The EV fact thread

[markjay]

Wait, undoing the seatbelt causes the engine to restart and brake hold to release?

Yes, the same happens if the driver's door is opened.

MB won't allow the car to remain on brake HOLD - or in P with the engine not running due to start/stop - if the vehicle is left unattended.

The undoing of the seatbelt and/or opening the driver's door are seen as signs that the diver is planning on leaving the vehicle, and either will deactivate brake HOLD and start the engine.

 

[markjay]

The irony. A CO2 rich atmosphere helps crops grow in abundance.

Where will the crops frow, though?

Instead of growing food?

Or by chopping down forests to create more space for growing biofuels?

Don't get me wrong, biofuels are great, and we should continue and use them, but we should also accept that we will never be able to replace fossil fuels with biofuels, and ultimately we'll need another energy source other than oil if we're to stop burning the stuff like there's no tomorrow (pun intended).

 

[BTB 500]

Well, if you have a better explanation, let's hear it

I have no idea - I've never driven any Jaguar!

 

[BTB 500]

Yes, the same happens if the driver's door is opened.

MB won't allow the car to remain on brake HOLD - or in P with the engine not running due to start/stop - if the vehicle is left unattended.

The undoing of the seatbelt and/or opening the driver's door are seen as signs that the diver is planning on leaving the vehicle, and either will deactivate brake HOLD and start the engine.

IIRC our 2019 C Class simply gives a red warning on the cluster that the car shouldn't be left unattended if you open the door with brake hold active. It definitely doesn't cancel it and start to drive off as you try to get out!

I'll double-check this next time I'm driving it though.

 

[PXW]

Perhaps he trod on the accelerator whilst exiting the car…shot back, tried to correct by putting it in neutral, ended up in D, tried to brake and hit the wrong pedal again. Or put it in D to get down from the Porsche he’d parked on top of and failed to stop before he hit the Tesla. Total speculation of course, but it’s more conceivable than the hybrid system suddenly deciding of its own volition that it’s going to play bumper cars. Supporting evidence for driver error are the fact that Jaguar checked the car and found no errors and the police booked him.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

OK so with the engine stopped (as the driver claimed) it's just as capable of uncommanded movement as a pure BEV.

I don't think it's very likely, but it's technically possible. Whereas if it had been an ICE then the driver would clearly have been talking b011ox as there's no way those can move unless someone starts the engine first.

When the article says that the engine was switched off then that would mean the ignition was switched off. Unless there’s something very unusual about the design of the E Pace, then with the ignition switched off the car would not be capable or moving under ICE or EV motor power. Ignition off means no drive power of any sort.

It’s interesting that the malfunction first put the gearbox car in Reverse and accelerated rapidly so must be a simultaneous fault with both the transmission and the fly by wire accelerator. The malfunction then paused “bad” inputs to the motor for long enough for the malfunction to switch to Drive , and then have another simultaneous fault with the fly by wire accelerator.

ICE, hybrid nor EV cars have power to drive when the ignition is switched off, there is an isolation which would prevent it. The drive train also wouldn’t go from Reverse to Drive without the accelerator input stopping, and if it had then there would likely be mechanical damage. Finally multiple simultaneous critical failures with a gap long enough to change direction is a long shot.

“Stamping” repeatedly on the brake is a good clue to what might have been happening. Ignition on, the driver thinks that the car is rolling/moving and hastily touches the accelerator. When on top of the Porsche, in panic the driver engages Drive to get back on to the ground but overcooks it again and accelerates with too much vigour and hits the Tesla.

 

[SmartAmg]

Think we are gonna get a lot of these type of reports, where the driver makes a balls up of something, and due to the mass hysteria surrounding EVs, he thinks Oooo I'll blame it on an EV, even if he isn't driving an EV.
And the media is only to willing to jump on it, coz let's face it when have they ever let the actual FACTS spoil a story.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

The report says that after reaching for his hat the driver became aware of the car moving, he then hit the brake pedal several times. I’ve just watched the video and he has much faster reactions than me if he had time to realise the car was moving, get back into something close to the correct position to take action, brake, and brake several more times before the impact.

 

[Bellow]

Where will the crops frow, though?

Instead of growing food?

Or by chopping down forests to create more space for growing biofuels?

Is that really being done for bio-fuels? Evidence of it?
For sure forests are logged for grazing cattle and other reasons but for bio-fuels is so stupid anyone involved in bio-fuels would know not to.

Don't get me wrong, biofuels are great, and we should continue and use them, but we should also accept that we will never be able to replace fossil fuels with biofuels, and ultimately we'll need another energy source other than oil if we're to stop burning the stuff like there's no tomorrow (pun intended).

How can you assume that when there's been zero attempt to even try - contemplate even - expanding bio-fuel production? Recall, the enormous waste that is the meat industry. Bio-fuels instead of meat is a no-brainer. But there's no brains around to recognise that.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Bio-fuels instead of meat is a no-brainer.

Is it though?....If we don't eat meat we will need a LOT more crops for the same food energy....so we will need that grazing space to grow crops....not inefficient pollution causing bio fuel. Carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfates are decreased when burning bio fuel over petrol/derv but are still emitted and nitrogen oxide emissions...NOX (the main bad one for lungs and the reason ULEZ exists) remain the same when burning biofuel.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Is it though?....If we don't eat meat we will need a LOT more crops for the same food energy....so we will need that grazing space to grow crops....not inefficient pollution causing bio fuel. Carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfates are decreased when burning bio fuel over petrol/derv but are still emitted and nitrogen oxide emissions...NOX (the main bad one for lungs and the reason ULEZ exists) remain the same when burning biofuel.

Soylent Green? Seems a win win when you think about it.

 

[Bellow]

Is it though?....If we don't eat meat we will need a LOT more crops for the same food energy...

Nowhere close. One quarter of the land is all that is required when we take meat out of the equation.

.so we will need that grazing space to grow crops....not inefficient pollution causing bio fuel. Carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfates are decreased when burning bio fuel over petrol/derv but are still emitted and nitrogen oxide emissions...NOX (the main bad one for lungs and the reason ULEZ exists) remain the same when burning biofuel.

Looks like I have to say it again. When carbon neutral bio-fuels are used, fuel economy that drives NOx production no longer matters so cheap low-NOx engines become the order of the day. Electrification of vehicles is plain stupid when such an obvious and easily transitioned into alternative is right in front of us.

 

[markjay]

Is that really being done for bio-fuels? Evidence of it?
For sure forests are logged for grazing cattle and other reasons but for bio-fuels is so stupid anyone involved in bio-fuels would know not to.

How can you assume that when there's been zero attempt to even try - contemplate even - expanding bio-fuel production? Recall, the enormous waste that is the meat industry. Bio-fuels instead of meat is a no-brainer. But there's no brains around to recognise that.

a. Of course no one is chopping down forests to grow biofuel. That's one reason why biofuel at current is just a very tiny percentage of our energy production.

b. Replacing the meat industry with biofuel industry will go down well with vegetarians, not so sure about the rest of the population.

 

[markjay]

IIRC our 2019 C Class simply gives a red warning on the cluster that the car shouldn't be left unattended if you open the door with brake hold active. It definitely doesn't cancel it and start to drive off as you try to get out!

I'll double-check this next time I'm driving it though.

It most certainly did on my facelift W204....

 

[markjay]

Fuel or Food? Study Sees Increasing Competition for Land, Water Resources

With the Earth’s population at about 7.4 billion people, and projected to grow to about 9 billion by the middle of the century, the need for food and fuel could increasingly be at odds.

news.virginia.edu

"These results clearly show the extent to which biofuels are competing with food for the limited land and water resources of the planet, and are becoming an additional obstacle to bringing food production in line with the increasing needs of the human population"

Land used for European biofuels could feed 120 million people daily | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

“Biofuels are a failed experiment. To continue to burn food as fuel while the world is facing a growing global food crisis is borderline criminal. Countries like Germany and Belgium are discussing limiting food crop biofuels in response. "

 

[clk320x]

Looks like I have to say it again. When carbon neutral bio-fuels are used, fuel economy that drives NOx production no longer matters so cheap low-NOx engines become the order of the day. Electrification of vehicles is plain stupid when such an obvious and easily transitioned into alternative is right in front of us.

Why don’t you go out there and make it a reality? Seeing as it’s so obvious and easy..

 

[ALFAitalia]

Nowhere close. One quarter of the land is all that is required when we take meat out of the equation.

Looks like I have to say it again. When carbon neutral bio-fuels are used, fuel economy that drives NOx production no longer matters so cheap low-NOx engines become the order of the day. Electrification of vehicles is plain stupid when such an obvious and easily transitioned into alternative is right in front of us.

You have really not thought that reply through. Google is your friend.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Nowhere close. One quarter of the land is all that is required when we take meat out of the equation.

Looks like I have to say it again. When carbon neutral bio-fuels are used, fuel economy that drives NOx production no longer matters so cheap low-NOx engines become the order of the day. Electrification of vehicles is plain stupid when such an obvious and easily transitioned into alternative is right in front of us.

By Jove, Sir, you’ve cracked it !

Well done!

Give it a go. How hard could it be? Good luck. Once you’ve got it up and running, pop back and talk us through how it all went.

 

[ChipChop]

Fuel or Food? Study Sees Increasing Competition for Land, Water Resources

With the Earth’s population at about 7.4 billion people, and projected to grow to about 9 billion by the middle of the century, the need for food and fuel could increasingly be at odds.

news.virginia.edu

"These results clearly show the extent to which biofuels are competing with food for the limited land and water resources of the planet, and are becoming an additional obstacle to bringing food production in line with the increasing needs of the human population"

Land used for European biofuels could feed 120 million people daily | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

“Biofuels are a failed experiment. To continue to burn food as fuel while the world is facing a growing global food crisis is borderline criminal. Countries like Germany and Belgium are discussing limiting food crop biofuels in response. "

You do realise a good proportion of the raw material for producing bio fuels comes from food waste? It is already in existence thanks to food production.

Yes it is no surprise NGO's funded by 'clean energy' money (www.transportenvironment.org) hate bio fuels. Always puzzles me how these 'environmentalists' can justify their offices in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK. Oh and a head lobbying office in Brussels of course to grease palms. Quite the carbon footprint.

 

[ioweddie]

Got sent this from a mate in Canada....

Letter: First-hand EV owner's experience

February 28, 2024

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to a letter in the February 14th publication entitled, “Benefits of Electric Vehicles.” My husband and I drive a 2021 Long Range Tesla Model 3. My hope is to shed some light on what it is like living in Inverness County with an electric vehicle.

For a bit of context, I am not your run-of-the-mill naysayer. We’ve been driving an EV for the last three years, we are organic farmers, we lived in a fully off-grid, solar powered home for eight years, and we attended that big Greta Thunberg inspired climate change march in Halifax back in 2019. I feel slightly embarrassed about sharing this so publicly because I truly feel that we got duped by clever and persuasive EV/doomsday marketing. After reading Paul Strome’s letter, featuring all those key marketing points, I felt compelled to write in. Here is our electric car experience:

2021 – Rosy new car: Wow! This is great!

– The car was more expensive up front, but it only costs about $14 to “fill the tank” and we can conveniently charge with our Level 2 charger at home whenever we want. That will more than make up for the initial cost over time, considering the price of gas!

– No pesky oil changes and Tesla’s titanium shield under the car means no repairs due to rust! Great – more savings!

– When going to Halifax, we need to recharge at the Enfield Supercharger. Recharging takes 18 minutes, but no big deal: bathroom break, stretch your legs, get a coffee; just minor adjustments to how we drove with a gas car.

Not-so-nice realizations from year one:

– The undulating, electric hum while the car charges for seven hours permeates our entire home and yard. Is that healthy?

– Needing to exit the vehicle for 20 minutes at the Supercharger because it feels very unhealthy to be in such a high voltage environment while it’s charging. Rain, shine, snow or sleet – Everybody out!

– Learning that every time you recharge the battery, the battery life decreases. It actually can damage the battery to charge to 100 per cent and it is advised that you don’t charge more than 80 per cent for day-to-day use.

2022 – One-year-old car:

– Can still make it to Sydney and back, but we shouldn’t make many detours if we want to make it home again. Having to stop in Baddeck for two hours to “juice up” just to make the 40-minute journey home doesn’t make much sense...

– Can still make it to the Enfield Supercharger when going to Halifax, but no detours. Stick to the highway or else.

Christmas 2023 – 2.5-year-old car:

Heading to the Valley Christmas Eve (outside temperature is -5oC).

– “I don’t think we’re going to make it to the Supercharger...” “What the heck! We’re definitely not going to make it!” The whole family, plus two dogs, wandered around Truro for 1.5 hours, in the cold twilight while charging just enough to make it to the Enfield Supercharger.

– With everyone’s spirits low, we wander around the Enfield Big Stop parking lot in the cold while the car charges for 35 minutes. Can’t bring the dogs into Timmy’s and staying in the car while it’s charging feels like every hair on your body is getting charged up too.

– Charge up again at the New Minas Supercharger, just in case, because the wall plug at Grandma’s takes days to charge the car and we can’t believe how poorly the car is performing.

Coming home after Christmas:

– Leave Middleton. Stop at the Supercharger in New Minas for 10 minutes to add some charge. Everyone out into the cold!

– Leave New Minas. Stop in Enfield to fully recharge for 35 minutes. Everybody out into the cold: Kids, dogs; everyone. It’s windy and half raining/half snowing. How wonderfully modern and convenient it is to drive an EV!

– Make it back home with six per cent. Phew!

January 2024 – 2.5-year-old car:

– 10oC, but dropping, so range is dropping too.

– Husband arrives at Enfield Supercharger. Relief!

– Enfield supercharger is down. Neither the car nor Telsa phone app notified him; 9:00 p.m. on a Sunday. No indication of when/if the charger will turn on again. Car is at three per cent. Not enough power to keep the heat on, let alone drive to a motel. Other EV drivers there are all cursing their cars and their decisions...

– After an hour of being stranded, the chargers come online again.

– 60 minutes to recharge after going so low and it being so cold out. Two hours, stuck at the Enfield Big Stop!

February 2024 (last week) – 2.5-year-old car

– We are driving home from the airport. I’m driving my 2012 Toyota Matrix (680 km/tank). I have to go pick up the dogs from the boarder, just outside Antigonish. It’s too big of a detour for the “Long Range” Tesla to handle.

– Even with that detour, I make it home first. The Tesla took 60 minutes to charge in Enfield. It takes longer to charge a cold battery, but surely they should be home by now...

– My husband finally made it home. He crawled home, with the heat turned off, because he was trying to conserve power. Made it home with six per cent.

We’ve looked into it: There is nothing wrong with our car. This is just the natural diminishing of an EV battery over time, combined with fairly mild NS winter driving.

This is what range anxiety looks like! It is not, as Paul Strome so kindly put it, “for those drivers who have trouble paying attention to their fuel gauge.” Range anxiety means constantly paying attention to your fuel gauge and crossing your fingers and toes, hoping you’re going to make it! It’s leaving home with a “full tank” to go 290 km and worrying about not arriving!

The February 14th letter features all of the dealership, government, and activist talking points. None of it is based on the real life experience of a rural EV owner. The “official range” of EVs is not based in reality. Only on the first day out of the factory (if it’s sunny, with no wind, temps between 15-20oC, on a straight stretch road with no hills) would our car ever live up to its range expectations.

Speaking as a former climate change activist and current EV driver, I can only see EVs working if you live in a big city and never plan on leaving that big city. The last thing we should be pushing for is to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 in Canada. Yes, we absolutely have to take better care of our planet, but EVs make zero sense in the real world.

Hilary Muelle