|
|
Oct 27, 2020 20:18:07 GMT
|
I keep circling back to this...
Because as a technology, its interesting.
As far as I can see, despite all the spin designed to distract us, its massively polluting. And for normal day to day use, it cant come close to the practicality of Internal Combustion ( and internal combustion has set the bar really low ).
Its probably best to completely ignore cost ( of the vehicle, and cost per mile ), because where they will fall in comparison to internal combustion will in the end depend a lot on how much our governing bodies are prepared to put a thumb on the scale.
Internal Combustion didn't have to develop in the direction it did ( like what I already said about the Lotus 14 ), but it did.
So it probably isn't impossible that the decision is made for us by people that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So where does that leave a guy with Zero interest in new cars, and a garage full of 50 to 80 year old classics?
Hopefully there will be a place for us ( as far as being able to buy the fuel, and the roads to run them on )
But just in case, I have a couple of chassis earmarked for possible electric conversions.
Again, because as a technology its interesting ( postponing it is probably a good idea, giving Electric a bit more time to try and catch up )
And depending on how hostile regulations may become towards Internal Combustion, that may become the only viable alternative to driving a new car...
So what would mine look like?
It would be a traditionally modified classic. Period correct in every way, except for the propulsion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A very insightfull video from Top Gear on electrification:
|
|
Click picture for more
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,829
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
|
Did a engine on a Peugeot hybrid the other week so I got to drive it. Properly hilarious in a straight line (was some mid size MPV thing). The hybrid system was all contained in a neat subframe but needs a huge alternator and plumbing into the engine cooling system. Would be ace in the back of something light and FWD just for the initial launch power/grip.
|
|
|
|
voodoo57
Club Retro Rides Member
That's not 2 metres! come a little...Closer!
Posts: 2,751
Club RR Member Number: 137
|
|
|
2 things come to mind with me, i will keep it short, number 1! apparently, the only place where the nickel cadmium 'stuff' (i don't know it's correct spelling)or whatever it is.... has left a vast crater, virtually a quarry? Electric is better for the environment? if this really is the process is it really good?
secondly, it's the disposal of the batteries after... a bit like nuclear waste to a degree... they need to bury this stuff, is it the same for the batteries ? or will there be an extra charge for the consumer depending how easy it is to break down what needs to be broken and what model you go for? am i making sense? if not... Apologies!
|
|
|
|
duncanmartin
Club Retro Rides Member
Out of retro ownership
Posts: 1,320
Club RR Member Number: 70
|
|
|
On the first point Nickel Cadmium is an outdated battery tech - the current ones are Lithium Ion. Much like all modern electronics, there are some parts (not just batteries, motors, control electronics etc) that need expensive, difficult to extract metals, some of which come from really dodgy places. There is a lot of research into how to reduce/remove use of these materials because they are expensive and hard to get hold of (especially ethically in some cases). Building a brand new car has an energy and material cost that you have to include in the total emissions of a vehicle (along with the disposal of the leftovers) when you are trying to measure the footprint. Currently building an EV has a bigger footprint than building and ICE vehicle, however, there is a crossover point at which the lifetime emissions of an ICE vehicle overtake the total emissions of an EV (when you compare like with like based on new cars). The numbers vary massively, based on where the car is built and where it is used (eg France has lots of nuclear power, Poland burns lots of brown coal). The UK grid is pretty clean, and you can see the current picture here: gridwatch.co.uk/On the second point, no-one is scrapping batteries - they have a second life in home/grid storage. Batteries are valuable as a means of storing electricity, and when the car is done as a vehicle, the battery has an intrinsic value for other uses. If you take a 10yo Leaf that started off with 24kWh worth of battery and apply a reasonable degradation of 20%, it has 19kWh of capacity available to use. That's 50% more than a Tesla powerwall (13.7kWh) which costs 7 grand installed. Nissan and Renault and BMW are taking batteries from their old EVs, splitting the packs up into balanced modules and selling them again as static storage. Their only problem is that they can't get enough batteries for this purpose! This has a knock-on effect on the residuals of EVs - you can't buy a secondhand EV with a battery for under 5 grand because the battery on it's own is probably worth 3-4k.
|
|
|
|
cjj
Part of things
Posts: 275
|
|
|
It's easy to have an agenda against EVs until you drive one.
Arguably, it's like people resisting the smart phone in favour of what came before. Eventually you experience it and find it's not simply different, it's a vast improvement on every level.
The question should never be about EVs, but about energy storage. Many of the EV arguments are completely related to the energy storage, not the actual method of propulsion (which has many advantages)
|
|
|
|
voodoo57
Club Retro Rides Member
That's not 2 metres! come a little...Closer!
Posts: 2,751
Club RR Member Number: 137
|
|
|
On the first point Nickel Cadmium is an outdated battery tech - the current ones are Lithium Ion. Much like all modern electronics, there are some parts (not just batteries, motors, control electronics etc) that need expensive, difficult to extract metals, some of which come from really dodgy places. There is a lot of research into how to reduce/remove use of these materials because they are expensive and hard to get hold of (especially ethically in some cases). Building a brand new car has an energy and material cost that you have to include in the total emissions of a vehicle (along with the disposal of the leftovers) when you are trying to measure the footprint. Currently building an EV has a bigger footprint than building and ICE vehicle, however, there is a crossover point at which the lifetime emissions of an ICE vehicle overtake the total emissions of an EV (when you compare like with like based on new cars). The numbers vary massively, based on where the car is built and where it is used (eg France has lots of nuclear power, Poland burns lots of brown coal). The UK grid is pretty clean, and you can see the current picture here: gridwatch.co.uk/On the second point, no-one is scrapping batteries - they have a second life in home/grid storage. Batteries are valuable as a means of storing electricity, and when the car is done as a vehicle, the battery has an intrinsic value for other uses. If you take a 10yo Leaf that started off with 24kWh worth of battery and apply a reasonable degradation of 20%, it has 19kWh of capacity available to use. That's 50% more than a Tesla powerwall (13.7kWh) which costs 7 grand installed. Nissan and Renault and BMW are taking batteries from their old EVs, splitting the packs up into balanced modules and selling them again as static storage. Their only problem is that they can't get enough batteries for this purpose! This has a knock-on effect on the residuals of EVs - you can't buy a secondhand EV with a battery for under 5 grand because the battery on it's own is probably worth 3-4k. Nicely put, and that clears up a whole heap of issues for me, much obliged duncanmartin, thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dredging this thread up because this was eye-opening:
I've read/heard about the acceleration of electrics, but...wow. Of course, even a starter econobox nowadays has by and large enough performance for daily use, and more than enough to exceed legal limits in most situations, so it's somewhat academic in my opinion, but still impressive. Personally, I prefer the engaging driving experience of a manual transmission, so I'm pretty much out on an electric daily from the outset, but I do foresee a future where I no longer have the option among new cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read/heard about the acceleration of electrics, but...wow. That is their party trick. As I understand it when doing from like 50 to 70 or whatever to pull around and overtake something, it is a bit of a different story. Still impressive to silently pull away from the lights at faster than GroupC car speeds.
|
|
|
|
merryck
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 477
Club RR Member Number: 9
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: Apr 9, 2022 14:57:11 GMT by merryck
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been driving a 4wd machE, it's definitely quick, (apparently 5.1 secs to 60) especially for a 2 ton barge. Rides a bit iffy but otherwise it drives really well. Only real issue is charging when on a long journey (finding a fast charger which is available and works etc). That will almost be the biggest issue for the converted cars as far as I can see none of them support DC fast charging so a half hour top up becomes 4 hours and makes long journies almost impossible.
|
|
|
|
jimi
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 1,805
|
|
|
Personally I think EV's are never going to be the answer while they rely on batteries, modern lithium batteries are a vast improvement but rely on a relatively rare metal and come with inherent dangers. Fuel cells once fully developed will (IMO) replace them. The big car manufacturers haven't given up on IC engines, look at the money & effort Toyota (and others) are putting into hydrogen powered engines, to me they would (will) be the answer
|
|
Last Edit: Apr 10, 2022 0:22:55 GMT by jimi
Black is not a colour ! .... Its the absence of colour
|
|