Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?

[niky]

Unless... somebody focuses on making an electric compact that weighs 800lbs less than that, still has heated seats, and plenty of cup/mobile phone/keyring/haribo holders...<cough> i3 </cough> which I think is at least the direction that report is suggesting the industry and legislation go.

Still too much money for too little car.

I don't know about you but I don't want to be sitting in that 1000 lb car when you make a driving mistake and I accidentally run into you with my 6000 lb truck

Granted, that is a worry... and I do admit that my car buying decisions still take size into account, but it's all relative. I've seen people killed in collisions with trucks while belted into crossovers and... trucks. There's always someone bigger than you out there.

If everyone is driving a small car, the forces involved in such accidents will be much smaller and more survivable. But then that would mean mandating exactly what people should buy, which is a perilous endeavor, because not everyone requires the same thing, and the automotive arms race results in such wonderful cars. I've just driven a turbocharged Civic that's faster than the old Si, nearly as economical as a Fit, and as large as an old Accord inside. Yowza.

This is crazy talk and I'll have none of it.

Seriously though, I think a bigger issue is that few people are buying cars with just transporting a single person in mind. We have families and group outings. Sure I can save gas by buying a motorcycle for daily work commutes, but then if I need to get my daughter after work I need a second vehicle that is larger. If it is unexpected then I waste time and gas driving home first to switch cars. If it is an emergency then my daughter is screwed.

If all I had to worry about was me, then I'd be on board with the idea. Even then, I'd be screwed if all my friends were the same and someone had too much to drink.

There is a convenience and feasibility issue that makes a single, larger car make more sense. I can't be bothered or afford to have a different vehicle for each need. Instead I have one that fits all my needs and also any new ones that may come up.

The single-person car is an extreme case, but there is always the possibility of doing all your family business with an ultra-light car. The Mirage sedan, for example (not available there) has more legroom than a Focus while still weighing close to 2,000 pounds and getting well over 40 mpg. For those occassions, maybe once or twice a year, that you need more, you can simply rent a bigger car... while enjoying the lower purchase price and running costs of a smaller one over the rest of the year.

I've managed to go for up to a month using tiny sub-2k cars like the Suzuki Alto (one step up from the Nano) for my family of four... it's not comfortable. It's not nice. It's not very safe (that's relative) But dear heavens, is it cheap. And environmentally friendly. But in the end, if someone is willing to pay extra money for comfort, power and safety, who am I to judge? I run airconditioning at home and waste electricity refrigerating drinking water. We all have our energy vices.

It's funny, though, how poor families around here manage to get by with a single motorbike servicing two to three adults and half-a-dozen kids. But I guess if you have that many, you've got reserves in case one or two fall off the bike...

 

[Danoff]

It's funny, though, how poor families around here manage to get by with a single motorbike servicing two to three adults and half-a-dozen kids. But I guess if you have that many, you've got reserves in case one or two fall off the bike...

You pay for it in economic efficiency. You need at least one, probably many many people in a neighborhood specializing in taking care of kids so that they don't have to go anywhere in a vehicle. Then a few breadwinners go off in the bike and bring back resources to the community. It works ok, but it's not as productive as pooling folks who specialize in childcare from a wider population base and allowing a larger percentage of the population to go off and work in their specialized area. That's a better recipe for economic growth, although our moms often get bamboozled by the notion that they're doing their kids a disservice by not each dedicating their lives to staying home to take care of them - which is even less efficient.

So we give up the ability to not have to transport our kids out of the neighborhood, but in turn we get better economic growth and a wider/higher quality range of services.

 

[wfooshee]

In addition to my previous comment about the ludicrousness of switching instantly to electric propulsion, something in post #1 just clicked: the number about CO deaths.

I didn't bother looking it up, but I would wager that not a single one of those CO deaths came from internal combustion engines. CO kills people in their homes as they sleep, because their heater is out of whack and releasing CO into the house instead of up the chimney. What made the OP link those deaths to cars????

As for his other numbers being an order of magnitude off, even though "that's what he learned," that wouldn't surprise me, either. I had a high school physics teacher tell us that an electromagnet could not be run on alternating current, as the field would be cancelled out. The entire transformer industry just vaporized at that moment!

 

[FoolKiller]

@niky, if we had to get by with bare minimums we could, but life would be stressful. We have so few real problems here that we argue about whether dogs on a beach are a problem.

Then there are regulatory issues. We find a way to make a car lighter and more efficient just to be told to add eight air bags, child seat connectors, rollover protective pillars, etc. I think crash avoidance systems and backup cameras are the new topics of discussion. The fact that despite all that, I can get 38mpg in my ICE midsize sedan is amazing.

 

[Sprite]

Something of relevance to the latest supposed research. Plus a few other opinions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Something of relevance to the latest supposed research. Plus a few other opinions.

As watchable as Robert Llewellyn is... how unbiased is a piece published by a company* that's investing millions in car-charging points?

Still, there are some interesting facts in there.

*And it took them 3 years to get my electricity bill right

 

[Danoff]

Something of relevance to the latest supposed research. Plus a few other opinions.

Watched it.

He dismisses the point about road particulates as being left by ICEs, but roads are pretty dirty things - especially asphalt. I'd like to see data about that. He also dismisses the point about tire wear by saying that SUVs are heavier still. Ok, but an electric SUV is heavier than an ICE SUV is it not? Keep your comparisons fair. He also says that electric car owners are "reporting" that their tires are lasting longer. I don't believe that's the case in electric vehicles that are fun to drive, the model S has fairly well documented tire wear issues. It may be partly due to automatically adjusting suspension, but I also think it probably has something to do with gobs of torque and people stepping on it.

If your hybrid has 110 horsepower compared to the ICE version at 160, the ICE version is going to chew its tires up a bit faster because it's more fun to drive. But if the ICE version had 110 horsepower and weighed less, I'd expect tire wear to be less.

So tire wear can't be dismissed as easily as "but SUVs are even heavier" and "electric car owners are saying their tires last longer". And road particulates can't be dismissed quite as easily as "that's because ICEs are dirty". The brake wear issue I think is a red herring from the get go. That's just not a lot of material. That little tiny pad wearing down over 20,000 miles? That's not something I can see causing big problems.

 

[Sprite]

@Danoff I agree whole heartedly.

The current study smacks of large oil corps trying to justify using ICE's but the EV crowd are just as bad with the trash talk.

In the end I think we as the human race need to move from ICE's going into the future for cars used by the general public with access to diesel and petrol engines for those who need them for work etc.

Should ICE owners be made to feel like they're bad people? No they shouldn't but should those who own an electric vehical be made to feel like they're driving silly cars or are hippies? No they shouldn't.

The tire ware issue doesn't fly and as you say EV's have the same if not in some cases worse ware, especially as you pointed out because of the instant torque at any time leads to people hooning about more, especially to begin with in high powered EV's like the Tesla's. However I'd like to see how it compares to similar cars in type and weight.

The pollutants on roads will continue to be there until it's only EV's and even then fine particulates from dust and debris will still be an issue.

@TenEightyOne which company? Do you mean British Gas? If so they did sponsor the first lot of episodes but then stopped. He now funds the channel via Patreon.

 

[niky]

Something of relevance to the latest supposed research. Plus a few other opinions.

Watched it.

He dismisses the point about road particulates as being left by ICEs, but roads are pretty dirty things - especially asphalt. I'd like to see data about that. He also dismisses the point about tire wear by saying that SUVs are heavier still. Ok, but an electric SUV is heavier than an ICE SUV is it not? Keep your comparisons fair. He also says that electric car owners are "reporting" that their tires are lasting longer. I don't believe that's the case in electric vehicles that are fun to drive, the model S has fairly well documented tire wear issues. It may be partly due to automatically adjusting suspension, but I also think it probably has something to do with gobs of torque and people stepping on it.

If your hybrid has 110 horsepower compared to the ICE version at 160, the ICE version is going to chew its tires up a bit faster because it's more fun to drive. But if the ICE version had 110 horsepower and weighed less, I'd expect tire wear to be less.

So tire wear can't be dismissed as easily as "but SUVs are even heavier" and "electric car owners are saying their tires last longer". And road particulates can't be dismissed quite as easily as "that's because ICEs are dirty". The brake wear issue I think is a red herring from the get go. That's just not a lot of material. That little tiny pad wearing down over 20,000 miles? That's not something I can see causing big problems.

It would be interesting to find out, but I do believe that most (non-performance) electrics do have better tire wear, due to longer-wearing low rolling-resistance tires. It's telling, however, that the study he criticizes included brake dust, because that's laughable, considering that we've known for decades that cars with regenerative braking have longer-lasting brakes.

I agree, though, that weight is a valid concern, given the amount of extra road wear caused by extra weight. Only way to cope with that, however, is a weight- and distance- based road user tax.

@niky, if we had to get by with bare minimums we could, but life would be stressful. We have so few real problems here that we argue about whether dogs on a beach are a problem.

Then there are regulatory issues. We find a way to make a car lighter and more efficient just to be told to add eight air bags, child seat connectors, rollover protective pillars, etc. I think crash avoidance systems and backup cameras are the new topics of discussion. The fact that despite all that, I can get 38mpg in my ICE midsize sedan is amazing.

It's all an issue of the status quo.

For poorer countries, ultra-light minicars with zero-star crash safety and horrendously basic equipment are best-sellers... and simply because buyers are accustomed to them and have no problem packing a family of six or seven into a space barely adequate for four. Hell, I lived like that for a couple of years, and I'm still perfectly fine using such tiny cars when driving solo. (hell, I go travelling with a single backpack) But with a western family lifestyle, which includes a bulky child seat with side-impact protection, a stroller, several softbags and associated junk, it's a difficult ask.

For richer countries, who can afford to pay extra, they get extra. Regulatory barriers still allow cars like the Mirage to slip through the cracks, but look at how it sells compared to something like the Fiesta, which has less space, but is bigger, more powerful and more refined.

I don't bemoan the fact that that you drive a decent-sized car. It's your right! But truthfully, if fuel economy and emissions were all that mattered, a whole lot can be done with current technology and downsizing... but only if the customers are amenable to it.

 

[Danoff]

It would be interesting to find out, but I do believe that most (non-performance) electrics do have better tire wear, due to longer-wearing low rolling-resistance tires.

That's not an EV-specific feature. If we suddenly love the long-lasting low rolling-resistance horrific stopping distance tires, then we can have them on non-EV cars just the same.

 

[niky]

That's not an EV-specific feature. If we suddenly love the long-lasting low rolling-resistance horrific stopping distance tires, then we can have them on non-EV cars just the same.

Pretty much.

 

[Whodoyouthink]

I see it as a fuel issue, not an ICE issue. We need to ween off oil, but still make use of our ICEs, hopefully without much need to converting to use a different fuel. Ideally, we use something that is basically fully compatible with our current ICEs.

I'm still banking on these:





They still are being developed, and production seems to still be a big issue for an industrial scale. But, damn do they sound promising for providing us an alternative to keep using what we already have.

 

[sk8er913]

Well, Paris has done it, in a way. They have banned all cars built before 1997 and in 4 years that ban will extend to 2010, making gasoline and diesel engines less common, or newer and more efficient.

http://qz.com/697705/paris-is-banning-all-cars-built-before-1997/

 

[Turbotwin01]

That is very unfair. Cars that are 10 years old are cheaper but not cheap enough for people who just got their liscences and want to get a car.

So long NA Miatas in Paris.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well, Paris has done it, in a way. They have banned all cars built before 1997 and in 4 years that ban will extend to 2010, making gasoline and diesel engines less common, or newer and more efficient.

http://qz.com/697705/paris-is-banning-all-cars-built-before-1997/

No, as the article you linked said they've banned them from entering the city limits on weekdays between certain times. Expect to see something similar from Rome and Milan shortly.

That is very unfair. Cars that are 10 years old are cheaper but not cheap enough for people who just got their liscences and want to get a car.

So long NA Miatas in Paris.

You could ask why you might want to take your car into Paris, when we were little we used to play a game where we got points for spotting cars with no dents. It's very hard to do

If you live in Paris you'll still be able to use your car in the evenings, you'll just have to use le bus during the day and at les week-ends.

 

[FoolKiller]

While it isn't a straight ban, it is a defacto ban. It will be enough hassle for many that it will severely alter the behavior of citizens, primarily the poorer citizens, and make it impossible for them to drive themselves to and from work. Part of me wonders how much of this was about environment and how much was about supporting public transport systems.

It is something that could never stand in the US. We don't have the public transport infrastructure in most cities to handle that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

While it isn't a straight ban, it is a defacto ban. It will be enough hassle for many that it will severely alter the behavior of citizens, primarily the poorer citizens, and make it impossible for them to drive themselves to and from work. Part of me wonders how much of this was about environment and how much was about supporting public transport systems.

Driving in Paris isn't easy, parking there is even less so. I'd say this is environmental - like many European cities Paris is struggling once again with pollution. The previous scheme involved only allowing odd/even number plates into the city on differing days, that was very successful.

Whenever I worked in Paris I never took a car (even though one was available), the public transport really is very good. I take your point that this may not work in other cities and that it might be particularly unsuited to cities where the public transport isn't strong enough to take that transfer of load.

 

[sk8er913]

While it isn't a straight ban, it is a defacto ban. It will be enough hassle for many that it will severely alter the behavior of citizens, primarily the poorer citizens, and make it impossible for them to drive themselves to and from work. Part of me wonders how much of this was about environment and how much was about supporting public transport systems.

It is something that could never stand in the US. We don't have the public transport infrastructure in most cities to handle that.

Well its a city ban, not a statewide or country wide ban. So I could imagine some cities, like new york or San Francisco try to do something similar. SF even has the bridges and tolls to reject the cars from coming in. originally I thought this was a bad idea. But thinking about traffic and how useless city driving can be. This might not be so bad after all. Plus you can still drive your older car outside of the city limits or in smaller cities.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Plus you can still drive your older car outside of the city limits or in smaller cities.

And in the city, of course, just not between 8am and 8pm on weekdays

 

[Danoff]

@TenEightyOne

Well its a city ban, not a statewide or country wide ban. So I could imagine some cities, like new york or San Francisco try to do something similar. SF even has the bridges and tolls to reject the cars from coming in. originally I thought this was a bad idea. But thinking about traffic and how useless city driving can be. This might not be so bad after all. Plus you can still drive your older car outside of the city limits or in smaller cities.

It's weirder than a ban though. It's discriminating in favor of newer vehicles for some strange reason. Really what it's doing is discriminating against people who can't afford newer vehicles. It's a bizarre, almost obvious, class-oriented attack which would appear to accomplish nothing. If it's emissions you're worried about, make the emissions requirements more strict or tax gas. Banning low-cost cars seems to be one of the more distorted, high-collateral-damge, methods I can think of to accomplish whatever it is they had in mind.

 

[Dennisch]

@TenEightyOne



It's weirder than a ban though. It's discriminating in favor of newer vehicles for some strange reason. Really what it's doing is discriminating against people who can't afford newer vehicles. It's a bizarre, almost obvious, class-oriented attack which would appear to accomplish nothing. If it's emissions you're worried about, make the emissions requirements more strict or tax gas. Banning low-cost cars seems to be one of the more distorted, high-collateral-damge, methods I can think of to accomplish whatever it is they had in mind.

We have a similar issue going on here. A couple major cities have imposed so called greenzones where you can't enter with a petrol car from before 1992 or a diesel before 2001. Even if you live in that zone. People were forced to get rid of their car, they did get a financial compensation, but that didn't cover the cost of a new car.

Small problem with the whole issue though and a brilliant example coming up.

On my Facebook feed there was a guy who had to get rid of his 1988 Fiat Panda, it did 18km on a liter of petrol. Being pissed off, he exploited the brilliant loophole put in place.

He bought a 40 year old van, with a 4 liter 6 cylinder diesel, doing 5/6 km on a liter. Because 40 year old cars are exempt from the stupid law put in place.

Brilliant.

 

[sk8er913]

We have a similar issue going on here. A couple major cities have imposed so called greenzones where you can't enter with a petrol car from before 1992 or a diesel before 2001. Even if you live in that zone. People were forced to get rid of their car, they did get a financial compensation, but that didn't cover the cost of a new car.

Small problem with the whole issue though and a brilliant example coming up.

On my Facebook feed there was a guy who had to get rid of his 1988 Fiat Panda, it did 18km on a liter of petrol. Being pissed off, he exploited the brilliant loophole put in place.

He bought a 40 year old van, with a 4 liter 6 cylinder diesel, doing 5/6 km on a liter. Because 40 year old cars are exempt from the stupid law put in place.

Brilliant.

I think it would be more effective to ban cars based on their carbon/nitrogen footprint than the year they were manufactured. This would discrimate against larger vehicles, but it makes more sense. Although it would be more difficult to enforce.

 

[Turbotwin01]

I think it would be more effective to ban cars based on their carbon/nitrogen footprint than the year they were manufactured. This would discrimate against larger vehicles, but it makes more sense. Although it would be more difficult to enforce.

Good luck explaining how cars work to politicians.

 

[Dennisch]

I think it would be more effective to ban cars based on their carbon/nitrogen footprint than the year they were manufactured. This would discrimate against larger vehicles, but it makes more sense. Although it would be more difficult to enforce.

Please, do not try to use logic in this discussion because:

Good luck explaining how cars work to politicians.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's weirder than a ban though. It's discriminating in favor of newer vehicles for some strange reason.

I managed to find the reasoning; it's simply that they're not considered clean enough, regardless of the mpg. I imagine that's because the 90s saw catalytic converters still being phased in.

6 "eco" classes will be declared with vehicles required to carry the appropriately-coloured certificate in the windscreen. Other cities are planning to follow suit with either a weekday ban like that in Paris or with permanent bans. Paris itself estimates that about 20% of vehicle traffic will be restricted by the pre-1997 ban although, as already pointed out, evening and weekend use will still be permitted. For now.

There is however a class action planned in protest by a federation of motor users, I doubt they'll find much success in changing the law but it's hard to say if they'll succeed in gaining any compensation for those whose cars fall foul of the law.

More (in alien jibber-jabber) at LeMonde.

 

[sk8er913]

I managed to find the reasoning; it's simply that they're not considered clean enough, regardless of the mpg. I imagine that's because the 90s saw catalytic converters still being phased in.

6 "eco" classes will be declared with vehicles required to carry the appropriately-coloured certificate in the windscreen. Other cities are planning to follow suit with either a weekday ban like that in Paris or with permanent bans. Paris itself estimates that about 20% of vehicle traffic will be restricted by the pre-1997 ban although, as already pointed out, evening and weekend use will still be permitted. For now.

There is however a class action planned in protest by a federation of motor users, I doubt they'll find much success in changing the law but it's hard to say if they'll succeed in gaining any compensation for those whose cars fall foul of the law.

More (in alien jibber-jabber) at LeMonde.

California started phasing in Catalytic converters and tighter emissions controls in the mid-70s...

Good luck explaining how cars work to politicians.

Politicians aren't dumb, they are just greedy and selfish, with a few exceptions of course. So, you have to be able to explain to them how it will personally benefit them.

 

[Turbotwin01]

Politicians aren't dumb, they are just greedy and selfish, with a few exceptions of course. So, you have to be able to explain to them how it will personally benefit them.

Good luck explaining how it will benefit them when they don't understand it.

Also politicians are smart about whatever politicians are supposed to be smart about (even then there are plenty that aren't smart). The ins and outs of different cars are not on that list of what they need to know.

 

[mustafur]

I think it would be more effective to ban cars based on their carbon/nitrogen footprint than the year they were manufactured. This would discrimate against larger vehicles, but it makes more sense. Although it would be more difficult to enforce.

When it comes to cars politicians are clueless, here in Australia if you have a provisional license your banned from having a high performance car until you have an unrestricted license, problem is what they determine what a high performance car is completely backwards, they just ban turbo charged cars and V8s and larger, forgetting there is a car called an M3 or Lotus Elise which are still eligible, yet a V8 SUV with half the power is banned.

They could of used logic and just did it by a limit on a power to weight ratio from the car's factory specs, but that was too difficult for these people.

 

[sk8er913]

When it comes to cars politicians are clueless, here in Australia if you have a provisional license your banned from having a high performance car until you have an unrestricted license, problem is what they determine what a high performance car is completely backwards, they just ban turbo charged cars and V8s and larger, forgetting there is a car called an M3 or Lotus Elise which are still eligible, yet a V8 SUV with half the power is banned.

They could of used logic and just did it by a limit on a power to weight ratio from the car's factory specs, but that was too difficult for these people.

High performance should be based on its power to weight ratio. Lol.

Edit: I didn't read your last sentence. Well. Good to see we have common sense. XD