I was staying with my brother in law a few weeks ago and he was trialling a Citröen C1 electric car. His employer was providing the trial for feedback to Citröen presumably. His first thoughts were not favourable. Acceleration was abysmal, resulting in him being harassed and honked at whenever he needed to change lanes. Battery life was appalling, leaving him with half a charge by the time he arrived home and an all night charge to top it up.
So, on balance, electric cars are a long way from being a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine. The Torygraph echoes some of these issues today.
These are early days for electric cars, and my experience was not helped by a problem with my car’s charging technology that left me unable to fill it with a single unit of electricity despite that two-hour charge and two further overnight sessions.
The infrastructure challenge will take longer to fix, however. While it is not on the scale of building a fleet of wind farms and nuclear power stations, it remains significant.
Leaving aside for now the battery and charging technology improvements that are necessary if journeys of longer than 80 miles are to be attempted, there will need to be a nationwide network of charging stations many thousands of times larger than the 65 that Smart’s partner UK Elecktrobays currently has in UK car parks and selected Sainsbury supermarkets.
Petrol stations will need to replace pumps with sockets – and presumably build more places to have long cups of tea while waiting for a full charge.
Andrew Cave makes no mention of the poor performance (so poor, my brother in law took several attempts to get the C1 to reverse up the moderate slope of his driveway). He does, however, mention the huge problem with these beasts; refilling them. Look, when I’m on the road and need to refill, I want to stop, fill up and get on my way in a matter of minutes, not hours. Unless there is a means of recharging in the time it takes to fill a petrol or diesel tank, then for me it’s a non starter – that’s assuming that the performance is on a par with a similar petrol or diesel vehicle. The performance we know can be resolved as some of the electric bikes shown on the Isle of Man during TT week testify – or the Tesla. But these still have the problem of range and refills to contend with. Either battery life has to improve dramatically or the facility to recharge or change batteries quickly has to be resolved before the concept comes close to being a practicality.
On balance, I think that this one is likely to be a blind alley. The hydrogen cell resolves the refill problem, but then comes with its own difficulties, not least, producing the stuff.
I think that the predictions of the death of the internal combustion engine are, perhaps, premature.
None of the supposed ‘alternatives’ to the ICE are even attending the meet, let alone in the running, other than in the minds of the righteous and the faithful.
Hydrogen, forget it, it’s filthy stuff to store or use. Electric, only viable with the optional 400 mile extension lead.
Hybrids, absurdly expensive, and we’re not all in the media, advertising, or hairdressers.
Mine’s the Chrysler 427 hemi.
I also find it depressing that a journalist would think it necessary to go to a ‘petrol station’ to plug an electric car into a socket?
The pubs (bar one) wouldn’t let him 😀
How are those of us without off-road parking supposed to re-charge ? Leave the car at a garage overnight ? No thanks. As someone who can’t even remember to recharge my mobile half the time I can just imagine coming downstairs on a frosty morning at five am and discovering I’d forgotten to plug the car in. As someone said electric cars are one of those technologies that are always five years away from breakthrough.
So you will all be slaves to the global oil business for a while longer. Bwahahahahahaha!
Looks like it.
I was looking around a few months ago for some information on how electric vehicles compare with IC powered vehicles on emissions.
I eventually found this report (pdf) from the Royal Academy of Engineering.
If you will permit the following quote buried within that rather lengthy document:
A car comparison website lists the CO2 emissions for all of the UK’s major new
cars. The average CO2 emissions rating is 173g/km (grams of carbon dioxide per
kilometre driven), the lowest being 89g/km and the highest 500g/km.18 The 2020
target for average emissions is 130g/km. It is expected that this figure will be
reduced progressively and some experts are talking about a long-term target of
around 80g/km for 4-seat internal combustion engine vehicles.
Results from electric vehicle trials show that EVs equivalent to a small petrol or
diesel four-seat car use around 0.2kWh/km in normal city traffic. CO2 emissions
from power stations vary from year to year and also over the daily cycle as the
carbon intensity of generation changes: in 2009 it was 544g/kWh. Thus the
emissions related to an EV are about 100g/km. Trials on a small fleet of four twoseat
Smart Move vehicles have shown average CO2 emissions of 81.4g/km using
electricity of the same carbon intensity.19
On this basis, it is difficult to see how EVs fed from the present UK electricity
generation mix are significantly better in terms of carbon emissions than petrol or
diesel vehicles.20 To have a major effect commensurate with the 2050 target, the
introduction of EVs would need to be accompanied by almost total
‘decarbonisation’ of the electricity supply. Under these conditions, they could
provide the ideal solution of personal mobility without the environmental
disadvantages.
That is the real problem – not how many charging points you have but what you are powering them with. At the moment, they make bugger all difference apart from making their righteous drivers feel even more smug whilst the rest of us are being gouged for even more taxes to subsidise the damned things.
The Daily Mash summarises it much more concisely though in this article.
Indeed so. But given that this is being trumpeted as the future by those who choose to ignore how electricity is generated, I see the practical objections as being the death knell. We do need to seek an alternative to oil sooner or later. Electric cars don’t look remotely like the solution.
In the London Borough of Haringey – where I reside – this report in the Evening Standard shows both how convinced Joe Public is about electric cars and how our rulers waste our money in a vain attempt to push water uphill.
Predictions of the death of the internal combustion engine may well be premature but the alternative of walking down motorways when the fuel becomes too expensive to use for personal transport is going to look pretty foolish if we have not developed an alternative in time.
It may well be that developed battery powered vehicles may not end up as ‘cars’ – there is already a PTW that does over 150mph and 200MPGe. There is a similar PTW currently driving around the world ’emissions free’ (a solar array on the roof of the offices of the company are generating more power than the vehicle is using doing the journey.)
Simply berating the development of technology is daft. If Citroen are getting this wrong (and I’d be surprised if it as bad as your brother in law reported – as they have been making effective electric vehicles for decades) then they’ll have to try again. But to give up and rely on cheap fuel is astonishing blinkered.
Hardly blinkered – a direct observation in the flesh as it were. My brother in law is a committed greenie and he was severely disappointed with the C1. While the initial acceleration from a standing start was okay, once on the move, it tailed off and failed to keep up with road traffic, causing people behind to get frustrated. He doesn’t get this in his petrol driven Toyota. And you simply cannot argue with the “fuel” gauge. It was showing half empty after a half-hour drive. Yes, Citröen have got this one wrong.
Yes, I’m aware of the development of electric bikes – I mentioned them in the post. But they were only doing one lap. The range remains a problem.
I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t find an alternative – nowhere in my comments could you come to that conclusion – merely that this isn’t it for a whole host of reasons; battery technology is inadequate, range is insufficient, the time taken to recharge is too long and if the eco-argument is used, they fail on this, too given how we generate electricity and produce batteries.
What is needed is a practical alternative to fossil fuels that meets the same day-to-day needs as the current internal combustion engine. All I am saying here is that the evidence so far suggests strongly that the electric car is not that alternative. We should be looking elsewhere.
I remember reading a comparison a couple of years back of th pious versus a 2L Golf turbo diesel, looking at the complete enviromentals debt of both vehicles, including manufacture and disposal. The conclusion was that the pious would have to be run for 16 years to beat the Golf.
I would be interested to learn what steps these pious owners are taking to ensure that their cars will be on the road for 16 years or more.
“Yes, I’m aware of the development of electric bikes – I mentioned them in the post. But they were only doing one lap. The range remains a problem.”
No, the winning of the X prize required a LOT more than those pointless battery powered versions of motorised bicycles. It was so rigorous that the majority of the entrants failed, in stages, to even complete the competition. And 200 mile range is what the Peraves X-tracer is reported to have been doing. One big surprise to me was that the motor industry was largely not represented in the competition. Clearly the industry is not that bothered about the future either.
“All I am saying here is that the evidence so far suggests strongly that the electric car is not that alternative. We should be looking elsewhere.”
I agree. But mostly only with your use of ‘car’. There is a problem moving stuff with electricity and cars have a lot of stuff to move and I suspect you are unaware as to what a PTW can do when it is not simply some motorised bicycle throwback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRUVrVORtaQ
Cars are what the majority use, so cars are where the big changes need to take place. People need to move themselves, members of their family and luggage easily and efficiently.
Having watched the electric bikes on the IOM, I have to say that they were impressive, but you still have the issues I’ve related regarding practical daily use. I fill the BMW up in about five minutes including paying for the fuel. As for the X-tracer, it is hardly going to be a practical family vehicle is it? While it is possible to squeeze a decent range and performance out of a lightweight, one person vehicle, it is another matter to do it with a larger family car, so range and performance will remain a big problem requiring huge, expensive battery packs. And, again, charge times remain a problem.
On the IOM during the TT, the commentators insisted that this was the future. Unless something radical happens in the development of battery technology giving a vastly improved performance and charge time combined with reduced size and weight, I remain sceptical.
Perhaps they are not bothered about this particular technology?
The X-tracer reminds me of the Quasar. It was an interesting idea, but not something I would buy. I prefer those motorised bicycle throwbacks. 😉
“Perhaps they are not bothered about this particular technology?”
The point you seem to have missed is that the X-prize was not about electric vehicles – it was about efficiency. The ones that won were electric as that is the most efficient.
When designed with that prize in mind, possibly so. The automotive industry may not be too bothered by the X prize. Not least, given that the outcome is not a practical daily use vehicle, which is what motor manufacturers are in the business of producing.
An X Prize winner my be efficient, but will the technology still be efficient when transposed into a family car. Can you fill it up/recharge in a matter of minutes and does that range/performance carry over to a large, weighty vehicle designed for carrying a group of people and their luggage?
Frankly, if I was in the business of designing and building motor vehicles, I’d view something like the X prize as nothing more than a diversion. Perhaps the major players take the same view? Perhaps they are more interested in pursuing their own efforts to improve efficiency in the context of commercially viable vehicles.
And to return to an earlier theme, electricity is only efficient if you are prepared to ignore its generation.
Of course when it comes to urban electric transport we are reinventing the wheel as usual, the answer is not electric cars but trams and trolley buses ( and maybe electric buses at some point ). Investing in these and attracting as many people as possible on to them will do a lot to reduce fuel use and the power to drive them can be generated from non fossil sources, preferably nuclear. That would buy us a bit more time to find a replacement for petrol.
“Can you fill it up/recharge in a matter of minutes and does that range/performance carry over to a large, weighty vehicle designed for carrying a group of people and their luggage?”
But most people don’t need to do that most of the time either. They travel (relatively) short distances, stop for 8 hours and travel the short distance home. If you cannot arrange to ‘refuel’ during the times the vehicle is not being used then perhaps life is a bit too complicated for you. (Mind you they claim the X-tracer recharges in one hour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pEB9sSommU)
Instead of thinking about what we have now (as this is unsustainable without cheap fuel) try to imagine how any future is possible if we don’t have an alternative to burning old dinosaurs. (BTW the X-tracer, currently driving round the world using less electricity than the solar cells on top of their offices are generating. http://www.zero-race.com/)
And your comment about the Quasar and motorised bicycles would only be pertinent if you had any experience of riding a Quasar, but I doubt you have.
I’m inclined to agree with Thornavis regarding urban short distance transport. Trams are effective and cut through the traffic.
As someone who travels long distance much of the time, refuelling and range are big potential issues for me. And just because people don’t travel long distances on a regular basis, doesn’t mean the the problem should be ignored – a short weekday commute may be complemented by a long haul at the weekends. The alternative is to have another means of transport for the differing needs.
Fossil fuels are unsustainable, but the principle of efficient and practical personal transport that fits the needs of the user is not and any future developments need to take into account people’s needs and these include leisure travel as well as commuting and doing the shopping at the weekend. Think about why people change their vehicles as time goes by. What is okay in one’s twenties is no longer practicable when a family comes along. Any manufacturer has to take into account those differing needs and meet them. Needing a range of more than 80 odd miles as is the case in the Telegraph article – or less in the case of the C1 is a problem. Needing hours rather than minutes to recharge is a problem and it is not because people have complicated lives, it is because they want to travel reasonable distances – and all those people I see daily on the motorways probably do not consider their needs as being complicated either.
Which is 55 minutes too long.
I did, very briefly, albeit off road, ride a Quasar back when they were still making them. Not enough to get a thorough feel for it, granted, and I was happy enough to hand it back. I still wouldn’t have bought one.
I always found it amusing that the FF advocates assumed that this was the way forward and that the people who didn’t would change their minds once they rode them. Admittedly, there are now some nice FF machines available from the mainstream manufacturers – which wasn’t the case back then, so the alternative was to buy something that was cobbled together in Royce Creasy’s back yard – and they do have a level of popularity these days. They haven’t however, taken off in the way that the guys who wrote for Motorcycle Sport insisted that they should. You see, sometimes it is as simple as personal taste. And that is why I won’t buy one. If they make one that I just have to have, I’ll change my mind. Until then, my must have bike remains the K1300GT, which is a long way from a motorised bicycle.
The reason people travel long distances is because they can – take away the cheap fuel and we may have to think about our lives differently.
Re the telegraph article – I still think MOST people with Smarts do not NEED a range of more than 80 miles for at least 99% of the their journeys. Those that do need to travel more than that know how to do so and might find it unwise to try to use an electric Smart.
Actually the logistics of recharging cars at home in the UK will be interesting – will we have pavements covered with extension cables, flats with long cables dropping out of 4th story windows dangling along to the car at night? I think the owners without off street parking will have big problems. But this is an issue for town planners and those who really want to live in shitty Victorian houses.
As to your Quasar comment, if you were telling me face-to-face I’d know intermediately if you were being truthful by asking you about the gear-change or something but since you can almost certainly Google the answer these days it is irrelevant (but I don’t believe you actually did ride one ‘off road’ as that makes no sense at all) But you should know that Royce did not sell any bikes ‘cobbled together in a shed’ – in fact he made one (the CX 500 Banana) at Difazio’s in Frome, the 450 Ducati in a workshop in Bristol, the green Voyager prototype was made in his workshop in Greenbank as was his yellow post production one and that takes us to 22 years ago. Since then there have been a couple of TMAX conversions and a frame for a rear engined Norton has been constructed and that is all.
“For those who really want to live in shitty Victorian houses”. Spoken like a true authoritarian progressive, dripping with contempt for anything you don’t personally like. I live in a 1920’s terrace, built as low cost housing for the working class ( who you obviously despise ) now occupied mostly by first time buyer young couples and a few oldies like me, there are hundreds of thousands of properties like this, many of later date and they are a staple of the housing market, got a five year plan up your sleeve ( or your arse ) to replace them all ? If this is an example of the sort of thinking behind green technologies ( and it largely is ) then you need look no further for an explanation of why they are increasingly unpopular.
I guess the reason for manufacturers being keen on electric is the fact that you get maximum torque at almost no revs and (providing there is no current surge to burn out windings) there are only two service items – brushes and bearings.
The problem is fuel.
Battery technology is improving – the next generation of rechargables are in the late stages of testing and reduce charging time by about a factor of 8. Still too long for LR though!
If we went down the battery route, we would have to get car makers to agree on a few standard batteries and change theses at “filling” stations, who would then charge large amounts of cells. You can already see such systems in place in large warehouses that have many electric fork lift trucks and pallet moving trucks.
But this would be a MASSIVE infrastructure project that would still see problems during busy periods.
And of course all this assumes that we have the generating capacity for all that electricity.
Personally, I’m presently banking on hydrogen fuel cell technology.
Thornavis, Victorian housing is shitty because it is old and not fit for purpose for the way we live now.
Your ignorant assertion that I think it has anything to do with my despising ‘the working class’ shows more about your own particular brand of tiny-minded bigotry than anything else.
Maaarrghk!, I thought the X-tracer with a 200 miles an hour a 200 mile range and a 1 hour recharge showed quite well the problem isn’t batteries – its the vehicles!
And the idea of exchangeable batteries (as you have discovered) is quite unlikely – it’s hard enough to find a vehicle manufacture to standardise components across a model range, imagine how complex it would be for them to agree one particular standard suitable for all vehicles. It isn’t going to happen.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology demonstrably works today. But making hydrogen relatively cheaply and safely doesn’t and is unlikely to be for the foreseeable future. That won’t stop car manufacturers trying to push the concept as they understand it and it would allow them to continue doing what they do now. But without a breakthrough I think that it is a dead end, sadly.
Oh, where to start…
By “off road” I mean not on the public highway as I was not insured to ride someone else’s machine on the public highway. I presume that you are aware that motorcycle training has taken place “off road” for over thirty years now? As it was thirty years ago, I don’t recall much about it, just as I don’t recall much about the RS250 or the CX500 Turbo I tried out in similar circumstances. Perhaps I’m lying about that, too? It does your argument no good to accuse someone who disagrees with you of lying, and you’ve done it twice in this thread and I’m tiring of it now. Please stop it.
I am well aware of Creasy’s efforts, coming as I do from Bristol. I had plenty of opportunity to examine them close up and personal – including the banana. Would I put money into one of these contraptions? No. This, however was never good enough for the acolytes of FF motorcycling. They are right and anyone who dares to decide that they prefer something with quality design and build along with little niceties such as warranties and after sales service is wrong. The MCS articles at the time harangued us as being bigots and all presumably written with a straight face. Frankly, from a design and build point of view, the Quasar was the peak. It was a decent looking vehicle with a new and radical approach to the idea of motorcycling. I liked it, but I didn’t want to buy one. Just as I don’t want to buy a Honda Gold Wing or a ZZR.
Bollocks, frankly. Old properties can be renovated using modern materials to make efficient and modern living spaces. Give me the choice of a Victorian property or a modern rabbit hutch and I’ll choose the former every time. It might not suit your lifestyle, but you make a mistake in assimilating everyone else into your assumption. My French property is older still – the oldest parts of the building are around 500 years. Perhaps that is shitty too?
As for long distance travel, the only alternative to personal transport is public transport. For some journeys is it ideal, but when you have luggage to carry and want to go where the trains, planes and buses don’t, personal transport is the best option. Just because fossil fuels are no longer going to be cheap, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t the possibility of a viable alternative that enables people to move themselves about independently.
I remain to be convinced about hydrogen – producing it in large quantities is expensive and difficult.
My own view is that the breakthrough when it comes will be from left field, not from electric cars.
Where to start…
The Quasar was never a bike that you could jump into and just ‘ride’ – to try to do that in a bike training centre would probably not leave you with a particularly good impression of it. I can remember my first ride in one – from the pub in Heddington (near Malcolm Newell’s place – Field Cottage) down the road for a few miles, a horrendous wobbly leg-straining turn round and return. Probably actually helped by the fact I’d had a pint before Malc sent me off on it. This would have been @1981, (probably). The limited headroom, appalling 3/4 vision and dreadful two pedal gear-change didn’t put me off the concept though as I could see past that – this was a better motorcycle than a motorcycle.
Despite me telling you that Royce’s bikes were never made to be sold why do you continue to say you wouldn’t buy one ‘of those contraptions’…?
Victorian terraced houses can be refurbished but you still have the legacy of a layout designed for outside toilets and built with (often) the shallowest of footings. The lack of parking is a problem for the way we live now (although there are those nut-cases that would like to remove powered personal transport altogether that would resolve that issue) but the cost of individually renovating these often shabbily built houses can be disproportionate to what you would get from bulldozing the lot and replacing them with modern structures. I totally agree that the British ‘rabbit hutch’ ethos of putting more and more properties per acre is as ridiculous. But the age of the property is not the issue – why do you think that I presume it is?
Personal, relatively cheap, long distance travel is an option we have currently. This may not continue as fossil fuel becomes more expensive. So our travel options will need to be considered with whatever infrastructure we have available. IF it is a 200 mile range in a Swiss designed ‘wingless glider’ then that is what you will have to work around. Of course so will everyone else – I’ll choose to stay near a source of food production as that isn’t going to get shipped around cheaply either….
The problem is still the vehicles not the technology. A ‘breakthrough’ will have to come from the attitudes of the drivers. VW’s 1L and the X-tracer show that efficient ‘alternative’ vehicles can deliver an effective range today.
I wasn’t so blinded by my brief experience to be unable to see beyond that to the vehicle’s potential. As I said, I liked the Quasar, but not enough to want to buy one.
Creasey’s vehicles were on display at one of the bike shows in Bristol one year. A potential buyer had travelled from Scotland – cash in hand – with a view to making a purchase. On seeing the line-up, he walked away. I couldn’t blame him.
Until the concept is taken up by mainstream manufacturers, it remains a non-starter. And if they do, it will look nothing like the Creasey versions, which were crude at best. The idea of the concept was that it was the way forward and for that to happen, people would have to buy them, yes? Perhaps I should rephrase; I would never buy a vehicle like the ones designed and produced by Creasey and Defazio.
Lack of parking is a problem with older houses, yes, which is why people pave over their front gardens. This isn’t confined to Victorian properties, though.
Because that is what you said:
The idea of bulldozing them to make way for modern buildings appals me. These buildings are a part of our heritage – only a complete philistine would sweep them aside rather than modernising them. My parents’ Victorian house in Bristol back in the seventies and eighties was a wonderful place to live – spacious, modern and with a decent garden and garage, suitable for modern living even now. So, too, with their house in north Wales of a similar vintage. Victorian proprieties are generally sturdily built and have stood the test of time, so renovation is practicable and desirable. Demolition would only be a sensible option if the structure was so unsound as to be beyond redemption.
As for future transport, whatever shape it comes in, we will still need to move about. We cannot assume that our work will not be peripatetic as mine is, for example, and people have family spread around the country – or further. There will continue to be a need for multi-person and luggage capacity. The X-tracer is a concept vehicle. Unless that can be transposed into a multi-person vehicle suitable for everyday use, then it is not the answer.
Despite you going to the Bristol Classic bike show at the Watershed you are still mistaken – Royce NEVER made motorcycles in order to sell them. I expect you are mixing up him with Malcolm Newell. Who never worked with Jack Difazio but did lash up some FF’s for sale.
Unless a concept is made and tested it will never be taken up by mainstream manufacturers. You may have missed it in the advertising bullshit but real innovation rarely comes from multinationals, they use ideas they get from others. Like BMW’s use of the Saxon front end (Telelever) and the Hossack (Duolever). So I don’t think there will be much actual development in electric vehicles from major manufacturers – they haven’t really got the ability to push the market. And the shareholders will get angry if they lose profit. Development still comes from ‘garden sheds’.
Same goes for housing. People buy what they know. There is development in housing design that allows houses to be heated without consuming energy. It doesn’t look like a Victorian pile (and probably never can) so will the house builders make them? Without pressure from somewhere they won’t. They would rather slam up several thousand more brick clad mock Georgian rabbit hutches. They don’t have to think, they have marketing departments geared up to sell these ‘opportunities’.
Clearly you grew up in a Victorian house with a front garden to terrace over. The vast majority of Victorian properties are rows and rows and rows of terrace houses with no front gardens. What do you do with these? The houses were cheaply built back in the day – and the heritage industry currently has got a lot of people believing that anything old is better than anything new so to bulldoze the shite is ‘appalling’. Sometimes old is just crap. Might be a house with lovely memories but you can’t burn coal in town any more and the holes in the fabric mean that the running costs of the (often developer ‘updated’) nostalgia are dreadful. But hey, they’ve stood the test of time so that’s okay.
Whatever the desire to move about is – it will still be restricted by what is available. And it is still the case that most people do not need to move lots of people about all the time. (Those that do are called bus drivers)
Yes, the X-tracer is a ‘concept’ vehicle just as the Quasar was. But the problem is that you (and a lot of others) seem limited to only want a ‘car’ that does what a car does now. Unless there is a breakthrough in some technology – get used to the idea that you won’t be able to unless you start to understand that the vehicle has to be MUCH more efficient. And carrying around empty seats is not the most efficient way of moving individuals.
You might be right on that, they were certainly displayed at the Bristol show and the guy I saw was certainly planning a purchase. Equally, I do recall looking very closely at the banana as it was often about at various club meetings during the early eighties. It was, frankly, a lash-up and I’m being polite. I’ve seen better quality rat-bikes.
Actually, I didn’t. One was detached, the other was semi-detached. Prior to that, my parents had a fifties new build on a young estate.
Interestingly, I watched a programme about a new-build eco-house last night. My sister likes these property type programmes. The idea was that the house would generate heat from the concrete blocks and electricity from the wind turbine. The turbine proved to be a waste of time and money. They didn’t say how warm the house was in winter, but aesthetically, it was pretty dreadful. As the presenter pointed out, the interiors looked like a warehouse or prison cell. I presume that plastering the walls would have undermined the heat capability of the concrete. Given that, would I buy one? No. I don’t say that older is necessarily better, but I remain appalled at the idea of demolishing perfectly sound structures just because they are old.
I move about a lot and I am most certainly not a bus driver (don’t hold a PSV). All those people driving long distances on the motorways that I see are not bus drivers.
Yes, I do want (and need) what current vehicles do and that is unlikely to change. It is more efficient to have a vehicle with empty seats than to have to all have vehicles that will only carry one person. Given that I have to carry not just myself but the necessary kit for my work along with the cludge needed for extended says away from home, a one-seater vehicle is not an option. I cannot even use my bike most of the time.
“You might be right on that… ”
I am right about that.
“It was, frankly, a lash-up and I’m being polite. I’ve seen better quality rat-bikes.”
So what? It was at best a development hack never intended for sale. But to develop new ideas you have to experiment. Do you remember seeing 001 (http://www.bikeweb.com/files/images/001-on-track-494.jpg) and 002 (http://www.bikeweb.com/files/images/002-501.jpg) rolling about Brissle?
I saw that eco house programme – I think they had taken some great ideas but put them together really oddly. If I wanted to heat my house from the sun (and I would) I’d have as large a glass area facing south as I could and as little as possible facing north. But the internal aesthetics are really neither here nor there. It was a self-build and if that is what the owner wants it is their business not yours or mine.
“I remain appalled at the idea of demolishing perfectly sound structures just because they are old.”
But there are rows and rows of draughty, shoddily built Victorian terraces that are not ‘perfectly sound’ they would not even get close to passing building standards today but you think they should not be demolished for something better?
“Given that I have to carry not just myself but the necessary kit for my work along with the cludge needed for extended says away from home, a one-seater vehicle is not an option. I cannot even use my bike most of the time.”
Takes us nicely back to my comment of being unaware as to what a PTW can do when it is not simply some motorised bicycle throwback.
The first, not the second.
That was supposed to be the idea. I liked the fan shape and the outside looked okay when it was finished. From what I understood, the internal aesthetics were a consequence of necessity rather than taste – heat transference from the concrete blocks. Certainly I couldn’t live in an environment that looks like a warehouse. The other big downside was the size and shape of the rooms. On balance it looked like too many compromises to be ideal.
I also wonder how warm it will be in the winter, not least given that they had to drop the solar panels idea. it would be interesting to have an update on that one.
Would I spend £340k on it? Nope. I would want at the very least something that was attractive inside given that you see it day in, day out. And for that price, I wouldn’t want to make so many compromises on room size.
Given that they are peoples’ homes and people want to live in them, no. Who are you or I to insist that someone’s home is demolished for “something better”. They did that in the sixties and that something better wasn’t.
From what I understood, the internal aesthetics were a consequence of necessity rather than taste – heat transference from the concrete blocks.
Huh? How does that work?
It works as the dense concrete walls become a heat store/thermal mass and this stabilises the temperature fluctuations in the building – so they warm up and stop the house feeling so hot during the day and when the temperature drops outside the inside stays warmer. It is a well tried system.
(I disagree that plastering them would stop heat transfer – but that was just one of the barmy ideas the builders had…)
Longrider – the house was south facing – but the largest surface area was NORTH facing! I think they got that arse about face. The tallest wall should have been glazed and facing south the low wall should have faced north.
I think the £340k was spent on the wrong things (and the land cost an additional £160K!) – I’d have dropped the windmill and fitted panels for heating water and generating electricity. This would have to be stored – so an accumulator tank (a giant hot water tank) for the water and a battery array for the electricity. The stored water would not be used directly but becomes a way of heating up the water you use and the batteries would power low voltage LED lighting as well as run heating and water pumps. This would have reduced the demand for energy from the house and would not be sitting unused like a giant pylon outside the house standing as a monument to their poor decisions.
Finally, just because something has been done and you think it ‘wasn’t better’ why should we give up? A house on a TV programme might not be perfect so we shouldn’t bother? Because some building in the 60’s wasn’t very good we should not consider what to do with materially poor housing now? Because Citroen are not meeting what you want from an electric car we shouldn’t bother? Because you didn’t want to buy some experimental FF’s that Royce never was making for sale in the 80’s then alternatives are not worth considering? The compromises you seem to make are not restricted to room sizes…
That thought went through my mind. What really struck me as odd was ditching the solar panels, which are an effective energy source in favour of the wind turbine that had a gearbox which absorbed the energy generated. I would have expected someone investing that much would have done a bit more research.
I wonder how effective it was last winter with extended periods of low temperature and short days. Personally, I’d have built in a backup central heating system. But, then, at anything below around 20oC I’m uncomfortable.
“I wonder how effective it was last winter with extended periods of low temperature and short days. Personally, I’d have built in a backup central heating system.”
Thermal mass probably won’t heat house entirely. Although with solar gain, small rooms, massive insulation and a well sealed building it could be surprisingly comfortable even in mid-winter. But I would probably need an air source heat pump (could run from the battery array too) and probably a wood burning stove as well (although you could cook and certainly heat water with that too when it is lit)
We’ve overlapped – and said the same thing about the solar panels etc.
I am not saying “don’t bother” – nowhere have I suggested any such thing – but I am saying that we shouldn’t repeat mistakes and that we should recognise a flawed concept when we see it.
Bulldozing peoples’ homes for “something better” is just too much top down authoritarianism for my liking. The people who should make any decision like that are the householders and no one else. If people prefer to renovate old properties rather than knock them down and start again, then that is their decision. Personally, I like older properties, they have a character that is missing in much modern architecture. That doesn’t mean that I reject all modern builds, because I don’t – some of it is well designed and aesthetically pleasing.
Citröen got it wrong with the electric C1. In my opinion because they are trying to squeeze an electric engine into a vehicle originally designed for an ICE. Consequently it is too heavy for the power generated by the motor. Obvious, really. They are carrying out consumer trials. Hopefully, they will realise that this is a blind alley and look at other possibilities.
You are making some odd assumptions about my position. Nowhere have I said that we shouldn’t bother. What I have done is pointed out perfectly observable flaws in what has been tried. I didn’t say we shouldn’t try eco-houses, merely noted the disadvantages of the one I observed and for this reason would not pay the money that this person did for what he got – which was not his original plan and was profoundly compromised as a consequence. There would have been better compromises that he could have made – certainly room size is an obvious one.
Or should we ignore the flaws because it is new and avant guard, so therefore is “good”? Yes, I know you didn’t say that, but it is doing no more to your position than you are doing to mine. 😉
It works as the dense concrete walls become a heat store/thermal mass and this stabilises the temperature fluctuations in the building – so they warm up and stop the house feeling so hot during the day and when the temperature drops outside the inside stays warmer. It is a well tried system.
Okay, so it’s the same principle as the bricks that they put in the old electric heaters: heat the bricks quickly, and they give off heat slowly long after the electricity has been turned off. This is a good enough system to be used in conjunction with a powered heat supply, but it would not work standalone. I’ve spent enough time shivering in Russian apartments with (virtually) unrendered breeze-block walls waiting for the district heating to be switched on to know that.
Longrider – “I am not saying “don’t bother” – nowhere have I suggested any such thing – but I am saying that we shouldn’t repeat mistakes and that we should recognise a flawed concept when we see it.”
Okay, then let’s start with “electric cars are a long way from being a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine'” Who has said electric vehicles ARE an practical alternative to the internal combustion engine? Citroen? The ‘Torygraph’? You?
“We do need to seek an alternative to oil sooner or later. Electric cars don’t look remotely like the solution.”
The electric vehicles that “are a long way from being a practical alternative” are seeking to offer people a personal transport solution. And, for many people, what they offer will be appropriate. That it happens not to suit your desire for immediate long distance travel does not mean it is a flawed concept. It may not be suitable for you – but longer than 20 or so years ago you would not have been able to live in France and work in the UK easily. So your expectations have changed largely due to the opportunities available from low cost of fuel. This is likely to change. Fuel is not going to be cheap. Living a distance from work will become an issue (although I suspect eventually living a distance from food will be worse)
“You are making some odd assumptions about my position. Nowhere have I said that we shouldn’t bother. What I have done is pointed out perfectly observable flaws in what has been tried.”
Hang on, about the ‘eco house’ you first wrote “The idea was that the house would generate heat from the concrete blocks…” Now that was not really accurate (rather similar to your utterly inaccurate comments about Royce Creasey selling bikes) and the tone of your comments about the raft of energy saving systems discussed certainly look to be poo-pooing the ideas. You may not be – but comments about aesthetics when talking about energy saving ideas in buildings (or motorcycles) suggests to me that you don’t begin to understand the problems we face (rather like Citroen and the eco house designer!)
Tim Newman – “This is a good enough system to be used in conjunction with a powered heat supply, but it would not work standalone. I’ve spent enough time shivering in Russian apartments with (virtually) unrendered breeze-block walls waiting for the district heating to be switched on to know that.”
I think you might be missing the point. I don’t think anyone has seriously suggested that simply having a brick wall will heat your house have they? But a well designed solar gain allied with a thermal mass will work as a ‘thermostatic flywheel’ absorbing the heat from the sun in the day (making the rooms ‘cooler’) and releasing it in the night (making them warmer). This is not something that was designed into shoddy old Russian flats (nor shitty Victorian terraces).
An aside – How do you format text on this WordPress blog? The usual HTML shortcuts don’t seem to work for me….
Again, you misrepresent me.
Given that Citröen have produced an electric version of their C1 does rather suggest that they see it as a practical alternative – I would suggest that Smart are saying something similar with their offering, or they wouldn’t be doing it. And there are still the practical problems related to refuelling time and once transposed to practical vehicles that carry passengers and luggage, range is still a problem and in the case of the C1 so is performance. Pointing this out is perfectly reasonable. And that is all I did in the original post.
Nonsense. You have put a spin on my comments all of your own. I was relating the programme that I had seen and as such, my comment was accurate – my meaning was plain. It was not poo-pooing at all. You knew precisely what I meant yet are trying to make it into something else by indulging in semantic pedantry. My comments about aesthetics in a building were perfectly valid. It does not mean that I don’t understand – that is a cheap shot, frankly. A living space should be a pleasant place, not look like a prison cell or warehouse (unless you want to live in a prison cell or warehouse). If the objective cannot be resolved without it looking like a prison cell or warehouse and cannot manage to allow for reasonable sized rooms, then it needs a rethink. As such, I would not spend £340k on the one shown. Again, a perfectly reasonable position to take. It does not mean that I reject alternatives – simply that example for the reasons given. The presenter of the programme made exactly the same point and and I agree with him. Perhaps he, poor soul, doesn’t understand either, eh?
My comments about FF bikes were also taken to mean something that wasn’t originally intended. My initial reaction of “I wouldn’t buy one of those” doesn’t have to mean that those examples were for sale – it doesn’t matter one whit whether it was Royce Creasey who was making bikes for sale or Malcom Newell – the original point stands, even if my memory was clouded by the passing of thirty odd years. Some bikes were available for sale, and Creasey’s concepts were pretty crude – this much is true even if I don’t recall fine detail. Sorry, but other things have happened in the intervening years that were rather more important to me. Again, when a mainstream manufacturer takes up the concept and makes it practical, viable, reliable and effective, then, perhaps, it is time to reconsider. Until then, no, I wouldn’t buy one of those, whether they are for sale or not. Just as I wouldn’t buy an electric vehicle that will only carry one person or takes more than a few minutes to refill. These are pretty basic requirements and need to be addressed in any future solution.
Which ones? I’ve just used blockquote, for example. Italics and bold along with links all use the standard HTML formatting using the < and > brackets.
Where? I think I have copied your own words and even used quotation marks to show when I am using them.
I suspect they haven’t. Isn’t the ‘Citroen’ a conversion cobbled together in the UK by ECC?
http://www.theelectriccarcorporation.co.uk (How do you do links?)
As long you can afford the fuel coming out of the pumps you don’t need to. When you can’t you better hope that others have worked out how to solve your problem or you are in danger of finding life very hard indeed.
What about if the battery-pack is on a roof-rack? You can go to a garage and change batteries. Your old one gets taken away, and a new one put on. It would be like driving through a car-wash. The battery is taken underground into racks in a vault, recharged, and used on the next car when it’s ready. The batteries and car belong to the “fuel” company. You get a free car or very cheap lease (the car’s likely to be cheaper than a battery to make anyway) and pay at the “filling station” every time you get a newly-charged battery.
Other than the inability of manu’s to agree a standards for anything? The potentially vast cost of the storage space – what would that cost in central London, New York or Tokyo where there are lots of cars? Putting batteries on the roof would raise centre of gravity and potentially affect the handling of the vehicle and the increased frontal area would create more drag – and more drag is what you don’t need when you have limited power. There might be theft issue with valuable and easily swappable battery packs accessible. I’m sure if you give it a few moments thought you will be able to think of several more reasons this will not happen.
You then interpreted them to mean something that they clearly didn’t.