Edit. Double posted.  This is what can happen on mobile devices.  And typos. 

Edited 8 September, 20232 yr by toot

Ps.  Thriving businesses have been clocking cars for decades, and now clocking up for the sake of cars getting tax breaks as demonstrators that have done over 3,000 miles.  Or hiding milages on lease / hire cars.   There is nothing new in the motor trade, taxi business or organised crime.  The only people behind the curve are the police, the government and the general public.    @PetrolDave I have had many mileage mistakes at MOT,s over the years.   We are now entering a brave new world.  As parts of the world want.  Cars plugged in at tests.  ECU read.   Modifications , weights, efficiency monitored.    It is EU and the UK government that has held back.  They keep kicking the can down the road.  There are government plans on the Modification of vehicles and prohibition going through the motions though. 

 

Edited 8 September, 20232 yr by toot

11 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The multi-storey car park weight worry story singling out EV is a strange one. Remembering that there are just as heavy ICE cars.

6 out of 10 heaviest cars on sale in UK are not EV: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tips-advice/360607/heaviest-cars-sale

Yes there are indeed heavier cars out there but come on get real and live in the real world, maybe you are one of the few that could afford to run of these heavier cars that mention, most of us normal people can't do so and also for the record the information you presented above is pure BS. A few minutes checking the information clearly shows that the top 10 of the 12 in that list are indeed either full blown EV's or some form of hybrids.

 

And you if you regularly come across car parks full of these kinds of cars then you are clearly living in a completely different world to the vast majority of the UK population.

 

This in its own way just highlights how you cannot accept anything that you consider to be negative about EVs or hybrids without leaping in to defend their honour. As I have said before, you have one, you like/love it etc, I can accept that and I and many others have no troubles with that whatsoever. You chose to go that route, and it is your right to be able to do so, unchallenged, and I and almost everyone will do all we can to ensure that you can always continue to exercise your freedom to make your own mind up about your choice of transportation.

 

It would be nice if that was also respected back towards those that actually don't currently 100% buy into the EV as being the total magic pill that you seem to think it is.

 

 

1. Mercedes EQS SUV - 2,810kg Car review: Is Mercedes’ new electric EQS the quietest SUV on the road? | Independent.ie
2. Mercedes-Maybach GLS - 2,785kg
3. Range Rover PHEV LWB - 2,770kg Electric Hybrid (PHEV) & Mild Hybrid (MHEV) | Land Rover
4. Rolls-Royce Phantom - 2,745kg
5. Volvo EX90 Performance Ultra - 2,743kg  Volvo EX90 Pure Electric 7-Seater SUV | Volvo Cars
6. BMW XM Red label - 2,710kg  BMW XM Label Red (bmw-m.com)
7. Mercedes-AMG EQS 53 - 2,700kg  2022 Mercedes-AMG EQS 53 on sale from £154,995 | Autocar
8. Rolls-Royce Cullinan Black Badge - 2,660kg
9. Audi SQ8 e-tron Sportback - 2,650kg   Latest EV Offers | Audi UK > Electric & Hybrid > Audi UK
10. BMW X7 xDrive M60i - 2,600kg
11. Mercedes G 63 - 2,560kg
12. Bentley Flying Spur LWB - 2,525kg

Many Multi Storey car parks will be not fit for purpose in this day and age other than for smaller / lighter vehicles.

 

Demolishing and recycling the materials and buiding back on the same site or elsewhere might be simply clever considering the changes in communities, work, shopping etc.

Times change. 

 

There are terrible ones around, and ones that have been mothballed for years before ever being developed.

There are ones that are considered to be ionic.   Ironic more like. Monstrosities and not fit for purpose.

 

http://insider.co.uk/news/plans-europes-largest-ev-charging-28543029

 

Edited 8 September, 20232 yr by toot

40 minutes ago, toot said:

Ps.  Thriving businesses have been clocking cars for decades, and now clocking up for the sake of cars getting tax breaks as demonstrators that have done over 3,000 miles.  Or hiding milages on lease / hire cars.   There is nothing new in the motor trade, taxi business or organised crime.  The only people behind the curve are the police, the government and the general public.    @PetrolDave I have had many mileage mistakes at MOT,s over the years.   We are now entering a brave new world.  As parts of the world want.  Cars plugged in at tests.  ECU read.   Modifications , weights, efficiency monitored.    It is EU and the UK government that has held back.  They keep kicking the can down the road.  There are government plans on the Modification of vehicles and prohibition going through the motions though. 

 

Totally agree, it has been going on, but mainly by car dealers trying to put value on cars with high mileage but the body does not reflect it, all for pure gain. If the annual road charge was to based on miles driven and billed once a year, there would be a massive surge in normal folk looking to have their mileages would backwards in order to get a lower road use charge bill, and that would is the thriving business right there, before it was the minority doing, but it would suddenly swing the other way if the government ever introduced such a scheme.

8 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

also for the record the information you presented above is pure BS

Which part of it is "pure BS"?  There are 4 BEV (EQS SUV, EX90, EQS, Q8 Etron), rest contains ICE.

 

Yes, I forgot the B in BEV. But isn't battery electric vehicle the whole point of discussion? I was talking about dedicated EV platforms.

Also sorry, I mistook top 12 for top 10, but doesn't change number of BEV I counted.

 

So 8 out of 12 heaviest car are not BEV. This conclusion based on the list I'm sure you will agree and it is actually very far from  "pure BS".

 

15 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

This in its own way just highlights how you cannot accept anything that you consider to be negative about EVs or hybrids without leaping in to defend their honour. As I have said before, you have one, you like/love it etc, I can accept that and I and many others have no troubles with that whatsoever. You chose to go that route, and it is your right to be able to do so, unchallenged, and I and almost everyone will do all we can to ensure that you can always continue to exercise your freedom to make your own mind up about your choice of transportation.

 

It would be nice if that was also respected back towards those that actually don't currently 100% buy into the EV as being the total magic pill that you seem to think it is.

A lot of conformational bias and rant from you against me for just posting a link and quoting facts (only 4 out of 12 in heaviest car list are BEV).

What do I have to accept when facts say otherwise?

 

At what point have I said people should only buy EV right now? At which point have I shown disrespect to those who chose differently to me?

Would you kindly quote evidence to your allegation.

24 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Which part of it is "pure BS"?  There are 4 BEV (EQS SUV, EX90, EQS, Q8 Etron), rest contains ICE.

 

Yes, I forgot the B in BEV. But isn't battery electric vehicle the whole point of discussion? I was talking about dedicated EV platforms.

Also sorry, I mistook top 12 for top 10, but doesn't change number of BEV I counted.

 

So 8 out of 12 heaviest car are not BEV. This conclusion based on the list I'm sure you will agree and it is actually very far from  "pure BS".

 

A lot of conformational bias and rant from you against me for just posting a link and quoting facts (only 4 out of 12 in heaviest car list are BEV).

What do I have to accept when facts say otherwise?

 

At what point have I said people should only buy EV right now? At which point have I shown disrespect to those who chose differently to me?

Would you kindly quote evidence to your allegation.

Its BS because you chose cars that are not your average everyday cars that most normal drive or indeed could afford to buy even so that invalidates your claim that EB, be they BEV or some form of Hybrids are not heavier than the average family sub £30,000 ICE cars, that most of us drive.

 

The perceived rant against you is not actually true, it's just that don't see yourself as being confrontational, when in fact you certainly come across as that, whereas toot on the other hand does not. Maybe it is more being a keyboard warrior type of thing, I don't know, but it seems as if you feel compelled to respond to anything that even remotely appears to be opposing your views about electric cars (I say electric, so it encompasses all types of battery cars), does that make sense? People post all kinds of things that I personally don't completely agree with, but I respect the other persons' viewpoint and don't respond to them.

 

You have posted some good things and made valid points on here, and I have found my self agreeing with these and always show it, so the conformational bias and rant from me against you is perceived more than it is a reality as you really seem unable to accept any opinion that differs from yours without responding.

I can cause a fight in an empty house.

 

I like an argument as much as anyone, or a discussion or just here for the banter.

 

The issue is Location location location and the Governments.

Westminster / The UK Government as so out of touch it is unreal.  Energy, Net Zero and all the rest, reneawables and much more.

 

The Scottish Government is pretty crap, but there is no getting away with Scotland having resources per capita and the ability to generate electricity aplenty. 

 

Discussions about EV,s in England is also regional as far as infrastructure goes. 

The issue is not going away though.  business and commerce and utilities need to be reducing emissions and reduce costs and even reduce road miles of products and staff and the pollution from that. 

 

There is nothing new on the horizon, just the vehicles the manufacturers have developed and think that they are going to manufacture in the next decade.

Before a decade they need to start building the Euro 7 emission ICE vehicles.

26 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Its BS because you chose cars that are not your average everyday cars that most normal drive or indeed could afford to buy even so that invalidates your claim that EB, be they BEV or some form of Hybrids are not heavier than the average family sub £30,000 ICE cars, that most of us drive.

 

The perceived rant against you is not actually true, it's just that don't see yourself as being confrontational, when in fact you certainly come across as that, whereas toot on the other hand does not. Maybe it is more being a keyboard warrior type of thing, I don't know, but it seems as if you feel compelled to respond to anything that even remotely appears to be opposing your views about electric cars (I say electric, so it encompasses all types of battery cars), does that make sense? People post all kinds of things that I personally don't completely agree with, but I respect the other persons' viewpoint and don't respond to them.

 

You have posted some good things and made valid points on here, and I have found my self agreeing with these and always show it, so the conformational bias and rant from me against you is perceived more than it is a reality as you really seem unable to accept any opinion that differs from yours without responding.

I had not chosen the cars, it's result of a quick google of "heaviest cars UK". You can choose to invalidate facts based on your personal preference, but don't call facts BS when it doesn't agree with your view point.

 

I feel compiled to post when misconception are posted. In this instance EV's are heavier. It is simply not true when the platform is designed to be EV from day one, without any associated ICE legacy elements.

 

If you feel posting facts and attempt to correcting misconception is disrespectful...... Do you feel people should stay silent when misinformation or FUD are posted? Cos that's what you are suggesting I should do.

 

Regardless whether what you posted is rant or not. Where have I not respected opposite views? It would be nice to have evidence to back up your statements.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

It would be nice if that was also respected back towards those that actually don't currently 100% buy into the EV as being the total magic pill that you seem to think it is.

 

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Weight is a contributing factor to efficiency. So I favour this method, it's simple and effective.

 

But well designed EV's are not really heavier.

Tesla Model Y LR: 1986 kg, 378 bhp, 854 l boot. Tesla Model Y SUV Long Range AWD 5dr Auto specs & dimensions | Parkers

Volvo XC60 polestar engineered PHEV: 2145 kg, comparable 399 bhp, 598 l boot. Volvo XC60 SUV Polestar Engineered T8 Twin Engine AWD auto 5d specs & dimensions | Parkers

Audi SQ5 sportback diesel: 2010 kg, 336 bhp, 500 l boot. Audi Q5 Sportback SQ5 TDI Quattro 5dr Tiptronic specs & dimensions | Parkers

VW Touareg R-line tech petrol: 1945 kg 335 bhp, comparable 810 l boot Volkswagen Touareg SUV R-Line Tech 3.0 V6 TSI 340PS 4Motion Tiptronic auto 5d specs & dimensions | Parkers

 

Only poorly adopted platform from lazy manufacturer are heavier. For example this small EV based on their GLA platform:

Mercedes EQA: 2040kg, 187 bhp, 340 litres boot  https://www.parkers.co.uk/mercedes-benz/eqa/suv-2021/eqa-250-140kw-sport-665kwh-5dr-auto/specs/

While I'm not going to comment on the models you have listed, how about my lowly Skoda Superb 2016 filthy dirty diesel powered car that can carry 5 people in limo sized comfort only weighs in at 1494kg for hatchback and just 1525kg for estate version, so those you listed are in fact considerably far heavier. So my car is some 451kg lighter than the lightest of those you claim are well designed. 

@wyx087 Lets just agree that this is counterproductive to keep this somewhat silly tit-for-tat going any longer, it is boring the other members and scoring points off each other achieves nothing.

Edited 8 September, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

7 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

While I'm not going to comment on the models you have listed, how about my lowly Skoda Superb 2016 filthy dirty diesel powered car that can carry 5 people in limo sized comfort only weighs in at 1494kg for hatchback and just 1525kg for estate version, so those you listed are in fact considerably far heavier. So my car is some 451kg lighter than the lightest of those you claim are well designed. 

 

Kerb weight is the key one and also what is the Gross maximum vehicle weight...

https://weightle.com/skoda-superb

 

Many might be arriving to the car park with 4 adult passengers and some crap in the boot and therefore be around 2 tonnes.

 

When items like car parks and lifts are designed, I recall from my materials classes at degree level that such constructs worked on a "Factor of Safety" of 20 times.

So the material used would be twenty time stronger than the weight limit published so cars being 10% or 50% heavier is not getting even close to the actual limit for the structure.

 

Much more important is materials losing half, 90%, 95% or 99% of their strength as the strength 30, 40 , 50 years after construction is far more relevant as corrosion of reinforcing, concrete cancer, the blocks turning in to the strength of Aero chocolate bar.  Difficult to test how weakened it might be but strain gauges and deflection indicators might give so clues but also might not until it catastrophically fails.  

 

5 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Kerb weight is the key one and also what is the Gross maximum vehicle weight...

https://weightle.com/skoda-superb

 

Many might be arriving to the car park with 4 adult passengers and some crap in the boot and therefore be around 2 tonnes.

 

When items like car parks and lifts are designed, I recall from my materials classes at degree level that such constructs worked on a "Factor of Safety" of 20 times.

So the material used would be twenty time stronger than the weight limit published so cars being 10% or 50% heavier is not getting even close to the actual limit for the structure.

 

Much more important is materials losing half, 90%, 95% or 99% of their strength as the strength 30, 40 , 50 years after construction is far more relevant as corrosion of reinforcing, concrete cancer, the blocks turning in to the strength of Aero chocolate bar.  Difficult to test how weakened it might be but strain gauges and deflection indicators might give so clues but also might not until it catastrophically fails.  

 

Yet from the same site as you got the above graph from, this one also appears, and I was under the impression that diesel engines are far heavier than petrol, but this graph appears to say that is not so 

 

Vehicle	Curb weight	Difference from world's smallest	Weight to power ratio	0—60 mph acceleration ratio	Consumption ratio
1.6 TDI	1390 kg / 3065 lbs	965 kg (2128 lbs) heavier	12 kg to 1 hp	134 kg/s (295 lbs/s)	331 kg/L (730 lbs/L)
1.4 TSI	1350 kg / 2977 lbs	925 kg (2040 lbs) heavier	9 kg to 1 hp	161 kg/s (355 lbs/s)	255 kg/L (562 lbs/L)
1.8 TSI	1410 kg / 3109 lbs	985 kg (2172 lbs) heavier	8 kg to 1 hp	183 kg/s (404 lbs/s)	239 kg/L (527 lbs/L)
2.0 TSI	1554 kg / 3427 lbs	1129 kg (2490 lbs) heavier	6 kg to 1 hp	299 kg/s (659 lbs/s)	219 kg/L (483 lbs/L)
2.0 TDI	1510 kg / 3330 lbs	1085 kg (2393 lbs) heavier	8 kg to 1 hp	191 kg/s (421 lbs/s)	321 kg/L (708 lbs/L)
1.5 TSI	1452 kg / 3202 lbs	1027 kg (2265 lbs) heavier	10 kg to 1 hp	175 kg/s (386 lbs/s)	269 kg/L (593 lbs/L)

What a weight is getting lugged about with the PHEV,s. 

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

While I'm not going to comment on the models you have listed, how about my lowly Skoda Superb 2016 filthy dirty diesel powered car that can carry 5 people in limo sized comfort only weighs in at 1494kg for hatchback and just 1525kg for estate version, so those you listed are in fact considerably far heavier. So my car is some 451kg lighter than the lightest of those you claim are well designed. 

I'm comparing similar size ("mid" sized SUV) and similar power, EV against PHEV, diesel and petrol, from a range of manufacturers. Saying all are within 100kg of eachother and BEV are not actually heavier as people are lead to believe.

 

Trying to compare a different class of car to those is neither here or there. Superb does not have 800l boot, it does not have 300 bhp power and it is a completely different style of car with less head shoulder room.

 

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

@wyx087 Lets just agree that this is counterproductive to keep this somewhat silly tit-for-tat going any longer, it is boring the other members and scoring points off each other achieves nothing.

3 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

This in its own way just highlights how you cannot accept anything that you consider to be negative about EVs or hybrids without leaping in to defend their honour.

I will if you do the same and don't have a go at me for posting data and facts (quoted the part that started this). Getting the fact straight is never about "defending their honour".

You are always welcome to post your counter arguments using your data set or references.

 

Also, let's set the record straight that I think hybrid on most levels are not electric vehicle, they are ICE cars with different level of electrification. Most cannot travel long enough without falling back to burning fossil fuel.  So I consider 2035 to be the date for sale of new ICE ban.  I only consider the i3 REx serial hybrid to be an EV. ICE must not be mechanically linked to the wheel and burning fossil fuel most be the very last resort. So apologies if I use forgot and EV and BEV interchangeably.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

When items like car parks and lifts are designed, I recall from my materials classes at degree level that such constructs worked on a "Factor of Safety" of 20 times.

So the material used would be twenty time stronger than the weight limit published so cars being 10% or 50% heavier is not getting even close to the actual limit for the structure.

 

 

Your recollection is wrong and the suggestion of a factor of safety of 20 times is *******s.   A bit like your comment that Belfast taxi drivers will drive two hours to save a quid or so on a full tank.

 

20% is closer...

 

 

14 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Your recollection is wrong and the suggestion of a factor of safety of 20 times is *******s.   A bit like your comment that Belfast taxi drivers will drive two hours to save a quid or so on a full tank.

20% is closer...

 

This is a US document so US Factors of Safety so not the UK or EU standard.  I know he is only the Program Manager of the Space Shuttle and not a UK person with Arts degree but here is what he says.....   ( 1100% Factor of Safety for lifts aka elevators, ground equipment 400%.  It is worrying that aircraft is 50%.  One would not want to be travelling with a Rugby team.  Nowhere, in any scenario, is the FoS as low as 20%..............

 

https://blogs.nasa.gov/waynehalesblog/2008/12/16/post_1229459081779/

 

Standards for factors of safety are all over the place.  Most famously, the standard factor of safety for the cables in elevators is 11.  So you could, if space allowed, pack eleven times as many people into an elevator as the placard says and possibly survive the ride.  For many applications, 4 is considered to be a good number.  In the shuttle program the standard factor of safety for all the ground equipment and tools is 4.    

When I was the Program Manager for the Space Shuttle, there were a number of times when a new engineering study would show that some tool either could be exposed to a higher maximum load than was previously thought, or that the original calculations were off by a small factor, or for some reason the tool could not meet the FS of 4.  In those circumstances, the program manager – with the concurrence of the safety officers – could allow the use of the tool temporarily – with special restrictions – until a new tool could be designed and built.  These “waivers” were always considered to be temporary and associated with special safety precautions so that work could go forward until the standard could once again be met with a new tool.

 

 

 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factors-safety-fos-d_1624.html

Typical overall Factors of Safety

Typical overall Factors of Safety:

Equipment	Factor of Safety - FOS -
Aircraft components	1.5 - 2.5
Boilers	3.5 - 6
Bolts	8.5
Cast-iron wheels	20
Engine components	6 - 8
Heavy duty shafting	10 - 12
Lifting equipment - hooks ..	8 - 9
Pressure vessels	3.5 - 6
Turbine components - static	6 - 8
Turbine components - rotating	2 - 3
Spring, large heavy-duty	4.5
Structural steel work in buildings	4 - 6
Structural steel work in bridges	5 - 7
Wire ropes	8 - 9

8 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factors-safety-fos-d_1624.html

Typical overall Factors of Safety

Typical overall Factors of Safety:

Equipment	Factor of Safety - FOS -
Aircraft components	1.5 - 2.5
Boilers	3.5 - 6
Bolts	8.5
Cast-iron wheels	20
Engine components	6 - 8
Heavy duty shafting	10 - 12
Lifting equipment - hooks ..	8 - 9
Pressure vessels	3.5 - 6
Turbine components - static	6 - 8
Turbine components - rotating	2 - 3
Spring, large heavy-duty	4.5
Structural steel work in buildings	4 - 6
Structural steel work in bridges	5 - 7
Wire ropes	8 - 9

The aircraft one is a bit worrying. 

Quote

Imagine you were hanging off a cliff. Is it safer to be attached to two ropes or a single rope that is twice as strong? This question was raised in response to a proposition advocated during a previous Fire Safety Engineering Conference that redundancy can be quantified using factor of safety. Considerable debate ensued but the question remained unanswered. In order to answer the above question, this paper presents a detailed examination of the two key design aspects - factor of safety and redundancy. This paper demonstrates that a high factor of safety does not guarantee a low probability of failure, or a high level of safety. In order to raise the bar for fire safety engineering designs and to ensure that a high level of safety is achieved, one must look beyond using factor of safety as the sole design criteria. Failures of components and system must be carefully examined to ensure sufficient redundancy and robustness of the designs.

https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.612250411806946

 

Aircraft also have different rating for different locations. None safety critical components would be assigned different DAL.

2 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

The aircraft one is a bit worrying. 

 

I do not like flying and this confirms my worst fears.  And being half as heavy again as the average person ie about 110 kgs and not the 75 Kgs average they display on lift plates.  Planes are disgusting germ swapping aluminium tubes.  Locked in their for 1, 2, 10 hours and someone is going to have some lurgy. Re-circ'd air, no thanks.   If one saw a rugby union team of massive players getting on I think I would not get on the plane.  Never been asked my weight though I have heard airlines have considered these.  They weigh my bags but not me.  I weigh many times what my bags do.  When they put the people and their luggage on the plane us International Logistic firms add several tonnes of air freight usually. Gulp.  The recent UK air chaos also caused much trouble in air freight as well as passengers ! ....................

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,  And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by;

And the wheel’s kick and the wind’s song and the white sail’s shaking,  And a grey mist on the sea’s face, and a grey dawn breaking.

 

I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide  Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;

And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,   And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

 

I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,  To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife;

And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,  And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.

Edited 8 September, 20232 yr by lol-lol

18 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

This is a US document so US Factors of Safety so not the UK or EU standard.  I know he is only the Program Manager of the Space Shuttle and not a UK person with Arts degree but here is what he says.....   ( 1100% Factor of Safety for lifts aka elevators, ground equipment 400%.  It is worrying that aircraft is 50%.  One would not want to be travelling with a Rugby team.  Nowhere, in any scenario, is the FoS as low as 20%..............

 

https://blogs.nasa.gov/waynehalesblog/2008/12/16/post_1229459081779/

 

Standards for factors of safety are all over the place.  Most famously, the standard factor of safety for the cables in elevators is 11.  So you could, if space allowed, pack eleven times as many people into an elevator as the placard says and possibly survive the ride.  For many applications, 4 is considered to be a good number.  In the shuttle program the standard factor of safety for all the ground equipment and tools is 4.    

When I was the Program Manager for the Space Shuttle, there were a number of times when a new engineering study would show that some tool either could be exposed to a higher maximum load than was previously thought, or that the original calculations were off by a small factor, or for some reason the tool could not meet the FS of 4.  In those circumstances, the program manager – with the concurrence of the safety officers – could allow the use of the tool temporarily – with special restrictions – until a new tool could be designed and built.  These “waivers” were always considered to be temporary and associated with special safety precautions so that work could go forward until the standard could once again be met with a new tool.

 

 

Well he doesn't work in civil engineering, or designing UK car parks so we can safely ignore him...   I do. 

 

Factors of safety are made up of multiple elements - on loads / materials / design parameters and each does add up and multiply the others but none are individually in the region of 11 times.

 

Whilst I'm on it I've just looked at the new June 2023 IStructE design guide for car parks and that references average vehicle weights as 1500kg and maximum vehicle weights as 2,500kg

 

Interestingly the same edition of the above has finally recognised larger vehicle sizes and now recommends larger standard spaces, at 5m x 2.7m versus the previous 4.8m x 2.4m.

Edited 9 September, 20232 yr by skomaz

Ok gang, I was just browsing on YouTube, actually watching the latest edition of Pete and his Bus and when that finished, this popped as a recommended watch, so I did, a test was conducted by What Car magazine, driving Kia Neros in Hybrid, Plugin Hybrid and full EV and they drove all 3 in convey from Twickenham to Birmingham and back again on day 1. Day 2 the drove from Twickenham to the London Eye and back again, place your bets for which one was the cheapest to buy and which was the cheapest to run on those 2 day trips.

 

 

 

EDIT.

Strange.

280 mile round trip and he must have done 200 miles from the home charge which he says was 34.5 kWh.

Well he got the car with charge in it.   

It is a 64 kWh usable battery.    64 x 3 miles a kWh = 192 miles. so he was getting better than that.

 

Because he pays for 51.5 kWh @ Instavolt for the 80 miles, to have 150 miles for safety.    51.5 if you was getting just 3 miles a kWh is the 154.5 miles.

 

(64 kWh @ 30 pence was / is £19.20 before ever going on a public charger, someone pays to charge it, even if it was KIA that supplied the car.

.........................

 

 

 

That is the cost for you, me and another makes 3 who pays for their private vehicles and travel.

For the business driver it is can be a very different mater of cash money from their or the companies pockets. 

Edited 9 September, 20232 yr by toot

True, but the costs for essentially the same car and same trip when combined with purchase was very surprising.