|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 19, 2024 18:25:54 GMT
You referred to tyre regulations and I am pointing out that any tyre regulation is to enhance safety, the EV legislation is not to deal with road safety but has a negative effect on it which is contrary to all legislation that deals with motor vehicles and their interaction with the public. Range anxiety, History  come now - try to be honest |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 19, 2024 19:24:13 GMT
You referred to tyre regulations and I am pointing out that any tyre regulation is to enhance safety, the EV legislation is not to deal with road safety but has a negative effect on it which is contrary to all legislation that deals with motor vehicles and their interaction with the public. But it is. EV's reduce emissions making the world safer. Its a stupid argument in the first place, so many other factors 1, Where the wear effects humans 2, How many humans are effected 3, How much extra wear an EV causes 4, That extra wear times the minute number effected by this. Its just the last few things left to hold against EV's as all the big ones disappear. Range anxiety, History Charging stations, Thousands of them now. Cost, Outweighed by running cost savings Carbon footprint, Proven to be less over the vehicle life. Mining slavery, Lithium comes from Australia in the main Now we're down to tyre wear. Lol. Are there dozens of charging units at motorway service stations yet? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 19, 2024 19:38:56 GMT
I hate to break it to these people, but in the future, in many countries there won't be tyre wear as there won't be roads to wear them. It's all down to one number really, which is Wh/kg. Solid state batteries due in a couple of years will deliver 500. I would guess in the medium term that can be at least doubled, and at that point there would really be no reason to have roads. Flying cars will be cheaper than their competitors on the roads. If you build a car, an EV eliminates all the complicated ICE engineering. If you eliminate the wheels you are effectively replacing them with much cheaper blades, but what you do not need is the suspension system and drive chain. You have even less in terms of moving parts to wear out and go wrong. The only reason they are $200k now is they are very low production and cost a lot in research. What we need to look at though is the marginal cost of production in a mass market. We pay a premium for aircraft grade parts now, but in fact if they were mass produced they would be more reliable, as they would get far more testing and refinement, just as a Ford Mondeo is far more reliable than a Ferrari. Hmm. The energy needed to move a flying object the same distance as a wheeled one must be multitudes more Baron. Would we really swap 300 miles of range in a flying car with 1,000 miles in a wheeled one. Not to mention the chaos of a million flying cars. The way you do it in order to get the range is rotate the blades 90 degrees and mount them on small wings. This way you get get over 100mph and I think a range of 100 miles is attainable in the future. Perhaps you may want to use a battery swap system, or the batteries themselves might be fast charging. If you want to go on a longer journey then maybe high speed train is the way. Most journeys are under 100 miles. Also millions of flying cars is not a problem. You need 5G and a computer to do it. This way you guarantee none collide. They are doing this in Shenzhen right now, so you want watch it as it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 19, 2024 21:30:45 GMT
No I am still working on the principles I laid down earlier, I was trying to simplify it and refer to your post at the same time. I will try again. The optimum efficient speed of most cars is between 40 to 60 mph. We drop that speed dramatically in built up areas near schools etc in order to save lives. So saving the planet takes second place to protecting lives. We live with greater emissions because if we do not then the problems of greater emissions will take priority over the safety of individuals in these built up areas. That is true for all features of legislation that work on road transport saving lives in the here and now takes precedence over saving the planet. The push to use electric cars is the first legislation as regards transport that actually increases the risk to people in the here and now in order to save the planet at some later date down the line I think they must look at the numbers better than you do. Deaths from climate change added into the mix as well. But as neither of us can do the maths, I'll leave it there. You are still ignoring the point. Deaths from climate change are not considered when making 20mph zones, all that is considered is safety of children. Emissions zoom up with lower speeds so that is not considered either. All the research on 20 mph zones references safety and decrease in accidents. Emissions are not considered yet they must increase in the 20 zones. Safety in the here and now trumps climate change. Not with EVs, it is a clear risk that accidents involving pedestrians will increase with EVs as the research I linked to earlier concludes. Yet they are being forced on us by legislation and now you want saving the planet to be considered when it has been ignored for years as safety topped the bill. You seem happy to jettison safety tomorrow to follow your dream of safety for all in 20,30, 40 years hence. My point is that that is not the normal way transport safety legislation has worked and EVs are at the forefront of safety taking second place to climate change protection. And to be honest it is not even climate change protection it is to show others how it should be done whilst they nod sagely and chortle up their sleeve. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 19, 2024 22:29:06 GMT
This flying car already uses solid state batteries giving 48m flight time which will be extended to 60m in 2025.
Expect in the future that we will end up with the same range arguments which will gradually disappear.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 20, 2024 6:19:25 GMT
This flying car already uses solid state batteries giving 48m flight time which will be extended to 60m in 2025.
Expect in the future that we will end up with the same range arguments which will gradually disappear.
^^ Adult gets "rocks off" over childs toy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 20, 2024 7:40:21 GMT
China wanted to rush into Nuclear but were asked to slow down for safety reasons. China produced 35% of its energy from clean power in 2023, despite being the worlds manufacturer. They do recognise the dangers of climate change. Climate change is not political which is great. It means the huge cost of flooding in China is the same incentive for change as the huge cost of Hurricanes in America. You want us to be like the third world and not do anything about climate change. I say we are first world, well just. So you admit that China( China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for 35% of global emissions in 2023)…. Uses fossil fuels for 65% of its energy needs and at the same time claim they take scientific evidence of imminent climate change seriously? Pull the other one . Your last sentence is just another pathetic attempt to divert the narrative away from you . When you are caught out ,you immediately go into “ I bet you …..” mode . I expect no more . Yes of course I admit it, I even explained the reasons. But your claim that China don't care is proven a lie by the fact that they are driving towards renewables and net zero. You want us to stop trying to trying to reach net zero, just like the third world. Thus you want us to be like them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 20, 2024 7:42:05 GMT
come now - try to be honest Always. Have you ever asked someone who's not a petrolhead luddite youtuber? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 20, 2024 7:47:50 GMT
This flying car already uses solid state batteries giving 48m flight time which will be extended to 60m in 2025.
Expect in the future that we will end up with the same range arguments which will gradually disappear.
I was thinking more of cost per mile rather than charging. Anyway I think millions of cars flying is impractical and carries no real advantage as it will look like this.  Not this  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 20, 2024 8:14:43 GMT
come now - try to be honest Always. Have you ever asked someone who's not a petrolhead luddite youtuber? That's me. I'm neither a petrolhead nor luddite. The accusation of ludditism is a bit rich here |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 20, 2024 9:32:22 GMT
I took the dog to daycare this morning, it was rather chilly out - had the heater on full blast, the heated seats on, the heated steering wheel on, the heated rear screen on, the heated front screen on....
wonder what that would have done to my range in an EV..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 20, 2024 10:07:21 GMT
I took the dog to daycare this morning, it was rather chilly out - had the heater on full blast, the heated seats on, the heated steering wheel on, the heated rear screen on, the heated front screen on.... wonder what that would have done to my range in an EV.. If you drove a Tesla you'd be able to use a handy little plug-in gadget which transforms your phone into a HUD displaying amongst many other things current energy usage by the various loads in the car: Motor 1, Motor2, climate control, heated seats, battery heating and so on. You would probably be surprised at how little there is. It also measured energy retrieved from regenerative breaking.
Here is a video of a Tesla owner in the wilds of Scotland using the gadget to verify how often his front motor comes into action. Answer: not often in fact very seldom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2024 10:11:11 GMT
This flying car already uses solid state batteries giving 48m flight time which will be extended to 60m in 2025.
Expect in the future that we will end up with the same range arguments which will gradually disappear.
I was thinking more of cost per mile rather than charging. Anyway I think millions of cars flying is impractical and carries no real advantage as it will look like this. Not this In China the space for EVtols goes up to 3km. The top picture comes from an artist's brain. They need to clear the buildings and in major cities they are very high. You will not hear then from the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 20, 2024 10:20:55 GMT
So you admit that China( China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for 35% of global emissions in 2023)…. Uses fossil fuels for 65% of its energy needs and at the same time claim they take scientific evidence of imminent climate change seriously? Pull the other one . Your last sentence is just another pathetic attempt to divert the narrative away from you . When you are caught out ,you immediately go into “ I bet you …..” mode . I expect no more . Yes of course I admit it, I even explained the reasons. But your claim that China don't care is proven a lie by the fact that they are driving towards renewables and net zero. You want us to stop trying to trying to reach net zero, just like the third world. Thus you want us to be like them. My claim that China don’t care isn’t a lie. They are not’ driving ‘ towards net zero , they are moving slowly towards net zero and using huge amounts of fossil fuels in the meantime . Something that would make you cry if the UK did the same thing. Your last sentence is just another “ Yeah you just want… “false accusation that you pull out your backside when you start to lose an argument |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 20, 2024 10:38:06 GMT
Flying cars are not a new thing, you know, people have been dreaming about them for years.
|
|
come now - try to be honest
