Thoughts on banning Petrol, diesel & hybrid vehicles by 2035

[davemercedes]

The original Mr Tesla - i.e. the Serbia/American inventor Nikola Tesla was convinced that he could provide electricity using wireless transmission - one of his last projects was to build a huge tower from which he tested out his theories. He was then sold up the river by his principal banker J P Morgan who withdrew his financial backing when he found out that Tesla wanted to distibute it for free (he was of course only interested in making money (what a surprise - a banker who only wanted profits!)...

After his death (murder was suspected), the story goes that his papers were stolen by the FBI. I just wonder with the need for mass electricity whether his secrets will re-emerge (maybe they already have in secret!). There was a very interesting series on the History Channel and they reconstructed some of his experiments and they did indeed "send" electric current on a wireless circuit. They found a tunnel entrance in the grounds of the tower laboratory but the series ended without a great discovery.

 

[SL63 Mark]

Sorry haven't read this at all, but the thread title is misleading. No-one is banning petrol, diesel or hybrid vehicles by 2035. They are (possibly) proposing to ban sales of new vehicles that fall into those categories by 2035. Existing vehicles will be unaffected, as far as we know at the moment.

 

[AnthonyUK]

Sorry haven't read this at all, but the thread title is misleading.

Was anyone really not expecting someone to have this knee jerk reaction to this news article on a car forum?

 

[d215yq]

The 56mph thing is hogwash. Economy at speed is a combination of gear ratios, aerodynamics and engine efficiency. Maximum engine efficiency is at maximum torque (for an NA engine). The 56mph thing was an arbitrary speed chosen back in the 50s to give a way to compare relative economy of vehicles at a lower and higher cruising speed. It was a precursor to the modern economy results car manufacturers use today.
There are many modern cars that give better economy over 56mph than at 56.
People have always seen figures quoted in old brochures showing economy at 56 and 70 and since 56 was always better economy on cars of that era the myth began that 56mph was the most efficient speed, conveniently ignoring design variations across vehicles.

How would anyone expect the most fuel efficient speed of (say) a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Ka to be the same at 56mph?

As a rule of thumb it's pretty accurate though...as I'm sad and sometimes have to travel many miles at a constant speed I can calculate this and out of the 300D manual I will get 52mpg tank to tank at motorway 60-65, drops to 47 at 65-70 and 44 at 70-75. When going through French B roads (so 50-60) I can get 54mpg despite occasionally having to brake/stop at a village so it defintiely is more efficient. My previous E220 petrol auto was similar though obviously a lot lower figures!

If you think about it all the extra new stuff that "helps" economy is unnesecary at 60mph cruising - stop start/regen braking/turbo/hybrid battery will all be not working at that speed. Hence why newer diesel hybrids will actually not really be any more efficient on a run than my 33yr old diesel. The only design change that makes them more efficient at constant load is the injectors/computers, but that is offset against all the weight of the other stuff. I am sure they would be more efficient under accelerating/braking/town journey though where the new ancillaries can come into play, but to be honest if people are driving 50% of their journeys in stop start enough for it to make a difference then a better solution would be to not use a car!

It is a fair point that, atleast for now, electrics should be targeted at those who do mainly short town journeys. If they can get a cheap light 150mile range one out not sure why that can't be subsidised for city users/short journey commutes for a while and that would probably work for 50% of the population. Not sure why they're tryign to start by making a compromised (compared to diesel/petrol) vehicle with so many batteries just so it has a comparable range. The rep/lorry driver doing 500 miles a day should be the last person to have an electric car designed for them in 2040, we shouldn't even be thinking about that now when we've got 50% of cars that never do more than 100 miles and never really go on a motorway who would benefit from an electric car to sort out first.

 

[js190d]

As a rule of thumb it's pretty accurate though...as I'm sad and sometimes have to travel many miles at a constant speed I can calculate this and out of the 300D manual I will get 52mpg tank to tank at motorway 60-65, drops to 47 at 65-70 and 44 at 70-75. When going through French B roads (so 50-60) I can get 54mpg despite occasionally having to brake/stop at a village so it defintiely is more efficient. My previous E220 petrol auto was similar though obviously a lot lower figures!

If you think about it all the extra new stuff that "helps" economy is unnesecary at 60mph cruising - stop start/regen braking/turbo/hybrid battery will all be not working at that speed. Hence why newer diesel hybrids will actually not really be any more efficient on a run than my 33yr old diesel. The only design change that makes them more efficient at constant load is the injectors/computers, but that is offset against all the weight of the other stuff. I am sure they would be more efficient under accelerating/braking/town journey though where the new ancillaries can come into play, but to be honest if people are driving 50% of their journeys in stop start enough for it to make a difference then a better solution would be to not use a car!

It is a fair point that, atleast for now, electrics should be targeted at those who do mainly short town journeys. If they can get a cheap light 150mile range one out not sure why that can't be subsidised for city users/short journey commutes for a while and that would probably work for 50% of the population. Not sure why they're tryign to start by making a compromised (compared to diesel/petrol) vehicle with so many batteries just so it has a comparable range. The rep/lorry driver doing 500 miles a day should be the last person to have an electric car designed for them in 2040, we shouldn't even be thinking about that now when we've got 50% of cars that never do more than 100 miles and never really go on a motorway who would benefit from an electric car to sort out first.

The mpg sweet spot for my s210 320cdi seems to be mid 60's mph. I am judging this by the way the mpg display at this speed just keeps on steadily getting better (best of around 48mpg on a 200 mile cruise)

I still go back to Harry Metcalfe's conclusion that an all electric car does not like doing constant speed motorway journeys (as in it's range is adversely effected doing such a journey).

This is the complete opposite of an ICE car.

This is a major problem do you not think?

It kind of defeats the purpose of cars like Tesla's which oddly are high performance electric cars. I get that they are advertised as fast cars with gimmicks like "ludicrous mode" to make them appeal but the reality is they are not even any good at doing a 300 mile journey at legal speed.

So like d215yq i think they are probably more suited to town driving. Which with a good public transport system and park & ride etc should not even be considered for any able bodied driver. Cities are some much nicer without cars.

Which leaves electric cars for me as nothing more than a rich man's folly, and that is fine people can spend there money on anything they like. Just don't pretend they are usable cars for the masses because they are not.

As for electric truck's like Tesla's well it is just fantasy really is'nt it. I get that Elon Musk is a silicon valley blue sky kind of thinker but really this one is just pie in the sky. A trucking business could never operate with a machine like this. Time is money and load weight is money both of these factors rule his fantasy product out im afraid.

 

[EmilysDad]

... Just don't pretend they are usable cars for the masses because they are not.

If you have somewhere to plug it in they could be very usable for people like EmilysMum that do very few miles & only ever potter around town. She's lucky if she does 3000 miles a year

 

[js190d]

If you have somewhere to plug it in they could be very usable for people like EmilysMum that do very few miles & only ever potter around town. She's lucky if she does 3000 miles a year

If that suited Emily's mum's circumstances then great but maybe a govt or local authority investing in an amazing public transport system for a city would be a better system.

 

[EmilysDad]

... but maybe a govt or local authority investing in an amazing public transport system for a city would be a better system.

True, but I bet it would still struggle to get her to work for 6 in the morning And it would definitely struggle to get me 25 miles away for 7 on a Sat & Sun morning.

 

[js190d]

True, but I bet it would still struggle to get her to work for 6 in the morning And it would definitely struggle to get me 25 miles away for 7 on a Sat & Sun morning.

Well i suppose if the future is one of electric cars and old ICE cars (no doubt very heavily taxed to the point of being unusable/ unaffordable) or public transport then if politicians are really wanting to do something about the environment then they will have to make public transport really attractive.

As in very frequent, very cheap (even free) and going to everywhere you could go via car on the road network. That would be the only way they would make everyone use it.

 

[d215yq]

If that suited Emily's mum's circumstances then great but maybe a govt or local authority investing in an amazing public transport system for a city would be a better system.

Agreed, and it's only when you live in other countries and cities that you realise just how bad public transport is in the UK. Here in Valencia (700k population) it's 7€ for 10 journeys ANYWHERE in the urban area using any method including combined methods in one journey if you want (tram, underground, bus) - thats 60p a journey. The airport underground line that goes actually to in the airport itself and not a "15minute bus ride away" is 5€ return... "Boris bikes" are 30€ a year and Free for a journey of under 30mins and there are seperated cycle lanes on every 4th road going up/doen or horizontal. E-scooters are legal and used in bike lanes too and e-scooters/bikes sensibly/respectfully use the pavement too where there isn't a lane and it's no big deal because people aren't morons. The one car width roads are limited to 20mph and bikes/e scooters are expected to ride central so there is no risky squeezing past/overtaking. Cars don't get annoyed or mind this because poeple aren't morons. Then there is the high speed train to Madrid (200 miles away) which goes at an average of 190mph and costs 30€ each way so no point in drivin which takes twice as long and costs the same in diesel.

Compared to the UK where under resourced police officers are confiscating e scooters and 5 years after their adoption everywhere else they're still illegal because "someone somewhere might die using them" when they are a real alternative to car use. Then car drivers will pass within an inch of every bike and it costs something like 20 quid to go anywhere on transport and you have to pay for each different method. I know it's probably seen as too socialist for here but I really don't know why public transport can't be centralised and ran by the government at a subsidy. Letting private companies compete on routes and do whatever they like without any coordination is never going to work and as it's a public good I don't have a problem with taxpayer money subsidising it - and in Europe this model really works. There is also no "consultation" and endless hassle with improving stuff for the new means of transport and car alternatives. As an example a major 3 lane road into Valencia centre was coned off and put to two narrow lanes with roadworks signs on 1st january. just last week, a month later that half a mile stretch of road is now 2 newly tarmacced lanes of traffic and a fully seperated bike/e-scooter lane and not a cone or roadworks in site. They're doing that all over the city and each time it makes more people switch and makes the city a nicer place to be.

 

[AnthonyUK]

It kind of defeats the purpose of cars like Tesla's which oddly are high performance electric cars. I get that they are advertised as fast cars with gimmicks like "ludicrous mode" to make them appeal but the reality is they are not even any good at doing a 300 mile journey at legal speed.

These initial models (S and X) are never intended to be mass-market models. They are expensive and were always intended to subsidise the more mainstream Model 3 and Y coming online now and further R&D which they are.

Well i suppose if the future is one of electric cars and old ICE cars (no doubt very heavily taxed to the point of being unusable/ unaffordable) or public transport then if politicians are really wanting to do something about the environment then they will have to make public transport really attractive.

As in very frequent, very cheap (even free) and going to everywhere you could go via car on the road network. That would be the only way they would make everyone use it.

In the not too distant future I can't see a reason for people to own their own car once autonomous vehicles are common-place. Glorified public taxis should be all that is required.

 

[js190d]

These initial models (S and X) are never intended to be mass-market models. They are expensive and were always intended to subsidise the more mainstream Model 3 and Y coming online now and further R&D which they are.

So being non mass market models is that why they are no good at maintaining there range (equivalent to mpg) going along a motorway at a constant 70mph? Is the model 3 any better.

Or maybe Tesla batteries are better than Jaguar i pace who knows

 

[js190d]

[QUOTE="AnthonyUK, post: 1790025, member: 89661"{]


In the not too distant future I can't see a reason for people to own their own car once autonomous vehicles are common-place. Glorified public taxis should be all that is required.[/QUOTE]



What a grim future you envisage.

 

[AnthonyUK]

So being non mass market models is that why they are no good at maintaining there range (equivalent to mpg) going along a motorway at a constant 70mph? Is the model 3 any better.

Or maybe Tesla batteries are better than Jaguar i pace who knows

ICE and electric are completely different usage wise. Why are you comparing apples to oranges?
These are first generation models and have obvious deficiencies that will only improve with more R&D much like petrol and diesel engines have improved since the 80's.

It's going to happen and all the whining in the world won't help.

 

[d215yq]

[QUOTE="AnthonyUK, post: 1790025, member: 89661"{]


In the not too distant future I can't see a reason for people to own their own car once autonomous vehicles are common-place. Glorified public taxis should be all that is required.

What a grim future you envisage.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's grim, it's just cultural, I'm 35 and many of my friends don't have cars, in fact a lot haven't learnt to drive. It's not such a "thing" now to have the car. It would be like me imagining how "grim" it was for people not to travel the world, go on weekends in random cities in Europe, etc which is what pretty much everyone from my generation does now and is more improtant to them than a car, but of course life wasn't grim back then just because people didn't do that, it was just different priorities.

Ultimately a car is nothing but a means of travel to most people. I do find cars and how they work interesting so I would like a range of old school stuff that I find interesting as a hobby for the odd weekly drive. As I have no interest in any new cars though I'd have no problem at all in using a "glorified public taxi" if it could take me to the remote mountains, beaches etc quickly and efficiently. A new car practically drives for you now anyway or atleast does a lot of it compared to a mechanical older car so I don't really see the difference/problem.

 

[js190d]

What a grim future you envisage.

I don't think it's grim, it's just cultural, I'm 35 and many of my friends don't have cars, in fact a lot haven't learnt to drive. It's not such a "thing" now to have the car. It would be like me imagining how "grim" it was for people not to travel the world, go on weekends in random cities in Europe, etc which is what pretty much everyone from my generation does now and is more improtant to them than a car, but of course life wasn't grim back then just because people didn't do that, it was just different priorities.

[/QUOTE]


The reason i think this vision of the future is grim is because freedom of choice to travel is going to be restricted in the future.

The enviromental lobby pushing us so hard towards electric cars right now are not going to encourage travel on it's current scale. They will be pushing for the opposite. Travel damages the environment.

Car travel , be it in your own electric car or an autonomous "pool" car, will be more expensive than filling the tank in your current second hand diesel. Also in an electric vehicle connected to the cloud mileage restrictions are easy.

Cheap subsidised flight within the EU will not last for much longer as they are enviromentally damaging.

That is why this future is grim imho.

 

[John Laidlaw]

This is a very silly thread now....

 

[AnthonyUK]

The reason i think this vision of the future is grim is because freedom of choice to travel is going to be restricted in the future.

I think it will be more expensive but that isn't to say that it doesn't cost enough currently.
You freedom of choice is not affected as long as you are willing to pay for it.

I don't see how it would be more expensive than owning a new car tbh. The depreciation alone increases the cost per mile to unreasonable levels unless you cover a lot of distance each year.

My train season ticket is now getting close to £5k and I don't see that I could drive 60 miles each way for the same amount unless maybe it was a second hand electric, not that I would want to.

 

[Blobcat]

This is a very silly thread now....

And now for something completely different...

 

[400ixl]

Car travel , be it in your own electric car or an autonomous "pool" car, will be more expensive than filling the tank in your current second hand diesel.

Don't get this at all. Are you saying that there won't be secondhand cars in 2035? Just like today you will have older vehicles which will be electric. So charging those will be no different to filling your secondhand diesel, expect less polluting.

Travel would get more restricted without this push to carbon neutral than it would be with as it will be less environmentally impacting.