planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:55 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
Asphalt_World wrote:
SteveW wrote:
Banana Man wrote:
What do you believe to be a better alternative to electric vehicles in the future?
I'm no scientist, but I don't get why hydrogen cell cars aren't more popular....

From what I've read (albeit a while ago and not particularly in depth either) it seems a much cleaner solution than producing all these batteries?

Whatever solution we end up with will only become a success when governments invest in the relevant infrastructure to allow for refuelling of the millions of vehicles that will need it, which in the UK at least is years away yet in my opinion.


I believe hydrogen will be the way forward, but the reason it't not being used much at the moment is because the energy used to create a usable fuel is stupidly high, making it a no go. Hopefully, and they are working on it, the cost and energy used to create usable fuel will come down and it could be amazing for the future of energy, not just cars.


Yes, hydrogen seems to have dropped down the ratings recently as you say in part due to the cost of splitting water up into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Performance probably similar to fossil fuels. I guess the technology needs a bigger input than electric.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 144
Fossil fuels is a misnomer. What they're talking about banning are geological energy carriers. They sustain human life in the numbers we now have. If governments can bring about the end of their use, they'll be necessarily bringing about the end of most human life simultaneously. People will be too busy trying to survive to worry about auto racing.

_________________
Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?

Image

Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

That's actually not true. An electric motor and drivetrain can be tuned for high speeds just the same, but the power delivery is so potent that it can still accelerate really quickly as well. The biggest hurdle for electric is the range. Sure you can go 300-400 miles on a single charge, but at what speed?… and then, how long do you have to WAIT for the batteries to charge so you can continue on your way? If you're driving a long way, that makes electric vehicles completely and utterly impractical and IMPO speaks to their obsolescence before even starting the conversation.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?

Image

Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

That's actually not true. An electric motor and drivetrain can be tuned for high speeds just the same, but the power delivery is so potent that it can still accelerate really quickly as well. The biggest hurdle for electric is the range. Sure you can go 300-400 miles on a single charge, but at what speed?… and then, how long do you have to WAIT for the batteries to charge so you can continue on your way? If you're driving a long way, that makes electric vehicles completely and utterly impractical and IMPO speaks to their obsolescence before even starting the conversation.


Porsche seem to have decreased the charging time by increasing the voltage using 800v rather than 400v.

"The Porsche Taycan will charge at 270kW, meaning you'll really be able to boost the range in minimal time - as long as you can find a charger that will match those peak charging rates.

Porsche says you'll get 100km from 5 minutes of charging - being able to boost the battery to 80 per cent in under 23 minutes. There's a 93.4kWh battery at the heart of this car and it is all-wheel drive."

So in summary you need to have a network of high rated chargers and it comes at a cost £115,858.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7401
Location: Michigan, USA
Todd wrote:
Fossil fuels is a misnomer. What they're talking about banning are geological energy carriers. They sustain human life in the numbers we now have. If governments can bring about the end of their use, they'll be necessarily bringing about the end of most human life simultaneously. People will be too busy trying to survive to worry about auto racing.

This is a very misleading line of argument. Nobody is proposing banning fossil fuels without replacing them with an alternative energy source.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33064
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?

Image

Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

That's actually not true. An electric motor and drivetrain can be tuned for high speeds just the same, but the power delivery is so potent that it can still accelerate really quickly as well. The biggest hurdle for electric is the range. Sure you can go 300-400 miles on a single charge, but at what speed?… and then, how long do you have to WAIT for the batteries to charge so you can continue on your way? If you're driving a long way, that makes electric vehicles completely and utterly impractical and IMPO speaks to their obsolescence before even starting the conversation.

I think we are on the same page you just misunderstand my reference to 60mph, I'm fully aware they can accelerate fast up to speeds much higher than 60mph, it's just if you care to do that then just watch the range plummet.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
pokerman wrote:
I think we are on the same page you just misunderstand my reference to 60mph, I'm fully aware they can accelerate fast up to speeds much higher than 60mph, it's just if you care to do that then just watch the range plummet.


Very true but all batteries are not the same all motors are not the same and all chargers are not the same. I realise that is stating the obvious but it depend what you want the car to do. 60 mph top speed might well be fine for a city car. If you want to increase the range up the battery capacity or recover charge through KERS, if you want to decrease the time then move away from 50kW chargers.

Its chargers that are a big factor holding back electric cars, there is no current infrastructure of chargers in the UK anyway.

Haven't done the maths but when battery tech can get a FE car round Silverstone for full face distance we will know we have got it right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 285
I’ve said this before on this forum, but my big call is that eventually FE and F1 will merge. Both series has something the other wants. They’ll merge and keep the F1 name, with the history books recognising the FE champions in conjunction with F1. Similar to the Superleague war in Australia.

Option or Prime wrote:
Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.


Mercedes are already in the FE championship, so they already are
McLaren are powered by Renault, who are already in the FE championship. McLaren build the batteries for the FE series, so they’re already in there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2931
The biggest issue with electric cars is not technology but infrastructure. I'm sure that politics plays its part as well - though if the sustainable generation makes enough noise, governments may well be forced to put their money where their mouths are in terms of committing to eradicating fossil-burning vehicles.
Hydrogen fuel cells should be the way forward but we need to crack the nut that is producing hydrogen in an efficient manner, along with increasing renewable energy production and meeting the seemingly ever-increasing demand of the grid.
Ironically, the increase in demand for lithium-ion batteries (not only for vehicles but for most electronic devices we use) is at present a slap in the face of sustainability, both in terms of extracting the necessary raw materials and in end-of-life disposal of the batteries (though recyclability is improving). There are alternative technologies but they are either no better in terms of sustainability, not commercially viable or less efficient in use.
At present, the ICE is still the most efficient technology for the overall blend of cost / efficiency of use / sustainability. With a committed mindset and the appropriate financial commitment by the powers-that-be, this should (and most likely will) change. F1 will need to change with it, or be left behind - in fact, F1 should be at the forefront of it.
With all this said, I would totally expect F1 to go 'fossil-free' in the not-too-distant future, or be banished to the sidelines.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 144
Exediron wrote:
Todd wrote:
Fossil fuels is a misnomer. What they're talking about banning are geological energy carriers. They sustain human life in the numbers we now have. If governments can bring about the end of their use, they'll be necessarily bringing about the end of most human life simultaneously. People will be too busy trying to survive to worry about auto racing.

This is a very misleading line of argument. Nobody is proposing banning fossil fuels without replacing them with an alternative energy source.


It's not me that's misleading anyone. It's the people selling the idea that we can eliminate the element that all of our abundance depends on without dismantling our civilization. It isn't like the people trying to destroy the middle class are going to allow nuclear or hydroelectric power to proliferate as a crutch to the loss of affordable energy and the building block of practically every important consumer product. Safe food storage? Not without oil. Agricultural production sufficient for the current population? Not even close. Modern medicine? Forget it.

_________________
Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3608
Todd wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Todd wrote:
Fossil fuels is a misnomer. What they're talking about banning are geological energy carriers. They sustain human life in the numbers we now have. If governments can bring about the end of their use, they'll be necessarily bringing about the end of most human life simultaneously. People will be too busy trying to survive to worry about auto racing.

This is a very misleading line of argument. Nobody is proposing banning fossil fuels without replacing them with an alternative energy source.


It's not me that's misleading anyone. It's the people selling the idea that we can eliminate the element that all of our abundance depends on without dismantling our civilization.It isn't like the people trying to destroy the middle classare going to allow nuclear or hydroelectric power to proliferate as a crutch to the loss of affordable energy and the building block of practically every important consumer product. Safe food storage? Not without oil. Agricultural production sufficient for the current population? Not even close. Modern medicine? Forget it.

Ultimately if that is how you are going to frame the debate what is the point of trying to even have a discussion.

You are either a climate change denier, or you haven't quite computed that being required to live a far more energy efficient lifestyle is less disruptive to the middle class lifestyle than the planet not being able to produce enough food and suffering water shortages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7401
Location: Michigan, USA
Todd wrote:
It isn't like the people trying to destroy the middle class are going to allow nuclear or hydroelectric power to proliferate as a crutch to the loss of affordable energy and the building block of practically every important consumer product. Safe food storage? Not without oil. Agricultural production sufficient for the current population? Not even close. Modern medicine? Forget it.

Actually, clean energy is proliferating. It's already happening right under your nose. Solar power is already cheaper than coal in many places; it's just going to continue to become more widespread and affordable. Nuclear isn't the answer due to the long-term pollution it causes, but it was quite common in many countries until recently. Wind power is also on the rise.

There is nothing special about oil as a means of producing power. Petroleum-based products are another category, and they'll take longer to get rid of. But burning fossil fuels as a method of producing power could be done away with this decade if there was a proper will to do it.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
Yes, its the balance than needs adjusting. There will be no ban on fossil fuels and products as they meet multiple needs. Its right to say that the alterbnatives can become cost effective but there needs to be a big investment in research to solve some initial problems.
Nuclear fission leaves us with huge issues to do with how to deal with spent waste, however cracking nuclear fusion would allow a plentiful supply of hydrogen as a fuel. As that is a way off it is possible that the path for F1 could be Fossil fuel - Electric - Hydrogen.

An additional reason advancing the demise of fossil fuels is the spiralling cost of catalytic converters. The cost of the metals required are currently palladium now worth £1,300/oz, and rhodium at £4,000/oz. This has led to the doubling of thefts of these exhaust systems in London since last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
Charles LeBrad wrote:
I’ve said this before on this forum, but my big call is that eventually FE and F1 will merge. Both series has something the other wants. They’ll merge and keep the F1 name, with the history books recognising the FE champions in conjunction with F1. Similar to the Superleague war in Australia.

Option or Prime wrote:
Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.


Mercedes are already in the FE championship, so they already are
McLaren are powered by Renault, who are already in the FE championship. McLaren build the batteries for the FE series, so they’re already in there.


The Mercedes FE car, bit like the Batmobile!

Image
Source: www.motorsport.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?

Image

Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

That's actually not true. An electric motor and drivetrain can be tuned for high speeds just the same, but the power delivery is so potent that it can still accelerate really quickly as well. The biggest hurdle for electric is the range. Sure you can go 300-400 miles on a single charge, but at what speed?… and then, how long do you have to WAIT for the batteries to charge so you can continue on your way? If you're driving a long way, that makes electric vehicles completely and utterly impractical and IMPO speaks to their obsolescence before even starting the conversation.


Porsche seem to have decreased the charging time by increasing the voltage using 800v rather than 400v.

"The Porsche Taycan will charge at 270kW, meaning you'll really be able to boost the range in minimal time - as long as you can find a charger that will match those peak charging rates.

Porsche says you'll get 100km from 5 minutes of charging - being able to boost the battery to 80 per cent in under 23 minutes. There's a 93.4kWh battery at the heart of this car and it is all-wheel drive."

So in summary you need to have a network of high rated chargers and it comes at a cost £115,858.


And by doing so you shortening life span of batteries, not to mention increase the propensity for dangerous things to happen.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?

Image

Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

That's actually not true. An electric motor and drivetrain can be tuned for high speeds just the same, but the power delivery is so potent that it can still accelerate really quickly as well. The biggest hurdle for electric is the range. Sure you can go 300-400 miles on a single charge, but at what speed?… and then, how long do you have to WAIT for the batteries to charge so you can continue on your way? If you're driving a long way, that makes electric vehicles completely and utterly impractical and IMPO speaks to their obsolescence before even starting the conversation.


Porsche seem to have decreased the charging time by increasing the voltage using 800v rather than 400v.

"The Porsche Taycan will charge at 270kW, meaning you'll really be able to boost the range in minimal time - as long as you can find a charger that will match those peak charging rates.

Porsche says you'll get 100km from 5 minutes of charging - being able to boost the battery to 80 per cent in under 23 minutes. There's a 93.4kWh battery at the heart of this car and it is all-wheel drive."

So in summary you need to have a network of high rated chargers and it comes at a cost £115,858.


And by doing so you shortening life span of batteries, not to mention increase the propensity for dangerous things to happen.


If you are buying a Porsche for £115,000 do you worry about battery life?......thats like buying a LaFerrari and moaning about the cost of petrol!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 627
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Option or Prime wrote:
If you are buying a Porsche for £115,000 do you worry about battery life?......thats like buying a LaFerrari and moaning about the cost of petrol!

If my LaFerrari had a fuel tank that got a little bit smaller every time I filled it up I would be quite annoyed. I also don't get the appeal of 100km of range for 5 minutes of charging. I can 'charge' my petrol car in 30 seconds and get up to 1000km.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
jono794 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
If you are buying a Porsche for £115,000 do you worry about battery life?......thats like buying a LaFerrari and moaning about the cost of petrol!

If my LaFerrari had a fuel tank that got a little bit smaller every time I filled it up I would be quite annoyed. I also don't get the appeal of 100km of range for 5 minutes of charging. I can 'charge' my petrol car in 30 seconds and get up to 1000km.


It already does have exactly that, where does the power for the 120 Kw motor come from then?

But that isn't the point the ICE has had 140 years of development time, how much time do you think is needed to solve battery life and charging time issues at todays rate of technological development?

Its not about Fossil fuel v Electric though, and which is best, the argument has been made above, there will be a change in the proportion of both on our roads and race tracks including F1. It may well vary in different countries. The only thing that is unclear is how soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 627
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Option or Prime wrote:
jono794 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
If you are buying a Porsche for £115,000 do you worry about battery life?......thats like buying a LaFerrari and moaning about the cost of petrol!

If my LaFerrari had a fuel tank that got a little bit smaller every time I filled it up I would be quite annoyed. I also don't get the appeal of 100km of range for 5 minutes of charging. I can 'charge' my petrol car in 30 seconds and get up to 1000km.


It already does have exactly that, where does the power for the 120 Kw motor come from then?

But that isn't the point the ICE has had 140 years of development time, how much time do you think is needed to solve battery life and charging time issues at todays rate of technological development?

Its not about Fossil fuel v Electric though, and which is best, the argument has been made above, there will be a change in the proportion of both on our roads and race tracks including F1. It may well vary in different countries. The only thing that is unclear is how soon.


GM EV1 - 1996
Range: 160km
Charge time (100%): 8 hours

Tesla Model 3 - 2019
Range: 380km
Charge time (100%): 13 hours

The last 23 years have not been particularly fruitful... How long do you YOU think it will take for an EV to have a 1000km range and 30 second charge time?

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7401
Location: Michigan, USA
jono794 wrote:
GM EV1 - 1996
Range: 160km
Charge time (100%): 8 hours

Tesla Model 3 - 2019
Range: 380km
Charge time (100%): 13 hours

The last 23 years have not been particularly fruitful... How long do you YOU think it will take for an EV to have a 1000km range and 30 second charge time?

The model 3 has more than double the power, so the battery capacity has gone up by more than the difference between 160km and 380km would suggest.

Ultimately, electric cars may never have the ability to fully recharge as quickly as a gasoline powered car. But does it really matter? The only thing you need a 1000km range for is road trips, which should honestly be handled with some form of mass transit. Otherwise, the car can just recharge over night.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 627
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Exediron wrote:
jono794 wrote:
GM EV1 - 1996
Range: 160km
Charge time (100%): 8 hours

Tesla Model 3 - 2019
Range: 380km
Charge time (100%): 13 hours

The last 23 years have not been particularly fruitful... How long do you YOU think it will take for an EV to have a 1000km range and 30 second charge time?

The model 3 has more than double the power, so the battery capacity has gone up by more than the difference between 160km and 380km would suggest.

Ultimately, electric cars may never have the ability to fully recharge as quickly as a gasoline powered car. But does it really matter? The only thing you need a 1000km range for is road trips, which should honestly be handled with some form of mass transit. Otherwise, the car can just recharge over night.

If you're at the point of telling the consumer "Yeah but to you really need that?", you've already lost. Asking someone to pay more for less is not how you get traction in the marketplace.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2931
jono794 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
jono794 wrote:
GM EV1 - 1996
Range: 160km
Charge time (100%): 8 hours

Tesla Model 3 - 2019
Range: 380km
Charge time (100%): 13 hours

The last 23 years have not been particularly fruitful... How long do you YOU think it will take for an EV to have a 1000km range and 30 second charge time?

The model 3 has more than double the power, so the battery capacity has gone up by more than the difference between 160km and 380km would suggest.

Ultimately, electric cars may never have the ability to fully recharge as quickly as a gasoline powered car. But does it really matter? The only thing you need a 1000km range for is road trips, which should honestly be handled with some form of mass transit. Otherwise, the car can just recharge over night.

If you're at the point of telling the consumer "Yeah but to you really need that?", you've already lost. Asking someone to pay more for less is not how you get traction in the marketplace.

I'm not convinced that we will get to a charge time that matches the time taken to fill a petrol / diesel (gas) tank (btw I don't know which fuel station you use but I can't fill my vehicle tank in 30 seconds!). I'd suspect that we will either crack the hydrogen production technology for a fuel-cell vehicle and / or change habits, i.e. overnight charging on a domestic supply / charging whilst out shopping etc. As I alluded to before, the challenge is in providing the necessary infrastructure to 'go electric.' I'd also add to that changing the perception of vehicle use / ownership will be another hurdle.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:34 pm
Posts: 185
I'd say 10-15 years, but whatever the figure the switch is inevitable


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:34 pm
Posts: 185
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
electric vehicles are not as clean and good for the environment as people are led to believe.


It at least localises airborne emission from cars into one area - the power station. Electric PUs are more operationally efficient. ICE engines have more moving parts and a huge amount of energy is lost as heat.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
I just hope F1 never goes electric because then the essence and soul of F1 will be gone.


That's nostalgia. It will go electric.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
healey wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
electric vehicles are not as clean and good for the environment as people are led to believe.


It at least localises airborne emission from cars into one area - the power station. Electric PUs are more operationally efficient. ICE engines have more moving parts and a huge amount of energy is lost as heat.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
I just hope F1 never goes electric because then the essence and soul of F1 will be gone.


That's nostalgia. It will go electric.

That's also NOT TRUE. You're not taking into account the powering of the electrical grid that needs to be built. Does every grid work off the one plant?
There will have to be thousands, possibly tens of thousands of plants built to power such an elaborate grid. Trust me when I tell you very few people have considered everything this will entail, and those whom have are paid to list the pros but make little to no mention of the cons.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3291
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
healey wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
electric vehicles are not as clean and good for the environment as people are led to believe.


It at least localises airborne emission from cars into one area - the power station. Electric PUs are more operationally efficient. ICE engines have more moving parts and a huge amount of energy is lost as heat.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
I just hope F1 never goes electric because then the essence and soul of F1 will be gone.


That's nostalgia. It will go electric.

That's also NOT TRUE. You're not taking into account the powering of the electrical grid that needs to be built. Does every grid work off the one plant?
There will have to be thousands, possibly tens of thousands of plants built to power such an elaborate grid. Trust me when I tell you very few people have considered everything this will entail, and those whom have are paid to list the pros but make little to no mention of the cons.

You make some fair points about the stumbling blocks for EVs to overcome. But what is your proposed alternative? We can't keep burning fossil fuels for ever, and eventually society will have to make the switch, preferably before all the ice caps are gone.

For me the argument that EVs just shift the emissions problem to power stations doesn't make sense. Decarbonising our transport system and our power generation are two separate tasks that have to be worked on simultaneously. We don't have to wait until our power generation is fossil fuel free before we electrify our cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
Exediron wrote:
jono794 wrote:
GM EV1 - 1996
Range: 160km
Charge time (100%): 8 hours

Tesla Model 3 - 2019
Range: 380km
Charge time (100%): 13 hours

The last 23 years have not been particularly fruitful... How long do you YOU think it will take for an EV to have a 1000km range and 30 second charge time?

The model 3 has more than double the power, so the battery capacity has gone up by more than the difference between 160km and 380km would suggest.

Ultimately, electric cars may never have the ability to fully recharge as quickly as a gasoline powered car. But does it really matter? The only thing you need a 1000km range for is road trips, which should honestly be handled with some form of mass transit. Otherwise, the car can just recharge over night.



Yeah, Nooooooooo. Whenever I get a wild her up my bum to do a road trip with my family we just pack and get in the van and drive. We have a great time as a family the kids can do whatever they want, we can stop along the way if we feel like it and do whatever we feel like. If you were to go with mass public transit all that goes out the window.

Plus, I don't like being driven around by strangers. I once was sitting in front on a bus and the bus driver didn't see a huge tree sticking way out directly in his path and drove right into it even though I warned him, and he smashed the windshield in and glass flew everywhere, leaving many of us with cuts and having to have bits of glass removed with tweezers by paramedics. The idiot never even saw it. That's all I needed to know I would never utilize any means of public transportation again, and that included airplanes. No thanks.

And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
healey wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
electric vehicles are not as clean and good for the environment as people are led to believe.


It at least localises airborne emission from cars into one area - the power station. Electric PUs are more operationally efficient. ICE engines have more moving parts and a huge amount of energy is lost as heat.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
I just hope F1 never goes electric because then the essence and soul of F1 will be gone.


That's nostalgia. It will go electric.

That's also NOT TRUE. You're not taking into account the powering of the electrical grid that needs to be built. Does every grid work off the one plant?
There will have to be thousands, possibly tens of thousands of plants built to power such an elaborate grid. Trust me when I tell you very few people have considered everything this will entail, and those whom have are paid to list the pros but make little to no mention of the cons.

You make some fair points about the stumbling blocks for EVs to overcome. But what is your proposed alternative? We can't keep burning fossil fuels for ever, and eventually society will have to make the switch, preferably before all the ice caps are gone.

For me the argument that EVs just shift the emissions problem to power stations doesn't make sense. Decarbonising our transport system and our power generation are two separate tasks that have to be worked on simultaneously. We don't have to wait until our power generation is fossil fuel free before we electrify our cars.

The absolute most efficient source of power known to man is already in use and has been for decades… Nuclear.

HOWEVER, while it is generally clean thanks to it being a closed system, when the cell has lost it's power, what then? How do we dispose of it in a way that isn't harmful to the environment? Most electrical grids across the globe are nuclear powered, but it's such a powerful and lasting source of energy that not many have lost power. But while it is practical in that application, we can't power vehicles with it because essentially, you're putting nuclear bombs all over the world's roadways. Hydrogen is the most practical in terms of its footprint on the environment, but the cost to produce is what's proven prohibitive and goverments don't want to foot any part of the bill there.

What many may not know is that modern ICE technology allows them to run with as much and even less impact on the environment than EV's. The research and numbers are there. The problem is that proponents of the EV movement don't want you to know this information so that it becomes "general common knowledge" among the world's ever diminishing level of intellect that EV's are cleaner simply because that's what people are led to believe, regardless of it being true or not.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:34 pm
Posts: 185
F1 Mercenary: Of course it will take decades to build a new infrastructure and of course this change will expend energy and create new problems to be tackled, but that would be the case whatever the nature of the new power unit in question.

Bottom line is that locally emitting ICEs are on the way out. It’s happening now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!


I don't understand why you have posted this. You have posted above with some good points then you suddenly come up with a totally fallacious argument!
Even if you did drive your Tessla into the see you wouldn't be poached........you might drown though!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 627
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
healey wrote:
F1 Mercenary: Of course it will take decades to build a new infrastructure and of course this change will expend energy and create new problems to be tackled, but that would be the case whatever the nature of the new power unit in question.

Bottom line is that locally emitting ICEs are on the way out. It’s happening now.

ICE's are still being churned out by the worlds manufacturers in the millions per month, each one with a lifespan of many decades - more if maintained correctly. What happens to these engines? Can you imagine the waste involved in phasing out ICE's?

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
jono794 wrote:
healey wrote:
F1 Mercenary: Of course it will take decades to build a new infrastructure and of course this change will expend energy and create new problems to be tackled, but that would be the case whatever the nature of the new power unit in question.

Bottom line is that locally emitting ICEs are on the way out. It’s happening now.

ICE's are still being churned out by the worlds manufacturers in the millions per month, each one with a lifespan of many decades - more if maintained correctly. What happens to these engines? Can you imagine the waste involved in phasing out ICE's?

I'll tell you precisely what will become of them… They can melt down all that aluminum and other metals and recycle them and turn them into all sorts of products, including new engine blocks and components! The same can be done with the plastics. All of this is already done around the world. :nod:

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!


I don't understand why you have posted this. You have posted above with some good points then you suddenly come up with a totally fallacious argument!
Even if you did drive your Tessla into the see you wouldn't be poached........you might drown though!

OK you seem to not be a boater so I'll clue you in… You literally walk ON your trailer which has a wiring harness connected directly to the vehicle and runs all the way to the rear of the trailer AND you are in contact both with the vehicle and boat/trailer and the water isn't very deep there either. So in the event of a short, you can indeed get electrocuted. I don't get how you follow F1 and KNOW how dangerous the batteries are yet you dismiss a car powered ENTIRELY by batteries somehow doesn't pose potential danger?

And just so you're aware, saltwater destroys EVERYTHING without prejudice. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Aluminum is among the most corrosion resistant materials from saltwater, but eventually it will oxidize. Gelcoated fiberglass is also quite impervious to salt water… Initially, but eventually saltwater will affect the finish and make it rough and porous. That's why boats now have 3-7 thick coats of Gelcoat so you can sand and re-buff it to a showroom shine.

I assure you my argument is more than valid.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 627
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
jono794 wrote:
healey wrote:
F1 Mercenary: Of course it will take decades to build a new infrastructure and of course this change will expend energy and create new problems to be tackled, but that would be the case whatever the nature of the new power unit in question.

Bottom line is that locally emitting ICEs are on the way out. It’s happening now.

ICE's are still being churned out by the worlds manufacturers in the millions per month, each one with a lifespan of many decades - more if maintained correctly. What happens to these engines? Can you imagine the waste involved in phasing out ICE's?

I'll tell you precisely what will become of them… They can melt down all that aluminum and other metals and recycle them and turn them into all sorts of products, including new engine blocks and components! The same can be done with the plastics. All of this is already done around the world. :nod:

Do you advocate for recycling of these engines before their end of life? That's what I'm saying is wasteful. I'm aware of what recycling is.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2199
Location: Far side of Koozebane
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The absolute most efficient source of power known to man is already in use and has been for decades… Nuclear.

HOWEVER, while it is generally clean thanks to it being a closed system, when the cell has lost it's power, what then? How do we dispose of it in a way that isn't harmful to the environment?


The answers obvious.

Rocket technology's pretty reliable these days. Load it + any other rubbish that can't be recycled into a rocket & fire it up to drift forever in the void of space. Some country could build an entire industry out of getting rid of the worlds waste this way. Make billions out of it.

There, problem solved ;)

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After USA- 19) - 137 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 357 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!


I don't understand why you have posted this. You have posted above with some good points then you suddenly come up with a totally fallacious argument!
Even if you did drive your Tessla into the see you wouldn't be poached........you might drown though!

OK you seem to not be a boater so I'll clue you in… You literally walk ON your trailer which has a wiring harness connected directly to the vehicle and runs all the way to the rear of the trailer AND you are in contact both with the vehicle and boat/trailer and the water isn't very deep there either. So in the event of a short, you can indeed get electrocuted. I don't get how you follow F1 and KNOW how dangerous the batteries are yet you dismiss a car powered ENTIRELY by batteries somehow doesn't pose potential danger?


I assure you my argument is more than valid.


It is simply not true that you can be electrocuted by the wiring harness running to a trailer in the sea. The voltage isn't high enough. You will get a shock if you are in close proximity to the source of the current, less than an inch and you may even feel it in the water but electrocution no.

Voltage dissipates rapidly with distance. A high pressure hose can clean concrete at 6 inches but cover the concrete with water 6 inches deep then try cleaning it and its just moving water.

You Lithium ion battery has higher voltage say 400v but as soon as the electricity hits the water its dropping as it gets conducted away in all directions. Clearly you don't want to be close to the source but to say you will be poached isn't true. The battery will quickly be discharged.

You may before you mention lightning remember that a lighting bolt might well be 100,000v plus and even that gets dissipated across the surface of the water. Thats why fish in the sea don't get zapped in a storm.

You can get electrocuted in water from a mains source of course. Just to mention electricity is an unpredictable entity so please don't test this out tp prove a point.

For corrosion to occur the metals need to be immersed in water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:34 pm
Posts: 185
jono794 wrote:
[ICE's are still being churned out by the worlds manufacturers in the millions per month, each one with a lifespan of many decades - more if maintained correctly. What happens to these engines? Can you imagine the waste involved in phasing out ICE's?


ICE production slowly ramps down over the next few decades and the production of EVs ramps up. ICEs get scrapped and recycled. No different to any other manufacturing development shift.

I'm sure with lots of maintenance we could all still be driving around four-speed manual engines from the 70s, but technology moves on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
In the UK we had a scrappage scheme for phasing out older vehicles with big discounts for qualifying cars. Any newly built cars now will have catalytic converters, by the time electric stars to grow those converters will be worth a fortune with the price of palladium soaring!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2243
Location: Miami, Florida
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!


I don't understand why you have posted this. You have posted above with some good points then you suddenly come up with a totally fallacious argument!
Even if you did drive your Tessla into the see you wouldn't be poached........you might drown though!

OK you seem to not be a boater so I'll clue you in… You literally walk ON your trailer which has a wiring harness connected directly to the vehicle and runs all the way to the rear of the trailer AND you are in contact both with the vehicle and boat/trailer and the water isn't very deep there either. So in the event of a short, you can indeed get electrocuted. I don't get how you follow F1 and KNOW how dangerous the batteries are yet you dismiss a car powered ENTIRELY by batteries somehow doesn't pose potential danger?


I assure you my argument is more than valid.


It is simply not true that you can be electrocuted by the wiring harness running to a trailer in the sea. The voltage isn't high enough. You will get a shock if you are in close proximity to the source of the current, less than an inch and you may even feel it in the water but electrocution no.

Voltage dissipates rapidly with distance. A high pressure hose can clean concrete at 6 inches but cover the concrete with water 6 inches deep then try cleaning it and its just moving water.

You Lithium ion battery has higher voltage say 400v but as soon as the electricity hits the water its dropping as it gets conducted away in all directions. Clearly you don't want to be close to the source but to say you will be poached isn't true. The battery will quickly be discharged.

You may before you mention lightning remember that a lighting bolt might well be 100,000v plus and even that gets dissipated across the surface of the water. Thats why fish in the sea don't get zapped in a storm.

You can get electrocuted in water from a mains source of course. Just to mention electricity is an unpredictable entity so please don't test this out tp prove a point.

For corrosion to occur the metals need to be immersed in water.

Wow, so much wrong here but I'll just let you know that lightning strikes in the water do indeed kill fish as I've seen it for myself. SMH
I was out about 6 miles with my dad and a giant funnel cloud formed from out of nowhere about 500 feet from us, while there was nothing but bright blue skies and it turned ugly in an instant and lightning struck several times and fish were floating. So that theory is wrong.

As well, when we fished for shrimp commercially, (you do this at night) we'd encounter lighting from time to time as it tends to be quite frequent here in South Florida, and both fish and shrimp have floated right into our nets. Again proving your theory wrong.

As for the water depth at the dock, lets see, it ranges from 0-24-ish inches which is about knee deep which isn't deep.

Also, depending on when you drop, you can be in high tide which means your boat will float off your trailer easily, but sometimes during low tide, you have to go back further to the steeper end of the ramp which means your car WILL BE SUBMERGED to some degree. You can try to bring your arguments but it's quite apparent you don't do this stuff and don't know what you're talking about.

https://www.esfi.org/resource/boating-a ... safety-263

My dad is a master carpenter/handyman and I worked with him a lot and we've both been zapped by both 112 and 220 lines so I know all too well what electrocution feels like.
Once when I was a young teenager I was preparing for a fishing tournament during Christmas time and put fresh line on my reels and tied lures and started casting in the yard to make fine adjustments. On one cast however, my lure landed in on of our bushes, all of which were adorned with Christmas lights which are low voltage. My lure was stuck so I grabbed the lure to free it but I didn't realize one of the hooks slipped in the back of one of the bulb housings and as soon as I grabbed it I was STUCK and luckily I didn't panic and had the presence of mind to reach with my left hand to grab the light string and I was able to slooooooowly slide the hook out.

So please spare me the low voltage argument because if I was in the water that day I would have had very little chance of surviving. So just imagine if a high voltage battery system shorted out while partially submerged in water. POACHED was indeed the correct term.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1517
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
And then there's the whole corrosion issue that NO ONE has yet considered… For those of us with boats who go out on the ocean, we know all too well how salt water likes to try and destroy everything, and when you're dropping or trailering your boat you often have to get in the water to do it, and what happens if you're vehicle is electric and has a malfunction? IDK about anyone else, but I don't feel like being poached to death. Once again, leave me with my Fossil Fuel vehicle thanks!


I don't understand why you have posted this. You have posted above with some good points then you suddenly come up with a totally fallacious argument!
Even if you did drive your Tessla into the see you wouldn't be poached........you might drown though!

OK you seem to not be a boater so I'll clue you in… You literally walk ON your trailer which has a wiring harness connected directly to the vehicle and runs all the way to the rear of the trailer AND you are in contact both with the vehicle and boat/trailer and the water isn't very deep there either. So in the event of a short, you can indeed get electrocuted. I don't get how you follow F1 and KNOW how dangerous the batteries are yet you dismiss a car powered ENTIRELY by batteries somehow doesn't pose potential danger?




I assure you my argument is more than valid.


It is simply not true that you can be electrocuted by the wiring harness running to a trailer in the sea. The voltage isn't high enough. You will get a shock if you are in close proximity to the source of the current, less than an inch and you may even feel it in the water but electrocution no.

Voltage dissipates rapidly with distance. A high pressure hose can clean concrete at 6 inches but cover the concrete with water 6 inches deep then try cleaning it and its just moving water.

You Lithium ion battery has higher voltage say 400v but as soon as the electricity hits the water its dropping as it gets conducted away in all directions. Clearly you don't want to be close to the source but to say you will be poached isn't true. The battery will quickly be discharged.

You may before you mention lightning remember that a lighting bolt might well be 100,000v plus and even that gets dissipated across the surface of the water. Thats why fish in the sea don't get zapped in a storm.

You can get electrocuted in water from a mains source of course. Just to mention electricity is an unpredictable entity so please don't test this out tp prove a point.

For corrosion to occur the metals need to be immersed in water.

Wow, so much wrong here but I'll just let you know that lightning strikes in the water do indeed kill fish as I've seen it for myself. SMH
I was out about 6 miles with my dad and a giant funnel cloud formed from out of nowhere about 500 feet from us, while there was nothing but bright blue skies and it turned ugly in an instant and lightning struck several times and fish were floating. So that theory is wrong.

As well, when we fished for shrimp commercially, (you do this at night) we'd encounter lighting from time to time as it tends to be quite frequent here in South Florida, and both fish and shrimp have floated right into our nets. Again proving your theory wrong.

As for the water depth at the dock, lets see, it ranges from 0-24-ish inches which is about knee deep which isn't deep.

Also, depending on when you drop, you can be in high tide which means your boat will float off your trailer easily, but sometimes during low tide, you have to go back further to the steeper end of the ramp which means your car WILL BE SUBMERGED to some degree. You can try to bring your arguments but it's quite apparent you don't do this stuff and don't know what you're talking about.

https://www.esfi.org/resource/boating-a ... safety-263

My dad is a master carpenter/handyman and I worked with him a lot and we've both been zapped by both 112 and 220 lines so I know all too well what electrocution feels like.
Once when I was a young teenager I was preparing for a fishing tournament during Christmas time and put fresh line on my reels and tied lures and started casting in the yard to make fine adjustments. On one cast however, my lure landed in on of our bushes, all of which were adorned with Christmas lights which are low voltage. My lure was stuck so I grabbed the lure to free it but I didn't realize one of the hooks slipped in the back of one of the bulb housings and as soon as I grabbed it I was STUCK and luckily I didn't panic and had the presence of mind to reach with my left hand to grab the light string and I was able to slooooooowly slide the hook out.

So please spare me the low voltage argument because if I was in the water that day I would have had very little chance of surviving. So just imagine if a high voltage battery system shorted out while partially submerged in water. POACHED was indeed the correct term.


But we are talking about batteries! You are talking about power lines, there is a massive difference.

The fact that you were not electrocuted by low voltage Christmas lights proves it. Sorry but to say you can be "poached" by the wiring harness in a road trailer is nonsense. You might feel a zap but poaching!

The danger from lightning is well documented but we are talking hundreds of Kilovolts in a lightning strike. There is an increased danger from say a Tesla battery but that is in an insulated circuit between the battery and the motor. If that danger existed it could be prevented by an RCD.

You argument is to dissuade people from driving electric vehicles suggesting they are dangerous and you can be electrocuted. There are dangers from Lithium ion batteries in the same way as there are dangers from a petrol/gas driven cars, but your example isn't one of them.

Can You Be Electrocuted by a 12 Volt Car Battery


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: X61 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group