On 21/05/2021 08:44, Ian wrote:

Accountants know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing

Yes Oscar.

Bill

On 20/05/2021 18:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
williamwright wrote:
By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.


****ing hell! Mystic Meg speaks!

Have you not noticed the increase in range in the short time EVs have been
around? And think it impossible it will get even better?

Again, your astonishing lack of logic and distortion of the facts
astounds me.

Bill

On 21/05/2021 09:06, Tim+ wrote:

Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to acknowledge
the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even if
I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still be
under 5p per mile.

But they'll bring in road charging and it will have to raise as much as
fuel duty. And since energy derived from electricity is more expensive
that energy derived from petrol (both before taxes) we will be worse off.


I do 99% of my charging at home. The only charging I do away from home is
on free chargers. This is of course a time limited perk in Scotland but
Id be a fool not to take advantage of it when convenient. ;-)

It isn't going to last.

Of course they have their downsides (as trumpeted here ad nauseum) and
definitely wont suit everyones usage needs but Ive done 10,000 miles of
stress free motoring since last September.

Stress free for you maybe...

Bill

On 20/05/2021 18:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So the Religion of Global Warming should destroy the ancient traditions
of all other religions?

I'm very sure you think religion will save the planet Bill. And you've got
plenty company.


Do you do it deliberately? This non sequitur thing that you do? It's weird.

Let's look at this. You say, "I'm very sure you think religion will save
the planet Bill."
1. what do you know about my personal beliefs? Answer: nothing
2. Just for the record, am I in fact religious? Answer: no.
3. Do I in fact think religion will save the planet? No, because I don't
believe in any religion and I don't think the planet needs saving.

You see, what you say, apart from not being a logical argument against
what I said, has no basis in fact. It's just meaningless waffle, like an
orphaned fart drifting around a school hall.

Bill

On 21/05/2021 09:26, Steve Walker wrote:

Just to add - one year we attended 3 funerals there.


Can't they peg it in one go?

Bill

In article ,
williamwright wrote:
On 20/05/2021 18:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So the Religion of Global Warming should destroy the ancient
traditions of all other religions?

I'm very sure you think religion will save the planet Bill. And you've
got plenty company.


Do you do it deliberately? This non sequitur thing that you do? It's
weird.

Let's look at this. You say, "I'm very sure you think religion will save
the planet Bill."
1. what do you know about my personal beliefs? Answer: nothing

I'm surprised you object so much to my thinking you religious, since you
were very quick to apply a religious belief to me. And that you jump to
defend the practices of religion, regardless of the problems it may cause
others.

2. Just for the record, am I in fact religious? Answer: no.
3. Do I in fact think religion will save the planet
No, because I don't
believe in any religion and I don't think the planet needs saving.

I'm quite sure the planet will survive. Life as we know it, a different
matter.

You see, what you say, apart from not being a logical argument against
what I said, has no basis in fact. It's just meaningless waffle, like an
orphaned fart drifting around a school hall.

Pretty well like your last paragraph, then.

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

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

Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

It will come; where smart meters will charge accordingly.


Personally, I doubt it. A mileage charge will be much easier to implement.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
Sure, that's what we want. But*if*Â* climate doom is true and*if*
stopping
fossil fuel was the answer then need would replace want.
Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era
of cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.
We have let the ArtStudents„¢ design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake
Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can
Do Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to alternative
views.

They can build bridges aircraft medical equipment cars railways power
stations steel mills etc et.
Accountants can do sums too.
No they count beans.
--
bert

In article
,
Tim+ writes
Ian

wrote:
On 2021-05-20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
williamwright wrote:
By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.


****ing hell! Mystic Meg speaks!

Have you not noticed the increase in range in the short time EVs have been
around? And think it impossible it will get even better?

Sure, it will get better, and will (have to be) good enough, as it's been
decided that this is the way we're going, and a lot of people are going to
make a lot of money from the tech. refresh, even if the end result makes
us worse off.

Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to acknowledge
the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even if
I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still be
under 5p per mile.

Diesel and petrol cost is mostly tax.
I do 99% of my charging at home. The only charging I do away from home is
on free chargers. This is of course a time limited perk in Scotland but
Id be a fool not to take advantage of it when convenient. ;-)

Well you and I are subsidising the Scots anyway, so it's your money.
Zero emissions at the point of use. Maybe you dont worry about your local
air quality but if you lived in a congested city you health would almost
certainly benefit from better air quality.

That is a valid argument. Use pricing to deter those with ICE cars from
going into town and city centres.
Also, theyre *really* nice to drive.

The electric motor is much more suited for automotive use than the ICE.
Of course they have their downsides (as trumpeted here ad nauseum) and
definitely wont suit everyones usage needs but Ive done
10,000 miles of
stress free motoring since last September.

Horses for courses. I'm against compulsory halting of production of ICE
cars.
Tim
They're too expensive.
--
bert

On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat rate
(not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on
congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to hike
up motoring taxes), done by tamperproof odometer (no tracking of where,
when, how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise existing
petrol and diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel duty.

On 21/05/2021 18:19, williamwright wrote:
On 21/05/2021 09:26, Steve Walker wrote:

Just to add - one year we attended 3 funerals there.


Can't they peg it in one go?

A work colleague did ask if we had a bulk buy deal with a florist.

On 21/05/2021 21:41, Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Â*Â* Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.
Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would
still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel
falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most
likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat rate
(not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on
congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to hike
up motoring taxes), done by tamper proof odometer (no tracking of where,
when, how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise existing
petrol and diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel duty.

I think you're being very optimistic. A long while ago it was said that
motor revenue was equivalent to Income Tax. Why do you think all the
cash will go to providing road maintenance and nothing else?

I'm sure there will be more congestion charges too, since its revenue
goes to the local council and not the Treasury.

Why do you think there won't be lots of ANPR cameras dotted around the
country to confirm your distance travelled.

Of course, if you've got nothing to hide there's nothing to worry about!

Tamper proof odometer? I'll just fit bigger wheels/tyres!

On 21/05/2021 22:19, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2021 21:41, Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,

Â*Â* Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.
Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would
still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel
falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most
likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing
back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the
more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat
rate (not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on
congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to
hike up motoring taxes), done by tamper proof odometer (no tracking of
where, when, how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise
existing petrol and diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel
duty.

I think you're being very optimistic. A long while ago it was said that
motor revenue was equivalent to Income Tax. Why do you think all the
cash will go to providing road maintenance and nothing else?

I didn't say that I said revenue neutral - replacing fuel duty with per
mile charging, but setting the rate so that it is a direct replacement,
raising neither more nor less.

I'm sure there will be more congestion charges too, since its revenue
goes to the local council and not the Treasury.

Which should not be allowed. Charging on top of charging!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
Oh yes, EVs have a lot going for them. The lack of a gearbox with
variable (continuous or stepped) ratios means the driver is in direct
control of road speed/acceleration, rather than controlling engine
speed which translates to road speed via *different ratios* (*). It
becomes easy to configure in acceleration profiles so the driver just
has to command the car "accelerate smoothly from 0 to 60" and the
motors will accelerate gradually to begin with, then more, then ease
off to zero acceleration once the target speed is reached - which a
driver of an IC car tries to do, with varying amounts of skill.

I'd suggest you try an IC engined car equipped with a decent modern auto.
;-)

Yeah, he only has a very indecent frog car :-(

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.
Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would
still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel
falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most
likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

It will come;

Nope.

where smart meters will charge accordingly.

Not possible for it to work out what is on the
end of the extension lead from the 13A GPO.

"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 18:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
williamwright wrote:
By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.


****ing hell! Mystic Meg speaks!

Have you not noticed the increase in range in the short time EVs have
been
around? And think it impossible it will get even better?

Again, your astonishing lack of logic and distortion of the facts astounds
me.

Nothing astounds me with the mindless **** the plow**** spews.

"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 18:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So the Religion of Global Warming should destroy the ancient traditions
of all other religions?

I'm very sure you think religion will save the planet Bill. And you've
got
plenty company.


Do you do it deliberately? This non sequitur thing that you do? It's
weird.

Nope, common with alcoholics. Evidence of the severe 'brain' damage that
causes.

Let's look at this. You say, "I'm very sure you think religion will save
the planet Bill."
1. what do you know about my personal beliefs? Answer: nothing
2. Just for the record, am I in fact religious? Answer: no.
3. Do I in fact think religion will save the planet? No, because I don't
believe in any religion and I don't think the planet needs saving.

You see, what you say, apart from not being a logical argument against
what I said, has no basis in fact. It's just meaningless waffle, like an
orphaned fart drifting around a school hall.

His trademark.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.
Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would
still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel
falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most
likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat rate
(not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on
congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to hike up
motoring taxes), done by tamperproof odometer (no tracking of where, when,
how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise existing petrol and
diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel duty.

I'm not. It makes no sense that those who need to or choose to
travel more pay more taxes while ever the taxes are far more than
what is spend on the roads.

On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:35:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:40:23 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:52:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID:

On 2021-05-21, Tim+ wrote:
Personally, I doubt it. A mileage charge will be much easier to implement.

Practically, yes, but politically awkward.

If they introduce a milage charge that applies to all vehicles, without
reducing fuel duty, it will cause massive inflation while the majority
of vehicles are still non-electric.

If they reduce fuel duty they'll be pilloried for not following the
green religion.

If they introduce [milage] charges only for electric vehicles, they'll
kill the market stone dead, as they're currently more expensive and less
convenient than ICE, without an extra tax penalty for trying to do the
right thing.

What to do, what to do?

(Personally, I expect we'll get a gradual implementation of #1, where
road pricing / tolls / congestion charges will be introduced in stages,
the old "boiling frogs" strategy. This will make transport, personal and
commercial, more expensive, and ultimately reduce personal car
ownership and travel. Some think this would be a Good Thing. I don't,
but as a mere prole have no real say in the matter...)


--
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

On 22/05/2021 11:01, Ian wrote:
On 2021-05-21, Tim+ wrote:
Personally, I doubt it. A mileage charge will be much easier to implement.

Practically, yes, but politically awkward.

If they introduce a milage charge that applies to all vehicles, without
reducing fuel duty, it will cause massive inflation while the majority
of vehicles are still non-electric.

If they reduce fuel duty they'll be pilloried for not following the
green religion.

If they introduce [milage] charges only for electric vehicles, they'll
kill the market stone dead, as they're currently more expensive and less
convenient than ICE, without an extra tax penalty for trying to do the
right thing.


There's also the option to keep fuel duties, apply road charging to all,
but give a credit against road charges for fuel duty paid. Used in at
least one of the schemes up and running.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/2021 11:01, Ian wrote:
On 2021-05-21, Tim+ wrote:
Personally, I doubt it. A mileage charge will be much easier to
implement.

Practically, yes, but politically awkward.

If they introduce a milage charge that applies to all vehicles, without
reducing fuel duty, it will cause massive inflation while the majority
of vehicles are still non-electric.

If they reduce fuel duty they'll be pilloried for not following the
green religion.

If they introduce [milage] charges only for electric vehicles, they'll
kill the market stone dead, as they're currently more expensive and less
convenient than ICE, without an extra tax penalty for trying to do the
right thing.


There's also the option to keep fuel duties, apply road charging to all,
but give a credit against road charges for fuel duty paid. Used in at
least one of the schemes up and running.

But given that even those who dont personally own a vehicle
need roads too. what is the point of paying for the roads via
money collect from those using the roads ?

On Sun, 23 May 2021 04:14:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But given that even those who don¢t personally own a vehicle
need roads too. what is the point of paying for the roads via
money collect from those using the roads ?

You just HAVE to auto-contradict, regardless of what was said or what kind
of bull**** you will have to spout again in order to be able to
auto-contradict, you clinically insane senile cretin! LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than
just a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

--
bert

On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
Â*presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than
justÂ* a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
Â*presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than
justÂ* a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 23/05/2021 20:26, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
Â*presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than
justÂ* a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦


Again, only public ignorance and superstition stops us


Tim



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 21/05/2021 13:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...its almost impossible to break the 100mpg mark for anything remotely
car shaped, and even 70mpg is doing well. Car development is pretty much
mature - there aren't any more great gains to be had.
The fact is that when you drill down through the crap what is left is
that you need a certain amount of energy to push a car shaped car on
tyres on tarmac at a given speed, over a given distance, and that the
bigger battery you carry the heavier the car and the more energy it
takes....

It does not help that fashion is pushing cars away from nice streamlined
shapes into things with the aerodynamics of a brick.

Andy

On 21/05/2021 20:46, bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
Sure, that's what we want. But*if*Â* climate doom is true and*if*
stopping
fossil fuel was the answer then need would replace want.
Â*Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era
ofÂ* cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.
Â*We have let the ArtStudents„¢ design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake
Â*Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can
DoÂ* Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to
alternative views.

They can build bridges aircraft medical equipment cars railways power
stations steel mills etc et.

I think you'll also find that there's a fair bit of Engineering in
modern breweries. Without that the ****-up would be rather hard to arrange.

snip

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/05/2021 13:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...its almost impossible to break the 100mpg mark for anything
remotely car shaped, and even 70mpg is doing well. Car development is
pretty much mature - there aren't any more great gains to be had.
The fact is that when you drill down through the crap what is left is
that you need a certain amount of energy to push a car shaped car on
tyres on tarmac at a given speed, over a given distance, and that the
bigger battery you carry the heavier the car and the more energy it
takes....

It does not help that fashion is pushing cars away from nice streamlined
shapes into things with the aerodynamics of a brick.

Andy

There are some which are OK.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/05...odynamic-cars/

This one is the one with Cd=0.045 . The guy inside is pedaling.
The shape of this one, shows you what it would take to make the Cd
really low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Ru...o-Runner_8.jpg

Because a BEV doesn't need quite as much air intake, there's room
to improve it over an ICE vehicle. If you put more of the junk in the
back of the car, the front profile can be improved. Of course, done
to extreme, it might throw off the handling. But with the battery
pack being centered and down low, that does a lot to reduce the
impact of the rest of it.

BEVs are all about wind resistance, whether frontal or side resistance.
The above article mentions "wheel covers" several times. And
regenerative braking makes this a bit more feasible. The Taycan
for example, has almost full regeneration and can brake mostly
electrically. Other cars don't achieve quite the same level of
regen braking. You cannot eliminate friction brakes, but you can
reduce their usage, a lot. And that might help, in
situations where a stupid wheel cover is in place (less
effective brake disc cooling).

Since I have spent a lot of money on brakes over the years,
I feel the presence of friction brakes is a horrible idea,
and will be a revenue generator for somebody. I doubt any
car manufacturer has put effort into extending BEV brake life.

Since range anxiety is all the rage, expect to see a lot of
wheel covers and the like, to give better mileage numbers.
Things that an ICE car would not care about (as nobody really
cares about ICE MPG any more - reducing car emissions is more
important than MPG).

Musk thinks the Cybertruck will be Cd=0.3, whereas some
others are about 0.4. The devil is in the small details
(putting a cover on the bottom of the vehicle, which
doubles as intrusion prevention to the battery pack).
Expect some tradeoff of additional mass, for better Cd.

Paul

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2021 20:26, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than
just a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦


Again, only public ignorance and superstition stops us

Wrong. The other problem is the stupid cost for what is
at most an hour charging which is no use at all for most.

On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:36:40 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 23/05/2021 22:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/05/2021 13:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...its almost impossible to break the 100mpg mark for anything
remotely car shaped, and even 70mpg is doing well. Car development is
pretty much mature - there aren't any more great gains to be had.
The fact is that when you drill down through the crap what is left is
that you need a certain amount of energy to push a car shaped car on
tyres on tarmac at a given speed, over a given distance, and that the
bigger battery you carry the heavier the car and the more energy it
takes....

It does not help that fashion is pushing cars away from nice streamlined
shapes into things with the aerodynamics of a brick.

Andy

Well it doesn't help fuel economy of course. But so what. Plenty of
uranium and thorium around :-)

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 24/05/2021 02:36, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2021 20:26, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
Â* presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather
than
justÂ* a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦


Again, only public ignorance and superstition stops us

Wrong. The other problem is the stupid cost for what is
at most an hour charging which is no use at all for most.

Don't be silly. You can charge any lithium battery fully in an hour
And last time I did the trip it was longer than an hour



--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/05/2021 02:36, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2021 20:26, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel
ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather
than
just a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦


Again, only public ignorance and superstition stops us

Wrong. The other problem is the stupid cost for what is
at most an hour charging which is no use at all for most.

Don't be silly. You can charge any lithium battery fully in an hour

**** all EVs can do that without reducing the
life of the already stupidly expensive battery.

And last time I did the trip it was longer than an hour

Doesnt happen with the bulk of the cross channel ferries.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 06:24:52 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/05/2021 02:36, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2021 20:26, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/2021 18:43, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel
ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it
presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather
than
just a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



Well if they can put one in a sub a ferry shouldn't be too difficult.

Of course it isn't. Only public ignorance and superstition stops us



And possibly getting it insured€¦


Again, only public ignorance and superstition stops us

Wrong. The other problem is the stupid cost for what is
at most an hour charging which is no use at all for most.

Don't be silly. You can charge any lithium battery fully in an hour
And last time I did the trip it was longer than an hour

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/...ric_vehicle_ev

"Energy cells should be charged at a C-rate below 1C. === BEV recommendation
Going above 1C increases stress that reflects
in rapid capacity degradation. Ultrafast charging
is most effective between a SoC of 20€“50%. The onboard BMS
only applies full boosts in this level where
charge acceptance is highest before lowering
the current to a more moderate level.

The power cell is more rugged and can be charged faster
than the energy cell. Power cells are commonly used for
power tools. They deliver high current, have a wide temperature
range but store less energy than the energy cell.
"

And that recommendation in the first paragraph, can be seen
in the charge curves for the Model 3 and the Taycan, which
hammer in the charge, on the left side of the curve, and back
off, on the right side of the curve (top up). (And that's only
during fast charging. Not household charging at some lower rate.)

And as Figure 2 shows, the cars with a battery warranty "stretch"
battery life by disabling fast charging. The firmware studies
the charging pattern, to discover when too much fast charging
has been going on (because the capacity reduction, when
extrapolated, will result in a warranty claim for a new battery).

So while this Israeli company makes P.R. points with its story,
it remains to be seen whether such a development can charge in
5 minutes... forever. Maybe 5 minute charges the first 200 times,
then some lower level for the rest of the vehicle life.

Lithium batteries also have a recommended discharge rate. Which
is different for Power versus Energy batteries. Doing too many
burnouts in your Model 3, might not be good for it either. The Tesla
Power Wall, you're supposed to spend two or three hours discharging
it. It would not be suitable as a fast charger for your car, unless
sufficient of them operated in parallel. Perhaps a Tesla Powerwall
with Power cells in it, would be a better device for car charging.
But, with only half of the total storage capacity.

Home charging still makes the most sense. Even if it doesn't
offer the same quality of service as an ICE.

Paul