Roland Perry wrote:
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.
put them high up, thats all.

In message , at 13:42:00
on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Roger remarked:
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.

Worse than that... only 210 miles is over land (200 from Stranraer to
Elgin, plus the last 10 miles).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:55:10 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
put them high up, thats all.

Then they'll be a long way from the battery and less efficient. And most
likely ugly looking as well, with room from the car's footprint required
to accommodate the ducts.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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".

No, 600 miles is 600 miles. Personally I wouldn't ask Google Maps to tell me
how long 600 miles was, I let it do what it's best at.

(you forgot to mention that a fair chunk of that 837 miles isn't on motorway
too, but since it's irrelevant to what I wrote that's probably a good
thing).

clive

"August West" wrote in message
...

The A9 is, nowadays, a very good road. Infested with speed cameras,
though; Highland Police regularly wheel out bikers and boy races who
have been prosecuted for exceeding the ton by a rather large margin.
Given the right time of day, and season, maintaining 56 shouldn't be
too troublesome, until you're north of Inverness.

Yes, it's quite variable, like a lot of the scottish roads - when empty on
an evening it's definitely "Whee!", fast, good scenery, mind out for plod.
During the day it can be rather more frustrating.

cheers,
clive

In message , at
14:04:04 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".

No, 600 miles is 600 miles. Personally I wouldn't ask Google Maps to
tell me how long 600 miles was, I let it do what it's best at.

Which is telling you the distance by road, around 840 miles - as
confirmed by at least two other sources.

(you forgot to mention that a fair chunk of that 837 miles isn't on
motorway too, but since it's irrelevant to what I wrote that's probably
a good thing).

Actually, a surprising amount is on Motorways (Exeter to Perth, almost
exactly 500 miles), plus more miles on good roads like the A30 and A9.

--
Roland Perry

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip.
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..

Bugger that. I've done Vancouver B.C. to San Francisco in 27 hours inc
stops and would want an iron bum to do it again, certainly not by choice the
second time.

Paul

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:04:04
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".

No, 600 miles is 600 miles. Personally I wouldn't ask Google Maps to tell
me how long 600 miles was, I let it do what it's best at.

Which is telling you the distance by road, around 840 miles - as confirmed
by at least two other sources.

No, the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why do you keep going
on about 840 and LEJOG? That's got nothing to do with what I eas saying.

clive

"Rod" wrote in message
...

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.

The lines are also on the sides of buildings too. This creates problems in
itself for building maintenance and when some drop down - or teenagers pull
them down.

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.

There is a new ground pickup point for street trams. It is about 1 foot
beneath the surface and is only energised when the tram is rolling over the
rails. It is completely safe, so they say, so kids can't get fried, and
used/being tested on the Continent.

There are also tram/trains, used in Germany (Karlsru?) and being tested in
Yorkshire. These run fast on conventional rails and then onto slow streets.

Trams are light rail (slower), trains are heavy rail (faster). Underground
trains are heavy rail. There are also duel fuel trains, (electric pickups
overhead or 3rd rail) and diesel.

Trams are not a great thing. Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon adopted them
and only Manchester is successful. They shake adjacent buildings and the
overhead lines are ugly. Manchester only adopted trams because building a
city centre rapid transit underground system was massively expensive.
Liverpool has an underground system and countless disused underground
tunnels, and stations, than can be brought back into use, creating an outer
city centre circle line with a part overground using tram/trains.

In message , at
15:25:42 on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Clive George
remarked:
No, the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why do you keep
going on about 840 and LEJOG? That's got nothing to do with what I eas
saying.

I never mentioned LEJOG. 840 miles is the distance between Lands End and
John o Groats by road. This journey has featured in the thread. The
distance by road is *not* 600 miles, as earlier suggested.

That's all.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:59:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Really...? Very, very few ICE vehicles are scrapped because of mechanical
problems with the engine or transmission.

So why are they scrapped then?

Becasue the doors rust through?

It doesn;t matter why they are scrapped: what maters is the lifetime of
theweakest link,and the cost to repair, or the cots to replacce the
whole car.

Over here they get scrapped when something major in the chassis or
drivetrain breaks beyone economical reapir. There's no annual MOT, so it's
common to see vehicles on the roads that just wouldn't exist in the UK.
In terms of saving the planet by not buying new vehicles as frequently
it's a good thing - but on the flipside, there's a lot more metal on the
roads that has very little in terms of emission control.

cheers

Jules

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Rod" wrote in message
...

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.

The lines are also on the sides of buildings too. This creates problems
in itself for building maintenance and when some drop down - or
teenagers pull them down.

Has this ever happened? Teenagers pulling them down, I mean.

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.

There is a new ground pickup point for street trams. It is about 1 foot
beneath the surface and is only energised when the tram is rolling over
the rails. It is completely safe, so they say, so kids can't get fried,
and used/being tested on the Continent.

It is in service in Bordeaux. Previously the conduit system has been
used (London, and various other places in other countries) to avoid
overhead lines. The modern system is similar in principle to the stud
contact system used occasionally in the early years of tram operation,
though that system was not very succesful, as studs often did not
de-energise after trams passed. The Bordeaux system seems to work as
intended.

There are also tram/trains, used in Germany (Karlsru?) and being tested
in Yorkshire. These run fast on conventional rails and then onto slow
streets.

Karlsruhe was first, several more have started in Germany and in other
places since.

Trams are light rail (slower), trains are heavy rail (faster).
Underground trains are heavy rail. There are also duel fuel trains,
(electric pickups overhead or 3rd rail) and diesel.

The terms "light rail" and "heavy rail" as they are so often applied
inconsistently. In Europe "light rail" tends to mean technologically
descended from trams rather than heavy rail vehicles, but if you compare
something like a 3 (articulated) car DLR train to a tube train, you
won't find that much difference between them in terms of speed,
passenger capacity, weight and so on.

Trams are not a great thing. Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon adopted
them and only Manchester is successful.

Croydon manages 24 million passengers/year on 18.5 route miles compared
with 19 million on 23 miles for Manchester. Somewhat shorter in length,
Nottingham manages 9.7 million on 9 route miles. Sheffield, often
regarded as the poor relation of Manchester and Croydon manages 13
million on 18 miles, which isn't too bad. Of course "successful" is an
entirely subjective term.

They shake adjacent buildings

The pertinent question is whether they shake the buildings more or less
than the alternatives. One tram can replace 3 buses, or about a hundred
cars.

and the overhead lines are ugly.

If they are really a problem, adopt the Bordeaux solution. Personally,
I don't find them too bad, especially if care is taken with the supports
(the Nottingham approach rather than the Croydon one).

Robin

In message , at 16:02:07 on Thu, 5 Jun
2008, August West remarked:
Trams are not a great thing. Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon
adopted them and only Manchester is successful.

Add Nottingham to your list of successful trams.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:25:42
on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Clive George remarked:
No, the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why do you keep going
on about 840 and LEJOG? That's got nothing to do with what I eas saying.

I never mentioned LEJOG.

Ummmm...

840 miles is the distance between Lands End and John o Groats by road.

And that's not LEJOG in precisely which way?

This journey has featured in the thread. The distance by road is *not* 600
miles, as earlier suggested.

And the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why the hell do you
have such difficulty accepting that? I've not deviated from my original
point, which is based on a 600 mile trip.

clive

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

The lines are also on the sides of buildings too. This creates problems
in itself for building maintenance and when some drop down - or teenagers
pull them down.

Has this ever happened? Teenagers pulling them down, I mean.

Yes. Regular in NZ.

They shake adjacent buildings

The pertinent question is whether they shake the buildings more or less
than the alternatives. One tram can replace 3 buses, or about a hundred
cars.

They still shake buildings.

and the overhead lines are ugly.

If they are really a problem, adopt the Bordeaux solution. Personally, I
don't find them too bad, especially if care is taken with the supports
(the Nottingham approach rather than the Croydon one).

The Bordeaux system with rubber wheels is the way.

Trams are fine in principle in some cities an can fill in gaps where
underground and overground rail does not reach. They are getting to be
trendy because they are visual. Politicos can be seen to be doing something
as they are highly visual. Realistically the implementation of trams is
poor, for the reasons I outlined. The likes of Liverpool is looking at
trams for this reason when they have an underground and disused rail tunnels
and stations to connect onto the system. Madness!! Saying that, Liverpool
has boulevards with wide central reservations built for trams - they
abandoned trams like every other city 50 years ago. These routes can be
re-used. The man who designed the boulevards was commissioned to design
those in New Deli.

But the best is a rapid transit underground as the stations reach the centre
of districts without any hindrance to the district. Look at London and the
centres where there is a tube station - vibrant. The likes of Liverpool
should focus on expanding their easily extended underground, and overground,
not trams. Many cities have overground track, or disused track or
track-bed, that can easily be brought back to rapid transit use. Many
stations can have retail built on top like Tesco are doing at Gerrards
Cross, bringing the trains right to where people want to go.

August West wrote:
"Clive George" writes:

"August West" wrote in message
...

The A9 is, nowadays, a very good road. Infested with speed cameras,
though; Highland Police regularly wheel out bikers and boy racers
who have been prosecuted for exceeding the ton by a rather large
margin. Given the right time of day, and season, maintaining 56
shouldn't be too troublesome, until you're north of Inverness.

Yes, it's quite variable, like a lot of the scottish roads - when
empty on an evening it's definitely "Whee!", fast, good scenery, mind
out for plod. During the day it can be rather more frustrating.

It's also the only road I know of that has numbered laybys.

Good idea! "Hello, I've broken down" / "Where are you?" / "On the Axxx in
bay 8"

Paul

Jules gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Over here they get scrapped when something major in the chassis or
drivetrain breaks beyone economical reapir. There's no annual MOT, so
it's common to see vehicles on the roads that just wouldn't exist in the
UK.

Give us a hint as to where "here" is?

In message , at
16:30:06 on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Clive George
remarked:
No, the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why do you keep
going on about 840 and LEJOG? That's got nothing to do with what I
eas saying.

I never mentioned LEJOG.

Ummmm...

840 miles is the distance between Lands End and John o Groats by road.

And that's not LEJOG in precisely which way?

I have no idea. I wasn't the person who introduced "LEJOG".

This journey has featured in the thread. The distance by road is
*not* 600 miles, as earlier suggested.

And the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why the hell do
you have such difficulty accepting that? I've not deviated from my
original point, which is based on a 600 mile trip.

My recollection was that 600 miles was introduced as the mileage between
Lands End and John o Groats. But this thread is now so obese it's
difficult to know who said what.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:55:10 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
put them high up, thats all.

Then they'll be a long way from the battery and less efficient. And most
likely ugly looking as well, with room from the car's footprint required
to accommodate the ducts.
You men in the same way a cars air intake is a long way from its exhuast
pipe?

Sorry,but you seem top have lost your marbles here.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Many stations can have retail built on top like
Tesco are doing at Gerrards Cross, bringing the trains right to where
people want to go.


The lack of "Tesco in Gerrards Cross" in the list of "places people want
to go" seems to have been a major problem there.

(The lack of an actual Tesco built on top is only a minor inconvenience.)

--
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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:30:06
on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Clive George remarked:
No, the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why do you keep
going on about 840 and LEJOG? That's got nothing to do with what I eas
saying.

I never mentioned LEJOG.

Ummmm...

840 miles is the distance between Lands End and John o Groats by road.

And that's not LEJOG in precisely which way?

I have no idea. I wasn't the person who introduced "LEJOG".

Well, it's not exactly hard to take the initials and work it out...

This journey has featured in the thread. The distance by road is *not*
600 miles, as earlier suggested.

And the distance by road for 600 miles is 600 miles. Why the hell do you
have such difficulty accepting that? I've not deviated from my original
point, which is based on a 600 mile trip.

My recollection was that 600 miles was introduced as the mileage between
Lands End and John o Groats. But this thread is now so obese it's
difficult to know who said what.

I know precisely who said what. It's just you struggling here. There are
usenet archives to help if you can't keep up.

I was never talking about LEJOG, I was always talking about an arbitrary 600
mile journey.

clive

In message , at 18:03:05 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
put them high up, thats all.
Then they'll be a long way from the battery and less efficient. And
most likely ugly looking as well, with room from the car's footprint
required to accommodate the ducts.
You men in the same way a cars air intake is a long way from its
exhuast pipe?

No, in the same way that many cars have an air intake rather low down
that doesn't cope with floodwater. Except that air is for combustion
purposes, and is drawn in with quite a "suck", but extended pipework for
ventilation ducts for your batteries will reduce the cooling efficiency
significantly.
--
Roland Perry

The message
from Roland Perry contains these words:

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.

Worse than that... only 210 miles is over land (200 from Stranraer to
Elgin, plus the last 10 miles).

Can't see how you get Stranraer on the line. AFAICT the half way point
is somewhere near the centre of the Isle of Man and a more careful check
of the split than my first attempt puts the land element at 250, my line
going overland in Cornwall (marginal), Pembroke (St David's head) and
IOM.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , at 21:08:07
on Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Roger remarked:
Worse than that... only 210 miles is over land (200 from Stranraer to
Elgin, plus the last 10 miles).

Can't see how you get Stranraer on the line.

It's the nearest big town to the landfall in western Scotland, north of
the Isle of Man.

AFAICT the half way point is somewhere near the centre of the Isle of
Man

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:41:39 +0000, Adrian wrote:

Jules gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Over here they get scrapped when something major in the chassis or
drivetrain breaks beyone economical reapir. There's no annual MOT, so
it's common to see vehicles on the roads that just wouldn't exist in the
UK.

Give us a hint as to where "here" is?

Middle of Minnesota (moved out here from Cambridge area late last year,
hence the cam.misc connection). I'm never quite sure whether to say where
'here' is or wheter regulars know - maybe I should stuff that in a message
sig or something :-)

cheers

Jules

Jules gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Over here they get scrapped when something major in the chassis or
drivetrain breaks beyone economical reapir. There's no annual MOT, so
it's common to see vehicles on the roads that just wouldn't exist in
the UK.

Give us a hint as to where "here" is?

Middle of Minnesota (moved out here from Cambridge area late last year,
hence the cam.misc connection). I'm never quite sure whether to say
where 'here' is or wheter regulars know - maybe I should stuff that in a
message sig or something :-)

I'm not reading this in cam.misc...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why is the used value so low?

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


OK so...

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...reciation.html

You lose 40% of the value in year 1 and another 20% in the next 2 years.

That isn't the power train dying, not with 30,000 on the clock.

Andy

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:03:05 on
Thu, 5 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
put them high up, thats all.
Then they'll be a long way from the battery and less efficient. And
most likely ugly looking as well, with room from the car's footprint
required to accommodate the ducts.
You men in the same way a cars air intake is a long way from its
exhuast pipe?

No, in the same way that many cars have an air intake rather low down
that doesn't cope with floodwater. Except that air is for combustion
purposes, and is drawn in with quite a "suck", but extended pipework for
ventilation ducts for your batteries will reduce the cooling efficiency
significantly.

Not really.

You can use a pretty large cross sectional area.

The packs don't need THAT much cooling anyway.

Worst case would be toiling up a long hill.

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why is the used value so low?

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


OK so...

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...reciation.html

You lose 40% of the value in year 1 and another 20% in the next 2 years.

That isn't the power train dying, not with 30,000 on the clock.

Andy
There tends to be an exponenential decay to scrap value, with the
percentage rates falling in the first few years much mo this is
particularly true of certain makes where the luxury element is high.
Jaguars are particularly fierce.

I suppose if you want a Jag, and can afford the maintenance and tax and
fuel, you can afford a new one.

Still the scrap value of a 3 year old BEV with a still usable battery
would be much higher if the battery could be slotted into someone else's
high mileage one that needed it.

In message , at 02:42:30 on
Fri, 6 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
It was the air vents that sounded most vulnerable.
put them high up, thats all.
Then they'll be a long way from the battery and less efficient.
And most likely ugly looking as well, with room from the car's
footprint required to accommodate the ducts.
You men in the same way a cars air intake is a long way from its
exhuast pipe?
No, in the same way that many cars have an air intake rather low
down that doesn't cope with floodwater. Except that air is for
combustion purposes, and is drawn in with quite a "suck", but
extended pipework for ventilation ducts for your batteries will
reduce the cooling efficiency significantly.

Not really.

You can use a pretty large cross sectional area.

Perhaps someone will find a way to make them look pretty

The packs don't need THAT much cooling anyway.

Worst case would be toiling up a long hill.

Not while charging?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:42:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Worst case would be toiling up a long hill.

No doubt going slowly so reduced ram air available so cooling fans
required, yet more drain on the battery...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , at 02:47:14 on
Fri, 6 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
I suppose if you want a Jag, and can afford the maintenance and tax and
fuel, you can afford a new one.

That's complete nonsense. Just look at all the old Range Rovers that
people can afford to run, and yet could never afford to buy new.

Still the scrap value of a 3 year old BEV with a still usable battery
would be much higher if the battery could be slotted into someone
else's high mileage one that needed it.

Given the lack of interchangeability of laptop batteries, I wouldn't
hold out much hope for car manufacturers making it easy to mix and
match. And they'd be losing valuable revenue from forcing people to buy
new batteries.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:34:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Given the lack of interchangeability of laptop batteries, I wouldn't
hold out much hope for car manufacturers making it easy to mix and
match. And they'd be losing valuable revenue from forcing people to buy
new batteries.

You're probably right, but it's a shame. If they could, and could make it
a quick automated process to swap the battery pack out, you wouldn't have
any of this hassle of installing lots of places to plug cars in, or any of
the range issues.

You'd just have to replace existing petrol filling stations with
swap-the-battery-pack stations. They'd take your flat batteries out,
install a fully charged set, charge the flat ones and put them in another
car later in the day. The manufacturer would own the batteries, so it
doesn't matter to you whether you get ones that are brand new or a year or
two old, you'd just be billed for the usable electricity they contain plus
a little to cover the cost of replacing them as they wear out. Site the
battery replacing stations next to a substation and a lot of the local
grid problems go away too. Given enough space and enough batteries they
could be charged at times of low demand, making the grid suppliers' jobs
easier.
It has lots of advantages, but two big "ifs" I mentioned at the start.

For early adopters, before the network of battery replacing stations is
wide enough to be useful, you'd still need to be able to plug in to
recharge, but given the far fewer numbers of early adopters this should be
an easier problem to engineer a solution to. I.e. you wouldn't need every
space in the car park with a socket; you wouldn't need to upgrade the
local grid as only a few houses would be overnight charging their cars.

Kieran

Kieran Mansley wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:34:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Given the lack of interchangeability of laptop batteries, I wouldn't
hold out much hope for car manufacturers making it easy to mix and
match. And they'd be losing valuable revenue from forcing people to
buy new batteries.

You're probably right, but it's a shame. If they could, and could
make it a quick automated process to swap the battery pack out, you
wouldn't have any of this hassle of installing lots of places to plug
cars in, or any of the range issues.

You'd just have to replace existing petrol filling stations with
swap-the-battery-pack stations. They'd take your flat batteries out,
install a fully charged set, charge the flat ones and put them in
another car later in the day. The manufacturer would own the
batteries, so it doesn't matter to you whether you get ones that are
brand new or a year or two old, you'd just be billed for the usable
electricity they contain plus a little to cover the cost of replacing
them as they wear out. Site the battery replacing stations next to a
substation and a lot of the local grid problems go away too. Given
enough space and enough batteries they could be charged at times of
low demand, making the grid suppliers' jobs easier.
It has lots of advantages, but two big "ifs" I mentioned at the start.

For early adopters, before the network of battery replacing stations
is wide enough to be useful, you'd still need to be able to plug in to
recharge, but given the far fewer numbers of early adopters this
should be an easier problem to engineer a solution to. I.e. you
wouldn't need every space in the car park with a socket; you wouldn't
need to upgrade the local grid as only a few houses would be
overnight charging their cars.

It's a nice idea *but*, how many cars (with a range of at least 300 miles)
fill up at any one petrol station every day? Now consider how many battery
packs you'd need given the smaller range and charging time. I think you'd
need a huge amount of space for storing battery packs. I suspect that
because of this, home charging will be the main method.

Tim

The message
from Roland Perry contains these words:

Worse than that... only 210 miles is over land (200 from Stranraer to
Elgin, plus the last 10 miles).

Can't see how you get Stranraer on the line.

It's the nearest big town to the landfall in western Scotland, north of
the Isle of Man.

Depends what you mean by big. Wigtown and Kirkcudbright are both much closer.

The line from Lands End to Stranraer doesn't pass over any land at all
and the line through Stranraer and Elgin doesn't doesn't meet any land
again until Norway or Ireland at the closest or just possibly much
further afield. (I don't have a globe to play with so can't be sure
whether it is a glancing blow or a complete miss where Ireland and
Norway are concerned).

--
Roger Chapman

Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I suppose if you want a Jag, and can afford the maintenance and tax and
fuel, you can afford a new one.

That's complete nonsense. Just look at all the old Range Rovers that
people can afford to run, and yet could never afford to buy new.

Not even just Range-Rovers. I'm driving an 18yo Saab 900, properly
maintained - to the point where the car's actually being improved rapidly
since I bought it.

Could I afford a new 9-3? No. Would I _want_ a new 9-3? No.

In message , at
09:52:49 on Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Kieran Mansley
remarked:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:34:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Given the lack of interchangeability of laptop batteries, I wouldn't
hold out much hope for car manufacturers making it easy to mix and
match. And they'd be losing valuable revenue from forcing people to buy
new batteries.

You're probably right, but it's a shame. If they could, and could make it
a quick automated process to swap the battery pack out, you wouldn't have
any of this hassle of installing lots of places to plug cars in, or any of
the range issues.

Duracell launched some "universal" rechargeable batteries for laptops in
the mid-90's, but no manufacturers built machines to take them (afaict).

You'd just have to replace existing petrol filling stations with
swap-the-battery-pack stations. They'd take your flat batteries out,
install a fully charged set, charge the flat ones and put them in another
car later in the day. The manufacturer would own the batteries, so it
doesn't matter to you whether you get ones that are brand new or a year or
two old, you'd just be billed for the usable electricity they contain plus
a little to cover the cost of replacing them as they wear out.

The Calor Gas business model.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:13:40 on Fri, 6
Jun 2008, Tim Downie remarked:
It's a nice idea *but*, how many cars (with a range of at least 300 miles)
fill up at any one petrol station every day?

A good point. Whenever there's a whiff of a petrol shortage, people who
wouldn't normally fill their car up crawl out of the woodwork. Enough
to cause huge queues. Now imagine people filling up daily.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:14:09
on Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Roger remarked:
Worse than that... only 210 miles is over land (200 from Stranraer to
Elgin, plus the last 10 miles).

Can't see how you get Stranraer on the line.

It's the nearest big town to the landfall in western Scotland, north of
the Isle of Man.

Depends what you mean by big.

Big enough to be marked on the Atlas that I was using.

Wigtown and Kirkcudbright are both much closer.

You are making an issue where none exists. The directions are not for a
pilot who needs to fly the course with only my usenet posting to go on.
It's to describe roughly which part of Scotland is involved (ie not
Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen etc)
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 02:47:14 on
Fri, 6 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
I suppose if you want a Jag, and can afford the maintenance and tax
and fuel, you can afford a new one.

That's complete nonsense. Just look at all the old Range Rovers that
people can afford to run, and yet could never afford to buy new.


range rover has utility beyind luxury.

Still the scrap value of a 3 year old BEV with a still usable battery
would be much higher if the battery could be slotted into someone
else's high mileage one that needed it.

Given the lack of interchangeability of laptop batteries, I wouldn't
hold out much hope for car manufacturers making it easy to mix and
match. And they'd be losing valuable revenue from forcing people to buy
new batteries.

They'd be losing even mor erevenue if no one bought the cars.