Beautiful, 13 year thread bump.
1 Like
That ātravelledā well over the 13 years.
Bet the shed loads of electric cars on our roads would love that one, going forward.
1 Like
Iāve moved from a 10 year old 1.2ltr 4 cylinder engined car to a 3 year old 1 ltr engined 3 cylinder car.
If itās better for the environment by having a less polluting car, why is the VED on my newer car Ā£190 but the 10 year old car was Ā£35?
Anyways another here thatās cut away from rising costs, as Scottish fiver, probably cut my outlay by Ā£700 per annum that was before I hit the road and add the cost of servicing and day to day operating costs etc.
Yes smiles per miles arenāt what they used to be, I still find myself giving the wave though when I see an MX-5 approaching.
6-10p a mile has been suggested by various think thanks.
Not sure what this has to do with the poster suggesting road tax be abolish, and placed on petrol costs. To which I replied EV owners might like that going forward, as, guess what, they donāt use petrol 
I have a full electric car. Its not actually mine , but my bosses, so my company car. Its a Cupra Born VZ3. It has a range in the summer of 320 miles on a good day. It currently costs my boss zero road fund a year. But I charge mostly from work on a commercial power tariff on a supercharger my MD had installed. The strange idea from the tree huggers of the world, was that it would save the world from the ICE engines doing planetary destruction. This was absorbed by all countries in the western world , even though we ship out all trade in cars worth pish to the Africas ( minus the cat converters, as worth more than the cars ) to save the planet from certain death. Algeria has only just run out of 4 star fuels in 2021. The polar bears are becoming homeless and the barnacles are fading in the reefs. Now, donāt get me wrong here. We need to do āourā bit to slow down the process of so called planet warming, but , in reality making the country invest their taxes into supporting electrical supply for cars at a rate claimed and never made it to thousands a week , leaves this whole debacle on electric cars currently hanging in the balance. Claims of electric cars destroying the roads at an increased rate , while a range rover kerb weight from the only time electric vehicles on the roads were milk floats , have weighed more than my car. So, we , as users of electric cars face being taxed on the miles we do , as well as being taxed on the electricity we buy to charge the vehicles, which as we know is āa bit steepā at the moment.
So, the whole point of these cars is to help with emissions, we are sheepishly told. There is a big problem with this . The issues being that manufacture and disposal costs are going to be massively larger than that of a normal ICE vehicle and hybrids having both forms of propulsion are worse again. Plus the cleanliness of the power supply. Is it gas powered power station or other ? The plans were good for making this work, but like all things government, it falls on its face. Remember diesels were the fuel of the future making road tax so cheap for those diesels until the new senario of its a death fuel, kills people with nox, lets inject pig pee in the tanks and call them euro 6 compliant.
My electric car is good for my job and is convenient for my personal use, which I get taxed for , albeit about a 20th in cost of a petrol car would be. Its all about incentives from the company car user for me. Would I buy one for my home life ? Absolutely not . They are rubbish as a whole. Charging at the fast chargers are madly expensive. My house power supply doesnt have enough power to run the house and sensibly charge a car. Public chargers , especially the further north you go is very poor. We have the electric board always digging our street up to repair blown cables every 2 months at the moment. God forbid when all homes were supposedly to be electric powered cars. We would live by candle lights and cook by propane camping stoves.
I am rambling a bit, but as always, the government have moved goalposts and situations on vehicles. They hate them all, but then they need the tax from them. Same senario as smokers and drinkers. There was always from day one going to be tax loss , but those sitting on the wall to buy an EV are now going to be thinking again and I suspect the EV will fade into the horizon. This then leaves us where ? The current inhabitants of No 10 now advising tax per mile on EVās and ridiculous net zero objectives will potential not happen from EV vehicles as now will make ICE cars come back on the scene. Personally , we have 3 other cars in the household and all are petrol. I guess that if I do get taxed on the miles I privately do in my EV , then it would potentially push me back into an ICE car for personal mileage and leave the EV on the drive until Monday morningsā¦ But, car buyers thinking about electric cars may just forget that change and keep their ICE cars longer and so slowing down the process of car destruction or shipping to Africaās to burn and smoke dying cars.
Electric vehicles arent the answer and yes, they should pay more to use the roads. But it throws all this green shizzle in the fire to burn, as using a pay per mile is not only the next stage of big brother and freedom to live , but also the next nail in the EV coffin.
2 Likes
I cannot get past thinking small capacity high compression & forced induction part leccy ( soft hybrid) cars like my new Suzuki Swift are a decent temporary technology āpatchā until a clean ICE fuel, and batteries that do not self combust are available.
Itās one thing I did research deeply before buying our new car last year, including calling various dealers for a false " I need a new hybrid pack please?" only to be told by them all they never keep any in stock as A) Suzuki ones dont fail, and B) Under seat fires are to date 100% unkown. Seems some of the Japanese power packs are on a wholly different quality planetā¦Iām not up on this stuff so will back off there. Makes you wonder where some of the combustibles come fromā¦No names no pack drill.
Just seems to me, a rev happy ICE turbo mill linked to a leccy " assist" package is a decent compromiseā¦but I think we all know they were a pesky tweak to get around NOX & MPG EU laws. THis 1400cc thing Iāve got now has more mid range torques per ton than either my Monza 3ltr or Capri2.8i. and sits with 2500rpm at 70mph in 6th just a smidge before the turbo spools upā¦ no need to change down for HGV overtaking,just a wee wiff of juice and they are dealt with. Itās a power pack that would do so well in an ND for sure.
Certainly, like so many Japanese manufacturers including Late model 5ās, itās a joy to lift the bonnet to see such excellence light alloy whizzy bits engineeredā¦but equally it frustrates me a bit after 50 years of plugs dizzies, condensers, oil & filter checks, that all Iām " allowed" is filling the washer bottle!
Sorry for the rantā¦sometimes my cancer & heart meds instill zero sleep and to me at the moment its 6 pm on Thursday so Iāll Booogeer Offski back to bed! 
3 Likes
An example of road pricing.
You might be charged a higher rate per mile to use the M1 to drive from London to Leeds than if you had used A-roads and B-roads. Or you might be charged a higher rate to use the roads during rush hour than if you travelled at quieter times of the day. With the amount of technology packed into electric cars, it would be relatively easy to collect the data. The car knows how many miles itās done, it knows where it has been and it is routinely sharing that information.
This data could be beamed directly from your car ā via the internet ā to either your insurer or the manufacturer, before being sent on to the taxman.
The most straightforward version of this type of scheme would charge fixed prices for certain roads and times but an even more sophisticated model would use real-time data to decide how much to charge, based on how busy the roads were at particular times on particular days ā essentially an Uber-style form of surge pricing.
Again, this would probably rely on data from your car, as well as public infrastructure, such as cameras. This sort of approach has been backed by the Campaign for Better Transport and others who say it would incentivise more people to use public transport.
My view is that weāve come a long way from the days new motorways and dual carriageways were built to āease congestionā and make our travel times shorter (but distances longer?) The big cities thrived as our towns decayed and became commuter settlements.
Now we are to be punished for driving how we were encouraged to and working far from home because we were left with no choice. Public transport is lined up for us as the preferred option.
1 Like
The nails start in April 2025 - EVās to pay the Ā£190 VED just like ICE vehicles
And - they will also get hit by the Higher rate VED for vehicles over Ā£40k
1 Like
Coldest in 24 years 
A reminder, row back on the politics, and avoid offensive language. Please.
Given that about 80% of the power generated in the UK is from gas, oil and coal (latest figures available are from 2022) the claims that EV are clean are total lies. They are just not reducing CO2 in any way. This drive towards banning internal combustion engines and forcing drivers into EVs will achieve nothing apart from making city centre air a bit cleaner.
2 Likes
Maybe not right now, but they will do. And what EVs do right now is move the source of gaseous pollutants from where people live (the towns) to where people donāt live (unless you live next door to a coal or gas fired powerstation). Even if, its unlikely, that gas or coal power stations can be eliminated, its a hell of a lot easier to capture the CO2 emitted there (via CCS) than in millions of cars.
Car fumes kill kids. Thatās official following the inquest into the death of a little girl in London.
Now, perhaps you doubt that. Perhaps you doubt lead is harmful.
1 Like
Excellent post.
2023 figures differ
Overall, zero carbon sources outperformed traditional fossil fuel generation in 2023 by providing 51% of the electricity used this year, compared to 32% from gas and 1% from coal stations.
Lead was eliminated from petrol in the UK over 30 years ago.
I know that exhaust emissions are dangerous but that isnāt the argument here. I am saying that EVs are not the answer. Lithium production is extremely harmful to the environment, poisoning rivers and killing people who are unfortunate enough not to live in a town or city in the UK but near lithium extraction operations.
If capturing CO2 is so easy why isnāt it routinely done now at all of the power stations that are emitting millions of tons of CO2? As of 2022 only one thousandth of global CO2 emissions were captured by CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).
I donāt know what the answer is but 2.5 ton EVs cannot be the solution.
2 Likes
They are part of the solution. No one has ever said they were the solution, because the major sources of non-Biogenic carbon dioxide are elsewhere. Capturing CO2 at source is not easy, but its achieveable, and more achieveable that fitting some kind of device to petrol cars. Remember, people canāt even be bothered to maintain catalytic converters, and many openly talk about decatting their cars.
Lead was eliminated from UK petrol 30 years ago. Did you ever question the medical science behind that determination, in the same way you are presumably questionin g the impacts of carbon dioxide? Peak lead emissions from 30-40 years ago might be part of the reason why many of us are doomed to suffer from dementia in later life; the neurotoxicity persists.
40 years ago, this was the surprisingly forgotten argument against the elimination of leaded petrol
āOfficials of companies that produce leaded fuel argue that no link between their products and health hazards has ever been firmly established. Eliminating lead, they say, will force consumers to buy more costly unleaded gasoline, will cause problems for owners of older cars and will increase consumption of crude oil, because unleaded gasoline must be more highly refined to reach the same octane level as leaded, consuming about 10 percent more raw material.ā
āAgainst the Ban Opponents of a ban on lead say it would harm consumers without producing any provable health benefit. They say eliminating leaded gasoline would increase the cost of the lowest priced brands from 5 to 10 cents a gallon, increase crude oil consumption, promote use of other antiknock compounds with adverse environmental side effects and probably cause serious damage to older cars that need lead to lubricate the valve seats.ā
"Testifying before a House subcommittee earlier this year, Lawrence E. Blanchard Jr., vice chairman of the Ethyl Corporation, the principal supplier of tetraethyl lead in this country, said, āāThere are still almost 50 million cars and trucks on the road that were designed to operate with leaded gasoline, and even by 1987 there will still be more than 30 million such vehicles.āā Without the continued availability of leaded fuel, these vehicles could suffer damage to their cylinder heads that would cost hundreds of dollars to repair.
Moreover, he said, āāIt has been our consistent position that, even though lead has been used in gasoline for 60 years, not a single person has ever been discovered to have any harmful effects from lead from automobiles in the general atmosphere.āā
But lead hasnāt been totally eliminated from the air we breath. 30% comes from tyres and brakes. 30% from steel production.
Making a car in steel is harmful also to people who live next door to a steel worksā¦
Youāve introduced Lithium impacts as a reason to entirely reject EVs, as if Lithium can be the only basis for a battery. Its not. Its not sustainable as a source, but we are talking about that in a way our grandparents didnāt really care about the powerplants they were building, bequeathing us with that rotten legacy of a ruined home.
So already, 10 years or so into EVs, there are viable alternative technologies being developed based on, for instance, sodium. Great grand dad didnāt care where the fuel came from for his coal fired station, but we do. Sodium is easy for the battery industry to adopt into existing manufacturing processes. Sodium has drawbacks in energy density, and lifespan. Solid state batteries will have longer life and greater energy density, but manufacture involves more disruption to the existing battery industry. Work is ongoing developing better electrolytes, using sulfur. Essentially there is battery diversification reducing the impact of lithium thst fills you with horror.
Its very difficult to determine if lithium extraction is as bad for the health of the people and the health of the planet compared to the impact of non-biogenic carbon dioxide generation. One pollutant has a mostly local impact. Lithium mining generates less overall emissions than fossil fuel production. Fossil fuels continue to generate the pollutant as they are used, whereas the lithium battery, per se, does not, though there might be end of life issues.
There is work ongoing to develop alternative fuels to oil, using biogenic carbon. Using waste only goes so far, and I suspect that is more or less tapped out. The ethanol in petrol comes from different sources, depending on geography. For Europe, it substantially comes from food and agricultural waste. For the UK, a proportion is from beet and cane sugar, which is a little crazy, because I thing T&L is importing sugar from Mauritius for the job. But it think this is getting largely tapped out. Converting food waste into energy can be done, but you are up against biology; you need methanogenic bacteria, and being anaerobes, its slow. Converting crops into sources of fuel to power cars is a non-starter really, unless you want to end up eating a mono-diet that looks like gruel (creamed cornā¦)
There is a much greater need to provide alternative carbon fuels to the shipping and aviation industry that to friviously burn in an ancient MX5.
Health impacts means, for me, its a slam dunk argument for EVs in moving the point source of car emissions from where most people live to where most people donāt live. If you acknowledge that air pollutants harm your and other peopleās children, I think there is no practical alternative besides eliminating powered transport entirely. And what comes out of the tailpipe is more than just carbon dioxide. ie. EVs also fit into the GCC-skeptic argument, because that crowd also tends to align with arguments concerning conception etc.
For me EVs are just a stepping stone in the rigth direction. Lithium batteries are not much better than good old pterol, we are still extracting a limited resource from the Earth - it is not renewable in realistic terms.
I have always been a supporter of hydrogen as a true long term alternative. Toyota has proven that it can work, both in an EV as power generators and used inside an ICE. The latter is where my heart wants to believe the future is. We keep the noise, vibrations and goodness of an ICE engine, but without the poluting exhaust.
Slight off-topic, but at work, I used to chat with a lad who works for a company to R&D hydrogen ICE engines for commercial vehicles (trucks, botas, ships etc). We went into a bit of discussion about hydrogen ICE engines for cars, he suggested that a 2 litre 4 cylinder NA engine, can be replaced with 3 litre NA hydrogen engine to get the same performance. What I heard is āif we use hydrogen we need bigger enginesā 
The biggest drawbacks/unresolved issues are:
1 - hydrogen has less energy per unit - worse MPG if we even calculate it that way
2 - heat - hydrogen burns at higher temperatures to petrol (about 25% if I remember correctly), and heat is already responsible for a lot of the lost energy from regular existing ICE engines
3 - lubricants - if the engine is to be fully āgreenā and/or renewable the lubricants and other fluids must be too
1 Like
Excellent post.
1 Like
Some may be suprised to learn quite a few electric car charging stations are running from Diesel Generators!
As to Road Taxā¦My Audi a4 convertible is Ā£720 year The Lotus Cortina is free
2 Likes