Forum menu
Speaking from experience, it is possible to beat 6 but only on low speed open suburban runs and only in mild summer. On a long trip 5 is realistic
Just about doable but you have to drive annoyingly slowly, in my view. With cruise control set at 72mph on my Model 3 LR last week I averaged 5.3 miles/kWh. When sitting at 65 this increases to about 6 miles/kWh. I reckon you could bump this up another 15-20% easily if you dropped the speed to 56 mph and sit behind HGVs.
I lack the patience.
I went to the launch of the Megane last night. A show, the big nobs from Renault France, Jurançon, Bordeaux, Suchi, men in white shirts, what's not to like?
Likes on the car:
130DC or 22AC charging
470km puts it in the same category as the Kia/Hyundai
The interior, it felt roomy for a c-class, seat very comfy
Not so sure:
The slot rear window, I still reverse by swinging round in my seat and looking out the back.
The rear seat: there's enough space for 3 equal seats so why the seat on a middle bump?
The high waist line, kids that can't see out easily vomit.
Hates: the ninja disc wheel design: I'd buy a black rattle can to paint them uniform black. And does a family saloon need 20" wheels? I think not.
Would I buy one? Yes, and two rattle cans obviously, but I'm happy with Zoé for the moment.
Agree the Megane looks like a good proposition. I'll add a like, Android infotainment, and a couple of hates, charging port on the front wing and the boot has a huge lip.
I'm off to our local Kia dealer next week for the Kia "electric experience" to have a close look at the new Niro EV and the EV6
I reckon you could bump this up another 15-20% easily if you dropped the speed to 56 mph and sit behind HGVs.
I lack the patience.
Yeah, plus it's highly disingenuous to massage up your economy figures by slowing down, even if it is good for the environment.
I may do a trip at lorry speed one day just to see how much better it is.
Megane looks good and can tow (so towbars will be available for bike rack users) but not much, only 900kg.
The WTLP range divided by the stated battery capacity gives 4.6m/kWh which is decent for a car that size, hope it holds up. We need more cars like that at a decent price although I can't see what the RRP is.
Just seen this pop up on my YouTube feed:
I want more of this. I want a bolt in kit for conversions and I want it simple enough that people can do it themselves.
ICEs, especially diesels are killing kids according to George Knox of Brimingham university. Google translate is your friend.
Certainly not yours. That study was published in 2005. Furthermore [url= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-dispute-traffic-link-to-childhood-cancers-whh9dqxllkwCancer ] Research UK and the Leukemia Research Fund disputed his findings[/url] since they were based on data gathered between 1955 and 1980 and compared to pollution maps compiled in 2001. So not really all that shocking if you want to use data from a time when we still had leaded 2 strokes on the road.
Here's the actual study: https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/755
404 error on your first link.
From your second link:
ain results: There were excess relative risks (RR) within 0.3 km of hotspots for carbon monoxide, PM10 particles, nitrogen oxides, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, dioxins, benzo(a)pyrene, and volatiles; and within 1.0 km of bus stations, hospitals, heavy transport centres, railways, and oil installations. Some excesses were attributable to mutual confounding, but 1,3-butadiene and carbon monoxide, mainly derived from engine exhausts, were powerful independent predictors. They were strongly reinforced when associated with bus stations, hospitals, railways, oil installations, and industrial transport centres; RR = 12.6 for joint <0.5 km exposure to bus stations and 1,3-butadiene.
Conclusions: Childhood cancers are strongly determined by prenatal or early postnatal exposures to oil based combustion gases, especially from engine exhausts. 1,3-butadiene, a known carcinogen, may be directly causal.
And you acuse me of not reading your links - do you read your own ? 😉 last weeks red herring was wood burners of which the local pollution factor hasn't been denied on this forum at least. This week it's two-strokes which form how much of the traffci around bus stations? Negligible.
You keep on finding excuses to slag off EVs when it's so much easier to slag of ICEs, Squirrlking.
eNiro - bootspace isnt great (considering the size of the car) but remove the crap under the boot floor and I can easily get 2 pretty dry bags down there (as well as the cables and otherguff). As for efficiency, bang on 3.5m/kWh over the last 5000miles but got 5.5 yesterday on a 25mile drive A-roads and motorways, perfectly possible if go easy on the power.
You keep on finding excuses to slag off EVs when it’s so much easier to slag of ICEs
It's not an absolute issue, there's no need to be tribal. All cars can be 'slagged off' for a variety of reasons. EVs are less bad but they still aren't an overall good. This isn't a willy waving competition.
Managed to se 6.2 on today's 15-20 mile round trip to the pool and back but it wasn't sustainable, finished at 5.6. that's on 40 and 50mph suburban roads.
To be fair he hasn’t done that. That’s just the pomme frites on your shoulder.
This has been done before and ends in personal attacks such as falsly claiming I have a chip on my shoulder. Squirrelking has slagged off EVs throughout the thread and it's not just me who's noticed, I'll hand over to Daffy before I get a ban for arguing and being right:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Daffy
Full Member
squirrelking
Free Member
And as usual you miss the mark completely and come to a conclusion based on opinion rather than fact. Tell me where I suggested EV’s were bad? I never.
Where to start!? Page 31, 32, 33, 34, 37 and 42 of this thread! With EVs are bad because:
1. “they’re heavy”
2. “they use too many resources”
3. “they’re too expensive”
4. “Charging is difficult”
5. “the range isn’t good enough”
6. “they catch fire”
And whilst I haven’t gone back through, there may have been something about towing, but, whatever. You’re clearly right, you’ve never intimated that they were bad….
I’m just agreeing with trail_rat that your figures are pish and cherry picked to suit your agenda. You’re constantly shifting goal posts
No – you’re (and to an extent trailrat) shifting the goal posts. My original point (if you could be even bothered to read) was that in the 5th Gear Recharged article, they compared two, equally specked, equally financed Corsa models and compared the TOTAL costs over 3 years with the EV being cheaper by a substantial margin. Both were financed, both had the same deposit contribution.
the latest being that nobody talks about deposits because they can get them from work.
Again, wrong. I did talk about deposits and I did not twist figures. Others did that in saying that the Corsa EV was £30k and the petrol was £20k. I addressed that. I ran my figures through a leasing site with (I think) 3 down and 33 to pay. Yes the EV deposit was higher and the monthly payment was higher, but the overall costs were lower.
I simply pointed out not all of us have or want that option and in a general discussion about EV’s I don’t see the problem.
I agree, but finding £700-£1000 as a deposit for an EV is no different to finding £700-£1000 for a banger. In both cases, you’re expecting to write off the initial payment, but for the EV you KNOW it’s once every 3 years, whereas the banger could be dead in 3 months.
As a supposed pragmatist and scientist I’d frankly expect better, acknowledging other arguments without shouting them down for a start.
NOt shouting down, but I’ve spent enough time in Science and Engineering to know that people are always quick to latch onto what can’t be done and why, especially if it adds complication or difficulty.
Usual STW ‘unable to think of any situation other than my own as being anything other than an edge case’ mentality
Utter rubbish. My critique and feedback was based purely on real data, real experience with EVs and background in technology adoption modelling.
You’ve been a largely consistent negative voice in this whole thread, very quick to latch onto what’s wrong, what’s difficult, etc. Whilst I agree, they’re not for everyone right now, continually pointing out the negatives which make it unsuitable for you at the present time rather than considering a way that could make it work for you seems a little pointless.
It seems like you’re still on the downward slope of the Kubler-Ross curve…
Much love. D.
Posted 4 months ago
Reply | Report
The block quotes have gone from that but you get the idea, th eoriginal is on page 49 of this thread. Squirrelking uses any frivilous excuse to slag off EVs and minimise the ills of ICEs then people disagreeing with him get banned for arguing.
And sometimes you should stay out of the playground bullying rather than join in, Molgrips.
-
I want a bolt in kit for conversions and I want it simple enough that people can do it themselves.
I've been thinking about this. My Merc would make a brilliant EV. There's enough room in the engine bay and the huge transmission tunnel for a load of batteries, and the motor could go at the back in place of the diff, and I reckon you could fit in 60kWh of batteries without increasing the weight so the suspension etc would be fine. You'd have to fabricate three odd shaped battery packs though for the engine bay, transmission and fuel tank.
And if you knew your way around the CAN protocol you could create a controller that would spoof the engine and transmission ECU I reckon. Only issue is having the money and will to demolish a perfectly good ICE car.
There's a German company that does bespoke kits but also have off the peg plans for classic Mercs at 20k. Thing is, at that price plus ten grand for a donor car it's actually a decent proposition.
Whilst I agree, they’re not for everyone right now, continually pointing out the negatives which make it unsuitable for you at the present time rather than considering a way that could make it work for you seems a little pointless.
This should be a pinned post at the start of this thread.
We've heard all the negatives, some real some myths, but as the alternative is importing and burning lots of highly flammable, toxic and expensive hydrocarbons from corrupt, immoral and aggressive regimes whilst trashing the climate and environment lets look at how we can get electrified transport (and home heating, and steel manufacture etc etc) to work.
My EV tyre wear after 1 year seems to be about the same as an ICE car but on average maybe an EV does produce more tyre particles but the argument is moot seeing ICE cars will be disappearing.
Recent research suggests that tyres are the dominant source of ultrafine air pollution, not tailpipes, so I think we should all be concerned about that. Heavier EVs only make it worse. Ultimately,it's going to need regulation.
Couple of quotes
The average weight of all cars has been increasing. But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.
Dr James Tate, at the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies in the UK, said the tyre test results were credible. “But it is very important to note that BEVs are becoming lighter very fast,” he said. “By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights.
The wear rate of different tyre brands varied substantially and the toxic chemical content varied even more, he said, showing low-cost changes were feasible to cut their environmental impact.
“You could do a lot by eliminating the most toxic tyres,” he said. “It’s not about stopping people driving, or having to invent completely different new tyres. If you could eliminate the worst half, and maybe bring them in line with the best in class, you can make a massive difference. But at the moment, there’s no regulatory tool, there’s no surveillance.
So looks like there could be a reasonably simple way to vastly reduce the particulate emissions and probably with a bit of research reduce them further longer term now we know its a problem.
Recent research suggests that tyres are the dominant source of ultrafine air pollution, not tailpipes, so I think we should all be concerned about that.
I was going to say it'd be tricky to solve the tyre issue, but uponthedowns' quote is interesting. It is possible to get 15k or 40k from a set of tyres, and if some tyres are actually more toxic than others this is something that could be legislated against. I would assume cheap shitty tyres wear faster for the same driving, so they could be removed from the equation.
People opposite bought a new Merc GLA and now have cheap no name tyres on it...
As I said elsewhere. Most people don't give a toss as long as they get a car that does their particular job. Many people seem to think that the worlds population wants to live for ever. They don't. They want their children to survice and thats about it.
@Flaperon - M3 LR is 75kWh. So you’re saying at 65mph, you could get 450miles out of it on a charge…? Really?
I think people claiming 6m/kWh are conflating driving snapshots with actual performance. The WLTP has the M3 LR at 348miles so 4.64m/kWh. Lucid are aiming for 6m/kWh on the same test cycle. That’s a big jump.
@everyone else
I was going to say it’d be tricky to solve the tyre issue, but uponthedowns’ quote is interesting. It is possible to get 15k or 40k from a set of tyres, and if some tyres are actually more toxic than others this is something that could be legislated against. I would assume cheap shitty tyres wear faster for the same driving, so they could be removed from the equation.
Yup it's something that can certainly be legislated against and its worth looking at further.
It would be interesting to see if better tyres are worse culprits or if there is a correlation between cost and pollution generated. Even the different compounds used between passenger vehicles and the remoulds on HGV's.
The Audi recommended one is a 7kW pod Point, which they quote as about £800 installed.
I have a pod point, which gets used 4 or 5 times a week to top up my tiddly 10.5 kwH battery. Been using it for 15 months with no problems. It’s not the prettiest thing to be honest, but I got a discount through work, and I hid it up the side of the house.
What we need, Sqirrelking is a scientific paper from teh medical profession which compares the toxicity and health risk of tyre dust and nano diesel soot, If you find one post it and I'll read it. ICE cars produce a mass of CO2 which isn't regarded as toxic, nano diesel soot is, how that compares with tyre dust in terms of toxicity were not sure but my money is on the diesel soot being more toxic when you take into account both volume and toxicity.
As someone supposedly educated to such a high standard you have a demonstrably poor record for critical evaluation of the data you present. You persistently post second hand journalism in place of actual links to the reports or papers concerned, you persist in posting foreign language journalism pieces despite the lingua franca of the forum being English
Seems to me that the above is:
and when challenged you respond with accusations of bias, xenophobia and bullying
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/negative-forum-sentiment-can-we-break-the-cycle/
What we need
We have one. Which you ignored because you claimed it was influenced by big oil, it was then pointed out that it was written under the auspices of a government funded organisation. You then disengaged. I'd post it again but I don't think it would be helpful.
Anyway it's been tedious, as always, but I have a lovely weekend to be cracking on withand I'm not going to ruin it by wasting my time in a to and fro with you. As always, the report button is in the same place.
When I was at Welsh Water the most sold out scientists I encountered were working for the CEGB - which was very much publically funded until priatisation in the nineties. Paid to counter claims that power station emissions were repsonsible for acid rain. The rain water monitoring network I set up was part of the weight of evidence they were indeed responsible. There were enough honest scientists working on various other projects to eventually provide enough evidence to force the fitting of scrubbers. Along with other measures taken the quality of emissions improved and with it the quality of rain fall. Unfortunately the CO2 content is still there and we're on our way to the climatic conditions of periods in geological history with similar levels of atmospheric CO2. It's gonna be hot, hot, hot.
Drive an electric if you feel the need to own a car and cut off the gas to your house if you want to be part of the solution
I went as far as the Net allows with the funding of your scientist and his research institute and quoted their web site in block quotes: their clients are mainly the oil industry and the private benefactor is not named. Read back, please.
It's in the Guardian now and they've taken it up a ntch interms of the hype. There's a delightful quote:
“Tyres are rapidly eclipsing the tailpipe as a major source of emissions from vehicles,” said Nick Molden, at Emissions Analytics, the leading independent emissions testing company that did the research. “Tailpipes are now so clean for pollutants that, if you were starting out afresh, you wouldn’t even bother regulating them.”
This reminds me of a France 2 investigative journalist who contested Peugeot's claim that the exhaust gas from their Euro 6 car was cleaner than city air and the car actually cleaned the air. All was going well for the Peugeot scientist/engineer until the journalist demanded the scientist/engineer breathe the car exhaust fumes for a few minutes to prove it.
All was going well for the Peugeot scientist/engineer until the journalist demanded the scientist/engineer breathe the car exhaust fumes for a few minutes to prove it.
Well to a certain extent that's true- depends what you mean by clean. The exhaust of a fully warmed up Euro VI diesel is very clean in terms of NOx, carbon monoxide and particulates and driving through a city the exhaust could have well have less of those compenents than the ambient atmosphere. The carbon dioxide it emits is also very clean but like the Peugeot engineer I wouldn't want to to breathe it.
It’s in the Guardian now and they’ve taken it up a ntch interms of the hype. There’s a delightful quote:
Do keep up eddy boy. I quoted that 10 posts above yours 😉
The crux of the matter is that ICE cars are still producing an average of 1.4kg of CO2 for every 10km travelled. Your average set of tyres lasts ~23k km and loses ~2kg of rubber in that time. In the same time, your ICE car will emit 3.2tonnes of CO2! That doesn’t even account for all the other particulates.
Also Rubber particulates are also over 1000* the density of other fine particles, so will be held in suspension in the air for far less time than exhaust particulates.
Aren't NOX emissions linked to the way the engine is being tweaked for efficiency? So you can get, theoretically, 75 mpg out of your diesel estate but at the expense of NOX being high?
Aren’t NOX emissions linked to the way the engine is being tweaked for efficiency? So you can get, theoretically, 75 mpg out of your diesel estate but at the expense of NOX being high?
That compromise is true for the engine itself - higher temperatures and more excess air drive NOx formation. It’s one of the reasons why EGR and after treatment is used these days - DOC catalysts etc which bring the
NOx levels right down whilst still allowing the engine to be optimised for high efficiency and other emissions. It’s all a complex game of trade-offs.
The crux of the matter is that ICE cars are still producing an average of 1.4kg of CO2 for every 10km travelled. Your average set of tyres lasts ~23k km and loses ~2kg of rubber in that time. In the same time, your ICE car will emit 3.2tonnes of CO2! That doesn’t even account for all the other particulates.
Which, whilst true your EV will still (at this point in time) have emissions linked to its propulsion, just not at the exhaust which improves local air content (of course that will be more efficient and the CO2 content should drop through time).
Also Rubber particulates are also over 1000* the density of other fine particles, so will be held in suspension in the air for far less time than exhaust particulates.
Perhaps, but if I was offered a bit of nuclear waste that was 1000 times less radioactive than a fuel stringer I'd still be keeping well away from it.
I think the overall point of the report is that air quality doesn't begin and end with exhaust emissions and that there is still work to be done. Sadly I no longer have access to the article or I'd have read it for proper context. I think it definitely warrants further study regardless of what the motive system is. It certainly isn't an attack on EV's but is using them to illustrate just how problematic it is (its not like anyone is claiming the problem disappears when you put an engine in the mix).
Aren’t NOX emissions linked to the way the engine is being tweaked for efficiency? So you can get, theoretically, 75 mpg out of your diesel estate but at the expense of NOX being high?
Selective catalytic reduction allows the engine to be run hot for improved efficiency, letting the NOx level increase and leaving the SCR system to remove the increased NOx. It also has the additional benefit that the engine produces less soot. Now this is all very well when the SCR system is up to temperature but whilst its warming up the engine still has EGR to keep NOX down untill the SCR system is ready. Its worth mentioning that Euro 6/VI regs allow engines to breach emissions limits whilst warming up so the emissions of all those Euro VI Chelsea tractors on the school run with barely warm engines will probably be above normal limits. There's talk that the Euro 7/VII regs being brought in over the next year may require engines to be under emissions limits at all times which will be a big problem as it will require catalyst heaters etc.
My point was that total emissions from combustion FAR exceed any possible air particulates generated from tyres and as such, trying to use the fact the EVs are heavier as a means of saying “look, EVs are bad because..” is a silly thing to do.
EVs can and do reduce emissions and will only get better over time. ICE can’t and won’t do this.
Even assuming we still have a FF mix in 10 years, then the point of combustion will be moved out of urban environments, and by burning in discrete locations will enable carbon capture. ICE can’t do this.
EVs are still in the introductory phase, they will get cheaper, more efficient and greener. ICE won’t, they’ve reached the apex and won’t get better.
If you want more - Get the government to legislate max speeds, max weights end of life targets and yes, by all means tyres. But in targeting efficiency and limiting speed and weight, you’d do this by default anyway.
EVs are the future and the market has already decided that. Even with piss poor subsidies from UK Gov, more EVs were registered in Q1 of 2022 than in the entirely of the previous 5 years combined. The tipping point has been reached.
Emissions Analytics?
Aren't they the dullards who made headlines (and millions) from announcing that if you drive wildly differently from the emissions cycles, you get different emissions?
trying to use the fact the EVs are heavier as a means of saying “look, EVs are bad because..” is a silly thing to do.
It is. Nobody said that though.
If you want more – Get the government to legislate max speeds, max weights end of life targets and yes, by all means tyres. But in targeting efficiency and limiting speed and weight, you’d do this by default anyway.
That's the actual important part, entirely agree with you there. Nothing wrong with looking at tyre toxicity though as unless it has a specific function (like improved grip) then it could be done away with.
electric car grant has now been completely scrapped. I don't think it'll make much of a difference, but it sends an interesting message.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61795693
That's just for plug in hybrids which were only ever a stepping stone
Sucks. But - order books are literally overflowing, and charging infrastructure is pretty poor so they might have a point. IF they actually follow through on the infrastructure, that is.
That’s just for plug in hybrids
I don't think so...?
Grant for most PHEVs went in 2018, they had to do 70+ miles on electric to qualify after that.
I think it's largely moot now, manufacturers didn't bother to do much adjusting of prices/spec for the last cut, most cars sold don't qualify as they're too expensive, and the people who can afford any EV aren't likely to be swayed by £1500. With constrained supply, manufacturers are happy selling all the higher spec, higher margin stuff they can.
Just read that VW are returning to 3 shifts a day in one of their big EV plants producing 1300 a day! Chip shortages seem to have eased up.
Fingers crossed they can all start making more and bringing costs down in a few years' time.
Which, whilst true your EV will still (at this point in time) have emissions linked to its propulsion
Indeed. Are you counting the big amounts of energy used in cracking crude to produce gas/diesel in the emissions calculation of your putative ICE vehicle?
Fingers crossed they can all start making more and bringing costs down in a few years’ time
That would be super molgrips. VW though. Slow to the party and slow to get into the groove.
That’s just for plug in hybrids which were only ever a
stepping stoneWeak attempt at handling ‘fleet’ based emission measurements
FTFY
VW though. Slow to the party and slow to get into the groove.
What makes you say that? They are some.of the first pure EV platforms, I think they just skipped the halfway house of converted ICE cars.