Would you have an electric car if you had the money for a new car and were in the market for one?

[Nordboy]

Yep, I really like my mini, I wouldn't have got rid of it had it been a bit more practical space wise. The Countryman is far more practical, but the JCW is basically the same as the BMW M135i/ 235I etc. I honestly couldn't believe how fast and well it handled on the test drive.

[Horse]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... xplosions/

Adding fire-suppressing chemicals into batteries can prevent overheating, fires and explosions, cutting the risks for electric vehicles and portable electronics

[Saga Lout]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... xplosions/

Adding fire-suppressing chemicals into batteries can prevent overheating, fires and explosions, cutting the risks for electric vehicles and portable electronics

Why?

Whenever anybody mentions electric vehicle fires we're told it's not a problem, they're no more dangerous than ICE vehicles.

[wheelnut]

Why?

Whenever anybody mentions electric vehicle fires we're told it's not a problem, they're no more dangerous than ICE vehicles.

I don’t think anyone is denying that lithium batteries can develop a fire from a fault and can be a lot harder to extinguish. Which is why airlines are terrified of them.

[Horse]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... xplosions/

Adding fire-suppressing chemicals into batteries can prevent overheating, fires and explosions, cutting the risks for electric vehicles and portable electronics

Why?

Whenever anybody mentions electric vehicle fires we're told it's not a problem, they're no more dangerous than ICE vehicles.

ALARP?

[Sunny]

Took my Cupra up north at the weekend to experiment with a longer drive (it's 220 miles door-to-door).
Also to try using the charger network, as I'd only ever charged at home.

On the way up, it was fine - stopped for a charge en route, as I was going to be about 25 miles short.

Topped up when up there at another charger round the corner from the Fil's no bother.

Was going to be about 60 miles short on the way home (got about 2.6m/kWh, compared to my usual commuter run of 3.8m/kWh) and had planned to stop and charge at Woodall (our service station of choice when heading up for some reason).

Arrived at Woodall, tried eight different chargers, including two different makes. All of them connected, but then the car wouldn't charge.

I'd only got 25 miles charge left so looked to see what else was around on ARBP (good app - I recommend it) and found an Instavolt (I'd used an Instavolt the day prior with no issues) at a McDonald's a couple of miles away off the motorway, so headed there. No joy. Same issues.

We were right by Chesterfield, I had visions of spending the night on KFB's floor

It's a lease car, and came with breakdown, so I rang them and went and got a dirty McDonald's while waiting.

50 minutes later, AA chap turns up, I explain the issue, he says words to the effect of if there's no error message there's nowt he can do. I then went to demonstrate the issue and the fucking thing started charging.

AA man says that happens a lot in his experience. Despite having done the 'turn it off and on again' thing before with no joy, by leaving it off for longer while we waited for him to show, it had sorted itself out.

Given that was only the third time I'd tried to charge in the wild, I was severely unimpressed. The whole escapade added two hours onto our journey, and we weren't in a rush, but if I had been, it'd have been a frigging nightmare.

The Cupra is being relegated back to commuter duty and home charging, which tbf was always the plan.

Home charging is usually fine, though it's not charged a couple of times which I put down to the app, but am now wondering if it's got a bit of a general glitch.

Anyway, idle thoughts about replacing the 'main' car with an EV are shelved for the time being.
A longer range car was the thinking tbf, so maybe once the pain of that journey has subsided we'll reconsider.

[Taipan]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

The congestion charge, introduced in 2003, covers an area of central London between 7am and 6pm on weekdays, and between noon and 6pm on weekends and bank holidays. The scheme's daily fee will rise from £15 to £18 from January 2.

Pure battery-powered EVs are currently eligible for a 100% discount, but from that date this will be reduced to 25% for cars, and 50% for vans and lorries. The EV discount will be cut further from March 4 2030, to 12.5% for cars and 25% for vans and lorries.

AA president Edmund King urged Sir Sadiq to reverse his decision. He said: "This is a backward step which sadly will backfire on air quality in London.

"Many drivers are not quite ready to make the switch to electric vehicles, so incentives are still needed to help them over the line. The mayor needs to reconsider to continue to help more essential van and car journeys in the capital go electric."

Ginny Buckley, the chief executive of EV advice website Electrifying.com, said: "It's far too soon for TfL to remove exemptions for electric vehicles from the London congestion charge. This policy sends a confusing signal. You can't champion clean air while penalising the vehicles that deliver it."

Transport for London (TfL) said EVs will account for nearly a fifth of all vehicles in the congestion charging zone by the end of this year. Without the changes, it has estimated there could be more than 2,000 additional vehicles driving during operating hours in the zone on an average weekday.

TfL said this would "undermine the benefits" of the scheme by causing "more queues and delays". Sir Sadiq said: "Keeping London moving by reducing congestion is vital for our city and for our economy.

"While the congestion charge has been a huge success since its introduction, we must ensure it stays fit for purpose, and sticking to the status quo would see around 2,200 more vehicles using the congestion charging zone on an average weekday next year.

[Rockburner]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

The congestion charge, introduced in 2003, covers an area of central London between 7am and 6pm on weekdays, and between noon and 6pm on weekends and bank holidays. The scheme's daily fee will rise from £15 to £18 from January 2.

Pure battery-powered EVs are currently eligible for a 100% discount, but from that date this will be reduced to 25% for cars, and 50% for vans and lorries. The EV discount will be cut further from March 4 2030, to 12.5% for cars and 25% for vans and lorries.

AA president Edmund King urged Sir Sadiq to reverse his decision. He said: "This is a backward step which sadly will backfire on air quality in London.

"Many drivers are not quite ready to make the switch to electric vehicles, so incentives are still needed to help them over the line. The mayor needs to reconsider to continue to help more essential van and car journeys in the capital go electric."

Ginny Buckley, the chief executive of EV advice website Electrifying.com, said: "It's far too soon for TfL to remove exemptions for electric vehicles from the London congestion charge. This policy sends a confusing signal. You can't champion clean air while penalising the vehicles that deliver it."

Transport for London (TfL) said EVs will account for nearly a fifth of all vehicles in the congestion charging zone by the end of this year. Without the changes, it has estimated there could be more than 2,000 additional vehicles driving during operating hours in the zone on an average weekday.

TfL said this would "undermine the benefits" of the scheme by causing "more queues and delays". Sir Sadiq said: "Keeping London moving by reducing congestion is vital for our city and for our economy.

"While the congestion charge has been a huge success since its introduction, we must ensure it stays fit for purpose, and sticking to the status quo would see around 2,200 more vehicles using the congestion charging zone on an average weekday next year.

It does beg the question of what the "purpose" of the charge actually is.

Is it merely revenue?

Is it genuinely about reducing congestion?

Because if it's the latter, then it must be accepted that traffic levels never drop - the travelling public will always wish to go places and do things.
If they are going to be serious about reducing congestion, then they (TFL) have to be serious about increasing travel provision elsewhere to match that demand. If they aren't, then the CC just becomes about revenue.

[Yorick]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

It's London. Who cares?

[Taipan]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

The congestion charge, introduced in 2003, covers an area of central London between 7am and 6pm on weekdays, and between noon and 6pm on weekends and bank holidays. The scheme's daily fee will rise from £15 to £18 from January 2.

Pure battery-powered EVs are currently eligible for a 100% discount, but from that date this will be reduced to 25% for cars, and 50% for vans and lorries. The EV discount will be cut further from March 4 2030, to 12.5% for cars and 25% for vans and lorries.

AA president Edmund King urged Sir Sadiq to reverse his decision. He said: "This is a backward step which sadly will backfire on air quality in London.

"Many drivers are not quite ready to make the switch to electric vehicles, so incentives are still needed to help them over the line. The mayor needs to reconsider to continue to help more essential van and car journeys in the capital go electric."

Ginny Buckley, the chief executive of EV advice website Electrifying.com, said: "It's far too soon for TfL to remove exemptions for electric vehicles from the London congestion charge. This policy sends a confusing signal. You can't champion clean air while penalising the vehicles that deliver it."

Transport for London (TfL) said EVs will account for nearly a fifth of all vehicles in the congestion charging zone by the end of this year. Without the changes, it has estimated there could be more than 2,000 additional vehicles driving during operating hours in the zone on an average weekday.

TfL said this would "undermine the benefits" of the scheme by causing "more queues and delays". Sir Sadiq said: "Keeping London moving by reducing congestion is vital for our city and for our economy.

"While the congestion charge has been a huge success since its introduction, we must ensure it stays fit for purpose, and sticking to the status quo would see around 2,200 more vehicles using the congestion charging zone on an average weekday next year.

It does beg the question of what the "purpose" of the charge actually is.

Is it merely revenue?

Is it genuinely about reducing congestion?

Because if it's the latter, then it must be accepted that traffic levels never drop - the travelling public will always wish to go places and do things.
If they are going to be serious about reducing congestion, then they (TFL) have to be serious about increasing travel provision elsewhere to match that demand. If they aren't, then the CC just becomes about revenue.

Quite! He'll never price driving out of the city as it'll just go on expenses and there has to be a ceiling on what he can charge before London looks even more ridiculous than he's making it!

The only way I can see stopping congestion is to move freight/delivery operation into certain off peak hours and either banning single occupancy cars, or car pool lanes on arterial routes, but I don't think they'd work here? For me the biggest cause of congestion is single occupancy cars.

[Taipan]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

It's London. Who cares?

The 9 million people who live there and the 6 million people that commute into there?

[gremlin]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

It's London. Who cares?

The 9 million people who live there and the 6 million people that commute into there?

And the rest of the UK who rely on London to keep the economy from falling flat on its face.

Edit: that's better.

[Yorick]

It's London. Who cares?

The 9 million people who live there and the 6 million people that commute into there?

And the rest of the UK who rely on London to keep the economy from falling flat on its face.

Edit: that's better.

Not me

[Mussels]

I don't see how anyone can say they are surprised about charging EVs in the CC zone. It won't be long until we see 'proof' that it's sexist, racist and benefits the wealthy most but that won't change his mind on this cash cow.

As a frequent walker of the square mile before and after CC was intruduced it did make a big difference to traffic levels, helped by road restrictions. It made little difference to me as a pedestrian but plently as a cyclist or a motorbike rider.

[Saga Lout]

Anther blow for clean air in cities, well, London anyway! Given how Khant extended the ULEZ zone and many people sold their cars and bought EVs, I'm not expecting this to go down too well!

Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused by motoring experts of a "backward step" after confirming electric vehicles (EVs) will lose their exemption from the capital's congestion charge. The Mayor of London, who announced the change will take place from January 2, insisted it is essential the scheme "stays fit for purpose" amid a sharp rise in the number of EVs on the road.

It's London. Who cares?

I haven't driven in London for about 20 years and that was under protest. If I really, really have to go into London I use the train.

I guess I must be tired of life.

[gremlin]

I don't see how anyone can say they are surprised about charging EVs in the CC zone.

Khan has a massive black hole in his finances. It was a no-brainer that it was coming.

[Noggin]

It does beg the question of what the "purpose" of the charge actually is.

Is it merely revenue?

Is it genuinely about reducing congestion?

Because if it's the latter, then it must be accepted that traffic levels never drop - the travelling public will always wish to go places and do things.
If they are going to be serious about reducing congestion, then they (TFL) have to be serious about increasing travel provision elsewhere to match that demand. If they aren't, then the CC just becomes about revenue.

IF it's about congestion, then limiting delivery hours "could" work (not really sure somewhere as huge as London!) - a lot of resorts have restrictions on delivery times for anything over 7.5 tons (I think)

But TBF, it's not really about congestion is it? That's just the current excuse??

[Yorick]

There was terrible congestion in town today. I was stuck behind 2 cars. Yes TWO. Had to wait about 15 seconds

[Noggin]

There was terrible congestion in town today. I was stuck behind 2 cars. Yes TWO. Had to wait about 15 seconds

Congestion here (outside winter) is usually cows, horses, sheep or goats on the road

[KungFooBob]

I didn't think the cold was having much impact, but these last three days the temps have been below 3c and the efficiency has dropped off a cliff, I guess it's a mix of the heater being used more and the colds effect on the battery chemistry.

Typically when the temp is above 5c I average 3.4 m/kWh on my morning commute, these last three days it's been 2.9.

Doesn't sound like much, but is difference in range of 40 miles if I'm adding up right.