JohnStoppafarty
Bench
- Messages
- 2,690
Here is some real info from a real engineer re electric vehicles.
Again an assertion has been made without any support whatsoever, then as an argument you offer up a 20yo vehicle as an example?
We aren't discussing 20 year old tech , that's as ridiculous as comparing modern EV's with the emissions of a VT commodore.
I watched that report just thinking, “Isn’t this stuff we already know?”
Ray is a merkin. A bully. We already knew that. This is not a surprise, and the report didn’t really tell us any new information.
I hate Hadley as much as the next guy, but was this really necessary?
Elec is closer to 28cents a KW. So that takes it too $5 per 100km. Plus be some sort of losses. Atleast a few %.
And see with batteries as they age they don't last as long. Look at any battery tool. So 25% may get you 100kms and cost $5 but at start but as it ages that $5 to charge will maybe get you 70kms.Safer to put it at around $6 per 100kms....
As I reckon there tests are when it is brand spanking new.
Now fuel in Sydney has been anywhere between $1.16 - $1.50 the last 12 months. You chose the highest price. Lets use the median of say $1.35.
That will get you 4.5 litres. Or 45-70km for most cars. So yes in some cases better then half while in others a little better off.
What I would then need to see is a torque curve to see underload the difference. Petrol cars will vary maybe 10-20%. Electric I reckon will get smashed. Look at a battery tools when work them hard.
Raaay copped it on 7.30 Report tonight because of his alleged workplace bullying.
Andrew Moore gave a heartfelt insight into his post Hadley PTSD.
Two other former employees also made allegations.
I think we get it for 22. the point is that it's nowhere near 11.
I think we get it for 22. the point is that it's nowhere near 11.
I pay 31c / KWH peak less 18% if bill paid on time, so pretty close to 25c,
Yes they degrade with age, do you think that as an internal combustion engine ages and wears, it gets more or less fuel efficient?
The difference with a battery could be well over 30-40%.after 3 or 4 yrs. And I hear dead after 7. An engine maybe 5 - 10% worse once hits around 500,000kms. That could take on average 25yrs. Plenty of cabs pushing 700,000kms....So not in modt people lifetime.
Premium Unleaded costs me around a buck sixty, which is what you need for a modern fuel efficient turbo.
I put ethanol in a 3yld SV6 ute.
You're confusing power and torque, the kinds of motors used in EV's don't have a "torque curve" torque is flat, 100% available regardless of RPM. and any tool will only do so much work, thatis a function of it's available power. If you ask it to do a job that requires more power than available, they will stop, simple. Learn to use your tools, not abuse them.
Everything has an amount of torque.It has to have an amount of torque to move.
Killowatts means nothing. It is about torque....
How much torque do you have?
What? Why do all 4C regulars who creep out elsewhere do that, BTW?
You're conflating a comment, a general comment, I made about electric car batteries with something you misread in another posters post. All I have really been saying is that the batteries are still much more environmentally awful than anyone realises or will admit. Are 20 year old batteries not relevant to that for some reason in your eyes?
The fact is that from the inception of the Prius for eg until now, there have been advances in battery technology, but that hasn't stopped loads of batteries from being replaced and will not yet stop loads more. However the tech has not made the batteries any less toxic to manufacture or dispose of yet, and that's before you take into account the environmental impact involved with sourcing and transporting some of the elements.
You've taken the tried and true 4C approach and attempted to position that point in direct opposition to yours, when in fact it's simply saying that no, wait, there is a long way to go yet with this tech and RIGHT NOW it's not the saviour that, say, the NRMA are trying to suggest when they suggest banning new petrol cars in 6 years time...Nor is it the zero impact environmental angel that some other proponents try and suggest, yet.
Right for who? Yanks that's who. WTf has that got to do with here?The 11c figure is from the US, which is about right.
My sv6 ute is 2-3yrs old.
I use ethanol and see little if any difference in premium as far as fuel economy.
Right for who? Yanks that's who. WTf has that got to do with here?
Ethanol can be fairly high octane, ( avgas 100 is basically all ethanol ) but it's corrosive as all f**k to plastic and rubber components in your fuel system, and is also reasonably hygroscopic, so can be problematic in that regard.
I wouldn't use it at all.
Oh dear.
20 year old tech is not relevant in a discussion about where EV's are now because, well, tech has been improving, as you acknowledge.
As for your childish digs at "4C whatever", that's not an argument mate, here's the thing, I challenged the validity of the statement...........
"After you consider how dirty it is to make the batteries and fire up the electricity to charge it, we are a long way off having electric cars being greener than the new tech (direct injection) of an internal combustion engine. Should they try to? Yes. Are they there yet? Not even close."
On that I call bullshit, that's it mate, If you wish to pretend it's something else, up to you.
If you like, you could present some kind of evidence that supports this statement,, which might refute my call of bullshit, or you could continue on in the pointless vein you have above, again, up to you.
No I was wrong. Bandwagon is right....
I guess it comes down to this. How much pollution to make say 100kwatts of power which give 400kms compared too 40 litres of fuel.
Really its about the environment long term.....