Whilst ICE cars languish with little to no improvement in their performance and running cost, in some cases going backwards like diesels with the adding of Ad Blu system in terms of cost, there is annoucements from CATL, the world's largest vehicle traction battery manufacturer and main supplier to TESLA for these batteries that they have further improved their energy density by a further 10% which should be launched in the next few months, model Y first.  In conjunction with the new TESLA model 3 ie the Highland version, the superiority in costs and performance of EVs over ICE should be further enhanced.   ( Just need to see this TESLA Highland be priced at sub £40K in the UK, in the US one can get one for close to £20k with subsidies)...

 

  

Improvements in energy density are a magic bullet. Either the battery becomes 10% lighter=more range or battery has 10% more power stored = more range. Personally I hope they use the improved energy density to lighten the vehicle, making it better overall rather than keep weight same and get 10% extra range. Improvements in packaging of the cells into a pack should also give weight savings. Hopefully this new technology will help produce smaller and lighter EVs. Efficiency improvements are where its at now.

Oh, imagine an e-UP or Mii with this battery tech, rather than the outdated batteries currently used! 

 

I hope we can find something like Moore's law applies to energy density in batteries.

Rumour is, the "Highland" Model 3 refresh is focused on manufacturing cost cutting, using similar gigacasting and structural battery approach as Texas Model Y. Considering the price drops recently, Tesla seems to be focused on market share and adoption of EV's, I think it is highly likely to end up in the £35-40k ballpark. Although probably not first few months after release. 

 

Remember, Tesla doesn't do options, only colour, wheels and 2 interior. Every trim level have same amount of very generous standard equipment: heated every seats, heated steering, elec mem front seats, all mirrors dimming, large info screen, pano roof, ACC, lane centering, parking cameras and pleather seats. 

Today's BMW 3 series starts from £39.6k. 

Trying to find Passat price on VW, it's no longer available to order?! 

Octavia "starts from" £25k, but that's without auto box and not much equipment. Spec it up from SE L with auto box, heated seats, ACC and elec seats, it gets to almost £35k. 

 

Even with current asking price of £41k, Model 3 isn't expensive compared to similar cars within its size segment, considering the equipment and performance. 

 

Still, would be nice to have a Zoe sized Model 2 (or whatever name) with hatchback for under £25k. Hopefully VW can deliver on their compact EV. 

 

 

 

Agree, Lucky. Efficiency is everything. Improve energy density, allows the car to be lighter, which in turn improves efficiency and thus range. 

 

I hugely dislike current trend of stuffing in bigger and bigger battery. The new Escalade EV has 200 kWh of battery!  I'd rather have a 50 kWh battery with 4.5 mi/kWh efficiency for 225 miles of range, than 75 kWh battery with just 3 mi/kWh efficiency for same range. The Model 3 RWD can easily achieve over 4 mi/kWh in most weathers from what I've seen. It's on the right track. 

1 hour ago, Luckypants said:

Improvements in energy density are a magic bullet. Either the battery becomes 10% lighter=more range or battery has 10% more power stored = more range. Personally I hope they use the improved energy density to lighten the vehicle, making it better overall rather than keep weight same and get 10% extra range. Improvements in packaging of the cells into a pack should also give weight savings. Hopefully this new technology will help produce smaller and lighter EVs. Efficiency improvements are where its at now.
Oh, imagine an e-UP or Mii with this battery tech, rather than the outdated batteries currently used!   I hope we can find something like Moore's law applies to energy density in batteries.

 

Not been in an UP,Mii (or Citigo) but you have to go along way to beat the Zoe in releasing what large battery packs in a small car ie the Zoe's massive 55 kW (real) battery pack is about half a ton and with seat adjustment up and down it very much emphasises you are in a vehicle with is built on top of a massive battery pack.

Cars designed with structural and blade battery packs can do more to shape the pack in to a more ergonomic design but one just accepts things move on.  Zoe is OK for a couple of hours driving but after that one is squirming to get comfortable ie to change one's sitting position rather than seize up in one single position.  Hope the Renault 5, 4 and Dacia Spring are better but I expect it will be a change to a Model 3 to get that long distance EV I really could do with.

     

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by lol-lol

My point was more the UP/Mii city car with modern tech batteries could be significantly more efficient due to weight savings. Owners regularly report 4.5-5 miles / kWh, maybe that would be pushed to 5-5.5 with lighter battery? This is a 150 mile range car, which is plenty for it's intended city / commuter use. There is no more room for batteries really, its an adapted ICE design after all. VAG claim they make no money on small cars and so are killing this off, but they've sold plenty with a waiting list. This car with a lighter battery of same capacity could end up a 200 mile car, better acceleration/braking and generally improved.

I'm saying development of this concept of small car/light battery would yield great results and would sell like hot cakes in Europe. 

As it is the Skoda Citigo iV (EV)  would have been selling like hotcakes if Skoda UK were not only allowed to import 400.

 

The New Small VW Group EV,s would sell like hotcakes if VW stopped bumping their gums about new tech and low prices and just produce the VW, SEAT, Skoda or Audi versions and sell them to the public.

'They need magic to happen and for them to some how conjure up some actual new tech & then sell cars at a loss.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by toot

That is the ideal price point to encourage more people to take up an EV for sure, trouble is however that small cars just do not suit everyone, certainly not for me. Nobody would be able to use the seat behind me as I'd need the drivers seat to be all the way back till it was touching the back seat, in order to drive it. And there is no way on earth I'd be able to get all weekly shopping for done for 4 people into that boot space, I'd have to make multiple trips, thus adding to the traffic congestion and also of course increased chances of be involved in an accident and of loosing my parking spot while out so much. And with such a small boot space, there is nowhere to put our steps when visiting military airfields etc.

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

For that sort of usage & good value there is the MG Estate car, as used by Taxi Drivers / Private hire / Airport Transport.

 

If you need bigger then there are Long Wheel Base EV's from Stellantis. 

But they have poor range sadly.

 

PS

When there are no cars suitable for your personal usage that run on battery power then you just accept they are not for you and wait a while or just ignore thoughts of EV's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by toot

6 hours ago, wyx087 said:

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/17/a-ship-carrying-electric-cars-is-on-fire-we-must-run-and-tell-the-king/

 

So the uncontrollable fire on the ship had nothing to do with EV's. 

You might want to reconsider your post and your statement, "So the uncontrollable fire on the ship had nothing to do with EV's. " When you watch this video from an actual real life motoring correspondent, and I'd be inclined to believe his expert knowledge over that of a German Politician as quoted in the article that you referred to.

 

Very often politicians resemble the main stream media in as much as they have a hidden agenda and will often twist the truth to suit that agenda.

 

In fact, I have seen that photo that is shown in the video before, I'm pretty sure that it has been posted here in this thread, and I was a bit concerned by it then, but was unable to work out why I was uncertain until this guy points it out. Strangely enough, I have since looked for that photo here, but it no longer seems to here, so maybe the poster has removed it?

 

Once again, before everyone dog piles me, I'm not saying that the fire was started by a EV, but that it certainly appears that EVs were involved in the fire and that would explain why the fire was able to ravage the entire length of the ship and why it was so difficult to put out (assuming the CO2 system was deployed).

 

All these answers should be revealed in the official report when it comes out, which is often a few years later. But for now it is looking like a massive whitewashing job and cover up job. When it was first announced, the amount of EVs was played down to 25, when in fact there were 498 and also, all the other brands of cars were able to provide details of their exposure to the fire but not VW, that seems to be odd.

 

I offer 2 videos for consideration, and I suggest you take them in the order listed for clarity.

 

 

 

"EV appeasing media".   2nd video.  

 

Well it will all come out in the wash.  So maybe better wait for the report. 

 

Maybe have a read of articles linked at the side of the article i linked in the last post of the previous page.

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by toot

Exactly, claiming that EVs started it or not are NOT actually helping their cause, but unless that photos was faked, they were in involved. The world's fire brigades as I posted before can see that there is a real problem which is not going to get any better, only get worse, as more and more EVs take to the road to the point where they are not the minority any more but become the majority and if nothing is done to improve their safety that a real massive problem is just waiting to happen.

9 minutes ago, toot said:

"EV appeasing media".   2nd video.  

 

Well it will all come out in the wash.  So maybe better wait for the report. 

Did you actually watch both videos right through?

I watched them when the bell rang in the corner of my youtube and before they were posted on here by me or someone else.

I link his vids all the time.

I am happy to listen to all sides on the negative and positives of EV,s because i have been interested for years now on them and on e-bikes.

Its one of those things, look at it from all angles and take journalists, spin doctors, politicians and anyone with a vested interest with a pinch of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl)

Then as to sea water and lithium batteries i will try to keep the 2 things well apart.

 

I do like an EV for use on flooded roads though and have waded through  great big puddles quite a lot.

Also driven the snowy roads that are gritted / salted. 

EV,s are good for such things.

 

 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by toot

56 minutes ago, toot said:

I watched them when the bell rang in the corner of my youtube and before they were posted on here by me or someone else.

I link his vids all the time.

I am happy to listen to all sides on the negative and positives of EV,s because i have been interested for years now on them and on e-bikes.

Its one of those things, look at it from all angles and take journalists, spin doctors, politicians and anyone with a vested interest with a pinch of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl)

Then as to sea water and lithium batteries i will try to keep the 2 things well apart.

 

I do like an EV for use on flooded roads though and have waded through  great big puddles quite a lot.

Also driven the snowy roads that are gritted / salted. 

EV,s are good for such things.

 

 

Excellent, a sane and savvy person who can see both sides of things and not get excited, well done. I do think that EVs have place and might well be the perfect answer for the future but have a long way to go yet. However I do not think that new ICE cars cannot can longer be sold from 2030 onwards is a good move. A better move might have been to put a ban on ICE cars over 2.5litres. Anyone wanting a performance car would need to look at EVs and the biggest polluters would be drastically reduced. 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

Personally i think Performance cars should be taxed off the roads on the UK.

 

Now with EV's and any new car even ICE,s the GPS can identify if on the public road and if exceeding 20% over the Speed Limit for the road it is on and NIP's could be sent automatically, as driving Fat / Wide Cars into congested areas, illegal parking etc. 

 

Speed limiters roadside would work well, but then ANPR goes not do its job properly.

If the cars were chipped or legally insured and tested cars had ID Stickers on Screens or registration plates they could be immobilised at Filling Station / Charging Hubs, car parks etc.

 

Big brother is coming and maybe in our lifetime. 

 

PS.

First the 'Noise Cameras'.  For reducing the 'Anti Social behaviour'.    Maybe the stupid Abarth EV would fail. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by toot

4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Excellent, a sane and savvy person who can see both sides of things and not get excited, well done. I do think that EVs have place and might well be the perfect answer for the future but have a long way to go yet. However I do not think that new ICE cars cannot can longer be sold from 2030 onwards is a good move. A better move might have been to put a ban on ICE cars over 2.5litres. Anyone wanting a performance car would need to look at EVs and the biggest polluters would be drastically reduced. 

 

Rosberg seniors lap of Silverstone averaging over 160 mpg was in a 1.5 litre car.

Have you seen what a 1.3 litre Mazda RX8 and other epitrochoid engine can do?I

 

With bikes we had horsepower limits is 100 kw, perhaps 150 kw, 200 horsepower is plenty.

 

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by lol-lol

5 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

However I do not think that new ICE cars cannot can longer be sold from 2030 onwards is a good move.

 

It won't happen, you can tell me I am wrong in 2030.

19 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Rosberg seniors lap of Silverstone averaging over 160 mpg was in a 1.5 litre car.

Have you seen what a 1.3 litre Mazda RX8 and other epitrochoid engine can do?I

 

With bikes we had horsepower limits is 100 kw, perhaps 150 kw, 200 horsepower is plenty.

 

To give some ideas of the great strides modern ICE engines have made over the years, my first ever car when I passed my driving test was a 1957 Hillman Minx of just 1390cc with a top speed of 77mph, a 0-60miles time of 25.4 secs, power output of 47HP and did just 26mpg, and I'd hate to think about the amount of pollution it and cars of the era were spewing from their tailpipes. Today I have a 2017 Skoda Superb, 1968cc top speed of 137mph and giving out 150HP, 0-62mph of 8.9 secs and gives up to 71mpg with a Euro 6 engine and all the time engines are getting more efficient and Euro 7 engines are now coming out, pushing the economy up even further and pollution levels down even lower with increased HP and torque outputs. Air quality has been vastly improved and there are exciting new developments being introduced all the time.

 

If we stopped destroying vast amounts of forests and actually planted more trees and plants and stopped tarmacing or concreting every bit of green spaces, left proper grass verges at roadsides etc along with the reduction of tailpipe emissions with modern cars, stopped making and selling cars with engines huge great engines (don't forget we have a national speed limit) we will go a long way to reverse the climate change surely?

16 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

It won't happen, you can tell me I am wrong in 2030.

I'd like to think that your right, maybe the powers to be will come to their senses and see that it looks like a bad move. I'm not anti EV but I cannot see that will solve the climate crisis, its IMV just moving the pollution away from the tail pipe and concentrating it elsewhere.

7 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

You might want to reconsider your post and your statement, "So the uncontrollable fire on the ship had nothing to do with EV's. " When you watch this video from an actual real life motoring correspondent, and I'd be inclined to believe his expert knowledge over that of a German Politician as quoted in the article that you referred to.

*sigh* I thought you said:

  

13 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

I'll wait for the official report to confirm the actual cause.

 

Whatever you feel, whatever you want to say about this incident, I'm done. I'm just going to leave it for the outcome of the investigation report.

 

 

But I get the feeling you've prep'd the floor for a narrative that suits your view point. Whatever, this is currently neither incorrect fact or myth, not worth my time.

7 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

But for now it is looking like a massive whitewashing job and cover up job. When it was first announced, the amount of EVs was played down to 25, when in fact there were 498 and also, all the other brands of cars were able to provide details of their exposure to the fire but not VW, that seems to be odd.

 

7 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

 I'm not anti EV but I cannot see that will solve the climate crisis, its IMV just moving the pollution away from the tail pipe and concentrating it elsewhere.

This is only true if you recharge solely use a fossil fuel powered grid.

 

Again, I refer you to many sources:

 

US EPA:  https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

Quote

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.

• FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.

  
  Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/

 

MIT the university: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

Quote

although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

 

IEEE: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2659316104

Titled:   Why EVs Aren't a Climate Change Panacea  

Unless people change their behaviors, we won't hit 2050 net zero emissions targets

 

This IEEE Spectrum article somewhat echoes your view that it will not solve climate crisis. But it effectively says one of primary reason is the slow adoption speed.

Quote

There are two major reasons for this: first, EVs are not going to reach the numbers required by 2050 to hit their needed contribution to net zero goals, and even if they did, a host of other personal, social and economic activities must be modified to reach the total net zero mark.

The rest of article goes into the second reason, for example, emissions in other sectors (not transport, which is kind of off-topic IMO) and EV manufacturing supply chain concerns.

 

There are many similar balanced articles in IET E&T magazine.

For example this issue is especially talking about EV's:

https://eandt.theiet.org/tags/volume-17-issue-9

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

*sigh* I thought you said:

  

 

Whatever you feel, whatever you want to say about this incident, I'm done. I'm just going to leave it for the outcome of the investigation report.

 

 

But I get the feeling you've prep'd the floor for a narrative that suits your view point. Whatever, this is currently neither incorrect fact or myth, not worth my time.

 

So are you now saying that you never said this

wyx087

• 
• Members
• •  1.6k
• Location: N London
• Model: Tesla Model Y LR EV; Nissan Leaf 24kWh EV
•  

Posted 14 hours ago

  Quote

After inspecting the damaged ship, he told the local press that between 900 and 1000 of the cars on board appear to be in good condition — including all 498 electric cars.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/17/a-ship-carrying-electric-cars-is-on-fire-we-must-run-and-tell-the-king/

 

So the uncontrollable fire on the ship had nothing to do with EV's. 

•  
• Quote
• All I'm doing is correcting the misinformation you were posting about it. As mentioned in the videos, unless that photo is a fake, that photo proves that your statement was incorrect, the car shown is a Porsche Taycan, a 100% EV car. If you watched and listened to the videos and also read what I wrote, there is claim anywhere that EV car was the cause, that is yet to be determined, but it is an undeniable fact that EV cars were involved in the fire, they were not all on another level of that ship and 100% untouched by the fire, which is what you are implying. 

This is what you claimed that you were doing to my posts, but nowhere did I ever say that the fire started by an EV, I just said the involvement of EV in the fire made putting the fire out impossible, don't me that you still don't think that they were involved.😣

38 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

*sigh* I thought you said:

  

 

Whatever you feel, whatever you want to say about this incident, I'm done. I'm just going to leave it for the outcome of the investigation report.

 

 

But I get the feeling you've prep'd the floor for a narrative that suits your view point. Whatever, this is currently neither incorrect fact or myth, not worth my time.

 

@wyx087Look, if you are not even going to consider anything said about EV's that does not agree with your viewpoint then I'm done with this discussion with you, its already dragged Colin into this and I'm sure there are other members getting a bit fed up with the tooing and froing, lets agree to disagree, thats it I'm all done, over and out.

Edited 18 August, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

15 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

So are you now saying that you never said this

wyx087

• 
• Members
• •  1.6k
• Location: N London
• Model: Tesla Model Y LR EV; Nissan Leaf 24kWh EV
•  

 

Posted 14 hours ago

  Quote

After inspecting the damaged ship, he told the local press that between 900 and 1000 of the cars on board appear to be in good condition — including all 498 electric cars.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/17/a-ship-carrying-electric-cars-is-on-fire-we-must-run-and-tell-the-king/

 

So the uncontrollable fire on the ship had nothing to do with EV's. 

•  
• Quote
• All I'm doing is correcting the misinformation you were posting about it. As mentioned in the videos, unless that photo is a fake, that photo proves that your statement was incorrect, the car shown is a Porsche Taycan, a 100% EV car. If you watched and listened to the videos and also read what I wrote, there is claim anywhere that EV car was the cause, that is yet to be determined, but it is an undeniable fact that EV cars were involved in the fire, they were not all on another level of that ship and 100% untouched by the fire, which is what you are implying. 

This is what you claimed that you were doing to my posts, but nowhere did I ever say that the fire started by an EV, I just said the involvement of EV in the fire made putting the fire out impossible, don't me that you still don't think that they were involved.😣

I said what I said based on the evidence that I thought was new evidence.
 

It may not be new evidence, if so, I apologise. 
 

However, your latest post (quoted) did not present any new evidence what so ever. Again, you use internet speculation as facts. And trying to identify cars using photos of burnt remains? Playing detectives are we?

 

I implore you to wait for official reports. 
 

10 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

@wyx087Look, if you are not even going to consider anything said about EV's that does not agree with your viewpoint then I'm done with this discussion with you, its already dragged Colin into this and I'm sure there are other members getting a bit fed up with the tooing and froing, lets agree to disagree, thats it I'm all done, over and out.

Where have I ignored actual factual evidence? 
 

I have repeatedly ignored your speculations, that’s for sure. If you feel that is wrong approach to a factual discussion, I’m sorry for you. 

54 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

To give some ideas of the great strides modern ICE engines have made over the years, my first ever car when I passed my driving test was a 1957 Hillman Minx of just 1390cc with a top speed of 77mph, a 0-60miles time of 25.4 secs, power output of 47HP and did just 26mpg, and I'd hate to think about the amount of pollution it and cars of the era were spewing from their tailpipes. Today I have a 2017 Skoda Superb, 1968cc top speed of 137mph and giving out 150HP, 0-62mph of 8.9 secs and gives up to 71mpg with a Euro 6 engine and all the time engines are getting more efficient and Euro 7 engines are now coming out, pushing the economy up even further and pollution levels down even lower with increased HP and torque outputs. Air quality has been vastly improved and there are exciting new developments being introduced all the time.

 

If we stopped destroying vast amounts of forests and actually planted more trees and plants and stopped tarmacing or concreting every bit of green spaces, left proper grass verges at roadsides etc along with the reduction of tailpipe emissions with modern cars, stopped making and selling cars with engines huge great engines (don't forget we have a national speed limit) we will go a long way to reverse the climate change surely?

 

 

It is more about NOX and THC (and PMs) the concentration is now.  Extract from the UK VCADATA 2017

https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=aug2017

 

Manufacturer	Model	Description	Transmission	Engine Capacity	Fuel Type	Emissions NOx [mg/km]	THC + NOx Emissions [mg/km]	Particulates [No.] [mg/km]
SKODA	Superb Saloon	2.0 TDI 150PS DSG Stop-Start SE	D6	1968	Diesel	62	83	0.03
SKODA	Superb Saloon	1.4 TSI ACT 150PS DSG Stop-Start SE	D6	1395	Petrol	37