 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| daemonoid |
This post is not being displayed .
|
daemonoid
World Chat Champion
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 11:54 - 10 Apr 2014  Post subject: Transport emissions cut easier than expected... |
 |
|
But screw 'em they're not getting away with it that easy lets make wild cuts across the board in a new round just in case:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26955982
If we must continue, can we not impose vehicle weight reductions rather than just more taxes? It would improve emissions, reduce total forces involved in an accident and best of all make driving more fun again!
____________________
current: ducati monster 750
past: hyosung gt250r, bajaj pulsar 180, hyosung gt 125 comet
@thomasgarrard | www.straitjkt.com | www.racingseven.com |
|
| Back to top |
    |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| daemonoid |
This post is not being displayed .
|
daemonoid
World Chat Champion
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 12:21 - 10 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with the planning cities (why not towns?) for walking. Reduce unwanted journeys.
So start with the small stuff. When I was a lad (those were the days) I walked to school. Every school. Now it seems de-facto must take kid(s) in car. So stop that. Only it's often a case of Tarquin and Peaches (it was a homage christening) can't go to the local school as not good enough in the ratings so we'll drive them to the other side of town.
Also with the recent publicity about section of M1 down to 50mph on grounds of pollutions. Hogswash!. Cars with nice hot cat converters, like on a motorway, produce less pollution than say stop start commuting (or on the school run). HGVs on the other hand restricted to 56mph produce most of their pollution at that. SO maybe re-jig those limits?
Or would stuff like this be just fiddling at the edges while Rome burns?
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma : 
|
Posted: 12:25 - 10 Apr 2014  Post subject: |
|
|
| TFA wrote: | It seems that manufacturers are capitalising on new technology to pass the emissions test, rather than to benefit the ordinary motorist |
Shrugged off, rather than suggesting that perhaps some people should be spending time in grown up jail, for perpetuating a massive, cynical, sustained fraud.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| weasley |
This post is not being displayed .
|
weasley
World Chat Champion
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:31 - 10 Apr 2014 Post subject: Re: Transport emissions cut easier than expected... |
|
|
| daemonoid wrote: | If we must continue, can we not impose vehicle weight reductions rather than just more taxes? It would improve emissions, reduce total forces involved in an accident and best of all make driving more fun again! |
Take a look at new vehicles and you'll see that without mandate weights are falling (extreme example, the new Range Rover is around 400kg lighter than the outgoing one). This is driven not by a weight limiting mandate but by the need to reduce CO2 emissions. In the EU, since 2012, car manufacturers are accountable for every gram of CO2 emitted from the cars they sell. If the average emissions go above ~130g/km per vehicle sold then they get fined. The fines are on a sliding scale but by 2019 it'll be €95 for every gram over the limit. To put that in context, if you take the VW group's 2011 sales and map them to the most severe fine structure, they would face nearly €3bn in fines. That is an enormous incentive to improve, and they have.
The efficiencies are coming from all over the car. Weight, engine, transmission, aerodynamics, electrification and so on. Note that in the above scheme, pure EVs are credited as 3 sales each, so this is one big reason why EVs have recently become more mainstream (since they have a weighty impact on the average fleet CO2 emissions). This weighting factor will reduce with time though.
And it gets better/worse. The future is likely to impose a 95g/km average limit by 2021, so no resting on laurels chaps.
____________________
Yamaha XJ600 | Yamaha YZF600R Thundercat | KTM 990 SMT | BMW F900XR TE |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LessIsMore |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LessIsMore
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 27 Mar 2014
Karma :  
|
| Posted: 15:52 - 10 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
There’s a short-sighted us-versus-them, fun-versus-the-environment attitude around emissions regulation, often perpetuated by louts like Jeremy Clarkson. However, regulation has been fantastically effective at reducing emissions and improving fuel economy (CO2 is directly proportional to fuel burned) – critical to human and planetary health alike – and that has been accomplished while making vehicles better to drive than ever.
If you like driving/riding, you should be all for reduced emissions and fuel consumption. It’s the only way driving/riding can continue to be viable in the long-term future.
And it’s one of the clearest examples of regulation being good for innovation. Volkswagen has the greatest R&D spend of any company in the world for good reason.
By the way, the regs don’t mandate specific approaches or technologies. They just set goals. If you can hit them with a heavy vehicle running carburettors, all the better!
There’s an interesting article in the March 2014 edition of Engine Technology International, available here (page 42), in which an insider argues that a specific technology – gasoline particulate filters – should be mandated, since direct-injection petrols have reversed the trend towards lower emissions, and the regulatory response has been slow/weak/non-existent. In this case the regs might be a bit lenient, since car companies are currently avoiding the fairly low costs associated with greatly reduced emissions via a particulate filter, simply because they don’t yet need to do so to meet the regs.
In any case, the question will be irrelevant by 2017, when the regs tighten again. So the car companies are only getting away with a few years of not trying as hard as they could.
Obviously companies often comply with the letter of the law rather than its spirit, but the regs keep getting smarter to tackle that, and in the meantime the targets are set with such ‘cheating’ in mind (some of the cheating methods are also outlined in that ETi article). |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LessIsMore |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LessIsMore
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 27 Mar 2014
Karma :
|
| Posted: 18:20 - 10 Apr 2014 Post subject: Re: Transport emissions cut easier than expected... |
|
|
| Kickstart wrote: | Hence make the ECU learn so they can set it up to run horribly lean and be barely driveable for the emissions tests, but after a few hundred miles it has learnt and become reasonable to drive but with higher fuel consumption. |
Have you got a reliable source for this claim? It sounds like no more than the usual hearsay. The regulators aren’t dummies, you know.
It doesn’t much matter anyway, since cars have made tremendous leaps in fuel economy and emissions. That they might do slightly better in a specified test cycle than in the ‘real world’ (whatever that is – I often beat the test figures in my ‘real world’, though it must be said I know how cars and engines work) is not all that important. The trend is the important thing.
| Kickstart wrote: | Spoilers that deploy above 120kmh hence lower drag factors at the speeds specified for the test cycles. Low rolling resistance tyres where the saving will be gone as soon as the tyres are changed. |
High-speed spoilers don’t just make the fuel-consumption figures look good – they do actually reduce fuel consumption. They reduce drag below 120 km/h (for example), without compromising handling and safety above that. It’s exactly the kind of thing the regs encourage.
Low rolling resistance tyres on new cars are another good thing, not least since the original tyres may last a third of the car’s whole life. They really do reduce fuel consumption by several per cent. And because of the regs again, the car owner is now more likely to buy an efficient tyre when he or she replaces the originals, since tyres must now have an easy-to-understand label – by law.
By the way, energy-efficient tyres can also have good grip and long life (and often do). That’s because grip and rolling resistance operate in very different frequency ranges, and some materials (notably silica as a replacement for the traditional carbon black) have contrasting hysteresis behaviour in the two domains. There’s an accessible explanation of this on pages 87–90 of this Michelin PDF. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 21:02 - 10 Apr 2014 Post subject: Re: Transport emissions cut easier than expected... |
|
|
| LessIsMore wrote: |
Have you got a reliable source for this claim? It sounds like no more than the usual hearsay. The regulators aren’t dummies, you know. |
No source, but noticeable with my car that fitting a new battery (hence ECU reset) just prior to a long motorway journey resulted in 10%~20% lower fuel consumption than would normally be expected at that speed. And they would need to be pretty stupid not to take advantage of such an easy and cheap fiddle.
| LessIsMore wrote: | It doesn’t much matter anyway, since cars have made tremendous leaps in fuel economy and emissions. That they might do slightly better in a specified test cycle than in the ‘real world’ (whatever that is – I often beat the test figures in my ‘real world’, though it must be said I know how cars and engines work) is not all that important. The trend is the important thing. |
The leaps are nowhere near as good as the official figures would lead you to believe. After all if a bit of fiddling can knock a large amount off the annual tax bill making the car far more saleable (even worse for company cars). Fail to do the fiddles and the car becomes virtually unsellable.
| LessIsMore wrote: |
High-speed spoilers don’t just make the fuel-consumption figures look good – they do actually reduce fuel consumption. They reduce drag below 120 km/h (for example), without compromising handling and safety above that. It’s exactly the kind of thing the regs encourage. |
Lol. 120 kmh is the speed limit in many countries. It is compromising the handling at legal speeds in most countries. Yes the regs too encourage bodges like this.
| LessIsMore wrote: | Low rolling resistance tyres on new cars are another good thing, not least since the original tyres may last a third of the car’s whole life. They really do reduce fuel consumption by several per cent. And because of the regs again, the car owner is now more likely to buy an efficient tyre when he or she replaces the originals, since tyres must now have an easy-to-understand label – by law. |
These easy to understand labels that completely fail to list dry weather grip?
| LessIsMore wrote: | By the way, energy-efficient tyres can also have good grip and long life (and often do). That’s because grip and rolling resistance operate in very different frequency ranges, and some materials (notably silica as a replacement for the traditional carbon black) have contrasting hysteresis behaviour in the two domains. There’s an accessible explanation of this on pages 87–90 of this Michelin PDF. |
Point was that claiming X amount mpg for a vehicle when fairly early in its life the tyres will be changed and the fuel consumption increase.
All the best
Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 05:48 - 11 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LessIsMore |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LessIsMore
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 27 Mar 2014
Karma :
|
| Posted: 08:36 - 11 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
| stinkwheel wrote: | | LessIsMore wrote: | The regulators aren’t dummies, you know. |
Hell, they managed to get normally-aspirated, points ignition Enfield bullets through emissions tests right up to 2008 by fitting a valve that bleeds air into the exhaust system when the engine is on a compression stroke, thereby diluting the concentration of hydrocarbons. |
Air injection doesn’t dilute hydrocarbons, which wouldn’t help with the regs anyway, since they’re concerned with the absolute mass and not the concentration of pollutants. Rather, it supplies oxygen to the exhaust stream, allowing combustion to continue in the exhaust.
This really does reduce the emission of unburned hydrocarbons, since, well, they get burned. Obviously it doesn’t help (nor hurt) fuel economy, but it reduces smog-forming emissions.
| Kickstart wrote: | No source, but noticeable with my car that fitting a new battery (hence ECU reset) just prior to a long motorway journey resulted in 10%~20% lower fuel consumption than would normally be expected at that speed. |
Anecdotes like this are worth about as much as hearsay. If anyone else was making claims based on a 10 % wild guess on the back of a motorway journey you’d jump all over them. There are a hundred reasons this tells us nothing.
| Kickstart wrote: | Lol. 120 kmh is the speed limit in many countries. It is compromising the handling at legal speeds in most countries. Yes the regs too encourage bodges like this. |
You’re grasping now. Cars need more downforce at higher speeds, for both safety and performance. If the precise amount of variable downforce isn’t to your liking, buy another car made by engineers who’re as clever as you. That’s how markets work. To claim a good engineering solution like an adjustable spoiler is a bodge just shows your bias.
Solutions like these would be delivered by the market anyway. The regs just nudge manufacturers into offering them sooner.
| Kickstart wrote: | These easy to understand labels that completely fail to list dry weather grip? |
Sure. The labels are designed to be easy to understand for laypeople. Since the average driver typically has no idea how much grip is lost in the wet, they often push the limits in the wet while remaining far from them in the dry. Wet grip is therefore a much more important criterion for safety.
Besides, if you’re complaining about regs requiring mandatory disclosure of information, it’s a bit hypocritical to complain they haven’t mandated enough information! Nobody’s stopping the tyre manufacturers from telling us all about their brilliant dry grip. And you’ll notice they often do, since it’s easy to blather on about it when you’re not being held to a quantitative standard – unlike the wet grip labels.
| Kickstart wrote: | Point was that claiming X amount mpg for a vehicle when fairly early in its life the tyres will be changed and the fuel consumption increase. |
But (a) my car is on its original rear tyres at 30,000 miles, a substantial portion of its overall life, and (b) when I buy new tyres they’ll be just as efficient and possibly more efficient. That’s true for loads of customers nowadays. Have you seen how popular the Michelin Energy E3B is, for example, even though it’s one of the most expensive available for many cars?
People drive around with empty roof-racks, junk in the boot, under-inflated tyres, wheels that are far too big for their car, open windows, aftermarket exhaust systems (typically harmful to both economy and performance, ironically), the wrong gear, and lots of other things that are harmful to fuel economy. So what? They’re free to do that, and even to do that and complain they can’t meet the test figures for their car.
Regarding the Chris Davies link: “To gain good results vehicle manufacturers are said routinely to inflate tyres far above recommended levels and remove wing mirrors to reduce air resistance. Computers are specially programmed to pass the test.”
Weasel words like “manufacturers are said routinely to” – well, by whom, exactly? Muckrakers-cum-idiots in The Sun?
Take the wing mirrors, for instance. It is categorically not true that the wing mirrors are removed. Only in cases where the car is sold with an optional nearside mirror is the car tested without that mirror. Since I know of no car still sold without two wing mirrors, this doesn’t even apply anymore.
Of course there are problems with the NEDC test cycle. It was designed when cars were slower, drivers accelerated (and more importantly braked) more gently, and cars ran far fewer ancillaries like air conditioning and heated seats. That’s why work is ongoing to standardise a new cycle, more representative of modern driving.
It’s not a perfect system, but if manufacturers were left to their own devices the fuel-economy claims would be much more outrageous. We’d be in the era of the 100 MPG car, that’s for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:56 - 11 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
| LessIsMore wrote: |
Anecdotes like this are worth about as much as hearsay. If anyone else was making claims based on a 10 % wild guess on the back of a motorway journey you’d jump all over them. There are a hundred reasons this tells us nothing. |
 . But you are more willing to believe that regulators aren’t dummies. Yes it is hearsay, but it is also incredibly easy for the makers to do and no real reason not to and the makers will do everything they can to get a lower figure.
| LessIsMore wrote: |
You’re grasping now. Cars need more downforce at higher speeds, for both safety and performance. If the precise amount of variable downforce isn’t to your liking, buy another car made by engineers who’re as clever as you. That’s how markets work. To claim a good engineering solution like an adjustable spoiler is a bodge just shows your bias. |
Not a bias, and certainly not greasping, just pointing out obvious fiddles to get round badly designed tests. It is incredibly unlikely that the "precise amount of variable downforce" ( ) happens to equate to only being required as soon as the vehicle is going over a speed that is used for the emissions tests.
| LessIsMore wrote: | Sure. The labels are designed to be easy to understand for laypeople. Since the average driver typically has no idea how much grip is lost in the wet, they often push the limits in the wet while remaining far from them in the dry. Wet grip is therefore a much more important criterion for safety. |
Dubious on this. Especially when one of the 3 items that has to be given is tyre noise, and without a dry tyre grip rating there is no way to know relatively how much grip is lost in the wet.
To add to the fun, the tyre tests are just self certified.
| LessIsMore wrote: | Besides, if you’re complaining about regs requiring mandatory disclosure of information, it’s a bit hypocritical to complain they haven’t mandated enough information! Nobody’s stopping the tyre manufacturers from telling us all about their brilliant dry grip. And you’ll notice they often do, since it’s easy to blather on about it when you’re not being held to a quantitative standard – unlike the wet grip labels. |
I am not complaining about regs requiring mandatory disclosure of information. My issue is that the information that is mandated is (for one reason or another) easily fudged, and not fit for purpose.
Seems merely designed to be cheap and easy to produce, and is thus easy to fiddle. A point that is made obvious when automatic gearboxed cars can have lower CO2 emissions despite a less efficient transmission; with an automatic the gear change point used in the tests are more controlled by the car (hence can be designed in advance to flatter the tests), unlike a manual.
| LessIsMore wrote: |
But (a) my car is on its original rear tyres at 30,000 miles, a substantial portion of its overall life, and (b) when I buy new tyres they’ll be just as efficient and possibly more efficient. That’s true for loads of customers nowadays. Have you seen how popular the Michelin Energy E3B is, for example, even though it’s one of the most expensive available for many cars? |
30k is peanuts. About 1/5 of a reasonable life expectancy of a car, and that is your rear tyres (which presuming fwd, have little wear on them anyway). Wander round a car park and look at car tyres and a great number of cars more than a couple of years old will have cheap and nasty budget tyres.
| LessIsMore wrote: | People drive around with empty roof-racks, junk in the boot, under-inflated tyres, wheels that are far too big for their car, open windows, aftermarket exhaust systems (typically harmful to both economy and performance, ironically), the wrong gear, and lots of other things that are harmful to fuel economy. So what? They’re free to do that, and even to do that and complain they can’t meet the test figures for their car. |
They do, but these are not things which are claimed for a new car and comparing the situations as you are doing is ludicrous. While allowing gains from a particular tyre (something that could easily be fitted to another car if the owner so wished) when they are likely to be changed and assuming such a gain is a hideous fudge.
At the moment a tiny increase in CO2 emission figures could result in an extra £200 a year VED. And easy couple of thousand pounds tax over the life of the car which could be saved by testing with low rolling resistance tyres, when there is a very high chance the car will not have equivalent tyres on it for most of its life.
All the best
Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 19:35 - 11 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
| LessIsMore wrote: | Regarding the Chris Davies link: “To gain good results vehicle manufacturers are said routinely to inflate tyres far above recommended levels and remove wing mirrors to reduce air resistance. Computers are specially programmed to pass the test.”
Weasel words like “manufacturers are said routinely to” – well, by whom, exactly? |
Chris Davis MEP, and rapporteur.
You could ask him.
You sound pretty informed, so you'll know the astonishing power that rapporteurs have to form policy.
If a motoring rapporteur can't be trusted on a motoring issue, then nobody in Brussel can be trusted on it. That's axiomatic.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stirlinggaz |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stirlinggaz
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Karma :
|
| Posted: 20:34 - 12 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
ohhhhh hes arguing with Keith (kickstart)...this gonna be good
 |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 11 years, 296 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 1.7 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 120.63 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating