BEVs deals and information

joefizz

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But Joe, again, your whole argument seems to be based on economically viable ICE cars being scrapped to allow BEV's onto the market.

No Martyn, again, thats your interpretation of what I am saying.
What I am saying is that there is evidence that this has happened in the past with ICE cars.
Whilst I have used this BEV thread as an example and used calculations as an example I have always emphasised in my replies to you that this is happening to a greater or lesser extent for all drivetrains, its not just a BEV thing.
You are correct in that if allowed to continue it will result in economically viable ICE cars being replaced to make way for BEVs and as Ive stated my fear going forward is that this will continue on where economically viable BEVs will be replaced with other BEVs (or hydrogen or whatever propulsion method is en vogue at the time).


This might be easier down the pub! Id write 50k on a beermat and stick it on your forehead ;-)



The one thing that makes me hopeful that the above wont happen to as great an extent as it has done in the past is the possible future difficulty in achieving credit and the treating cars in the same way that tech upgrades have become, that way things will run their natural lifecycle instead of having state and commercial actors influencing it in the name of 'green' policies. We are just starting to see that happen now.
That will have other consequences though.


Ive found this thread and others fascinating on many levels. Im reading a book at the minute 'how the world thinks' by Julian Baggini. I went to one of his talks at the book festival here last year. I say, at the minute, but its taking me months as Im doing a paragraph then thinking about it for days!
Im probably paraphrasing incorrectly but his opening chapter is a hypothesis about how google/the internet has replaced religion of sorts. Again my own phrasing is that if its not in a paragraph on one page of google people dont believe it. John 3:16 is no longer a reference to a 2 liner in the Bible but what John said on twitter at 3:16pm. This thread and others on here have proven him right, nobody really goes and looks at the data but are quite willing to accept a couple of lines on the internet somewhere regardless of the validity of the author (and I include my own posts in that). Post this discussion on a car forum and you will get a completely different set of arguments, post it on mumsnet, well.... ...interesting how the world thinks..

joefizz

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.

Tesla have this as a major selling point to enable long distance driving (as in the US). Succession of rapid chargers (which feeds a lot of data into their system and will be used in future for trip planning, autopilot and 'rationing' to an extent) to cover long distances with software aid to get just enough to get you to the next charger to optimise your journey, although that will change with time.
Speaking to battery folk they say to try and space it out but its not a restriction, although its certainly one I would try to implement if it were my own car.

ASavvyBuyer

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.

Quick answer. No, it only appears to be the Nissan Leaf 40 and the EN van that uses the same battery.
I understand it is because they don't have active cooling of the battery. As far as I am aware, all other BEV's have a cooling system for the battery, even if just a fan to blow air through/over it.
When we have done a long journey we have rapid charged at least 4 times in a row without any problems. On Rapid chargers the max we can charge to is 94% to protect the battery, but once it gets above 80% the rate of charge drops significantly.

Martyn1981

joefizz wrote: »

This might be easier down the pub! Id write 50k on a beermat and stick it on your forehead ;-)

Cheers, that helps massively, so if I'm understanding that correctly, you do believe that cars average 50k in their lifetime.

If that's the case then I'll withdraw, as the 'problem' doesn't really exist.

Dave_Fowler

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.

There is no such restriction with the Hyundai Ioniq, but it is suggested that you don't use the rapid chargers all the time. Also the charge is limited to 80% of full charge to help protect the battery. At 80% the charge rate is automatically reduced to 7 kW so that battery cell balancing can take place.

Dave F

Martyn1981

ASavvyBuyer wrote: »

Quick answer. No, it only appears to be the Nissan Leaf 40 and the EN van that uses the same battery.
I understand it is because they don't have active cooling of the battery. As far as I am aware, all other BEV's have a cooling system for the battery, even if just a fan to blow air through/over it.
When we have done a long journey we have rapid charged at least 4 times in a row without any problems.

Nissan have deployed a partial fix for 'rapidgate', in that they have raised the battery temp figure at which the computer will reduce the rapid charge rate.

But that's not really a fix, just a hope, by Nissan, that the original temp limit they were using was too conservative. The obvious fear though is that this 'fix' will result in greater battery degradation.

As you point out, the real problem here is the lack of active cooling, something Nissan has received massive criticism over.

joefizz

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Cheers, that helps massively, so if I'm understanding that correctly, you do believe that cars average 50k in their lifetime.

If that's the case then I'll withdraw, as the 'problem' doesn't really exist.

No Martyn, once again, Ive never said that (although if you can point me to where I have said that Id be grateful).

Martyn1981

Nice and timely and shows how 'good' things are going in Ireland:

The Irish Are Motoring Greener & Cleaner: Electric & Hybrid Vehicles Now Account For Over 10% Of Irish Auto Sales

almillar

joefizz:

But you are agreeing with my fundamental point about certain MOT failures not being real failures or certain MOT failures being made up stuff...

Certainly not! If you're talking about electrical gremlins causing airbag lights, or ABS lights staying on, then these do still need to be repaired! It's the cost of repair, vs cost of just replacing the car, that I keep banging on about.

Now you and I might think thats a ridiculous rule but its there for a reason.

No, I don't think that's ridiculous.

You ignored my comment about failing MOT because one of the rear doors wouldnt open. Hardly unroadworthy, particularly as over the previous year I hadnt noticed the door wouldnt open because I hadnt needed to open it.
Also my comment about the airbag warning light, now an MOT failure and for most cars would be off the road. They dont actually test that the airbags would work (not guaranteed past 10 years) as they sort of cant.

The basic premise of the MOT is that if a car is fitted with something, it should be present and working. That's true of your door, and of an airbag. Airbags have a light that tells you if there's an error. A non-working door or airbag would be serious in the event of a crash. Doesn't matter whether you ever use the door or not. But again, a dodgy door should be repaired, and shouldn't be a reason to scrap a car.

'mate, youd be surprised how stupid people are'

I agree with him, I do think you're underestimating peoples' utter lack of car knowledge.

My argument is that a subset of MOT failures are unsafe

I am arguing that any MOT failure is 'unsafe' on some level. Maybe you can drive home safely, maybe the car will fall apart if you crash. I'm sure none of us plan on crashing. Maybe you fail on the horn not working. That's 'safe' if you don't need to honk at anyone...

From the governments own stats about 20% of MOT failures are due to lighting and signalling, unsafe in the wrong conditions

So why are people putting cars through without the basic bulb check? Also, I very much doubt this is part of the 'cars being scrapped because it's cheaper to just PCP another one' - even a dealer would change a bulb for a fiver.

Again to give you a concrete real world example, bought a new dell computer last week, set it up over the weekend and for the first time I noticed it came with a user service manual telling you how to replace every component in it

These have been available for Dells for as long as I can remember. A good reason to buy one. I hope that manual wasn't on paper!

A mate had his car forced off the road because they wanted over a grand for a TPS, which is nothing more than a glorified potentiometer

A Tyre Pressure monitor? As in the sensor in the tyre? Be part of the solution, name and shame the manufacturer/garage - I'll vote with my feet and not buy that car.

the first words out of their mouth was a supermarket diesel mention. Well known for causing injector problems in short runs etc

Oh dear. Supermarket fuel has to meet stringent safety standards. If your car can't run on that, choose a different car. Might I suggest the short runs you mention are the real cause of the problem.

...so facing a 1-2 grand bill for replacing injectors etc (which may be the case but in a lot of cases its a 10 quid bottle of cleaner and burn up the motorway).

So you changed the injectors, yes?

So no, in simple terms failing the MOT doesnt always mean a car is unsafe, 20 years ago, yes I would agree with you

Can we agree on 'potentially unsafe' and include emissions out of spec within that definition, since it affects the air we breathe?

EricMears:

It's very confusing when a new post quotes a number of different posts without attribution !

Sorry about that. I told you some benefits of the lease for the Zoe, that people may not realise. You don't want a battery lease, so simply buy a Zoe 'i', where you own the battery. It'll cost more, but you have the choice.

pile-o-stone

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.

I'm not aware that the Leaf, or any other EV, has this restriction. Are you thinking of 'Rapidgate'? Batteries get warm when being used, or charged. Many cars have active cooling systems (fans, sharing air con, or increasingly water cooling) - the Leaf does not. You'll get away with one rapid charge, but the second, after ripping down a motorway (more heat), will show a very long charge time, because the car will slow the charge down, to control the battery temperature. Other cars will still charge quickly, and stick the fans or whatever on. This is rapidgate. No other cars suffer from this effect significantly.
On the eGolf, the earliest ones at least, VW said in the user manual not to rapid charge 3 times in a row, or your warranty would be invalid - I don't think this is the case any more. Everyone, including the manufacturers, was worried about the effects of 'the road' on batteries, but those worries are largely unfounded, and battery degradation (due to use, charging, rapid charging) is a far smaller problem than most thought.

Solarchaser

PILE-O-STONE

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.

Only the leaf 40 as I understand it, look up "rapidgate".
Certainly my leaf 24 took 6 in a row in the summer with no issues at all, when I invaded Englandshire for a couple of weeks