Car Emmisisons (was Thunderf00t thread)

[coppice]

I might not be up to date, but for some time Tesla only made a profit because it could sell emission certificates to other car makers. What are these emission certificates but a form of subsidy? They are issued as an incentive to build more EVs and/or to build fewer ICE cars.

That was said to be the case at one time. I don't know if its still true. Those certificates are definitely still bringing them substantial income. The problem for the car makers now is the EU, UK, and I assume some other countries, are setting a minimum percentage of cars sold/registered which must be EVs, and the EV market isn't big enough for the trading to work any more. This year's target in the UK is 22% EVs, and total EVs sales, including Tesla's (which are quite popular in the UK) don't add up to 22%. So unless something changes car makers appear to be facing a 15,000 pound charge per car sold. That's going to make those emission certificates super valuable this year. A lot of EVs have been registered without being sold in the last few months, as the car makers frantically try to get the number of EV registrations up, in a market where even large discounts can't move enough EVs.

[tom66]

In parts of the US, 4G is now offered from Starlink satellites.  This is one way to improve service coverage in hard to reach areas.

[nctnico]

I might not be up to date, but for some time Tesla only made a profit because it could sell emission certificates to other car makers. What are these emission certificates but a form of subsidy? They are issued as an incentive to build more EVs and/or to build fewer ICE cars.

That was said to be the case at one time. I don't know if its still true. Those certificates are definitely still bringing them substantial income. The problem for the car makers now is the EU, UK, and I assume some other countries, are setting a minimum percentage of cars sold/registered which must be EVs, and the EV market isn't big enough for the trading to work any more. This year's target in the UK is 22% EVs, and total EVs sales, including Tesla's (which are quite popular in the UK) don't add up to 22%. So unless something changes car makers appear to be facing a 15,000 pound charge per car sold. That's going to make those emission certificates super valuable this year. A lot of EVs have been registered without being sold in the last few months, as the car makers frantically try to get the number of EV registrations up, in a market where even large discounts can't move enough EVs.

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. On top of this, from 2025 a different (supposedly more realistic) test method (WLTP) will be used resulting in slightly higher CO2 emission numbers compared to the old NEDC method (*). This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

* Both test methods are a joke anyway. Real world fuel consumption is much higher.

[vk6zgo]

Also Thunderf00t said that Starlink will never happen (it did obviously) and that Starship will never work.

To be fair I believe he said it would never be profitable and would ultimately go bankrupt. Verdict is still kind of out on that one, but it's looking very successful, so might end up being a bad call.

This is one of those issues like Motorola's Iridium network in the 1990s. It provided phone calls quite well at any spot on Earth. However, other divisions of Motorola were ensuring GSM networks would be available almost everywhere, and roaming agreements were being put in place so you could call a GSM phone almost anywhere on Earth The bits where you couldn't didn't generate enough traffic to make the Iridium system viable. There are lots of people offering rural 5G ISP service in the UK now, with an antenna on the chimney stack, right next to the TV antenna. Maybe 5G will be another generation of starving out the satellite option.

The failure of Iridium was what came to mind when Musk was touting Starlink as if it was something new & innovative.

Elon was definitely more imaginative in that he was promoting it as something for countries with very little communications infrastructure, compared to Iridium's somewhat more limited aims.

[coppice]

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

In the UK the requirement in previous years was for a certain average CO2 emission. This year it is specifically 22% zero emission vehicles. Hybrids and others don't count. I thought there was something similar happening on the mainland.

[nctnico]

Also Thunderf00t said that Starlink will never happen (it did obviously) and that Starship will never work.

To be fair I believe he said it would never be profitable and would ultimately go bankrupt. Verdict is still kind of out on that one, but it's looking very successful, so might end up being a bad call.

This is one of those issues like Motorola's Iridium network in the 1990s. It provided phone calls quite well at any spot on Earth. However, other divisions of Motorola were ensuring GSM networks would be available almost everywhere, and roaming agreements were being put in place so you could call a GSM phone almost anywhere on Earth The bits where you couldn't didn't generate enough traffic to make the Iridium system viable. There are lots of people offering rural 5G ISP service in the UK now, with an antenna on the chimney stack, right next to the TV antenna. Maybe 5G will be another generation of starving out the satellite option.

The failure of Iridium was what came to mind when Musk was touting Starlink as if it was something new & innovative.

Elon was definitely more imaginative in that he was promoting it as something for countries with very little communications infrastructure, compared to Iridium's somewhat more limited aims.

IMHO Elon has a more hollistic approach to putting new technology onto the market. He makes sure people can actually use the products and thus create a real market for the products he develops. The Tesla super-charger network is an example. He didn't wait for others to get in action but made sure his products are supported by an ecosystem one way or another.

[coppice]

Elon was definitely more imaginative in that he was promoting it as something for countries with very little communications infrastructure, compared to Iridium's somewhat more limited aims.

Motorola had divisions in conflict with each other - cellular, land mobile radio, and government systems. Cellular pushed GSM. Land mobile radio pushed iDEN in competition with cellular. Government Systems pushed Iridium in competition with both of them. None of those divisions had limited aims. Two had limited outcomes. Eventually, the third did, too.

[nctnico]

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

In the UK the requirement in previous years was for a certain average CO2 emission. This year it is specifically 22% zero emission vehicles.

That is going to be an epic failure for sure. Maybe the numbers will be met on paper but likely the manufacturers will simply stop selling non-BEV cars if that means exceeding the limit. In the end the UK market isn't that big. The end result is that older cars will be used much longer causing more CO2 emissions (and other pollution) compared to driving around in hybrids.

[Andy Chee]

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

In the UK the requirement in previous years was for a certain average CO2 emission. This year it is specifically 22% zero emission vehicles.

That is going to be an epic failure for sure. Maybe the numbers will be met on paper but likely the manufacturers will simply stop selling non-BEV cars if that means exceeding the limit. In the end the UK market isn't that big. The end result is that older cars will be used much longer causing more CO2 emissions (and other pollution) compared to driving around in hybrids.

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK.  The end result is that the UK fleet is forced to turn over every X years.  And if one assumes that new vehicles are incrementally less polluting, then the forced fleet turnover will cause less CO2 emissions over time.

[themadhippy]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

[Andy Chee]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

[tom66]

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

In the UK the requirement in previous years was for a certain average CO2 emission. This year it is specifically 22% zero emission vehicles.

That is going to be an epic failure for sure. Maybe the numbers will be met on paper but likely the manufacturers will simply stop selling non-BEV cars if that means exceeding the limit. In the end the UK market isn't that big. The end result is that older cars will be used much longer causing more CO2 emissions (and other pollution) compared to driving around in hybrids.

What is happening is manufacturers are increasing the price of ICE vehicles and slashing the price of EVs, for instance, a "delivery miles" VW ID.3 is available for £28k and the equivalent-model Golf costs... £28k.  Even though "on paper" the ID.3 costs £35k and the Golf costs £24k.  This is good for EV adoption, and for those who really want to buy an ICE, it is subsidising the EV market at the nascent stage.    One thing charging infrastructure needs is demand, so putting a lot of EVs on the road is good because it makes the business case for EV charging even better.

[tggzzz]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

The limit is at least 129 years old. https://www.veterancarrun.com/2024-veteran-car-run-1

My daughter's van is 1972, and she has to add all sorts of additives to E5 petrol

[tggzzz]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

[tszaboo]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

[nctnico]

Actually, there is no requirement for the cars sold to be BEVs. The limit is the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU. I understand the regulations in the UK are similar. So it doesn't matter what kind of cars are being sold for as long as the average CO2 emission limits are met. This is why European car makers are now frantically shifting towards (plug-in) hybrids as the market for BEVs seems to have become saturated in the EU.

In the UK the requirement in previous years was for a certain average CO2 emission. This year it is specifically 22% zero emission vehicles.

That is going to be an epic failure for sure. Maybe the numbers will be met on paper but likely the manufacturers will simply stop selling non-BEV cars if that means exceeding the limit. In the end the UK market isn't that big. The end result is that older cars will be used much longer causing more CO2 emissions (and other pollution) compared to driving around in hybrids.

What is happening is manufacturers are increasing the price of ICE vehicles and slashing the price of EVs, for instance, a "delivery miles" VW ID.3 is available for £28k and the equivalent-model Golf costs... £28k.  Even though "on paper" the ID.3 costs £35k and the Golf costs £24k.  This is good for EV adoption, and for those who really want to buy an ICE, it is subsidising the EV market at the nascent stage.

Nope. You forget people have the choice not to buy a new car. And importing used cars is also an option although that option is hampered by the UK driving at the wrong side of the road. But making new cars more expensive, drives prices for used cars up as well making importing from other countries an economically viable route.

[bat]

His youtube channel is now a full media against Elon Musk... I miss his older videos when he was criticizing bootleg, goofy, dumb topics. But with Elon Musk and Telsa, he's doing too much, it's not interesting, it's just rants on rants without interest. His videos are definetely interesting for people who also dislike Musk because Musk haters can relate to the stuff he talks about.
It's my opinion on him. I wish he went back to his older ways...

[tom66]

Nope. You forget people have the choice not to buy a new car. And importing used cars is also an option although that option is hampered by the UK driving at the wrong side of the road. But making new cars more expensive, drives prices for used cars up as well making importing from other countries an economically viable route.

Yes and that's fine.  But used ICE cars will slowly disappear from the market... cars do not have an unlimited lifespan.  The goal is to phase out ICE by 2045-2050 or so, not to totally eliminate it tomorrow. With the average lifespan of a car being around 15 years, if you stop selling them in 2030-2035, that will happen by natural attrition.  And then we will wonder why we drove those weird combustion powered cars around everywhere.

[Psi]

There's so much factually incorrect news about Elon/SpaceX atm.

I came across this one the other day that says....

"You don’t get into bed with Elon Musk unless you’re ready for a pillow fight. Donald Trump knows that. OpenAI founder Sam Altman knows it. Europe’s richest man Bernard Arnault knows it. Nasa knows it, after Musk’s SpaceX tried and failed to rescue its two stranded astronauts."

https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/14/one-nz-learns-the-hard-way-dont-rely-on-elon-musk/

[themadhippy]

My daughter's van is 1972, and she has to add all sorts of additives to E5 petrol

How far is she from buckingham?

[Zero999]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

[Ranayna]

Regarding historic cars... I had one in front of me one time this summer. I don't remember the model or manufacturer, but it was old, and had a historic numberplate, which you can get in germany if the car is at least 30 years old and is still mostly using original parts.
I think that car was significantly older than 30 years though. It at least pre-dated catalytic converters, because that car reeked to high heavens. The stink permeated everything and the filters in my car did nothing.

I am not old enough to remember the time when cars like that were the only ones on the street, but i am very glad that these times are over.

[tggzzz]

My daughter's van is 1972, and she has to add all sorts of additives to E5 petrol

How far is she from buckingham?

She was jittery about going 25% of the way to Buckingham.

If you know of a way of finding out where you can reliably get leaded petrol, she might be interested.

[tszaboo]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

[tggzzz]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

What was the cause of the accident? Stroke, heart attack, alcohol?

As always in life, don't sweat the small stuff: concentrate on big problems. Leaded petrol was once a big problem, but isn't any more.

Instead of burning coal in power stations, the UK now burns wood pellets from ancient forests - and gets a green subsidy for it. Is that better than burning coal? Or burning lignite in Germany?

[Zero999]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

Bob Pease was one of how many road users?

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

[langwadt]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

Bob Pease was one of how many road users?

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

and as long as motorcycles are legal, car safety can't be used as an argument against old cars

[themadhippy]

If you know of a way of finding out where you can reliably get leaded petrol, she might be interested.

sorry cant help.I only know about gandertons in buckingham  as  passed it regularly, might be worth her giving them a shout to see if they can point her anywhere.

[tom66]

What was the cause of the accident? Stroke, heart attack, alcohol?

As always in life, don't sweat the small stuff: concentrate on big problems. Leaded petrol was once a big problem, but isn't any more.

Instead of burning coal in power stations, the UK now burns wood pellets from ancient forests - and gets a green subsidy for it. Is that better than burning coal? Or burning lignite in Germany?

Nobody can say for sure, but he came off the road on one of those winding mountain passes.  It's quite possible that he would have survived in a modern car; even if he had a heart attack for instance, cars have SOS call features that would alert first responders and they may have been able to reach him in time to deliver life saving treatment.  Airbags, stability control, ABS, la ne/road departure warning etc. none of which featured in a 60s Beetle, will all make an accident less likely even in the event a driver begins to lose consciousness or is otherwise impaired.  VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

It is a noticeable trend in fatalities, cars are getting much safer for the driver.  The UK has seen a consistent fall in road fatalities,  in 1990, there were over 5,000 killed on UK roads, today, it is around 1,600.  This is despite population increasing ~20% in that time and average miles driven per person barely changing.

[tggzzz]

What was the cause of the accident? Stroke, heart attack, alcohol?

As always in life, don't sweat the small stuff: concentrate on big problems. Leaded petrol was once a big problem, but isn't any more.

Instead of burning coal in power stations, the UK now burns wood pellets from ancient forests - and gets a green subsidy for it. Is that better than burning coal? Or burning lignite in Germany?

Nobody can say for sure, but he came off the road on one of those winding mountain passes.  It's quite possible that he would have survived in a modern car;

Precisely; speculation is absolutely worthless.

It is quite possible he would have died in a modern car => without specific information your conjecture is, of course, content free.

even if he had a heart attack for instance, cars have SOS call features that would alert first responders and they may have been able to reach him in time to deliver life saving treatment.  Airbags, stability control, ABS, la ne/road departure warning etc. none of which featured in a 60s Beetle, will all make an accident less likely even in the event a driver begins to lose consciousness or is otherwise impaired.  VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

It is a noticeable trend in fatalities, cars are getting much safer for the driver.  The UK has seen a consistent fall in road fatalities,  in 1990, there were over 5,000 killed on UK roads, today, it is around 1,600.  This is despite population increasing ~20% in that time and average miles driven per person barely changing.

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

[Siwastaja]

Yes and that's fine.  But used ICE cars will slowly disappear from the market... cars do not have an unlimited lifespan.  The goal is to phase out ICE by 2045-2050 or so, not to totally eliminate it tomorrow. With the average lifespan of a car being around 15 years, if you stop selling them in 2030-2035, that will happen by natural attrition.  And then we will wonder why we drove those weird combustion powered cars around everywhere.

This is all true and in this grand scheme of things, anything a politician can do to artificially manipulate the market is to shift this 30-40-year time window by 2-3 years. In the end, if EVs were impractical or unworkable, no amount of politicizing would help, the whole card house would just collapse. And OTOH, if EVs work and make sense, they will replace ICE cars by free market rules. Which is what we are already seeing anyway. But right now we are in a transition period where politics can have an effect. But is it worth it, I don't know. Same end result would be achieved without manipulating the market.

[Zero999]

VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

Bob Pease died in 2011.

[coppice]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

[nctnico]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

I agree. Unless the body is really rusted, you can replace an awfull lot. If new cars become very expensive, it is worthwhile to simply repair / refurbish older cars. Only downside is that fuel consumption is staying bad. I'm looking at buying a different car somewhere early 2025. My options are to either spend 5k euro on the same brand/model car I already have but a less old one with way less mileage or spend around 13k a Toyota hybrid. In the long run the Toyota hybrid will be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption; the difference is around 5k euro. Going for a BEV is way more expensive in my case (15k extra compared to the Toyota hybrid assuming 200k km / 8 years). The higher purchase price (30k for a use one) and charging costs just kills the BEV financially.

[tom66]

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

Sounds like the van had some kind of blind spot monitor.  It's a life saving function, as shoulder checks are often forgotten about.  Life saving for both the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets caught in the blind spot.  Modern systems can detect cyclists and motorcycles as well as cars.   The problem with rental vans is you don't have time to get fully acquainted with your vehicle but that doesn't make something like a BSM a bad function. 

And I am certain a function like in the VW video will have been extensively tested so that it does not engage in the wrong circumstances, like if the camera is obscured.  I'd still much rather have it than not, even if there is a small chance of the system not engaging when needed; better to have tried than not at all. 

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

No, it really is mostly down to car safety improvements.  Remember that cars in the early 90's rarely had airbags, ABS, or even significant crash safety structures, as none of these features were mandatory.

The libertarians lost the argument, and consumers flocked towards vehicles that offered good safety features, such that it is essentially impossible to purchase a car nowadays that does not have significant safety functionality.  Euro NCAP testing, or scoring highly on those tests, isn't actually mandatory -- so you can release a reasonably unsafe car (compared to other models on sale) but customers won't be as keen to buy that model.

[tszaboo]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

Exactly, the reason for MOT is because people are negligent and selfish. Old cars are not only dangerous to the driver, they are dangerous to everyone.

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

and as long as motorcycles are legal, car safety can't be used as an argument against old cars

They are effectively being banned. New emission regulations require manufacturers to invest into technologies that make the motorcycle very expensive, destroying the market. If that doesn't, noise limits will. Somehow someone thought that having 100x the noise limit of cars for motorcycles is reasonable.

[tggzzz]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

[tggzzz]

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

Sounds like the van had some kind of blind spot monitor.  It's a life saving function, as shoulder checks are often forgotten about.  Life saving for both the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets caught in the blind spot.  Modern systems can detect cyclists and motorcycles as well as cars.   The problem with rental vans is you don't have time to get fully acquainted with your vehicle but that doesn't make something like a BSM a bad function. 

ISTR it was a lane warning thingy.

But what it was is less important than the distraction it caused. Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't conveniently forget half century old knowledge, but did reapply the hard learned lessons?

And I am certain a function like in the VW video will have been extensively tested so that it does not engage in the wrong circumstances, like if the camera is obscured.  I'd still much rather have it than not, even if there is a small chance of the system not engaging when needed; better to have tried than not at all. 

If only

Finally various (plural) US transportation authorities are waking up to what they can see in yootoob vids and accident reports: many features aren't adequately tested.

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

No, it really is mostly down to car safety improvements.  Remember that cars in the early 90's rarely had airbags, ABS, or even significant crash safety structures, as none of these features were mandatory.

The libertarians lost the argument, and consumers flocked towards vehicles that offered good safety features, such that it is essentially impossible to purchase a car nowadays that does not have significant safety functionality.  Euro NCAP testing, or scoring highly on those tests, isn't actually mandatory -- so you can release a reasonably unsafe car (compared to other models on sale) but customers won't be as keen to buy that model.

Reference for the evidence about causation, please.

Car purchasers couldn't select to avoid the idiotic libertarian claims about road safety. I had to fight the proposed shared space street remodelling in my village.

[nctnico]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

[coppice]

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

There have been controls on the types of coal and coke which may be used for heating since the late 1950s. This was how the famous London smogs were quickly brought under control. There has been no blanket ban.

[tggzzz]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

Firstly read again. Traditional house coal is banned. That's the low quality stuff that used to be used to make town gas, by boiling the volatiles off to create coke.

Secondly anthracite is coal, pure and simple. It is the type that was exported from South Wales all over the world. That's why the world price of coal was set in this building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange

[tggzzz]

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

There have been controls on the types of coal and coke which may be used for heating since the late 1950s. This was how the famous London smogs were quickly brought under control. There has been no blanket ban.

Precisely.

TV in the 60s regularly had adverts for various types of smokeless coal. (And Esso Blue paraffin for heaters).

[tszaboo]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

Firstly read again. Traditional house coal is banned. That's the low quality stuff that used to be used to make town gas, by boiling the volatiles off to create coke.

Secondly anthracite is coal, pure and simple. It is the type that was exported from South Wales all over the world. That's why the world price of coal was set in this building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

[coppice]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

[SiliconWizard]

I wonder if you're allowed to burn your own, uh, dejections in your stove, or if that's also banned.

[tom66]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

  I really hate this needless bashing of the UK.  It's kinda tiring because it really has no basis in fact.  The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).  Our GDP per capita is in the top 10% in the world.

Yes, we're not as rich as the USA or as independently wealthy as the Swiss or Luxembourgians, but we're certainly not doing badly.  And in growth terms we've consistently outpaced all other well-developed European nations of comparable size.

[themadhippy]

The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).

All that proves is how badly everybody else is doing

[coppice]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

  I really hate this needless bashing of the UK.  It's kinda tiring because it really has no basis in fact.  The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).  Our GDP per capita is in the top 10% in the world.

Yes, we're not as rich as the USA or as independently wealthy as the Swiss or Luxembourgians, but we're certainly not doing badly.  And in growth terms we've consistently outpaced all other well-developed European nations of comparable size.

The snag is if you separate out London, the rest of the country is way down the global ranking. Even with London included we aren't just poorer than the US, we are poorer than the poorest state in the US.

[thm_w]

There wasn't anything I would disagree with.

You heard one side of an argument, without bothering to research otherwise, of course you'd agree.
- Only unionized manufacturers were invited to the EV meeting. Whether you agree or disagree with that reasoning.
- 7.5 billion has not been "spent" its been allocated. The VW charging network was a bit of a disaster so they'd want safeguards in place preventing that from happening again.

Think about who benefits from keeping EV competition out and keeping workers non-unionized..

Right, so you can always find an excuse if you look hard enough.
Arguing about semantics also doesn't help either. It only means that they didn't misappropriate or steal the funds, they are just incompetent, and failed their goals completely. How is that any better?

This is not "semantics" or "finding excuses".
Its you lapping up facts from a CEO whose bests interests are that of his company and his wealth, coming here to show off your knowledge, being told a lot of the information is not accurate or misrepresented, and refusing to acknowledge or research further.

Its not nearly as bad as thunderfoot, but it shows the same lack of processing.

[Andy Chee]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

[nctnico]

Not every MOT failure means the end of a car. A broken lightbulb means a failed MOT and I doubt anyone is going to purchase a new car because of a broken lightbulb. It is cost versus benefit. If (big if) bans on ICE vehicles go on as planned (there is a 1% chance of that actually happening looking at the ongoing political landslides in the US and Europe), it means it will be much more economically viable to keep older cars going. And this is really a step backwards instead of going forward. At this point the market mechanisms should be allowed to work their magic.

[tszaboo]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

Let me ask you this: How come everyone here from the UK is somehow sounds proud of that you still use coal for heating?

This is not "semantics" or "finding excuses".
Its you lapping up facts from a CEO whose bests interests are that of his company and his wealth, coming here to show off your knowledge, being told a lot of the information is not accurate or misrepresented, and refusing to acknowledge or research further.

Its not nearly as bad as thunderfoot, but it shows the same lack of processing.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I told you what Musk said, why he took up arms and decided to support Trump. I honestly don't care if his reasons are true or not. Even if they had reasons not to invite him, it's still an insult. One that (in part) cost them this election.

[Bud]

Can we get back to Thunderfoot 

[coppice]

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

In the UK there is no relation between MOTs and fleet turnover. I guess only 1 in 10 MOT failures result in the vehicle's end of life. Lots of 3 year old well cared for cars fail their first MOT for a windscreen wiper that smears a bit, or a lamp nobody noticed has failed. If it has been driven hard for 3 years a variety of minor issues might fail it, and get fixed. One of our cars needed new rear brake discs last year, because the car is driven gently, and normal use had allowed the discs to rust to the point of a test failure. It stayed in the garage for an extra day, the discs were replaced, and an MOT certificate was issued. This is what happens with most MOT failures. Cars have to pass an emissions test as part of their MOT checks, so a seriously polluting one won't pass.

[tggzzz]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

Let me ask you this: How come everyone here from the UK is somehow sounds proud of that you still use coal for heating?

You are hallucinating.

I have my suspicions as to why, but such speculations are boring and pointless.

[coppice]

Let me ask you this: How come everyone here from the UK is somehow sounds proud of that you still use coal for heating?

WTF are you talking about? Who said we are proud? Who said any significant number of people in the UK still heat their homes with coal? The low cost of natural gas from the North Sea pretty much killed off coal for home use in the 1970s, Mostly because its such a PITA to deal with. There was an incorrect claim of a blanket ban on coal in UK. We simply pointed out that is not true. I doubt anyone would bother with the effort of creating a ban, as we just don't use it anyway.

[thm_w]

I didn't misrepresent anything. I told you what Musk said, why he took up arms and decided to support Trump.

Never said you yourself misrepresented anything.

I honestly don't care if his reasons are true or not.

Ah, at least you'll admit it I guess.

Can we get back to Thunderfoot 

Rather not, just leads to reading posts going back to 2022 or earlier on twitter, showing he's been obsessed for a while.
As Dave says its a very one dimensional view.

[tszaboo]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

Let me ask you this: How come everyone here from the UK is somehow sounds proud of that you still use coal for heating?

WTF are you talking about? Who said we are proud? Who said any significant number of people in the UK still heat their homes with coal? The low cost of natural gas from the North Sea pretty much killed off coal for home use in the 1970s, Mostly because its such a PITA to deal with. There was an incorrect claim of a blanket ban on coal in UK. We simply pointed out that is not true. I doubt anyone would bother with the effort of creating a ban, as we just don't use it anyway.

So which one is it?

You are hallucinating.

I have my suspicions as to why, but such speculations are boring and pointless.

Am I? After I got a TED talk about the history and different types of coal?

[tszaboo]

being told a lot of the information is not accurate or misrepresented, and refusing to acknowledge or research further.

Never said you yourself misrepresented anything.

Are you for real?

[nctnico]

Can we get back to Thunderfoot 

Nope, that ship (carrying the lost marbles and credibility) has sailed 

[Andy Chee]

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

In the UK there is no relation between MOTs and fleet turnover.

Cars have to pass an emissions test as part of their MOT checks, so a seriously polluting one won't pass.

It is this latter point that is relevant. What is the MOT failure rate due to failing emissions  testing?

And when I say fail, I mean the emissions problem is not worth fixing and the vehicle written off and scrapped.

[nctnico]

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

In the UK there is no relation between MOTs and fleet turnover.

Cars have to pass an emissions test as part of their MOT checks, so a seriously polluting one won't pass.

It is this latter point that is relevant. What is the MOT failure rate due to failing emissions  testing?

And when I say fail, I mean the emissions problem is not worth fixing and the vehicle written off and scrapped.

On a petrol car failing emissions is either an O2 (lambda) sensor (cost between 50 and 100 euro) or the catalythic converter (costing between 400 and 1100 euro). These are not amounts which buy you another car. So far I have not had a catalythic converter failure even with very high mileage.

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

[coppice]

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

In the UK there is no relation between MOTs and fleet turnover.

Cars have to pass an emissions test as part of their MOT checks, so a seriously polluting one won't pass.

It is this latter point that is relevant. What is the MOT failure rate due to failing emissions  testing?

And when I say fail, I mean the emissions problem is not worth fixing and the vehicle written off and scrapped.

I don't know, but I assume it must be low. If the emissions were OK last year and not this year, that should be due to something fixable. Of course, the testing is against the standard the car was built against, and not the current standard. However, nobody has so far talked about judging old machines by new standards.

[tggzzz]

You are hallucinating.

I have my suspicions as to why, but such speculations are boring and pointless.

Am I? After I got a TED talk about the history and different types of coal?

Another strange characterisation. Are you OK?

[wraper]

On a petrol car failing emissions is either an O2 (lambda) sensor (cost between 50 and 100 euro) or the catalythic converter (costing between 400 and 1100 euro). These are not amounts which buy you another car. So far I have not had a catalythic converter failure even with very high mileage.

Really, all that simple? How about worn out engine that needs a very expensive engine block repair or replacement?

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Sounds like nonsense, and good luck asking for that here. Only real emission testing.

[Siwastaja]

It is this latter point that is relevant. What is the MOT failure rate due to failing emissions  testing?

Failure rate for old cars in emission tests (just like any other reason) is significant and after simple fixes many still pass.

Like,
* Leaking exhaust, no actual problem with emissions, air that mixes in increases O2 and fails measurement
* O2 sensor failing, new sensor takes a few minutes to swap and costs like $50 or even less for a cheap aftermarket part which lasts for another year or two
* Carburetor mix ratio knob misadjusted, takes a few minutes to correct

No one scraps a car just because it failed, failing is completely normal even for new cars. Of course if the car is really in bad condition and the owner has been thinking about scrapping it anyway then failed inspection can be the final straw. Of course as an exception to this rule, ugly surprises can arise like engine block needing expensive/specialized work (boring, etc.)

[tszaboo]

You are hallucinating.

I have my suspicions as to why, but such speculations are boring and pointless.

Am I? After I got a TED talk about the history and different types of coal?

Another strange characterisation. Are you OK?

You used 4 gaslighting sentences in a row. After doing exactly what I said you were doing. Would you kindly find someone else to abuse online?

Precisely.

TV in the 60s regularly had adverts for various types of smokeless coal. (And Esso Blue paraffin for heaters).

Firstly read again. Traditional house coal is banned. That's the low quality stuff that used to be used to make town gas, by boiling the volatiles off to create coke.

Secondly anthracite is coal, pure and simple. It is the type that was exported from South Wales all over the world. That's why the world price of coal was set in this building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

Another case people denying something like 1 page after it happened.

[tszaboo]

so I watched the last three Thunderf00t videos.
I must say I never liked his style.
It boiled down to showing throwaway comments, memes, videos from movies and badly edited photos. Several times going about how electing Trump is the same as Brexit. He was using the same clips over and over again.
I mean sure   if you want to play it that way. He's reasoning is that reality sometimes resembles fiction, if I make 4 second long clips out of it, and therefore I'm right.

[magic]

You used 4 gaslighting sentences in a row. After doing exactly what I said you were doing. Would you kindly find someone else to abuse online?

It's not gaslightling if you really aren't well

None of what you quoted is being proud of using coal.

[tszaboo]

You used 4 gaslighting sentences in a row. After doing exactly what I said you were doing. Would you kindly find someone else to abuse online?

It's not gaslightling if you really aren't well

None of what you quoted is being proud of using coal.

Let them first make up their mind if it's plenty of people or not.

[tggzzz]

You used 4 gaslighting sentences in a row. After doing exactly what I said you were doing. Would you kindly find someone else to abuse online?

It's not gaslightling if you really aren't well

None of what you quoted is being proud of using coal.

Just so.

I appreciate it is unlikely that tszaboo's first language is English, but it appears he doesn't understand the meaning of "abuse" and "gaslighting".

His reply (below) your message is also a little strange, in that I don't see how it relates either to what you wrote or to the other parts of this thread...

You used 4 gaslighting sentences in a row. After doing exactly what I said you were doing. Would you kindly find someone else to abuse online?

It's not gaslightling if you really aren't well

None of what you quoted is being proud of using coal.

Let them first make up their mind if it's plenty of people or not.

[tszaboo]

Just so.

I appreciate it is unlikely that tszaboo's first language is English, but it appears he doesn't understand the meaning of "abuse" and "gaslighting".

Oh here we go again, attacking me instead of addressing what I said. But that's OK.
Or maybe you just have the memory of a goldfish.

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

Let me ask you this: How come everyone here from the UK is somehow sounds proud of that you still use coal for heating?

WTF are you talking about? Who said we are proud? Who said any significant number of people in the UK still heat their homes with coal? The low cost of natural gas from the North Sea pretty much killed off coal for home use in the 1970s, Mostly because its such a PITA to deal with. There was an incorrect claim of a blanket ban on coal in UK. We simply pointed out that is not true. I doubt anyone would bother with the effort of creating a ban, as we just don't use it anyway.

So which one is it?

tggzzz, are you feeling OK? Do you need help? We are really concerned about your recent lapses in memory, and your lack of understanding of the English language. I beg you, for your own sake please look for professional help.

[Siwastaja]

it appears he doesn't understand the meaning of "abuse" and "gaslighting".

He is just full of negative emotions, hate and such, himself, to the point of stalking others in random threads just to write abusive off-topic comments himself. Good old projection: he thinks others think about him the same way as he thinks of others. A sad case. I mean, if he managed his negativity and allowed comments into his internal echo chamber, he would have many very interesting and good opinions and points. But victimizing himself all the time while developing feelings of hate against anyone who dares to question or correct his comments... Yeah, a sad case.

[tggzzz]

it appears he doesn't understand the meaning of "abuse" and "gaslighting".

He is just full of negative emotions, hate and such, himself, to the point of stalking others in random threads just to write abusive off-topic comments himself. Good old projection: he thinks others think about him the same way as he thinks of others. A sad case. I mean, if he managed his negativity and allowed comments into his internal echo chamber, he would have many very interesting and good opinions and points. But victimizing himself all the time while developing feelings of hate against anyone who dares to question or correct his comments... Yeah, a sad case.

I don't remember him being like that, hence my feeling there might have been a change.

Alternative explanation: I'm wrong because I don't pay too much attention to the person making comments, only to the comments themselves. (Exceptions for treez and the like, of course!)

[tom66]

On a petrol car failing emissions is either an O2 (lambda) sensor (cost between 50 and 100 euro) or the catalythic converter (costing between 400 and 1100 euro). These are not amounts which buy you another car. So far I have not had a catalythic converter failure even with very high mileage.

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

[Psi]

Surely they can just query the VW computer to check the current emissions level.   

[Siwastaja]

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

Of course, that's exactly why VW developed the piece of firmware which detects the revving pattern during emissions test and enter a lower emission mode. If this was just an OBD readout it would have been much easier to fake, just lie.

[tom66]

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

Of course, that's exactly why VW developed the piece of firmware which detects the revving pattern during emissions test and enter a lower emission mode. If this was just an OBD readout it would have been much easier to fake, just lie.

It was more complicated than that, they were detecting the precise speed / distance curve that the NEDC profile matched and then only enabling cheater mode when air pressure and temperature were just like all the test labs in Germany (apparently they are all around a similar altitude, coincidentally, and temperature tends to be controlled well for result repeatability).

As a result, activating the cheater code in normal operation was nearly impossible, so the cars would always have high NOx on the road.

[nctnico]

On a petrol car failing emissions is either an O2 (lambda) sensor (cost between 50 and 100 euro) or the catalythic converter (costing between 400 and 1100 euro). These are not amounts which buy you another car. So far I have not had a catalythic converter failure even with very high mileage.

Really, all that simple? How about worn out engine that needs a very expensive engine block repair or replacement?

Getting a replacement engine is likely cheaper. By the time an engine is worn, there are enough lower mileage replacement engines on the market. For my car such an engine costs around 600 to 700 euro. Probably another 700 to 800 euro to have it swapped at a garage. For those seeking corner cases: ofcourse you are smart and don't buy an uncommon car to begin with. The more common a car is, the cheaper the parts are.

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Sounds like nonsense, and good luck asking for that here. Only real emission testing.

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

Reving an engine for emission testing is a time consuming job as they have to let the engine run long enough so it is hot and even then there is a risk of snapping the timing belt or cause other damage. Back in the old days every garage over here explicited stated (both through a sign and telling the customers) to not accept liability for damage from doing emission testing (especially for diesel engines).

[AVGresponding]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.

Going to try and pick apart this nested quote as best I can..

There is an age limit for cars in the UK, but it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does; when a car reaches 40 years old, as long as it had a valid MOT at the time, it is exempt from future testing, and is also exempt from VED.
If a car over 40 years old wasn't road legal when it transitioned, it will have to pass an MOT before being allowed back on the road, but will thereafter be exempt.

Leaded petrol is not legal to use in the UK, and hasn't been since 2000. Lead Replacement Petrol (LRP) is what you have to use, if your classic really can't handle regular unleaded. This is now only in the form of an additive you put in unleaded from the pump; up until the early 2000's you could get it pumped on the forecourt. It isn't lead-based.

Cars don't need to be old for parts to be unavailable; it's no secret that a well known EV manufacturer prioritises parts to build new cars rather than repair existing ones, and they are far from unique in this, it's becoming the norm, and in fairness has been going this way for several decades now, as a consequence of the "just-in-time" stocking practice, and the change in business model which has seen profit move from service and repair to purchase finance.

Modern cars are more polluting than older ones. This is an intentionally out of context statement designed to grab your attention, but it's true nevertheless; for a given context.
Modern cars are heavier and the fashion is for the bigger variants, so even though engines have become cleaner per unit of fuel burned, they need to burn more fuel to move the vehicle.
EVs and heavier vehicles in general cause more rubber pollution due to extra tyre wear. This is non-trivial, and tyre manufacturers are having to research less harmful and more durable compounds.



In the past, cars would be forced off the road due to chassis corrosion and serious mechanical failure if they survived long enough (80+ thousand miles, unless meticulously maintained). Nowadays, they die mostly due to ECM failure of one sort or another, or mechanical failure of a single part in an assembly that the manufacturer refuses to supply in any form other than a complete (and stupidly expensive) unit.

[nctnico]

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

Of course, that's exactly why VW developed the piece of firmware which detects the revving pattern during emissions test and enter a lower emission mode. If this was just an OBD readout it would have been much easier to fake, just lie.

It was more complicated than that, they were detecting the precise speed / distance curve that the NEDC profile matched and then only enabling cheater mode when air pressure and temperature were just like all the test labs in Germany (apparently they are all around a similar altitude, coincidentally, and temperature tends to be controlled well for result repeatability).

As a result, activating the cheater code in normal operation was nearly impossible, so the cars would always have high NOx on the road.

High NOX on the road yes. But emissions testing is in a no-load condition so in theory the software can detect the emissions test cycle as well.

[tom66]

Video on the NOx cheat from a researcher:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MLZLxzYCarw

The very interesting bit is from about 51 minutes onwards... those are some suspicious curves.

[tggzzz]

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

Of course, that's exactly why VW developed the piece of firmware which detects the revving pattern during emissions test and enter a lower emission mode. If this was just an OBD readout it would have been much easier to fake, just lie.

It was more complicated than that, they were detecting the precise speed / distance curve that the NEDC profile matched and then only enabling cheater mode when air pressure and temperature were just like all the test labs in Germany (apparently they are all around a similar altitude, coincidentally, and temperature tends to be controlled well for result repeatability).

As a result, activating the cheater code in normal operation was nearly impossible, so the cars would always have high NOx on the road.

Compiler writers use similar techniques to cheat benchmarking: recognise the benchmark code, and substitute optimised output which would not otherwise be derived from the source code.

That was done in the 90s (?Sun?) and is still occurring.

SPEC says it will no longer be publishing SPEC CPU 2017 results for Intel CPUs running a specific version of the Intel compiler, citing displeasure over an apparent targeted optimization for a specific workload (via ServeTheHome and Phoronix) that essentially amounts to cheating. ...
The disclaimer that it is now attached to over 2,600 SPEC CPU 2017 results states, "The compiler used for this result was performing a compilation that specifically improves the performance of the 523.xalancbmk_r / 623.xalancbmk_s benchmarks using a priori knowledge." This means the compiler (in this case, Intel's oneAPI DPC++/C++ Compiler) was not optimized for the kind of workload the two SPEC CPU 2017 benchmarks in question test, but specifically the two benchmarks themselves

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/spec-invalidates-2600-intel-cpu-benchmarks-says-companys-compiler-used-unfair-optimizations-that-boosted-performance

[coppice]

Not in the UK MoT. They still use an exhaust probe and rev the engine.

Of course, that's exactly why VW developed the piece of firmware which detects the revving pattern during emissions test and enter a lower emission mode. If this was just an OBD readout it would have been much easier to fake, just lie.

It was more complicated than that, they were detecting the precise speed / distance curve that the NEDC profile matched and then only enabling cheater mode when air pressure and temperature were just like all the test labs in Germany (apparently they are all around a similar altitude, coincidentally, and temperature tends to be controlled well for result repeatability).

As a result, activating the cheater code in normal operation was nearly impossible, so the cars would always have high NOx on the road.

That is what I never figured out about that scandal. They looked specifically for the approvals cycle pattern, and played tricks. However, that won't work for regular annual inspections. Don't most countries actually do a simple measurement at the tailpipe, like the UK MOT does from the third year onwards?

[nctnico]

As I wrote before: MOT emission measurements are done in no-load conditions. Very easy to test by the car's software and the vehicle performance isn't affected.

[magic]

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Sounds like nonsense, and good luck asking for that here. Only real emission testing.

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

So you just pull the check engine lightbulb and it's OK?

[nctnico]

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Sounds like nonsense, and good luck asking for that here. Only real emission testing.

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

So you just pull the check engine lightbulb and it's OK?

No. The OBD reader (as required per NL MOT test procedure) will still show the error. I highlighted the part you missed in bold 

[magic]

Let's highlight a different part

TW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

But assuming that they aren't completely stupid and do connect the OBD scanner, I wonder if the ECU authenticates itself to it reliably or if there is a potential market for dummy ECUs which never have any errors? I mean, I doubt that anyone will inspect where the wiring behind the OBD connector goes...

[coppice]

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

Reving an engine for emission testing is a time consuming job as they have to let the engine run long enough so it is hot and even then there is a risk of snapping the timing belt or cause other damage. Back in the old days every garage over here explicited stated (both through a sign and telling the customers) to not accept liability for damage from doing emission testing (especially for diesel engines).

What did the Netherlands do before 2005? Why were they running the engine in a way that might have damaged it? I don't know what the current UK practice is, but the last time I saw the test conducted they started the engine, then just let it idle for some time while they did other work. When the engine was up to temperature they did a tailpipe test at idle, and with the accelerator depressed enough to reach some specific RPM values. That was a long time ago, but I saw the sensor being inserted in the tailpipe of someone else's car a few months ago, while I was at the garage for something else. The UK government web site says gasoline cars made after 1975 and diesels made after 1980 are checked by a meter in the MOT test. It doesn't give details. I might be misremembering, but I think the car I saw being tested recently was on a rolling road. They definitely use a rolling road for some of the MOT testing.

[nctnico]

Let's highlight a different part

TW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

But assuming that they aren't completely stupid and do connect the OBD scanner, I wonder if the ECU authenticates itself to it reliably or if there is a potential market for dummy ECUs which never have any errors? I mean, I doubt that anyone will inspect where the wiring behind the OBD connector goes...

There are cases where people load different software into the ECU which mimics the presence of a catalythic converter so when reading the status through OBD, everything is fine. But these cars would obviously fail an emissions test which could be performed by the testing station in case of doubts. And the alternative ECU firmware isn't cheap either.

[nctnico]

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

Reving an engine for emission testing is a time consuming job as they have to let the engine run long enough so it is hot and even then there is a risk of snapping the timing belt or cause other damage. Back in the old days every garage over here explicited stated (both through a sign and telling the customers) to not accept liability for damage from doing emission testing (especially for diesel engines).

What did the Netherlands do before 2005? Why were they running the engine in a way that might have damaged it? I don't know what the current UK practice is, but the last time I saw the test conducted they started the engine, then just let it idle for some time while they did other work. When the engine was up to temperature they did a tailpipe test at idle, and with the accelerator depressed enough to reach some specific RPM values. That was a long time ago, but I saw the sensor being inserted in the tailpipe of someone else's car a few months ago, while I was at the garage for something else. The UK government web site says gasoline cars made after 1975 and diesels made after 1980 are checked by a meter in the MOT test. It doesn't give details. I might be misremembering, but I think the car I saw being tested recently was on a rolling road. They definitely use a rolling road for some of the MOT testing.

From what I've read on the UK MOT testing it looks like emissions testing is done stationary. Some sort of rolling road could be used for testing the shock absorbers or brakes though.

For petrol cars there is a certain RPM at which the emissions needs to be measured:
https://www.snapon.com/diagnostics/uk/kb/training/take-emissions-readings-during-a-petrol-mot-test.htm

However, diesels need to be reved up all the way to the RPM limiter rather quickly (within a second). This will cause maximum stress on the timing belt. https://www.snapon.com/diagnostics/uk/kb/training/take-emissions-readings-during-a-diesel-mot-test.htm

[coppice]

However, diesels need to be reved up all the way to the RPM limiter rather quickly (within a second). This will cause maximum stress on the timing belt. https://www.snapon.com/diagnostics/uk/kb/training/take-emissions-readings-during-a-diesel-mot-test.htm

That's a weird requirement, as that just doesn't happen in normal use. In an automatic you can't even make it happen with a bad gear change.

[langwadt]

Let's highlight a different part

TW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

But assuming that they aren't completely stupid and do connect the OBD scanner, I wonder if the ECU authenticates itself to it reliably or if there is a potential market for dummy ECUs which never have any errors? I mean, I doubt that anyone will inspect where the wiring behind the OBD connector goes...

There are cases where people load different software into the ECU which mimics the presence of a catalythic converter so when reading the status through OBD, everything is fine. But these cars would obviously fail an emissions test which could be performed by the testing station in case of doubts. And the alternative ECU firmware isn't cheap either.

And I suspect the penalties for making, selling, or using emissions cheat devices are severe

[AVGresponding]

BTW, on recent cars with EOBD, emissions testing is done by reading the car's computer in case the engine warning light is on. So if the engine warning light is off, it automatically means a pass for emissions.

Sounds like nonsense, and good luck asking for that here. Only real emission testing.

This is the procedure as described in the Netherlands' MOT testing protocol for cars sold after 2005. Reason I know is that on my car the engine warning light came on due to an emissions issue (catalythic converter / O2 sensor issue) a couple of months ago. Since it was about time for the MOT, I read up on what the test requirement c.q. procedure is.

So you just pull the check engine lightbulb and it's OK?

No, it causes the check check engine light to come on...

[tom66]

It is a requirement in the MoT test for the check engine light to illuminate on ignition on, which is why every car out there will do that when the engine is not started.  Once the engine is started it should extinguish after a few seconds.  If the light doesn't illuminate at all, MoT failed.

There are definitely cheater devices out there that emulate this, but given something like 30% of people don't know how to find their oil dip stick, I am not too worried about these devices being commonplace.  Simply by it being a complicated solution to work around the check engine light and emissions management (like reflashing ECU firmware) excludes the majority of dodgy cars.

It seems most cars near the end of their life fail on either a suspension, bodywork or exhaust component.  The engine, gearbox and the rest of the car is fine, perhaps not running perfectly, but sufficient to move the car around.  I remember some time ago I went to test drive a car that had a faked MOT (the garage/tester must had been paid off or the VIN was fake, something like that).  The car drove fine but you could hear the rear shock absorbers were completely gone.  And the door sill had rust at the seatbelt anchor point - instant MOT fail and likely writes the car off.  I guess despite my general naivety at the time even that car was an obvious heap of crap.

[nctnico]

Shock absorbers and suspension doesn't last a car's lifetime. My rule of thumb is to replace the shock absorbers every 120k km to 150k km. Rubber bushings last a bit longer but will need replacing as well. It is amazing how much difference (improvement!) it makes in the way a car handles after doing the replacement.

[coppice]

Shock absorbers and suspension doesn't last a car's lifetime. My rule of thumb is to replace the shock absorbers every 120k km to 150k km. Rubber bushings last a bit longer but will need replacing as well. It is amazing how much difference (improvement!) it makes in the way a car handles after doing the replacement.

You can't put a lifetime on parts like that. On some cars suspension bushes wear out fast. On others they pretty much last until the rubber parts degrade with age. I suspect a lot of shock absorbers get replaced when its just the bushes at the ends wearing out.