This is actually because they mostly can't be towed due to the engaged transmission, nothing to do with the brakes, so they have to be lifted.
.
Prices of the electricity we use to charge
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
.
When those moggies bash into each other, they do very little harm because they don't have much momentum. When your Range Rover crashes into one, it either flattens them or spears the occupants with your chassis rails. Basically, you've endangered them and all the other small cars by making yourself safer. That's not a nice thing to do, and it explains something about your character.
I'll tell him next time. Serves his colleague right, as his phone shouldn't have been engaged in transmission while driving. What with all the stress and pushing in vain, waiting blocking the road and lifting and moving and waiting and charging, he lost a day's pay - who carries around a 1kW jerry can capable of fast charging an electric car? Designing in a manual override mechanisn would be tricky I imagine, and increase manufacturing cost, with everything being drive by wire... while wires are live...
Last edited:
Wells said sir.
He is actually gloating about how his tank makes him safer than everyone else as he guzzles petrol riding around. No mention of what happens to the cyclists he rides over the top of. He probably doesn't notice, other than having to hose the blood and flesh off the underside and his bull bars.
Realistic? Says got it for £1500, but needs a battery!
("Only use half capacity for long life. So if one wants to travel 150km return, get a 300km batt car. These no good senor)
Here's some truths you and so many people seem unaware of.
They don't need new batteries, the Nissan Leaf batteries are very long lasting, some now in their 14th year. All they need is the right buyer and there are plenty of those in Britain. People who drive locally and mostly dont have any long runs. That is why there is a buoyant market in the old Nissan Leafs.
Those buyers are often married females, running their kids to school and their activities and going shopping. When they go out as a family on longer trips that's in the Husbands car. And of course there's plenty of low mileage single parent females as well.
And then there are the retired, often very low mileage drivers, and all those in Britain who now choose to be non-employed, much to politicians disgust.
And for all there are many attractions to going EV in a Leaf. They have an enviable reliability record. Cheap to run in some respects too, despite today's electricity costs I'm still running at a little over 90 mpg equivalent. And of course the sheer pleasure of driving electric, only truly known by those who do.
These old Leafs don't need an expensive charging point, being shortened range they easily recharge overnight from a 13 amp socket. In fact I only charge from a 13 amp point in winters, the trickle charge giving the battery an easier life while still filling and balancing the battery.
.
The RAC and AA do, they carry emergency rapid chargers now that can get an e-car or van to a charging point.
.
My Leaf does have a Neutral to allow some limited moving, for example on the car washes that transport a car through on a conveyor, but there's no full speed towing permitted.
It's trickier to engineer out than might be thought, for example so many e-cars are four wheel drive with motor units in both axles.
.
HA! That NEVER happens to me anymore! All metal mammoths are repulsed by my handlebar mounted lollipop to the side of the road and forced to wait! MUWAHAHAHAHAAHHA!!!
They should stop having regen braking and have freewheeling like my bicycles. Regen braking can not really add much to electrical efficiency.
Modern brakes are so efficient that you don't really require engine braking like they needed in the 1930s.
Who carries around a 1Kw jerry can about in their own electric car? Bloody inconvenient. As a deep greeny and far left of Corbyn, I'm not at all surprised EV manufacturers have shat the bed of green transition by using the opportunity afforded by government targets, to reset micro/MacroEV product and service ecosystems to their own financial advantage further than than they ever have with ICE vehicles, ultimately at inestimable cost to us all.
I don't think there's a plot to reduce car ownership, they've simply shat the bed.
Indeed, in fact their energy meters are a con, indicating as much regen as use. But the public's state of knowledge means it's too valuable psychologically to lose the feature. They actually believe it's very worthwhile.
.
Whether there is or not, that will inevitably be the outcome, as will be lower mileages yet. The politicians have already achieved the latter with i/c cars in Britain, almost halved from what they were over half a century ago and still going down year on year.
.
My car use is probably not typical but I barely use the brakes at all and I deliberately coast down hills on the A69 on my weekly trips to Newcastle which are about 41 miles end to end. I regularly get 69mpg out of my petrol skoda which is as good as the old diesel TDI on that trip. I am very surprised at that because in heat thermodynamic terms the diesel should be getting about 15% to 20% better fuel consumption because of the advantage it has of burning fuel at a much higher pressure. High combustion pressure means you can extract more work as the fuel has more expansion to extract energy from it.
That old car that I drove for 77000 miles had one new set of front disks at about 65,000 miles and maybe two sets of pads. I don't think it was more pads than that. I see people all the time accelerating right up to roundabouts at high speed and then slamming the brakes on and wasting all the energy they paid for. Their brake and tyre replacement costs must be dreadful.
When I drop into neutral at about sixty miles an hour down a hill the car barely loses any speed at all and i get about a mile of free travel with the engine only ticking over. If the dashboard clocks are set to show cur rent fuel consumption it reports 300mpg, but i think it may be more and simply coming to a limit in the software. If i have the engine turning over at 3000 rpm which it would be at 60mph, I am spinning that engine 50 times a second. That takes a lot of energy and it is entirely unnecessary to do that when instead I can go into neutral and have it turn at about 700 rpm which is only 11 times a second. Which would you rather crank a one litre engine at by hand 11 times a second or fifty?
Touch wood I have never had an accident. Every modern car is far safer for the occupants than a Morris Minor with air bags, seat belts, decent brakes, power steering etc As noted earlier modern cars are also far heavier but far , far safer.
I was merely pointing out that it’s not just modern cars that are heavier than a Morris Minor but even a car made 23 years ago is much heavier. I have never been involved in an accident with the Range Rover other than the fallow deer that shot out into my path a few months ago. There are no bull bars & there was no trace of the animal left on the car.
11 * second * 1000cc /2
versus
3000 * second * 1000cc /2
The engine being a 4 stroke only admits air and fuel and only fires each cylinder on every second revolution.
Additionally, you need to take account of the throttle opening to calculate the exhaust gas volume because gas volume consumed and exhausted varies with throttle opening. At idle - very little gas is admitted to the cylinder whereas under various throttle openings, a very great deal more gas in and out is involved.
It is probably beyond amateur, back of the fag-packet calculation and needs a proper engineering evaluation, but we can certainly say that freewheeling down a long hill produces vastly less exhaust than driving down the same long hill.
Another way to compare the two conditions is to look at the fuel consumption since all exhaust is the result of burning fuel. The MPG figures shown on the computer really jump up when I operate it in that way. There is no doubt that less fuel is used, and less pollution is produced.
As for pollution - that only matters in a city centre. I avoid driving there like the plague. The car stays mostly in a rural location, covers 95% of its mileage in top gear on an A road or motorways, and never sits in urban traffic. Even when in the suburban location I avoid using it in busy times and only ever to get back out of the city.
The one way co2 emissions of that weekly trip involve 2.8 to 3 litres of petrol in 41 miles which equates to 13 to 14 kg of co2 emissions for the trip there and back. That is frankly little or nothing. A person just breathing, emits about a kilogram a day, so driving the car 82 miles a week is more or less twice what I breathe out in a week. Probably less actually, because i make sure to do some cardio type exercise every day, either spinning the ebike pedals or walking up hill out of breath. The standard estimate of a person breathing out 1kg of co2 per day assumes a pretty sedentary individual, and I am not that. I did 15400 steps yesterday.
EDIT:
Corrected car co2 emission.
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
