|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 20:26:08 GMT
If range is your only measure. Do you buy all your cars according to the size of the fuel tank? People used to boast about acceleration. Oops. People used to look at MPG. Ooops. No need if the tank can be filled in a couple of minutes . Solid state and graphene batteries will make charge times even faster. Charge too fast and the heat generated from internal resistance destroys the battery. With graphene it works almost as a superconductor. The other problem is the power of the charger. The 1km/s claim is from a Huwawei charger. They are water-cooled. They are being installed across China currently. We sanctioned the firm remember. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2024 20:45:42 GMT
No need if the tank can be filled in a couple of minutes . Solid state and graphene batteries will make charge times even faster. Charge too fast and the heat generated from internal resistance destroys the battery. With graphene it works almost as a superconductor. The other problem is the power of the charger. The 1km/s claim is from a Huwawei charger. They are water-cooled. They are being installed across China currently. We sanctioned the firm remember. “ Will” being the operative word . It’s all conjecture and jam tomorrow . That’s why your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” is false . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 21:22:11 GMT
Solid state and graphene batteries will make charge times even faster. Charge too fast and the heat generated from internal resistance destroys the battery. With graphene it works almost as a superconductor. The other problem is the power of the charger. The 1km/s claim is from a Huwawei charger. They are water-cooled. They are being installed across China currently. We sanctioned the firm remember. “ Will” being the operative word . It’s all conjecture and jam tomorrow . That’s why your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” is false . It's easy to snipe, but a lot harder doing it. The grahene tech was a British development, and they have proved it. You should read some case studies on the history of technology. Like lasers have been around for a long time, but even today they find more and varied uses. Who would have thought in 1950 that they would be used for navigation in cars eh? Batteries and solar panels will continue to improve. ICE has been around for 150 years. It is about as optimised as it could ever be, and any improvements now are in your fraction of a percent range. The art of investment is knowing where to put your money. I know where i would put mine. Not in the euro car industry though. The MSM are consistently wrong on new tech. They snipe at smart meters, but 20 years on and they will be the norm, and people will say, oh gosh, I could never do with out it. It saves me a fortune. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2024 21:38:51 GMT
“ Will” being the operative word . It’s all conjecture and jam tomorrow . That’s why your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” is false . It's easy to snipe, but a lot harder doing it. The grahene tech was a British development, and they have proved it. You should read some case studies on the history of technology. Like lasers have been around for a long time, but even today they find more and varied uses. Who would have thought in 1950 that they would be used for navigation in cars eh? Batteries and solar panels will continue to improve. ICE has been around for 150 years. It is about as optimised as it could ever be, and any improvements now are in your fraction of a percent range. The art of investment is knowing where to put your money. I know where i would put mine. Not in the euro car industry though. The MSM are consistently wrong on new tech. They snipe at smart meters, but 20 years on and they will be the norm, and people will say, oh gosh, I could never do with out it. It saves me a fortune. Pointing out your false claims isn’t sniping. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 21:50:24 GMT
It's easy to snipe, but a lot harder doing it. The grahene tech was a British development, and they have proved it. You should read some case studies on the history of technology. Like lasers have been around for a long time, but even today they find more and varied uses. Who would have thought in 1950 that they would be used for navigation in cars eh? Batteries and solar panels will continue to improve. ICE has been around for 150 years. It is about as optimised as it could ever be, and any improvements now are in your fraction of a percent range. The art of investment is knowing where to put your money. I know where i would put mine. Not in the euro car industry though. The MSM are consistently wrong on new tech. They snipe at smart meters, but 20 years on and they will be the norm, and people will say, oh gosh, I could never do with out it. It saves me a fortune. Pointing out your false claims isn’t sniping. I read the UK press on electric cars and am fully aware of the source so of these claims. They are pretty damn stupid though. They lead the proles astray and then we wonder why the country has gone stupid. One should simply allow these cars to be imported and sold at the same tax as any other product and people will buy them as and when it suits them. Forcing people to use them and forcing immature tech onto people is economically destructive. A thing is worth what one is willing to pay for it.
If it were not for China, these things would still be infeasible today. This is where I miscalculated things many years ago. I don't think anyone expected China to make better cars than Germans. I figured they would make a lot of good stuff, especially electronics, but they seems to excel in practically every industry.
Maybe they still believe they are on the Long March. Mao was not such a bad inspiration, being the warrior he was. They approach the car industry the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2024 21:52:33 GMT
Pointing out your false claims isn’t sniping. I read the UK press on electric cars and am fully aware of the source so of these claims. They are pretty damn stupid though. They lead the proles astray and then we wonder why the country has gone stupid. One should simply allow these cars to be imported and sold at the same tax as any other product and people will buy them as and when it suits them. Forcing people to use them and forcing immature tech onto people is economically destructive. A thing is worth what one is willing to pay for it.
If it were not for China, these things would still be infeasible today. This is where I miscalculated things many years ago. I don't think anyone expected China to make better cars than Germans. I figured they would make a lot of good stuff, especially electronics, but they seems to excel in practically every industry.
Maybe they still believe they are on the Long March. Mao was not such a bad inspiration, being the warrior he was. They approach the car industry the same way.
Nope. Your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” was stupid …because it was obviously wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 9, 2024 22:16:17 GMT
If EV's are better than ICE cars and China is the proof, why does China still subsidise EV's and restrict the sale of ICE cars?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 22:51:04 GMT
If EV's are better than ICE cars and China is the proof, why does China still subsidise EV's and restrict the sale of ICE cars? Pollution. It is deadly stuff. The government have a "people first" policy. A second reason was to take on the legacy manufacturers. China's industry is a weird thing. It is neither totally free market nor is it a command economy of the soviet type. However they do have a plan (unlike Rishi). The planning is very long term, as in decades long. To economically produce cars you must see to it that your supply chain is efficient all the way through. It would mean they needed to invest in rare earth mining, energy production, ports and shipping, computers, AI, microchips. All these different things need to be choreographed so they finally produce the car. For this reason industry voluntarily takes the lead of the government, so if the government say, we want to be big in microchips, the businessmen respond and invest in those areas, and by doing that, you find everyone is a winner, despite there also being competition to provide the natural selection of the best firms. The soviets never did it this way, and so it is rather innovative of them. subsidies are often there to steer the investment in the direction that makes sense int he long-term plan. Markets themselves suffer the inherent problem of short-termism. They need a nudge. Actually in manufacturing it is quite common for government to subsidise in the large industries. Airbus had mega subsidy to start with, and only now is paying it back handsomely. At the time it looked like a disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 22:53:09 GMT
I read the UK press on electric cars and am fully aware of the source so of these claims. They are pretty damn stupid though. They lead the proles astray and then we wonder why the country has gone stupid. One should simply allow these cars to be imported and sold at the same tax as any other product and people will buy them as and when it suits them. Forcing people to use them and forcing immature tech onto people is economically destructive. A thing is worth what one is willing to pay for it.
If it were not for China, these things would still be infeasible today. This is where I miscalculated things many years ago. I don't think anyone expected China to make better cars than Germans. I figured they would make a lot of good stuff, especially electronics, but they seems to excel in practically every industry.
Maybe they still believe they are on the Long March. Mao was not such a bad inspiration, being the warrior he was. They approach the car industry the same way.
Nope. Your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” was stupid …because it was obviously wrong. Are you still on about the batteries being bad, or is there some other characteristic that makes you hate them? Some people claim they are too heavy. I think that would be a bit subjective though. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2024 22:57:11 GMT
Nope. Your claim that “EVs ARE a better buy now than ICE cars,” was stupid …because it was obviously wrong. Are you still on about the batteries being bad, or is there some other characteristic that makes you hate them? Some people claim they are too heavy. I think that would be a bit subjective though. No. I’m on about you posting bullshit . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2024 22:59:17 GMT
Are you still on about the batteries being bad, or is there some other characteristic that makes you hate them? Some people claim they are too heavy. I think that would be a bit subjective though. No. I’m on about you posting bullshit . I'll let you sober up. You are sounding like Vinny. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2024 23:01:02 GMT
No. I’m on about you posting bullshit . I'll let you sober up. You are sounding like Vinny. You sound like a pub bore and a bad loser . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 9, 2024 23:06:40 GMT
If EV's are better than ICE cars and China is the proof, why does China still subsidise EV's and restrict the sale of ICE cars? Pollution. It is deadly stuff. The government have a "people first" policy. A second reason was to take on the legacy manufacturers. China's industry is a weird thing. It is neither totally free market nor is it a command economy of the soviet type. However they do have a plan (unlike Rishi). The planning is very long term, as in decades long. To economically produce cars you must see to it that your supply chain is efficient all the way through. It would mean they needed to invest in rare earth mining, energy production, ports and shipping, computers, AI, microchips. All these different things need to be choreographed so they finally produce the car. For this reason industry voluntarily takes the lead of the government, so if the government say, we want to be big in microchips, the businessmen respond and invest in those areas, and by doing that, you find everyone is a winner, despite there also being competition to provide the natural selection of the best firms. The soviets never did it this way, and so it is rather innovative of them. subsidies are often there to steer the investment in the direction that makes sense int he long-term plan. Markets themselves suffer the inherent problem of short-termism. They need a nudge. Actually in manufacturing it is quite common for government to subsidise in the large industries. Airbus had mega subsidy to start with, and only now is paying it back handsomely. At the time it looked like a disaster. But if, as you claim, EV's are better than ICE cars, then the consumer would vote with their feet (and wallet) and freely buy them. That EV's need subsidising and market protection kinda suggests that the consumer disagrees with you and only buys EV's as second best. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 10, 2024 1:19:01 GMT
Pollution. It is deadly stuff. The government have a "people first" policy. A second reason was to take on the legacy manufacturers. China's industry is a weird thing. It is neither totally free market nor is it a command economy of the soviet type. However they do have a plan (unlike Rishi). The planning is very long term, as in decades long. To economically produce cars you must see to it that your supply chain is efficient all the way through. It would mean they needed to invest in rare earth mining, energy production, ports and shipping, computers, AI, microchips. All these different things need to be choreographed so they finally produce the car. For this reason industry voluntarily takes the lead of the government, so if the government say, we want to be big in microchips, the businessmen respond and invest in those areas, and by doing that, you find everyone is a winner, despite there also being competition to provide the natural selection of the best firms. The soviets never did it this way, and so it is rather innovative of them. subsidies are often there to steer the investment in the direction that makes sense int he long-term plan. Markets themselves suffer the inherent problem of short-termism. They need a nudge. Actually in manufacturing it is quite common for government to subsidise in the large industries. Airbus had mega subsidy to start with, and only now is paying it back handsomely. At the time it looked like a disaster. But if, as you claim, EV's are better than ICE cars, then the consumer would vote with their feet (and wallet) and freely buy them. That EV's need subsidising and market protection kinda suggests that the consumer disagrees with you and only buys EV's as second best. 10 years ago Chinese EVs were very poorly manufactured. They were cheap and targeting the domestic market. They needed the government backing to do the R and D. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 10, 2024 8:29:37 GMT
If range is your only measure. Do you buy all your cars according to the size of the fuel tank? People used to boast about acceleration. Oops. People used to look at MPG. Ooops. No need if the tank can be filled in a couple of minutes . ICE cars usually have good acceleration and for what I’ve seen an EV with a similar price to an ICE vehicle hasn’t got great acceleration. But please post some shit about how fast top of the range Tesla’s are . Evs do not run on petrol . No wonder you bought a hybrid. Nissan leaf £32000 . Up to ( ffs) 168 miles . 0-60 7.4. Seconds Ford Puma St £32000 0-60 6.7 seconds . Range..indefinite . The Puma is a much better car than the shitty old leaf ..and that’s including acceration. And EV land rover can out accelerate a Maserati. No one ever boasted they bought a cheap ICE car with great acceleration. They boasted its 0 to 60. EV wins that hands down. And people compared MPG or should it be MP£ now, miles per £, Ev rinses ICE again. The only thing the luddites have left is charging time and that's becoming irrelevant as EV's pass the 500mile mark on a single charge. Sure it mattered when EV's did 120 miles on a bad day, but that's history. |
|
