53 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Does heavy passenger cars have any additional function to serve compared to lighter cars?

Size generally correlates to weight though obviously its not always exactly linear.

There is no way I could do with anything smaller than my Superb at the moment. If anything I need something bigger as whenever we visit my wife's parents it's always crammed full and I have to take a roofbox as well now.

I certainly don't have it to inflate my ego!

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Those have a function to serve. They are likely to be on a different tax bracket.

Does heavy passenger cars have any additional function to serve compared to lighter cars?

Of course, other than to inflate driver's ego.

Bigger sized human can still fit in smaller lighter vehicles, Hyundai Inster is a good example. Lots of Kei cars are light weight and tiny on the outside but giant on the inside.

Of course, they have a function to serve, but does that make it any less likely that you could be hit by one? Without that crumble zone, more force of the hit will find its way through to you, and make the difference between life and death.

I seriously doubt that many people are buying large cars to inflate their ego; more likely, it's because they need the space that they offer. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, i.e., the huge stretched luxury barges that only have a chauffeur and one person in the back.

If it were only me and my Mrs, then I dare say that I'd be driving a smaller car, but it's not, and until recently, I had elderly and frail relatives that needed transporting and shopping done, etc, and needed the extra space. Now both I and the Mrs. need the extra ease of getting in and out of the Kodiaq, so there are many reasons why people need what you call excessively large vehicles, as indeed you may find yourself needing one, in later life, for varying reasons.

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by Graham Butcher

35 minutes ago, Dieselgate said:

Size generally correlates to weight though obviously its not always exactly linear.

5 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

more likely, it's because they need the space that they offer.

Indeed, both are very true.

Is it fair for smaller lighter cars to be hit with same tax/parking as heavier ones that does more damage to the roads and take up more road space?

Is it possible to rent said larger vehicle for those once a month trips?

Is it possible to drive a smaller vehicle for times when the big car isn't needed?

(you've already answered them, I'm just putting out food for thought, if you like)

There's indeed different uses and needs by different people, for example farmers seems to swear by their Land Rover or Toyota's.

But at the same time, tragic death at that Wimbledon school could be avoidable if such monstrocity isn't on the road. It's all relative.

Unfortunately around suburban London, most large passenger vehicles (typically Range Rover or biggest SUV by a German brand) I see are not serving its intended purpose are sparkly clean, only 1 or 2 in the car, and are definitely for one's ego.

10 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Indeed, both are very true.

Is it fair for smaller lighter cars to be hit with same tax/parking as heavier ones that does more damage to the roads and take up more road space?

Is it possible to rent said larger vehicle for those once a month trips?

Is it possible to drive a smaller vehicle for times when the big car isn't needed?

(you've already answered them, I'm just putting out food for thought, if you like)

There's indeed different uses and needs by different people, for example farmers seems to swear by their Land Rover or Toyota's.

But at the same time, tragic death at that Wimbledon school could be avoidable if such monstrocity isn't on the road. It's all relative.

Unfortunately around suburban London, most large passenger vehicles (typically Range Rover or biggest SUV by a German brand) I see are not serving its intended purpose are sparkly clean, only 1 or 2 in the car, and are definitely for one's ego.

Far too many Chrlsea tractors around that need to be wacked for several reasons ie

1. Bigger danger to cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

2. Doing more road damage

3. General worse emissions

4. Oft near the edges, or over, the parking boxes they are suppose to fit in

5. Could be a good extra revenue raiser

6. Make traffic queues longer

Is increased charges enough of a dis-incentive or do we need more of a big stick.

Bring on the K cars.

Oh dear, well now this is rather embarrassing, have either @wyx087 or @lol-lol actually checked their own stats I wonder, lets dissect it a bit shall we, might good for a laugh if nothing else, 😃

Me. Kodiaq 110kw TDI 4x4, DSG 5 seater

L 4697mm

W 2087mm

H 1660mm

KB 1709kg

Wyx087 Tesla Model Y LR

L 4790mm

W2129mm

H 1623mm

KB 1997kg

Lol-Lol Scenic

L4470mm

W 2085mm

H 1570mm

KB 1906kg

Given that @wyx087 seems to think that the Chelsea tractors are mostly to be seen with only 1 or 2 people in them, and the kerb weight of cars is given as the operating weight with 1 driver of around 75kg, the motive plant is full of all required liquids and in the case of ICE, fuel tank fuel to 90% which is really a more sensible figure rather than the GVW as that is how they are used most often.

Now lets look at the list presented 1 to 6.

1. Bigger danger to cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. How is this possible given the above.

2. Doing more road damage. Well, here the electric cars are indeed heavier than my diesel car, so do more road damage.

3. General worse emissions. Here based purely on tailpipe emissions, I have to concede, I'm the worst 😒

4. Oft near the edges, or over, the parking boxes they are suppose to fit in. Here all should fit in the normal bay which is 2.4m wide by 4.8m long, trouble is though that I expect the marked bays are often smaller than they should be.

5. Could be a good extra revenue raiser. Well based on the 3 examples, Tesla owners should be paying most of it.😂

6. Make traffic queues longer. this one is really stretching it a bit don't you think?

So in conclusion it would indeed seem that the EV car could very well be actually heavier than a big diesel SUV with 4x4 drive, transfer box and a heavy old DSG gearbox and also even bigger overall, who knew. 😉

I used to berate the Chelsea Tractors myself until I kind of joined them, but for the right reasons, I doubt that anybody can claim that a Kodiaq is a aspirational vehicle, unlike a Range Rover or a Mercedes Benz G Wagon, which can be north of a £100k.

The biggest problem with them is that if you are in a small car, especially a low slung sports car (which are themselves aspirational, Aston Martin, Ferreria, Porsche etc) then they can be very hard to see past, other wise, they are not large in reality as demonstrated above.

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by Graham Butcher

19 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

So in conclusion it would indeed seem that the EV car could very well be actually heavier than a big diesel SUV with 4x4 drive, transfer box and a heavy old DSG gearbox and also even bigger overall, who knew. 😉

Well done, you've put in good effort.

Now add a few more metrics, how many BHP does your car have? How much does it weigh if you change the engine to over 300 bph?

Why does it have to be your or anyone's vehicle? Is this because of chip on your shoulder?

I've previously posted, many ICE vehicles do weigh more and often smaller load capacity:

On 08/09/2023 at 08:49, wyx087 said:

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

22 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Bigger danger to cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. How is this possible given the above.

The higher the vehicle, the poor visibility of lower road users (including more vulnerable ones), as you've rightly pointed out.

24 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Doing more road damage. Well, here the electric cars are indeed heavier than my diesel car, so do more road damage.

There's many ICE powered vehicles that are just as heavy as the 2 EV examples you've picked. See my 2023 post.

24 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

General worse emissions. Here based purely on tailpipe emissions, I have to concede, I'm the worst 😒

No need to say that.

Remember, the less mileage ICE is being used in its lifetime, the better. So it's never too late to scrap it 🥰

26 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Could be a good extra revenue raiser. Well based on the 3 examples, Tesla owners should be paying most of it.😂

If weight based, and if it is based on GVW rather than kerb weight, yes, absolutely.

On kerb weight, as shown by yourself, Tesla and Renault are on the same "grade", and will very likely be cheaper than many of those I posted in 2023.

28 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Make traffic queues longer. this one is really stretching it a bit don't you think?

Indeed. I can only relate this bit to lol's final statement regarding Kei cars.

Parking spaces have a set minimum requirement.

@Graham Butcher do the widths quoted include the mirrors?

If two model Ys parked correctly in the bays there would be at least 400mm (over 15inch) between them

Yes the measurements are indeed mirror tip to mirror tip and I think the parking bay referred to is the one marked out at the road side and can often be seen that hardly any cars can actually fit into them without their wheels breaching the dotted lines. This is further aggravated by the fact that measure directly from the kerb out towards the road and as most cars have alloys these days, few people are willing to rub the kerb with their wheels for fear of damage to their alloys.

For car parks i look for spaces where one has reversed in and the car to it's offside has gone nose in. leaving loads of room for me to reverse in the middle of the lines.

Good stuff 👍

@wyx087 it matters not a jot about the actual HP of my car, which the answer is right their, simple maths 110kw divide by 746 which gives the result in HP is 148HP.

Now we get to what is probably the real cause of the damage to roads and its not the weight, that is someone trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, weight compresses the road, ever driven on a road that sees loads of heavy lorries, they leave tram lines in the tarmac, they don't rip it up creating potholes. Now applying lots of HP to make a quick getaway is the culprit, as the tyres are trying to lay that power down and if the road has not been properly prepared for that or has been cheaply resurfaced/patched with tarmac of poor quality or the layer is thinner than it should be, it will flex and give weakening the surface.

Back in 2019, a visiting 1952 Jet Vampire had been attending a air display and on take off its single engine (no after burner was ever fitted to this type of plane (precedes after burners), the jet blast managed to rip huge chunks of the runways tarmac and blow them all over the place, destroying the runway in the process jet engine - How did this Vampire's takeoff damage the runway so much? - Aviation Stack Exchange

The airfield was in daily use by less powerful propeller powered planes without such problems, so that clearly shows the destructive force of massive HP being applied to surfaces not designed to cope with it. You never hear anything like that happening at say Heathrow because the runway is designed to handle hp laid down by planes like the A380.

Chip on my shoulder, hell no. I am fed up with the blame for everything being laid at the feet of all ICE vehicles and their owners by the EV owners who never consider that they could be doing just as much damage with their cars and claiming false stats which are years out of date and based on beliefs rather than facts.

Nobody actually needs the 300HP you mention, certainly not in the UK when we have a maximum speed limit of 70 and ever increasing pressure to lower then to just 20mph in many places and crap roads and traffic to contend with. I often get left for dead by some of these electric cars at traffic lights etc, only to eventually roll up and stop right behind them again at the next hold up, so what did they gain from all that power??

It would make far more sense if they restricted the power of electric cars and gave greater range instead so that they could begin to rival ICE cars in performance and range, but with the added benefit of (if you can) charge at home and reduce operating costs. Such a move would I expect greatly benefit the uptake of them with the public in general.

Yes, as you rightly said there are many ICE cars far heavier, just as their are BEV cars as well.

The Skoda Enyaq is a small BEV SUV, built on a dedicated electric platform yet it comes in at

L 4658mm, W 2148, H 1624 and kerb weight of 2137kg (some 428kg heavier than mine) and also has a GVW of 2,500kg, so that is an example of purpose built BEV car being heavier then a diesel car of similar size from the same stable using old tech platform designed for ICE, fancy that, so that does indeed appear to suggest that like for like, BEV's are actually heavier, I think you'll agree that the Kodiaq and the Enyaq size wise seem to be very similar?

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by Graham Butcher

10 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Chip on my shoulder, hell no. I am fed up with the blame for everything being laid at the feet of all ICE vehicles and their owners by the EV owners who never consider that they could be doing just as much damage with their cars and claiming false stats which are years out of date and based on beliefs rather than facts.

Well, is it true or not that fossil fuel powered transport contributes a significant amount to climate change?

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/media_gstc/FACT_SHEET_Climate_Change.pdf

and

13 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

It would make far more sense if they restricted the power of electric cars and gave greater range instead so that they could begin to rival ICE cars in performance and range, but with the added benefit of (if you can) charge at home and reduce operating costs. Such a move would I expect greatly benefit the uptake of them with the public in general.

Restricting power would not increase range, the bigger the battery the easier it is to draw more power from it. Because it decreases C rating.

Range is never an issue as I'm sure many people actually driving EV can attest.

14 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Yes, as you rightly said there are many ICE cars far heavier, just as their are BEV cars as well.

The Skoda Enyaq is a small BEV SUV, built on a dedicated electric platform yet it comes in at

L 4658mm, W 2148, H 1624 and kerb weight of 2137kg (some 428kg heavier than mine) and also has a GVW of 2,500kg, so that is an example of purpose built BEV car being heavier then a diesel car of similar size from the same stable using old tech platform designed for ICE, fancy that, so that does indeed appear to suggest that like for like, BEV's are actually heavier, I think you'll agree that the Kodiaq and the Enyaq size wise seem to be very similar?

As previously mentioned, MEB cars are on the heavy side compared to American/French EV's, not sure about Chinese, they are not really focused on efficiency. Similarly, Skoda MQB cars are on the lighter side.

By the way, seeing Kodiaq is 7 seat capable, I'd class Enryaq/ID4 one size below.

As with all things, there's variation. Until an average is calculated across the market for different "classes", I don't think it is fair to continue the old thinking that EV are heavier, often repeated by poorly researched articles.

As I've shown back in 2023, there's lighter BEV and heavier ICE vehicles. Just as you can cherry pick your car to claim otherwise.

29 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The Skoda Enyaq is a small BEV SUV

No, the Skoda Enyaq is not a small SUV; it is a mid-size SUV with a focus on practicality and spaciousness, often compared to family-sized vehicles. It offers a generous cabin, especially in the back, and a large boot for its class. 

• Classified as a mid-size SUV:

  Multiple sources describe it as a mid-size or family-sized SUV, and it won the "Best Medium SUV" award at the 2024 Business Car Awards, according to Business Car. 

2. Spacious interior:

   The Enyaq is designed for family use, with ample legroom for rear passengers and enough width for three adults to sit comfortably in the back, notes Exchange & Mart and Carwow. 

4. Large boot:

   It has a substantial boot capacity of 585 liters, which can be expanded to 1,710 liters by folding down the rear seats, making it very practical for luggage and shopping. 

6. Platform and size:

   It shares a platform with the Volkswagen ID.4 but is larger, offering more interior space, says Parkers and Business Car. 

11 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Well, is it true or not that fossil fuel powered transport contributes a significant amount to climate change?

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/media_gstc/FACT_SHEET_Climate_Change.pdf

and

Restricting power would not increase range, the bigger the battery the easier it is to draw more power from it. Because it decreases C rating.

Range is never an issue as I'm sure many people actually driving EV can attest.

As previously mentioned, MEB cars are on the heavy side compared to American/French EV's, not sure about Chinese, they are not really focused on efficiency. Similarly, Skoda MQB cars are on the lighter side.

By the way, seeing Kodiaq is 7 seat capable, I'd class Enryaq/ID4 one size below.

As with all things, there's variation. Until an average is calculated across the market for different "classes", I don't think it is fair to continue the old thinking that EV are heavier, often repeated by poorly researched articles.

As I've shown back in 2023, there's lighter BEV and heavier ICE vehicles. Just as you can cherry pick your car to claim otherwise.

The Kodiaq is available in both 5 and 7 seat models, mine just happens to be a dedicated 5 seat, it is however as far as I can see, identical in size on Mk1 version like mine. When I was looking for replacement for the Superb, I tried a 7 seat version for size and there was no way of fitting my family of 6ft 4" sons in it for anything longer than a quick run into town shopping. The boot size was also poor as the extra 2 seat eat away at the space and in order to fit 7 people in it, the middle row have been moved forward.

The 5 seat model does not have that problem, it is on a par with the Superb for passenger space, but because you are sitting more upright, the overall length could be and has been shortened so it is smaller overall footprint on the road.

I'm not even to comment on the rest of your reply as I'm perfectly sure that time will clearly show that many of the claims being made to convince us of climate change is simply not true., so let time show us who was right.

3 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Oh dear, well now this is rather embarrassing, have either @wyx087 or @lol-lol actually checked their own stats I wonder, lets dissect it a bit shall we, might good for a laugh if nothing else, 😃

Me. Kodiaq 110kw TDI 4x4, DSG 5 seater

L 4697mm

W 2087mm

H 1660mm

KB 1709kg

Wyx087 Tesla Model Y LR

L 4790mm

W2129mm

H 1623mm

KB 1997kg

Lol-Lol Scenic

L4470mm

W 2085mm

H 1570mm

KB 1906kg

Given that @wyx087 seems to think that the Chelsea tractors are mostly to be seen with only 1 or 2 people in them, and the kerb weight of cars is given as the operating weight with 1 driver of around 75kg, the motive plant is full of all required liquids and in the case of ICE, fuel tank fuel to 90% which is really a more sensible figure rather than the GVW as that is how they are used most often.

Now lets look at the list presented 1 to 6.

1. Bigger danger to cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. How is this possible given the above.

2. Doing more road damage. Well, here the electric cars are indeed heavier than my diesel car, so do more road damage.

3. General worse emissions. Here based purely on tailpipe emissions, I have to concede, I'm the worst 😒

4. Oft near the edges, or over, the parking boxes they are suppose to fit in. Here all should fit in the normal bay which is 2.4m wide by 4.8m long, trouble is though that I expect the marked bays are often smaller than they should be.

5. Could be a good extra revenue raiser. Well based on the 3 examples, Tesla owners should be paying most of it.😂

6. Make traffic queues longer. this one is really stretching it a bit don't you think?

So in conclusion it would indeed seem that the EV car could very well be actually heavier than a big diesel SUV with 4x4 drive, transfer box and a heavy old DSG gearbox and also even bigger overall, who knew. 😉

I used to berate the Chelsea Tractors myself until I kind of joined them, but for the right reasons, I doubt that anybody can claim that a Kodiaq is a aspirational vehicle, unlike a Range Rover or a Mercedes Benz G Wagon, which can be north of a £100k.

The biggest problem with them is that if you are in a small car, especially a low slung sports car (which are themselves aspirational, Aston Martin, Ferreria, Porsche etc) then they can be very hard to see past, other wise, they are not large in reality as demonstrated above.

My Scenic is 1822 Kgs not 1906 Kgs.

Weighs the same amount or full of fuel if you had most of a tank I suspect weight would be almost identical.

Concern about SUVs is their high front ends in hitting pedestrians, cyclist etc I understand.

Also to try and get those diesels without the better two stage NOX reduction and whose real NOX is higher the 60 mg/km or even 80 mg/km. Whilst it is denied the level or cleanness of emissions is going to risey from Euro 6 I believe it is only a matter of time, ie 2028 or later, that the NOX emissions minimum standard will be raised to Euro 7 standards for London and other major cities if not an outright ban of diesels from cities during working hours at least.

Think you were looking at the large battery Scenic rather than my 60/65 kwh version.

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by lol-lol

Petrol vehicle from 2006 have the same NOx as 2020 diesels

A 2006 petrol engine has a Euro 4 standard with a maximum NOx emission of

0.08 g/km0.08 g/km

0.08 g/km

, while a 2020 diesel engine meets the Euro 6 standard, with a limit of

0.08 g/km0.08 g/km

0.08 g/km

for NOx,

so if they change the limit again they will exclude more petrol car too

Germany has reintroduced the EV grant system.

Not as generous as before and looking very much like the UK's EV Grant system.

Think it is for EVs of less than 45k Euros and is a €4k grant so basically the German government will still get a net tax receipt based on the VAT collection. Should help their ailing car industry though specifically on those smaller cars as well as for other EU car makers including Tesla Berlin.

Chinese cars being whacked with the massive EU AntiDumping tax. UK being targeted by Chinese such as a MG4 Long Range for £20k. Would not want one but that is cheap !

@lol-lol yes I was looking at the bigger one, I was too sure of which you had.

3 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

@lol-lol yes I was looking at the bigger one, I was too sure of which you had.

No, far too tight to pay the extra for the bigger battery and have just not needed it as the smaller battery still does 260 mile range and on the very unusual occasion I need a few more miles I just stop at one of the 90,000 odd chargers a get a few kwh just to get me home to the very cheap home charging.

Smaller battery versions are cheaper to buy, usually better dynamically due to the less weight, cheaper tyres etc.

4 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

Petrol vehicle from 2006 have the same NOx as 2020 diesels

A 2006 petrol engine has a Euro 4 standard with a maximum NOx emission of

0.08 g/km0.08 g/km

0.08 g/km

, while a 2020 diesel engine meets the Euro 6 standard, with a limit of

0.08 g/km0.08 g/km

0.08 g/km

for NOx,

so if they change the limit again they will exclude more petrol car too

Those are the Lab test results that car manufacturers made their cars perform within those limits.

Real world tests, in the lower temperatures range of air intake and surrounding temperatures, rain water being sprayed off the road hitting the casing of the catalytic convertor showed the lab results could be out a factors of several multiples.

Euro BIS abd Euro7 look to address the lab results against what tge emissions are in reality both at low higher ambient temperatures and high humidity and wet conditions and results of such tests are showing NOX as high as 6 and 7 times higher than than 60 for petrol and 80 mg/ km for diesel.

I think this will be much of the motivation to restrict or ban Euro6d abd below from cities ie the real world pollution of Euro6d and below is often nowhere near where it should be.

Diesels, petrol vehicles and hybrids will be not allowed unless it is a large battery PHEV than can use their electric drive and anyone use fossil fuel propulsion, detected by infrared cameras, will be fined substantially.

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by lol-lol

Lab results or not, that is all we have to go on, and its just the same with EV cars, you can't have it both ways, we all have to be using the same set of results or else any discussion is pointless.

Like in the case of the number of EV cars going into thermal runaway which everyone points out that ICE cars catch fire far more often, which anyone with half a brain knows that the figures being quoted are wrong, as the same figures keep being quoted every year and the chart that the figures are on does not alter at all. We know that is wrong as fire chiefs and depts around the world are all saying the same thing, they have not been identifying and recording what type of car fire they attend, they all get recorded as car fires. They are now beginning to develop system for the correct identification of the type of car and whether the batteries were in runaway mode or not.

It all brings into sharp focus just where the figures that are being quoted originated from, they certainly were not qualified firefighters that is for sure.

One thing we can all hope and prayer for is that because of better record keeping of the fire depts all over the world, that better methods of tackling batteries in runaway mode will emerge.

Edited 22 October, 202522 Oct by Graham Butcher

17 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

1. Large boot:

   It has a substantial boot capacity of 585 liters, which can be expanded to 1,710 liters by folding down the rear seats, making it very practical for luggage and shopping. 

The reason why I said that it was small SUV was because of what I call small boot size, the 5 seat Mk1 Kodiaq is supposed to hold 910 litres with the rear seats up and expands to 2105 litres when they are folded down.

14 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Like in the case of the number of EV cars going into thermal runaway which everyone points out that ICE cars catch fire far more often, which anyone with half a brain knows that the figures being quoted is wrong, as the same figures keep being quoted every year and the chart that the figures are on does not alter at all. We know that is wrong as all the fire chiefs and depts around the world are all saying the same thing, they have not been identifying and recording what type of car fire they attend, they all get recorded as car fires. They are now beginning to develop system for the correct identification of the type of car and whether the batteries were in runaway mode or not.

Let's refresh memories, "covered car park fire safety guidance for EV" was the report:

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/517208-car-park-fires-transporters-ships-any-fires-any-evs-involved-or-not-thread-were-they-the-cause-just-there-and-so-made-fighting-the-fire-harder/page/6/#findComment-5804476

The data on page 21 came from Thatcham Research and MIAFTR.

"

Thatcham Research, the UK motor insurers’ research centre, used the data from the Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud and Theft Register (MIAFTR) and their own data to categorise fire claims by vehicle fuel type, excluding claims relating to theft as they could be due to arson.

"

First, this number did not come from fire departments.

Second, previously you talked about Thatcham Research, where it supported your views, you claimed they were very reputable.

The number that kept being quoted is because that's the only stat available. Until you've got more reputable stats, casting doubt on reputable figures seems to have arterial motive.

Edited 22 October, 202522 Oct by wyx087

6 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Lab results or not, that is all we have to go on, and its just the same with EV cars, you can't have it both ways, we all have to be using the same set of results or else any discussion is pointless.

Like in the case of the number of EV cars going into thermal runaway which everyone points out that ICE cars catch fire far more often, which anyone with half a brain knows that the figures being quoted are wrong, as the same figures keep being quoted every year and the chart that the figures are on does not alter at all. We know that is wrong as fire chiefs and depts around the world are all saying the same thing, they have not been identifying and recording what type of car fire they attend, they all get recorded as car fires. They are now beginning to develop system for the correct identification of the type of car and whether the batteries were in runaway mode or not.

It all brings into sharp focus just where the figures that are being quoted originated from, they certainly were not qualified firefighters that is for sure.

One thing we can all hope and prayer for is that because of better record keeping of the fire depts all over the world, that better methods of tackling batteries in runaway mode will emerge.

Thankfully we are moving on and Euro6e BIS and Euro 7 use different conditions etc. I hope they retest many of these ICE cars that got Euro 6a to d certification of under 8p mg / km and their true levels of pollution are republished anfmd if they fail to meet the limits then they are restricted in where they can go. We saw lots if Euro 5 cars be sold off as they were not fit to enter city areas without paying fines and the same will happen to Euro 6 a to d cars that don't really pass the emissions test in the real world.

PHEV hybrids are being reclassified from the wildly exaggerated 500 mpg plus and 10 gm / km of CO2 to more like 50 gm / km and pay the VED and BIK tax levels at those higher levels. This comes in in t months time I gather.

Edited 22 October, 202522 Oct by lol-lol

I thought even ulez was only euro 4 for petrol and euro 6 for diesel.

So no need to sell euro 5 petrol (post 2006)

Euro 4 emissions standards (petrol)

CO: 1.0g/km
THC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

Euro 4 Diesel target was half of the co2 allowed for petrol but 3 x Nox