Is derv in for a price hike this year!

strtdv

Oh well, I guess that means my next car will be a Golf R estate rather than an A6 Avant Biturbo.

Probably going for a GTI for my wife around June time.

Sporky

strtdv said:

Oh well, I guess that means my next car will be a Golf R estate rather than an A6 Avant Biturbo.

The R estate is awfully good. Bit noisy, but awfully good.

rlw

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

A car that can't be driven into London without paying a charge will not be desirable.

If I may venture, that's a very London-centric view. I live only 40-odd miles from the centre of London and I never drive there.

But the person who buys your car from you might want to.

Sporky

rlw said:

Sporky said:

If I may venture, that's a very London-centric view. I live only 40-odd miles from the centre of London and I never drive there.

But the person who buys your car from you might want to.

They might, but there are a huge number of people who never drive into London. I just don't take quite the same doom-and-gloom view. Diesel is clearly on the demise, but a diesel bought today isn't going to have zero value next year, or the year after that, or the year after that.

ThorpyFX

Well, I've just bought a Diesel car to replace my diesel car. I'm very happy with my choice but I wish the Tesla vehicles were more affordable and more widely supported with a charging network because I would have loved a model S P100D!!.


At University I did a thesis on PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) from diesel ICE, along with studies on Benzene toxicity from Petrol engines. PM10s are hazardous as they can get into your deep lung cavities, Benzene and other aromatics found in petrol are carcinogenic.

Ultimately Diesel isn't the issue here, its a side note to a bigger issue that we need to stop using ICE altogether (unless hydrogen can be rolled out fully). The fumes from both Petrol and Diesel are harmful, catalytic converters are happily pumping micronised platinum into our lungs where it can do damage and ultimately the whole economy is predicated on pumping oil around the world.....

What we really need is all ICE vehicles to be replaced, this is NEVER going to happen through government intervention as long as the government receives funding and backhanders from the oil industry.

crunchman

@ThorpyFX you are right about needing to replace both petrol and diesel, but diesel is the more immediate problem.

The WHO classes diesel exhaust as carcinogenic to humans, while petrol exhaust is classified at the lower level possibly carcinogenic to humans.

From what I've read the PM2.5s are a much worse problem than PM10 as it can get much deeper into the body.

I still think hydrogen can be the way forwards.  It gives you a way around the issue of storage of energy and charging times.  The problem with renewables like solar is that they aren't available at the right times.  If you use surplus electricity in the day from solar (which is now getting very cheap) to electrolyse sea water then you will get hydrogen and you can then use that for transport.

If you go with batteries then you will need the power at the wrong times to charge vehicles.  If you actually succeed in making batteries with more capacity they will take even longer to charge.  It can already take 10 hours plus to recharge an electric car off a 13A socket.  If you increase the capacity to the point where the range is competitive with ICE vehicles you could be looking at more than 24 hours to fully charge.  Even if you install a dedicated electric car charger you are still looking at several hours if/when batteries get to that kind of capacity.

If you are going to use hydrogen then fuel cells will be more efficient than a combustion engine.  There is something nice about a V8 though.

hotpot

Your journeys will need better planning with EV's that's for sure, I've just been looking at the charge points in the UK on Zap Map site.   https://www.zap-map.com/live/     there seems to be a huge coverage & click on the charge location & it will tell you if it's working/vacant etc.

There are 'Rapid chargers' at every motorway service station that can charge your batteries up to 80 % in under 30 minutes. Still if EV's take off they're going to need lots more of them.

crunchman

hotpot said:

Your journeys will need better planning with EV's that's for sure, I've just been looking at the charge points in the UK on Zap Map site.   https://www.zap-map.com/live/     there seems to be a huge coverage & click on the charge location & it will tell you if it's working/vacant etc.

There are 'Rapid chargers' at every motorway service station that can charge your batteries up to 80 % in under 30 minutes. Still if EV's take off they're going to need lots more of them.

If battery capacities get useful though, that 30 minutes will become an hour or more.

Did you see the Grand Tour where May tried to get from London to Dartmoor in an electric car?  Most of the charge points at the service stations weren't working.

If you are a two car family with another car that you can use for long journeys then an electric car makes sense as a second car for commuting.  At the moment it's not practical as your main vehicle.

In the short term petrol or petrol hybrid is less bad than diesel.

hotpot

crunchman said:

hotpot said:

Your journeys will need better planning with EV's that's for sure, I've just been looking at the charge points in the UK on Zap Map site.   https://www.zap-map.com/live/     there seems to be a huge coverage & click on the charge location & it will tell you if it's working/vacant etc.

There are 'Rapid chargers' at every motorway service station that can charge your batteries up to 80 % in under 30 minutes. Still if EV's take off they're going to need lots more of them.

If battery capacities get useful though, that 30 minutes will become an hour or more.

Did you see the Grand Tour where May tried to get from London to Dartmoor in an electric car?  Most of the charge points at the service stations weren't working.

If you are a two car family with another car that you can use for long journeys then an electric car makes sense as a second car for commuting.  At the moment it's not practical as your main vehicle.

In the short term petrol or petrol hybrid is less bad than diesel.

LOL Oh dear! I missed that program. I agree they're not for everyone, I'm still thinking of getting a EV, it would suit my needs perfectly. Since retiring I have no commute & I don't even manage 2000 miles a year between MOT's.

I still use the bus/train quite often if I have to go into town.

notanon

@ThorpyFX ;
I thought some particulates from diesel were now crossing the blood barrier?

ThorpyFX

crunchman said:

@ThorpyFX you are right about needing to replace both petrol and diesel, but diesel is the more immediate problem.

"The WHO says there has been mounting concern in recent years about the cancer-causing potential of diesel engine exhaust, based on findings from epidemiological studies of workers exposed to diesel fumes. In particular, it cites a large cohort study, published in March this year, of occupational exposure to diesel exhaust in 12,315 US miners. The study was run by the US National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. It found that exposure to diesel exhaust increased the risk of dying from lung cancer (1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.44). A further case-control study, undertaken in this group (comparing 198 miners who had died from lung cancer with 562 miners who were alive at the time the ‘case’ died), found that the risk of lung cancer in these workers increased with the length of time they were exposed to diesel fumes."

this is the issue with selective citing of academic papers.

so the study that has caused the downgrade to carcinogenic was based on miners using plant. The plant equipment is used in a confined space, on equipment that is less efficient and less environmentally safe than cars that have to meet stringent EU regs.

Not only that, these same plant engines do not use High Pressure rail injection as seen in cars, so they burn more fuel, less efficiently as as a consequence produce more carbon PM10s and PM2.5s........

I'm not saying diesel is perfect, far from it, but the two scenarios are not the same and im certain if petrol was used underground wed see a similar downgrading....

ThorpyFX

notanon said:

@ThorpyFX ;
I thought some particulates from diesel were now crossing the blood barrier?

my understanding is that they can do if they are small enough to get into the deep alveoli...., same for heavy metals etc....

Axe_meister

Dealerships are obviously worried about second hand car prices and all those guaranteed prices at the end of a 3 year purchase deal.
We've only had our Civic diesel less than 15 months are they are desperate to get us into a new Petrol one.

crunchman

ThorpyFX said:

so the study that has caused the downgrade to carcinogenic was based on miners using plant. The plant equipment is used in a confined space, on equipment that is less efficient and less environmentally safe than cars that have to meet stringent EU regs.

They don't meet stringent EU regs though.  Now the car manufacturers have succeeded in Euro 6 getting tests on actual emissions (not ideal situation lab tests) put back to 2019 because the vast majority of cars can't meet the standard.  If they don't meet the standard they should be banned.

impmann

crunchman said:

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

A car that can't be driven into London without paying a charge will not be desirable.

If I may venture, that's a very London-centric view. I live only 40-odd miles from the centre of London and I never drive there.

There are millions who do though, even if only occasionally.  Something like 1 in 8 of the population live in greater London.  Add in people who go to visit relatives there, or go there for business, then you can add millions more.  If you take them out of the market for second hand diesels then value will plummet.

Bear in mind that they are talking about charging for driving into other cities as well - not just London.
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/five-cities-to-get-ultra-low-emissions-zones/

At the moment this won't affect Euro 6 cars but given that the real life emissions from Euro 6 diesels are much higher than the official fictitious version then I wouldn't want to bet on that remaining the case.

Fuck London - so what if 1 in 8 people live in the Greater London area, that means that 7 out of every 8 don't, therefore there are many many many more people who don't have to drive into London. And anyone with any sense gets the train into London, as 1) its congested to hell and 2) there's nowhere to park that doesn't involve ridiculous sums of money...

So diesels are bad (M'kay) now, eh? That's like saying eat this cat shit because this dog shit is bad for you. Yes *some* reports say that the majority of the polutants found can be traced back to diesel emmissions right now... could that be because diesel cars, vans, trucks, buses, taxis etc are in the majority (or at least there are a shit load more of them) thanks to the incentives of a few years ago? Those cancer-causing particulates have always been there - but there's just a lot more of them now.

I'm not sure what to believe any more - there have been scientific studies that support Petrol engines being 'worse' and now there are ones saying similar about diesels. Each time these things are reported, the average motorist ends up out of pocket - without any workable alternatives.

Is it just a money-making scheme? Is just a ruse to sell new cars?

I don't know... but you can bet someone is making a killing out of it.

Sporky

impmann said:

Is it just a money-making scheme? Is just a ruse to sell new cars?

I think it's more about tax - encourage people to buy a particular type of car, then massively raise the taxes on it. They switch to something with lower tax, so leave it a couple of years and hit that instead. Even better you'll get the people themselves acting all holier-than-each-other about having switched (or not having "fallen for it" in the first place) so no-one notices it's the government digging holes and pushing people into them. Genius.

crunchman

@impmann - I was pointing out the potential effect on resale.  If 12.5% of the population live in Greater London, and quite a few more will have to drive there sometimes, then demand for second hand diesels that will incur a charge to drive into London will almost certainly be less in a few years time.  It's got to affect resale values.  How much I'm not sure.  It might be £50 or it might be £500 but it's a risk you are taking.  That's what I was trying to point out.

I also read today that Islington is charging £96 per year more for parking permits on diesels in the new financial year.  There are 215,000 people living in Islington.  In that part of London a lot will not have their own cars, but it's safe to say that there are several thousand residents who currently have diesels who will not be buying diesel next time.  I know other London boroughs are charging more for diesels, if not as much as Islington.  Some of those are in outer London like Merton where large numbers of people do own cars.  Across London as a whole there will be hundreds of thousands of drivers who currently own diesels who will be looking at something else next time.

It's also highly likely that diesels will not be able to be registered as minicabs going forwards.  New Black Cabs will not be diesel from Jan 2018.  I can't imagine TFL allowing diesel minicabs while not allowing diesel Black Cabs.  If 100,000 London minicab drivers aren't buying 3 year old diesels then that's another chunk of the market for second hand diesels gone.

Like it or not, London is big enough to affect prices country wide.  Also you need to bear in mind the other things I mentioned.  London is not the only city bringing in emissions controls.  The biggest effect on resale will be the other thing I mentioned - the change to the price of road tax for cars registered after April.  I can't see anything but a drop in demand for second hand diesels, and a drop in resale value as a result.  You have to factor that in.

The big (although highly unlikely risk) is that current diesels that do not meet the Euro 6 requirements that they claim to meet will be penalised once real world Euro 6 tests are in place (currently scheduled for 2019 unless the car makers can weasel out of it again). What happens if the government insists on product recalls to get the ones on sale now modified to meet the Euro 6 standard, or charges an extra pollution levy on them?  I don't think it's likely that the government will do that, but you can't completely rule out some kind of government action.
 

ICBM

Sporky said:

I think it's more about tax - encourage people to buy a particular type of car, then massively raise the taxes on it. They switch to something with lower tax, so leave it a couple of years and hit that instead. Even better you'll get the people themselves acting all holier-than-each-other about having switched (or not having "fallen for it" in the first place) so no-one notices it's the government digging holes and pushing people into them. Genius.

Some of us did wonder that, even while being holier-than-thou about not falling for it . It made us even more wary of falling for it...

But paranoia aside, I suspect it was more to do with bad scientific advice - or ignorant implementation of it - and wanting to appear 'green', encouraged by car manufacturers and their lobbyists who wanted to sell a new generation of cars, when the market is no longer growing. And now the car makers will get another bite at the cake when they need to sell a different new generation.

LoFi

crunchman said:

If you go with batteries then you will need the power at the wrong times to charge vehicles.  If you actually succeed in making batteries with more capacity they will take even longer to charge.  It can already take 10 hours plus to recharge an electric car off a 13A socket.  If you increase the capacity to the point where the range is competitive with ICE vehicles you could be looking at more than 24 hours to fully charge.  Even if you install a dedicated electric car charger you are still looking at several hours if/when batteries get to that kind of capacity.

This sort of objection comes up a lot when electric cars get discussed on a car forum I'm on. How many people use anything like the full range of their cars every day? Even at current capacity, the range of a Tesla S is 265 miles (315 with the largest battery). Granted, there are some road warriors that are doing that daily, but they are few and far between, and I don't think even the strongest proponent of EVs would suggest they are suitable for every usage in their current form (or with the current infrastructure).

I could easily be convinced that hydrogen is the long-term future, but I think it's a way off, and I'm a big fan of electric cars as an interim solution (and I say that as someone whose last car was a 4L V8, albeit one I only did 2000 miles a year in).

Sporky

ICBM said:

But paranoia aside, I suspect it was more to do with bad scientific advice - or ignorant implementation of it - and wanting to appear 'green', encouraged by car manufacturers and their lobbyists who wanted to sell a new generation of cars, when the market is no longer growing. And now the car makers will get another bite at the cake when they need to sell a different new generation.

Plus - as we've discussed before - the car makers then slow development of petrols and don't even offer petrol engines in a fair few models.