Alfa Romeo Forum banner

new leccy cat


  • Total voters
    18
21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Mercedes Benz 190E
Joined
·
17,848 Posts
not a reflection on the new Jag, but we were told one of the benefits of electric drive meant 'huge' differences to packaging resulting in 'revolutionary' improvements in interiors, space and lounge room. Has this happened?

Not been in a Tesla, but it and the new Audi e-enter name here seem to still have exactly the same packaging as an ICE car (long bonnet/cabin, huge footprint).

Is it - irrespective of powerplant - safety (need for front crumple zones etc) that determines the shape/packaging of a car, over how it's fueled?

One recent car (don't laugh) that was pretty good packaging-wise, was the double-floored A-Class. Make it electric, get Lotus to tune the chassis and you've got a car that in part delivers on the electric car packaging dream far more effectively than many others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
The I-PACE is far better looking than the F-PACE.
I looked. Yes the I-Pace is a little flatter but otherwise exactly the same. The F-Pace like the I-Pace is as ugly as, however at least the F-Pace has a decent amount of room which is why you'd buy an SUV.
The I-pace's increased height over a standard car is to accommodate the batteries. Still ugly as I'm afraid.

That looks beautiful because it is the shell of one of the most beautiful cars made. However some **** stole it's heart and stuck a washing machine engine in, in place. They then have the cheek and audacity to charge a **** load of money for it.

I think though if only EV's existed and I saw that E-Type, I'd spend the cash on cocaine and golf. In fact combine them both at the same time and you're on a winner. Certainly more fun than the E-Type plastic ripoff :thumbs:

I'm afraid it's another POS like the Pace doins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
I looked. Yes the I-Pace is a little flatter but otherwise exactly the same. The F-Pace like the I-Pace is as ugly as, however at least the F-Pace has a decent amount of room which is why you'd buy an SUV.
The I-pace's increased height over a standard car is to accommodate the batteries. Still ugly as I'm afraid.



That looks beautiful because it is the shell of one of the most beautiful cars made. However some **** stole it's heart and stuck a washing machine engine in, in place. They then have the cheek and audacity to charge a **** load of money for it.

I think though if only EV's existed and I saw that E-Type, I'd spend the cash on cocaine and golf. In fact combine them both at the same time and you're on a winner. Certainly more fun than the E-Type plastic ripoff :thumbs:

I'm afraid it's another POS like the Pace doins.
Ha ha, I wouldn't mind at all if it's a replica; it'd be bringing back echoes of the time when Jaguars really were unique, and I'd much rather travel in something that looks wonderful than something which looks like an oversized trainer.

But it'd be deeply unpleasant if they've actually killed a real E-Type and turned it into a Franken-car; that'd be every bit as sacrilegious as getting a pornstar to dress up as the pope and take a televised Sunday mass before re-enacting two girls one cup with a Virgin Mary lookalke and the baptismal font.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
The Etype was heavily influenced by the Disco Volante though?
You could probably list any number of aerodynamic cars from the previous 30 years as influences, but the main one was the D Type of course :)

No reason why somebody couldn't make a nice C52 Spider EV replica though, I certainly wouldn't mind that either.

Wonder why all these EVs are made to look like Renault / Nike trainer clones though? Bearing in mind there's no conventional drivetrain to style the car around, they could be pretty much any shape people want, from classic replicas through the aerodynamically-ideal 'half-teardrop' shape to really wacky things like a banana or suchlike!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Petrol (and diesel) remain one of the most efficient ways of storing energy. Batteries mean bulky, heavy cars in order to offer any decent range. If we could develop similar energy storage efficiency to petrol for an EV, and be able to generate electricity for them without either covering the country in windfarms and solar panels, or cutting down forests in North America to use as biomass - and be able to charge them quickly - then I'd be a supporter. Then we could once again concentrate on things like aerodynamic efficiency, which is killed by the large frontal area of these vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Petrol (and diesel) remain one of the most efficient ways of storing energy. Batteries mean bulky, heavy cars in order to offer any decent range. If we could develop similar energy storage efficiency to petrol for an EV, and be able to generate electricity for them without either covering the country in windfarms and solar panels, or cutting down forests in North America to use as biomass - and be able to charge them quickly - then I'd be a supporter. Then we could once again concentrate on things like aerodynamic efficiency, which is killed by the large frontal area of these vehicles.
I'm with you on that one, here are some stats I compiled on a Subaru forum, if anyone's interested in the sources / averaging done to arrive at these figures I'll post them on here, if not I'll save you all from 30 mins of mind-numbing reading:

Petrol engine 23-25% efficient

EV (allowing for electricity generation / distribution / storage) 36% efficient

Old school diesel 42% efficient

If all the efficiency-sapping emission control malarkey is ignored, diesels are still the most efficient power source for cars. And the older ones will run off biodiesel (and some will run off straight vegetable oil) which is pretty eco-friendly...

About the only thing I didn't take into account above is the cost of processing / transporting the fuel to the end user. You could argue there is no transport cost for EVs, but of course assuming the electricity isn't created on wind farms the fuel used to generate the electricity (be it coal, oil, biomass, etc) still has to be processed and transported to the power station (and in the case of nuclear, to spent fuel storage), so that will make some difference to all the efficiency figures, but it's difficult to calculate how much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,174 Posts
I'm with you on that one, here are some stats I compiled on a Subaru forum, if anyone's interested in the sources / averaging done to arrive at these figures I'll post them on here, if not I'll save you all from 30 mins of mind-numbing reading:

Petrol engine 23-25% efficient

EV (allowing for electricity generation / distribution / storage) 36% efficient

Old school diesel 42% efficient

If all the efficiency-sapping emission control malarkey is ignored, diesels are still the most efficient power source for cars. And the older ones will run off biodiesel (and some will run off straight vegetable oil) which is pretty eco-friendly...

About the only thing I didn't take into account above is the cost of processing / transporting the fuel to the end user. You could argue there is no transport cost for EVs, but of course assuming the electricity isn't created on wind farms the fuel used to generate the electricity (be it coal, oil, biomass, etc) still has to be processed and transported to the power station (and in the case of nuclear, to spent fuel storage), so that will make some difference to all the efficiency figures, but it's difficult to calculate how much.
The whole point about EVs is that they are supposed to be introduced alongside carbon neutral and renewable electricity production. In that context they make much more sense ecologically and in efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Also it’s about localised air pollution particularly in densely populated
towns and cities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Yeah you're both right there, though it is going to be some time before we can get even 50% of our energy from renewable sources, and what are the bets everyone gets fed up with windmills popping up everywhere long before that?

And yeah the big advantage of EVs is that the pollution's moved out of city centres, though at the expense of greatly increased pollution where the EV batteries are made, and (maybe temporarily) where the electricity is generated. I guess the ideal for the moment would be a chargeable hybrid, with a small, v efficient generator running on veggie oil to keep the car going when not in heavily populated urban areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,758 Posts
The EV batteries need renewing when they go below a certain level of efficiency too. Luckily , Tesla is making them into roof tiles. Google it..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
The EV batteries need renewing when they go below a certain level of efficiency too. Luckily , Tesla is making them into roof tiles. Google it..
Great idea, thought the roof tiles were something different though?

Just as well if they are, not sure I'd want several kg of an explosive, toxic nickel, cobalt and lithium soup above my head as a roof tbh :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Also it’s about localised air pollution particularly in densely populated
towns and cities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The irony is that the intensively used vehicles (trucks, vans) are unlikely to be electric anytime soon. Also, we have reached a point in the development of conventionally fuelled vehicles where emissions levels are extremely low and well controlled - most measurable vehicle pollution in cities comes from the older segment of the vehicle parc, not the new ones. So measure again in 10 years time and - without EVs - pollution levels will be extremely low.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
The irony is that the intensively used vehicles (trucks, vans) are unlikely to be electric anytime soon. Also, we have reached a point in the development of conventionally fuelled vehicles where emissions levels are extremely low and well controlled - most measurable vehicle pollution in cities comes from the older segment of the vehicle parc, not the new ones. So measure again in 10 years time and - without EVs - pollution levels will be extremely low.

But presumably even lower with EVs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Yeah you're both right there, though it is going to be some time before we can get even 50% of our energy from renewable sources, and what are the bets everyone gets fed up with windmills popping up everywhere long before that?

And yeah the big advantage of EVs is that the pollution's moved out of city centres, though at the expense of greatly increased pollution where the EV batteries are made, and (maybe temporarily) where the electricity is generated. I guess the ideal for the moment would be a chargeable hybrid, with a small, v efficient generator running on veggie oil to keep the car going when not in heavily populated urban areas.
One of the major sources of baseload (i.e. reliable) renewable energy is biomass. From a government supplied emissions calculator I used a couple of years ago, the emissions from simply harvesting, processing and shipping this stuff from our major supplier in North Carolina is already at least 50% of that of burning 'clean coal' to produce the same amount of energy. The govt doesn't even count the smokestack emissions of biomass (which, per unit of energy produced, are very similar to those of clean coal) as these (yes, Sir Humphrey) are deemed to have occurred at the point of harvesting, therefore we don't need to count them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
One of the major sources of baseload (i.e. reliable) renewable energy is biomass. From a government supplied emissions calculator I used a couple of years ago, the emissions from simply harvesting, processing and shipping this stuff from our major supplier in North Carolina is already at least 50% of that of burning 'clean coal' to produce the same amount of energy. The govt doesn't even count the smokestack emissions of biomass (which, per unit of energy produced, are very similar to those of clean coal) as these (yes, Sir Humphrey) are deemed to have occurred at the point of harvesting, therefore we don't need to count them.
Heh, interestingly they do count the emissions of biodiesel / straight veg oil in a diesel, even though exactly the same 'point of harvest' emissions would apply :rolleyes:

Edit: Though in fairness assuming the biomass is a by-product of some other farming process and isn't just grown to be burned it is a different case since the energy spent harvesting the crop would be spent whether the biomass was used or not. Cost of transport should definitely be counted though, if you want to provide a fair playing field (which of course nobody wants).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Heh, interestingly they do count the emissions of biodiesel / straight veg oil in a diesel, even though exactly the same 'point of harvest' emissions would apply :rolleyes:

Edit: Though in fairness assuming the biomass is a by-product of some other farming process and isn't just grown to be burned it is a different case since the energy spent harvesting the crop would be spent whether the biomass was used or not. Cost of transport should definitely be counted though, if you want to provide a fair playing field (which of course nobody wants).
Most UK biomass power generation is done by Drax using converted coal generation plant. The pellets used in the generation process are sourced from the USA - mainly North Carolina (I believe) where mature forests are being felled to feed our habit. I don't feel at all comfortable with this, both from an environmental point of view, and from a financial point of view as Drax is being paid between 50 and 100% above market price for its power via taxpayer subsidies and 'green' consumer bill surcharges.
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Top