On 10/03/18 21:36, wrote:

Do not suddenly say "oh, we've decided this is crap, you all can get rid
of the cars that last week we were telling to you buy"

Sorry but you're being far too sensible. No politician will ever agree. Messing with people creating unnecessary costs for no valid reason is compulsory with politicians.


It's not exactly hard:

Cars have a lifespan of what, 15 years on average? That's 15 years you
need to plan ahead[1]. the problem can be managed ahead of the curve
without penalising anyone.

Unless you are a knee jerk idiot of a politician of course!

[1] A small proportion of vehicles will last (or be made to last) longer
than this - the percentage being small enough to make no difference -
like the numbers of 1960s cars on the road today. Saw a Morris Minor
1000 Traveller earlier. Who cares if it's not very environmentally
friendly - it was one out of a 1000.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 21:22, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 16:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels
pariahs. I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main
source of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful
pollutant in this case.

Next they'll be banning gas boilers. They are not far behind with their
NOx emissions in city centres.

But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Aww, bless. I can still remember believing that they worked. ;-)

Tim




Your link to the article that shows they don't work please?


No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion of
diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 10/03/2018 15:13, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 12:22, NY wrote:

My car is coming up to 10 years old and is starting to cost fir
repairs
to the anti pollution system. I will be gutted when eventually have to
get rid if it and replace it with a petrol which is gutless and has a
noisy high revving engine (unless I get a powerful engine).

I would love to go back to a petrol engine.

If you want a small petrol engine that pulls like a diesel find one
with a
turbo or supercharger. It's that which makes the difference.

If you really want to define gutless, think of older small diesels before
turbos became the norm.

True. The very first diesel I drove was a Golf many years ago. It didn't
have much pull. It was no match for my 1.8 petrol Golf.

The first I drove (a Fiesta 1.6D) beat almost anything from a standing
start, but struggled to accelerate once above 30mph.

SteveW

On 10/03/18 22:11, Tim+ wrote:

No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion of
diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

None of mine do that.

On Saturday, 10 March 2018 22:06:31 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 21:36, tabbypurr wrote:

Do not suddenly say "oh, we've decided this is crap, you all can get rid
of the cars that last week we were telling to you buy"

Sorry but you're being far too sensible. No politician will ever agree. Messing with people creating unnecessary costs for no valid reason is compulsory with politicians.


It's not exactly hard:

Cars have a lifespan of what, 15 years on average? That's 15 years you
need to plan ahead[1]. the problem can be managed ahead of the curve
without penalising anyone.

Unless you are a knee jerk idiot of a politician of course!

there's the problem. So it will all pointlessly cost the country billions.

[1] A small proportion of vehicles will last (or be made to last) longer
than this - the percentage being small enough to make no difference -
like the numbers of 1960s cars on the road today. Saw a Morris Minor
1000 Traveller earlier. Who cares if it's not very environmentally
friendly - it was one out of a 1000.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Many of which don't work.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

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

In article ,
wrote:
Hybrid technology gets round the problem of poor efficiency in stop start
conditions.

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a straight engine.

You don't seriously believe official tests?

All hybrids do well in stop start conditions. The whole reason for them.
They're totally pointless at cruise.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
True. The very first diesel I drove was a Golf many years ago. It didn't
have much pull. It was no match for my 1.8 petrol Golf.

The first I drove (a Fiesta 1.6D) beat almost anything from a standing
start, but struggled to accelerate once above 30mph.

Yup - very fast from 0-5 mph due to the heavy flywheel.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 22:11, Tim+ wrote:

No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion
of diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

None of mine do that.

Try looking at others, then.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
Hybrid technology gets round the problem of poor efficiency in stop start
conditions.

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

You don't seriously believe official tests?

All hybrids do well in stop start conditions. The whole reason for them.
They're totally pointless at cruise.

I have no experience with hybrids, but something with a reasonable sized
battery and on-board diesel engine to charge it seems possible way to
go. The diesel could perhaps be designed to run at a constant maximum
efficiency and have appropriate cleaning add-ons if necessary.

All I know is that my diesel vehicles use massively less fuel under
long-stop start conditions than any petrol vehicles I've had. It's a
huge difference and I do wonder what the petrol engines were throwing
out in the way of un or partly burnt fuel when cold.

The evidence seems to be that particulates are mainly from tyres, brakes
etc. and these are about 10 times the quantity produced by engines.

It seems to me that many people, even the ones here, are gradually being
brainwashed by the drip of anti-diesel propaganda, much of which seems
based on hearsay.

When a town near me bans or charges for diesels, I will simply never go
or spend money there again. Shame about the shops and businesses, but my
policy has worked with parking charges, and has been adopted by others
judging by the increasingly ghostly local shopping areas.
--
Bill

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 10-Mar-18 5:13 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

So, do what they have done in numerous city abroad - ban cars that
don't or can't display a sticker showing they comply with a minimum
emissions standard.

So who gets the sticker? A given model or cars which, individually,
pass the standard?


Germany does it by the Euro class of the model.

Regardless, then, of whether the vehicle itself actually passes that
standard.

These days I check the vehicle in front carefully to see whether
there's diesel smoke being emitted, and turn on the recirc if so.
What's amazing is the proportion of recent-plate vehicles falling into
that category.

Does smoke emission correlate well with the emission of toxic small
particles? I really don't know, but I'm pretty sure the converse does
not apply.

I assumed that the smoke *was* in fact, toxic small particles, BICBW.

As I say, I don't know but i suspect it is mainly larger particles and
droplets. It might well correlate with more small particles I suppose.
--

Roger Hayter

On 10/03/18 20:11, Richard wrote:
Think is if you walk past any queue of cars in London, you always smell a
diesel or two. And many smoke if they accelerate moderately hard. Some
older ones, a lot.

Who gives a toss about London pollution levels?

Thing is, if you walk down any street in london, you always smell a
badly cooked curry from a a bangladeshi testaurant.

That nation is reposnib;e for more stale methane than all the fracking
put together.


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 10/03/18 20:14, Tim Watts wrote:
I do wonder if the goalposts are being moved unnecessarily quickly... No
objection to the idea of moving towards cleaner cities - but is it
necessary to move in a state of blind panic?

Remember - it was Blair's government that was telling us to buy diesels.
If you wnat to change the balance, tell the manufacturers, load the VED
for *new* vehicles, encourage in the direction you want to go with time
to adapt.

Do not suddenly say "oh, we've decided this is crap, you all can get rid
of the cars that last week we were telling to you buy"

Bless. You didnt think this was actually about cleaner air did you?

VAG car sales are down!

The German car workers pensions are in danger!



--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 10/03/18 22:11, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 21:22, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 16:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels
pariahs. I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main
source of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful
pollutant in this case.

Next they'll be banning gas boilers. They are not far behind with their
NOx emissions in city centres.

But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Aww, bless. I can still remember believing that they worked. ;-)

Tim




Your link to the article that shows they don't work please?


No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion of
diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

Ther is no visibly black exahaust on my 2005 freelander unless its
either just been started or there is a split in the turbo hose.

And that's with the EGR bypassed as well.


Tim



--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 11/03/18 01:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
I assumed that the smoke*was* in fact, toxic small particles, BICBW.
As I say, I don't know but i suspect it is mainly larger particles and

The best pollution - like CO2, NOx and radiation - is *invisble* - that
makes it *MUCH* scarier.

Since the whole point of 'pollution' is to enable legislation to
increase car sales by German manufacturers.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 22:11, Tim+ wrote:

No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion of
diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

None of mine do that.



The owner is generally the last person to know though. Its not easy to
watch your own exhaust when youre hoofing it.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 10/03/2018 18:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Petrol engines are at their worst efficiency wise when doing stop start
journeys. At cruise, nothing like the same difference between petrol and
diesel.



And diesel can become less efficient when thrashed.


Yep. An overall 20MPG on my trip to Grimsby last week. Thrashed it all
the way. Now if I had set the CC to 70MPH I would have got closer to 35MPG

--
Adam

On 10/03/2018 17:02, Huge wrote:
On 2018-03-10, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

Your time will come.

I hope so, as I have no intention off pegging it soon.


--
Adam

Huge wrote:
On 2018-03-10, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

Your time will come. I used to drive from St. Albans to Carradale,
Kintyre, all in one go, two or three times a year, apart from the
occasional stop for coffee, fuel and peeing.

Snip


The pee stops get more and more
frequent, there are too many loonies on the roads and a lot of places
these days fit into the same category as Fingal's Cave, as remarked
upon by Dr. Johnson; "Worth seeing, but not worth going to see."



Sounds like you are heading for that refuge of pensioners , the all
inclusive out of school holiday time Coach tour to exotic destinations like
the I.O.W ,Lake District ,Edinburgh etc. Bingo in the evening followed by
a sing song.

GH

On 11/03/2018 08:29, Marland wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2018-03-10, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

Your time will come. I used to drive from St. Albans to Carradale,
Kintyre, all in one go, two or three times a year, apart from the
occasional stop for coffee, fuel and peeing.

Snip


The pee stops get more and more
frequent, there are too many loonies on the roads and a lot of places
these days fit into the same category as Fingal's Cave, as remarked
upon by Dr. Johnson; "Worth seeing, but not worth going to see."



Sounds like you are heading for that refuge of pensioners , the all
inclusive out of school holiday time Coach tour to exotic destinations like
the I.O.W ,Lake District ,Edinburgh etc. Bingo in the evening followed by
a sing song.

GH


As opposed to being permanently ****ted in Ibeefa?

On 10/03/2018 21:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 18:41:58 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

The motor manufacturers will have to produce a new range of economical
petrol engines targeted at the big load luggers which do so much of the
utility work before diesels can be phased out.

Petrol engines are at their worst efficiency wise when doing stop start
journeys.

all engines are

Electric engines arn't


At cruise, nothing like the same difference between petrol and
diesel. And diesel can become less efficient when thrashed.

all engines do

Electric engines don't


Hybrid technology gets round the problem of poor efficiency in stop start
conditions.

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a straight engine.


NT

On 11/03/2018 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Many of which don't work.


The essence of the scientific evidence is, I think, that DPFs are
effective at filtering the larger soot particles, but not finer
particles (pollution maps including PMM estimates support this).

Variables include where regeneration takes place (town/country), and
effectiveness of the PDF (from presence to technology; pre-2007 are
worse), and what harm is being done.

All that is known is that deaths related to respiratory illness have
gone up. Research suggests a strong link with diesel:

http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deaths-europe-0303

and this little lot (from Doctors Against Diesel):

Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution, The Royal
College of Physicians, Royal College of Paediatric and Child health
(2016), available at:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publicatio...f?noredirect=1

Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London, Kings
College London (2015) available at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/research/d...72015final.pdf

Lethal and Illegal: Solving Londons Air Pollution Crisis, Institute of
Public Policy Research (2016) Available at:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publicatio...df?noredirect=

And this site seems to be on a mission: https://www.theicct.org/

I haven't found much evidence supporting the continued use of diesel.
Even the SMT are on the fence - at best.


--
Cheers, Rob

In article , Andy Bennet
wrote:
On 10/03/2018 21:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 18:41:58 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , David
wrote:

The motor manufacturers will have to produce a new range of
economical petrol engines targeted at the big load luggers which do
so much of the utility work before diesels can be phased out.

Petrol engines are at their worst efficiency wise when doing stop
start journeys.

all engines are

Electric engines arn't

There's no such thing as an "electric engine". Ther are electric motors
which rely on eelctricity generated elsewhere.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 11/03/18 06:48, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 22:11, Tim+ wrote:

No link, just the evidence of my own eyes. Considering the proportion of
diesels now fitted with DPFs, visibly black exhausts ought to be
disappearing fast. This is definitely not the case.

None of mine do that.



The owner is generally the last person to know though. Its not easy to
watch your own exhaust when youre hoofing it.

I have neverseen a BMW diesl or Freeelabnder of that engine smoking.

In fact its very rare to see any turbodiesel smoking: with a turbo you
always have enough air to fully burn the mixture. And any exhaust carbon
can be burnt up quite easily or filtered out.

NOx is a different matter.


Tim



--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 11/03/18 08:34, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 21:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 18:41:58 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)Â* wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â* David wrote:

The motor manufacturers will have to produce a new range of economical
petrol engines targeted at the big load luggers which do so much of the
utility work before diesels can be phased out.

Petrol engines are at their worst efficiency wise when doing stop start
journeys.

all engines are

Electric engines arn't

Electric engines are, actually.




At cruise, nothing like the same difference between petrol and
diesel. And diesel can become less efficient when thrashed.

all engines do

Electric engines don't

Electric engines generally do as well.

Ther are few motors that have the same efficiency across the power
band. You select the most efficiency where you expect to be operating
most of the time.



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On Sunday, 11 March 2018 00:20:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Hybrid technology gets round the problem of poor efficiency in stop start
conditions.

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a straight engine.

You don't seriously believe official tests?

All hybrids do well in stop start conditions. The whole reason for them.
They're totally pointless at cruise.

they can do awesomely in stop-start, but since their overall mpg is worse there is no real efficiency gain.


NT

On 10/03/2018 20:14, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.
I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main source
of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful pollutant in
this case.


London in the 1970s was a polluted chokefest of dirty grossness.

London today feels to me like fresh Aspen air.

Try Poplar at rush hour! But larger particulate pollution has gone down.
The concern is over the rise in smaller particles.

You're probably right, though - it's going to take a lot more premature
deaths over many years before anything is actually done.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Sunday, 11 March 2018 01:09:16 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Hybrid technology gets round the problem of poor efficiency in stop start
conditions.

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

You don't seriously believe official tests?

All hybrids do well in stop start conditions. The whole reason for them.
They're totally pointless at cruise.

I have no experience with hybrids, but something with a reasonable sized
battery and on-board diesel engine to charge it seems possible way to
go. The diesel could perhaps be designed to run at a constant maximum
efficiency and have appropriate cleaning add-ons if necessary.

At max efficiency it's far from max output, so the engine would have to be excessively large. Everything in car design is compromises & tradeoffs.

All I know is that my diesel vehicles use massively less fuel under
long-stop start conditions than any petrol vehicles I've had. It's a
huge difference and I do wonder what the petrol engines were throwing
out in the way of un or partly burnt fuel when cold.

Lower compression is the problem with petrol, it means less of the motive energy is harvested.

The evidence seems to be that particulates are mainly from tyres, brakes
etc. and these are about 10 times the quantity produced by engines.

It seems to me that many people, even the ones here, are gradually being
brainwashed by the drip of anti-diesel propaganda, much of which seems
based on hearsay.

interesting how we don't hear more about tyre particulates.

When a town near me bans or charges for diesels, I will simply never go
or spend money there again. Shame about the shops and businesses, but my
policy has worked with parking charges, and has been adopted by others
judging by the increasingly ghostly local shopping areas.

Sadly councils show no sign of learning from such cockups. That's the problem with putting people in charge that pay no price for screw ups.

Petrol, diesel & hybrid technologies are all much improving. To act heavy handedly against any one of them merely wipes out a large chance for a better future. So that's what politicians will do.


NT

On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:34:58 UTC, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 21:29, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 18:41:58 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

The motor manufacturers will have to produce a new range of economical
petrol engines targeted at the big load luggers which do so much of the
utility work before diesels can be phased out.

Petrol engines are at their worst efficiency wise when doing stop start
journeys.

all engines are

Electric engines arn't


At cruise, nothing like the same difference between petrol and
diesel. And diesel can become less efficient when thrashed.

all engines do

Electric engines don't

hint: we normally call those motors rather than engines

On Sunday, 11 March 2018 09:01:02 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 10/03/2018 20:14, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/03/18 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.
I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main source
of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful pollutant in
this case.


London in the 1970s was a polluted chokefest of dirty grossness.

London today feels to me like fresh Aspen air.

Try Poplar at rush hour! But larger particulate pollution has gone down.
The concern is over the rise in smaller particles.

You're probably right, though - it's going to take a lot more premature
deaths over many years before anything is actually done.

Engines are getting steadily more efficient, meaning less junk per mile, so things are being done. I think everyone would like car technology to progress faster, but such is life. It has come a long way, and I look forward to it going a long way again. Stamping hard on diesels would of course very much set back the possible future clean efficient diesel engine.


NT

On 10-Mar-18 9:33 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 10-Mar-18 5:13 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

So, do what they have done in numerous city abroad - ban cars that
don't or can't display a sticker showing they comply with a minimum
emissions standard.

So who gets the sticker? A given model or cars which, individually,
pass the standard?


Germany does it by the Euro class of the model.

Regardless, then, of whether the vehicle itself actually passes that
standard.

As in Britain, German cars have to pass a roadworthiness check and I
presume that, as with the MOT, an analysis of the exhaust gases would be
part of the test.

These days I check the vehicle in front carefully to see whether
there's diesel smoke being emitted, and turn on the recirc if so.
What's amazing is the proportion of recent-plate vehicles falling into
that category.

Visible smoke has long been prohibited by the vehicle construction and
use regulations and would result in an MOT failure. It is far more
likely to be steam, particularly in cold weather. I only set the air to
recirculate if I can smell the car in front, but that is more likely to
be a 20 year old + petrol engined car.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 11/03/2018 09:20, wrote:
Stamping hard on diesels would of course very much set back the possible future clean efficient diesel engine.

Ford had lean-burn petrol engines all ready for production, but
canned them when the EU decided that diesel was the 'future'.

On 10/03/2018 18:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 10/03/2018 12:55, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we buy
is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and vans
in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.

and a lot of railway locomotives are diesel powered.


Not to mention buses which politicians appear to like and ships.



No ships passed me on the M4 yesterday.

Navigating the TV crews as I passed that cemetary in Salisbury
was more tricky than avoiding nerve gas.

On 11/03/18 09:20, wrote:
Engines are getting steadily more efficient, meaning less junk per mile, so things are being done.

No, they are really not. At best you get twice the MPG that you did in
say the 1950s, and eacxh improvemnt is a massively costly one


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 10/03/2018 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.


The evidence on health ri9sks hasnt chamged in 20 years.

But the emphasis the government puts on things has. Only a few years ago
they were urging people to change to diesels because of allegedly lower
CO2 output. Even when it was known the harmful to humans pollutants from
the average diesel were much higher than from the same power petrol
engine. And that ignored that diesels tend to pollute even more as they
age, due to emissions control equipment fitted having little effect on the
running when faulty. And having an MOT which simply doesn't check them
properly.


And corrupting the London 'congestion' tax by waving it for
so-called low emission vehicles.

If a vehicle occupies space on the roads and it enters the
charging zone then the owner should pay. Slap an extra
charge for high-polluting vehicles, but don't reward owners
of Prius's or the streets will just be clogged with Prius's.

On 10/03/2018 16:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

You have to remember the age of many on here. Prostates like footballs.


And brains like swiss cheese :-)

On 11/03/18 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Many of which don't work.


All I see is an assertion for that with no evidence that I can check.

Euro 5 which effectively required a DPF came in around 2008/9. Any
vehicle older than 9-10 years could be belching smoke.

Many people have had theirs removed:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-for-transport


So I challenge you: how do you know they don't work? Have you been
observing smoke from old vehicles or modified vehicles?

On 11/03/2018 08:29, Marland wrote:
Coach tour to exotic destinations like
the I.O.W ,Lake District ,Edinburgh etc.

Which tend to have a common theme.

At least one passenger will omit to take his or her
diuetics to avoid the need for regular stops, and ends
up in A&E, instead of visiting somewhere 'exiting'.

On 10/03/2018 15:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that
time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Yes. My Pug 308 1.6 HDi will do about 750 miles on a 60-litre tank at 70.

60 litres is about 600kWh. So 600kW to recharge in an hour, or about
6MW if NY wants to do it in say 6 mins.

Someone will have to explain how to get 6MW down a cable that the user
can just shove in their car.

Room temperature superconductors - one day, maybe, if only, ...

On 11/03/18 08:51, RJH wrote:
On 11/03/2018 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Watts wrote:
But no particulates.

What particulates? All modern diesel cars have DPF filters.

Many of which don't work.


The essence of the scientific evidence is, I think, that DPFs are
effective at filtering the larger soot particles, but not finer
particles (pollution maps including PMM estimates support this).

Variables include where regeneration takes place (town/country), and
effectiveness of the PDF (from presence to technology; pre-2007 are
worse), and what harm is being done.

All that is known is that deaths related to respiratory illness have
gone up. Research suggests a strong link with diesel:

http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deaths-europe-0303


That's NOx (which is produced by petrol engines too) - I don't see any
mention of soot particulates that a DPF will catch.



Â*and this little lot (from Doctors Against Diesel):

Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution, The Royal
College of Physicians, Royal College of Paediatric and Child health
(2016), available at:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publicatio...f?noredirect=1

NOx again.


Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London,Â* Kings
College London (2015) available at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/research/d...72015final.pdf

That does mention PMs - but doesn't seem to address whether DPFs are
effective or not.


Lethal and Illegal: Solving Londons Air Pollution Crisis, Institute of
Public Policy Research (2016)Â* Available at:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publicatio...df?noredirect=


NOx

And this site seems to be on a mission: https://www.theicct.org/

I haven't found much evidence supporting the continued use of diesel.
Even the SMT are on the fence - at best.



https://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/...Ultrafines.pdf

says DPFs can remove PMs - 0.02um (PM2.5 refers to 2.5um)