Not seen that one before so I didn’t really know what to expect. I wasn’t disappointed excuse me language 
Whilst I say now I’ll never own an electric car (68 years old this year) I can’t discount it when I’m too old and unable to get in/out of the MX-5. ATM it’s two cars petrol powered I own, only one being driven on the road at any one time as the wife doesn’t drive. If the crunch comes through age and I still wanted to drive but only short distances I may consider electric, then it would be affordability I guess
I’m at an age which i might have to experience self driving electric vacuum cleaners or whatever is the trendy powerplant at the time.
I don’t really mind the powerplant as long as it works but to give you an example there’s instant respect out of a fire breathing fireball generating beast whereas i would remain apathetic when i see a tesla rage/paige/plaid whatever its called.
In addition there will be a day when were not going to be allowed to drive our own cars ourselves for “our own safety and the safety of others”. The reason being self automated self driving vehicles would be consistent and safer to use compared to the “erratic” human behaviour.
Until then i will oppose to anything that would bring us to that situation with great passion, primarily automated driver aids and whatnot. As far electric cars is concerned, i can’t see them fully work practically or mentally for many peteolheads. The ones that say electric cars have “speed” i say for how long. It just doesn’t work for me.
1 Like
Already many of us face restrictions imposed by the State on our driving. Those of us who require glases for distance are compelled to wear them. Now, it might well be a very good idea to wear them, for the sake of others. Other laws prevent us from swigging grain alcohol while driving, to protect others. The law says as well if you keep breaking the law, for consuming grain alcohol at the wheel, or for constantly exceeding posted speed limits (irrespective if you believe it was perfectly ale to barrel along at 80mph on tha B-road), we will stop you from riving, for a while, for the sake of others.
Self driving cars might have been appreciated by my dad when he had to give up his licence due to Alzheimers. He might have maintained his independence a bit longer, and, who knows, might have slowed progression a bit.
5 years ago he was taking long drives in his Ford Focus CC3 all over the country, enjoying dropping the roof. Now, literally, he can’t tell the difference between right and left, and often doesn’t recognise me. He doesn’t leave the house unless its an Age Concern accompanied day centre gig.
Imagine a self driving car where he could tell it “take me to the shops” “take me home” etc.
We are rapidly aging as a country; this is irreversible. Dementia drugs are consistantly failing (ie no cure in sight). Its going to affect most of us at some time, and the prevalence might increase as a result of the last two years.
There are two sides to the automated car position. One is a perceived threat to personal liberty. The other is an extension of personal liberty in the face of increasing fraility.
3 Likes
GT86 or an Elise. Owned both, both great cars.
1 Like
There is two elements in this discussion, electric cars and self driving cars.
As long as I’m allowed to drive a car whilst I’m physically able to I’d have no issues with robo cars. My concern by the continuous legislation and regulation of everything humanly possible there is to regulate is when they will come around and say “you know what, in ten years you wont be allowed to drive cars anymore because robot cars are safer.”
As along as I can drive the car I wouldn’t have a problem to coexist with self driving cars. However politicians already decided that IC engines are bad so we “need” to stop using them. This brings me to the second element of the discussion, electric cars.
Lets explore the reasoning we were given that electric cars are the future of transportation and we must do this to reduce emissions…
In Europe green house gas emissions from road transport account to 19.35% where as there is 73% contribution from “other” sectors (2017 numbers) see reference below. So the idea of focusing all efforts on the 19.35% instead of the 73% is beyond my understanding. I’m not really saying that we should not make an effort but i don’t really see this as reasoning to blanket ban all IC cars.
And we do not talk enough about the fact that electric cars also have a huge associated green house emissions contribution during manufacture as well as during recycling which is much bigger than conventional cars. We are also turning a blind eye discussing what power source was used to generate the energy to power these cars. In the uk “clean” power sources are around 15% as well as we already buy in electricity from abroad. So how are we supposed to power all these electric cars is beyond me (you need 30+ years to build a nuclear power station) and wind/solar aint gunna cut it.
You also need to build the infrastructure to support these cars - and what happens if this technology is dropped because its unsustainable? Because this is what i think is going to happen.
In my mind there are elements of electric cars that could find use in our lives. However trying to make electric cars to work for everything is like beating a dead horse. Trucks will never be electric - the battery size required to give a truck the capacity to make the trips conventional trucks have to conduct is simply unsustainable - so there can only be hydrogen powered or hybrid system trucks.
Concluding my issue is not the technology self driving cars or the technology behind them. My issue is the delusion and associated decision making of the people in charge.
Rant over
source → Emissions from planes and ships: facts and figures (infographic) | News | European Parliament
Because the motorist is, and always has been, an easy target.
The other sectors have extensive lobbying ability to government (and opposition) are a dam sight more difficult to deal with.
Why they target the output from vehicles would appear to be a fairly easy question to answer. If you group all items and sort by largest contribution, the effect of the single biggest contributor will nearly always be less than the sum of the remaining factors. I’ll admit to being too lazy to read up and find a source for this particular presentation to back up my position, but that’s my gut feel.
On the other point, the suggestion is that electric trucks won’t use batteries except once off the motorway and would probably remain hybrid for fairly long values of ‘medium-term’.
I did say that for Europe the road transport (including trucks) account to 19.35% where as there is 73% contribution from “other” sectors for green house gas emissions.
If you want to see what constitutes the “other” I have some numbers from the USA
its agriculture, industry, power generation, commercial and residential.
With a bit of caveat there aren’t that much different to transportation (which also includes trucks and commercial vehicles)
My point its personal transport are part of but not “the” biggest green house gas emissions contributor. If they want to reduce green house gas emissions they need to work and reduce green house gas emissions on all sectors.
source → https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Getting back on topic, without the MX-5 it was the Smart Roadster for me. With a better gearbox and build quality it would be absolutely epic! Mine was set up with Brabas suspension and spacers. A much more exciting drive than the MX-5 to be honest!
Its your belief that other sectors are not addressing emissions, but that’s an incorrect belief.
No, my issue is that we’re force fed that “IC powered cars are bad for the environment so we to stop making them”. My issue is that vehicles are blamed for global warming but the numbers show that they have the same effect as other industries. If they want to reduce emissions from vehicles what they really need to do is to take old vehicles off the road.
If you have been to places like India and asia you can witness that there is a lot of air pollution but also you can see its coming primarily from old engines and industry. Not much comes out from the latest generation of vehicles. Look at covid, we were forced to stop everything especially the industry in China and the ozon layer recovered.
Plus at the moment there is no direct alternative to IC engines, there’s insufficient infrastructure for electric cars, questionable implementation (how can you charge an electric vehicle if you don’t own a drive), range for electric cars and performance for hydrogen powered cars.
I’m also a member of the MG Owner’s Club. I began with a modern TF, which I exchanged for my NC, and one of the early F models (1989). In my opinion, the MX-5 is a superior car but the MG is an affordable and low maintenance car to have, so that would be my suggestion…
Gosh, I’ve not thought about one of these for ages. I’ve a feeling it’s one of those cars you can’t help but like once you’ve driven one. Not that I ever have…. but would certainly like to.
A bit like the MX5 to the uneducated, I suppose !
I rented a smart bravus triptonic job for a week around 2000. I wouldn’t trust the thing over 60mph. Not sure how the smart roadster behaves but if i were to drive one I’d be doing it with caution 
Mine choice is an alternative, completely different infact
As the NC is a weekend car my other choice would also only be a weekend dry use car also.
Would have to be second hand if we’re talking similar price to a new MX5…
VW Rallye Golf G60
2 Likes
Actually before COVID-19, I traveled to India 4-5 times a year to work. Over the last decade, the change in the mix of vehicles is pretty dramatic. Its been years since I have seen an Ambassador on the road. Right now, the mix of traffice is mostly pretty new Hondas, Maruti-Suzukis, and Toyotas (Tata have been elbowed out). Alongside that, you see modern Dacias (just called Renaults there), Skodas, VWs. Your view is outdated.
Your link between COVID-19 global lockdowns and ozone recovery is fallacious.
The recovery of the ozone layer is directly related to the ban on CFCs in the late 20th Century, not to a short term slow down in industrial activity in China.
As for driveways, over 66% of the UK population has access to a driveway or garage. 5 in 6 rural properties have off-street parking. In dense urban areas, 60% don’t have off-street parking, but arguably for these communities there is less requirement for a car. In addition, cities have a well developed subturannean cable network, which makes it easier to install street level charging point; it just took a few years to, roll out a cable tv network in these areas.
Range issues? El cheapo EV MGs have a greater range than my MX5. And they are faster.
Performance for hydrogen powered car? Expand your point.
An how many electric cars scare you? There are 33 million cars in the UK. Normally around 3 million cars are sold in the UK each year. The intended (well baked in) regulation is that in 2030, those 3 million petrol and diesel cars become 3 million EV and hybrid cars, and that from 2035, they become 3 million pollution free vehicles (it doesn’t have to be EV, except that EV is currently the only viable technology that offers a path to reduce UK, European and Japanese emissions (US and China yet to set timelines), given the infrastructure that is available now and is likely to become available over the next 10 years. Green hyrogen can’t be discounted (need to nip any idea of blue or grey hyrogen in the bud now, they are a false choice in terms of the problem at hand), but an entire infrastructure, both in generation and storage, has to be created from scratch. And how do you produce green hydrogen? Using electricity from renewable sources…
In 2030/2035, its not going to be a case that 33 million ICE vehicles become EV over night. There is probably at least 30 years before that is the case. Enough time for construction of nuclear power generaton plants or whatever.
Hydrogen powered cars are still electric cars; you’re not stood at a hydrogen pump to go off burning hydrogen in a hyrogen powered combustion engine. Its still a silent, gearless electric motor. I wonder what the point of that is for the 65% who have a drive or garage, when they embark on their average 8.4 mile journey. In 2022, you can buy a Tesla with a nigh on 400 mile range, but even cheap MGs can be had with a 260 mile range. In 2030, who knows what the range will be. Even so, the number of people who want to drive more than 400 miles in a single day is pretty small. I’d flake out. At 400 miles, you’re getting close to breaking the law if you were a HGV driver.
Plugging a car in at the end of the day seems preferable to joining the queue for the pumps once a week. At least to me, and probably the majority.
What is interesting is how over the last 50 years, the refueling network in the UK has been slowly picked apart.
The number of petrol stations in the UK peaked in the 1950s at about 40,000 sites, and that’s when we had only 4 million cars in the road… By 2000, there were only 13,000 petrol stations left (according to The Engineer) when there were 27 million cars on the road (and no EVs).
In Whitehall, circa 1955, were there learned men paniced by projections of the numbers on cars by the year 2000, and left wondering how on earth were they going to commence a building programme for an additioal 260,000 refueling sites. 1300 built a year to get to that point, and to meet expected demand by the year 2000, they would need to build 4700 a year. And what about the flying cars?
Makes you wonder why the petrol car was adopted. In 1919, there were no petrol stations in the UK. The first ones established, called replenishment pits, were set up by the AA for members only (RAC members presumably had to still buy their petrol in milk bottles from the chemist), and sold on a profit-free basis.
Mater artium necessitas
2 Likes
The Roadster stuck to the road like the proverbial. Very low, zero body roll and very exciting (mine was lowered though).
1 Like