Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
bigothunter said:
Just trying to put some realism behind the claims. Would be expected in any professional engineering review (eg technical paper).
BTW my daily driver is an FHEV. Fuel economy is almost on par with a diesel. Regardless it's a great car.
it'll be among my usual youtube content, so 'll have a quick skim to see if i can find it. BTW my daily driver is an FHEV. Fuel economy is almost on par with a diesel. Regardless it's a great car.
DonkeyApple said:
And punters foolish enough to buy an EV before the infrastructure that they need exists are fools not to be bailed out by other taxpayers. They should just wait their turn and stick to petrol like the tens of millions of smarter folk.
Yes indeed, but would anyone ever go/have gone electric without the various government subsidies? It's not as if electrics offer any advantage in terms of price/ownership experience.Definitely a subject that needs some joined-up thinking IMO.
Panamax said:
Yes indeed, but would anyone ever go/have gone electric without the various government subsidies? It's not as if electrics offer any advantage in terms of price/ownership experience.
Definitely a subject that needs some joined-up thinking IMO.
mine was the same price as equivalent ICE, and it's way better to own day to day too. range is particularly poor on it in reality, but only an issue a couple of times a year. the public network is fine with 5 mins of research.Definitely a subject that needs some joined-up thinking IMO.
Panamax said:
DonkeyApple said:
And punters foolish enough to buy an EV before the infrastructure that they need exists are fools not to be bailed out by other taxpayers. They should just wait their turn and stick to petrol like the tens of millions of smarter folk.
Yes indeed, but would anyone ever go/have gone electric without the various government subsidies? It's not as if electrics offer any advantage in terms of price/ownership experience.Definitely a subject that needs some joined-up thinking IMO.
It's a very sensible way to support a beneficial change. And those who can't yet switch should just relax and enjoy their cars for decades until they can switch. I feel sorry for the ones wasting their life banging on angrily about magical combustion fuels that wealthy and famous people are going to create just for them. It's depressing the level of naivety and confusion that gets displayed among aging adults who have had a lifetime to garner basic wisdom and have collected nothing other than anger and prejudice.
Almost every car we buy and use is still ICe so the subsidies to stimulate adoption and for those consumers to wear the losses and the cost of infrastructure build out for everyone else is not a great burden. The fact that some of them are total bellends who genuinely think the renting of an object makes them a superior person to others is just the unfortunate byproduct of these things. There will always be chattel monkeys in every market.
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
Anecdote - when does a slippery, heavy but high power ICE car work in your favour?
When you turn 55, your hair's fallen out and the wife suddenly looks like Bett Lynch?
Well I've turned 70, still got plenty of hair and the wife buggered off six years ago. But I do have a wonderful younger girlfriend.
What do you recommend for me?
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
Anecdote - when does a slippery, heavy but high power ICE car work in your favour?
When you turn 55, your hair's fallen out and the wife suddenly looks like Bett Lynch?Well I've turned 70, still got plenty of hair and the wife buggered off six years ago. But I do have a wonderful younger girlfriend.
What do you recommend for me?
GT9 said:
bigothunter said:
Well I've turned 70, still got plenty of hair and the wife buggered off six years ago. But I do have a wonderful younger girlfriend.
What do you recommend for me?
There was a point to the 'anecdote'. Back in 2012, we ran in MSVR Trackday Challenge (now Championship). It's regulated on the simplistic basis of power/'weight' ratio. But over 80mph, power/drag ratio becomes significant and really should be accounted for. High drag, low 'weight' and low power cars hit a drag brick wall at just over 100mph. One race series which doesn't work for Caterham 7s.
https://www.msvr.co.uk/car/championships-and-serie...
df76 said:
As above, legalisation is always needed to encourage change. Human nature is to avoid change, especially as you get older, and a government policy is usually the only way to achieve the necessary action.
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread on here where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!Edited by 98elise on Friday 26th April 09:52
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
Lol I'd forgotten about that and the Daily Mail campaign.I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.
It's actually a bit depressing how these people hold us back.
I remember when I was a kid people saying they would never have a computer or a mobile phone.
My grandparents were always really pro new tech, my grandad was one in the test group for contactless cards, so it's not all of them, but it is a significant number of them for sure.
autumnsum said:
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
Lol I'd forgotten about that and the Daily Mail campaign.I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.
It's actually a bit depressing how these people hold us back.
I remember when I was a kid people saying they would never have a computer or a mobile phone.
My grandparents were always really pro new tech, my grandad was one in the test group for contactless cards, so it's not all of them, but it is a significant number of them for sure.
I remember people saying that it was wrong to ban filament bulbs, because the new ones couldn't do the same, not bright enough.. too expensive... will they really last longer...?!? too slow to turn on.. so slow it could be dangerous in an emergency!!
But what actually happened? The bans were effective and subsequently billions of people were buying energy saving bulbs. Those billions in revenue forced an acceleration of competition - in part it made the blue/white led affordable for the masses, something we take for granted today - remember how LCD numerical displays always used to be red or green?
And a decade after the ban, we had full led bulbs, as bright as before, instant to turn on and cheap as chips to buy and run. The old form factor was maintained but the new tech didn't need all that space, so the excess packaging was used to create smart light bulbs, which are really useful.
It's obviously in our nature as a species to develop new technology. I guess that means that a human who resists what is new is highlighting the fact that they're a poor representative of the species? A radical element, not quite bold enough to take part...
DonkeyApple said:
LEDs were also a bit s
t at the time, so there was a bit of merit in the concerns. Maybe we've discovered the new anti EV term? Bulbers?
In context of the original question, should these things be forced upon us by legislation...? Yes. The only way we got to low energy led bulbs that are superior to traditional bulbs by any measure, was by forcing the industry and consumer to head off down that road in the first place. We had a decade or so of low energy bulbs that did use less power but also had some minor drawbacks, then they evolved to be simply better all round than what we complained about losing.t at the time, so there was a bit of merit in the concerns. Maybe we've discovered the new anti EV term? Bulbers?We're going to get better batteries far sooner by forcing the entire car industry down the EV route too - it creates a huge demand for batteries which is driving the current race to make them better.
TheDeuce said:
In context of the original question, should these things be forced upon us by legislation...? Yes. The only way we got to low energy led bulbs that are superior to traditional bulbs by any measure, was by forcing the industry and consumer to head off down that road in the first place. We had a decade or so of low energy bulbs that did use less power but also had some minor drawbacks, then they evolved to be simply better all round than what we complained about losing.
We're going to get better batteries far sooner by forcing the entire car industry down the EV route too - it creates a huge demand for batteries which is driving the current race to make them better.
Absolutely. And unlike lightbulbs, the core policies incentivise only those who can afford to change to do so and then only when the product fits the lifestyle. When it's boiled down, it's all remarkably benign and chilled as well as correct to instigate a change in what is all too often the single most expensive purchase that many ever make if they don't buy a property via a top down approach. Even 2035 won't impact the most vulnerable as they do not buy new cars. And we can all plan and work towards whatever petrol relic we would like to keep tucked away for fun. We're going to get better batteries far sooner by forcing the entire car industry down the EV route too - it creates a huge demand for batteries which is driving the current race to make them better.
The problems arise with local, urban policies where to date the people elected have implemented car policies specifically against the poor while wholly absolving the affluent. Something that is morally corrupt and third world from a perspective of British fair play. Those being targeted by those elected, devolved powers will need to stop whinging and ranting about oppression and exercise their electoral birth rights and dispose of those who wish to exploit them. And we are seeing a fight back in Scotland and Wales beginning over their policies to oppress the poor in the name of their convenient new religion, the environment.
But the sooner we crack the battery nut not only do we release ourselves to deliver more innovation but we dump the price of the legacy tech and the cost of using it.
It's also the case that the day suitable battery cells for the 21st century appear will also be the day that hydrogen disappears. It will lose its value over night as a means to raise a mug punter army to do one's bidding. Same with efuel, all it's power to raise a million Diesel MPV freedom fighters to shout loudly that it's really important that you are allowed to drive your collection of Aston's pointless round in circles just for your own amusement will see through the ruse and become a very angry mob. The paddock in heading down the path of deliberately misleading mug punters with the suggestion that their efuel is going to be available to them, it will be affordable and it will be at the pumps is just such farcical bulls
t that the simplest of science sees through that the backlash when all these people suddenly realise they have been taken for such utter mugs will turn on them. They'll have their cheap EV or have realised petrol isn't going anywhere and that these chaps were ripping them off to line their own pockets and it will do irreparable damage to motorsport and the classic motorsport which I enjoy. The paddock is building its defence on a complete lie and an arrogant belief that most of their spectators are thick as mince while they are infact the stupid ones for thinking their idea is remotely intelligent. Anyway, without legislation then laptop batteries would never have been shoved into cars and found to be crap and we'd still be fumbling along in a world of utterly rubbish cells and hoping the smart phone industry would randomly invest in and discover a global energy storage solution.
autumnsum said:
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
Lol I'd forgotten about that and the Daily Mail campaign.I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.
It's actually a bit depressing how these people hold us back.
I remember when I was a kid people saying they would never have a computer or a mobile phone.
My grandparents were always really pro new tech, my grandad was one in the test group for contactless cards, so it's not all of them, but it is a significant number of them for sure.
To be fair they both eventually gave in, but the resistance to change was very odd. I hope I never get that stuck in my ways.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff