How road relevant is F1 REALLY?

[m***@gmail.com]

Serious question.

It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars is more alleged than actually happening.

In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab conditions?

And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least 6. Where is it?

KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening anyway.

The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).

The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from cold in your drive way every morning.

The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself that they were full of it for charging all this money to their customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if there are R&D benefits.

Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula? Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs through supply deals.

[bra]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:28:48 PM UTC-8, ***@gmail.com wrote:


How road relevant is F1?

or NASCAR?
or USAC sprints and supermodifieds?
or Pro Stock drag racing?
or RAC Sporting Trials?
or FIM sidecars?
or Legends and Rebels?

I don't know about their road-relevance, but I'm gratified that that they're all here and flourishing. How about you?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by bra
How road relevant is F1?
or NASCAR?
or USAC sprints and supermodifieds?
or Pro Stock drag racing?
or RAC Sporting Trials?
or FIM sidecars?
or Legends and Rebels?
I don't know about their road-relevance, but I'm gratified that that they're all here and flourishing. How about you?

Oh, I enjoy having them around. I am not saying that because they have little relevance to regular production cars they should be done away with.

[larkim]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.
It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars is more alleged than actually happening.
In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least 6. Where is it?
KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening anyway.
The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).
The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from cold in your drive way every morning.
The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself that they were full of it for charging all this money to their customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if there are R&D benefits.
Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula? Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs through supply deals.

When was F1 last really road relevant anyway? The marketing is clearly
relevant, but even that is straining things a little if you look at
Renault for example - who really correlates the Renault Clio with their
F1 involvement? And Honda??

Merc can at least draw a line from their cars through their high performance
models down to their more basic ones, ditto Ferrari.

In terms of the tech, perhaps this is just one of those experimental phases
where F1 tries stuff to see if it can be cascaded down the line, but having
tried it, it isn't seeing the cascade effect happening so new avenues need
to be tried?

It seems utterly inevitable today that the world is moving away from oil-
based vehicles and moving towards wholly electric for road cars, so I'd
suggest the F1 road link from a PU perspective is almost completely broken
and will not be restored. Formula E is where the road relevance will come
from eventually.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by larkim
When was F1 last really road relevant anyway?

Flappy paddles. Maybe.

Post by larkim
The marketing is clearly
relevant, but even that is straining things a little if you look at
Renault for example - who really correlates the Renault Clio with their
F1 involvement? And Honda??

Sure. And if you're not IN F1, you get no marketing FROM F1.

Post by larkim
Merc can at least draw a line from their cars through their high performance
models down to their more basic ones, ditto Ferrari.
In terms of the tech, perhaps this is just one of those experimental phases
where F1 tries stuff to see if it can be cascaded down the line, but having
tried it, it isn't seeing the cascade effect happening so new avenues need
to be tried?

If that's F1's aim. I'm starting to think that the supposed cascade from motor sports down to road cars is just that - supposed. Audi's use of Le Mans was interesting - they didn't use it to drive development but more to validate and publicise what they already had.

Post by larkim
It seems utterly inevitable today that the world is moving away from oil-
based vehicles and moving towards wholly electric for road cars, so I'd
suggest the F1 road link from a PU perspective is almost completely broken
and will not be restored. Formula E is where the road relevance will come
from eventually.

Yes. I'm saying that the link wasn't ever there. Others might say it's going to be broken real soon. Either way we end up in the same place, and I think that everybody needs to stop imagining that F1 is some sort of crucible in which road cars are forged.

Larkim mentioned drag racing, and that thrives and there's nobody wondering about whether or not nitro breathing 10 liter V8s will end up in commuter cars. Indy car has said that it doesn't pretend to be road relevant but is trying to come up with a formula that will give good racing.

[~misfit~]

Post by larkim

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.
It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars
is more alleged than actually happening.
In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal
efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did
achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in
race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant
speed in lab conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing
for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for
at least 6. Where is it?
KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have
impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a
transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening
anyway.
The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in
the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product
named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the
only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and
it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).
The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of
technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race
conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and
recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road
cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from
cold in your drive way every morning.
The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself
that they were full of it for charging all this money to their
customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if
there are R&D benefits.
Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula?
Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into
something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep
this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs
through supply deals.

When was F1 last really road relevant anyway? The marketing is clearly
relevant, but even that is straining things a little if you look at
Renault for example - who really correlates the Renault Clio with their
F1 involvement? And Honda??
Merc can at least draw a line from their cars through their high performance
models down to their more basic ones, ditto Ferrari.

Indeed. The Mercedes Project One is near the start of that line;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-AMG_Project_One
Mercedes have commited to it though it's still in late development.

Post by larkim
In terms of the tech, perhaps this is just one of those experimental phases
where F1 tries stuff to see if it can be cascaded down the line, but having
tried it, it isn't seeing the cascade effect happening so new avenues need
to be tried?
It seems utterly inevitable today that the world is moving away from oil-
based vehicles and moving towards wholly electric for road cars, so I'd
suggest the F1 road link from a PU perspective is almost completely broken
and will not be restored. Formula E is where the road relevance will come
from eventually.

I think that cars with an ICE will still be useful for rural travelling for
quite some time yet. Likely hybrid cars with the ICE as a 'range extender'
for the electrics.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by larkim
Merc can at least draw a line from their cars through their high performance
models down to their more basic ones, ditto Ferrari.

The Merc sort of proves the point. It's only a prototype, they still have problems to solve around legality (notably emissions) and Merc have already pegged the engine life at 50 000 Km.

[Willsy]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.
It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars is more alleged than actually happening.
In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least 6. Where is it?
KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening anyway.
The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).
The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from cold in your drive way every morning.
The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself that they were full of it for charging all this money to their customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if there are R&D benefits.
Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula? Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs through supply deals.

It seems Formula E (good ding-dong last weekend in Hong Kong) is more
of a technology incubator for road cars than F1. At least at the moment,
with the world focused more on electric power. However, one could quite
legitimately argue that Formula E is benefiting from the (now legacy)
technology that F1 developed. And they'd have a valid point.

Formula 1s contribution to regular road-car technology has been massive
over the years. There's no doubt. Anti skid, traction control, active
suspension, and more latterly electrically assisted engines, kinetic
energy recovery, etc.

I do think it has begun to cool off though in recent years. Formula 1 is
now more concerned with aero than drive train in the hunt for the magical
tenth of a second.

However, Formula E is firmly focused on power, inverter, and drive-train
efficiencies. All the major motor car manufacturers are involved in it,
with a view to introducing the technology into road cars.

Next season, Formula E cars will be able to complete a race on a single
charge; no more car hopping.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Willsy
Formula 1s contribution to regular road-car technology has been massive
over the years. There's no doubt. Anti skid, traction control, active
suspension, and more latterly electrically assisted engines, kinetic
energy recovery, etc.

Toyota had active suspension road cars in the 80s - and they hadn't been spending time in F1. Stability control was pioneered by Merc, BMW and Toyota in the late 80s. Mitsubishi came to the party in 1990. No F1 involvement there - unless the likes of Bosch bought the tech from an F1 team (whilst I can remember active suspension F1 cars in the 80s, I don't remember skid control).

This is the thing: We think F1 breeds all these systems, but dig around a little and we see manufacturers who weren't in F1 launching these systems. BMW have a very good, very fast hybrid car. Did they race hybrids in any series (that's an honest question. They certainly didn't race hybrids in F1, indeed they left F1 because it didn't offer them a test bed for tech that would transfer to their road cars).

Audi is an interesting study. Did they use Le Mans to pioneer their systems or to publicise them?

The flappy paddle seems likely to have trickled down from F1 into high end cars - but not the whole concept of semi-auto transmissions. The flappy paddle was a good way to allow the driver to shift in such a system.

Post by Willsy
I do think it has begun to cool off though in recent years. Formula 1 is
now more concerned with aero than drive train in the hunt for the magical
tenth of a second.
However, Formula E is firmly focused on power, inverter, and drive-train
efficiencies. All the major motor car manufacturers are involved in it,
with a view to introducing the technology into road cars.
Next season, Formula E cars will be able to complete a race on a single
charge; no more car hopping.

Yes. I haven't paid a lot of attention, but it's an interesting series with, as you say, a lot of interest now from the manufacturers.

[geoff]

Post by Willsy

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.
It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars is more alleged than actually happening.
In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least 6. Where is it?
KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening anyway.
The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).
The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from cold in your drive way every morning.
The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself that they were full of it for charging all this money to their customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if there are R&D benefits.
Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula? Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs through supply deals.

It seems Formula E (good ding-dong last weekend in Hong Kong) is more
of a technology incubator for road cars than F1. At least at the moment,
with the world focused more on electric power. However, one could quite
legitimately argue that Formula E is benefiting from the (now legacy)
technology that F1 developed. And they'd have a valid point.
Formula 1s contribution to regular road-car technology has been massive
over the years. There's no doubt. Anti skid, traction control, active
suspension, and more latterly electrically assisted engines, kinetic
energy recovery, etc.
I do think it has begun to cool off though in recent years. Formula 1 is
now more concerned with aero than drive train in the hunt for the magical
tenth of a second.
However, Formula E is firmly focused on power, inverter, and drive-train
efficiencies. All the major motor car manufacturers are involved in it,
with a view to introducing the technology into road cars.
Next season, Formula E cars will be able to complete a race on a single
charge; no more car hopping.

I see a gaping hole there with the concept, for racing and street alike,
of replaceable plug-in charged battery packs. Yes, high current and
electrical contacts, but for the street it reduces the problem of
restricted and 'final' range.

geoff

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by geoff
I see a gaping hole

Between your boyfriend's ass cheeks.

[Phil Carmody]

Post by geoff
I see a gaping hole there with the concept, for racing and street
alike, of replaceable plug-in charged battery packs. Yes, high
current and electrical contacts, but for the street it reduces the
problem of restricted and 'final' range.

I'm pretty sure I saw a program about an ?Israeli company which was
developing a swappable battery pack for EVs. Kinda like a
carwash-cum-rolling-road-come-pit - drive in, drive over, and then
some robotic things diddles with your underside. All over in 3
minutes. Mechanically, a very sound idea. There were objections, but
all were easily overcome through a simple and lightweight (and
automatic) administrative overhead (basically to tally how much charge
you had taken, and how much you were returning, etc.) That was about 5
years ago, but I've not heard anything about it since. I guess people
are hooked on their plugs.

Phil

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Phil Carmody

Post by geoff
I see a gaping hole there with the concept, for racing and street
alike, of replaceable plug-in charged battery packs. Yes, high
current and electrical contacts, but for the street it reduces the
problem of restricted and 'final' range.

I'm pretty sure I saw a program about an ?Israeli company which was
developing a swappable battery pack for EVs. Kinda like a
carwash-cum-rolling-road-come-pit - drive in, drive over, and then
some robotic things diddles with your underside. All over in 3
minutes. Mechanically, a very sound idea. There were objections, but
all were easily overcome through a simple and lightweight (and
automatic) administrative overhead (basically to tally how much charge
you had taken, and how much you were returning, etc.) That was about 5
years ago, but I've not heard anything about it since. I guess people
are hooked on their plugs.

In June 2013 Tesla announced that every Model 3 already sold had the ability to have the battery pack swapped in about 90 seconds by an automated system.

As far as I know they've never deployed this widely due to owners thinking "ewww .. I don't want to get someone else's abused battery pack ... I'd rather spend 30 minutes waiting in a cafe".

[geoff]

Post by Bruce Hoult
In June 2013 Tesla announced that every Model 3 already sold had the
ability to have the battery pack swapped in about 90 seconds by an
automated system.
http://youtu.be/aZU0wnpyhF8
As far as I know they've never deployed this widely due to owners
thinking "ewww .. I don't want to get someone else's abused battery
pack ... I'd rather spend 30 minutes waiting in a cafe".

I'm sure with smart batteries these days amount of charge, attainable
rates, and battery condition could all be things easily taken into
account in the costing of each battery swap, in both directions
(swap-in, swap-out).

geoff

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
In June 2013 Tesla announced that every Model 3 already sold had the
ability to have the battery pack swapped in about 90 seconds by an
automated system.
http://youtu.be/aZU0wnpyhF8
As far as I know they've never deployed this widely due to owners
thinking "ewww .. I don't want to get someone else's abused battery
pack ... I'd rather spend 30 minutes waiting in a cafe".

I'm sure with smart batteries these days amount of charge, attainable
rates, and battery condition could all be things easily taken into
account in the costing of each battery swap, in both directions
(swap-in, swap-out).

They did all that. People just didn't seem to want to actually do it.

[Darryl Johnson]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
In June 2013 Tesla announced that every Model 3 already sold had the
ability to have the battery pack swapped in about 90 seconds by an
automated system.
http://youtu.be/aZU0wnpyhF8
As far as I know they've never deployed this widely due to owners
thinking "ewww .. I don't want to get someone else's abused battery
pack ... I'd rather spend 30 minutes waiting in a cafe".

I'm sure with smart batteries these days amount of charge, attainable
rates, and battery condition could all be things easily taken into
account in the costing of each battery swap, in both directions
(swap-in, swap-out).

They did all that. People just didn't seem to want to actually do it.

There was an opinion piece at some auto-related site -- I forget now
which it was -- in which the author suggested that what electric
vehicles needed to make them more attractive to drivers was a
standardized battery which could fit any vehicle, much like a standard
"C" or "D" cell fits flashlights. As well, the author suggested that
there needed to be a universal attachment method, so that a driver
could go to a battery exchange office, have the car lifted, the
battery replaced and the car lowered again within a few minutes.
Perhaps slightly longer than a fill-up at the gas/diesel pumps, but
much shorter than the time at one of the current recharging stations.

As I recall, the author didn't hold out much hope that this was going
to happen.

[~misfit~]

Post by Darryl Johnson

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
In June 2013 Tesla announced that every Model 3 already sold had
the ability to have the battery pack swapped in about 90 seconds
by an automated system.
http://youtu.be/aZU0wnpyhF8
As far as I know they've never deployed this widely due to owners
thinking "ewww .. I don't want to get someone else's abused battery
pack ... I'd rather spend 30 minutes waiting in a cafe".

I'm sure with smart batteries these days amount of charge,
attainable rates, and battery condition could all be things easily
taken into account in the costing of each battery swap, in both
directions (swap-in, swap-out).

They did all that. People just didn't seem to want to actually do it.

There was an opinion piece at some auto-related site -- I forget now
which it was -- in which the author suggested that what electric
vehicles needed to make them more attractive to drivers was a
standardized battery which could fit any vehicle, much like a standard
"C" or "D" cell fits flashlights.

You're behind the times. These days it's an 18650 cell that fits flashlights
(and most EVs). ;-)

I have four here that take them - the headlamp takes two as it's powerful
enough to use to facilitate mowing the lawn (45 minutes+ on 'high' setting)
in the middle of the night.

Post by Darryl Johnson
As well, the author suggested that
there needed to be a universal attachment method, so that a driver
could go to a battery exchange office, have the car lifted, the
battery replaced and the car lowered again within a few minutes.
Perhaps slightly longer than a fill-up at the gas/diesel pumps, but
much shorter than the time at one of the current recharging stations.
As I recall, the author didn't hold out much hope that this was going
to happen.

With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the cell /
battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device. Also it's one of the
most expensive parts of the whole. So I can see why there'd be a reluctance
on the part of the responsible owner to get any old battery pack. It would
discourage best practices and encourage 'thrashing it' (within the
parameters of the control electronics or even via hacks).

The only way I could see it working is if the sale of the vehicle didn't
include a battery pack, instead the owner gets charged a flat annual fee
(plus energy used) to 'hire' batteries. Purchase of a new vehicle could
include x years battery hire.

[Geoff]

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the cell /
battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at least
log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge or discharge).

geoff

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the cell /
battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at least
log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.

For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a multi-hour stop for a recharge? If you're going to a resort somewhere in the Cape then you can double that distance. Even the Kruger Park is going to take a recharge.

So that's where a quick change facility might come in handy. Swap 'em out whilst the family has a pee. And you don't want to have to look around for a facility that has the batteries for your car.

The usual MO here for e-cars is that you don't own the batteries. You own the car, but rent the batteries. So the cost of regular swap outs is easily built into the deal. There is an option to OWN the batteries, but what do you do with the old ones?

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the cell /
battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at least
log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.

A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

There aren't currently any such Tesla recharging stations in South Africa but in New Zealand there are already stations in Hamilton and Taupo, which is pretty much exactly what most owners would need to get quickly from almost anywhere to anywhere in the North Island. (I'd argue for Matamata rather than Hamilton, but whatever). They say Whangarei, Auckland, Taihape, Sanson, Wellington, Christchurch, Geraldine, Omarama are coming soon. That will put every home in NZ within 350 km of a Supercharger station, and I'm guessing 99% within 150 km.

https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/New%20Zealand

Australia already has a lot, and more coming. I haven't analysed the distances there :-)

https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/australia

[geoff]

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more,

And how many cars can be charged concurrently at existing charge stations ?

geoff

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more,

And how many cars can be charged concurrently at existing charge stations ?

The one in Taupo has 4 bays, and I think Hamilton too. That's approximately the same as the number of Tesla cars in NZ.

The standard control unit can manage up to 16 charging bays. Of course they could put more than one control unit somewhere if necessary. I don't know what is normal at sites in the USA.

I would expect Tesla to monitor use and install capacity as needed. They're not stupid.

If you're not aware, the software predicts your arrival time at the next charging station (presumably no worse than Google maps does, which is to say within a couple of minutes on a 300 km drive) and reserves it for you.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Bruce Hoult
If you're not aware, the software predicts your arrival time at the next charging station (presumably no worse than Google maps does, which is to say within a couple of minutes on a 300 km drive) and reserves it for you.

Whoa! I'm liking this more and more.

[geoff]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30
minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop
after 275 km .. or more,

And how many cars can be charged concurrently at existing charge stations ?

The one in Taupo has 4 bays, and I think Hamilton too. That's
approximately the same as the number of Tesla cars in NZ.
The standard control unit can manage up to 16 charging bays. Of
course they could put more than one control unit somewhere if
necessary. I don't know what is normal at sites in the USA.
I would expect Tesla to monitor use and install capacity as needed. They're not stupid.
If you're not aware, the software predicts your arrival time at the
next charging station (presumably no worse than Google maps does,
which is to say within a couple of minutes on a 300 km drive) and
reserves it for you.

Sorry if somebody (Misfit ?) already said, but Tesla's power pack
apparently has something like 7000-odd 18650 AAish size lithium cells.
Same as consumer electronics, laptops, etc.

You'd think they would have come up with something a little more
specific for the purpose ... ?

geoff

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
If you're not aware, the software predicts your arrival time at the
next charging station (presumably no worse than Google maps does,
which is to say within a couple of minutes on a 300 km drive) and
reserves it for you.

Sorry if somebody (Misfit ?) already said, but Tesla's power pack
apparently has something like 7000-odd 18650 AAish size lithium cells.
Same as consumer electronics, laptops, etc.
You'd think they would have come up with something a little more
specific for the purpose ... ?

Tesla also make stand alone battery packs for use in buildings with solar panels and inverters.

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by geoff

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30
minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop
after 275 km .. or more,

And how many cars can be charged concurrently at existing charge stations ?

The one in Taupo has 4 bays, and I think Hamilton too. That's
approximately the same as the number of Tesla cars in NZ.
The standard control unit can manage up to 16 charging bays. Of
course they could put more than one control unit somewhere if
necessary. I don't know what is normal at sites in the USA.
I would expect Tesla to monitor use and install capacity as needed. They're not stupid.
If you're not aware, the software predicts your arrival time at the
next charging station (presumably no worse than Google maps does,
which is to say within a couple of minutes on a 300 km drive) and
reserves it for you.

Sorry if somebody (Misfit ?) already said, but Tesla's power pack
apparently has something like 7000-odd 18650 AAish size lithium cells.
Same as consumer electronics, laptops, etc.
You'd think they would have come up with something a little more
specific for the purpose ... ?
geoff

18650s are great cells and seem to be the sweet-spot for current Li-Ion
tech. An AA cell is ~14500, quite a bit smaller, maybe half the internal
capacity. The first two digits are diameter in millimetres with the next two
being length in mm. The zero is there for shits and giggles.

Formula 1 battery packs also use 18650 cells. They are arranged in
sub-assembly modules of perhaps 10 or 12 cells - as is Teslas pack. It's not
just a thousand of the things all soldered together.

[geoff]

Post by ~misfit~
Formula 1 battery packs also use 18650 cells. They are arranged in
sub-assembly modules of perhaps 10 or 12 cells - as is Teslas pack. It's not
just a thousand of the things all soldered together.

Naa, but a thousand (or 7000 for that matter) of the things in groups of
12 soldered together sounds not much less whacky !

Presumably Li-ion cells do not scale well to physically larger cells
with higher capacity each ?

geoff

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

Yep. There are lots of stops around the halfway mark. Facilities with petrol pumps, rest rooms and decent places to eat. If you can recharge that quickly, then, yes, it's not so bad.

Of course, one would miss the manly thrill of finding your car has a whole lot more oomph as you drop down the escarpment towards sea level (and into regions where the petrol has more octanes - and costs less). This might help you get less tickets, of course.

This seems to be less pronounced now than I recall it, maybe because the ECUs compensate better. But it's still there.

Post by Bruce Hoult
There aren't currently any such Tesla recharging stations in South Africa but in New Zealand there are already stations in Hamilton and Taupo, which is pretty much exactly what most owners would need to get quickly from almost anywhere to anywhere in the North Island. (I'd argue for Matamata rather than Hamilton, but whatever). They say Whangarei, Auckland, Taihape, Sanson, Wellington, Christchurch, Geraldine, Omarama are coming soon. That will put every home in NZ within 350 km of a Supercharger station, and I'm guessing 99% within 150 km.
https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/New%20Zealand
Australia already has a lot, and more coming. I haven't analysed the distances there :-)
https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/australia

Thanks.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.

Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

[News]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

Typical ICE/hybrid break points: 5 minute fill after 400 +/- miles, 30
minute meal break at next fill or destination, 600-800 miles...

[Alan Baker]

Post by News

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

Typical ICE/hybrid break points: 5 minute fill after 400 +/- miles, 30
minute meal break at next fill or destination, 600-800 miles...

For me personally 400 miles with just a 5 minute fill stop would be a
bit much. 400 miles is something like 6 hours driving, and for me,
that's a meal break at the very least.

:-)

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by News

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

Typical ICE/hybrid break points: 5 minute fill after 400 +/- miles, 30
minute meal break at next fill or destination, 600-800 miles...

For me personally 400 miles with just a 5 minute fill stop would be a
bit much. 400 miles is something like 6 hours driving, and for me,
that's a meal break at the very least.
:-)

As recently as 2002 I would motorcycle the 900 km to my parent's home with one maybe 15 minute refuel/pee/drink/eat a burger stop. But I was only 39 then. I haven't tried it recently. Five to seven hours (450 - 650 km?) in a comfy car without stopping at all is ok, though. As long as the roads are interesting.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Alan Baker

Post by News

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

Typical ICE/hybrid break points: 5 minute fill after 400 +/- miles, 30
minute meal break at next fill or destination, 600-800 miles...

For me personally 400 miles with just a 5 minute fill stop would be a
bit much. 400 miles is something like 6 hours driving, and for me,
that's a meal break at the very least.
:-)

As recently as 2002 I would motorcycle the 900 km to my parent's home with one maybe 15 minute refuel/pee/drink/eat a burger stop. But I was only 39 then. I haven't tried it recently. Five to seven hours (450 - 650 km?) in a comfy car without stopping at all is ok, though. As long as the roads are interesting.

Oh, I agree that one can drive for that long without stopping. I've done
it when it was necessary; thankfully, not often.

But to drive that far and then just get a 5 minute break before setting
off again...

Not for me, that's certain.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the
cell / battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at
least log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge
or discharge).
geoff

Yep. Even new smart phones do that now. That problem's solvable.
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some
scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK
for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than
remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road
between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this
time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a
multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

There are not many parts of the world where 300 km is two hours driving!! In New Zealand and the populated parts of Australia, 300 km is probably going to take between 3:20 and 3:45.

Plus, in those parts where you can do 300 km in two hours, you're probably burning your whole battery capacity in that 300 km, instead of only 60% of it.

[geoff]

On 9/12/2017 8:57 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
)

Post by Alan Baker
I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

For once I agree with you !

geoff

[bra]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

For once I agree with you !
geoff

Must be age, but I am def ready for a break after "only" two hours, if only to dash behind a tree. Three hours freeway driving and I am no longer fit for human company, though it depends on the car and the seats. I guess I'd better not move to Oz.

[geoff]

Post by bra

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

For once I agree with you !
geoff

Must be age, but I am def ready for a break after "only" two hours, if only to dash behind a tree. Three hours freeway driving and I am no longer fit for human company, though it depends on the car and the seats. I guess I'd better not move to Oz.

A break for sure. But a 30 minute break that has to be at the charging
station location.

In my regular 450km drive I usually stop twice - once for a coffee (or
lunch depending on time), and again for petrol. But neither for more
than 15 minutes.


geoff

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by bra

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to
stop for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

For once I agree with you !
geoff

Must be age, but I am def ready for a break after "only" two hours,
if only to dash behind a tree. Three hours freeway driving and I am
no longer fit for human company, though it depends on the car and
the seats. I guess I'd better not move to Oz.

A break for sure. But a 30 minute break that has to be at the charging
station location.
In my regular 450km drive I usually stop twice - once for a coffee (or
lunch depending on time), and again for petrol. But neither for more
than 15 minutes.
geoff

... and we can't go changing how we do things just to save the fucking
planet!!!

;-)

[geoff]

Post by ~misfit~

geoff

... and we can't go changing how we do things just to save the fucking
planet!!!
;-)

As I suggested, plug-in trade battery packs. Just like BBQ gas botles,
but smarter.

geoff

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

275km is unlikely to be 2 hours driving. You'd be averaging better than 75 mph. If you turn straight onto the freeway and it's flowing OK and not slowed down through any urban areas AND the limit is sufficiently high, then maybe.

That distance is just under half way on a trip from the house I grew up in Durban to where I now live in Johannesburg, and more like 3 hours driving than 2 - assuming optimal conditions. I'd be ready for a break.

This also sounds to me like the sort of stuff carried over from the days when I was young and men were men. In my youth we used to think nothing of driving from Jo'burg to Durban and back over a weekend. Sure, you'd have to stop somewhere, but usually it was a fill up and a cup of coffee in some rural backwater (and they didn't all have 24 hour gas stations).*

Effectively we spent Friday night driving down and Sunday afternoon driving back for a piss up and maybe a swim at the beach on Saturday. Looking back, it was crazy.

These days there's a lot more bypasses, which means higher speeds, and a lot more traffic and it gets silly. Rest up! The better routes and the better facilities, close to the freeway and with decent rest areas, mean you're not much inconvenienced for time. It's safer.




* an amusing little anecdote from the apartheid era. One weekend I found myself leaving Durban on the early side. I decided to take some rural back roads, figuring that the scenery would be more attractive and at least a change. Somewhere near Tugela Ferry I head nature calling, so I stopped at a petrol station in some god-forsaken place on the map that was basically a cross roads with a petrol pump and a trading store. Once the car was filled, I asked the pump attendant if there was a toilet I could use.

He said "no", and it seemed to me he was finding some schadenfreude in the situation. He went on to explain that all the toilets at this filling station were reserved for non-whites, and thus off limits to me. I should drive up the road and relieve myself behind a convenient tree and clean up with whatever I could find, or hang on until the town of Pomeroy (IIRC) where there was a police station with white officers and thus a toilet that I could legally use, if the police gave consent.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute
charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km
.. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you
don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip.
(Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop for
30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

275km is unlikely to be 2 hours driving. You'd be averaging better than 75 mph

132.5 km/h. More than *85* mph.

Highest speed limits:

100 km/h New Zealand
110 km/h Australia, except NT and WA?
113 km/h (70 mph) USA California, Oregon, almost all east of the Mississippi
120 km/h (75 mph) South Africa, most of the rest of USA

Averaging over 130 kn/h / 85 mph would be really pushing it in most places.

[Edmund]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30
minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop
after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and
don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down
during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit
anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

275km is unlikely to be 2 hours driving. You'd be averaging better than 75 mph

132.5 km/h. More than *85* mph.
100 km/h New Zealand 110 km/h Australia, except NT and WA?
113 km/h (70 mph) USA California, Oregon, almost all east of the
Mississippi 120 km/h (75 mph) South Africa, most of the rest of USA
Averaging over 130 kn/h / 85 mph would be really pushing it in most places.

And then we have Germany, guess what?
NO Speed limit :-)

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edmund

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30
minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop
after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and
don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down
during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit
anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

275km is unlikely to be 2 hours driving. You'd be averaging better than 75 mph

132.5 km/h. More than *85* mph.
100 km/h New Zealand 110 km/h Australia, except NT and WA?
113 km/h (70 mph) USA California, Oregon, almost all east of the
Mississippi 120 km/h (75 mph) South Africa, most of the rest of USA
Averaging over 130 kn/h / 85 mph would be really pushing it in most places.

And then we have Germany, guess what?
NO Speed limit :-)

No national limit, you mean. Limits are set at a regional level and many freeways are speed limited. In reality, the unlimited roads are some of those that are multi-lane motorways with a solid center divide, and each local authority has the right to set limits.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Edmund

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bruce Hoult
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30
minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop
after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and
don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down
during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit
anyway)

I'm sorry, but no.
Most people who need to travel long distances are NOT ready to stop
for 30 minutes after a only little more than 2 hours driving.

275km is unlikely to be 2 hours driving. You'd be averaging better than 75 mph

132.5 km/h. More than *85* mph.
100 km/h New Zealand 110 km/h Australia, except NT and WA?
113 km/h (70 mph) USA California, Oregon, almost all east of the
Mississippi 120 km/h (75 mph) South Africa, most of the rest of USA
Averaging over 130 kn/h / 85 mph would be really pushing it in most places.

And then we have Germany, guess what?
NO Speed limit :-)

Yeah, and you're completely out of battery before 275 km at 250 km/h.

[bra]

Post by m***@gmail.com
* an amusing little anecdote from the apartheid era.

My own favorite apartheid-era tale (I was never in SA) is from the jazz piano master Chris McGregor. From the Transkei, Chris went to study music at the U. of Cape Town, also jamming in the townships with local musicians like Dudu Pukwana and Johnny Dyani etc. McGregor commandeered the university's practice rooms for his ad hoc jazz band to rehearse at night. But black people were not allowed to just come in and 'play' there, so McGregor told security that he was a teacher and Pukwana/Ibrahim/Dyani et al were his music students he was teaching in evening courses; the was allowed!

One of the greatest bands that grew out of that era was Brotherhood of Breath, later settled in Europe/UK.

[geoff]

Post by m***@gmail.com
* an amusing little anecdote from the apartheid era. One weekend I
found myself leaving Durban on the early side. I decided to take some
rural back roads, figuring that the scenery would be more attractive
and at least a change. Somewhere near Tugela Ferry I head nature
calling, so I stopped at a petrol station in some god-forsaken place
on the map that was basically a cross roads with a petrol pump and a
trading store. Once the car was filled, I asked the pump attendant if
there was a toilet I could use.
He said "no", and it seemed to me he was finding some schadenfreude
in the situation. He went on to explain that all the toilets at this
filling station were reserved for non-whites, and thus off limits to
me. I should drive up the road and relieve myself behind a convenient
tree and clean up with whatever I could find, or hang on until the
town of Pomeroy (IIRC) where there was a police station with white
officers and thus a toilet that I could legally use, if the police
gave consent.

You could have said that it would be OK cos you poo was brown ! (Just
lilke your blood red, grey matter ummm grey, bones white, teeth
white(ish), etc just like everybody else.

But you might have got in trouble.

geoff

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com
For me the thing with electric cars is that they work well in some scenarios. For families in my neck of the woods, they would be OK for commuting and shopping (if you went to the office, rather than remote sites), but a PITA when you want to go on holiday. The road between Jo'burg and Durban is getting busy with holiday makers this time of year, and the trip is in the 600km ballpark - who wants a multi-hour stop for a recharge?

But it's not that bad.
A Tesla "Supercharger" station gives 275 km of range from a 30 minute charge. Most people are ready for a 30 minute rest stop after 275 km .. or more, if you start with 500 km of range and don't mind if you don't fully restore that and slowly run down during the trip. (Charging to "full" take longer for the last bit anyway)

I saw a BMW i3 this afternoon. This piqued my curiosity.

There are only 2 full electric offerings in SA - BMW and Nissan. And the two companies are collaborating on the recharging front. The fast charge stations that we do have will charge either brand - there is enough commonality in the electronics and the connectors.

There are stations. I could easily do my work commute to Centurion and back. If the traffic was bad and I had to spend a long time on the road, there's a station about half way and just off the freeway.

The figures given for recharging at these stations are 24 minutes for the BMW I3 and "under 30 minutes" for the Nissan Leaf.

Services are trivial - brake fluid, maybe pads, and the filters for the aircon. Because the cars use a KERS like regenerative system, the actual brake pads are not heavily loaded, so the service intervals get pushed way out.

Estimates are that about 500 fully electric vehicles have been sold here, mostly around Johannesburg.

I couldn't go on holiday in such a vehicle today, but round the city they are very viable. And if they can extend the charging network they come into play for long runs.

[bra]

Post by m***@gmail.com
So that's where a quick change facility might come in handy. Swap 'em out whilst the family has a pee.

I wonder how long the hardware / contacts would last, if a complete battery-swap were a daily or even twice-weekly chore?

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by bra

Post by m***@gmail.com
So that's where a quick change facility might come in handy. Swap 'em out whilst the family has a pee.

I wonder how long the hardware / contacts would last, if a complete battery-swap were a daily or even twice-weekly chore?

I'm sure they can be made arbitrarily durable, if it's anticipated they need to be.

After all, the usual recharging connector gets that kind of treatment, and carries a similar (if not greater) current.

[geoff]

Post by bra

Post by m***@gmail.com
So that's where a quick change facility might come in handy. Swap 'em out whilst the family has a pee.

I wonder how long the hardware / contacts would last, if a complete battery-swap were a daily or even twice-weekly chore?

A design condiseration. And presumably not changing batteries under
a heavy load situation !

geoff

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by bra

Post by m***@gmail.com
So that's where a quick change facility might come in handy. Swap
'em out whilst the family has a pee.

I wonder how long the hardware / contacts would last, if a complete
battery-swap were a daily or even twice-weekly chore?

A design condiseration. And presumably not changing batteries under
a heavy load situation !
geoff

Yep shouldn't be too difficult - yet Formula E used it as an excuse to
change the whole car halfway through a race rather than a battery pack. Roll
on next season.

[~misfit~]

Post by Geoff

Post by ~misfit~
With most things that run on Li-Ion cells it's the care of the cell /
battery pack that dictates the longevity of the device.

But these days the battery pack could manage that itself, or at least
log and put a value on the amount and type of usage (charge or
discharge).
geoff

Which is why a sentence or two later I said "within the
parameters of the control electronics".

My 10 year old Thinkpad logs the battery usage, who made the cells, when it
was manufactured, when it was first used, how many times it's been cycled
and the maximum temperature it's run at as well as design parameters and
current parameters.

[jtees4]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.
It seems to me that the transfer of technology from F1 to road cars is more alleged than actually happening.
In the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency. It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for 5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least 6. Where is it?
KERS/MGU-K? Companies who have not involved themselves in F1 have impressive hybrid and even full electric products. That's not a transfer from F1 (or Le Mans) to production cars - it was happening anyway.
The Williams flywheel? It turns out that's not the only player in the game. Volvo have developed such a solution. There was a product named Gyrobus in the 50s. Williams have a good solution, but not the only one. Again, this was something that was happening anyway - and it wasn't much use in F1 (though it was in a Le Mans winning car).
The reality is that the current F1 PU needs a large team of technicians just for starting up, and is designed around race conditions where a driver is on the throttle as much as possible and recovers energy from heavy, violent braking. That's not how road cars are driven. That's not the sort of thing you want to start from cold in your drive way every morning.
The problem is for the PU manufacturers. I used to say to myself that they were full of it for charging all this money to their customers when they reap the R&D benefits, but now I'm wondering if there are R&D benefits.
Is this why there's resistance to the proposed new PU formula? Because manufacturers have sunk large amounts of money into something that may not give them an ROI? At least if they can keep this formula going - even with a freeze - they can recover costs through supply deals.

I think in the long term a lot of F1 ideas do end up in road
cars....it just does not happen quickly.

[John]

F1 hasn't been real world relevant for decades. Even the hypercars that claim to be "F1 Tech" aren't. Which is a good thing because real cars have to work in the real world.

[Edmund]

Post by m***@gmail.com
n the current instance we have claims of remarkable thermal efficiency.
It seems that in a controlled test, a Merc F1 PU did achieve very
impressive efficiency. But what do we know? Was this in race conditions
with a driver giving it full welly, or at a constant speed in lab
conditions?
And where is the MGU-H on road cars? We've seen this tech in racing for
5 years now, so the manufacturers have been playing with it for at least
6. Where is it?

I don't know how relevant F1 is in terms of transition to road cars.
What I do know is that car companies are VERY conservative, I call them
straight old fashioned.
There are so many things that could have been implemented decades ago yet
not a single car manufacturer have done that.
I am a little hesitating to tell here that even I did not work for a car
manufacturer, “we” -my colleagues and I- discussed what is now called MGUH
some 40 years ago during lunch.
Just because we realized there is a lot of energy wasted through the exhaust
pipe. Car manufacturers are not castrated by regulations of old fashioned
elderly but they still act as if they are. Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?
Maybe it is easier just to bribe politicians and governments and get some
efficiency rating which has no resemblance to the real world but it sells cars.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edmund
I don't know how relevant F1 is in terms of transition to road cars.
What I do know is that car companies are VERY conservative, I call them
straight old fashioned.
There are so many things that could have been implemented decades ago yet
not a single car manufacturer have done that.
I am a little hesitating to tell here that even I did not work for a car
manufacturer, “we” -my colleagues and I- discussed what is now called MGUH
some 40 years ago during lunch.

I would guess that the general idea of the MGU-H has been understood for some years. It's making it efficient that's always the challenge.

In the application we're discussing, the MGU-H has to switch from being a generator to being a motor and to do very quickly. And it has to be neatly packaged (for weight distribution and aero considerations) and be able to operate a high temperatures.

Post by Edmund
Just because we realized there is a lot of energy wasted through the exhaust
pipe. Car manufacturers are not castrated by regulations of old fashioned
elderly but they still act as if they are. Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?
Maybe it is easier just to bribe politicians and governments and get some
efficiency rating which has no resemblance to the real world but it sells cars.

This is not unusual. Bill Gates said that when people imagine progress as a graph, they get it wrong. They overestimate what they will do in the short term, so the graph goes a lot less steeply at first, then, later than you'd imagined, rockets upwards.

Also Musk has had the advantage of no history. He hasn't had to service old models, hasn't had to think about the plants that he has around the world that are making engine blocks.

Meanwhile, just in case nobody has noticed, the Prius has been around a long time now, BMW have a high performance hybrid AND a full electric car. Nissan have a full electric. Several supercar manufacturers are using hybrid tech. Audi won Le Mans with a hybrid diesel, Volvo have announced that from 2018 every new car they launch will be either hybrid or full electric. The first F1 win for a car running KERS was nearly a decade ago (Hamilton was driving, which is why you might not remember). And that's off the top of my head. These can't be the only such examples. And some of those predate Musk's Teslas.

The industry has not stood still. They can't necessarily move as fast as Musk has, because they have a lot of investment in their current model line, but they are moving. Look how many of them are involved in Formula E.

[Edmund]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
I don't know how relevant F1 is in terms of transition to road cars.
What I do know is that car companies are VERY conservative, I call them
straight old fashioned.
There are so many things that could have been implemented decades ago
yet not a single car manufacturer have done that.
I am a little hesitating to tell here that even I did not work for a
car manufacturer, “we” -my colleagues and I- discussed what is now
called MGUH some 40 years ago during lunch.

I would guess that the general idea of the MGU-H has been understood for
some years. It's making it efficient that's always the challenge.

Even if it isn't perfectly efficient it still can make a huge difference
in overall efficiency.

Post by m***@gmail.com
In the application we're discussing, the MGU-H has to switch from being
a generator to being a motor and to do very quickly.

An electric motor and dynamo is basically the same thing so that should not
be a problem and there is no compelling reason for such a thing ( switching
from generator to motor ) in a road car.

And it has to be

Post by m***@gmail.com
neatly packaged (for weight distribution and aero considerations) and be
able to operate a high temperatures.

Not for a road car and cars on the road don't have stupid regulations that
make things unnecessarily stupid like in F1.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Just because we realized there is a lot of energy wasted through the
exhaust pipe. Car manufacturers are not castrated by regulations of old
fashioned elderly but they still act as if they are. Look at Elon Musk,
one man alone not even involved in the car industry singlehanded
changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the car
companies follow, how about that? Maybe it is easier just to bribe
politicians and governments and get some efficiency rating which has no
resemblance to the real world but it sells cars.

This is not unusual. Bill Gates said that when people imagine progress
as a graph, they get it wrong. They overestimate what they will do in
the short term, so the graph goes a lot less steeply at first, then,
later than you'd imagined, rockets upwards.
Also Musk has had the advantage of no history. He hasn't had to service
old models, hasn't had to think about the plants that he has around the
world that are making engine blocks.

I don't see how that hinders a car factory for designing an electric car.
It seems that it doesn't because now after Musk they all start designing
electric cars.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Meanwhile, just in case nobody has noticed, the Prius has been around a
long time now,

Which isn't all that efficient and has no MGUH.

Post by m***@gmail.com
BMW have a high performance hybrid

Which is about as efficient as a 50 year old petrol car which have done
about a million miles.

Post by m***@gmail.com
AND a full electric car. Nissan have a full electric. Several supercar
manufacturers are using hybrid tech. Audi won Le Mans with a hybrid diesel,
Volvo have announced that from 2018 every new car they launch will be
either hybrid or full electric.
The first F1 win for a car running KERS was nearly a
decade ago (Hamilton was driving, which is why you might not remember).
And that's off the top of my head. These can't be the only such
examples. And some of those predate Musk's Teslas.
The industry has not stood still. They can't necessarily move as fast as
Musk has, because they have a lot of investment in their current model
line, but they are moving. Look how many of them are involved in Formula
E.

Le Mans is good, although I don't know the regulations AFAIK the engineers
have a lot of freedom to do their job. I would like to get it more attention
here. Formula E, I don't know what to say about that, I think it is very useful
but to be honest I like the old fashioned engine noise :-)

Edmund

[geoff]

Post by Edmund
Edmund

I hear that Honda have some Good Shit ....

geoff

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by geoff

Post by Edmund
Edmund

I hear that Honda have some Good Shit ....
geoff

What's with you and 'shit'?

[geoff]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by geoff

Post by Edmund
Edmund

I hear that Honda have some Good Shit ....
geoff

What's with you and 'shit'?

It makes me think of you and your hobby.

geoff

[Naked Fame]

Post by Edmund
Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,
and though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Edmund
Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,
and though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

What kind of 7 seater can you buy new for 10000 euro? New to YOU, ok.

The car industry is of course the industry of making *new* cars. Musk has changed that a lot. Before Tesla electric cars were low performance short range undesirable pieces of crap. Musk has changed electric cars from "Ewww ... you wouldn't catch me dead in that!" to "Lovely .. but I can't afford it". *Every* major car manufacturer is now introducing attractive and practical electric cars.

The Model S has cost something similar to Audi or BMW cars. Those cars do have markets. And it competes pretty well against them.

The Model 3 has only just gone on sale (to people who preordered it some times ago), but it's at a price well into Camry or Mazda 6 territory.

I appreciate that you only want to spend $10k on a car. Me too. I've never in my life spent more than US$10k on a car -- and never less than seven years old. My current car was 15 years old (but with only 100000 km) when I bought it.

That's fine. I'll think about buying a used Model 3 in 2024 or 2025 or so -- maybe a little later as they aren't in volume supply yet and the early ones will hold their prices.

[Naked Fame]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Edmund
Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,
and though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

What kind of 7 seater can you buy new for 10000 euro?

Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive 7-seater
that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
New to YOU, ok.

Ok, my native language is not English, but for me "new" means the same
as "not second hand". You know, unused, shiny, with a new MP3 player,
that's to me: New!

Post by Bruce Hoult
The car industry is of course the industry of making *new* cars. Musk
has changed that a lot. Before Tesla electric cars were low
performance short range undesirable pieces of crap.

Just as I consider electric cars today. Really expensive, no range. Tell
me the price of the cheapest electric seven-seater, please. Or even a
six-seater, which would actually be enough.

Post by Bruce Hoult
Musk has changed
electric cars from "Ewww ... you wouldn't catch me dead in that!" to
"Lovely .. but I can't afford it". *Every* major car manufacturer is
now introducing attractive and practical electric cars.

They're not practical to me as long as they cost 3-5 times of what my
car, that I bought in February, costs, and don't get 6 seats or a 800 km
driving distance. I live in the North of a Nordic country where there
are no gas stations next to each other and where winter temperatures
easily go down to -35 degrees Celsius.

I used to have a Nissan. It started at -28 C after a night out in 2014.
Barely, mind you, but it started. I have zero confidence in electrical
cars. From what I've learned -28 C is really bad for batteries - in my
Nissan it tried to kill the start motor battery. Now imagine a full
electric car. Imagine how many kWh would be needed to heat up the car
in that temperature. It has been bad enough with modern low-consumption
gas guzzlers, but a car that uses all electricity and no real heat? Not
in my country, please.

Post by Bruce Hoult
The Model S has cost something similar to Audi or BMW cars. Those cars
do have markets. And it competes pretty well against them.

Audi? BMW? Why not compare to sales figures of Ferrari? Or Infinity? Or
Mussolini?

Post by Bruce Hoult
That's fine. I'll think about buying a used Model 3 in 2024 or 2025 or
so -- maybe a little later as they aren't in volume supply yet and the
early ones will hold their prices.

And your maximum safe driving distance in -20C will be right out of your
garage in to your street. With good luck.


I'm not trolling you. I just have zero confidence in electric cars in
zubzero temperatures - and for good reason, as far as I see.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Edmund
Look at Elon Musk, one man alone
not even involved in the car industry singlehanded changed the whole car
industry and only now AFTER Musk the car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,
and though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

What kind of 7 seater can you buy new for 10000 euro?

Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive 7-seater
that I happen to need with my extended family.

OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Bruce Hoult
The car industry is of course the industry of making *new* cars. Musk
has changed that a lot. Before Tesla electric cars were low
performance short range undesirable pieces of crap.

Just as I consider electric cars today. Really expensive, no range. Tell
me the price of the cheapest electric seven-seater, please. Or even a
six-seater, which would actually be enough.

They're very expensive now, because they are NEW TECHNOLOGY. Which the Lodgy is not.

They will come down in time.

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Bruce Hoult
Musk has changed
electric cars from "Ewww ... you wouldn't catch me dead in that!" to
"Lovely .. but I can't afford it". *Every* major car manufacturer is
now introducing attractive and practical electric cars.

They're not practical to me as long as they cost 3-5 times of what my
car, that I bought in February, costs, and don't get 6 seats or a 800 km
driving distance.

They're not practical for me either. I'll stick with my 20 year old Subaru that uses 2000 euro of fuel a year for a while yet. It does the job for me extremely well (including towing some big things) and there is absolutely no point in spending the same as 30 years of fuel to get a car that doesn't use fuel.

However you and I are not the entire car market. Some people, unaccountably, have money to throw away on a new BMW or Audi every two or three years. Tesla fits them perfectly.

Post by Naked Fame
I live in the North of a Nordic country where there
are no gas stations next to each other and where winter temperatures
easily go down to -35 degrees Celsius.
I used to have a Nissan. It started at -28 C after a night out in 2014.
Barely, mind you, but it started. I have zero confidence in electrical
cars. From what I've learned -28 C is really bad for batteries - in my
Nissan it tried to kill the start motor battery. Now imagine a full
electric car. Imagine how many kWh would be needed to heat up the car
in that temperature. It has been bad enough with modern low-consumption
gas guzzlers, but a car that uses all electricity and no real heat? Not
in my country, please.

A higher percentage of cars on the road in Norway are Tesla than in any other place, including California.

Plug in electric cars were 42% of new cars sold in Norway in June, and 48.8% in September.

The September figures were 6524 cars, of which 3850 were pure battery electric, and 2674 were plug-in hybrids. Of the 3850 pure electric cars, 1007 were Tesla Model S and 996 were Tesla Model X.

https://insideevs.com/norway-tesla-ev-sales-september-2017/

I don't know which Nordic country you live in, but the one that gives the region its name doesn't appear to be afraid of electric cars not working in the cold.

p.s. we had -28 in two different weeks here in January this year. It's not -35 but it's kinda chilly.

[Naked Fame]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive 7-seater
that I happen to need with my extended family.

OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is indeed a
little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty impressive price
if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

Reference:
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the requirements
get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT comparable over the
years. This is something safety rating guys and manufacturers of old car
models don't like to advertise, but there you are.

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Just as I consider electric cars today. Really expensive, no range. Tell
me the price of the cheapest electric seven-seater, please. Or even a
six-seater, which would actually be enough.

They're very expensive now, because they are NEW TECHNOLOGY. Which the Lodgy is not.
They will come down in time.

Sometimes new technology comes down in time. But what if the only
reason it's selling is subsidiaries and other artificial respiration?
The moment subsidaries end, so does the unsustainable technology. Except
if the insane is made mandatory by equally insane governments that don't
have the best interest of the people in mind, but some other ideological
or financial priorities. With electric cars, only time will tell, but to
me it doesn't look very good.

Post by Bruce Hoult
They're not practical for me either. I'll stick with my 20 year old
Subaru that uses 2000 euro of fuel a year for a while yet.

FYI: If your Subaru was retested today, it'd almost certainly get zero
(0) safety stars, see above.

Post by Bruce Hoult
However you and I are not the entire car market. Some people,
unaccountably, have money to throw away on a new BMW or Audi every two
or three years. Tesla fits them perfectly.

Yes, and let them spend their money. Just don't push their ways down my
throat. I have more places to spend my hard-earned money on than in a
car built upon inherently inefficient technology.

Post by Bruce Hoult
A higher percentage of cars on the road in Norway are Tesla than in
any other place, including California.

Do you know why?

Endless oil money.

Norway doesn't have national debt. They paid it out some ten years ago,
just like that, like it was change. They have more oil money they can
spend, and have invested tons of it wordwide.

Norway imports people to work there, because Norwegians don't need nor
want to work anymore. They have all the money they'll need for the next
two centuries even without doing anything. They can spend their money
just as they want.

The only thing they can't do is build decent roads. I've once driven to
Skibotn. There was a very interesting sign there... I'm paraphrasing but
it want something like:
- OSLO 3000 km
- OSLO (through Sweden) 1900 km

Also, I'd like to note that the 3000 km road, the one through Norway,
isn't even open the whole year. So, Norwegians are to me really not the
people to teach mobility by car. What does the car range matter if your
roads close down during the winter?

Post by Bruce Hoult
I don't know which Nordic country you live in, but the one that gives
the region its name doesn't appear to be afraid of electric cars not
working in the cold.

Yeah, I'm in the country two times to the right, which doesn't happen
to have all the money of the world. But, all of our roads, even the
small and crappy ones, are open 365 days every year.

[Bigbird]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the requirements
get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT comparable over
the years. This is something safety rating guys and manufacturers of
old car models don't like to advertise, but there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.

"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It’s the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver’s seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall rating.
The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that don’t take
cheap and simple safety tech seriously."

Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

[~misfit~]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005.
At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5
stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys and
manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but there
you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It's the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall rating.
The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that don't take
cheap and simple safety tech seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have the turn
signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the headlights are on or the
sun is low in the sky (especially but not only if it's behind the car
indicating) they might as well not be there. Function doesn't just take a
back seat to form (and the price of wiring looms) - it's not even considered
other than legality.

My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front bumper a
reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of the headlight and
another on the front guard just above the wheel arch (both have LED lamps
fitted that are at least twice as bright as the incandescant lamps they
replaced and far more noticable due to the instant on/off as opposed to fade
in / fade out). There's no uncertainty of which way I'm going at an
intersection like there is with most newer cars.

I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd like to see
data as to how many accidents are or might be caused by the lack of
visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

[Bigbird]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in
2005. At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago
it got 5 stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a
retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys
and manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but
there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It's the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall
rating. The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that
don't take cheap and simple safety tech seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have the
turn signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the headlights
are on or the sun is low in the sky (especially but not only if it's
behind the car indicating) they might as well not be there. Function
doesn't just take a back seat to form (and the price of wiring looms)
- it's not even considered other than legality.
My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front bumper
a reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of the headlight
and another on the front guard just above the wheel arch (both have
LED lamps fitted that are at least twice as bright as the
incandescant lamps they replaced and far more noticable due to the
instant on/off as opposed to fade in / fade out). There's no
uncertainty of which way I'm going at an intersection like there is
with most newer cars.
I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd like
to see data as to how many accidents are or might be caused by the
lack of visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

The problem being not only that you might not see a turn signal but
that, because siganals are less obvious false positives are more
common. Orange bulbs behind clear or white lenses, especially as the
colour deteriorates are quitely simply inferior to clear bulbs behind
an orange lens, especially in daylight. Add your point about the
relative illumination to surrounding (led) lights and that those lights
change significantly with viewing angle...

It's not all new cars but it is a growing number which simply
contradicts the notion that cars are getting safer.

There's an analogy to the Halo here. My problem with those that wanted
the Halo was that it had not been tested/analysed whether accidents
were more likely.

Surviving a crash is one ting... not having a crash is preferable.

[~misfit~]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in
2005. At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago
it got 5 stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a
retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys
and manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but
there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It's the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall
rating. The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that
don't take cheap and simple safety tech seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have the
turn signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the headlights
are on or the sun is low in the sky (especially but not only if it's
behind the car indicating) they might as well not be there. Function
doesn't just take a back seat to form (and the price of wiring looms)
- it's not even considered other than legality.
My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front bumper
a reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of the headlight
and another on the front guard just above the wheel arch (both have
LED lamps fitted that are at least twice as bright as the
incandescant lamps they replaced and far more noticable due to the
instant on/off as opposed to fade in / fade out). There's no
uncertainty of which way I'm going at an intersection like there is
with most newer cars.
I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd like
to see data as to how many accidents are or might be caused by the
lack of visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

The problem being not only that you might not see a turn signal but
that, because siganals are less obvious false positives are more
common. Orange bulbs behind clear or white lenses, especially as the
colour deteriorates are quitely simply inferior to clear bulbs behind
an orange lens, especially in daylight.

I'm using orange LEDs (Gallium Arsenide Phosphide, around 610nm) behind the
original orange lenses and it makes for very intense orange colour - very
noticable and very not-white and not-red.

Post by Naked Fame
Add your point about the
relative illumination to surrounding (led) lights and that those
lights change significantly with viewing angle...

Very much so.

Post by Naked Fame
It's not all new cars but it is a growing number which simply
contradicts the notion that cars are getting safer.

Far too many. There are a lot of roundabouts in the town where I live and I
end up erring on the side of caution, giving way if I can't be sure if the
indicator's going or not. That doesn't make for flowing traffic though.

Post by Naked Fame
There's an analogy to the Halo here. My problem with those that wanted
the Halo was that it had not been tested/analysed whether accidents
were more likely.
Surviving a crash is one ting... not having a crash is preferable.

That's always been my point. My car has no airbags and no side intrusion
bars but it's also not driven by a distracted barely-capable driver. I check
that all of the lights are working correctly regularly, check tyre pressures
fortnightly and test the brakes at the end of my street as I'm leaving and
then every chance I get (when there's nobody behind and I have to slow down
etc.).

My car is far safer than 90% of the cars on the road and it's over 30 years
old.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
My car is far safer than 90% of the cars on the road and it's over 30 years
old.

But it has a loose nut behind the steering wheel.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Naked Fame

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in
2005. At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago
it got 5 stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a
retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys
and manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but
there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It's the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall
rating. The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that
don't take cheap and simple safety tech seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have the
turn signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the headlights
are on or the sun is low in the sky (especially but not only if it's
behind the car indicating) they might as well not be there. Function
doesn't just take a back seat to form (and the price of wiring looms)
- it's not even considered other than legality.
My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front bumper
a reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of the headlight
and another on the front guard just above the wheel arch (both have
LED lamps fitted that are at least twice as bright as the
incandescant lamps they replaced and far more noticable due to the
instant on/off as opposed to fade in / fade out). There's no
uncertainty of which way I'm going at an intersection like there is
with most newer cars.
I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd like
to see data as to how many accidents are or might be caused by the
lack of visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

The problem being not only that you might not see a turn signal but
that, because siganals are less obvious false positives are more
common. Orange bulbs behind clear or white lenses, especially as the
colour deteriorates are quitely simply inferior to clear bulbs behind
an orange lens, especially in daylight.

I'm using orange LEDs (Gallium Arsenide Phosphide, around 610nm) behind the
original orange lenses and it makes for very intense orange colour - very
noticable and very not-white and not-red.

Post by Naked Fame
Add your point about the
relative illumination to surrounding (led) lights and that those
lights change significantly with viewing angle...

Very much so.

Post by Naked Fame
It's not all new cars but it is a growing number which simply
contradicts the notion that cars are getting safer.

Far too many. There are a lot of roundabouts in the town where I live and I
end up erring on the side of caution, giving way if I can't be sure if the
indicator's going or not. That doesn't make for flowing traffic though.

Post by Naked Fame
There's an analogy to the Halo here. My problem with those that wanted
the Halo was that it had not been tested/analysed whether accidents
were more likely.
Surviving a crash is one ting... not having a crash is preferable.

That's always been my point. My car has no airbags and no side intrusion
bars but it's also not driven by a distracted barely-capable driver. I check
that all of the lights are working correctly regularly, check tyre pressures
fortnightly and test the brakes at the end of my street as I'm leaving and
then every chance I get (when there's nobody behind and I have to slow down
etc.).
My car is far safer than 90% of the cars on the road and it's over 30 years
old.

It's not. Or all the cars on your roads are very old. Most modern vehicles come with ABS, ESP and airbags and lots of other passive safety features.

You're being alert and prudent, which are good, but you're not as safe, let alone safer. If a big truck hits you head on, you're a lot less safe than you'd be in a modern vehicle with airbags, with a strong passenger cell and etc.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Naked Fame

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in
2005. At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago
it got 5 stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a
retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys
and manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but
there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it protects
drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident. It's the lack of
seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat and no anti-crash
braking tech that disqualify it from any stars in its overall
rating. The organisation is particularly stringent on cars that
don't take cheap and simple safety tech seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because you
can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have the
turn signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the headlights
are on or the sun is low in the sky (especially but not only if it's
behind the car indicating) they might as well not be there. Function
doesn't just take a back seat to form (and the price of wiring looms)
- it's not even considered other than legality.
My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front bumper
a reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of the headlight
and another on the front guard just above the wheel arch (both have
LED lamps fitted that are at least twice as bright as the
incandescant lamps they replaced and far more noticable due to the
instant on/off as opposed to fade in / fade out). There's no
uncertainty of which way I'm going at an intersection like there is
with most newer cars.
I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd like
to see data as to how many accidents are or might be caused by the
lack of visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

The problem being not only that you might not see a turn signal but
that, because siganals are less obvious false positives are more
common. Orange bulbs behind clear or white lenses, especially as the
colour deteriorates are quitely simply inferior to clear bulbs behind
an orange lens, especially in daylight.

I'm using orange LEDs (Gallium Arsenide Phosphide, around 610nm) behind the
original orange lenses and it makes for very intense orange colour - very
noticable and very not-white and not-red.

Post by Naked Fame
Add your point about the
relative illumination to surrounding (led) lights and that those
lights change significantly with viewing angle...

Very much so.

Post by Naked Fame
It's not all new cars but it is a growing number which simply
contradicts the notion that cars are getting safer.

Far too many. There are a lot of roundabouts in the town where I live and I
end up erring on the side of caution, giving way if I can't be sure if the
indicator's going or not. That doesn't make for flowing traffic though.

Post by Naked Fame
There's an analogy to the Halo here. My problem with those that wanted
the Halo was that it had not been tested/analysed whether accidents
were more likely.
Surviving a crash is one ting... not having a crash is preferable.

That's always been my point. My car has no airbags and no side intrusion
bars but it's also not driven by a distracted barely-capable driver. I check
that all of the lights are working correctly regularly, check tyre pressures
fortnightly and test the brakes at the end of my street as I'm leaving and
then every chance I get (when there's nobody behind and I have to slow down
etc.).
My car is far safer than 90% of the cars on the road and it's over 30 years
old.

It's not. Or all the cars on your roads are very old. Most modern vehicles come with ABS, ESP and airbags and lots of other passive safety features.
You're being alert and prudent, which are good, but you're not as safe, let alone safer. If a big truck hits you head on, you're a lot less safe than you'd be in a modern vehicle with airbags, with a strong passenger cell and etc.

Especially as we're talking about one of these...

Loading Image...

I thought the CRX from the same time period was pretty nifty. Was so light it went like stink with the 1.5 l engine option, while officially getting over 60 MPG (imperial, over 50 MPG US) on the highway -- in the mid 80s!

Total deathtrap if you hit anything though.

[~misfit~]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:16:20 AM UTC+3,

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Naked Fame

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in
2005. At least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago
it got 5 stars, this year the very same car got a straight 0 in
a retest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/video-2017-fiat-punto-receives-zero-star-safety-rating-article-1.3707145

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

So, if you have an old car, its rating is irrelevant: the
requirements get stricter every year and they definitely are NOT
comparable over the years. This is something safety rating guys
and manufacturers of old car models don't like to advertise, but
there you are.

It's not a straight zero... it's a technical zero.
"The Punto performs well enough to get two stars in how it
protects drivers, passengers and pedestrians in an accident.
It's the lack of seatbelt warning bongs beyond the driver's seat
and no anti-crash braking tech that disqualify it from any stars
in its overall rating. The organisation is particularly
stringent on cars that don't take cheap and simple safety tech
seriously."
Personally I would take stars off a number of newer cars because
you can't identify the turning signal as well as you could on
older cars.

This is my biggest annoyance when driving! Most modern cars have
the turn signals as part of the headlight custer and, if the
headlights are on or the sun is low in the sky (especially but
not only if it's behind the car indicating) they might as well
not be there. Function doesn't just take a back seat to form (and
the price of wiring looms) - it's not even considered other than
legality.
My old car has two front turn lamps per side, one in the front
bumper a reasonable distance away from and slightly inboard of
the headlight and another on the front guard just above the wheel
arch (both have LED lamps fitted that are at least twice as
bright as the incandescant lamps they replaced and far more
noticable due to the instant on/off as opposed to fade in / fade
out). There's no uncertainty of which way I'm going at an
intersection like there is with most newer cars.
I don't know how (most of) the newer cars are legal frankly. I'd
like to see data as to how many accidents are or might be caused
by the lack of visibility of a lot of front turn indicators.

The problem being not only that you might not see a turn signal but
that, because siganals are less obvious false positives are more
common. Orange bulbs behind clear or white lenses, especially as
the colour deteriorates are quitely simply inferior to clear bulbs
behind an orange lens, especially in daylight.

I'm using orange LEDs (Gallium Arsenide Phosphide, around 610nm)
behind the original orange lenses and it makes for very intense
orange colour - very noticable and very not-white and not-red.

Post by Naked Fame
Add your point about the
relative illumination to surrounding (led) lights and that those
lights change significantly with viewing angle...

Very much so.

Post by Naked Fame
It's not all new cars but it is a growing number which simply
contradicts the notion that cars are getting safer.

Far too many. There are a lot of roundabouts in the town where I
live and I end up erring on the side of caution, giving way if I
can't be sure if the indicator's going or not. That doesn't make
for flowing traffic though.

Post by Naked Fame
There's an analogy to the Halo here. My problem with those that
wanted the Halo was that it had not been tested/analysed whether
accidents were more likely.
Surviving a crash is one ting... not having a crash is preferable.

That's always been my point. My car has no airbags and no side
intrusion bars but it's also not driven by a distracted
barely-capable driver. I check that all of the lights are working
correctly regularly, check tyre pressures fortnightly and test the
brakes at the end of my street as I'm leaving and then every chance
I get (when there's nobody behind and I have to slow down etc.).
My car is far safer than 90% of the cars on the road and it's over
30 years old.

It's not. Or all the cars on your roads are very old. Most modern
vehicles come with ABS, ESP and airbags and lots of other passive
safety features.
You're being alert and prudent, which are good, but you're not as
safe, let alone safer. If a big truck hits you head on,

I learned to drive at age 12 on a farm then on gravel "1.5 lane" roads long
before I was legally old enough to do so. The type of raod where there are
three wheel tracks and traffic in both directions share the middle one. The
farms out there got, and got rid of, their stock on freakin huge stock
trucks and trailers that shared those windy undulating roads*. As such (and
as someone who liked to drive fast) I got very very good at split-second
collision avoidance and mind-mapping closing vectors while still in my
'formative years'. Trucks don't change direction as fast as small cars (it's
physics) so they aren't hard to avoid if you think and act quickly.

So I'd say I'm about 10 times less likely to be hit head on by a big truck
than the average driver. While they're registering the situation and
thinking "WTF????" I'm already elsewhere. (Now I'm hoping like fook that I
haven't jinxed myself.....)

[*] For quite a few years one leg of the NZ stage of the World Rally went
right past our front gate - that's how windy and full of blind corners my
home roads were. I could stand in the driveway and watch the Flying Finn go
past...

Post by m***@gmail.com
you're a lot
less safe than you'd be in a modern vehicle with airbags, with a
strong passenger cell and etc.

Especially as we're talking about one of these...
https://s.auto.drom.ru/i24201/s/photos/23607/23606288/gen1200_184812338.jpg

Put this through a translation programme;
http://www.hondajazz1984.de/motor3184de.htm
It's a contemporary German review of the European version. (The NZ verson
went into production in 1985, any earlier here are ex-Japanese imports and
are quite different with a different engine to the NZ and European
versions.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_City_(AA)


Mine are the Opal Blue version, assembled in NZ in 1985. The positioning of
those side indicators is different (further back, above the wheel arch) as
we had quite stringent rules about those things back then. Like this one;
Loading Image...

In fact a couple of months back I bought another one as, although mine's
been getting 'clean sheet' WOFs from VTNZ it's getting a bit of rust here
and there and the clutch is almost shot. Mine's done 240,000kms and was,
just before I bought it, parked in a barn where kids could get in and rally
it around the farm so it's had a hard life.

The 'new one' is in fact a month older but was fully Tectyl-treated from (or
in?) the factory, has been garaged all of its life (in Christchurch up until
this year) and has only done 70,000 kms. I have it under a tarp for now,
until I've got the last out of the 'old one'. They suit me, my back and my
budget (though the new one was dearer than the average car half its age).
The wide door and tall roof allow me to get in easilly and sit bolt upright,
good for my back and for field of view. It's nippy, even at lower revs due
to high torque and is cheap to run (although it needs premium fuel as it has
a 10.2 : 1 compression ratio). They're both 5 speed manual though I'm
starting to think an auto might suit me better (much as I dislike them in
smaller cars) as my back gets worse it gets harder to keep pushing the
clutch pedal around town - where I do 80% of my driving these days.

I bought the new one from a car collector - that's how good condition it's
in. He only sold it as he wanted a red one and finally got one that's in
quite good condition (but not as good as the blue one - changing the clour
is more difficult than most cars as there are painted surfaces inside as
well as outside).

I thought the CRX from the same time period was pretty nifty. Was so
light it went like stink with the 1.5 l engine option, while
officially getting over 60 MPG (imperial, over 50 MPG US) on the
highway -- in the mid 80s!

Great little cars that CRX. I considered one but they're lower and I need to
sit upright. So it's the Honda City or a modern SUV...

Total deathtrap if you hit anything though.

As were most small cars made in the 1980s. The secret is to *not* hit
anything.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
my back
my back
my back

Fuck you and your back.
Get off your lazy cunt
and get some exercise.

[Bigbird]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/video/video-heres-how-much-safer-small-cars-have-got

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/video/video-heres-how-much-safer-small-cars-have-got

That Rover was total shit.

Here's a 2002 Subaru Outback. They were unchanged from 1998 (model year, on sale in late 1997, as mine was) to 2003.

Much better.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/video/video-heres-how-much-safer-small-cars-have-got

That Rover was total shit.
Here's a 2002 Subaru Outback. They were unchanged from 1998 (model year, on sale in late 1997, as mine was) to 2003.
Much better.

While looking for the crash test video, I also found the Hamster reviewing them in 1999.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Naked Fame
Dacia Lodgy. Not a nice car by any means, but an inexpensive

7-seater >> that I happen to need with my extended family.

Post by Bruce Hoult
OK, I see at dacio.ro the Lodgy starts at EUR 11350, which is
indeed a little over 10000. Fair enough, and that's a mighty
impressive price if you don't mind an awful crash safety rating.

A zero-star rating today is the same as a five-star rating in 2005. At
least that's what happened to Fiat Punto: 12 years ago it got 5 stars,
this year the very same car got a straight 0 in a retest.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/video/video-heres-how-much-safer-small-cars-have-got

That Rover was total shit.
Here's a 2002 Subaru Outback. They were unchanged from 1998 (model year, on sale in late 1997, as mine was) to 2003.
Much better.

Geez. and after all that I forgot the link anyway. Sheesh.

[Edmund]

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.
Now wait just a few more years and lets see how things go from here.
My guess is that there will be many car factories building EV's and the
price will go down. The batteries will be better and more affordable.

Edmund

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already. Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings. Because of legislation passed in California that started to make such vehicles viable.

Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but they were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does that mean nobody else would have got around to that?

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and Nissan. Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.

Post by Edmund
Now wait just a few more years and lets see how things go from here.
My guess is that there will be many car factories building EV's and the
price will go down. The batteries will be better and more affordable.
Edmund

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already. Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings. Because of legislation passed in California that started to make such vehicles viable.

There were also electric cars from several manufacturers in the EIGHTEEN nineties.

As in the 1990's, they were not attractive compared to gasoline cars, except for very specialised uses. The great British milk float springs to mind.

[Naked Fame]

Post by Bruce Hoult
As in the 1990's, they were not attractive compared to gasoline cars,
except for very specialised uses.

And today, in my country, they still aren't.

[Edmund]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings. Because
of legislation passed in California that started to make such vehicles
viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but they
were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does that
mean nobody else would have got around to that?

The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and Nissan.
Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.

Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.

Edmund

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings. Because
of legislation passed in California that started to make such vehicles
viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but they
were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does that
mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and Nissan.
Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines. That doesn't mean they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.

Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the road.

Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?

Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

[Edmund]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people
that don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought
a new seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over
10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did
he change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings.
Because of legislation passed in California that started to make such
vehicles viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but
they were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does
that mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of
about one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and
Nissan. Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines.

Yes and not without a reason.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That doesn't mean
they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even
the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the
publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the
road.

Tiggered by Musk.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why
aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on
real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very
sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this
time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that
are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were
under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

I already told here that I discussed the MGU-H some 40 years ago.
Car companies are very conservative and old fashioned.
There are plenty options to make a car much more fuel efficient but
some option require a radical change in the old fashioned design
and options like the MGU-H require it to be an hybrid coming with
a lot of additional stuff, weight and not the least, additional costs.

It is much cheaper simple to bribe politicians and governments to get a
official "rating" and sell cars based on such a virtual rating.
Works like a charm in Europe but as VW find out, is illegal in the US.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people
that don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought
a new seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over
10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did
he change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings.
Because of legislation passed in California that started to make such
vehicles viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but
they were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does
that mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of
about one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and
Nissan. Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines.

Yes and not without a reason.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That doesn't mean
they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even
the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the
publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the
road.

Tiggered by Musk.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why
aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on
real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very
sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this
time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that
are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were
under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

I already told here that I discussed the MGU-H some 40 years ago.
Car companies are very conservative and old fashioned.

You miss the point. The point is that four old fashioned, conservative car companies are racing with an MGU-H. How many road cars are we seeing with that technology? After 4 years racing and the development before that?

Post by Edmund
There are plenty options to make a car much more fuel efficient but
some option require a radical change in the old fashioned design
and options like the MGU-H require it to be an hybrid coming with
a lot of additional stuff, weight and not the least, additional costs.
It is much cheaper simple to bribe politicians and governments to get a
official "rating" and sell cars based on such a virtual rating.
Works like a charm in Europe but as VW find out, is illegal in the US.

Which sounds like a round about way of saying that all this stuff is NOT road relevant.

PS: You should have patented that MGU-H that you conceived.

[Edmund]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people
that don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought
a new seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over
10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail
to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did
he change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings.
Because of legislation passed in California that started to make such
vehicles viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but
they were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does
that mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of
about one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and
Nissan. Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines.

Yes and not without a reason.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That doesn't mean
they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even
the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the
publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the
road.

Tiggered by Musk.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why
aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on
real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very
sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this
time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that
are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were
under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

I already told here that I discussed the MGU-H some 40 years ago.
Car companies are very conservative and old fashioned.

You miss the point. The point is that four old fashioned, conservative car companies are racing with an MGU-H. How many road cars are we seeing with that technology? After 4 years racing and the development before that?

Post by Edmund
There are plenty options to make a car much more fuel efficient but
some option require a radical change in the old fashioned design
and options like the MGU-H require it to be an hybrid coming with
a lot of additional stuff, weight and not the least, additional costs.
It is much cheaper simple to bribe politicians and governments to get a
official "rating" and sell cars based on such a virtual rating.
Works like a charm in Europe but as VW find out, is illegal in the US.

Which sounds like a round about way of saying that all this stuff is NOT road relevant.
PS: You should have patented that MGU-H that you conceived.

You just concluded that noone is using it so it would have cost me my house
and the patent would have been terminated by now.

In the past I thought a patent would granted IF it really was something new
and something realistic.
WRONG, today you have to pay a lot of money and you will get a patent for a
perpetuum mobile no problemo.

An MGU-H is imo not even an invention, it is just using and combining what is
already known and available.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings. Because
of legislation passed in California that started to make such vehicles
viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but they
were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but does that
mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and Nissan.
Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines. That doesn't mean they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the road.
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

First, it is well known that traditional car companies take ten years to get a new technology into cars for sale.

Second, traditional car companies (like IBM in their heyday and Intel now) don't make the best product they currently know how to make, but only a product good enough to be perceived as just a little better than their competitors. They leave something in the tank for marketing to talk about next year.

[~misfit~]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car

industry

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk

the

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people
that don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I
bought a new seven-seater for my extended familty for a little
over 10,000 euros,

and

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I
fail to really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again,
how did he change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every

car

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
manufacturer.

Not really. There were several electric cars in the 1990s already.

Chevrolet, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Nissan all had electric offerings.
Because of legislation passed in California that started to make
such vehicles viable.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Tesla (who didn't start the company alone) had advantages because they

were new and didn't have historic business models to deal with, but
they were not the first to have electric cars on the road.

Post by m***@gmail.com
He gets the headlines, and Tesla had the first long (for EV) range car

on the market because of the battery technology they used - but
does that mean nobody else would have got around to that?
The point is that nobody but Mr Musk DID fill the car with 300 kg
batteries which made it a usable car.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget
or ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price
of about one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.

There is no Tesla sales outlet nor charging stations here in South

Africa. Yet there are fully electric cars available from BMW and
Nissan. Nissan's Leaf is the biggest selling EV to date.
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage
will mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines. That doesn't mean
they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not
even the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.

In "your car"? What a strange arrangement you have.

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe
the publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars
on the road.
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why
aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven
on real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's
very sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after
all this time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there
with cars that are beating the pants off their rivals because they
have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were
under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

First, it is well known that traditional car companies take ten years
to get a new technology into cars for sale.

Exactly. Another five or so to go.

Post by Bruce Hoult
Second, traditional car companies (like IBM in their heyday and Intel
now) don't make the best product they currently know how to make, but
only a product good enough to be perceived as just a little better
than their competitors. They leave something in the tank for
marketing to talk about next year.

Yep. The MGU-H *will* be seen in road vehicles, I'd bet a testicle on it.
Recently Volvo introduced a clunky system that uses an
electrically-compressed air boost to pre-spool the turbo in an attempt to
eradicate turbo lag.

https://jalopnik.com/1745961554
Why use an electric motor to compress air into a tank (through electrically
controlled valves) to spin the turbo when you can simply add the electric
motor to the turbo shaft? Audi have been trying electrically spooled turbos
so, when the F1 suppliers deem their systems to be road-ready they'll have a
real edge.

They have to be better than a compressed-air system.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by m***@gmail.com
Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines. That doesn't mean they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla is not even the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can believe the publicity, or we can notice that there are other electric cars on the road.
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well, why aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be driven on real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt that it's very sophisticated and represents very fine engineering, but after all this time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc and Renault out there with cars that are beating the pants off their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they were under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

First, it is well known that traditional car companies take ten years to get a new technology into cars for sale.

Well, I am forgetting something that Bill Gates said, which was (more or less) that we overestimate what will happen in 3 years and underestimate what will happen in 10. So with any new technology, a graph showing take up in the real world would have a different shape than we anticipate.

Which goes to your point.

Post by Bruce Hoult
Second, traditional car companies (like IBM in their heyday and Intel now) don't make the best product they currently know how to make, but only a product good enough to be perceived as just a little better than their competitors. They leave something in the tank for marketing to talk about next year.

Also they have to have something they can sell and make a profit on. Samsung or Apple or whoever could build tablets that would make our eyes water. But they wouldn't sell many. They have to wait for the price of the tech to come down.

I don't take everything said on Top Gear as gospel (shocking, I know) but they have repeatedly made a point that I think does apply in the real world. Look at the top line Merc saloons. All the stuff they come out with that is cool and hi-tech and makes us say wow - that's the stuff that all production cars will have 5 years later. I can remember (and many of us here will) when ESP and (before that) ABS were cutting edge and found only on high end models. Now they're common as muck. The price comes down, and take up increases.

What I am getting cynical about is the extent to which F1 actually drives this process. Because there have been some very important cars that represent big steps forward from firms with no involvement in F1 or other sort of high-tech series like Le Mans (and it seems to me that Audi used the latter to validate and showcase their tech, not so much to develop it). Look at that hybrid BMW coupe - they didn't get any of that from their adventures in F1, indeed they quit F1 because it didn't sit with their strategy for their actual product. Nissan have a fantastic sports car, and no F1 pedigree.

I don't mind that F1 isn't a driver. I am just cynical of Merc and Ferrari saying that they're going to rethink after 2020 because road relevance blah blah. I think their real beef is the old one - that winners don't want anything to change.

[Bigbird]

Post by m***@gmail.com

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 12:29:26 PM UTC+3,

Post by m***@gmail.com
Oh sure. As I said, Tesla get all the headlines. That doesn't
mean they're the only game in town. Certainly, in my car, Tesla
is not even the 2nd most common brand of electric car actually on
the road.
Point is - yes, there's lots of publicity. Meantime we can
believe the publicity, or we can notice that there are other
electric cars on the road.
Just like F1 and road relevance. It's road relevant is it? Well,
why aren't we seeing the arrival, on cars that will actually be
driven on real streets, of all this technology? I don't doubt
that it's very sophisticated and represents very fine
engineering, but after all this time, shouldn't we be seeing Merc
and Renault out there with cars that are beating the pants off
their rivals because they have an MGU-H?
Those devices have been on F1 cars since 2014, which means they
were under development at least in 2013. So where are they?

First, it is well known that traditional car companies take ten
years to get a new technology into cars for sale.

Well, I am forgetting something that Bill Gates said, which was (more
or less) that we overestimate what will happen in 3 years and
underestimate what will happen in 10. So with any new technology, a
graph showing take up in the real world would have a different shape
than we anticipate.
Which goes to your point.

Second, traditional car companies (like IBM in their heyday and
Intel now) don't make the best product they currently know how to
make, but only a product good enough to be perceived as just a
little better than their competitors. They leave something in the
tank for marketing to talk about next year.

Also they have to have something they can sell and make a profit on.
Samsung or Apple or whoever could build tablets that would make our
eyes water. But they wouldn't sell many. They have to wait for the
price of the tech to come down.
I don't take everything said on Top Gear as gospel (shocking, I know)
but they have repeatedly made a point that I think does apply in the
real world. Look at the top line Merc saloons. All the stuff they
come out with that is cool and hi-tech and makes us say wow - that's
the stuff that all production cars will have 5 years later. I can
remember (and many of us here will) when ESP and (before that) ABS
were cutting edge and found only on high end models. Now they're
common as muck. The price comes down, and take up increases.
What I am getting cynical about is the extent to which F1 actually
drives this process. Because there have been some very important cars
that represent big steps forward from firms with no involvement in F1
or other sort of high-tech series like Le Mans (and it seems to me
that Audi used the latter to validate and showcase their tech, not so
much to develop it). Look at that hybrid BMW coupe - they didn't get
any of that from their adventures in F1, indeed they quit F1 because
it didn't sit with their strategy for their actual product. Nissan
have a fantastic sports car, and no F1 pedigree.
I don't mind that F1 isn't a driver. I am just cynical of Merc and
Ferrari saying that they're going to rethink after 2020 because road
relevance blah blah. I think their real beef is the old one - that
winners don't want anything to change.

I think what you're finding is that your perception was wrong.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Bigbird
I think what you're finding is that your perception was wrong.

There you go thinking again.
Don't hurt yourself.

[bra]

Post by Edmund
Ask anyone anywhere to name a electric car and see what percentage will
mention a nissan leaf.
Edmund

About six years ago I was 'calling the races' at our local drag strip, and we had the mayor riding a Segway, versus a veteran electric car from about 1920 -- a very quiet race.

The mayor then lost ALL of his popularity by racing his Tesla/Lotus, and defeating a series of serious hot rods driven by local heroes. Another guy brought a big Tesla sedan, and four-up, made us even angrier with the awesome take-off. Boo to electrics.

[Naked Fame]

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.

I can give you one million dollars for every car you buy if I can take
infinite deficit for every car sold.

Don't take me wrong: I think Mr. Elop is a very cool guy. But I'm still
not convinced that his technology is better than the one I can buy for
one fifth of the price of his current 300-km cars (100-200 km in -30C
weather).

Still, because I love a green planet, I'd be more than happy to be
proven wrong. I'm just afraid that lws of physics cannot be broken even
by the most well-intentioned good goys.

[Edmund]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.

I can give you one million dollars for every car you buy if I can take
infinite deficit for every car sold.
Don't take me wrong: I think Mr. Elop is a very cool guy. But I'm still
not convinced that his technology is better than the one I can buy for
one fifth of the price of his current 300-km cars (100-200 km in -30C
weather).

Electric cars are -not yet- suitable for every situation, that's right.
On the bright side, there are so many big guys working on batteries that
it is only a matter of time that the much better battery will arrive.
When they come, the electric cars will immediately become more attractive
for more people/situations.

Post by Naked Fame
Still, because I love a green planet, I'd be more than happy to be
proven wrong. I'm just afraid that lws of physics cannot be broken even
by the most well-intentioned good goys.

Not aiming at you but some people rejecting electric cars often use the
law of physic in an attempt to win an argument but they always base their
opinion on existing technology and disregard new technology.

Edmund

[Naked Fame]

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
Still, because I love a green planet, I'd be more than happy to be
proven wrong. I'm just afraid that lws of physics cannot be broken even
by the most well-intentioned good goys.

Not aiming at you but some people rejecting electric cars often use the
law of physic in an attempt to win an argument but they always base their
opinion on existing technology and disregard new technology.

Fair enough: you said you didn't point this directly at me. But I'll
answer anyhow.

I have absolutely nothing against electric cars. Hell, I'd love it if
there was a new technology that made them feasible even in the cold
Nordic countries for long travel! However, one basic thing in science
is that you rarely know beforehand the limits of natural laws. There
always is a real, fundamental wall. It is there, somewhere, but most
of the time you just don't know if it's just behind the corner or if
there suddenly is a 10x or 1000x enhancement to be made. This, I
believe is true of battery technology today. People have been wishing
for the 10-1000x super invention for I think three decades now, but it
hasn't materialized. And unless it does, both our mobile phones and
eletric cars will be left at a pitiful state.

[Edmund]

Post by Naked Fame

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame
Still, because I love a green planet, I'd be more than happy to be
proven wrong. I'm just afraid that lws of physics cannot be broken even
by the most well-intentioned good goys.

Not aiming at you but some people rejecting electric cars often use the
law of physic in an attempt to win an argument but they always base their
opinion on existing technology and disregard new technology.

Fair enough: you said you didn't point this directly at me. But I'll
answer anyhow.
I have absolutely nothing against electric cars. Hell, I'd love it if
there was a new technology that made them feasible even in the cold
Nordic countries for long travel! However, one basic thing in science
is that you rarely know beforehand the limits of natural laws. There
always is a real, fundamental wall. It is there, somewhere, but most
of the time you just don't know if it's just behind the corner or if
there suddenly is a 10x or 1000x enhancement to be made. This, I
believe is true of battery technology today. People have been wishing
for the 10-1000x super invention for I think three decades now, but it
hasn't materialized. And unless it does, both our mobile phones and
eletric cars will be left at a pitiful state.

I agree with you.
Batteries still are the bottleneck in electric cars, however, since quite
recently there seems to be rather spectacular improvements possible
without violating the laws of nature.
There is a new magic word called “nano” , I heard of Metal-Air batteries
and a few others. Many -real- companies are researching, by real companies
I want to emphasize the difference between them and the new companies
which basically looking for subsidies from governments.
Serious companies are aiming for quick recharging ( like 5 minutes ) and
much more energy per weight and volume of the batteries.
Pretty much impossible with “normal” technology.
I do believe such improvements will come.

Edmund

[Edmund]

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.
Now wait just a few more years and lets see how things go from here.
My guess is that there will be many car factories building EV's and the
price will go down. The batteries will be better and more affordable.

Edmund

[Naked Fame]

Post by Edmund

Post by Naked Fame

Look at Elon Musk, one man alone not even involved in the car industry
singlehanded changed the whole car industry and only now AFTER Musk the
car companies follow, how about that?

How about it? How did Elon Musk change anything real for people that
don't have money pouring from their ears? This year I bought a new
seven-seater for my extended familty for a little over 10,000 euros, and
though I expect to spend a nice 10-15 years with that car, I fail to
really see Mr. Musk's handprint there. Now, tell again, how did he
change the WHOLE car industry?

Well for starters, he alone put the electric car on the card of every car
manufacturer.

Yes, he did. And sad that he did, because many moldy green people even
in the capital of my country thought he actually had something to say
that was relevant here.

Again, I have the highest respect for Mr. Musk. But his cars just aren't
relevant here.

Post by Edmund
Yes you can complain about the price of his first cars and forget or
ignore the price of his next generations of cars with a price of about
one fifth of his first generation cars.

Does he have a seven-seater with a 900 km radius for a bit over 10,000
euros? If he doesn't I'm not interested. I just need to move my extended
family legally from one place to another, regardless of if it is +30C
and sunshine or -30C and snowing. An MP3 player is a plus, but my
el-cheapo car had it preinstalled when I bought it new. New, as opposed
to "second-hand".

Post by Edmund
Done is only a couple of years by one man alone.
Now wait just a few more years and lets see how things go from here.
My guess is that there will be many car factories building EV's and the
price will go down. The batteries will be better and more affordable.

And they'll be perfect for marginal groups. Except Nordic Countries
where I live in. The Norwegians can fool themselves as much as they
like, but you still can't travel any distance with an electric car.

Except, if the electricity is generated locally by nuclear power. To be
honest, I'd prefer a nuclear car with a 10,000 km charge radius.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Serious question.

Thanks for taking a break from the clown act.