On Friday, 27 October 2017 11:57:05 UTC+1, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:02:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Any particular reason why?
As a London resident you may well use Public transport more
frequently than those in the sticks and many of the electric trains
that you may use will be slowing in a very similar fashion.

You think a train running on rails the same as a car on a road? ;-)

No, although some trams will be using the same technology and they run
on roads in places.
I just thought that maybe you had some sort of phobia or mistrust
about something not being 100% mechanical in action like some pilots
were apprehensive in fly by wire rather than mechanical linkages.

I was just commenting on the nonsense that electric cars don't have normal
brakes. Of course they do - even when using regeneration to slow them down
to some extent. Unless you think two wheel brakes are going to be
marvellous for all occasions.

The post to which you were replying said
"The mechanical brakes are only used to stop the car. Normal
braking is regenerative,"

It did not say it had no mechanical brakes,
only you introduced that with your line on personal preferences
"Not sure I'd like a car with no brakes - other than just to bring it
to a halt over the last few yards. ;-)"
I've no beef with that just wondered why, some drivers when conditions
allow like to combine throttle and brake input simultaneously so it
would on first glance appear an electric car may not be the best tool
for that. But won't the mechanical brakes be applied anyway from he
brake pedal when required if you wanted them to?
Is all you are doing when driving an electric on the throttle pedal
is using engine braking that is a bit more than the driver of an IC
vehicle is accustomed to so use of the actual brake pedal is far less
and later than in an IC car.
Sounds like it may actually encourage a reasonable driving technique
amongst the present " I can't anticipate I'm going to need to slow
down for that red light ahead" who keep the gas on and then brake
hard.

G.Harman

If you press the brake pedal lightly, you get regenerative braking.
Harder pressure brings in the mechanical brakes.
You can see it happening on the instrumentation.

However for normal driving, you don't touch the brake pedal. As you lift off the throttle the regenerative braking comes in progressively.
In my car a lever adjusts the regenerative braking according to the roads you are driving on.
Twisty roads, you set the regenerative braking higher.

On Friday, 27 October 2017 14:20:46 UTC+1, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:30:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:



You think a train running on rails the same as a car on a road? ;-)

No, although some trams will be using the same technology and they run
on roads in places.

You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative brakes?

Not as good as car I would have thought, they can stop surprisingly
fast in emergency if the regenerated power is sent to the track brake
which is basically a long electromagnet mounted to a shoe that gets
clamped down to the rail , it also increases the downward force on the
wheels themselves.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._car_truck.jpg
Drivers try not to use them if it can be avoided as standing
passengers may be injured as they are thrown of their balance.
I just thought that maybe you had some sort of phobia or mistrust
about something not being 100% mechanical in action
Absolutely not.
Fair enough

I was just commenting on the nonsense that electric cars don't have
normal brakes. Of course they do - even when using regeneration to slow
them down to some extent. Unless you think two wheel brakes are going
to be marvellous for all occasions.

The post to which you were replying said "The mechanical brakes are only
used to stop the car. Normal
braking is regenerative,"


It did not say it had no mechanical brakes,
only you introduced that with your line on personal preferences
"Not sure I'd like a car with no brakes - other than just to bring it
to a halt over the last few yards. ;-)"

How did you read 'only used to stop the car' then? That just says what
every brake ever made does - until it was qualified by mentioning
regenerative braking.

I read as it as if you thought there was no alternative to relying on
the regenerative braking until it had slowed and you thought the
mechanical system was only operative for the last stage as regen
retardation became less.

I've no beef with that just wondered why, some drivers when conditions
allow like to combine throttle and brake input simultaneously

Really? It is a technique used by some rally drivers. Not sure it would be
much used on a public road.

There are quite a few out there who will try, often the unlicensed
and uninsured, not that I'm accusing you of being one of them.
Others may just let rip on a quiet road out in the sticks for a bit of
fun because they can even though their insurance company would not
approve. At least till we all get compulsory trackers in the
future,its possible you have may have done something like that till
the expericence of age moderated machoness.

But won't the mechanical brakes be applied anyway from he
brake pedal when required if you wanted them to?

You'd have to ask harry.
There others on here with electric cars that although I may not agree
with all their views are not just senile old gits, Harry as been KF'd
for years and will remain so.

G.Harman

It has a perfectly normal/ordinary automotive braking system.
As it's so infrequently used,I anticipate never having to change the shoes/pads. There is as yet no detectable wear.

On Friday, 27 October 2017 17:44:23 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/10/2017 17:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 October 2017 17:27:06 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2017 16:25:43 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2017 15:46:24 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2017 10:42:51 UTC+1, Dave Plowman
(News) wrote:
In article
, Andy
Bennet wrote:
We did not get an EV based on the cost of the fuel, it is
just plain more enjoyable driving.

Must admit that's the first time I've heard that one. ;-)

Electric cars are a dream to drive compared with ICE.

I;m not a driver but even I know there are differnt dreams for
drivers.

Electric cars are a dream to drive because:- The torque max comes
at the time you need it (setting off).

Well IC cars are still genral speaking have a lower 0-60 time.

Since IIRC harry has a i-MiEV, that's a bit of an understatement! (0-62
in something like 16 seconds!)

There are no gear changes,just seamless acceleration.

Seamless as in you can't tell its accelerating

An advantage for some I guess lioke having an automatic.

Leaves most other cars standing at the traffic lights.

I doubt that cost for cost.

About 20K new now... more when harry got his. That buys quite a bit of
performance if you want it.

In Summer I charge it from my solar panels for free.

Handy if yuo ahave the space and setup for such things.

There's no road tax.

Presently it'll come.

Insurance is about the same as a conventional car. Maintenance is
almost zero. No oil, no filters. Just fluids to top up.

What about the battery ?


What's not to like?

Difficult for some to have handy access to charging points, intial
cost, Petrol head types, those that are into high performance cars,
those that want a cheap runabout.

Those that don't want something with the style of a pregnant roller
skate, which is less than 60" wide? Do you get in it, or put it on harry?


--
Cheers,

John.

Seamless is there are no pauses for gear changing.
ie continuous acceleration.

On Friday, 27 October 2017 17:44:23 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/10/2017 17:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 October 2017 17:27:06 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2017 16:25:43 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2017 15:46:24 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2017 10:42:51 UTC+1, Dave Plowman
(News) wrote:
In article
, Andy
Bennet wrote:
We did not get an EV based on the cost of the fuel, it is
just plain more enjoyable driving.

Must admit that's the first time I've heard that one. ;-)

Electric cars are a dream to drive compared with ICE.

I;m not a driver but even I know there are differnt dreams for
drivers.

Electric cars are a dream to drive because:- The torque max comes
at the time you need it (setting off).

Well IC cars are still genral speaking have a lower 0-60 time.

Since IIRC harry has a i-MiEV, that's a bit of an understatement! (0-62
in something like 16 seconds!)

There are no gear changes,just seamless acceleration.

Seamless as in you can't tell its accelerating

An advantage for some I guess lioke having an automatic.

Leaves most other cars standing at the traffic lights.

I doubt that cost for cost.

About 20K new now... more when harry got his. That buys quite a bit of
performance if you want it.

In Summer I charge it from my solar panels for free.

Handy if yuo ahave the space and setup for such things.

There's no road tax.

Presently it'll come.

Insurance is about the same as a conventional car. Maintenance is
almost zero. No oil, no filters. Just fluids to top up.

What about the battery ?


What's not to like?

Difficult for some to have handy access to charging points, intial
cost, Petrol head types, those that are into high performance cars,
those that want a cheap runabout.

Those that don't want something with the style of a pregnant roller
skate, which is less than 60" wide? Do you get in it, or put it on harry?

The doors are very thin and there's no transmission tunnel.
There is ample space.

I also have a Rolls Royce. So I know the difference.
The doors are very thick on that.

On 27/10/2017 13:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative brakes?

The midland metro ones can stop in their own length.
I don't know how much regeneration there would be.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:12:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Who typically 'police' these 'Electric Vehicles Only' bays to ensure
that non electric cars don't block them up, as who would risk driving
to one if nothing can be done about it if the bay was so occupied?

Some might say if an electric vehicle wants exclusive parking bays in a
public place, they should pay VED like other vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except for now they are trying to
make them more appealing to stop thousands of people dying from
pollution primarily created by running ICE's in our cities.

And shift that pollution to the countryside with more power generation?
If they really do want to get rid of the sort of pollution that kills,
make a start by banning diesels. Lots of vehicles used in towns are
delivery vans and taxis etc - far more suited to electric use than the
average family car. CO2 output from vehicles is a different matter - that
doesn't kill.

And pay the same
sort of tax on their fuel as ICE vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except it isn't necessarily 'fuel'
in the same way petrol or diesel are (unless 'bio fuels')? Eg, how you
use your electricity should be down to you shouldn't it, be it for
cooling you beer or running your car?

What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between raising
tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is used to power a
car.

Just the same with how you use your alcohol, be it in the food you
cook, in a glass to drink, getting stickers off things or a fuel in
your dragster or camping stove? ;-)

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harry wrote:
However for normal driving, you don't touch the brake pedal. As you lift
off the throttle the regenerative braking comes in progressively.

What a very stupid system. Why on earth would you want the car to stop
quicker under all conditions than simply coasting to a halt? Especially
given plenty warning you're going to have to stop like at red traffic
lights.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harry wrote:
It has a perfectly normal/ordinary automotive braking system. As it's so
infrequently used,I anticipate never having to change the shoes/pads.
There is as yet no detectable wear.

Let's get this straight. You boast about wasting energy with its excellent
acceleration (you say) but worry about the cost of a set of brake pads?

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harry wrote:
Seamless is there are no pauses for gear changing.
ie continuous acceleration.

Plenty autos exhibit the same thing. A planetary gearbox does not
interrupt power flow when changing ratio.

--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/10/2017 13:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative brakes?

The midland metro ones can stop in their own length.
I don't know how much regeneration there would be.

They'll use some form of magnetic clamp to the rails. A steel wheel on
steel has pretty poor traction, compared to a tyre on a road.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" wrote:

On 27/10/2017 13:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative
brakes?

The midland metro ones can stop in their own length. I don't know how
much regeneration there would be.

Never mind the regeneration, feel the broken bones.

Quite. Probably cheaper to run down that cyclist than pay for all the
injuries to standing passengers. Infinitely preferable too, since cyclists
are always in the wrong.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/10/2017 23:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Seamless is there are no pauses for gear changing.
ie continuous acceleration.

Plenty autos exhibit the same thing. A planetary gearbox does not
interrupt power flow when changing ratio.

The dual clutch designs are also able to apply continuous torque.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/10/2017 04:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/10/2017 23:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Seamless is there are no pauses for gear changing.
ie continuous acceleration.

Plenty autos exhibit the same thing. A planetary gearbox does not
interrupt power flow when changing ratio.

The dual clutch designs are also able to apply continuous torque.



So how does that work with an ICE? If the car goes faster then the
input/output ratio must increase, therefore to maintain the output
torque the input torque must increase - but the ICE will slow down so
its torque must increase for decreasing engine revs.

Sounds ******** to me.

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 27/10/2017 13:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative brakes?

The midland metro ones can stop in their own length.
I don't know how much regeneration there would be.

The old trolley buses in Newcastle used to be quite lethal
--
bert

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 23:47:51 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:12:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Who typically 'police' these 'Electric Vehicles Only' bays to ensure
that non electric cars don't block them up, as who would risk driving
to one if nothing can be done about it if the bay was so occupied?

Some might say if an electric vehicle wants exclusive parking bays in a
public place, they should pay VED like other vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except for now they are trying to
make them more appealing to stop thousands of people dying from
pollution primarily created by running ICE's in our cities.

And shift that pollution to the countryside with more power generation?

Yes.

It's like not running your petrol generator inside your workshop but
outside.

If they really do want to get rid of the sort of pollution that kills,
make a start by banning diesels.

I thought they were, effectively?

Lots of vehicles used in towns are
delivery vans and taxis etc - far more suited to electric use than the
average family car.

Agreed. Here is an idea ... electric trains or barges carrying the
bulk goods between hubs and then electric vehicles from there to the
factories, shops and houses etc?

CO2 output from vehicles is a different matter - that
doesn't kill.

Ok.

And pay the same
sort of tax on their fuel as ICE vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except it isn't necessarily 'fuel'
in the same way petrol or diesel are (unless 'bio fuels')? Eg, how you
use your electricity should be down to you shouldn't it, be it for
cooling you beer or running your car?

What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between raising
tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is used to power a
car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove. The only reason to
tax such when used for fuel (if cleaner alternatives are available) is
to distract people from using it or to pay for the cleanup.

Cheers, T i m

On 27/10/2017 23:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
However for normal driving, you don't touch the brake pedal. As you lift
off the throttle the regenerative braking comes in progressively.

What a very stupid system. Why on earth would you want the car to stop
quicker under all conditions than simply coasting to a halt? Especially
given plenty warning you're going to have to stop like at red traffic
lights.


Having driven a hybrid with regen breaking for a few hours (I collected
mine today), you use is to avoid braking. Obviously, not all braking but
where you can anticipate what is happening. At least on my vehicle, the
degree of regen, and therefore the 'drag', can be adjusted on the fly.

On 19/10/2017 19:31, Brian Gaff wrote:
No heater? What you do take a gas heater with you then?
Brian


VW 412 fastbacks and estate cars used to have an auxiliary
petrol-powered heater because the exhaust heat-exchangers
weren't up to alpine winters.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 15:58:34 +0100, bert wrote:



You think a tram could stop as fast as a car using regenerative brakes?

The midland metro ones can stop in their own length.
I don't know how much regeneration there would be.

The old trolley buses in Newcastle used to be quite lethal

Dionne Warwick the singer found out that a Glasgow one nearly lived up
to their nickname "The Silent Death when she got hit by one when on a
tour in the mid sixties.
Makes the basis of a good pub quiz question, hardly anyone knows
about it and a lot of people under 50 won't even know what one is.

G.Harman

On 27/10/2017 23:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:12:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Who typically 'police' these 'Electric Vehicles Only' bays to ensure
that non electric cars don't block them up, as who would risk driving
to one if nothing can be done about it if the bay was so occupied?

Some might say if an electric vehicle wants exclusive parking bays in a
public place, they should pay VED like other vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except for now they are trying to
make them more appealing to stop thousands of people dying from
pollution primarily created by running ICE's in our cities.

And shift that pollution to the countryside with more power generation?
If they really do want to get rid of the sort of pollution that kills,
make a start by banning diesels. Lots of vehicles used in towns are
delivery vans and taxis etc - far more suited to electric use than the
average family car. CO2 output from vehicles is a different matter - that
doesn't kill.

And pay the same
sort of tax on their fuel as ICE vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except it isn't necessarily 'fuel'
in the same way petrol or diesel are (unless 'bio fuels')? Eg, how you
use your electricity should be down to you shouldn't it, be it for
cooling you beer or running your car?


Keep that idea to yourself or 'they' will be levying 'road fuel duty' on
electricity.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between raising
tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is used to power a
car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:12:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between raising
tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is used to power a
car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

That's not a reason, just a stating of the status quo.

Fuel is fuel, no matter how it is used. It's the system that decides
to add taxes depending on how the fuel is used, not the fuels
themselves.

So, it's the same system that may decide not to differentiate how we
choose to use our electricity, be it for moving us from A to B in a
car, from A to B in an electric train, from floor 1 to floor 10 in an
electric lift or to electrically cook your food to allow you to walk
from A to B.

Cheers, T i m

On 29/10/2017 03:20, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:12:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between raising
tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is used to power a
car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

That's not a reason, just a stating of the status quo.

Fuel is fuel, no matter how it is used. It's the system that decides
to add taxes depending on how the fuel is used, not the fuels
themselves.

So, it's the same system that may decide not to differentiate how we
choose to use our electricity, be it for moving us from A to B in a
car, from A to B in an electric train, from floor 1 to floor 10 in an
electric lift or to electrically cook your food to allow you to walk
from A to B.

Cheers, T i m


Indeed. Tax/duty on road fuel is like tax/duty on booze and even
tobacco, attempts by the government to make social judgements on who
should have access to them.



--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news
On 27/10/2017 23:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:12:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Who typically 'police' these 'Electric Vehicles Only' bays to ensure
that non electric cars don't block them up, as who would risk driving
to one if nothing can be done about it if the bay was so occupied?

Some might say if an electric vehicle wants exclusive parking bays in a
public place, they should pay VED like other vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except for now they are trying to
make them more appealing to stop thousands of people dying from
pollution primarily created by running ICE's in our cities.

And shift that pollution to the countryside with more power generation?
If they really do want to get rid of the sort of pollution that kills,
make a start by banning diesels. Lots of vehicles used in towns are
delivery vans and taxis etc - far more suited to electric use than the
average family car. CO2 output from vehicles is a different matter - that
doesn't kill.

And pay the same
sort of tax on their fuel as ICE vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except it isn't necessarily 'fuel'
in the same way petrol or diesel are (unless 'bio fuels')? Eg, how you
use your electricity should be down to you shouldn't it, be it for
cooling you beer or running your car?


Keep that idea to yourself or 'they' will be levying 'road fuel duty' on
electricity.

sound fair to me.....

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:12:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between
raising tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is
used to power a car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

That's not a reason, just a stating of the status quo.

You asked for the reason.

Fuel is fuel, no matter how it is used. It's the system that decides
to add taxes depending on how the fuel is used, not the fuels
themselves.

And how to raise indirect taxes is decided by a principle. In this case by
taxing fuel used for road vehicles. Not boats or trains or planes or
agricultural ones. Road.

So it is a nonsense to exclude electric ones, excepting that it would be
more difficult to tax the electricity used for a car, than a fossil fuel.
So a different method of raising tax from them will have to be derived.

So, it's the same system that may decide not to differentiate how we
choose to use our electricity, be it for moving us from A to B in a
car, from A to B in an electric train, from floor 1 to floor 10 in an
electric lift or to electrically cook your food to allow you to walk
from A to B.

Cheers, T i m

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Indeed. Tax/duty on road fuel is like tax/duty on booze and even
tobacco, attempts by the government to make social judgements on who
should have access to them.

True to some extent. But then so is any tax on a product. Like purchase
tax or even VAT.

Any government needs an income to run the country.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:12:51 +0100
Brian Reay wrote:

On 27/10/2017 23:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:12:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Who typically 'police' these 'Electric Vehicles Only' bays to
ensure that non electric cars don't block them up, as who would
risk driving to one if nothing can be done about it if the bay
was so occupied?

Some might say if an electric vehicle wants exclusive parking
bays in a public place, they should pay VED like other vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except for now they are trying to
make them more appealing to stop thousands of people dying from
pollution primarily created by running ICE's in our cities.

And shift that pollution to the countryside with more power
generation? If they really do want to get rid of the sort of
pollution that kills, make a start by banning diesels. Lots of
vehicles used in towns are delivery vans and taxis etc - far more
suited to electric use than the average family car. CO2 output from
vehicles is a different matter - that doesn't kill.

And pay the same
sort of tax on their fuel as ICE vehicles.

They probably will at some point, except it isn't necessarily
'fuel' in the same way petrol or diesel are (unless 'bio fuels')?
Eg, how you use your electricity should be down to you shouldn't
it, be it for cooling you beer or running your car?


Keep that idea to yourself or 'they' will be levying 'road fuel duty'
on electricity.


They'll dye the electrons on the stuff for Domestic Use Only.

On 28/10/2017 15:48, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 28/10/2017 04:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/10/2017 23:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Seamless is there are no pauses for gear changing.
ie continuous acceleration.

Plenty autos exhibit the same thing. A planetary gearbox does not
interrupt power flow when changing ratio.

The dual clutch designs are also able to apply continuous torque.



So how does that work with an ICE? If the car goes faster then the
input/output ratio must increase, therefore to maintain the output
torque the input torque must increase - but the ICE will slow down so
its torque must increase for decreasing engine revs.

You seem to be confusing continuous with constant. The car will be able
to apply torque to the wheels without noticeable interruption, that does
not mean to say the amount of torque will not change.

Sounds ******** to me.

Any sufficiently advanced technology will sound like magic ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:54:59 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:12:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between
raising tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is
used to power a car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

That's not a reason, just a stating of the status quo.

You asked for the reason.

Yes, I did, where is it? ;-)

Fuel is fuel, no matter how it is used. It's the system that decides
to add taxes depending on how the fuel is used, not the fuels
themselves.

And how to raise indirect taxes is decided by a principle. In this case by
taxing fuel used for road vehicles. Not boats or trains or planes or
agricultural ones. Road.

So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?


So it is a nonsense to exclude electric ones,

I'm not sure the others create as much pollution in our cities though
do they?

excepting that it would be
more difficult to tax the electricity used for a car, than a fossil fuel.

That is a practical consideration, true.

So a different method of raising tax from them will have to be derived.

Maybe once all the IC vehicles are removed (at least in the cities)
maybe they will bring in more toll roads and (GPS / ANPR tracked)
miles driven (= wear on roads)?

Cheers, T i m

On 18/10/2017 20:47, Brian Reay wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On R4 You and Yours today* - for those who may wish to listen again -
there was a bit about some filling stations providing fast charge points.
At last, you might say.

And they interviewed an actual punter with a Leaf. Worth a listen. ;-)

One point he made was he charges it at home at 12p per kW.hr. A full
charge costing about £2 and taking him about 80 miles.

The fast charge points will cost 50p per kW.hr and only charge to 80%.

So as a rough guestimate 7 quid for 70 miles. Not much different from a
small diesel. And, of course, no duty on that electricity, unlike petrol
and diesel.


I've been looking at EV charging (we've just ordered a hybrid) and I've
found there are a surprising number of free or cheap charging points.
Some require a subscription of about £8 per mth, others seem to be
totally free. The £8 / mth one is the Polar network, which is a mix of
free and charged for points.

Of course, the danger is that, having got everyone 'hooked', they ramp
up the costs.

The Gov. still offer not only a generous 'bonus' to help fund a hybrid
or EV, they are also funding the installation of domestic charge points.
The process seems very 'slick' so far- ours should be installed in under
2 weeks.


about time the gov taxed cars out of existance, we are over-run with them.
3 or 4 per house, parked on pavements, sat in them for hours in a jam.
People need to organise and try to share their journey with other drivers.
Do we really need everyone to work from 9 - 5, could not the work hours
change to spread out the number on the road at any one time?

On 19/10/2017 00:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 16:54:02 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On R4 You and Yours today - for those who may wish to listen again -
there was a bit about some filling stations providing fast charge
points. At last, you might say.

And they interviewed an actual punter with a Leaf. Worth a listen. ;-)

One point he made was he charges it at home at 12p per kW.hr. A full
charge costing about £2 and taking him about 80 miles.

The fast charge points will cost 50p per kW.hr and only charge to 80%.

So as a rough guestimate 7 quid for 70 miles. Not much different from
a small diesel. And, of course, no duty on that electricity, unlike
petrol and diesel.

Most electric cars are charged overnight at home

That's because most are only town runabouts. If filling stations are
getting round to fitting fast charging points, it suggests they are going
to be used for longer distances.

it suggests that service areas want their custom while they wait for
their car to charge.

"critcher" wrote in message
news
On 18/10/2017 20:47, Brian Reay wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On R4 You and Yours today - for those who may wish to listen again -
there was a bit about some filling stations providing fast charge
points.
At last, you might say.

And they interviewed an actual punter with a Leaf. Worth a listen. ;-)

One point he made was he charges it at home at 12p per kW.hr. A full
charge costing about £2 and taking him about 80 miles.

The fast charge points will cost 50p per kW.hr and only charge to 80%.

So as a rough guestimate 7 quid for 70 miles. Not much different from a
small diesel. And, of course, no duty on that electricity, unlike petrol
and diesel.


I've been looking at EV charging (we've just ordered a hybrid) and I've
found there are a surprising number of free or cheap charging points.
Some require a subscription of about £8 per mth, others seem to be
totally free. The £8 / mth one is the Polar network, which is a mix of
free and charged for points.

Of course, the danger is that, having got everyone 'hooked', they ramp up
the costs.

The Gov. still offer not only a generous 'bonus' to help fund a hybrid or
EV, they are also funding the installation of domestic charge points. The
process seems very 'slick' so far- ours should be installed in under 2
weeks.


about time the gov taxed cars out of existance, we are over-run with them.
3 or 4 per house, parked on pavements, sat in them for hours in a jam.
People need to organise and try to share their journey with other drivers.

Do we really need everyone to work from 9 - 5,

Hasn’t ever been like that.

could not the work hours change to spread out the number on the road at
any one time?

Always has been spread out.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
And how to raise indirect taxes is decided by a principle. In this case by
taxing fuel used for road vehicles. Not boats or trains or planes or
agricultural ones. Road.

So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?

I dunno about petrol for a boat, as they are going to be pretty rare,
other than a small outboard, etc. Others will fill up at a marine filling
station - not on the M1. And your car might get rather soggy is you tried
to use that.

Diesel is called red or white. One is taxed for road vehicles. the other
not.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:45:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?

I dunno about petrol for a boat, as they are going to be pretty rare,
other than a small outboard, etc. Others will fill up at a marine filling
station - not on the M1. And your car might get rather soggy is you tried
to use that.

Diesel is called red or white. One is taxed for road vehicles. the other
not.
Not necessarily.

One thing that changed a few years back in 2008 after pressure from
Europe was that the use of rebated diesel for pleasure craft was no
longer allowed.
A narrow boat owner touring for pleasure or someone with a large cabin
cruiser they are going out for a jolly on is supposed to pay duty on
diesel used for propulsion purposes. If the narrow boat is a rare
example of one still carrying a commercial cargo then it can still use
diesel at the lower rate as presumably could a cabin cruiser that is
earning money as a commercial operation giving rides around the bay

This understandably caused problems as on a boat there are times when
the engine may be acting as a generator or supplying a heater from the
same tank.
Consequently what is supposed to happen is that on sale of fuel to a
pleasure boat the supplier collects full duty even though the diesel
is red for what is intended for propulsion and the purchaser self
declares on an official form how much they use for non propulsion
purposes and the supplier takes the lesser amount for what has been
declared.
Naturally the Powers that be would come down hard on anybody abusing
the system.
A few years back the EU was trying to remove even that concession but
as far as I know the government has managed to resist that .
If it had been implemented it would have meant boats having separate
tanks and some boatyards would not have room for additional ones on
shore.



G.Harman

On 30/10/2017 10:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
And how to raise indirect taxes is decided by a principle. In this case by
taxing fuel used for road vehicles. Not boats or trains or planes or
agricultural ones. Road.

So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?

I dunno about petrol for a boat, as they are going to be pretty rare,
other than a small outboard, etc. Others will fill up at a marine filling
station - not on the M1. And your car might get rather soggy is you tried
to use that.

Diesel is called red or white. One is taxed for road vehicles. the other
not.

IIRC you now have to pay full fuel duty on marine diesel that is used
for propulsion. You can still legally use red diesel in a boat, but the
duty you should pay depends on what you are going to do with it.
Different rates apply for propulsion and say heating. Needless to say
its confusing cluster**** of paperwork and form filling.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I dunno about petrol for a boat, as they are going to be pretty rare,
other than a small outboard, etc. Others will fill up at a marine filling
station - not on the M1. And your car might get rather soggy is you tried
to use that.

Diesel is called red or white. One is taxed for road vehicles. the other
not.

IIRC you now have to pay full fuel duty on marine diesel that is used
for propulsion. You can still legally use red diesel in a boat, but the
duty you should pay depends on what you are going to do with it.
Different rates apply for propulsion and say heating. Needless to say
its confusing cluster**** of paperwork and form filling.

Interesting - it's quite some time since I had anything to do with boats.

All that says, though, is having duty free electricity for cars is even
more daft.

--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
On 27/10/2017 09:41, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-26, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/10/2017 17:27, harry wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2017 16:25:43 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:


I;m not a driver but even I know there are differnt dreams for
drivers.

Electric cars are a dream to drive because:- The torque max comes at
the time you need it (setting off) There are no gear changes,just
seamless acceleration. Leaves most other cars standing at the traffic
lights. The mechanical brakes are only used to stop the car. Normal
braking is regenerative, ie all speed control on the one pedal. The
regenerative braking is adjustable to road conditions on my car.

The only noise is from the tyres so it's quieter than a Rolls Royce.
In Summer I charge it from my solar panels for free.
There's no road tax.
Insurance is about the same as a conventional car.
Maintenance is almost zero. No oil, no filters.
Just fluids to top up.

What's not to like?

Some of the automotive equivalent of Linux fanbois who buy them?

Tssk. They bear much more comparison with Mac fanbois; electric cars
are very far from free. Although I have recently discovered a tribe of
fanbois who make the Apple ones look like calm rational human being;
Adobe Photoshop fanbois.



My French 4x4 hybrid estate car saves me £130 every month compared to
the Audi A4 Allroad it replaced and does everything the Allroad did!

Including 500ish miles on a single refueling?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
My French 4x4 hybrid estate car saves me £130 every month compared to
the Audi A4 Allroad it replaced and does everything the Allroad did!

Including 500ish miles on a single refueling?

If it's a hybrid, depends on the size of the fuel tank.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
charles wrote:
My French 4x4 hybrid estate car saves me £130 every month compared to
the Audi A4 Allroad it replaced and does everything the Allroad did!

Including 500ish miles on a single refueling?

If it's a hybrid, depends on the size of the fuel tank.

You don't say.
--
bert

In article ,
writes
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:45:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?

I dunno about petrol for a boat, as they are going to be pretty rare,
other than a small outboard, etc. Others will fill up at a marine filling
station - not on the M1. And your car might get rather soggy is you tried
to use that.

Diesel is called red or white. One is taxed for road vehicles. the other
not.
Not necessarily.

One thing that changed a few years back in 2008 after pressure from
Europe was that the use of rebated diesel for pleasure craft was no
longer allowed.
A narrow boat owner touring for pleasure or someone with a large cabin
cruiser they are going out for a jolly on is supposed to pay duty on
diesel used for propulsion purposes. If the narrow boat is a rare
example of one still carrying a commercial cargo then it can still use
diesel at the lower rate as presumably could a cabin cruiser that is
earning money as a commercial operation giving rides around the bay

This understandably caused problems as on a boat there are times when
the engine may be acting as a generator or supplying a heater from the
same tank.
Consequently what is supposed to happen is that on sale of fuel to a
pleasure boat the supplier collects full duty even though the diesel
is red for what is intended for propulsion and the purchaser self
declares on an official form how much they use for non propulsion
purposes and the supplier takes the lesser amount for what has been
declared.
A fine example of EU red tape.
Naturally the Powers that be would come down hard on anybody abusing
the system.
A few years back the EU was trying to remove even that concession but
as far as I know the government has managed to resist that .
If it had been implemented it would have meant boats having separate
tanks and some boatyards would not have room for additional ones on
shore.



G.Harman


--
bert

On 29/10/2017 18:09, John Rumm wrote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology will sound like magic ;-)

cough Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Andy