BBC article on ludicrous cars

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
kwackers
Posts: 13300
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby kwackers » 4 Mar 2012, 11:26am

boblo wrote:It's interesting that this thread is now back to discussing ludicrous vehicles after all the fulminating.... What's more ludicrous than a car costing £20k - £30k only being able to do max ~200 miles before a multi hour recharge and needing a new set of ~£10k batteries every 5 years?

I see you're finally getting it! :wink:

Of course the real issue is that it's ludicrous to expect to maintain any form of personal transport at the level we currently have with a rapidly expanding population along with rapidly diminishing resources.

The plus point for electric is that like many of the petrol replacements it's in its infancy and so may yet be made to work. The major cost and problem is the batteries, beyond that the basic vehicle is inherently cheap. Once that's done you've just got the age old problem of generating energy...

Another important point is that given diminishing fuel resources is it wise to allow individuals to squander it simply because they can afford to? I've yet to see electric combine harvesters, tractors, JCB's and fertilisers. Seems to me that these represent the real problems that need solving rather than a replacement for something that for most people is a simple convenience. Since we haven't done this yet then surely some form of rationing of the available resources until we do would be wise otherwise it seems to me we'll simply crash with no time available to build a replacement infrastructure.

boblo
Posts: 602
Joined: 24 Sep 2009, 7:35pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby boblo » 4 Mar 2012, 11:37am

I'll raise your JCB's/combines etc and give you the millions upon millions of mowers/strimmers/hedge trimmers/leaf blowers/chainsaws/industrial pumps/gennies/whackers/mixers/compressors etc that are used daily - many dirty old 2s. Plus the emerging economies and their filthy coal powered energy generation etc.

I know every journey starts with a single step but it really irks me that we are 'required' to take action on this (which is personaly costing us a fortune to underwrite the silly windmill white elephants and other snake oil solutions) when in the grander scheme, the effects are negligeable....

Anyway, lets get back to arguing about performance cars and how socialy unresponsible their owners are...much more fun :D

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby hubgearfreak » 4 Mar 2012, 1:04pm

boblo wrote:a fortune to underwrite the silly windmill white elephants


'ere we go. :lol:

they're only expensive because they've been costed properly. coal, gas, oil, uranium power puts problems onto future generations and so the external costs aren't ours to pay. if you think that a price comparison based on such a fundamental flaw is worth repeating, then you're either selfish, shortsighted, uninformed - or are you just being mishievious? :?

boblo
Posts: 602
Joined: 24 Sep 2009, 7:35pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby boblo » 4 Mar 2012, 1:18pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
boblo wrote:a fortune to underwrite the silly windmill white elephants


then you're either selfish, shortsighted, uninformed - or are you just being mishievious? :?


All of the above, I also drive an RS6.... :mrgreen:

To be serious. I'm not sure the 'real cost' is factored in as they'd never be sold in the first place. They'll be costed as most other goods/services are: R&D+materials+labour+transport+margin+overhead recovery+tax however.... My point was more about our spending time and money on windmills which are pretty ineffective, a blight on the landscape but visibly complying with the requirement to be n% renewable by x date when it's generally considered a better bet would be sinking the investment into wave tech research to come up with a proper and much more efficient/effective solution. I am no expert but it's easy to see the political imperitive behind massive investment in what's a pretty futile gesture.

Righty ho, back to the garage to make my RS6 go vrrrrooooooom :)

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby hubgearfreak » 4 Mar 2012, 1:54pm

boblo wrote:They'll be costed as most other goods/services are: R&D+materials+labour+transport+margin+overhead recovery+tax however....


that's my point. the damage done by millions of tonnes of CO2 from coal power stations on coastal villages in Bangladesh, or the rainfall on marginally productive land around the Nile aren't included. if you included these external costs in the calculations, then wind farms would be competitive. ignoring the impacts on other parts of the world or on future generations is in my definition of selfish

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 45839
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby Mick F » 4 Mar 2012, 6:41pm

Hence my comment earlier re "minute".

EVs have a CO2 impact as almost zero in some part of the world, but in other parts it can be worse than ICE vehicles.

It depends on where you get you get your lecky.
Mick F. Cornwall

reohn2
Posts: 35287
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby reohn2 » 4 Mar 2012, 8:35pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
boblo wrote:They'll be costed as most other goods/services are: R&D+materials+labour+transport+margin+overhead recovery+tax however....


that's my point. the damage done by millions of tonnes of CO2 from coal power stations on coastal villages in Bangladesh, or the rainfall on marginally productive land around the Nile aren't included. if you included these external costs in the calculations, then wind farms would be competitive. ignoring the impacts on other parts of the world or on future generations is in my definition of selfish


Boblo has a point regarding wave or tide power,surely the tide has got to be a viable and reliable power source of electricity especially on an island such as ours :? .

PS, whats an RS6? :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby CREPELLO » 4 Mar 2012, 10:51pm

reohn2 wrote:
hubgearfreak wrote:
boblo wrote:They'll be costed as most other goods/services are: R&D+materials+labour+transport+margin+overhead recovery+tax however....


that's my point. the damage done by millions of tonnes of CO2 from coal power stations on coastal villages in Bangladesh, or the rainfall on marginally productive land around the Nile aren't included. if you included these external costs in the calculations, then wind farms would be competitive. ignoring the impacts on other parts of the world or on future generations is in my definition of selfish


Boblo has a point regarding wave or tide power,surely the tide has got to be a viable and reliable power source of electricity especially on an island such as ours :? .

PS, whats an RS6? :?

The reason they've gone wiv wind in the main is because the tech has been tried, tested and is far more commercially available. Tide power can only happen where the high/low tides are very different . The Bristol Channel scheme has been rejected for now, down to cost - about the sum of HS2 IIRC.

Wave power - apparently the UK is the world leader in this tech, although there have been significant design problems to overcome. However, the future for wave does look good. But it's not a tech that's up and running at scale, so doesn't suit the timescale to reduce carbon emmissions by dates like 2020. Wind does.

But in the long run, all these generator types will be important in their contributions. Especially if many drivers decide they do want to use lecky cars.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby meic » 4 Mar 2012, 11:00pm

boblo wrote:
hubgearfreak wrote:
boblo wrote:a fortune to underwrite the silly windmill white elephants


then you're either selfish, shortsighted, uninformed - or are you just being mishievious? :?


All of the above, I also drive an RS6.... :mrgreen:

To be serious. I'm not sure the 'real cost' is factored in as they'd never be sold in the first place. They'll be costed as most other goods/services are: R&D+materials+labour+transport+margin+overhead recovery+tax however.... My point was more about our spending time and money on windmills which are pretty ineffective, a blight on the landscape but visibly complying with the requirement to be n% renewable by x date when it's generally considered a better bet would be sinking the investment into wave tech research to come up with a proper and much more efficient/effective solution. I am no expert but it's easy to see the political imperitive behind massive investment in what's a pretty futile gesture.

Righty ho, back to the garage to make my RS6 go vrrrrooooooom :)


There is an amazing correlation between people believing that windmills are ineffective and finding them an eyesore. The one belief seems to sprout the other.

Why a situation of wave OR wind? They dont prevent each other from happening. Lots of people talk about wave power very few back it up with action. When somebody thinks they can make it work, I will support them in addition to supporting wind power.
Yma o Hyd

thelawnet
Posts: 2132
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby thelawnet » 4 Mar 2012, 11:32pm

kwackers wrote:
mark a. wrote:The driver does say that it's safer to overtake in a more powerful car, and I'd probably agree, for the reasons below.

It is, but with one caveat - that you're performing the same manoeuvre you'd be doing in a less powerful car. Unfortunately that's where it falls down. What actually happens is you discover you can leave it later and overtake with less available space and longer lines of cars by making use of the cars performance. The upshot of this is that if something does go wrong the energies that need dissipating are significantly higher.


Quite possibly true. However the question is whether an Audi RS6 is, on average, more deadly than a Ford Fiesta.

I suspect not, the drivers of the former are more experienced, have more responsibility, more mature, whereas the drivers of the latter (or perhaps another car popular with new drivers) are often little more than children (17 years old is the driving age).

mark a. wrote:of you that you plan to overtake) and then accelerate. In this manner, the classic accident you describe is irrelevant whether you're in a Fiesta or an RS6, ignoring the fact that the RS6 probably has better braking.

I'm sorry that's just nonsense. Fundamentally a Fiesta brakes much better than it accelerates whereas the RS6 is much more balanced. What that means is the extra braking distance required by the Fiesta is significantly less than would be required by the RS6. From 70mph a Fiesta can easily out stop an RS6 doing 120.


Eh???? Who is doing 120mph in an RS6? Maybe someone on the motorway, but it's hardly usual. From any given speed the RS6 will out stop the Fiesta.

mark a. wrote:
mark a. wrote:Whatever the case, the fact that a high-powered car is involved doesn't necessarily mean that they're hooning around dangerously.

Statistics and insurance companies seem to disagree. Hence why it costs more to insure a fast car (speaking as someone whose car is group 17.)


They are out of 50 now.

I'm not sure what statistics you've got, but the insurance cost data does not allow us to draw that conclusion.

http://www.thatcham.org/research/index.jsp?page=33

Thatcham provide the Association of British Insurers with 70% of the information used to establish the insurance group of every private motor car registered in the UK. This information is derived from Thatcham's assessment of a vehicle, including the ease of vehicle repair and the level of security.

Following the internationally recognised insurance standard 15 Km/h impact, Thatcham's engineers determine the cost of parts and times to return the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. The times provided use the Thatcham Times System philosophy and are accepted as the industry standard for vehicle repair times. Data on parts is similarly supplied to the insurance industry through the Thatcham Parts System, a comprehensive database of vehicle parts and prices needed to repair an accident damaged vehicle.

A vehicle's group rating is also determined by:

The new car price, reflecting variations in trim level and the cost of settlement in the event of a 'total loss'
Vehicle performance, both the 0-60 m.p.h. acceleration and top speed
Parts Pricing from a standard list of 23 parts
A vehicle's security levels


This certainly implies that better acceleration and higher top speed means a greater insurance cost, but it's just one factor.

I would say that if I were insuring an RS6, the most relevant factor would be the cost if it were to be written off (value tens of thousands), compared to a Fiesta, which is unlikely to even be worth £10k. But sure, if you want to speculate that RS6s are more dangerous, go ahead, just don't expect it to become public policy any time soon.

thelawnet
Posts: 2132
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby thelawnet » 4 Mar 2012, 11:49pm

meic wrote:There is an amazing correlation between people believing that windmills are ineffective and finding them an eyesore. The one belief seems to sprout the other.


Well they are clearly are eyesores, and only justifiable if they are useful. They are not decorative items, nor are they generally erected in industrial areas, but rather in unspoiled beauty spots.

I don't think that's controversial, but I guess you are arguing that people argue that they are ineffective BECAUSE they don't like the look of them.

reohn2
Posts: 35287
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby reohn2 » 5 Mar 2012, 9:34am

meic wrote:............Why a situation of wave OR wind? They dont prevent each other from happening. Lots of people talk about wave power very few back it up with action. When somebody thinks they can make it work, I will support them in addition to supporting wind power.


FWIW I'm all for both (I don't just want to make waves :? ) if they can suppliment and reduce FF use I'm all for it.I don't don't find them offensive to the eye,in fact to my eye they look quite majestic.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

kwackers
Posts: 13300
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby kwackers » 5 Mar 2012, 9:42am

thelawnet wrote:Quite possibly true. However the question is whether an Audi RS6 is, on average, more deadly than a Ford Fiesta.

I suspect not, the drivers of the former are more experienced, have more responsibility, more mature, whereas the drivers of the latter (or perhaps another car popular with new drivers) are often little more than children (17 years old is the driving age).

Comparing like with like means the same driver in a Fiesta or an RS6.
From experience if you put someone in a faster car they'll drive faster. Taking the article this is pretty much a given as by his admission he uses the power to overtake lines of traffic and from my own experience (I used to have an RS500) you don't overtake lines of traffic by briskly accelerating to the speed limit.

thelawnet wrote:Eh???? Who is doing 120mph in an RS6? Maybe someone on the motorway, but it's hardly usual. From any given speed the RS6 will out stop the Fiesta.

As I said above, you don't accelerate briskly to the speed limit. My comparatively underpowered RS500 had no problems hitting that sort of speed when whizzing past 3 or 4 vehicles, my ZX12 motorcycle can be significantly over that.
It may not be maintaining 120mph but in "normal" driving it's pretty easy to briefly touch those speeds, particularly when (and I quote) you "let rip to overtake a line of vehicles".



thelawnet wrote:I'm not sure what statistics you've got, but the insurance cost data does not allow us to draw that conclusion.

http://www.thatcham.org/research/index.jsp?page=33

Vehicle performance, both the 0-60 m.p.h. acceleration and top speed


This certainly implies that better acceleration and higher top speed means a greater insurance cost, but it's just one factor.

So which is it? They don't allow us to draw that conclusion or they do?
As you say it's a factor - I never claimed it was the only one...

kwackers
Posts: 13300
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby kwackers » 5 Mar 2012, 9:44am

reohn2 wrote:
meic wrote:............Why a situation of wave OR wind? They dont prevent each other from happening. Lots of people talk about wave power very few back it up with action. When somebody thinks they can make it work, I will support them in addition to supporting wind power.


FWIW I'm all for both (I don't just want to make waves :? ) if they can suppliment and reduce FF use I'm all for it.I don't don't find them offensive to the eye,in fact to my eye they look quite majestic.

+1

I think they look great - mind you I like electricity pylons too!

reohn2
Posts: 35287
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BBC article on ludicrous cars

Postby reohn2 » 5 Mar 2012, 9:48am

kwackers wrote:- mind you I like electricity pylons too!


One word,Therapy :?

Though I see your point,no one gives them a second thought now that they've been with us for so long..........we don't like change,but we do like the all the mod cons :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.