RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
GT9 said:
500TORQUES said:
The limit of that load is determined by the tyre capability, typical peak deceleration on a good road tyre is 1.2G.
Careful, in a minute you will be claiming that everyone brakes at 1.2 G everywhere from 1100 mph and that would require batteries to be recharged instantly from 0 to 100%.We've already been down that rabbit hole this month.
500TORQUES said:
Why do people post this sort of nonsense? Talk about not keeping to / ignoring the point being discussed.
I think he was referencing some of your prior works.I have fond memories of laughing at them too.
Remembering the series of posts about the weight of a tank against a battery and your conclusion that an ICE car used less energy than an EV.
Now that was nonsense.
911hope said:
I think he was referencing some of your prior works.
I have fond memories of laughing at them too.
Remembering the series of posts about the weight of a tank against a battery and your conclusion that an ICE car used less energy than an EV.
Now that was nonsense.
Wrong person.I have fond memories of laughing at them too.
Remembering the series of posts about the weight of a tank against a battery and your conclusion that an ICE car used less energy than an EV.
Now that was nonsense.
How about you accepting a higher mass vehicle inputs more energy into the road when braking.
500TORQUES said:
GT9 said:
500TORQUES said:
The limit of that load is determined by the tyre capability, typical peak deceleration on a good road tyre is 1.2G.
Careful, in a minute you will be claiming that everyone brakes at 1.2 G everywhere from 1100 mph and that would require batteries to be recharged instantly from 0 to 100%.We've already been down that rabbit hole this month.
Yes, it is indeed nonsense, and would only be relevant if the regenerative braking system was being asked to 'recharge the battery in an instant'.
Because that's exactly the speed an EV would need to be travelling at for it to be the case.
OT, I know.
GT9 said:
The relevant point being that in the context of tyre and road wear, average events are far more relevant than extreme events, and 1.2G braking events are exceedingly rare.
I didn't say there weren't, rather than address the whole of what i wrote, you latched on to what i posted about potential peaks achievable.GT9 said:
Yes, it is indeed nonsense, and would only be relevant if the regenerative braking system was being asked to 'recharge the battery in an instant'.
Because that's exactly the speed an EV would need to be travelling at for it to be the case.
OT, I know.
500TORQUES said:
it's irrelevant how the load is applied to the tyre, be that by the brake pads/disks, engine compression off load or regen of electric systems, none of that changes the contact point force/Mu, which is the only thing stopping the car.
Apart from aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, uphills....., CorneringIn terms of road damage from braking, obviously gradual deceleration applies a lower lateral load to the surface over a longer distance, than sudden braking.
911hope said:
Apart from aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, uphills....., Cornering
In terms of road damage from braking, obviously gradual deceleration applies a lower lateral load to the surface over a longer distance, than sudden braking.
Deceleration due to drag is down to total CD, isn't the mighty electric car better CD than ICE due to less dirty air through the cooling system, so less deceleration from that, so more load via the tyres.In terms of road damage from braking, obviously gradual deceleration applies a lower lateral load to the surface over a longer distance, than sudden braking.
Cornering load is mass related, so another loss in the argument for the heavy EV.
Lower deceleration rate is applicable to both platforms based on the desire of the driver, the higher mass car still puts more load into the surface than the lower mass car decelerating at the same rate.
Why are you fighting this one?
500TORQUES said:
911hope said:
Apart from aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, uphills....., Cornering
In terms of road damage from braking, obviously gradual deceleration applies a lower lateral load to the surface over a longer distance, than sudden braking.
Deceleration due to drag is down to total CD, isn't the mighty electric car better CD than ICE due to less dirty air through the cooling system, so less deceleration from that, so more load via the tyres.In terms of road damage from braking, obviously gradual deceleration applies a lower lateral load to the surface over a longer distance, than sudden braking.
Cornering load is mass related, so another loss in the argument for the heavy EV.
Lower deceleration rate is applicable to both platforms based on the desire of the driver, the higher mass car still puts more load into the surface than the lower mass car decelerating at the same rate.
Why are you fighting this one?
This is clearly wrong.
Obviously additional mass is a factor, while braking, on the load on the road surface. It also exerts a force vertically down (weight), equivalent to 1g at all times.
EVs are not the only heavy vehicles used as personal transport. What about all the large SUVs, pickups, with large ICE engines.
One thing that you may suggest to save the road surfaces, is lower speed limits. This will reduce the total integrated braking force on the road surface. Perhaps this is not compatible with the 500torque identity though.
The other aspect often mentioned on these pages is the EV drivers' pootling at slow speeds habit. If true, the mass issue simply gets compensated for.
That brings us back to the original topic...the end of ICE cars' manufacture, with EVs likely to dominate. Nothing has changed, except for the efuel nonsense.
SpeckledJim said:
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Pan Pan Pan said:
SpeckledJim said:
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Either it's 10, in which case you've been right all along and we all owe you a big apology.
Or it's 34, in which case you've been energetically talking out of your hoop for months.
(or they're both the same. I'm not sure what that would mean)
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Do you mean weight in pounds, pounds force or poundals? Or was that mass? You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Newtonian physics and Newtons work well together which is not terribly surprising. Force can simply be expressed in Newtons (including weight) with units kg.m/s^2.
Why confuse mass with force? Why invariably be a factor of 32.2 wrong? Why get your knickers in a twist when SI is so simple and used universally by engineering?
But in retrospect, why not campaign for the return of £sd currency? Or join the Flat Earth Society?
NMNeil said:
A gas powered turbine for electrical generation runs at around 60% efficiency, and with catalytic converters (which are unlikely to be removed unlike an ICE car) these emissions can be reduced to almost nothing.
What percentage of ICE cars have their catalysts removed? Absolutely miniscule I suggest.Perhaps this trend is more common in the US than UK?
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Did you watch the Bosch video I posted for you on regenerative braking?You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
It's only been in use for 100 years in the rail industry and about 25 years in motor racing.
All hybrids and all EVs use it to reduce their energy consumption.
When you hear them refer to KERS in F1, what were you thinking it meant?
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
You still digging? This is a windup right? Did you pass GCSE science? If you did you should understand this topic.You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff