RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
So when you read reports about EVs that say things like ‘it does the equivalent of 150mpg’ what do you think that means?EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
Because you’re saying the opposite.
DMZ said:
Let’s hope so. And if they can remove nonsense like lane keep assist while at it that would be good also. It’s about time someone stood up to the regulatory nonsense coming from wherever it’s coming from.
In the U.K. the population has been brainwashed to assume that everything that controls us emanates from the evil cabals of regulators and nasty government chappies. Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different. A lot of this stuff is driven by manufacturers who see it as a path to competitive advantage over domestic peers and a means to disadvantage superior overseas competitors. An awful lot of the lobbying of the EU by the German and French manufacturers over the last decade, for example, has been about trying to keep cheaper Chinese vehicles out of the EU.
As these manufacturers move more towards never selling their cars but retaining them on rental and tech subscription contracts from cradle to grave they need all this lane assist stuff and the incremental steps towards autonomy in order to protect the value of their rental asset.
Never make the mistake of thinking that these companies are your friend. They exist to stiff you as much as they possibly can which is why they have to be regulated and policed so much. It's also why they invest £billions into 'owning' political groups and individuals.
In the U.K. we have been raised on the back of the EU being the scapegoat for everything bad like the Scottish have been raised to believe everything bad is the fault of the English. In the case of the U.K. when you look at many of the most insane EU ideas they were put forward by the total co trip freaks of Westminster. Our elected governments that blame everything on the nasty EU were in reality some of the biggest EU loons with the most mental desires for controlling the people etc.
Anyway, the automotive industry is no different. It seeks to blame legislators but in reality the industry is usually behind a lot of the plans to stitch up car owners and coBreil them more and more until ultimately there is no private car ownership just endless subscription and rental and no control over the vehicle as the true operator is the true owner which is the manufacturer.
If we start from a general assumption that car manufacturers are dirty, dishonest, deceptive, thieving b
ds who will say anything to rob you blind then this is arguably a more sensible starting point than thinking they're a bunch of great guys who just want to make great cars for great customers but it's all the fault of the nasty little regulation chappies. 
This is why I will be quite surprised if the EU's earlier decision which was backed and lobbied for by European car manufacturer money won't grant some kind of concession over the automotive industries sudden post Ukraine panic that they can't meet net zero without the carbon credits from GH, can't compete against Chinese EVs without pan EU GDP per capita growth and can't keep the economies to the East of Germany viable without a market for the carbon atoms within brown coal/lignite.
It's also not just the car manufacturers but the two main owners of the HIF project, Siemens of Germany and Enel of Italy. They are the two industrial monoliths pushing this behind VW because their entire HIF project is now reliant on a market for methanol that is created out of legislation that locks out cheaper fossil fuel derived methanol ahead of 2050. Automotive is pretty much the only such market that could deliver a consumer demand for the product but not legally allowed to use methanol directly sourced from fossil fuels.
The main stumbling block though is how well Siemens, Enel and VW can launder the carbon source as that needs to be done well enough to allow deniability at a later date.
If they don't get the exemption added to the 2035 law it will have been because they weren't able to do enough layering on the carbon source to enable people to feel comfortable about letting the clauses be added. No one is buying into the 'carbon from the air' bulls
t and they're struggling to buy into the 'food and industrial waste' pitch also. The secret solution for us remains as always, to pick the best car we can find and afford from the moment in time just before cars became personally too irritating and invasive for us and to plan to keep that car for the next 20 years.
For me that's something just before touchscreens and all the self soiling alarms at a bit of shrubbery but with good, sensible modern safety tech. 2015-18/19 seems about the sweet spot where there are some 300+BHP petrol cars where the operator is still allowed some form of co trol and decision making without the manufacturer's bots crapping their pants and trying to take control?
Take a plastic spoon and a bamboo spoon out of the fridge. Which one feels colder? Which one IS colder?
Sometimes gut feelings are 100% wrong (ok, 80% wrong allowing for frictional losses). Toss in prejudice to this and you have a toxic mix. That’s the struggle in getting people to understand and accept issues like this
BTW lane keep assist is a fabulous invention. Do you never get tired or distracted while driving? Really?
Sometimes gut feelings are 100% wrong (ok, 80% wrong allowing for frictional losses). Toss in prejudice to this and you have a toxic mix. That’s the struggle in getting people to understand and accept issues like this
BTW lane keep assist is a fabulous invention. Do you never get tired or distracted while driving? Really?
Edited by Soupdragon65 on Sunday 19th March 09:40
Soupdragon65 said:
(ok, 80% wrong allowing for frictional losses)
Going back to DA's point (as he does have one), I think it's a broader issue than that:-
- Anyone who has power (a) wants to keep it; and (b) wants to stop others from gaining it. That's as true of big-corporate execs as it is of politicians as it is of billionaires / centi-millionaires*. Note the overlap.
- The unwashed masses** are there to be used/abused/kept in their place as nice compliant little workers/consumers/voters. Bread and circuses, I believe the phrase is, and it's working better today than it did at any point in the 20th Century***.
* Anything below that and you probably don't have power, just wealth.
** Anyone with less than a few mil of wealth!
*** Just look at wealth-distribution curves in any of the major 'civilised' nations.
SpeckledJim said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
So when you read reports about EVs that say things like ‘it does the equivalent of 150mpg’ what do you think that means?EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
Because you’re saying the opposite.
It means nothing, when proponents of EVs desperately try to kid people, that it takes less energy to move a 1200 pound EV battery (which weighs the same when it is empty, as when it is full) than it takes to move a full 70 pound ICE fuel tank (which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed)
Add to this that electricity has one of the worst Government fuel factors (Cradle to grave emissions) of any of the fuels available in the UK, where only 43% is produced by renewables, and the rest by fossil fuels and some nuclear.
SpeckledJim said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
When any person drives to a specific point, and returns by the same route (as most do) then effectively the road is flat, because all the up gradients on the out journey will be cancelled out by the down gradients of the return journey.
There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
With respect, this is a total brain fart of a post. There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
How much air resistance will come into it depends vastly on how far and fast you're moving the object. At motorway speeds over a reasonable distance, air resistance will be around 80% of the total energy loss; at city-centre speeds in stop-start traffic it might be less than 20%.
For realistic overall use cases on the public road, with a reasonably efficient regenerative braking system, the difference in efficiency between a 1.5 tonne and a 2 tonne EV with the same aerodynamic performance and drive-train losses will be <10% in all cases and <5% in most (you can see this from WLTP/EPA figures for cars which are identical except for battery size and hence weight).
Of course weight has other, far more significant, negative effects on things like tyre wear, handling, and (for a given power output) performance. Which is why my daily driver weighs 800kg.
For realistic overall use cases on the public road, with a reasonably efficient regenerative braking system, the difference in efficiency between a 1.5 tonne and a 2 tonne EV with the same aerodynamic performance and drive-train losses will be <10% in all cases and <5% in most (you can see this from WLTP/EPA figures for cars which are identical except for battery size and hence weight).
Of course weight has other, far more significant, negative effects on things like tyre wear, handling, and (for a given power output) performance. Which is why my daily driver weighs 800kg.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 19th March 10:47
500TORQUES said:
This is a very interesting talk on current F1 ICE and the future plans for sustainable fuels.
I enjoyed that.The last question from the graduate engineer about thermal efficiency is the one that matters to road cars.
Put one of these '50% at full power' engines into a passenger car application, feeding through a multi-ratio gearbox and operating a typical drive cycle at an array of different speed and torque settings, and it's no longer 50% unfortunately.
The only way to make best use of that 50% efficiency would be to use the engine as a range extender directly driving a constant speed generator, but the complexity of such a vehicle that has both a fuel system and an electrical system is an eternal issue. In any case you've lost the driving feel of an ICE.
Once you go through the motions of comparing the lifetime emissions, production cost, operating cost, kerb mass and effects on packaging and weight distribution of that approach vs just adding more mass to an existing battery, objectively it almost always leads the conclusion that the larger battery pathway is the superior engineering solution.
It's a disappointing and boring outcome I know.
Pan Pan Pan said:
It means nothing, when proponents of EVs desperately try to kid people, that it takes less energy to move a 1200 pound EV battery (which weighs the same when it is empty, as when it is full) than it takes to move a full 70 pound ICE fuel tank (which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed)
Add to this that electricity has one of the worst Government fuel factors (Cradle to grave emissions) of any of the fuels available in the UK, where only 43% is produced by renewables, and the rest by fossil fuels and some nuclear.
Electricity in the U.K. has an average CO2 impact of 191g CO2/km less than a half of that for gas and around a quarter of coal.
Pan Pan Pan said:
It means nothing, when proponents of EVs desperately try to kid people, that it takes less energy to move a 1200 pound EV battery (which weighs the same when it is empty, as when it is full) than it takes to move a full 70 pound ICE fuel tank (which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed)
Add to this that electricity has one of the worst Government fuel factors (Cradle to grave emissions) of any of the fuels available in the UK, where only 43% is produced by renewables, and the rest by fossil fuels and some nuclear.
The entirety of the EV's kerb mass is regeneratively braked, and the entirety of the ICE's kerb mass acts on the friction brakes.
The ICE loses more than 3 times the kinetic energy to waste heat than the equivalent EV does, as a whole bloody car.
You've gone down the deepest of rabbit holes with this fixation on battery vs fuel tank and ignoring everything else.
And now you've started to fixate on a single snapshot in time for where electricity comes from, completely ignoring that it is on a very obvious upward trajectory for the % of renewables.
The 2020 'Volvo report' is going to be your next killer point, yes?
Why not go to the beginning of the thread and read it in its entirety....
kambites said:
How much air resistance will come into it depends vastly on how far and fast you're moving the object. At motorway speeds over a reasonable distance, air resistance will be around 80% of the total energy loss; at city-centre speeds in stop-start traffic it might be less than 20%.
For realistic overall use cases on the public road, with a reasonably efficient regenerative braking system, the difference in efficiency between a 1.5 tonne and a 2 tonne EV with the same aerodynamic performance and drive-train losses will be <10% in all cases and <5% in most (you can see this from WLTP/EPA figures for cars which are identical except for battery size and hence weight).
For realistic overall use cases on the public road, with a reasonably efficient regenerative braking system, the difference in efficiency between a 1.5 tonne and a 2 tonne EV with the same aerodynamic performance and drive-train losses will be <10% in all cases and <5% in most (you can see this from WLTP/EPA figures for cars which are identical except for battery size and hence weight).
havoc said:
*** Just look at wealth-distribution curves in any of the major 'civilised' nations.
If one looks back to say 1989 there were only about 250k wealthy individuals in the U.K. and other wealthy individuals were only found in numbers in a handful of other European nations and North America.
Victor Gauntlet's Rolodex is the clue as to how the world was back then. Ie, one bloke could fit the phone numbers of the world's wealthiest in a small box on his desk and it was very rare for new cards to be added.
Since then we have had the enormous democratisation of wealth in the developed nations but more importantly the rise of wealth in developing nations. There are now enormous middle income populations in India, China and South America and even Africa.
Global society has gone in 30 years from tens of millions of individuals with bank accounts and savings to over a billion people with bank accounts and access to consumer debt. And the internet means that a business person can sit almost anywhere and sell goods to anyone.
That is the real reason why we have had an explosion of multi millionaires and billionaires. Markets where a business once could only sell to a few thousand people with money can now sell to millions of people with credit facilities.
The wealth divide is kind of irrelevant in todays world as a means to measure a society's wealth and health. What has become more important is to look at how the poorest workers in a nation live compared to previous moments in time.
When one looks at the U.K. and the average worker their standard of living has boomed. The wealth divide may look comical but this is a function of billions of consumers buying from a small number of people and that being turbo charged by repeated mass handouts of freshly printed money and the relaxing of consumer lending regulations to allow more and more people to spend more and more of what they haven't yet earned. What we need to truly focus on and address where appropriate is the standard of living of the lower earners of a society and when we look at the U.K. we can see their health has been improved, their social freedoms, their accommodation, their chattels etc etc.
Arguably the issue isn't the wealth divide beyond the mental health aspect of creating envy or unhappiness etc but whether the U.K. can continue to expand the wealth and wellbeing of the lowest paid or whether that growth has peaked?
Unlike say the Georgian era of wealth explosion, the poorest have been brought along during the recent Elizabethan era and that is hugely significant.
Soupdragon65 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
It means nothing, when proponents of EVs desperately try to kid people, that it takes less energy to move a 1200 pound EV battery (which weighs the same when it is empty, as when it is full) than it takes to move a full 70 pound ICE fuel tank (which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed)
Add to this that electricity has one of the worst Government fuel factors (Cradle to grave emissions) of any of the fuels available in the UK, where only 43% is produced by renewables, and the rest by fossil fuels and some nuclear.
Electricity in the U.K. has an average CO2 impact of 191g CO2/km less than a half of that for gas and around a quarter of coal.
GT9 said:
You've gone down the deepest of rabbit holes with this fixation on battery vs fuel tank and ignoring everything else.
And now you've started to fixate on a single snapshot in time for where electricity comes from, completely ignoring that it is on a very obvious upward trajectory for the % of renewables.
And now you've started to fixate on a single snapshot in time for where electricity comes from, completely ignoring that it is on a very obvious upward trajectory for the % of renewables.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Trying to kid people that moving 70 pounds takes less energy than it takes to move1200 pound is a complete nonsense. Only 43% of UK electricity is generated using renewables. You need to look at the Governments fuel factor tables.
The rabbit hole keeps getting deeper - turn around and see the light 
Edited by bigothunter on Sunday 19th March 11:42
Pan Pan Pan said:
I agree, I give up with you. Trying to kid people that moving 70 pounds takes less energy than it takes to move1200 pound is a complete nonsense. Only 43% of UK electricity is generated using renewables. You need to look at the Governments fuel factor tables.
It does over the whole journey if you use regenerative braking yes.And again, what are these ‘pounds’ you speak of?
Pan Pan Pan said:
SpeckledJim said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
So when you read reports about EVs that say things like ‘it does the equivalent of 150mpg’ what do you think that means?EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
Because you’re saying the opposite.
It means nothing, when proponents of EVs desperately try to kid people, that it takes less energy to move a 1200 pound EV battery (which weighs the same when it is empty, as when it is full) than it takes to move a full 70 pound ICE fuel tank (which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed)
Add to this that electricity has one of the worst Government fuel factors (Cradle to grave emissions) of any of the fuels available in the UK, where only 43% is produced by renewables, and the rest by fossil fuels and some nuclear.
You’re actually claiming an ICE is more efficient than an EV!?
Does it strike you as odd that at even the most strident of the anti-EV crowd aren’t here backing you up?
What percentage chance would you assign to the possibility that you’ve got this one wrong?
GT9 said:
I enjoyed that.
The last question from the graduate engineer about thermal efficiency is the one that matters to road cars.
Put one of these '50% at full power' engines into a passenger car application, feeding through a multi-ratio gearbox and operating a typical drive cycle at an array of different speed and torque settings, and it's no longer 50% unfortunately.
The only way to make best use of that 50% efficiency would be to use the engine as a range extender directly driving a constant speed generator, but the complexity of such a vehicle that has both a fuel system and an electrical system is an eternal issue. In any case you've lost the driving feel of an ICE.
Once you go through the motions of comparing the lifetime emissions, production cost, operating cost, kerb mass and effects on packaging and weight distribution of that approach vs just adding more mass to an existing battery, objectively it almost always leads the conclusion that the larger battery pathway is the superior engineering solution.
It's a disappointing and boring outcome I know.
The efficiency rev range is there because thats the area most important for the application, it doesn't mean with a wider target range you cant or wont make huge gains.The last question from the graduate engineer about thermal efficiency is the one that matters to road cars.
Put one of these '50% at full power' engines into a passenger car application, feeding through a multi-ratio gearbox and operating a typical drive cycle at an array of different speed and torque settings, and it's no longer 50% unfortunately.
The only way to make best use of that 50% efficiency would be to use the engine as a range extender directly driving a constant speed generator, but the complexity of such a vehicle that has both a fuel system and an electrical system is an eternal issue. In any case you've lost the driving feel of an ICE.
Once you go through the motions of comparing the lifetime emissions, production cost, operating cost, kerb mass and effects on packaging and weight distribution of that approach vs just adding more mass to an existing battery, objectively it almost always leads the conclusion that the larger battery pathway is the superior engineering solution.
It's a disappointing and boring outcome I know.
The most interesting thing from the talk was the very high compression and lambda targets being deployed, and how those could go as high as lambda 2.0 in the new 2026 engines.
I've said for decades going away from lean burn to cats was the wrong move, and here we see the smartest engineers on the planet making that work.
It's also important where he discusses politicians dictating method rather than end game, and how thats idiotic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff