Lamborghini's last remaining pure gas guzzlers are all spoken for Sorry, aspiring Lamborghini owners: the Volkswagen-owned supercar biz has reportedly sold out of the remaining pure internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles it plans to make. No, that doesn't mean the venerable Italian maker of flash motors is going under - as a matter of fact it claims to be doing better than ever in 2023, …
Anyone who claims to be "all about the performance" and yet still drives an ICE car is just a liar.
Nobody who has these flash cars has it for the performance, they have it to show off - and for that they need loud noisy engines to attract attention.
All the "motorheads" I know who say they love the speed and the acceleration and the wind in their hair, etc. won't touch electric cars or bikes. Despite the fact that they are the fastest moving things around. What they mean is "they want to make a nuisance and let everyone know they drive a flash, expensive car".
And if you're driving a high-performance sportscar, "range" isn't a concern at all. You burn through that tank faster than anyone else anyway.
It's why Formula 1 is more popular than Formula E. It's why loud noisy Harleys are filling the biker-joint near me, and not their all-electric models that are far faster and more powerful. It's why boy-racers tear the tags off their tiny little engine cars and put on large noisy exhausts, lighting and stereo systems.
It's why companies why Lamborghini are potentially in trouble - their base is not built on people who feel they need to do 200mph and 0-60. It's built on people who want to be loud, brash, obvious and make a nuisance of themselves. Which electric cars don't achieve.
Don't get me wrong - I'm quite looking forward to it. Despite the danger of almost-silent, far-too-fast-accelerating cars on public roads (if there isn't already, there'll be a massive market for cutting off the acceleration and top-speed limits of these electric cars, because one will be mandated, I guarantee it), I'd rather be without the idiots grinding off into the distance as loud as possible at 3am.
Yes. Exactly this. And there will be those who object with some kind of nebulous argument about loss of freedom - just as some people objected to the end of the incandescent bulb on similarly spurious grounds (one wingnut even going so far as to suggest it would cost him more in heating bills). Damn, I’m sure there were those who objected to the building of the sewers on the grounds that they liked throwing their shit out of the window, and the flavour it gave to the water.
Still. Thumbs up. Point well made.
Spot on.
As an aside, I've a friend who recently bought a Harley. It's noisy, obviously, but I was somewhat surprised to find out that it's not quite as noisy as I imagined. Currently, from what I can hear out of my window, the top spot for being unnecessarily, ear-piercingly loud goes to small and mid-size motorbikes. Very high volume, and pitched much higher than the Harley. They aren't even very fast. I really can't see any point except enjoying being annoying.
Large engine means you don't need to rev it up much to move, leading to a nice deep burble going up to rumble. Smaller engines need to be revved higher, leading to those very high-pitched screeches. Either way, stock exhausts are usually fine, it's the modded ones that are painful to hear. I often hear the expression in biker circles "Loud pipes save lives", but for me that's only understandable for bikers who think they're above traffic rules and try to squeeze in to any gap thy can find, overtake wherever they please and generally drive like an isle of man TT wannabe.
In my college years, I once was a passenger on a Harley 1949 Panhead; we rode through some twisty mountain roads at 90+ MPH. On the return trip, I was the passenger on a Suzuki 650cc motorcycle (also at 90+ MPH). From the perspective of my ears, buried inside my helmet, both were equally noisy. Both seemed to accelerate equally well, though I did no timings and could not see the instrument panel. But on the Suzuki, I could feel severe buzzing through my boots.
Of those I know who describe themselves as "Petrolheads" and insist that an EV can't possibly scratch their itch, it does seem that absence of a manual gearbox is about the best argument they can muster. I suspect noise and nuisance are also latent pulls. Such people are, of course, ultimately as out of touch as those of us who prefer our railway locomotives to be coal and steam powered. Actually, I think my steam train enthusiasm is more rational. But I digress
[Slams carriage door and adjusts her Laura Ashley frock]
More of a "leccyhead" here and I largely do agree with you. But the experience of driving a light, nimble sportscar with manual gearbox through some bendy roads is, IMHO, unrivalled (but maybe I'm just an old dog). While any decent EV certainly is much faster, it's just not a similar amount of fun. Having said that, I've never had the chance to test drive an Evija (who has?!) and would be more than willing to change my mind; Lotus, if you're listening, I'm game!
It shouldn't be too hard to fit a "manual" gear lever in a car and simulate it's effect in the EV power management :-)
They could even have computer generated sound to simulate the ICE engine, but either with the volume level reduced or even geo-fence the audio system to only work in non-residential areas and/or at sane times of day or night :-)
>"Petrolheads" and insist that an EV can't possibly scratch their itch
An EV doesn't have that hot oil and burnt hydrocarbons aroma, nor the sounds and vibrations your stomach feels...
My son and friends a few years back got the full immersive experience at Armourgeddon Leicester wen they started their restoration project Chieftain tank for the first time...
However, given back in the early 90's my then local cornershop in Tokyo had a machine that puffed out the aroma of fresh baked bread, it would not surprise me if they don't do similar for EV's.
"An EV doesn't have that hot oil and burnt hydrocarbons aroma,"
Good point. The precise reason for them existing in the first place :-)
I wonder if some perfumer could come up with the "scent" of an ICE car for those people? You can already buy "new car smell", Combine that with my other suggestions for audio and "fake" manual gearbox and the petrolheads might be happ[y|ier]
You nailed it... "ultimately as out of touch"
Hide from the destruction of large areas of nature due to the mining for rare metals like Lithium, Cobalt, Neodymium and others, mostly done by Chinese companies with a high disregard for nature and human life.
Hide from the abysmal re-cycling rates of EV's, recycling EV specific components is more expensive than building new.
Hide from the fact EV's are full of carcinogens needed to build the batteries, that will kill African kids in poor countries who recycle this poison to reclaim metals.
Hide from the potential fires that caused by defective batteries without warning.
The "ultimately as out of touch" EV drivers and self proclaimed environmentalists whitewash their conscience with the lies of EV's manufacturers and dumb politicians who use hard earned tax money to prop up already rich EV buyers to buy cancerous and expensive crap like Teslas. In that respect, EV's is communism, they need subsidies for over 10 years now, if they were better than gas cars, they wouldn't need subsidies. That is called capitalism, only communist planned economies use tax money to support inferior products.
So yeah, continue to feel great about destroying the earth by buying this technical non-sense.
In the mean time, I continue to drive my 260,000 mile 1999 V8 beamer, that does 21 miles to the gallon to help the environment.
Hide from the fact that the destruction you speak of pales into absolute insignificance when compared to the destruction and spills caused by the oil and gas industry
Hide from he fact that the recycling rate for a burnt tank of fuel is 0 the recycling rate for spent batteries is above 0 the main reason for more extensive recycling is a lack of source materials because despite of the perceived 'wisdom' of 5 year life expectancies there simply are simply not dying fast enough
Hide from the fact that the carcinogens are kept inside the battery instead of released into the atmosphere for all to enjoy (quick reminder that benzine used in petrol is so carcinogenic that the WHO says it has no safe level and schools are not allowed to do experiments in it with fume cupboards yet everyone gets to breathe it in at filling stations.
The same can be said of fossil fuels and climate change. Who cares if the drinking water of Africa is polluted by spilled hydrocarbons? Who cares if Bangladesh and island nations are flooded?
Well, clearly not big oil.
The truth is that we should all care. And yes, mining for rare earths is polluting but…
Two points…
If you’re that concerned, don’t buy a new computer. Or phone. Definitely don’t buy a new car - even one with an internal combustion engine.
But… a lot of the rare earths that we need have already been mined, and dumped as toxic spoil by mines worldwide - many of which are now disused. And enterprising businesses have spotted this - and are now mining the spoil heaps. It’s a double benefit - the world gets rare earths, and the pollution gets cleaned up. The scarcity might also encourage us to get better at recycling too - reduce landfill, reduce pollution, put disposed of material back into circulation.
And, as has been said before, it’s relatively easy to recycle these materials. It’s much harder to trap CO2, or methane or clean up millions of barrels of spilled oil.
"only communist planned economies use tax money to support inferior products"
You obviously weren't paying attention to what happened with the banks in 2008 then, as billions of tax money went towards propping up inferior products (like sub prime mortgages)
And some of that money went towards buying lambos for the unrepentant bankers, rather than paying for a place in a jail cell
they have it to show off - and for that they need loud noisy engines to attract attention.
They are selfish gits who only care about themselves. They are deliberately getting something that they know has poor performance -- (article says 8-12 MPG) something that harms the planet. They prolly lose no sleep over Sunak watering down the UK's climate pledges, why should they worry if other suffer as they are rich enough to buy their way out of most of the effects in the next few years; long term (when they are dead) - why should they care ?
People like this are hurting are kids and grandkids!
Exactly. I test drove a hybrid last year, pulled onto some dual carriageway and thought "I'd better put my foot down and get up to 50", checked the speedo, and I was already doing 50. Without the theatre of the engine revs, I was a bit out of touch judging speed and acceleration. I reckon I'd have quickly got over that, but I guess some people just won't want to.
When the Ford Escort equivalent Electric Car becomes widely available at a price tag compatible with mortals; I am fairly certain that for range reasons the motors won't be allowed to apply the full range of torque and acceleration that electric motors allow for.
Sport modes on electric cars can produce outstanding acceleration, but they are mostly novelties for a few seconds; whereas range and capacity are the functionality normal people want out of a motor.
The sport mode on my current Subaru as far as anyone can tell does absolutely nothing besides change the graphics on the dash. There are nonsense Volkswagens out there that pipe recorded engine noise into the cabin due to the lack of noise from the actual engine too. Perception over reality; and it's vey dumb.
Other examples of nonsense can be found, I'm sure.
Regarding a Lambo, "get an old one" comes to mind. Few cars will replicate the terror that the Countach's it'll-kill-you-handling and terrible visibility will induce. I'm more of a fan of the Diablo myself; the last one before Audi gobbled them up.
"It's why loud noisy Harleys are filling the biker-joint near me, and not their all-electric models that are far faster and more powerful."
I can't really speak for anyone else, but I don't ride a motorbike for acceleration or speed, I ride it because it's much nicer to be on an open road in touch with the environment* rather than enclosed in a tin can (and because I can park far easily in far more places than with a car). In any case pretty much any bike from 500cc+ can give acceleration as good as most pretty fast cars. Insane acceleration is just insane, whether on an electric vehicle or a supercar, and whether it's for a noisy showoff or to record acceleration videos for youtube. What I want from my bike is range. I'd be happy to switch to electric when they can do 300km on a single charge and get an 80% charge in 10-15 minutes.
*not literally!!!
"I'd be happy to switch to electric when they can do 300km on a single charge and get an 80% charge in 10-15 minutes."
Well both of those are already possible... but neither are really necessary for the *vast* majority of users...
300km is 185 miles, so at least 2.5 hours - which is definitely comfort break territory, and that usually takes quite a few minutes.
80% charge would be 150 miles range (still over 2 hours), and at a reasonable 3.5-4m/kWh is ~40kWh... for that to take 12 minutes is a "mere" 200kW (CCS already supports 350kW).
Even the MG4 does 450km, and 135kW charging - not quite the 12 minutes you're looking for, but also 50% more range.
"300km is 185 miles, so at least 2.5 hours - which is definitely comfort break territory, and that usually takes quite a few minutes."
There's a couple of further requirement to add to that - there needs to be a vacant charging point available when you stop for that break and the price of the charge doesn't exploit the monopoly situation of a motorway service station.
Your journey that gets broken after 185 miles is probably largely on the motorway. If you're going to get your 80% charge over the period of a typical motorway stop you'll need to be able to park next to a charging point. In order for that to happen once pure EVs form the bulk of the fleet most if not all of the spaces in a motorway car park will need to have chargers. What's more the overall power feed to the service station is going to have to support all those chargers in use - if not the current is going to have to be limited at each charger and you're not going to get your 80% charge. What's the investment needed to get to that point and when is it going to happen.
As far as I can manage it I always arrange long journeys so as not to have to buy petrol at motorway service stations because of the prices. That's usually feasible. Having to break a long journey to recharge means that using motorway chargers would be almost inevitable. It will take strong price controls to stop them getting their hands in our pockets right up to the shoulder. Hybrids migth go some way to keeping them honest.
It's a valid defence when the government is trying to force mainstream EV adoption now. There's no way, not with current levels of investment in power generation and charging infrastructure, that this country will be ready for hybrid-only new cars from 2030 and zero-emission only new cars from 2035.
What will happen is people keep their older, more polluting, more worn out vehicles on the road for longer. Prices of used cars will probably go up, hitting drivers on lower incomes with a triple whammy:
Can't afford a new car.
Can't afford a newer second-hand car.
Can barely afford to keep their current car on the road as MOT failures are repair builds progressively mount.
As for generating capacity and adequate power delivery across the grid, well one need only look at the government requirements that all home chargers must be connected to a smart meter, and all new home chargers must support vehicle-to-grid discharging, to prop up the nation's power supplies because they've not mandated increased generating capacity along with the obvious increased power demand EVs will bring.
The biggest arguments against EVs are that the country simply isn't ready for them to go fully mainstream, and that there are many, many people for whom EVs simply won't be a viable option.
"It's a valid defence when the government is trying to force mainstream EV adoption now. There's no way, not with current levels of investment in power generation and charging infrastructure, that this country will be ready for hybrid-only new cars from 2030 and zero-emission only new cars from 2035."
So from a legislative perspective... in 2045 ish there will be few ICE vehicles on the road...
"During the first half of 2022 an average of 891 charging devices were installed each month. Fast-forward to the beginning half of 2023 and the UK is now seeing an average of 1,622 charging devices installed per month."
In terms of power generation... assuming all miles are driven at 3m/kWh then we don't need any more electricity generation than we had earlier this century.
The reasons for mandating V2H are nothing to do with "oh the grid can't cope" and everything to do with allowing people to use their assets more than 5% of the time, and yes - to act as a decent grid stabilisation option.
There are vanishingly few people for whom an EV isn't already suitable - I can't think of any actual examples in fact (ignoring such complaints as "must to a million miles to a ten second charge before I'll consider it" and "but it's got no clutch").
>” There are vanishingly few people for whom an EV isn't already suitable”
Last week I picked one of my teenager’s up from Exeter, circa 4 hours / 240 miles each way, excluding side trips to see the sea etc.
My 15 year old diesel car (ICE vehicle) has a range of circa 600 miles…
Hence I can fill up at home and (most of the time) not refuel until I return home.
Now convert that ICEV journey, into an EV journey, and I will have to do a (motorway) top up charge each way and a full charge in Exeter. Ie. I will need to effectively refuel four times instead of once.
Now as I break the journey anyway at the 2 hour point, for creature comforts, the top up shouldn’t be a problem time wise (assuming charging points are available and working). However, as pointed out by another commenter, the typical service area will have parking for a few hundred vehicles and fuel pumps for circa 12 vehicles, because the majority of people stopping won’t be needing fuel and refuelling takes only 10 minutes; however, with (current generation) EVs the opposite will apply and refuelling will be significantly longer, ie. Increased “pump” dwell time.
So it should be obvious the ratio of charging points to EVs will be very different to the existing ratio of fuel pumps to ICE vehicles.
Now I get it that my teenager could pack their room into a trunk (or two) and catch the train, however, the railways lost the ability to handle passengers with substantial amounts of baggage in the early 1970s…
I’m looking forward (!) to this autumn as the second is wanting to go to Glasgow - circa 6 hours / 350 miles and neither have passed their driving test yet…
Other than these and a few other regular commitments, my typical daily driving can in the main be done by a charge at home EV. So whilst an EV may be suitable for some of my driving, at this stage on my life an EV is non-starter.
Wish I could upvote you more!!
Incidentally, any guesses as to whether the government/electricity suppliers will pay a premium for the electricity they take out of your car for the battery wear, risk, inconvenience etc (assuming you can’t control whether they do or not, or you’re stupid enough to just let them anyway, trusting the “AI” to leave you enough for the morning...)?
all new home chargers must support vehicle-to-grid discharging
I hope that the PoCo will be required to pay a rate to the owner that includes compensation for the battery wear that is caused by the charge/discharge, and that owners will be able to set a "Don't charge me to 100% or discharge me past 75%" or similar rule.
Also would be nice to have a "I don't want to discharge at all tonight, I have to do a long trip in the morning." button.
I can see it being a boon to a homeowner in a few situations, such as off-peak pricing and outage protection (if there is a transfer-switch and such for it), but there is a potential for abuse of power (pun not intended) if the additional discharge cycles are not taken into account.
>” Prices of used cars will probably go up, hitting drivers on lower incomes with a triple whammy”
Prices of used cars are already going up in the UK, for a number of reasons including there being a number of businesses vying for market share and so offering better prices for used vehicles. What many don’t realise is that used car prices was one of the big contributors to the increase in “Core inflation” that the Bank of England were worried about and so put base rate up by 0.5 points to 5% last month. Which the banks immediately passed on to their customers even though their exposure to BoE interest rates is circa 10% of the value of their loan book…
"At what point were there "enough" petrol stations for our current fleet of vehicles..."
Before any of us commenting here were born... And that's the issue here.
Anyone driving an ICE vehicle today is doing so based on decades of development and investment into the entire infrastructure needed to make doing so a trivially easy task - they simply have no first-hand experience of the difficulties the ICE pioneers had back then. Yet in coercing/persuading/cajoling/etc people into making the switch to EVs today, they're being asked to step out of this comfortable world of ICE ownership into the brave new early adopter world of EV ownership. And that's a scary prospect for most people, especially if they're not particularly interested in vehicles per se and merely want a car they can afford and is reliable enough to get them from A to B whenever they need it to without having to spend too much effort on making sure it's able to do that.
They can be confident that an ICE vehicle will meet their needs, they can't necessarily be so confident that an EV will do likewise, hence why these issues continue to be raised as genuine concerns - so please don't dismiss them as coming from petrolheads just being deliberately contrarian because they'd rather die than switch to driving an EV, take them at face value as a sign that the general driving public really don't have enough confidence in EVs to know that owning one will work out OK for them, and ponder what could be done to rectify that.
People don't like change... that's always been the case, and petrol took a while to take over from horses.
We're in a position now where we don't have the time to take a generation or two to transition away from ICE vehicle (to whatever).
The "issues" which are raised are always raised by people who haven't driven an EV, not by those who have.
"We're in a position now where we don't have the time to take a generation or two to transition away from ICE vehicle (to whatever)."
Yup, and that's also part of the problem - not only are we asking people to make a change away from something that's been long established as the norm to something that's still not well enough understood to be considered a "safe" option, but we're coercing them one way or another to do so in double-quick time. Yeah yeah, climate change, air quality issues blah blah blah, all well and good and perfectly reasonable reasons why "something must be done", but none of that matters one bit, not even the tiniest sliver, to someone who currently has a nth-hand ICE vehicle that they know meets their needs (range/reliability/affordability) and is now being faced with the prospect of
a) switching to EV with all the uncertainties that brings
b) continuing as they are with ICE and having to put up with an increasing number of entirely artificial barriers to ownership intended specifically to coerce them away from ICE no matter what
c) getting fed up with the whole car ownership thing and modal shifting to public transport with all the other issues that might bring
None of those 3 options are entirely palatable to many people, but if we as society want people to pick a) or c) as being a necessary thing to do to save the planet, then it's incumbent on society to make it as bloody easy/painless as it can possibly be. Part of the problem is the way too many people in a position of power are quite willing to play god with the lives of the people they govern, introducing simplistic restrictive policies to stop them doing what they'd prefer to do, rather than putting in any real effort to introduce permissive policies to encourage them to do something else. That just rubs people up the wrong way, being treated as public enemy #1 just because they haven't yet got onboard the EV/public transport train and ditched their filthy, planet destroying disaster (other similar descriptive terms are available, see Twitter feeds of various politicians for numerous examples) of an ICE vehicle, without any real regard being paid as to *why* they haven't done so, or what could be done to make it easier for them to do so.
"The "issues" which are raised are always raised by people who haven't driven an EV, not by those who have."
a) they're not "issues" to be dismissed glibly, they're issues that deserve genuine thought and reasoned answers
b) of course they're being raised by people without any EV experience, once you know what life is like as an EV owner you've already got the answers... That's the point - people who might very much want to switch to EVs DO raise these issues because they don't have the answers/reassurances they're looking for before making such a significant change in their personal circumstances. Again, this doesn't make them any less deserving of attention or respect.
a) What uncertainties? There is no uncertainty any more, there is just a deliberate lack of research, or a lack of up to date research.
b) Not an option - that's the point.
c) Great, I don't suggest that BEVs are the be all and end all - public transport needs a huge amount of investment, and to be run as a public service, not as a profit centre.
EVs *are* the easy option, unsurprisingly the used market isn't mature yet.
a) What issue - the "I can't drive a million miles before breakfast" brigade are just one group that won't listen.
b) The point is that if the issues disappear with experience... because the issues aren't.
There are vanishingly few people who actually have any issue that isn't purely in the "change bad" category.
The hotel I stayed at on a trip hadn't yet installed their L2 charging station, even though they proudly said they had one. Plugshare didn't show any othersnearby either
I got by with the 110V plug to a lamp pole (roughly 2 miles range per hour charge), but had to be very very very thrifty with the miles on the daily 45 mile round trip commute to the customer site.
There were no L2 chargers on prem at the customer site, seeing as it was in the process of being built and mostly consisting of packed DGB for the parking lot.
Thankfully their management allowed the 110V cord to an exterior lighting outlet, and they were open to adding an L2 if their site plan and power budget/payment/etc was figured out.
The only L2 charger around the site was 7kw (roughly 12 miles range per hour charge), and meant having to drive another 4 miles the opposite way from the hotel, so there's 8 miles total used round trip to station.
Got to know the local park near the L2 pretty well, even if it was usually near dark by the time I got there and decidedly after dark when I left.
The closest L3/Supercharger option was roughly 40 miles from both the site and the hotel, and that meant driving 45+ minutes (traffic...) to plug in and charge to 90% (rental agreement had a "no charge over 90% clause), get a bite to eat, then drive back. Did that when I dropped into the danger zone of having less than 50 miles of range left if I went right back to the hotel.
Then having to return it to the airport with a sufficiently high charge left at the end of the week.
It was a heck of a different experience from renting a traditional vehicle and being able to top off on the way to and from a site, and I did have to shift my time around and cut out my usual cardio in the pool.
I've since rented an EV every time I've gone to that customer, mainly out of spite for myself, a stubborn determination to make it work, and the smile of driving what I can only describe as a stick shift stuck in 1st with no rev limiter. That hotel still hasn't installed their L2 charger.
I guess I/m one of the vanishingly few to have an issue that's not for lack of trying?
I'll leave this in neutral, can't really give an upshift or a downshift.
> I guess I'm one of the vanishingly few to have an issue that's not for lack of trying?
From the voltage I guess you were in a different country, and from the anecdote you were renting on a trip, which is an interesting use case, but one that should be trivial to cover - as you pointed out there were two places that could/should have had destination chargers available...
But also - you made it work without much difficulty...
Even a 110V circuit gives ~ 2kW (1.8-2.4kW for 15-20A) which is about 6 miles/hour, so easily 60 miles overnight, or 50 for a working day.
That's 110 miles a day added on the very slowest of connections - even with a pretty excessive 45 miles round trip (feels like bad planning) that's 65 miles added per day without you ever having to visit anywhere special.
Would L2 chargers have been better - yes, if either location had what is basically a glorified light switch on a decent circuit then you'd not even have had to think about charging - just plug in overnight, or whilst working.
"you made it work without much difficulty..."
That's your takeaway from this anecdote? Really??
Because I suspect that to the rest of us, that sounded rather less like someone making an EV work for them without much difficulty, and more like someone making an EV work for them with a healthy dollop of good luck and a willingness to adjust their plans well beyond the point at which most people would deem it reasonable in order to fit around the limitations imposed by having an EV in an area with barely adequate charging infrastructure...
Yes - it worked.
A couple of extension cables isn't unreasonable.
Having to go to a smelly "special location" to put toxic fuel in a tank is a far less pleasant adjustment than plugging in a power cable.
Choosing to go to a park for a walk seems like a very nice way of passing time that would otherwise be sat in a hotel room staring at the wall.
Of course the fact that the hotel is aware that charging points are needed, and that the office is looking to install them seems to have completely passed you by.
"But also - you made it work without much difficulty..."
Er...no, that's not what he said at all. He had to make special provision and get permission to use a non-optimal charging facility at both ends of the journey and spend hours wandering around a park in the mid to late evening when he should have been going back to the hotel for a meal and some relaxing after a long day at work. I'd be pretty pissed off in that situation and I'd not be as "stubborn" as him next time, especially with the hotel claiming to have chargers it doesn't yet have (or it seems, any near term plans to remedy that claim!!). I'd specify an ICE car for the hire next time :-)
"non optimal"
110 miles a day from "non optimal"... that's the takeaway here. Even the slowest possible charger gets more miles over a normal day than you are ever likely to use.
I'd also not return to that hotel - getting one closer to the client, preferably much closer. But then I generally prefer to walk/wheel to work whenever possible...
I'd also be raising issues with the hotel... because that looks like deceptive advertising.
The vehicle limits you to 16A max on a 20A plug, or 13A max on a 15A plug, to stay within safety margins on the cabling.
I was on a 15A service at the hotel lamp pole, with a 20A at the customer site.
That equates to less than your standard tea kettle, or 1.76KW for 8 hours at the customer site, and 1.43kw for around 8 hours overnight.
Totaled, if everything was perfect, 25.8kw per total day. Conversion losses meant it was less. I also had to deal with the light poles shutting off when the sun came up, but that is a weird edge case.
Electric usage was average 371wh/mile according to the vehicle trip meter, and I was in "Chill acceleration" "range extender" "high regeneration braking" and "don't auto cool the cabin unless it hits 40C" modes. Did I mention the ambient temp was 35C in the day? Cabin was set to 21C with minimal fan. Highway speeds were 70MPH.
I used adaptive cruise where possible, because damn does it give a nice smooth stop and go.
Divide that out, and my mileage budget was 68 miles a day for only hotel/jobsite charging.
The L2 at the park was OK, but 4 miles of driving and an hour per 13 miles added (9 miles useable if I only charged an hour, 22 miles useable if I charged for 2), meant I used it sparingly, or when things got really tight.
The supercharger station was infeasible with the peak pricing, as I found out on the one trip I used it. it cost bloody $95 to fill the thing to 90%! And that's not even the full 250 miles range...
I didn't have to pay out of pocket for that one thankfully, but my "fuel" row on the expense report was hurting. Shame on me for not reading fine print I guess?
As far as bad planning on the hotel, that was the closest one I could book on the corporate account. I am not paying out of pocket for a hotel on a business trip.
I did make it work, and mainly as a challenge to myself.
Again, not trying to say an EV is bad, just giving my tale with the data I collected to gauge if it would work for me.
A pint for everyone who stuck around for story time.
"Again, not trying to say an EV is bad, just giving my tale with the data I collected to gauge if it would work for me."
That's a very odd test to see if it would work for you - do you spend lots of time at an unfinished customer site and a distant, and dishonest, hotel?
When you say a supercharger cost you $95 for 90%... that feels like you've fallen foul of overstay charges.
Actually, yes, I tend to ravel to out of the way industrial sites for most of my work.
As far as the hotel, not many have L2 available, and the nearest other one that does in this case isn't on the corp account.
I just checked the receipt, and it was $98.77 for the charging. It was from 8% to 90%, and I was eating dinner at the noodle place across the parking lot and popped out to move it when the "charge complete" message popped up. I'm going to look into that some more, because there may have been an overcharge by the rental company... (pun not intended).
I will amend the pricing after I look through things and contact them.
Thanks for being skeptical, it might get me a refund!
There is only one issue stopping me getting a BEV - the price of buying it. I've always bought cars cash: £5000 for a small one and £10000-12000 for something bigger. I don't have £40,000+ cash lying around for a new one - even the small BEVs are more than £25000 at the moment, and there's very little second-hand stock of BEVs, apart from crappy Leafs with knackered batteries and Teslas that are not far from new price.
>” We're in a position now where we don't have the time to take a generation or two to transition away from ICE vehicle (to whatever).”
We are also in a position where we cannot incur the additional emissions necessary for the large scale EV production to effect a rapid transition to EVs, hence the “to whatever” is the question we really need to define, as we really needed the answer a few decades back…
"merely want a car they can afford and is reliable enough to get them from A to B whenever they need it to without having to spend too much effort on making sure it's able to do that."
<waves> Hi, that's me you are talking about :-)
My wife has even less interest. When we last discussed getting a newer car, her interest ended at "Can we get a red one". Her logic being that whenever there's a moron on the road that does something stupid or causes a near miss, it always seems to be a red car and that if WE are the ones in the "red car", we'll be safer :-)
Every space needing a charger will be painfully clear when millions are driving about the country during the summer holidays and the service station car parks are rammed full.
There also needs to be a payment system that mirrors the current 'pay at pump' forecourt method.
As for hybrid supercars, a pp3 capable of pushing it 5 miles around town will be enough to qualify for the 2030 cutoff.
"There also needs to be a payment system that mirrors the current 'pay at pump' forecourt method."
Yes, this. A thousands time this! Why should I need 45 different apps just to be able to charge at some random, possibly working charger! Why do so few chargers not just accept a tap'n'go or chip'n'pin bank card?
They're basically all tap and go now - that technically being a mandated requirement on Rapids at least.
I use a combination of tapping a credit card and my octopus card.
Of course you can't use fuel cards at different groups either, so the situation isn't actually all that different.
It *was* a pain, but hasn't been for a number of years now.
The major exception... Telsa Superchargers, you don't do anything other than plug in, and the car and charger communicate and the billing is done automatically (which really ought to be the overall model).
With them opening up to other vehicles you would need the Telsa app to initiate the charge on those.
But I can't recall a rapid charger I've been to in the last several years that didn't accept contactless payment (though comms issues should be handled better).
In fact I can't recall a fast charger that didn't accept contactless either - though I can't recall (the last one I remember using was in Hull, and that was free, so...)
You don't need chargers in all parking spots at a service station, that's just not really a realistic use case.
Yes some, possibly quite a few, high millage people may well need to charge up regularly at public chargers, but that's not going to be everyone who uses the services.
The main use for services is usually for a toilet break, and stretch your legs a bit, not to fuel up.
"The main use for services is usually for a toilet break, and stretch your legs a bit, not to fuel up."
Only because service station fuel is generally expensive... with an EV many more people will be using the motorway chargers on their journeys at the start/end of each major holiday.
We do need a good array of chargers at each service station, but that's a long way from "every space".
I'd like to see SMR or micro reactors located at service stations - with 10-20MW generation at each of the ~100 service stations that's a couple of GW for the grid when the chargers aren't in use, and therefore a 20MW grid connection available, so a max draw of 40MW, which would be a very substantial number of rapid chargers.
The only place I could charge an EV is public chargers. Wouldn't be a case of "regularly", but always. Running a cable out the house, across the pavement and into the road isn't really a viable option. Esp if I'm parked on the other side of the road that day. Who has a 40+ metre cable that can withstand repeated drive overs by other vehicles?
That doesn't *have* to be at home though - it can easily be an hour whilst you're shopping, then an hour or so when you're out for something else - let alone the potential for 8 hours if you have a place of work. It also doesn't need to be DC charging; an AC charger is a glorified light switch, which makes their installation, and therefore their energy, much cheaper.
Destination chargers, and that includes anywhere that has car parking, need to be utterly ubiquitous, and they will be...
Last year took a trip to London to visit the Natural History Museum - we used to drive to Cockfosters, but the tube is a pain in a wheelchair, so we drove all the way this time - pulled up just round the corner from the NHM, plugged in and then visited Hope, Dippy, and various other exhibits... Returned to the car which was heading towards being full again. The idea is to "ABC"... always be charging, just a trickle charge whenever possible is going to get you the miles you need.
An average car in the UK does about 20 miles each day - there will be some drivers who do substantially more, and the distribution won't be even so the relevant number for calculations will be lower, but 20 miles is about 5kWh each day, which is an hour of charging at a standard AC charger, two hours for a granny charger... it's really not a huge amount of charge to find.
"The main use for services is usually for a toilet break, and stretch your legs a bit, not to fuel up."
Yes. And no. If your likely "fuel" range is a 1/3rd of what you are used to, you'll be far more likely to need to "fuel up" during a longer trip such as the summer holiday season when some of the motorway services even have staff out in the car park during busier times directing the traffic around to where the very few vacant spaces are. And bear in mind this is an annual occurrence that lasts a couple of months plus the odd bank holiday "rush" at Easter and/or other times of year. Also, when I first saw charging points appearing in motorway services, it was rare to see any in use. Nowadays, when I pull over it's not unusual to see all of them in use, especially over lunchtimes. And there's still generally fewer chargers than there are petrol pumps. Even now, I see Services putting in chargers where they had two, now have 6 or 8 (Plus, often, an entirely separate "Tesla area", can others use them?)
Full disclosure, I'm a daily high mileage driver and I can't afford the sort of EV I'd need to make my job even barely manageable. I'd like one, but it's not yet practical for me.
"Having to break a long journey to recharge means that using motorway chargers would be almost inevitable. It will take strong price controls to stop them getting their hands in our pockets right up to the shoulder."
I wonder when we'll see it become common for EVs to run out of charge on the motorway? People already manage to do that with ICE cars now, but when we get more and more EVs on the roads and very likely still limited charging facilities on the motorways, I can see people trying to make it to the next services or the next town, looking for cheaper or available charge points, especially during the summer holiday period when those who only ever do the local commute get out on the roads for the once per year long road trip and have completely forgotten to take en route charging into account :-)
I wonder when it will become economical to invest in a van load of batteries for emergency "breakdown" charge boost on the roadside?
"300km on a single charge and get an 80% charge in 10-15 minutes." >> "Well both of those are already possible..."
Not sure if I made it clear I was talking about motorbikes here... typical ranges are 150-200 km on a pretty lightweight bike - an optimum range that would be much reduced by having an extra 100+ kilos between passenger and luggage.
"300km is 185 miles, so at least 2.5 hours "
The point of my enjoying the motorbike ride is to enjoy the road and surroundings, 300km is for me typically a full-day ride up and down mountain passes and along hilly winding country roads. That means I'm taking plenty of comfort breaks throughout the day. It also means that finding a high-power charging station on the road is, with current infrastructure vanishingly small. It's still pretty long odds to find an overnight stop where I can charge.
WRT electric cars, our building should have charging points installed in our garage within the next year, so my next car would be electric. Not going to be within the next few years though, because I'm averse to retire a perfectly good car
"At which point - "ABC" always be charging... You don't need an 80% charge in 15 minutes if each stop is ten minutes and you make several of them."
If I'm doing long-distance travelling on the motorway I don't really need 80% in 15 minutes, but over 80% in 20-30 minutes would work. As to "ABC" while having "plenty of comfort breaks", this is on leisure trips off the beaten track, as I said those breaks are usually in pretty remote places.
You perhaps don’t do much long-distance driving, but I regularly drive from my house on the Fylde down to London, approximately 240 miles with only one very brief stop (sometimes) for the toilet. Didn’t used to need that - the trauma of being nearly 60! With all the awful “smart” motorways the very best I can hope for is 4 hours, usually nearer 5 because of traffic, and it has taken as long as 7. When I get to the point that I can’t stay alert enough for that length of time (assuming I’m not already tired/stressed etc) I will seriously consider whether I should still be driving long distance, or even at all. Obviously it helps to have a quiet, comfortable car, but nowadays even at motorway speeds a lot of cars are.
I currently drive a 9-year-old diesel hybrid with a range of around 600 miles unless I thrash it - there is no way I would (or even could) replace it with an EV or even PHEV that needed a “charging break” when I don’t! It’s not that I like diesels (it’s my first), or even hybrids (also my first), but currently there is no substitute EV or PHEV on the market that is even remotely comparable at all, let alone at a comparable price.
Also, as another commentard pointed out, motorway services here in the UK charge extortionate prices for everything, especially ICE fuel, so I assume they will do the same for EV electricity.
Incidentally (and somewhat off-topic) a much more significant problem is that where I live, in a typical Edwardian terrace, nobody has a drive, it’s on-street parking only... I know there are trials of converting street lamp posts into charging points - but there is roughly 1 post to 6-8 houses, so clearly not going to work here! I don’t know whether government statisticians know the proportion of houses that have a drive, and blocks of flats are an even bigger problem; government policy suggests they haven’t even considered that a large % of the population has no means of installing an EV charger. Or perhaps they assume we’re all going to be happy charging our cars at work or at supermarkets?
</RANT> :)
While I'm sure the ecomentalists will have a fit, if you're up to 8hrs driving, then flying may well make more sense. Even ecologically.
I've occasionally needed to to biz trips from the midlands to Glasgow, driving would automatically make it a two to three day jaunt. Flying? Done in a day including meetings. Wasn't even that expensive compared to the fuel and miles / depreciation on the car.
London-Paris by Eurostar on a winter UK generation mix is more or less the same CO2 equivalent to flying.
My local aerodrome ( less than 10 miles away) charges circa £6000 for East Midlands to Glasgow day return - okay I get to fill the plane with friends (and/or baggage) for free.
Otherwise, it’s an hour’s drive to an airport etc.
Currently, my preference is a 30 minute drive to an east coast mainline station south of Birmingham and catching an express to Glasgow, gives lots of time which can put to good use. However, not good if you need to take a large amount of baggage… Also not good as Avanti are a bit unreliable, which has meant I’ve typically received a refund…
- 240 miles needs one break, but won't accept a vehicle that requires a break at the same time as the complainer's bladder.
- Must be able to do more than 7 hours (you shouldn't be driving for that long without a break anyway)
- Assumption that chargers at service stations are extortionate
Nearly a full Bingo card there... C- must try harder.
"I don’t know whether government statisticians know the proportion of houses that have a drive, and blocks of flats are an even bigger problem"
Well the RAC have some good published figures on this kind of thing:
- Average car is driven just 4% of the time (70%+ of the time they're parked "at home")
- Significant majority of households have, or could have, off street parking (75% in Wales, 68% in England, 63% in Scotland, 44% in London)
Consider that the figure likely correlates quite strongly with the 22% of households which don't have a car:
- through urban living with decent transport, e.g. London
- or through economic correlation, terraced houses usually cheaper than semi detached with off street parking
Blocks of flats often have car parks, so there is really no challenge there at all, you already have a car parking space, often a reserved one. The entire car park could, and should, be wired up for chargers at every spot. They're one of the easiest places to deal with.
"It's why Formula 1 is more popular than Formula E."
Not IMO. For me, the reason I still prefer F1 to FE is because the latter is
a) as much reliant on gimmicks that turn each race into something akin to a live-action Mario Kart, as on actual racing ability/vehicle performance
b) held on tracks that in the main are even less well designed for good quality racing than even the worst F1 track
c1) devoid of the team-specific inputs to car design that have the potential to really shake things up, or ruin a team's season (e.g. Mercedes' dabbling with weird sidepods last year)
c2) therefore also devoid of the plucky underdog aspect that F1 has, with lower order teams sometimes managing to lob a curveball thanks to an inspired bit of car development
Don't misunderstand me, if I happen to flick over to a sports channel whilst a FE race is being shown, I'll watch it with some interest, but in its present format the formula simply doesn't generate enough interest for me to want to actively search it out in the same way I do with F1. And no, I'm not one of those fuddy-duddy F1 fans still pining for the good old days of V12 engines roaring away - whilst I did start watching F1 back in those days, I'm every bit as interested in the latest breed of hybrid cars.
And that said, some of the best racing I've seen in recent years was a few years back when Jaguar ran their sadly short-lived iPace series of support races - seeing a pack of gorgeous (yes, OK, I'm a Jaguar owner, I *may* be slightly biased here...) cars being hustled around a shorter version of the F1 tracks they were supporting, making full use of their EV-based performance without needing to resort to the stupid FE gimmicks, was an absolute joy to behold.
So done well, EV racing can and is every bit as exciting to watch as ICE racing - it's not the power source that stops me being interested in FE...
"cutting off the acceleration and top-speed limits of these electric cars"
It's called a limiter and many electric cars have it fitted as it's the easiest way to keep your license.
Not hearing the engine revs as an indicator of speed is about the only thing I miss when I am driving our electric.
If there are any automotive designers in the readership, I would like some little buttons on the outside of the normal up/down limiter (or cruise control) setting buttons, preset at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70, then I wouldn't need to take my eyes off the road to set the limit.
If you only want.to drive in a straight line. Anyone who's driven both ICE and EV's as they exist today knows the weight issues (and often undersized tires for better rolling efficiency) of the EVs know that the ICE will outperform the EV on a Le Mans type track, i.e. one where handling curves matters.
If EV's get the battery weight down, then EVs will have all of the advantages.
I disagree with you and I think the majority of your arguments show a strong misunderstanding of the things your railing against.
"All the "motorheads" I know who say they love the speed and the acceleration and the wind in their hair, etc. won't touch electric cars or bikes. Despite the fact that they are the fastest moving things around."
They're not the fastest moving things around though. They accelerate fast (because of high starting torque) but that's about it. Purpose built race cars ARE making inroads (pike's peak hillclimb for instance) but that's VERY specific applications and they're very impractical vehicles for basically any other application. Electric bikes are also starting to get more adoption but the reality is that a lot of the ones currently on the market are quite frankly kinda shit for a variety of reasons.
As to F1 vs FE, the noise might have something to do with it (it's perfect to lull you to sleep) but that's only a minor factor. Biggest thing is that they simply don't put on good spectator racing. FE cars are nearly as heavy as F1 cars (FE: 760kg, actually on average 840kg including driver; F1: 798kg, actually 908 including full fuel load and driver) and most of that weight is battery, yet they can't cover even close to the same distance in a race, nor do they get even close to the same speeds as F1. The racing is generally done on tiny street circuits, shielding the so called "iconic" locations (which usually amounts to the back parking lot in a city far away from anything notable) from view with tall fences. And is quite frankly the racing is absolute shit-tier. I've seen better racing at my local karting track. Frequent stupid mistakes, silly crashes, cars running into each other, cars running out of energy. There's a large element of strategy and energy management (far more than F1) and while that is interesting from a technological standpoint it just doesn't make for interesting watching.
As to driving a high-performance sports car, range matters. Range matters a lot. On a track a petrol car burns through a tank of gas quite fast when racing, an electric car burns through a battery charge in the absolute blink of an eye. Instantaneous performance (actually only acceleration) is absolutely great, but it comes at the cost of absolutely blowing through a battery charge. Electric racing IS done, but the big problem is that most EVs would burn through a full battery in about a quarter of the laps it would take an ICE car to burn through a tank, after which an ICE car can be back on the track after a 5 minute refueling stop. A BEV most certainly wouldn't unless you had some sort of battery pack swapping system (which has been tried and isn't really a good solution either). Even just on a road, a heavy foot is going to drop a BEVs range considerably. Tesla's "ludicrous mode" is a fun gimmick, but it requires warming up the battery pack beforehand and absolutely devours battery charge (Iirc on a full charge, after conditioning the pack you only get 4 or 5 of those launches out before the battery is too discharged to get the performance out).
With proper maintenance an ICE performance car will also keep going for a lot of miles, while heavy use of a battery pack usually has strong negative consequences for their longevity.
I've driven different sorts of sports cars and BEV vehicles and the overal experience of "fun to drive" (SO FAR!) really is better in the ICE vehicles. That is not to say it will never happen or that all lovers of vehicular fun hate them, but the current crop of electric vehicles really just isn't there yet. They're fine for taking people to work, or to the shops, but that's not exiting or fun and the cars made for it aren't either.
" an ICE car can be back on the track after a 5 minute refueling stop"
IIRC refuelling stops in Formula 1 used to take less than 10 seconds last time I watched (admittedly a while ago) - in fact 10 seconds was considered a 'long' stop. Also IIRC non-refuelling stops (tyre change only) could be done in about 4-5 seconds
"A BEV most certainly wouldn't unless you had some sort of battery pack swapping system"
In electric motorbike racing, they just have 2 bikes and the riders hop off one bike and onto the other.
I was more thinking about other race classes than F1. The sort where they're still fueling with a gas can and gravity, potentially while also swapping drivers.
Average pitstop time in F1 nowadays (tire change only, or potentially with only a wing adjustments) is under 3 seconds, usually closer to 2.5. They don't do mid-race fueling anymore in F1. Too many flame-y accidents
Suffers from the same problem as FE. While that strategizing and energy saving is interesting from a technological viewpoint it just doesn't make for good spectator viewing or (imho) interesting racing. It's the same with time trials "rallying" (the sort where the driver and observer are trying to drive a certain course on open roads with very particular timing and the winner is the one that gets closest). It's maybe fun to do (for some people) but as a viewer it's like watching paint dry or grass grown. Not particularly riveting.
> All the "motorheads" I know who say they love the speed and the acceleration and the wind in their hair, etc. won't touch electric cars or bikes. Despite the fact that they are the fastest moving things around. What they mean is "they want to make a nuisance and let everyone know they drive a flash, expensive car".
It doesn't mean that, that's a non-sequitur. I suspect you simply don't get the appeal. I'd bet the majority of sports car/bike owners are neither nuisances nor care for how expensive the vehicle is. See - popularity and reverence of classic cars like old M3s, R34 GT-R etc.
It's OK - most people see cars as simply A to B transport, don't enjoy driving, and don't appreciate any of the design or engineering of a performance vehicle. Which is why the roads are full of bloated crossovers on stilts with zero steering feel or liveliness to them. No problem, not everyone shares the same interests and hobbies.
American automakers have intentionally engineered the exhaust systems to raise the noise/fuel ratio on their modern ICE vehicles to pander to the common "seeking cool" youngsters.
A friend of mine described her having heard a 12-cylinder sports car (type unknown): "It went, vvvvvVVVVVvv, vvvvvvVVVVVvv as he sat there with the clutch in, tapping the gas pedal. It sounded like a sewing machine."
To me, that would be cool-sounding -- and with no needless noise!
An EV supercar. If there ever was a class of objects that do not need electrification, I would have definitely put Lamborghini and Ferrari in there.
They already have stupendous acceleration. High-end EVs have, apparently, similar levels of acceleration, but they absolutely lack the autonomy to take advantage of it over time. You can definitely ramp up the odometer in an EV, but you're trading that for distance at a perilous rate.
A gas-guzzling supercar isn't economic, but you can floor the gas pedal without immediately checking how many minutes you have left.
Plus, with either brand, the point is kinda the noise the engine makes. If you're telling me that those Lambos are now going to coast out of parking lot silently, well, like what's the point of having one ?
Very few people buy that kind of car to go around unnoticed.
Every time I see one the only thought I have is how ridiculous the driver looks. Could be the most beautiful woman or most handsome chap in the world - as soon as they get into a car like that they instantly look like a bellend.
In my mind, they don’t project power - they project powerlessness. If you want to see power in motion, look at a runner or a cyclist. A car just doesn’t do it for me.
And if it’s long distance transport that you want, just about any family car - even the cheapest - can do it more practically and more comfortably - and, in the right circumstances, faster too*.
* see who can transport a family of four, with all their gear for a holiday, faster - the supercar driver or the driver of a family car.
I quite like these supercars, they are designed to excite the senses after all. I can see myself doing one of those track experience days to try them out, but I wouldn't want to live with one full time. Even if I could afford the ongoing costs.
Confession: my brother in law and I clubbed together to buy an older Ferrari F355 back when they could be had for a reachable used price. We kept it in his garage for 2 years, used it a bit in the summer and spent £6000 keeping it on the road. At the end of the 2 years sold it for the same price we bought it for. It doesn't quite qualify as a supercar, but it was fun going along to classic car days, parking up in some town somewhere and chatting to other owners.
Now I am an EV driver (not Tesla or any performance EV) and wouldn't ever willingly go back to old fashioned cars.
In my 20s whilst in California, a (UK) friend and I were astounded that a car rental company would rent us a Ferrari for $400 a day, needless to say that was a $400 well spent and enjoyed.
You can rent one in the UK today for £400 - £500..... but they require a £5000 deposit which you get back if the car comes back intact.
"You can rent one in the UK today for £400 - £500..... but they require a £5000 deposit which you get back if the car comes back intact."
Ah, thanks, I did wonder about the cost, but not enough to bother looking it up :-) I bet the insurance per day is up there with the rental cost too!
"Seen a Ferrari at Tesco."
I get the sense that a lot of them are hired for a few days. Supercars seem to be popular with young Asian men wanting to make an entrance at weddings these days. I see quite a few when out and about down in the Leeds-Bradford area and the guys driving look to be in their best bib and tucker most of the time. Likewise, accidents involving supercars tend to make the news and it feels like more often than not the story mentions the car was on hire, so inexperienced drivers with huge amounts of power at their right foot.
"A gas-guzzling supercar isn't economic, but you can floor the gas pedal without immediately checking how many minutes you have left."
Clearly never driven one hard... The Veyron famously had a 12 minute tank IIRC? (obviously rather difficult to find a location where you can burn through the fuel that fast).
An EV does lose more range when used at high power... but not nearly as much as you might expect - you really lose range by braking hard (and the two tend to go hand in hand). Accelerating onto a motorway, or as part of an overtake, makes substantially less difference than you might expect.
I’ve down-voted several of your posts (I think you’re unrealistic or in denial about the barriers facing UK EV adoption, as pointed out by lots of fellow commentards) but I agree with you on this one.
I think the vast majority of people have no idea how badly their driving style affects their fuel economy, and they also don’t accurately track their fuel consumption. Considering a lot of modern cars have some sort of fuel computer it really surprises me how vague people are if I ask them about their car’s mpg - and in most cases I suspect they simply guess, based on what they think they should be getting.
I occasionally drive my gf’s fairly new Kia Sportage 4WD petrol hybrid. Its ICE + EV is more powerful (11% on paper) than my Merc E300’s ICE (the E300 can only use ICE <or> EV, barely a hybrid!). When I drive her car, I always better her mpg and usually my (bigger, heavier, older) car’s mpg. My point is that driving style significantly affects mpg. My gf’s style is OK: reasonably safe, not hesitant/slow, not uncomfortable, but she lacks finesse and understanding of what wastes fuel - very typical.
Also, since a large part of driving a car economically is ‘simply’ looking ahead as far as possible and predicting what is most likely to happen, and adjusting accordingly for minimum braking/acceleration, relative mpg is probably a very good actuarial proxy for “accident risk”... Jus sayin :)
Low volume production Hypercars don't work like that, if it's looked after it'll probably increase in value.
That's the sad thing about hype-cars, they're more investment vehicles than things to be driven. Keep the mileage under 2,000 if you want to maximise the return on your investment.
Look at the McLaren F1, cost about $1m and one sold in auction in 2021 for $20.5m - of course that's an extreme example but most will appreciate.
Or the P1. That was a hybrid with a £70k battery that was prone to failure and takes around a year to replace. But if you're not really driving the car, that's manageable I guess. There's a chap on YT who's currently converting one back from being a submarine to something that might be driveable, and parts aint cheap. But then it was a $1m car when new. Fun to see how it works, but also raises question like if it's a $1m car, why not use stainless steel bolts?
Personally I think the problem with Lambos is they scream 'influencer', which I guess makes a change from 'mid life crisis'. Think the only one that would tempt me is the off-road Lambo, but the Porsche 911 Dakar looks better. Not because I want to go rallying with it, but they stand a better chance of surviving potholes and speed bumps. This may be an business opportunity though ahead of the EV hype-car revolution! Make replacement front & rear splitters for when the inevitable happens, especially as batteries are heavy.. But that's also one of the greenwash aspects. Because of their weight, EVs produce a lot of tyre dust.
Couldn’t resist the temptation to mention the very first “off-road Lambo” - their “Cheetah”. It was a prototype Humvee-style military vehicle (views differ as to whether it was a genuine contender or just a PR exercise).
I have a fully EV version - albeit a 1/12th scale Tamiya RC model, circa 1982/3 :)
There was also an off-road/SUV called the LM001 or LM002 I think. The military version didn't make it into production, but the SUV did in limited numbers, and is apparently now quite collectable. I saw it side-by-side with a Humveee and it was even larger and more impractical as a Chelsea tractor.
(Fun memories from being in London and seeing celebs being celebs. And seeing a celeb with a Humvee trying to get it unstuck from a Soho street. It even had spinners! Then again, so does RR.. )
I have a "sports" car that still cruises at 60 mpg. For a vehicle to be striking to look at and fun to drive it does not have to be inefficient.
Im pretty sure lambos would still be fun to drive with a regular engine. If the EU band stupid engines like that normal tax payer funded roads, rich kids would still buy lambos for half a million to show off and there would be no harm done.
EV drivers are the biggest hypocrites around. Their cars may not emit anything from the pipe, but everything else about them is about as eco-unfriendly as you can get. Even the act of replacing perfectly good ICE cars with EV's is just plain wrong on so many levels, and people who buy en EV will replace them every 2-3 years just like ICE, so any eco benefits are never fully realized.
Quote: "but everything else about them is about as eco-unfriendly as you can get."
Such as?
EV construction is essentially the same as a standard ICE, other than the batteries and motors, plus no catalytic converter of course. The batteries can be re-purposed (such as fixed storage) after their usable life in the EV (after typically 10+ years), and eventually recycled once they are no good for fixed storage, and motors can be recycled. Most of the materials can be recovered and then reused. Yes recycling needs to be scaled up, but the tech is already there.
Quote: "Even the act of replacing perfectly good ICE cars with EV's is just plain wrong on so many levels"
What are you talking about? People have always replaced their old cars at some point, and if the old car is still okay, it just goes into the 2nd hand market. It's not like anyone switching to an EV is getting their old ICE cars crushed, instead of part-exing or selling it!
Quote: "and people who buy en EV will replace them every 2-3 years just like ICE, so any eco benefits are never fully realized."
So what? If a specific person already gets a new car every 2-3 years, why would having an EV change that? It's just another car.
Besides, the length of time an individual owner has a car is completely irrelevant to any environmental impact, the impact is based on the total life of the car, not how long any specific owner has that car!
"It's not like anyone switching to an EV is getting their old ICE cars crushed, instead of part-exing or selling it!"
Unless their switch is being partly financed by one of the various scrappage schemes (clue is in the name) used to encourage people to dispose of their older vehicles...
"partly financed by one of the various scrappage schemes (clue is in the name)"
The misleading clue is in the name. FTFY
Scrappage schemes DO NOT scrap/crush/recycle cars "traded in" on a scrappage scheme. "Traded in" is the real clue. A scrappage scheme simply puts a minimum value on the car being traded in on the "scrappage scheme" to encourage use of the scheme. Most won't accept a car that is no longer road worthy as a "trade in" on a scrappage scheme because they need to sell the car on to help fund the scheme.
"Scrappage schemes DO NOT scrap/crush/recycle cars "traded in" on a scrappage scheme"
This may be true for some, but the current London scrappage scheme requires claimants to submit a Certificate of Destruction, which legally can only be issued when a vehicle is destroyed.
And yes, the London scheme still requires the vehicle in question to have a current MOT etc. - given that the intention of the scheme is to remove older vehicles from the roads, it'd be rather unusual if the scheme allowed people to claim against vehicles which weren't actually road-legal...
Let's just say I sit at lunch smiling at all the predictions when it comes to articles proclaiming "next year's cars will have this", that get plastered all over the internet.
Ahh the joys of prototyping for nearly every sports car manufacturer in the world. Oh and F1, MotoGP, Rally, 24hr, NASCAR and on and on.
All I will say we are UK owned and based.
Anon for obvious.
When a loud car goes by may teenage daughter (and her female school friends) say "Wow! that car is so loud - the driver must have a huge penis!"
Or when a car is driving too fast "Wow! that car is so fast - the driver must have a huge penis!"
etc.
But in general for bikes its "What a f*cking idiot - only any good as an organ donor!" (usually in response to dodgy overtaking on the narrow and winding country roads) or for a Harley "That rumble sounds like the rider is brewing an explosive fart!"
This started at school, but I don't do anything to discourage it.
Icon --> as I was drinking at a service station when my daughter first, unguardedly, said a car one, aged 11.
Ok, I've got a 17 year old diesel truck that I run using pine turpentine that I distil from pine trees. I don't have an electric truck because trees don't come with wall sockets.
Also, I have the habit of pelting across large parts of Europe (>1000 miles at a time) in a huge petrol engined horror, as fast as possible, in as short of time as possible, because I like doing that.
However, I take environmental exception to the green, smuggery, passive aggressive fascists wafting around in pseudo e-4x4s trying to prove how "right on" and "sensitive" they are because they've got small cocks and it's the only way they'll get laid. I know this to be true due to the fact that Durex seem to have shrunk more than Mars bars. Last time I tried, it was like stuffing a duvet in a pillow case.
e-cars are for city based scaredy cats.
"Ok, I've got a 17 year old diesel truck that I run using pine turpentine that I distil from pine trees."
Well, that's pretty green and sounds very sensible since it's only costing you the energy and time to create the fuel. I've no idea what the by-products are of burning it as opposed to the natural decay cycle mind, maybe it's highly polluting? I'm no chemist but at least it's cheap and sustainable for you :-)
But yes, you are correct. Holier than thou on both sides are a pain in the arse. The problem is both sides extremists have valid points too, mixed in with their rabid diatribes, sometimes making it difficult whether to up or down vote them ;-) Maybe El Reg could add a "Meh!" vote button too.
I only find it a crime that Lamborghini sold their tractor division. (Lamborghini Trattori)
The last chance you had to drive a Lambo with 4-wheel drive, 40 inch tires, and 300 HP at a blistering 20mph through a crop field is gone, whlle making fun of John Deere owners locked away from their Right to Repair.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
