Tax by weight?

[redsturgeon]

A 2 stroke engine in a lightweight carbon fibre chassis....?

Now yer talkin'...

Incidentally, a YouTube channel called Fortnine recently covered why 2 strokes were killed off by the bike industry.

They said it was emissions.....but really it was to reap the eye wateringly expensive serving costs of yer typical 16 valve, multi cylinder miniaturized motor.

I'd be very careful about what you believe from the internet. Always apply some logic.

Lightweight two strokes rely upon crank case compression. This means that lubricating oil from the crank will pass through the engine and likely not be burnt.

Here is an animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLE8G3pC0k

Hence any regulation reducing allowed hydrocarbon emissions may make it difficult to fit such engines.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/a ... torcycles/

This is mainly because 2T engine design allows some of the unburnt fuel/oil mixture to pass direct into the exhaust, producing high HC and PM emissions.

Now as I said, this is a direct result of using the crank case to provide air compression. So does anyone build two strokes that don't work that way. Well yes they do. Here is a video of one, the air cycle being shown from 4:27.

They are, and can not be, simple or lightweight.

I take part in a local repair cafe and today someone brought in a B&Q branded strimmer which wouldn't start. I just repair bikes but I said I would take a quick look at the spark plug to see if it had a spark.

I took off what I thought was a plastic cover on the side of the engine to get access to the plug and to my surprise it gave direct access to the internals of the crankcase, I could watch the crank turning on its single bearing, all very strange and unexpected. It seemed incredibly simply and cheaply made.

I condemned the strimmer anyway due to very suspect fuel pipe connections to the tank.

John

[Hallucigenia]

'Green' option my ass eh?

That more reflects the general increase in weight for safety and comfort reasons, it's not so much about EVs per se. Compare eg Golf and Range Rover :

[bungeejumper]

'Green' option my ass eh?

That more reflects the general increase in weight for safety and comfort reasons, it's not so much about EVs per se.

OK, let's try comparing current models, then:

Golf Mk 8 TDI, 1,472 kg
ID4, 2,049 kg
Difference: 577 kg, or 39%.


Range Rover AWD, standard wheelbase, 2,454 kg
Current PHEV model (AWD): 2770 kg
Range Rover's fully EV model (oops, available 2024): X,XXX kg (official secret).
Difference: Think of a number

BJ

[88V8]

Yes, and the old and the new so-called Mini.

V8

[DrFfybes]

OK, let's try comparing current models, then:

Golf Mk 8 TDI, 1,472 kg
ID4, 2,049 kg
Difference: 577 kg, or 39%.

BJ

New FIAT 500
2020 ICE 865–980 kg (Europe)
2021 FIAT 500e BEV (same platform as above) 1440kG (circa 50% heavier, also cost £10k more)
202 FIAT NEW 500 BEV 1,255–1,405 kg

2022 F56 Mini LCI circa 1235kg
2022 mini e 1770 kg.

Need we go on?

Paul

[JohnB]

Of course retrofitting a ICE with a battery pack is suboptimal, EVs designed from scratch will have it as a more structural element, and energy density grows all the time, so either more range or less mass. Energy density is a virtuous spiral of course

[Tedx]

We need Musk to build a Tesla 1.9l Turbo Diesel for a proper comparison.

[Mike4]

'Green' option my ass eh?

That more reflects the general increase in weight for safety and comfort reasons, it's not so much about EVs per se. Compare eg Golf and Range Rover :

Seeing as we're doing Range Rovers, I'll raise you this one!!



(If only because it's so hideous!)

[XFool]

Yes, and the old and the new so-called Mini.

I remember seeing a newspaper advert for the new mini (when they were still new). It showed a man getting out of a mini parked at the curb.

Of course, my brain was programmed with the appearance of the mini from the 1960s etc.

I idly wondered why they were using a midget in an advertising campaign. Eventually the penny dropped...

[Lanark]

It makes sense, but then people could attach a giant helium balloon to their car to make a lower tax bill.

[bungeejumper]

Of course retrofitting a ICE with a battery pack is suboptimal, EVs designed from scratch will have it as a more structural element, and energy density grows all the time, so either more range or less mass.

Some day, in the far off future, batteries will be gravity-negative, so the whole car will float along, exquisitely balanced and barely touching the road at all. Self-driving will be practically universal, except for those stubborn old-schoolers who still insist on "controlling" their cars through the chips implanted in their brains. And nobody will need insurance, because the last time anybody had a road accident was back in 2033.

It's gonna be great. But in the meantime, we need to make our comparisons (about weight, etc) based on what we can go out and buy right now.

BJ

[JohnB]

One problem we have is we lots of people saying "I'll never buy an EV because ..., so any IC ban is unreasonable", based on how the vehicles are now, not how they will be in 2030, or in 2035 if you buy secondhand, 2040 if a banger buyer.

Tax doesn't need to change now because of EV thumped potholes, but will do by 2030 when the numbers are much higher, but it will need to change anyway because of the collapse of fuel tax take. And if by then the EV weight penalty is 10%, then the difference between SUV and city car will dominate. But if you apportion transport costs, is it road damage that matters, or congestion based on vehicle numbers that requires new roads. If my self-driving car allows greater traffic density by running in a road-train, should I pay less than a car driven manually?

[bungeejumper]

No argument with your second paragraph - it's all good thinking. But what's this?

One problem we have is we lots of people saying "I'll never buy an EV because ..., so any IC ban is unreasonable", based on how the vehicles are now, not how they will be in 2030, or in 2035 if you buy secondhand, 2040 if a banger buyer.

Actually I'm not sure that many of us are saying that at all. There's no doubt in my own mind that EVs are the future - it's just that, right now, neither the technology nor the infrastructure seem to be in place. And nor does the power generation industry that's got to provide the necessary juice seem confident that the 2030/35 deadlines are even remotely feasible.

That being the case, bringing down a guillotine on ICE technology is likely to be (ahem) socially divisive. Especially for those outside the major conurbations who don't have the option of effective alternative transport. (Or, indeed, any. )

Anyway, some good thoughts there. Thanks.

BJ

[Alaric]

That being the case, bringing down a guillotine on ICE technology is likely to be (ahem) socially divisive.

It could go either way. At one level prices of secondhand good condition ICE vehicles could escalate on the grounds of desirability and shortage. On the other hand non-availabily of fuel and excessive taxation could make them near worthless.

We have however grown accustomed to a 400 mile range and a five minute refill, neither of which pure electric vehicles can offer. Air quality issues in cities could be substantially solved by hybrids, but sale of these is to be banned as well,

[scrumpyjack]

But at least EVs avoid the need for all those heavy diesel and petrol tankers delivering to fuel stations!

[DrFfybes]

But at least EVs avoid the need for all those heavy diesel and petrol tankers delivering to fuel stations!

They do, although in the grand scheme of things that is a small proportion of the vehicles on the road.

Of course in the meantime they'll all be used transporting the new pylons we're going to need to dristribute all this extra electricity, assuming they get permission to be built in time.

Then theres the issue of what we will do with the 50-60% of crude oil now that we're not burning it in engines. Because the demand for other oil products (lubricants, chemical industry, plastics, bitumen (especialy with heavier cars causing more repairs), marine diesel, bottled gases) won't drop at the same rate, and as we saw in the pandemic the drop in petrol/diesel demand led to a shortage of other petroleum products leading to rising costs. Presumably these products will skyrocket in price once the vehicle fuel revenue is gone, not to mention the disposal issue of the unwanted petrol. Although probably easiest to flash it off and burn it at the refinery.

Paul

[JohnB]

All those petroleum derived products will be formed from other feedstocks. Name one that can't be for a small rise in price. And for some the feedstock will be valuable in reducing pollution, like plastic not being burnt or staying in the environment.

[DrFfybes]

All those petroleum derived products will be formed from other feedstocks. Name one that can't be for a small rise in price. And for some the feedstock will be valuable in reducing pollution, like plastic not being burnt or staying in the environment.

I don't think many can be made for a small rise in price. Recycling used oils into other products is going to have to be the way forwards, trying to make them all from plants will mean either a massive increase in cultivated areas or food shortages.

[JohnB]

Any carbon-based stuff we make will need that carbon to come out of the air. The mess we are in comes from relying on historic plant-based hydrocarbons in oil and allowing the products to become CO2. Plants do it for free, but very inefficiently in terms of land and water. Covering the land with solar panels (and growing crops underneath, they are rarely sunlight limited), and using the power produced to capture carbon from the inevitable non-green industrial processes and make it into petrochemical feedstocks is the way to go. This may cost more than using oil, but that's the way it needs to be.

[Howard]

Do older cars weigh more? For example a 2005 Toyota Avensis kerb weight is 1645 kg. Our KIA Soul BEV kerb weight is 1757 kg. Not much difference. The emissions are obviously dramatically different especially in town use. Interior space is similar.

regards
Howard

Source:
With a fuel consumption of 30.5 mpg US - 36.6 mpg UK - 7.7 L/100km, a curb weight of 3626 lbs (1645 kg), the Toyota Avensis 2.0 Xi has a 4 cylinder DOHC engine.
https://specs.cars-directory.net/toyota ... 01AZ%2DFSE.