Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[wyx087]

If I were going to buy an article based on reliability alone, I would value actual real-life data way above manufacturer guesswork if there was no actual real-life data to back it up.
To compare your example, 5D2 actual facts quoting 200K actuations or Nikon manufacturer saying it's rated to 200K but only just released camera. My guess would be that the Nikon will probably last the same as the Canon as Nikon have been at it for quite a while.

Problem with cars is that a new-ish model of car a perspective buyer is looking at won't have much reliability data, 6 years at most before the model gets refreshed. I do understand your points though, I looked at the 2.0 TDI engine line and the 6 speed wet clutch DSG reliability separately before putting my money on the line. Whereas with EV, all special components are new and there is no prior evidence of their reliability.

The point with camera, was that manufacturer quoted for the shutters is different to the real world data. Canon 5D2 had 150k manufacturer shutter life, but I had owned a 5D2 approaching 200k and was still going strong. If a new Nikon advertised to have 150k shutter life but historic data had shown older Canon shutter generally last 200k, are those points of data really comparable?

Both points indicates that we can't really compare real-world data against manufacturer data. I would go further and say you can't compare data from different manufacturers, because different manufacturer use different metrics/assessment/testing method.

Really, Dragging a large battery round all the time and using it for the odd journey seems a very odd way to achieve efficiency to me. Be a bit like dragging round a full fuel tank if you're just doing just local journeys and topping up every time you used the car. Manufacturer's claims and real world would seem to be different which is probably why the Govt took away the tax incentive as PHEV were mainly being used as ICE for most of the time.

The government hasn't took away all PHEV incentives though. Range extended EV still qualifies for tax incentive. The original BMW i3 REx from back in 2014 still qualifies.

This is where I think cars will need to go, if public charging doesn't improve enough to allow people to travel confidently. A moderate sized battery to get people places most of the time, then a small generator to extend the mileage if needed. Like the LEVC new London taxi, a 20-odd kWh battery for 80 miles range (like my Leaf) and a petrol generator so you can keep going as the customer required.

This way, you get 100% benefit of EV's (cheap and ease of charging, regenerative braking, silent+refined vehicles, instant throttle response, and large amount of mileage covered with zero emission), plus an alternative power source that is light weight (BMW i3 REx is 120kg heavier than battery only) and able to operate at the ICE most efficient RPM + load.

 

[nilagin]

all is needed is 40miles on the battery with a plug in option.

For now maybe, after 2030 all new hybrids will be required to travel a minimum of 50 miles on the electric motor.

 

[nilagin]

Now resorting to personal insults?

Are you saying all manufacturers use the exact same criteria for their durability tests? Then why was the new Toyota Supra's BMW engine been de-tuned slightly when Toyota got the engine from BMW?
The Leaf has not been on sale for 15 years, so we cannot compare Nissan Leaf data provided by manufacturer against garage data as you've attempted to do in your previous reply. Because, let me repeat this again, their test methodology, test data and test result assessment are all different.




You are talking about NOW, completely ignoring future possibilities thanks to the step change in technology.

What personal insult?

As you have obviously spent all your working working in the automotive industry why don't you enlighten us with the answers?
Why do you think Toyota detuned the BMW engine?

 

[wyx087]

As you have obviously spent all your working working in the automotive industry why don't you enlighten us with the answers?
Why do you think Toyota detuned the BMW engine?

I can't remember which video exactly that mentioned this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...ta=&aq=f&aqi=g3g-s1g6&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&cad=h
One reply during each tea break counts as "spending all working time"? How are you managing your replies?
But let's not get distracted.

You are attempting to pass off a completely different measuring method to justify you saying EV powertrain will only last 12 years:

Quite possibly the proof you were looking for. Nissan Note rated as one of the cars least likely to need a repair based on maintenance costs for cars up to 15yrs old.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...-most-expensive-cars-maintain-repair-2019/amp
So what is left to differ for Nissan to give the Leaf a shorter average lifespan?

It says that Nissan claim that the battery will have an average life expectancy of 22 years, outliving the car by 10 to 12 years. How is that unrelated. What exactly do they expect to have died on the car before then? A 12yr corrosion warranty is pretty much standard amongst manufacturers, so It's unlikely to be the bodywork. So that pretty much leaves the powertrain that would end the vehicles life expectancy.

Reads like a very bad mass media article to attempt spreading fear about buying EV, creating uncertainty regarding this technology and generate doubt regarding EV's.

Just like climate change denying scientists, I do wonder if you have ulterior motive to make sure ICE keeps getting built.......

 

[nilagin]

Providing me with a load of videos doesn't answer my question. Why in your expert opinion do you think Toyota fitted a detuned version of the BMW engine?
What has tea breaks got to do with what you do for a living?
Perhaps if you actually had any experience of automotive testing and durability you would see that the two sources of data are comparable.

Why does it read like a bad mass media article? It merely states that the battery will outlive the vehicle by 10-12yrs, dismissing any fears of the car needing a new battery. The article doesn't mention that Nissan's prediction of average lifespan falls short of the industry average.

 

[broc]

If EVs with a petrol generator are such a good idea why has BMW dropped the range extender option from the i3?

 

[srichards]

If EVs with a petrol generator are such a good idea why has BMW dropped the range extender option from the i3?

Emissions I think. It's still available in the US at the moment.

It's not very economical on petrol either.

 

[Nod]

Might be to keep the list price below the 40 grand road tax limit.

 

[nilagin]

Surely the idea of a petrol generator is just to recharge the battery. It shouldn't even be connected to the drive train.

 

[srichards]

The Rex isn't connected to the drive train. It keeps battery charge at whatever level it is when you start it up. It's only a rubbish moped engine so it's not clean at all and now the new i3 has 40+ kWh battery it isn't needed so much.

 

[broc]

The Rex isn't connected to the drive train. It keeps battery charge at whatever level it is when you start it up. It's only a rubbish moped engine so it's not clean at all and now the new i3 has 40+ kWh battery it isn't needed so much.

650cc is a big engine for a moped..... also 60% of i3 sales were range extenders. I believe the range extender version is still on sale in the USA & Japan?

 

[MatBin]

nope about the weight of a passenger, and in relation to your people will just ICE no they wont if they can help it as it will be WAY cheaper to charge it for a few hours at home or even at the supermarket or at work. PHEV was a fail because it was abused by people that wanted to buy a monster truck,

imagine a Plug in Ford Fiesta hybrid or Plug in Vauxhall Corsa Hybrid or even a Plug in Citroen C3.

The 4.4 kWh lithium-ion battery developed for the Prius Plug-in fits under the rear cargo floor and weighs 80 kg (180 lb)./

Is that an American passenger?
And I can imagine plug in versions of those cars and I'd sooner eat my own feet than own one. The Fiesta is a fine car as is, please leave it alone.

 

[wyx087]

I believe the reason BMW i3 REx is no longer for sale in Europe is due to emissions and warranty claims arose from REx rarely getting used.

The "problem" with range extended EV is that it allows you to feel 100% EV benefit and the ICE characteristics all gets removed. Whereas with PHEV like Golf GTE, the car can waggle its finger at you and say "fossil fuel is still the best fuel" when you demand more power than the tiny electric motor they put in. So car manufacturers prefer the latter.

PHEV allows the car to feel like normal car if you never plug in, it also happens to fall in a cheaper tax bracket thanks to EV range covered during testing. Unfortunately the combination means some people who drive the car for the tax bracket but never plug in, completely defeat the purpose of a plug-in hybrid EV.

But if you consider LEVC, let's say it's got a range of 80 miles on EV. That is equivalent to 4 hours of average speed 20mph (fast for stop/start city driving). Being EV first, it also enables you to wait in the air-conditioned car without emitting tailpipe pollution. It makes total sense as a taxi.

The powertrain also makes sense for most people who would only use their car for long trips occasionally. With big enough battery to cover your daily needs without ICE ever firing up locally. Then have an ICE as alternative power source to drive long distances using existing petrol stations before EV en-route chargers are plentiful.

Perhaps if you actually had any experience of automotive testing and durability you would see that the two sources of data are comparable.

Ok, if you say so.
Looking at your argument critically from a scientific point of view, they are vastly different with too many assumptions and different methodologies to enable making any comparison.
But if in your expert opinion, as someone who is involved in ICE auto industry, that they are comparable. Thus props up your argument against EV, then it's all okay.

 

[nilagin]

Looking at your argument critically from a scientific point of view, they are vastly different with too many assumptions and different methodologies to enable making any comparison.
But if in your expert opinion, as someone who is involved in ICE auto industry, that they are comparable. Thus props up your argument against EV, then it's all okay.

Yet more flannel. Explain the differences and I am still waiting for you to tell me why Toyota "chose" to use a detuned BMW engine.

 

[wyx087]

Yet more flannel. Explain the differences and I am still waiting for you to tell me why Toyota "chose" to use a detuned BMW engine.

If you must know: at 1:45 on this video talks about asking Toyota the decision for BMW engine, at 2:43, the presenter quoted Toyota chef engineer "will it pass our requirement for reliability?" BMW Z4 using the same engine has 50hp more power than Toyota Supra.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koIQeuqrxw


Now, please do tell me, why my statement on the comparison is "more flannel"? Try to keep your reasoning generic and scientific, refrain from insults or "auto industry experience".

 

[MatBin]

If you must know: at 1:45 on this video talks about asking Toyota the decision for BMW engine, at 2:43, the presenter quoted Toyota chef engineer "will it pass our requirement for reliability?" BMW Z4 using the same engine has 50hp more power than Toyota Supra.

QUOTE]
And we must wonder if he's telling the truth, or did BMW sell them that engine on the understanding they detune it so as not to be direct competition to BMW, I doubt we'll ever know. To be fair to BMW their engines are hardly known as unreliable, the rest might be pants though. apart from the fact they tend to look after their customers quite well.

 

[wyx087]

Could be a number of factors and this is like Chinese whispers. But two things are for certain:
1. Toyota are known for their high reliability, so having different reliability metrics to BMW is possible.
2. Different companies have different design processes and quality assurance standards are entirely possible. Only way to deal with such differences is an industry-wide standard. Which I don't believe Nissan quoted when they gave their EV estimate.

Hence, I would not consider any metric, other than Nissan saying their ICE cars last X years, to be comparable to Nissan saying their EV lasting 12 years.

 

[nilagin]

If you must know: at 1:45 on this video talks about asking Toyota the decision for BMW engine, at 2:43, the presenter quoted Toyota chef engineer "will it pass our requirement for reliability?" BMW Z4 using the same engine has 50hp more power than Toyota Supra.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koIQeuqrxw


Now, please do tell me, why my statement on the comparison is "more flannel"? Try to keep your reasoning generic and scientific, refrain from insults or "auto industry experience".

That still doesn't answer why the engine is detuned. I still want to know why you think they wanted it detuned or why irt had to be detuned. Take note of the part in the video where Toyota took the engine and stripped it down prior to it being detuned.
Your statement is flannel because you are avoiding answering the question. Just saying they are not comparable doesn't suffice, you need to give reasons as to why they aren't comparable.

 

[wyx087]

Your statement is flannel because you are avoiding answering the question. Just saying they are not comparable doesn't suffice, you need to give reasons as to why they aren't comparable.

Life expectancy is life expectancy, how can it be measured differently? Data is derived from when cars reach the end of their life and an average age is derived. Manufacturers will test components on a car to determine It's life expectancy it is then judged against cost.

I've highlighted 4 possible differences for you in your own sentence above.

Last time I checked, apples can't be compared to oranges because they are vastly different. Same with this, Nissan may have different life expectancy criteria than other manufacturer.

 

[nilagin]

I've highlighted 4 possible differences for you in your own sentence above.

Last time I checked, apples can't be compared to oranges because they are vastly different. Same with this, Nissan may have different life expectancy criteria than other manufacturer.

It has nothing to do with comparing apples and oranges. You can't even supply your scientific answer. If Nissan have a different life expectancy criteria, explain how the average Note goes 15yrs without requiring major work, meeting the industry average yet Nissan predict the Leaf will have an average life expectancy of just 10 to 12yrs. They are both similar sized vehicles in the same class but the Leaf is more expensive to buy. Surely the Leaf should last just as long, if not longer as it doesn't have an engine or gearbox to go wrong, nor a clutch or dual mass flywheel to replace.

 

[nilagin]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2ldeXO_6NA7zTtkA599MDL

That'll just about wipe Tesla out.

Lots of speculation that if Tesla's share price dips much lower, their could be some takeover bids.

 

[wyx087]

It has nothing to do with comparing apples and oranges. You can't even supply your scientific answer. If Nissan have a different life expectancy criteria, explain how the average Note goes 15yrs without requiring major work, meeting the industry average yet Nissan predict the Leaf will have an average life expectancy of just 10 to 12yrs.

Again, your Nissan Note data point comes from garages, in the real world. Whereas your Leaf data comes from the manufacturer, who may have different life expectancy criteria. How do you know their Note life expectancy isn't 12 years when they were manufacturing them?

There is not scientific answer to the comparison you are trying to make, because it is a poor attempt at justifying your jab at EV's:

Surely the Leaf should last just as long, if not longer as it doesn't have an engine or gearbox to go wrong, nor a clutch or dual mass flywheel to replace.

 

[nilagin]

Again, your Nissan Note data point comes from garages, in the real world. Whereas your Leaf data comes from the manufacturer, who may have different life expectancy criteria. How do you know their Note life expectancy isn't 12 years when they were manufacturing them?

There is not scientific answer to the comparison you are trying to make, because it is a poor attempt at justifying your jab at EV's:

You were the one that said there was scientific reasoning as to why I am wrong, now you say there isn't. Seems like you need to make your mind up.

I actually work in vehicle research and development, reliability and durability testing is part of my job. That is how I am fairly certain I am right and can make the educated guesses, whereas you are the one that can only make assumptions, unless of course you have any experience of automotive testing.
Durability testing that car manufacturers carry out, replicates what the vehicles will be subjected to once released to the public and how they are expected to perform.
Why would Nissan bother to make the statement that their battery will last 22yrs, 10-12yrs longer than the car if they are selling themselves short, surely they would do better to quote a real world average and have stated 25yrs. After all the battery will have gone through the same life expectancy testing as the rest of the car. No manufacturer is going to sell themselves short by as much as 3-5yrs compared to the average and announce it.
My statements have nothing to do with playing down Ev's. It is just use of simple logic and process of deduction and elimination.

 

[realspeed]

What has been forgotten by the government is engine size and type of journey, not just hammer deisel cars For example drive a rolls royce around London is going to pollute far more only doing 12/18 MPG than a 1.3 Diesel doing a long journey at 60MPG+.

The brain deads in power can only think one way and not take into consideration the above

 

[gman]

What has been forgotten by the government is engine size and type of journey, not just hammer deisel cars For example drive a rolls royce around London is going to pollute far more only doing 12/18 MPG than a 1.3 Diesel doing a long journey at 60MPG+.

The brain deads in power can only think one way and not take into consideration the above

This is the bit I don't get also, a 5.0 V8 petrol can have a VED of a whopping £570 per year based on its emissions, yet it is exempt from the ULEZ charges. Yet a 3.0d V6 is only £200 per year based on its emissions yet it isn't exempt from the ULEZ.

 

[nilagin]

This is the bit I don't get also, a 5.0 V8 petrol can have a VED of a whopping £570 per year based on its emissions, yet it is exempt from the ULEZ charges. Yet a 3.0d V6 is only £200 per year based on its emissions yet it isn't exempt from the ULEZ.

It will probably depend on whether the diesel meets the latest emissions standard. If it is an older vehicle it will have a higher nox output, the ved doesn't reflect this as it is based on co2 emissions alone and if the vehicle was registered from April 1st 2017 and list price exceeded £40k.

 

[nilagin]

JLR to team up with BMW to develop their EV's.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...over-teams-bmw-develop-electric-vehicles/amp/

 

[wyx087]

You were the one that said there was scientific reasoning as to why I am wrong, now you say there isn't. Seems like you need to make your mind up.

I actually work in vehicle research and development, reliability and durability testing is part of my job. That is how I am fairly certain I am right and can make the educated guesses, whereas you are the one that can only make assumptions, unless of course you have any experience of automotive testing.
Durability testing that car manufacturers carry out, replicates what the vehicles will be subjected to once released to the public and how they are expected to perform.
Why would Nissan bother to make the statement that their battery will last 22yrs, 10-12yrs longer than the car if they are selling themselves short, surely they would do better to quote a real world average and have stated 25yrs. After all the battery will have gone through the same life expectancy testing as the rest of the car. No manufacturer is going to sell themselves short by as much as 3-5yrs compared to the average and announce it.
My statements have nothing to do with playing down Ev's. It is just use of simple logic and process of deduction and elimination.

First, you asked for scientific answers. I said there is none for the comparison you've done.
Now, you are asking me for scientific reasoning (note, reasoning is different to answers) for your lack of logic comparison........ again, I'll have to pass on that because the comparison you've made is not scientific and the bags of assumptions are beyond me.

I have made zero assumptions, only pointing out your statement contained too many assumptions and unscientific comparisons to arrive at a convenient message for your underlying agenda.

I do not have experiences in automotive testing but I do have ample experiences in engineering and some academia. I know every company have a different testing procedure and criteria (even standardised, the process and thus result can be vastly different). For example, your testing procedure and pass parameters is most probably different to Nissan's. Therefore, you cannot take the resulting metric and make a comparison.
See bold statement for the massive assumption you've made in this regard.

Then, you've attempted to compare real-world data against manufacturer estimate......... it's like comparing apples that rot in 2 weeks against oranges that has Best Before of 1 week, then say oranges has a short life expectancy, when we all know oranges can usually last longer than apples in the fruit bowl.

It will probably depend on whether the diesel meets the latest emissions standard. If it is an older vehicle it will have a higher nox output, the ved doesn't reflect this as it is based on co2 emissions alone and if the vehicle was registered from April 1st 2017 and list price exceeded £40k.

The thing is, current ICE-based tailpipe emitting vehicles allows those who can afford newest cars to drive around without paying emission-based tax, while penalising those who can only (or only willing to) buy older cars.

For example: Latest regulation-meeting Rolls 5.0l petrol driving around London will most definitely produce more emissions than a 1.4l diesel city car that is just 5 years old. Yet the 1.4l will need to pay ULEZ everyday. The reason behind this is NOX as you have pointed out, but why was Euro 5 standard so relaxed? Why, only after dieselgate, we know a lot of Euro 5 cars (not only VAG) emit more NOX in the real world?

Of course, current EV situation is not better. Many EV's are out of reach for a lot of people and driveway requirement puts over half of population at disadvantage. But when EV becomes common and used EV's are plentiful, the poor will no longer penalised in the same way.

 

[gman]

It will probably depend on whether the diesel meets the latest emissions standard. If it is an older vehicle it will have a higher nox output, the ved doesn't reflect this as it is based on co2 emissions alone and if the vehicle was registered from April 1st 2017 and list price exceeded £40k.

I understand how it works but just pointing out that it is all rather contradictory and not consistent with the apparent concern for the environmental. Seems to be all about money, as usual.

 

[gman]

JLR to team up with BMW to develop their EV's.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...over-teams-bmw-develop-electric-vehicles/amp/

That's interesting, will be good to see how this effects jlr future.

 

[nilagin]

First, you asked for scientific answers. I said there is none for the comparison you've done.
Now, you are asking me for scientific reasoning (note, reasoning is different to answers) for your lack of logic comparison........ again, I'll have to pass on that because the comparison you've made is not scientific and the bags of assumptions are beyond me.

I have made zero assumptions, only pointing out your statement contained too many assumptions and unscientific comparisons to arrive at a convenient message for your underlying agenda.

I do not have experiences in automotive testing but I do have ample experiences in engineering and some academia. I know every company have a different testing procedure and criteria (even standardised, the process and thus result can be vastly different). For example, your testing procedure and pass parameters is most probably different to Nissan's. Therefore, you cannot take the resulting metric and make a comparison.
See bold statement for the massive assumption you've made in this regard.

Then, you've attempted to compare real-world data against manufacturer estimate......... it's like comparing apples that rot in 2 weeks against oranges that has Best Before of 1 week, then say oranges has a short life expectancy, when we all know oranges can usually last longer than apples in the fruit bowl.


The thing is, current ICE-based tailpipe emitting vehicles allows those who can afford newest cars to drive around without paying emission-based tax, while penalising those who can only (or only willing to) buy older cars.

For example: Latest regulation-meeting Rolls 5.0l petrol driving around London will most definitely produce more emissions than a 1.4l diesel city car that is just 5 years old. Yet the 1.4l will need to pay ULEZ everyday. The reason behind this is NOX as you have pointed out, but why was Euro 5 standard so relaxed? Why, only after dieselgate, we know a lot of Euro 5 cars (not only VAG) emit more NOX in the real world?

Of course, current EV situation is not better. Many EV's are out of reach for a lot of people and driveway requirement puts over half of population at disadvantage. But when EV becomes common and used EV's are plentiful, the poor will no longer penalised in the same way.

Why would any car manufacturer carry out any testing procedures other than what it is likely to encounter in the real world. Testing isn't just carried out on a test bed, it is carried out in the real world as well, hundreds of thousands of miles per car. That is why the data is comparable. A car manufacturer doesn't just do the testing themselves, basically each car on the road continues to provide data for their respective manufacturer. From that manufacturers are able to make continuous updates to vehicles as well as make improvements for future models. We don't just test Ford vehicles, we also carry out work for other car manufacturers and race teams. So the majority of vehicle testing is pretty much standardised among car manufacturers. Some manufacturers will just add their own tests for obscure occurrences that do happen but is way outside the average use of a vehicle and wouldn't affect the average lifespan of a vehicle.

Euro V emissions regulations weren't relaxed, they were successively more stringent that the previous regulations and were measured in the exact same way. VAG however cheated this by the car uploading a different map because the vehicles recognised they were under test conditions. Now that the standard for testing procedures involves real world driving, the data is recorded under different driving cycles hence why the differences in Nox levels.

In post #3293 You mention looking at my assumptions critically from a scientific point of view. Yet you haven't provided any scientific point of view. You have just waffles on answering my questions by quoting me which doesn't answer the questions and just goes to prove you are out of your depth and don't have an answer.

 

[wyx087]

Why would any car manufacturer carry out any testing procedures other than what it is likely to encounter in the real world. Testing isn't just carried out on a test bed, it is carried out in the real world as well, hundreds of thousands of miles per car. That is why the data is comparable. A car manufacturer doesn't just do the testing themselves, basically each car on the road continues to provide data for their respective manufacturer. From that manufacturers are able to make continuous updates to vehicles as well as make improvements for future models. We don't just test Ford vehicles, we also carry out work for other car manufacturers and race teams. So the majority of vehicle testing is pretty much standardised among car manufacturers. Some manufacturers will just add their own tests for obscure occurrences that do happen but is way outside the average use of a vehicle and wouldn't affect the average lifespan of a vehicle.

In post #3293 You mention looking at my assumptions critically from a scientific point of view. Yet you haven't provided any scientific point of view. You have just waffles on answering my questions by quoting me which doesn't answer the questions and just goes to prove you are out of your depth and don't have an answer.

Was this not a scientific point of view? by pointing out you cannot compare rotten apple against best-before oranges?

The Leaf has not been on sale for 15 years, so we cannot compare Nissan Leaf data provided by manufacturer against garage data as you've attempted to do in your previous reply. Because, let me repeat this again, their test methodology, test data and test result assessment are all different.

Also in #3252, where I pointed out possible vast differences between tests.

Please do point us towards an industry-wide car life expectancy testing procedure or standard. This is the area I don't know, as I've no experience in the automotive industry. But you, with so much claimed knowledge in these things, should know off top of your head......
Testing other manufacturers' products only provide a single data point in their overall calculations. It doesn't mean other manufacturer will simply take your word and run 100% of their calculation/extrapolation from this. You have essentially said what you see from the testing facility, far from the overall picture required to estimate a lifetime expectancy of a complex system.

 

[nilagin]

Was this not a scientific point of view? by pointing out you cannot compare rotten apple against best-before oranges?

Also in #3252, where I pointed out possible vast differences between tests.

Please do point us towards an industry-wide car life expectancy testing procedure or standard. This is the area I don't know, as I've no experience in the automotive industry. But you, with so much claimed knowledge in these things, should know off top of your head......
Testing other manufacturers' products only provide a single data point in their overall calculations. It doesn't mean other manufacturer will simply take your word and run 100% of their calculation/extrapolation from this. You have essentially said what you see from the testing facility, far from the overall picture required to estimate a lifetime expectancy of a complex system.

How simple do I have to make it for you. Car manufacturers draw their data from the own personal testing and that from feedback from work dealers have to carry out on customers cars. As you say you have no knowledge of automotive testing, I do, not just from observation but actively being involved and running durability tests.
And no likening my comparisons to apples and oranges is not a scientific point of view. Your obvious grasp on reality is just as bad as your knowledge of vehicle durability testing.
I have tried constantly to explain it to you in the simplest terms and logic, but it is obviously way above your comprehension level.

 

[nilagin]

Looks like they supply of raw materials is going to struggle to turn the UK over to EV's let alone the rest of the world.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...ll-require-twice-the-world-s-supply-of-cobalt

EV's will probably become even more expensive.

 

[wyx087]

How simple do I have to make it for you. Car manufacturers draw their data from the own personal testing and that from feedback from work dealers have to carry out on customers cars. As you say you have no knowledge of automotive testing, I do, not just from observation but actively being involved and running durability tests.
And no likening my comparisons to apples and oranges is not a scientific point of view. Your obvious grasp on reality is just as bad as your knowledge of vehicle durability testing.
I have tried constantly to explain it to you in the simplest terms and logic, but it is obviously way above your comprehension level.

So car industry does not have any life expectancy standards (to standardise testing procedure, result collection method, pass criteria, etc) or you do not know of such standards.
Therefore, how can metrics from different car manufacturers doing their own testing be compared against eachother?
Basic questions like that is always asked first when reviewing other people's scientific methods. Just saying you have experience in the industry does not validate the flawed comparison you are attempting to draw, in the same way that I do not need to have knowledge of vehicle durability testing to point out your flawed comparison method.

I had hoped the apples/oranges analogy was able to get the point across to you, that you are not comparing like-for-like metrics. Alas, it seems even simple analogies are above your comprehension level.

Looks like they supply of raw materials is going to struggle to turn the UK over to EV's let alone the rest of the world.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...ll-require-twice-the-world-s-supply-of-cobalt

EV's will probably become even more expensive.

So..... buy them while they hasn't gone up in prices?

Interesting that they are using possible future EV sales of 2.5mil to illustrate against current European cobalt supply, I've got a feeling supply chain will shore up by that time.

Professor Herrington and his colleagues estimate that to make the (roughly) 2.5 million new cars sold each year in the UK electric “will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.”

But I do agree with the sentiment. The bigger the battery, the more raw materials are needed. For majority of cars that doesn't cruise up and down the motorway, you don't need 500 miles of range to cover only few times a year. The charging infrastructure is way more important than headline range.
If anything, car high-speed efficiency and charging speed should be the headline figures, allowing you to recover loads of miles quickly while you do toilet breaks.

 

[wyx087]

Possible petrolgate on the horizon?
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/en...o2-discrepancy-highlighted-in-real-word-tests
Unfortunately with similar level of journalism (lack of link to source) as the EV battery raw materials article.

It concludes that optimisation of the lab-based WLTP test has already set in, with car makers adapting petrol vehicles to perform better in the WLTP test than they do on the road in actual driving conditions.

Colour me shocked! Shocked, I say!

 

[gman]

Possible petrolgate on the horizon?
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/en...o2-discrepancy-highlighted-in-real-word-tests

Oh great, yet another reason for the Government to increase taxes on cars.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

apples/oranges

So lets just stop all the nitpicking between ICE and EV them, as you are comparing Apples with Oranges. When EV finally grows up, maybe you can then compare the two.

This thread is now just circular arguments.

 

[nilagin]

So car industry does not have any life expectancy standards (to standardise testing procedure, result collection method, pass criteria, etc) or you do not know of such standards.
Therefore, how can metrics from different car manufacturers doing their own testing be compared against eachother?
Basic questions like that is always asked first when reviewing other people's scientific methods. Just saying you have experience in the industry does not validate the flawed comparison you are attempting to draw, in the same way that I do not need to have knowledge of vehicle durability testing to point out your flawed comparison method.

I had hoped the apples/oranges analogy was able to get the point across to you, that you are not comparing like-for-like metrics. Alas, it seems even simple analogies are above your comprehension level.

You really are beyond belief. I have said car manufacturers conduct standardised tests. We carry out tests for other manufacturers, if they weren't standardised, how the hell do you think that would be possible? There are companies and universities also carrying out tests for various car manufacturers, how would that be possible if the testing wasn't standardised? As I have pointed out testing doesn't stop once a vehicle is launched, it is on going, there maybe failures that occur after a vehicle is launched and manufacturers are able to respond to that from dealership feedback.
Just a few years ago the average life expectancy of a vehicle was 8-10yrs, but it has increased to 13-15. What happens in the real world is the target that they then use. The average motorist will use a car in pretty much the same way, it forms a standard. Car manufacturers research that and use that standard, you know just like my earlier post where Ford have been researching and collecting data as regards EV owners charging patterns and developing an electric minibus to keep passengers comfortable etc. whilst getting best use out of the battery, which you decided was worth your derision because you are quite apparently totally clueless to actually how worthwhile testing and data collection is actually done and effectively used.
Because you are clueless to how and where durability testing is carried out is why you can't see how a manufacturers testing and the life expectancy are comparable. If they weren't comparable, how could manufacturers aim to improve the life expectancy.
If you want a simple apples and oranges analogy. You are the apples, no knowledge of automotive testing and lack of comprehension as a result and you think you know what you are talking about
I am the oranges, actively involved in automotive testing, giving me the knowledge and comprehension, in simpler terms, I actually know what I am talking about.

 

[wyx087]

I have said car manufacturers conduct standardised tests.
I am the oranges, actively involved in automotive testing, giving me the knowledge and comprehension, in simpler terms, I actually know what I am talking about.

Ok, Mr expert. Please share the industrial-wide life expectancy standard that you are actively testing against.

I honestly would like to eat the humble pie, rather than continue this circular argument. But why do you keep repeating yourself with tangible mumble rather than simply reference a couple simple documents that you already use everyday?

Because you are clueless to how and where durability testing is carried out is why you can't see how a manufacturers testing and the life expectancy are comparable.

I am clueless, yes. I would like to learn more. But you are not providing any evidence other than your word to go on.

If you think about it, working from first principle: Without any industry-wide standard constraining how the tests are carried out, how the results are collected and what the results are measured against, how do you know you can compare two numbers? Life expectancy has waaaaay too many variables, even change a single value in the calculation will vastly impact the result. I'm only asking a very simple question, yet you refuse to give any real evidence to back up your answer.