale. Can you see a scenario where people are going to want to buy used EV’s over 5 years old when battery packs could be £10k plus? I’d imagine (knowing porsche parts) their pack would even be more than that? Would people be buying even new panameras today if it was a given the engine would weaken over the coming years and in 5-10 you’d need a whole new engine?

It’d be a bit like buying a 5-10 yr old M5 today knowing the engine needs replacing. What would that do to the value of the car?
I would have have thought that in 5-10 years there will be quite a big battery replacement/refub aftermarket to deal with such issues.
I really don't think battery life will be that much of an issue. The model 3 packs are apparently seeing about 2% degradation after 50,000 miles which is on course for an effective life between 3 and 500k miles... even then on a $30,000 car how much can a replacement battery cost, $10k?

Max_Torque

14,607 posts

169 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
GSE said:
BEVs are often touted as being way more energy efficient that ICE vehicles (which is true) but in the big scheme they are still waste a huge amount of energy. Look at the payload to vehicle weight ratio: The typical human weighs 62kg and a Tesla model 3 weighs 1600kg.

So of all the energy being pumped into the batteries, how efficient is the vehicle in propelling its occupant from A to B? Just 4% is being used to propel the occupant, with a whopping 96% of the energy being used to …….. propel the vehicle itself. What a waste!
If only it were that simple....

Because an EV has a bi-directional powertrain (as i keep having to mention ;-) ) the mass of that vehicle is actually, broadly irrelevant and consumption is totally dominated by the DRAG of that vehicle, ie the energy required to push it though the air, and to turn it's gears, shafts, tyres and bearings around.

When you look at actual energy flow, on a typical BeV (say a leaf or similar) in typical conditons (driven reasonably decently, using regen to slow for the majority of the journey , more energy is actually "consumed" by the tyres than in changing the vehicles speed..........

Motorbikes and ebikes are actually rather terribly in-efficient because they have a very poor drag co-efficient! Ok, in towns at low average speeds, then yes, they aren't too bad, but in towns at low speeds BeV cars aren't too bad either!

The limitation on minimum consumption is actually that of the practical limitations on design and functionality for low drag, vs design and functionality for real world useage.

Here is are two "low drag" vehicles:







Neither car was/is/will be a commerical success because they are far too compromised as a CAR, the thing they are trying to be. By putting in place the necessary architecture for low drag, they have become too niche, too specialised, and too "out their" for social society to use and imbrace.


IMO, to reduce our "transport" based consumption, the only answer is simply not to move around as much!


smartypants

43,459 posts

121 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
GSE said:
Change is coming with the switch to BEV, and although not a panacea, it’s a step in the right direction. It will at least eliminate the disgusting air that we have to breathe in our cities caused by ICE vehicles, particularly diesel powered ones.

To have any hope of reducing co2 emissions and slowing down climate change, we need to drastically reduce energy consumption across the board. Huge changes in society will be needed to achieve this (probably best debated elsewhere) but in my opinion one of the changes needed is that personal transport has to get a lot smaller and lighter.

BEVs are often touted as being way more energy efficient that ICE vehicles (which is true) but in the big scheme they are still waste a huge amount of energy. Look at the payload to vehicle weight ratio: The typical human weighs 62kg and a Tesla model 3 weighs 1600kg.

So of all the energy being pumped into the batteries, how efficient is the vehicle in propelling its occupant from A to B? Just 4% is being used to propel the occupant, with a whopping 96% of the energy being used to …….. propel the vehicle itself. What a waste!

2 wheeled electric transport is the future (e-bikes) It’s much lighter and needs far less energy to propel in the first place, with the vehicle weight to payload ratio being near 50:50.

Of course there will be endless complaints from the powerfully built type on here saying that such transport wouldn’t suit their routine or their image, or they couldn’t possibly manage the weekly shop without using a 2 tonne SUV. But change is coming and it’s time to start getting ready for it wink


Why can't we just welcome the change in the climate instead?

Dave Hedgehog

12,559 posts

156 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
smartypants said:
Why can't we just welcome the change in the climate instead?
it will be pretty great for us in the UK no more ice / snow and nice summers

the middle east, auz, calafornia etc. are pretty much fked thou

SidewaysSi

6,725 posts

186 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Alextodrive said:
Roma101 said:
Sorry, but I disagree. I think you could certainly argue that many people (especially in cities and urban areas) use their ICE cars too much and should consider taking alternative means of transport (including switching to EVs/hybrids). However, for many people, having a car is either essential and/or their standard of living would be substantially reduced by not having a car and/or it would take them forever to do the simplest of things. Therefore, for many people, it is not a privilege or anything like it.

As has been said, cars are an easy target for certain sections of society to attack. But banning new ICE cars from 2035 is not going to solve the problem, and as a couple of other posters have argued well, not even feasible.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't anything against EVs (I have one) and I would also urge people to consider making the switch.
Our standard of living is a privilege, not a divine right.
In fact, we have very little in the way of divine right, and almost everything is a privilege.

It wasn't all that long ago that we struggled to put food on our own tables, deal with plagues and illness, and all had a substantially lower quality of life.

The major change came about with the industrial revolution. A revolution reliant on oil, gas and coal. The very fuels we are running out of or cannot continue to use without causing substantial change to the climate that will cause other vast problems.

We use oil not just to fuel the transportation to move all our food and goods about, but to make a huge quantity of the products we rely on.

What people don't seem to understand is just how vast and serious the problems we are facing are, and continue to argue about how it's a divine right to have a car if they happen to live somewhere a bit more isolated.
Yep it's a problem but it doesn't really bother me.

I would quite like hotter summers wink

smartypants

43,459 posts

121 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Meh people move. Deserts at some point weren't deserts, rivers weren't rivers, ice wasn't ice. Stop worrying about things you realistically cannot change. If you think getting out of a petrol car into an EV is going to stop the World turning, you're a bit bonkers quite frankly.


GSE

1,267 posts

191 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
If only it were that simple....

Because an EV has a bi-directional powertrain (as i keep having to mention ;-) ) the mass of that vehicle is actually, broadly irrelevant and consumption is totally dominated by the DRAG of that vehicle, ie the energy required to push it though the air, and to turn it's gears, shafts, tyres and bearings around.

When you look at actual energy flow, on a typical BeV (say a leaf or similar) in typical conditons (driven reasonably decently, using regen to slow for the majority of the journey , more energy is actually "consumed" by the tyres than in changing the vehicles speed..........

Motorbikes and ebikes are actually rather terribly in-efficient because they have a very poor drag co-efficient! Ok, in towns at low average speeds, then yes, they aren't too bad, but in towns at low speeds BeV cars aren't too bad either!

The limitation on minimum consumption is actually that of the practical limitations on design and functionality for low drag, vs design and functionality for real world useage.

Here is are two "low drag" vehicles:







Neither car was/is/will be a commerical success because they are far too compromised as a CAR, the thing they are trying to be. By putting in place the necessary architecture for low drag, they have become too niche, too specialised, and too "out their" for social society to use and imbrace.


IMO, to reduce our "transport" based consumption, the only answer is simply not to move around as much!
Thanks for explaining. I doff my hat to you as I made my comparison on weight alone whereas there is lots more going on ... interesting!

Volant

75 posts

80 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
I think that we’re assuming most people will continue to use their own personal vehicle in the same way they do now...

Let’s admit that, largely, due to our presence here, we are interested in cars. And ‘probably’ (I have no evidence...) the average age on this forum is somewhat above ‘Generation Z’ (being born mid-90s onwards)

I also acknowledge that there will be plenty of niches that someone will produce to cut me down, PLENTY, they live 3 miles from the nearest house, do shift work at a random area 60 miles away with no option but to have a private vehicle. Great. You’ll still have one. But you’ll be able to charge it at a quick charger enroute because ‘most’ people aren’t in that situation.

I have a friend works in America for a major manufacturer, and they’re aware there’s a very real chance that in a decade or two they won’t be producing 6 million vehicles a year... They are consequently well down the road of looking into how they would replace the revenue if the manufacturing volumes drop off.

The generations behind us don’t view ‘ownership’ in the same way (Generally at least. I know someone will chirp up that their 12 year old has already bought their first track car....)

See home ownership. Admittedly it market led - many can’t afford. But that means an acceptance, it’s less important to many. Let’s rent instead and party/holiday/buy cars/£1200 phones.

See the rise of PCP if you want to apply the criteria to use of a personal vehicle. Actual ownership isn’t important.

See the rates of 17/18 year olds learning to drive, and then beyond that owning their own car. A huge reason we all wanted that freedom is negated with the internet. No need to pick up your mates and head out looking for whatever tickled your sexual desires, text and tinder instead. Nope, I don’t like it either...

To these guys, many won’t own (or lease, or PCP) their own car.

Think of a turbo charged uber model, or look at the ‘fractional ownership’ corporate jet model. Although it’s pretty important for the manufacturers to have control away from a third party, eg Uber, and be more in control themselves)

You’ll pay more at peak times, of course, although flexible working advances will smooth those peaks and troughs. Similar to uber ‘surge’ charging. Regarding flexible working, remember this is very important to a lot of youngsters, and will become more so as Generation Z become the bosses....

But you’ll have a contract with [insert manufacturer here] and mostly you’ll get a little pod to commute. Maybe autonomous, maybe not. You call up a van to go to Ikea, a convertible to show off on a first date, an estate for your family holiday, or a lightweight sports car for a Sunday thrash.

When not in use I’m sure they’ll ‘live’ at a designated charging point.

There won’t need to be charging requirement for 40 million cars, because there won’t be 40 million cars.

Your choice will be:

a) do I need my own vehicle? If so, you still can.

b) if not, which manufacturer do I sign up a monthly fee with, cheapo white goods or flashy German. THIS is how they replace revenue with smaller production.

YOUR personal choice will probably be you want your own car. But many many in the generations behind us won’t feel the same.

Just my opinion (and some clever people at some big car manufacturers)

Edited by Volant on Friday 7th February 14:46


Edited by Volant on Friday 7th February 14:54

RSTurboPaul

1,253 posts

210 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
4) Reducing fuel tax.

two words: ROAD PRICING! It's clear that a system of road pricing, where you are directly charged for the roads you drive on is the future. Given that all new cars have GPS / SAT NAV, and most are now network connected, it's a practically zero cost (infrastructure wise) move to simple require manufacturers to have your car report where and whens it's been driven. Every month you get a bill from .gov for your useage.
Kill me now.

monty quick

211 posts

188 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
My final comment;
Several of the people here are making a case for EV's as of today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with EV's today.

In the UK the statistics show that 7% of all cars are 'alternative fuel'. It is estimated that pure EV represents about 2% of UK cars. Allow me a very rough extrapolation = 600,000 pure EV cars out of 30million UK cars (not vans or trucks).
Allow me an even more outrageous generalisation:- most of these pure EV cars are currently company cars or cars owned by middle to upper middle class drivers. Many of these drivers have dedicated charging points at their place of work and can comfortably charge at home.
Fact - the existing public charging infrastructure is close to full capacity (even Tesla accept that they are not rolling out charge points fast enough to meet demand). That was the situation before the announcement that new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars will be banned. Now the pressure is on to move away from a vehicle technology that has been the norm for over 100years to something new in just 15years and only one technology is currently commercially available i.e. pure EV

Even if it was physically possible to provide enough charging locations for 30million cars (which I continue to suggest is IMPOSSIBLE) does anyone believe this level of investment and rate of installation will be achieved in the UK by the late 2030's? If you do, I suggest you may be one of the rare people that believed HS2 would be on-time and on-budget!!


Black S2K

976 posts

201 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
If only it were that simple....

Because an EV has a bi-directional powertrain (as i keep having to mention ;-) ) the mass of that vehicle is actually, broadly irrelevant and consumption is totally dominated by the DRAG of that vehicle, ie the energy required to push it though the air, and to turn it's gears, shafts, tyres and bearings around.

When you look at actual energy flow, on a typical BeV (say a leaf or similar) in typical conditons (driven reasonably decently, using regen to slow for the majority of the journey , more energy is actually "consumed" by the tyres than in changing the vehicles speed..........

...
Just for clarification, when people claim that the bigger Teslas/Ian Paices/etc are the least energy-efficient BEVs as they are so large, that's more due to frontal area than due to their mass?

Or are you just referring to the more typical urban driving environment as opposed to overall?