Seems inevitable and I wish them the best of luck with it, Iâd be surprised if they do not go hybrid before full ev in the hope that some other viable alternative does not become apparent before then.
MX5 isnât profitable enough for it to ever be a torch bearer of some new fangled fuel no one has thought of in 100 years. Iâm surprised they are even doing a next generation car. Of course, MG might prove them wrong and prove there is life in the segment. Which is what Mazda did in 1989.
Hybrids are dead by 2035, and the implementation of that will likely come at enormous compromise to the dynamics of the car.
That report is dated June 2021 isnât it?
Autocar and other magazine have implied that the next generation MX5 will be an ICE or Hybrid.
The power density of EV batteries will have to improve before something as small as an MX-5 will have acceptable range for everyday use.
Not saying that isnât possible though, given the huge amount of R&D going into that right now.
I think the idea of a hybrid MX-5 (ie, engine and batteries) is a non-starter for the same reason. My money is on a mild hybrid like the current Mazdas with e-skyactiv-x.
Like this conversion
Its a conspiracy:
So the hydrogen powered rotary Eunos Roadster was bloated junk.
Processing: image.pngâŚ
Hydrogen ICE also dumps NOx. And NASA couldnât contain hydrogen on the space shuttle.
Yes, hydrogen is a non starter, takes 3kwatt of energy to produce 1kwatt of hydrogen power.
If youâre making hydrogen from LPG, where does the carbon go, either into the atmosphere or dealt with by carbon capture which also required more energy.
Only method that may work is by using green hydrogen but that takes up a lot of storage space and is difficult to contain. Iâve no idea how much the Myria fuel cell costs to make but it certainly costs more than the selling price of the car, must be a loss leader.
Oh, and Shell have closed all their hydrogen retail pumps down today, poor Myria owners.
VW still banging the drum.
A. Its still an electric car. Some thnk this is still about getting a 30 year old MX5 B6 engine to run on hydrogen. Its not. Its a super heavy EV, because now it has a bloody tank,
B. Patent applications. I could file a patent for a time machine tomorrow, Doesnât mean I think I could invent time travel. Companies file many patents. Some of those patents then get published, ie. because I can provide essentially the evidence for time travel. Most patents then will get put away, because [1] There is no market for time travel [2] the assignees (those paying for the patent) donât have the money for further development of a time machine [3] The assignee is the bank, because the company bankrupted itself trying to prove the case for time travel, and the bank looks upon patents as assets with some kind of value [4] The company isnât really interested in time travel, but realises a competitor inventing time travel would be a spoiler to their revenue stream. The patent means no one else can invent time travel, at least not with the technlogy described, or if you have a good lawyer, make sweeping claims as a blocking action.
I was involved in a patent that used bacteria to produce a vital compound that was used in the synthesis of a drug that would save the lives of millions (ie. not the drug itself). It would have made the drug much cheaper. We sold the patent to a chemical company, who then sat on it, as they were the supplier of the vital compound, and were not interested in investing in new plant to make a compound that would make less money.
And these bozos writing these articles are looking at the wrong patent. The patent isnât filed. It was published in early 2022. The main inventors are from kraftwerk tubes, a mid-stage start up. VW are probably doing sod all, physically. The main source of funding has been the EU Comission, a German state bank and Siemens. Its a green energy tech company, not a car designer.
C. The report appears on a website âhydrogen-central.comâ, which I suppose is all about hydrogen. Its a âfreeâ business intelligence website, run by tiny Dutch firm, which is probably a front for a larger company. Its useful for lobbying.
I have a feeling the VW involvement is rather exaggerated.
Iâve a few patents tp my name. One of which I didnât contribute that much to, except to prove a toxin binding phage display peptide didnât exactly as we wanted, but as we (my company) paid for the work to be done, and the Home Office sat on the patent for 3 months, we wanted some IP out of it of it. Its buried. One of the claims is the application we wanted it for, but I know the peptide wasnât much use for that, but maybe it could get used in a cancer treatment and we might get something out of it.
It seems some of these conversions (classic car conversions) are running foul of the DVLA; drilling into the bootfloor to mount a battery is deemed as a chassis modification, put the car into kitcar territory and IVA requirements.
There could be a storm brewing of a growing number of conversion companies deciding unilaterally Reg-100 rules donât apply, and essentially churning out conversions of favourite cars that are not compliant. Cars being sold as having âreversibleâ conversions, and no one has actualy told the DVLA of the conversion?
Take N6NEE, the Mk2.5 commercally converted. DVLA still has it as a petrol car with petrol car tax.
Depends what is meant by âsignificantly changedâ means. The dvla wonât object to more than necessary VED being collected. The government have more important issues to worry about.
The issue is the points system. Change of powerplant loses a lot of points. Drilling holes into the boot of a mionococque is viewed increasingly as a chassis change.
The government has an interest in more new cars being sold, generating income from new car tax.
The DVLA, per se, doesnât care about tax take, as this goes to the treasury, and is set by the treasury. What they are interested is in conversions that might push safety standards. Old old cars, with no grandfathered type approvals are one thing, and these are relatively small, diminishing numbers. But classics can be defined as anything built in the last 40 years. And that means cars with type approvals. And things like crumple zones, which are now filled with batteries. And a nascent industry pushing frankly a fantasy picture of having your cake and eating it (ie. the trappings of a classic car, with the reliability of a 21st century Toyota). Iâm seeing a lot of PE investment go into this. I wonder if the bottom will fall out of it quite soon (converting a 1990s MX5 to EV really makes no sense from an ecological point for view. Just use it less).
As far as using it less is concerned, the conversions I have read about charge slowly (8 hrs) and have a range of only 100-200 miles. This being the case, a Lands End to John oâ Groats trip might take some days, assuming that suitable chargers are available en route.
Personally, I would not feel safe in a Miata converted to electricity if the batteries have to be installed in either the engine compartment or the boot, and I suspect that the insurance companies might look askance at this also.
David
Lands End to John o groats? I donât know how often anyone would contemplate such a journey but itâs sure to be a rare occasion. Classic and specialist cars are 99% used on Weekends and tooing and froing to car shows. 100 miles at a time wouldnât be an issue for EVâs.
Given that you cant travel as far in the UK as in the USA and EU without falling into the sea, I just chose that as an extreme example. To take something more realistic, driving from Vienna to Salzburg, or London to Manchester, both c. 200 mile journeys, would be out of the question in such an EV. I have never had more than one car at a time, as I cant afford a second vehicle, so a Miata is not a weekend toy for me.
In the USA, I have often enjoyed driving 600 miles per day across country at pretty much legal speeds. Of course, this is achieved faster in Europe with higher speed limitsâŚ
David
I would hazard a guess that you are in the minority with your Mazda being the sole household vehicle.All other things being equal a range of 100-200 miles would probably suit a lot of us.
Batteries located low down and centrally will reduce roll overs and the death rate from accidents. However, there is a flip side (no pun intended)
This is a concern of mine. Silent cars appearing from nowhere with the acceleration of jet fighters.
Yes, i was very interested in that yellow Mk.2 while the conversion was proceeding on their youtube channel but in the end it didnât measure up to my needs. It only does slow charging. That kills it as a carefree weekend away car, unless your weekend is within a 60 mile radius. It would solve my commuting problem: 25 miles each way ending just inside Londonâs expanded low emission zone so facing a ÂŁ12.50 per day fee. But they estimated conversion cost at ÂŁ20k for a Mk.1 or 2 which is as much as just paying the fee for a decade or so. Iâll probably have retired by then anyway.
So no, on balance, it doesnât make enough sense to convert my Mk1 into an electric commuting car when the downside is it stops me using it for fun stuff.
A pretty scary prospect, in my vew.
David