Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:39:06 on Wed,
4 Jun 2008, Adrian remarked:
600 miles takes you from John O groats to lands End: its hard to see
many people doing more than that in one day.

shrug Some people do drive outside the UK, y'know. Or there-and-back-
again.

I've seen families who have driven from the Chicago area to Disneyland
Florida in one go. That's about 1200 miles (18 hours) and much more than
I'd want to.
No rest stops? single driver?

Ive done 24 hours with minimal breaks, and similar distances..but non
stop cannot be done. You have to put in several short breaks and
probably at least half an hours naps.

I've been driven new york to loas angeles nonstop on a greyhound,but
there were always rest stops and the driver changed every 8 hours..

Richard Torrens wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Without a gearbox you are talking massively high currents.


Not necessarily.

If you use extreme multipole designs, it is equivalent to gearing a 3
pole motor.You can step up the gear ratio by selecting different ways to
drive the poles.

Yes, that would work! Given enough brushes.

As long as the torque is sufficient to e.g. spin the wheels on a dry
road,thats all you need torque wise.

Which can be quite a significant torque.

But not unachievable.

We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep
hills if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric
only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset.
This may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of
offset).


Brushes? gosh Richard, its rare to find you ten years behind the
times..

Given my age (64) I think I have adequate excuse!

Brushed P.M. motors still constitute the bulk of the small motor market,
so is where the bulk of controller sales is!


Depends on the market. They've all but vanished from my niche market.
Its cheaper to build without..overall cost with a sensorless controller
is similar to brushed. Sensored are mre expensive, but they are fairly
mandatory for hight torque starting.


no one uses BRUSHES. In built optical or hall sensors for wheel
position and solid state commutation are the order of the day. and
variable timing. If you use permanent magnets for the rotors, you don't
even need slip rings.

I cannot disagree!

magwitch wrote:
R.C. Payne wrote:
magwitch wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much
like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a
couple of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher
han a battery car in a few years time.

Or a whole new industry will be born (as in the days of horses) where
pre-charged 'staging' cars will be available for long distance
travellers.

A company requiring staff to travel would simply have an account with
them (instead of a fleet of company cars). Easy peasy.

Or perhaps pay their staff to take the train.

Robin

Yes but then existing infrastructure (the motorway network) would become
somewhat redundant or only used by the long distance hauliers which
would still be polluting and emitting diesel lorries. Better to get
freight back onto the railways and leave the motorways clear for light
electric cars.

Of course salesmen and the like might have to get used to not having
their own personal company car perk, but that's their tough luck.
Trouble is elfin safetey wont let you run a continous nose to tail train
at 56mph from london to birmimngham like the M1 is.

Yu get more bang for the buck with roads. And more accidents.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised, but
the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in a day
requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel economy, or
illegally long driving hours.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including fuel
stops.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised, but
the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in a day
requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel economy,
or illegally long driving hours.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including fuel
stops.

Fuel stops?
My 55l tank will do that distance at 60 mph without a stop.

In article , Clive
George scribeth thus
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised, but
the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in a day
requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel economy, or
illegally long driving hours.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including fuel
stops.


If you can afford it. I see the local petrol stations have gone up 3 p a
litre since my last fill up;(...
--
Tony Sayer

Adrian wrote:
"R.C. Payne" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE vehicle.

Really...? Very, very few ICE vehicles are scrapped because of
mechanical problems with the engine or transmission.

If you look at buses, you will find that electric trolley buses have a
significantly longer service life than diesel buses. Same goes for
railway vehicles.

Is that due to replacement cost, though?

No. Trolleybus systems are more expensive than diesel bus systems
because of the cost of the infrastructure for power transmission. The
vehicles themselves are mechanically simpler, and have a longer economic
life.

I'll admit that I was a little loose in my terminology - by "vehicles", I
was meaning those of the size we were discussing here - cars and light
vans.

I was looking for an example of vehicles where a direct comparisson of
electric and diesel powered options can be made. The small end of bus
and the large end of van are not that different.

Are there any trolleybuses in the UK?

None in service in the UK, plenty in Europe.

Robin

In message , at 01:09:36 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
You end up with an under the whole floor block inside a crash cell
as being the simple and easy way out. With some air ducts in and out.
What with global warming, more rain and floods, how well does that
configuration cope with driving through a foot of water?

Fine if the battery compartment is sealed and the air ducts are high.

But are they?
--
Roland Perry

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

8

Are there any trolleybuses in the UK?

None in service in the UK, plenty in Europe.

I wonder if they have studied the health effects from all the emissions?

I remember the trolley buses that used to run and they were really dirty
things.
They produced ozone, burnt grease, metal particles and all sorts of stuff..
and that was just from the pickups!

Robin

Adrian wrote:
"R.C. Payne" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE vehicle.

Really...? Very, very few ICE vehicles are scrapped because of
mechanical problems with the engine or transmission.

If you look at buses, you will find that electric trolley buses have a
significantly longer service life than diesel buses. Same goes for
railway vehicles.

I was thinking more in terms of the vehicles we were discussing in this
thread - cars and light vans.

And I was trying to find something more than pure speculation and
semi-informed oppinion to consider when comparing electric and IC
engined vehicles. A small bus and a larger light van are not that
different, and the causes for the longer life in electric vehicles (lack
of vibration from the engine, higher mechanical reliability and economic
life of propulsion components) will apply to electrically powered cars
and light vans as much as buses.

Trolley buses and railway vehicles are significantly different, in that
they don't store the electrickery on board - and have a much, much higher
initial purchase cost than a Ford Focus. Because of that, they're
typically refitted several times over a working life - diesel or electric.

While battery replacement may be a factor in the economic lifespan of a
battery electric vehicle, batteries are inherrently much better suited
to direct replacement with a new one while retaining the remainder of
the vehicle than is the case with an IC engine. The other components of
an electric vehicle power train have been demonstrated in service to
have a sufficiently long service life as not to be the limiting factor
in the lifespan of such vehicles.

While electric trolleybuses, trams and railway trains are commonly
refitted several times over their working life (generally accepted to be
30 or so years for a trolleybus), the same can not be said for diesel
buses. Apart from Routemasters, how many diesel buses are there out
there, refitted or not, older than 15 or 20 years? The fact is, if you
look at cities where they operate both diesel and electric buses in
identical conditions, the electric vehicles manage nearly double the
service life of the otherwise identical diesel buses.

Robin

In message , at 01:16:46 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
I've seen families who have driven from the Chicago area to
Disneyland Florida in one go. That's about 1200 miles (18 hours) and
much more than I'd want to.
No rest stops? single driver?

I'm sure they stop for rests (I don't know any kids that can cross their
legs that long). Possibly a single driver - they are more used to long
freeway trips than we are - although that doesn't make them safe! It's
the sheer boredom that I can't stand.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at
01:47:02 on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Clive George
remarked:
Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised,
but the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in
a day requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel
economy, or illegally long driving hours.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including
fuel stops.

According to Google Maps, it's 837 miles and "about 14 hours 59 mins".
--
Roland Perry

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
magwitch wrote:
R.C. Payne wrote:
magwitch wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much
like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a
couple of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times
higher han a battery car in a few years time.

Or a whole new industry will be born (as in the days of horses)
where pre-charged 'staging' cars will be available for long distance
travellers.

A company requiring staff to travel would simply have an account
with them (instead of a fleet of company cars). Easy peasy.

Or perhaps pay their staff to take the train.

Robin

Yes but then existing infrastructure (the motorway network) would
become somewhat redundant or only used by the long distance hauliers
which would still be polluting and emitting diesel lorries. Better to
get freight back onto the railways and leave the motorways clear for
light electric cars.

Of course salesmen and the like might have to get used to not having
their own personal company car perk, but that's their tough luck.
Trouble is elfin safetey wont let you run a continous nose to tail train
at 56mph from london to birmimngham like the M1 is.

The passengers are nose-to-tail at more like 125mph (and modern railway
lines, rather than victorian ones push that to 200mph), and the freight
at 75, rather than 56.

Yu get more bang for the buck with roads. And more accidents.

If you look at the capacity of a railway line and a road for the same
land take, in terms of passengers per hour or freight tons per hour, the
railway has massively more capacity, and far, far fewer accidents. The
reason the motorway network has a higher capacity than the railway
network is that we have chosen to invest in infrastructure for roads,
not railways over the past 50 years.

Robin

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Richard Torrens wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep
hills if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric
only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset.
This may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of
offset).


Brushes? gosh Richard, its rare to find you ten years behind the times..

Given my age (64) I think I have adequate excuse!

Brushed P.M. motors still constitute the bulk of the small motor market,
so is where the bulk of controller sales is!


Depends on the market. They've all but vanished from my niche market.
Its cheaper to build without..overall cost with a sensorless controller
is similar to brushed. Sensored are mre expensive, but they are fairly
mandatory for hight torque starting.

For transportation purposes (buses, trams, trains), the modern solution
is a 3 phase induction motor with power electronics to produce variable
voltage, variable frequency 3 phase to drive them. I'd have guessed
certainly van sized vehicles would go down that route. What do things
like the Prius use?

Robin

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...


While electric trolleybuses, trams and railway trains are commonly
refitted several times over their working life (generally accepted to be
30 or so years for a trolleybus), the same can not be said for diesel
buses. Apart from Routemasters, how many diesel buses are there out
there, refitted or not, older than 15 or 20 years? The fact is, if you
look at cities where they operate both diesel and electric buses in
identical conditions, the electric vehicles manage nearly double the
service life of the otherwise identical diesel buses.

Its hard to do a comparison, they have to meet different legal requirements.
What may be economical to do to one may not be to the other due to testing
requirements rather than the actual technology.

Also remember that repairs to a diesel bus happen in a garage and
inconvenience few, the repairs to the power lines for trolley buses cause
disruption to lots.. a factor seldom taken into account.

Robin

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:47:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

Also to do 600 miles in a day requires a tad more speed than will give
ypu that sort of fuel economy, or illegally long driving hours.

AFAIK there is no legal limit on the driving hours of the private
motorist. Of course if you do drive for long hours or after little sleep
and you have accident your likely to be more severly prosecuted.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including
fuel stops.

Thought the idea was to be able to do 600 miles (965km) without having to
stop for fuel. B-) 60 average on motorways requires a lack of road works
and traffic but given that yes it's possible.

--
Cheers
Dave.

dennis@home wrote:


"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...


While electric trolleybuses, trams and railway trains are commonly
refitted several times over their working life (generally accepted to
be 30 or so years for a trolleybus), the same can not be said for
diesel buses. Apart from Routemasters, how many diesel buses are
there out there, refitted or not, older than 15 or 20 years? The fact
is, if you look at cities where they operate both diesel and electric
buses in identical conditions, the electric vehicles manage nearly
double the service life of the otherwise identical diesel buses.

Its hard to do a comparison, they have to meet different legal
requirements.
What may be economical to do to one may not be to the other due to
testing requirements rather than the actual technology.

Also remember that repairs to a diesel bus happen in a garage and
inconvenience few, the repairs to the power lines for trolley buses
cause disruption to lots.. a factor seldom taken into account.

Robin


Some years ago I heard about use of flywheels for buses. Thought struck
me then - marry a trolley bus with a flywheel and/or batteries.

o The complex junctions which were a rats nest of overhead cables would
not be needed. This would dramatically reduce installation and
maintenance overheads (sic :-) ).

o Any problem on the road (accident, roadworks) could be driven round
in a way not possible with pure overhead.

o There would have to be a clever re-connect-the-pickup-to-the-wire
mechanism. So you wouldn't need a chap with a long wooden pole at the
terminus of each route.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:57:21 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised,

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including
fuel stops.

According to Google Maps, it's 837 miles and "about 14 hours 59 mins".

Average of nearly 56mph... Not bad for that run considering that a goodly
whack (300 miles ish) it isn't motorway. I don't know what the A9 is like
though.

Multimap says "835.84 miles, about 16 hours 43 mins" or ANADI 50mph
average.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:09:36 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
You end up with an under the whole floor block inside a crash cell
as being the simple and easy way out. With some air ducts in and out.
What with global warming, more rain and floods, how well does that
configuration cope with driving through a foot of water?

Fine if the battery compartment is sealed and the air ducts are high.

But are they?

The cars dont exist yet do they?
we were talking about teh optimal way to make them.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE vehicle.

Really...? Very, very few ICE vehicles are scrapped because of
mechanical problems with the engine or transmission.

So why are they scrapped then?

Because of a myriad of small age-related niggles and minor repair bills
- tyres, minor collision damage - outweighing the used value of the
vehicle.

Why is the used value so low?

Because most people would rather get a new car on tick than keep a 10yo
one going.

It wouldn't be because teh whole powertrain is only good for 200K and
therefore the resale value at 190K is effectively zero?

No. If that was the case, it'd apply across the whole of Europe - which
it doesn't. Used car values in this country are far, far lower than other
countries.

Becasue the doors rust through?

It's really only Ford who still manage to make cars that rot. Everybody
else sorted it years ago.

Er..Fiat?

Yes, Fiat. They were one of the first to get it right. Mind you, they had
to be...

Basically there should be NO routine service on an electric car power
train at all.

raises eyebrow

Tyres brakes suspension and bulb check (LED?)

All of which apply equally to ICE, of course.

Some recent statistics...

First-time MoT failure rates (2007), supplied by VOSA

In 2007, 21.6 per cent (580,754) of three-year old cars failed their
first test. Among 836,646 individual failure faults, the top 10 we

1 Lighting and signalling 271,567
2 Tyres and wheels 155,489
3 Drivers view of the road (Cracked/chipped windscreens, other
obstructions) 120,095
4 Brakes 110,327
5 Steering and suspension 99,798
6 Fuel and emissions 23,634
7 Reg plates and VIN (vehicle identification number) 19,047 8 Seatbelts
11,271
9 Body and structure 7,705
10 Road wheels (loose, missing wheel nuts etc) 5,746

So that's 23,634 out of 836,646 failure items (less than 3%) which
would _not_ apply equally to an electric vehicle. And that's at the
first MOT, three years, when most modern cars will probably have only
had one or two services since new.

those either cost pence to fix, or they are unavoidable anyway.

shrug

At 25k miles most cars need a new set of tyres. iN that time they've
been through 2 services which cost about te sme as that set of tyres.

They probably alse need brakes relining., Electric cars with regen
braking should last at least three times that.

Perhaps. But do remember that at 3yo it's quite possible for a car to be
on 100k miles or more.

Stock LED lights on them and the bulbs wont blow.

ITYF that LED brake, tail and indicator lights are far from unusual
already, and starting to appear as headlights. Anyway - high-level brake
lights, where LEDs have been common for many years, are frequently seen
with missing sections.

So your figures are as usual, slanted by the nature of the case you are
tryinng to make.

Sorry if the facts are a slightly inconvenient issue for you.

Why I have no idea. Perhaps your wife just left you.

Interesting descent into ad hominem.

In message , at 09:33:58 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
You end up with an under the whole floor block inside a crash cell
as being the simple and easy way out. With some air ducts in and

What with global warming, more rain and floods, how well does that
configuration cope with driving through a foot of water?

Fine if the battery compartment is sealed and the air ducts are high.
But are they?

The cars dont exist yet do they?
we were talking about teh optimal way to make them.

And I was pointing out that "optimal" may not include "particularly
waterproof", if experience from existing vehicles is anything to go by.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:24:24 on Thu, 5
Jun 2008, Rod remarked:
o The complex junctions which were a rats nest of overhead cables
would not be needed. This would dramatically reduce installation and
maintenance overheads (sic :-) ).

o Any problem on the road (accident, roadworks) could be driven round
in a way not possible with pure overhead.

o There would have to be a clever re-connect-the-pickup-to-the-wire
mechanism.

That is the major problem.

So you wouldn't need a chap with a long wooden pole at the terminus of
each route.

Most of them have loops at the destination, so a man is not required.
--
Roland Perry

PCPaul writes:

They don't build 'em like that now...

Indeed. I'm still running a HPiiisi LaserJet at home. Built like a
tank and just keeps on working.

--
Paul Leyland | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Dept. of Genetics, Cambridge University | the English way.
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1223-333963 Fax: +44-1223-333992 | Thought I'd something more to say.

"R.C. Payne" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A small bus and a larger light van are not that different

Indeed. Many small "shoppa hoppa" type buses are based on van chassis -
the 4.5-7.5t Mercedes, especially.

But in terms of _usage_, I'd suggest they're very different - and it
really is the very bottom end of the bus and top end of the van spectrum.

and the causes for the longer life in electric vehicles (lack
of vibration from the engine, higher mechanical reliability and economic
life of propulsion components) will apply to electrically powered cars
and light vans as much as buses.

I'm sure. But let's not forget that vans and cars DO NOT CURRENTLY MAINLY
GET SCRAPPED BECAUSE THE MECHANICALS ARE KNACKERED. Vans get scrapped
because they've had the living crap beaten out of them by drivers who
don't give a toss. Cars get scrapped primarily because people are
embarrassed to be seen driving something "that old", and they're not
financially worth maintaining.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Also to do 600 miles in a day requires a tad more speed than will give
ypu that sort of fuel economy, or illegally long driving hours.

"Illegal" in what way?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:33:58 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
You end up with an under the whole floor block inside a crash cell
as being the simple and easy way out. With some air ducts in and
What with global warming, more rain and floods, how well does that
configuration cope with driving through a foot of water?

Fine if the battery compartment is sealed and the air ducts are high.
But are they?

The cars dont exist yet do they?
we were talking about teh optimal way to make them.

And I was pointing out that "optimal" may not include "particularly
waterproof", if experience from existing vehicles is anything to go by.

But they only have to be a little bit better than what they are
competing with. A land rover with all the trimmings will be able to
ford a whole lot better than a Ford Focus (see what I did there?), the
same range of performance is possible with battery vehicles, from a bit
rubbish, to pretty good.

Robin

On 5 Jun, 01:47, "Clive George" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in . net...

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised, but
the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in a day
requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel economy, or
illegally long driving hours.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including fuel
stops.

Except that TNP needs to get a new map. LE-JoG is over 800miles. 838
for the fastest journey according to the AA's route finder, but I'm
sure there are shorter routes.

TL

In message et, at
09:31:34 on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised,

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including
fuel stops.

According to Google Maps, it's 837 miles and "about 14 hours 59 mins".

Average of nearly 56mph... Not bad for that run considering that a goodly
whack (300 miles ish) it isn't motorway. I don't know what the A9 is like
though.

Multimap says "835.84 miles, about 16 hours 43 mins" or ANADI 50mph
average.

Yes, the Google Maps figure seems optimistic, but I have found them to
be very reliable when doing trips myself. Although the "tails" at either
end of this particular trip are not very promising.

My other mapping software (MS MapPoint) says 849 miles and 15hrs 54 min,
which by inspection assumes 38mph during the "tails".
--
Roland Perry

Adrian wrote:
"R.C. Payne" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

and the causes for the longer life in electric vehicles (lack
of vibration from the engine, higher mechanical reliability and economic
life of propulsion components) will apply to electrically powered cars
and light vans as much as buses.

I'm sure. But let's not forget that vans and cars DO NOT CURRENTLY MAINLY
GET SCRAPPED BECAUSE THE MECHANICALS ARE KNACKERED. Vans get scrapped
because they've had the living crap beaten out of them by drivers who
don't give a toss.

But that's because the cost of repairing the bodywork (I assume that's
what you mean by "having the living crap beaten out of them") is not
worth it because by that point the engine, drivetrain and chassis are
also f**ked by the same careless handlers. If you use much more
reliable components, this economy may change, and it may be that
companies simply re-body the chassis rather than buy new.

Cars get scrapped primarily because people are
embarrassed to be seen driving something "that old", and they're not
financially worth maintaining.

If you get rid of a car because you don't want to be seen driving
something "that old", you will tend to sell it on to someone (direct or
via a second hand car dealer) to someone for whom "that old" is older
than the previous owner's perception. The issue of a car not being
finanicially worth maintaining comes when the cost of replacement
exceeds cost of repair. If a car is much more reliable, that point will
be reached after a larger number of years/miles. Of course it remains
to be seen what happens to the second hand car market if cars are
reliable and cheap to keep running for 30 years instead of 15.

Robin

"R.C. Payne" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I'm sure. But let's not forget that vans and cars DO NOT CURRENTLY
MAINLY GET SCRAPPED BECAUSE THE MECHANICALS ARE KNACKERED. Vans get
scrapped because they've had the living crap beaten out of them by
drivers who don't give a toss.

But that's because the cost of repairing the bodywork (I assume that's
what you mean by "having the living crap beaten out of them") is not
worth it because by that point the engine, drivetrain and chassis are
also f**ked by the same careless handlers. If you use much more
reliable components, this economy may change, and it may be that
companies simply re-body the chassis rather than buy new.

There's a very good reason why it doesn't already happen - because
there's really nothing that could apply to an electric van that wouldn't
to a diesel one.

That reason? Labour costs.

Cars get scrapped primarily because people are embarrassed to be seen
driving something "that old", and they're not financially worth
maintaining.

If you get rid of a car because you don't want to be seen driving
something "that old", you will tend to sell it on to someone (direct or
via a second hand car dealer) to someone for whom "that old" is older
than the previous owner's perception.

But a dozen years and ten owners down the line...

The issue of a car not being
finanicially worth maintaining comes when the cost of replacement
exceeds cost of repair. If a car is much more reliable, that point will
be reached after a larger number of years/miles. Of course it remains
to be seen what happens to the second hand car market if cars are
reliable and cheap to keep running for 30 years instead of 15.

They already are, and long have been
looks out window at own 180k mile daily-driver 20k mile/year 18yo Saab
900

On or about 2008-06-05,
R.C. Payne illuminated us with:

The issue of a car not being
finanicially worth maintaining comes when the cost of replacement
exceeds cost of repair.

I think we know what you meant to say.

--
Mark
Real email address | If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human
is mark at | race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full
ayliffe dot org | potential, that word would be "meetings."

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...

While electric trolleybuses, trams and railway trains are commonly
refitted several times over their working life (generally accepted to be
30 or so years for a trolleybus), the same can not be said for diesel
buses. Apart from Routemasters, how many diesel buses are there out
there, refitted or not, older than 15 or 20 years?

The Routemaster is only kept in service because of nostalgia and tourist
reasons. Boris the Turk wants to bring them back. The madness of the man -
and they voted for him too.

The fact is, if you look at cities where they operate both diesel and
electric buses in identical conditions, the electric vehicles manage
nearly double the service life of the otherwise identical diesel buses.

Robin

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:33:58 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
You end up with an under the whole floor block inside a crash cell
as being the simple and easy way out. With some air ducts in and
What with global warming, more rain and floods, how well does that
configuration cope with driving through a foot of water?

Fine if the battery compartment is sealed and the air ducts are high.
But are they?

The cars dont exist yet do they?
we were talking about teh optimal way to make them.

And I was pointing out that "optimal" may not include "particularly
waterproof", if experience from existing vehicles is anything to go by.

Cars have to be good *enough*. In general that means you dont expect a
mini to wade a river, whereas with a Defender, you might.

All I am saying is that there is no reason not to make the batteries
waterproof.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:47:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

Also to do 600 miles in a day requires a tad more speed than will give
ypu that sort of fuel economy, or illegally long driving hours.

AFAIK there is no legal limit on the driving hours of the private
motorist. Of course if you do drive for long hours or after little sleep
and you have accident your likely to be more severly prosecuted.

It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including
fuel stops.

Thought the idea was to be able to do 600 miles (965km) without having to
stop for fuel. B-) 60 average on motorways requires a lack of road works
and traffic but given that yes it's possible.

I averaged 63mph from Siena to cambridge including all the stops and a
ferry crossing: 900 miles clocked. It was probably illegal for 85% of
teh distance.

The Luggage wrote:
On 5 Jun, 01:47, "Clive George" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in . net...

Well I know that neither John'o'groats nor lands end are civilised, but
the places in between are. More or less. Also to do 600 miles in a day
requires a tad more speed than will give ypu that sort of fuel economy, or
illegally long driving hours.
It's only 10 hours at 60 average - easy on motorways, even including fuel
stops.

Except that TNP needs to get a new map. LE-JoG is over 800miles. 838
for the fastest journey according to the AA's route finder, but I'm
sure there are shorter routes.

TL
IIRC its 600 miles as the crow flies.

In message , at 12:54:09 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
And I was pointing out that "optimal" may not include "particularly
waterproof", if experience from existing vehicles is anything to go by.

Cars have to be good *enough*. In general that means you dont expect a
mini to wade a river, whereas with a Defender, you might.

Floods, not rivers.

All I am saying is that there is no reason not to make the batteries
waterproof.

It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
--
Roland Perry

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


All I am saying is that there is no reason not to make the batteries
waterproof.

Its difficult to imagine them not being water proof.
Making the rest waterproof is more difficult.
The batteries are sealed in plastic.

Given the right shape a car/boat should be easy for an electric car so even
a small car could cope with floods.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I averaged 63mph from Siena to cambridge including all the stops and a
ferry crossing: 900 miles clocked. It was probably illegal for 85% of
teh distance.

Average Edinburgh - Reading - greater than 75 mph. Definitely illegal
most of the way. (Probably only legal when stopped to fill up.) And
*many* years ago.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In message , at 12:58:06 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Except that TNP needs to get a new map. LE-JoG is over 800miles. 838
for the fastest journey according to the AA's route finder, but I'm
sure there are shorter routes.
TL
IIRC its 600 miles as the crow flies.

And that crow will be flying over water most of the way from Lands End
to Stranraer.
--
Roland Perry

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Except that TNP needs to get a new map. LE-JoG is over 800miles. 838
for the fastest journey according to the AA's route finder, but I'm
sure there are shorter routes.

TL
IIRC its 600 miles as the crow flies.

Around that but it would be more likely to be a seagull than a crow.
About half the direct line distance is over sea.

--
Roger Chapman