End of the line for ICE GT4s? - Page 5 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Given the Cayman is end of line in terms of combustion engines being used has Porsche confirmed there will be no more engined GT4s ?

bosshog said: Given the Cayman is end of line in terms of combustion engines being used has Porsche confirmed there will be no more engined GT4s ? lots of chitter-chatter, even from Porsche https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... and whist the CEO mentioned it https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official... (as far as I am aware) no 'formal' press release has been made to rule things in or out....but I suspect it'll be sayonara ICE engine...though to your question on GT4, I'd imagine they might keep that going as a way to try up-sale customers as the only non-electric model in the range....for a while. Edited by julian987R on Sunday 21st August 15:54

The eco loons would like us to believe that, but the reality is the 2030/2035 bans will end up getting kicked into the long grass, as with the whole set zero insanity.

john41901 said: The eco loons would like us to believe that, but the reality is the 2030/2035 bans will end up getting kicked into the long grass, as with the whole set zero insanity. Incorrect

https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_US/2022/technology... Hydrogen ICE.

D4rez said: john41901 said: The eco loons would like us to believe that, but the reality is the 2030/2035 bans will end up getting kicked into the long grass, as with the whole set zero insanity. Incorrect You are from the future? Loon.

LasseV said: https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_US/2022/technology... Hydrogen ICE. Exactly. All to play for. I think in a few decades suckered people will look back and think what was all that EV era about?

john41901 said: The eco loons would like us to believe that, but the reality is the 2030/2035 bans will end up getting kicked into the long grass, as with the whole set zero insanity. I suspect otherwise. There is increasing political pressure to accelerate change and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - further influenced by this summer’s global weather conditions. Rightly or wrongly diesel and petrol are seen as major contributors and most manufacturers seem to have recognised that.

AP when being interviewed re the GT3RS seemed to suggest ICE still formed part of their plans? Biofuel etc. TX.

Koln-RS said: john41901 said: The eco loons would like us to believe that, but the reality is the 2030/2035 bans will end up getting kicked into the long grass, as with the whole set zero insanity. I suspect otherwise. There is increasing political pressure to accelerate change and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - further influenced by this summer’s global weather conditions. Rightly or wrongly diesel and petrol are seen as major contributors and most manufacturers seem to have recognised that. Lol and you can't see any possible alternative to an EV future ... TX.

I never said that. EV may be the immediate future, but other technology will follow. In the meantime politicians will legislate the diminishing use of current ICE in many functions.

julian987R said: LasseV said: https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_US/2022/technology... Hydrogen ICE. Exactly. All to play for. I think in a few decades suckered people will look back and think what was all that EV era about? While H2 may be a viable fuel for combustion in some circumstances (large/heavy vehicles where batteries will not work, cars where people insist on ICE), the energy cost of making H2 is so high, and its energy density so low, (and at the moment production of H2 is from hydrocarbons and produces CO2 anyway), that batteries are more efficient in almost all use cases.

john41901 said: You are from the future? Loon. You seem to think you're from the future. You're living under a rock if you haven't noticed the entire car industry is moving away from ICE to EV at incredible pace and at the cost of untold billions. But yeah, you know better than the entire industry, but still have time to post on an internet forum! It's happening, whether the flat earthers like it or not.

GiantCardboardPlato said: While H2 may be a viable fuel for combustion in some circumstances (large/heavy vehicles where batteries will not work, cars where people insist on ICE), the energy cost of making H2 is so high, and its energy density so low, (and at the moment production of H2 is from hydrocarbons and produces CO2 anyway), that batteries are more efficient in almost all use cases. So which banned returning poster are you…..?

john41901 said: Which banned returning poster are you….? By which you mean to say, you have little grasp of the basic facts of the discussion, so better just call people loons.

GiantCardboardPlato said: julian987R said: LasseV said: https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_US/2022/technology... Hydrogen ICE. Exactly. All to play for. I think in a few decades suckered people will look back and think what was all that EV era about? While H2 may be a viable fuel for combustion in some circumstances (large/heavy vehicles where batteries will not work, cars where people insist on ICE), the energy cost of making H2 is so high, and its energy density so low, (and at the moment production of H2 is from hydrocarbons and produces CO2 anyway), that batteries are more efficient in almost all use cases. While EVs on the road have a net-negative impact on carbon emissions, their production is carbon intensive. Research from Berylls Strategy Advisors found that the manufacture of an electric car battery weighing 500kg emits 74% more carbon dioxide than producing a conventional car in Germany.(12 May 2021) The Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research estimates that a mid-range EV car with a 40 kilowatt-hour (kWh) battery bought in Germany in 2019 would need to drive 52,000km before its lifetime emissions fell below that of comparative diesel or petrol vehicle. For luxury EVs with large batteries (120kWh) that increases to 230,000km.

It’s a fact that - even if you could do it at the maximum possible efficiency - it costs more energy to make H2 (and O2) from water than you get back by burning H2 in air to make water. In reality you have the kinetics to worry about (overpotential) which you can’t get near the value for DG0 for the production of the H2 anyway. I understand why people want very very much for combustion engines to survive and electric cars not to be the mainstream solution, but wanting it to be is not going to change the laws of thermodynamics,

esotericar said: john41901 said: Which banned returning poster are you….? By which you mean to say, you have little grasp of the basic facts of the discussion, so better just call people loons. I know which one you are…

esotericar said: john41901 said: You are from the future? Loon. You seem to think you're from the future. You're living under a rock if you haven't noticed the entire car industry is moving away from ICE to EV at incredible pace and at the cost of untold billions. But yeah, you know better than the entire industry, but still have time to post on an internet forum! It's happening, whether the flat earthers like it or not. Did you also bet on diesel a few years back? Flat earth? Hardly the same thing as petrol vs diesel vs electric vs hydrogen vs something yet to be invented. TX.

john41901 said: I know which one you are… Which one what? As a matter of fact, I personally have not been banned from PH. Can't comment on any others. But then we've established that facts are not your strong point.

Terminator X said: Did you also bet on diesel a few years back? Flat earth? Hardly the same thing as petrol vs diesel vs electric vs hydrogen vs something yet to be invented. TX. The flat earth bit involves denying everything that's happening, you know in the real world, from cars going electric to the climate in favour of alternative anti-factual fantasies. I'm not convinced battery electric is the best way to go. But that's irrelevant to the fact that it's happening right now at huge scale.

Two principal reasons synth fuels/hydrogen will not happen. In the EU what the Parliament has passed is a blanket reduction of tailpipe CO2 to 0 g/km by 2035. A defacto ban on ICE. This is now on the administrative path to a law. In order to appease Germany and Italy, a non-binding (not part of the law) working group on synthetic fuels was “recommendation” to run until 2026. In order for this to be successful (and once again it is non binding) these manufacturers/any other lobby group needs to provide evidence that synthetic fuels/hydrogen would be a lower CO2 option. This is what Porsche are referencing, inside the industry this is viewed as a huge long shot because there is not a technical path over the period in question to make cars fuelled this way lower CO2 than a BEV. In the U.K. the picture is a lot clearer, the regulation is zero pollutants of any variety at the tailpipe from 2035. No NOx and particulates means no burning of synthetic/biofuel/hydrogen etc because it is impossible to completely remove NOx from the equation. Simple really

D4rez said: Two principal reasons synth fuels/hydrogen will not happen. In the EU what the Parliament has passed is a blanket reduction of tailpipe CO2 to 0 g/km by 2035. A defacto ban on ICE. This is now on the administrative path to a law. Never gonna happen… D4rez said: Simple really You said it.

D4rez said: Two principal reasons synth fuels/hydrogen will not happen. In the EU what the Parliament has passed is a blanket reduction of tailpipe CO2 to 0 g/km by 2035. A defacto ban on ICE. This is now on the administrative path to a law. In order to appease Germany and Italy, a non-binding (not part of the law) working group on synthetic fuels was “recommendation” to run until 2026. In order for this to be successful (and once again it is non binding) these manufacturers/any other lobby group needs to provide evidence that synthetic fuels/hydrogen would be a lower CO2 option. This is what Porsche are referencing, inside the industry this is viewed as a huge long shot because there is not a technical path over the period in question to make cars fuelled this way lower CO2 than a BEV. In the U.K. the picture is a lot clearer, the regulation is zero pollutants of any variety at the tailpipe from 2035. No NOx and particulates means no burning of synthetic/biofuel/hydrogen etc because it is impossible to completely remove NOx from the equation. Simple really Nonsensical

john41901 said: D4rez said: Two principal reasons synth fuels/hydrogen will not happen. In the EU what the Parliament has passed is a blanket reduction of tailpipe CO2 to 0 g/km by 2035. A defacto ban on ICE. This is now on the administrative path to a law. Never gonna happen… D4rez said: Simple really You said it. Lol already happened. Past tense

julian987R said: D4rez said: Two principal reasons synth fuels/hydrogen will not happen. In the EU what the Parliament has passed is a blanket reduction of tailpipe CO2 to 0 g/km by 2035. A defacto ban on ICE. This is now on the administrative path to a law. In order to appease Germany and Italy, a non-binding (not part of the law) working group on synthetic fuels was “recommendation” to run until 2026. In order for this to be successful (and once again it is non binding) these manufacturers/any other lobby group needs to provide evidence that synthetic fuels/hydrogen would be a lower CO2 option. This is what Porsche are referencing, inside the industry this is viewed as a huge long shot because there is not a technical path over the period in question to make cars fuelled this way lower CO2 than a BEV. In the U.K. the picture is a lot clearer, the regulation is zero pollutants of any variety at the tailpipe from 2035. No NOx and particulates means no burning of synthetic/biofuel/hydrogen etc because it is impossible to completely remove NOx from the equation. Simple really Nonsensical Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too.

LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. If you think they're big numbers, they're not. For the UK alone in 2019, these are the consumption figures. Petrol - 16.2bn litres White Diesel - 20.8bn litres Red Diesel - 9.5bn litres For the US, 2021 saw gasoline consumption of 134 billion US gallons or roughly 500 billion litres. US energy agency link if you doubt the numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t... So your 2026 figure of 550 million litres for that plant would be around 0.1% of US gasoline consumption. Just another 1,000 of those plants needed. For the US alone!

LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. Again, less practical than BEV on large scale. It will work for things like keeping classic cars etc. running. Make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water and then burning them in an ICE is much, much, less energy efficient than charging a battery and using an electric car

esotericar said: LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. If you think they're big numbers, they're not. For the UK alone in 2019, these are the consumption figures. Petrol - 16.2bn litres White Diesel - 20.8bn litres Red Diesel - 9.5bn litres For the US, 2021 saw gasoline consumption of 134 billion US gallons or roughly 500 billion litres. US energy agency link if you doubt the numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t... So your 2026 figure of 550 million litres for that plant would be around 0.1% of US gasoline consumption. Just another 1,000 of those plants needed. For the US alone! That i only one project. It will be mainstream. USA do their own things. They have a lot of renewable energy/potential and world cheapest green hydrogen. US IRA package will boost new "zero emission" car sales (althought there are none BEV which qualifies) in a close future. And they will use gas as long as it is cheapest to drive. Because money talks. Totally different situation than in Europe. Efuels can be made everywhere and transport for consumers. You don't need to buy a new car to reduce pollutions and you don't need to use fossil fuels. E-fuels will be a huge thing. And BEV's are loosing their steam.

GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. Again, less practical than BEV on large scale. It will work for things like keeping classic cars etc. running. Make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water and then burning them in an ICE is much, much, less energy efficient than charging a battery and using an electric car This is like blaa blaa. How you can use cheap and renewable electricity which is made in Chile or in Finland in your BEV? You can't.

LasseV said: GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. Again, less practical than BEV on large scale. It will work for things like keeping classic cars etc. running. Make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water and then burning them in an ICE is much, much, less energy efficient than charging a battery and using an electric car This is like blaa blaa. How you can use cheap and renewable electricity which is made in Chile or in Finland in your BEV? You can't. This blaaa blaaaa business is a little, well, a little hypocritical if you ask me. Or would you like to show me your calculations or measurements of the Gibbs free energy of CO2 reduction to methanol, and then methanol to hydrocarbons. What about the kinetic barriers that must be overcome in the electrochemical CO2 reduction? What about the high temperatures needed for methanol to hydrocarbons (same reason, kinetics). What catalyst are you going to use for that step? Perhaps it’s possible that you don’t have the expertise or understanding to do any of those things. If you like, I could suggest some good textbooks. You’ll need about 4 years if you haven’t studied chemistry before. What about the thermal efficiency of ICE compared to the efficiency of electric motors? What about the energy cost of transporting the fuel from Chile or Finland to the ICE? (By the way, you can generate renewable electricity anywhere). Yes, liquid hydrocarbon fuel is always going to be very useful because of its very high energy density. In some applications it will remain the go to choice (probably heavy vehicles, flying vehicles, and vehicles operating in remote locations). For day to day cars in developed countries we’ll be using batteries. It’s sad, I like engines, but it’s a better solution with far fewer problems than burning petrol.

LasseV said: E-fuels will be a huge thing. And BEV's are loosing their steam. I wish you were right, as I agree synthetic carbon neutral petrol et al would be a much better mainstream solution than BEV. The cars and delivery infrastructure are all already there. It's so much better than building zillions of new cars with ludicrous, heavy batteries. But you're living in a weird alternate reality if you think BEV is losing momentum. It's gaining it with staggering pace. Every major auto maker is shifting their R&D and product planning away from ICE and toward BEV at the fastest pace humanly possible. The levels of investment in BEV are staggering.

LasseV said: "don’t have the expertise or understanding to do any of those things" Honestly, go f k yourself I'm not expert and neither are you. These are not my opinions they are car manufacturers views what i linked here. You are arguing against car manufacturers not my "expertise". Who do i believe more, you or Toyota for example? Hmm. Firstly, I did write “perhaps it’s possible that you don’t have the…”. i.e. I did not accuse you of not knowing anything, merely acknowledged it was a possibility. Secondly, it’s not a bad thing - certainly not so bad as to justify telling people go “go f k themselves” - to not know something. We all do not know many things. I am not arguing against car manufacturers. If Porsche believed that E fuels were going to work out on scale, for all cars, why build the Taycan, etc. etc.? The reason is because they know that e-fuels are only going to viable for supporting the far top-end of their specialist performance models for driving enthusiastic. The mass market will be electric cars. And as for expertise… well, actually I am a (relative) expert in the energy costs (thermodynamics) of producing hydrocarbon fuel from CO2, H2 from water by electrolysis, charging a battery, etc. etc. In fact, I have a PhD in chemistry and I teach and actively research it at a leading university. That’s how I can say that e-fuels are not viable - energetically - compared to electric cars. Because I understand the science - which in terms of the thermodynamics is an opinion so thoroughly qualified and measured as to be as close to a fact as we can possibly get.

If you want some data on the cars, here you go. These are projected costs in 2030 (based on projected development of both e-fuel and BEV technology). Firstly, the e-fuel vehicles emit much more CO2 over the whole lifecycle, even though their production is less energy intensive. This is because of the high energy cost of making the e-fuel, and the very low thermal efficiency (under 50%) of ICE. (There you go, it matches what I was writing above. Funny that). Secondly, the total cost of ownership of BEV will be lower than ICE running on e fuel. Not only is the fuel - ‘electricity’ cheaper (it doesn’t need to be made from CO2, using lots of energy in the process), but so are the running costs. BEVs have fewer moving parts and much lower servicing requirements. FInally, even if ICE vehicles running on e-fuel was comparable in energy costs, it still has the huge disadvantage (especially in urban areas) of the large amount of nitrogen oxides emitted from ICE. These substantially decrease air quality and make people unwell. So there you go. It doesn’t matter how much you want it to be true, but ICE cars are on their way out. I am sad, I love them. I hope that I will be able to keep one of mine and continue to use it daily and perhaps ultimately weekly for a long time (ultimately I guess I will be like those people who run steam/traction engines at shows at places like Ardingly showground). But as the mainstream consumer opinion for cars, ICE vehicles are done. They are not coming back. Sorry.

And then lastly to get it back on topic: I think Porsche will continue for a long time to make a few special ICE models but I do not see them producing any in big volumes in 10 years time.

What a wonderful thread! Regardless of what can and/or can’t be done the simple matter is.. The governments are dictating the dates for manufacturers to stop producing/selling certain emission engines. The manufacturers are already gearing down and acting accordingly to that. Personally I think any manufacturer will be happy selling whatever product in order to continue business. And if ICE is banned we will not be able to buy it. My plan is to last as long as possible as I can with ICE and when I’m forced to change then I will. BTW I have a GT4 on order. I’m hoping I will get one soon

GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: "don’t have the expertise or understanding to do any of those things" Honestly, go f k yourself I'm not expert and neither are you. These are not my opinions they are car manufacturers views what i linked here. You are arguing against car manufacturers not my "expertise". Who do i believe more, you or Toyota for example? Hmm. Firstly, I did write “perhaps it’s possible that you don’t have the…”. i.e. I did not accuse you of not knowing anything, merely acknowledged it was a possibility. Secondly, it’s not a bad thing - certainly not so bad as to justify telling people go “go f k themselves” - to not know something. We all do not know many things. I am not arguing against car manufacturers. If Porsche believed that E fuels were going to work out on scale, for all cars, why build the Taycan, etc. etc.? The reason is because they know that e-fuels are only going to viable for supporting the far top-end of their specialist performance models for driving enthusiastic. The mass market will be electric cars. And as for expertise… well, actually I am a (relative) expert in the energy costs (thermodynamics) of producing hydrocarbon fuel from CO2, H2 from water by electrolysis, charging a battery, etc. etc. In fact, I have a PhD in chemistry and I teach and actively research it at a leading university. That’s how I can say that e-fuels are not viable - energetically - compared to electric cars. Because I understand the science - which in terms of the thermodynamics is an opinion so thoroughly qualified and measured as to be as close to a fact as we can possibly get. Ah, university guy. Yes you can focus on single issue, ie thermodynamics but real world car manufacturers can't do that. They face all the problems what battery electric powertrain gives them: lack of materials, high cost of battery, low energy dencity, high weight etc. And even electricity is now too expensive and there will be blackouts. It just show how bad strategy all in electricity is. You can't transfer electricity for long distance but you can do that with e-fuels, ammoniac and hydrogen. You posted some graphs which you know that they are not relevant anymore. Why you do that? Porsche is aiming 1.3-1.6€/litre for price of e-fuels. I believe them. That is the beauty of combination of cheap renewable energy and good energy carrier. Because guys like you Europe has made several mistakes. For example now when different hydrogen powertrains are kicking in almost every European car manf needs support from US or Asian company. Renault is with Plug Power, Iveco and Ineos are with Hyundai, Daimler and BMW are with Toyota etc. Stellantis partner is Symbio and that is an European company - which is good. BMW engine manufacturer said that they are developing h2 ice engine family from 1.5-3.0 litres. Overall tho, Europe lags behind US/Asia. Of course we don't know what Porsche can achieve with their h2 ice. However, Toyota has been running their high hp 1.6 turbo engine for a year and it is very promising. Sounds good and J. Kankkunen said that it offers a lot of torque. Toyota does have also h2 5.0 V8. I read that it did sound awesome (that engine sounds always good) and it's torque curve was almost perfect when i saw it.

LasseV said: GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: "don’t have the expertise or understanding to do any of those things" Honestly, go f k yourself I'm not expert and neither are you. These are not my opinions they are car manufacturers views what i linked here. You are arguing against car manufacturers not my "expertise". Who do i believe more, you or Toyota for example? Hmm. Firstly, I did write “perhaps it’s possible that you don’t have the…”. i.e. I did not accuse you of not knowing anything, merely acknowledged it was a possibility. Secondly, it’s not a bad thing - certainly not so bad as to justify telling people go “go f k themselves” - to not know something. We all do not know many things. I am not arguing against car manufacturers. If Porsche believed that E fuels were going to work out on scale, for all cars, why build the Taycan, etc. etc.? The reason is because they know that e-fuels are only going to viable for supporting the far top-end of their specialist performance models for driving enthusiastic. The mass market will be electric cars. And as for expertise… well, actually I am a (relative) expert in the energy costs (thermodynamics) of producing hydrocarbon fuel from CO2, H2 from water by electrolysis, charging a battery, etc. etc. In fact, I have a PhD in chemistry and I teach and actively research it at a leading university. That’s how I can say that e-fuels are not viable - energetically - compared to electric cars. Because I understand the science - which in terms of the thermodynamics is an opinion so thoroughly qualified and measured as to be as close to a fact as we can possibly get. Ah, university guy. Yes you can focus on single issue, ie thermodynamics but real world car manufacturers can't do that. They face all the problems what battery electric powertrain gives them: lack of materials, high cost of battery, low energy dencity, high weight etc. And even electricity is now too expensive and there will be blackouts. It just show how bad strategy all in electricity is. You can't transfer electricity for long distance but you can do that with e-fuels, ammoniac and hydrogen. You posted some graphs which you know that they are not relevant anymore. Why you do that? Porsche is aiming 1.3-1.6€/litre for price of e-fuels. I believe them. That is the beauty of combination of cheap renewable energy and good energy carrier. Because guys like you Europe has made several mistakes. For example now when different hydrogen powertrains are kicking in almost every European car manf needs support from US or Asian company. Renault is with Plug Power, Iveco and Ineos are with Hyundai, Daimler and BMW are with Toyota etc. Stellantis partner is Symbio and that is an European company - which is good. BMW engine manufacturer said that they are developing h2 ice engine family from 1.5-3.0 litres. Overall tho, Europe lags behind US/Asia. Of course we don't know what Porsche can achieve with their h2 ice. However, Toyota has been running their high hp 1.6 turbo engine for a year and it is very promising. Sounds good and J. Kankkunen said that it offers a lot of torque. Toyota does have also h2 5.0 V8. I read that it did sound awesome (that engine sounds always good) and it's torque curve was almost perfect when i saw it. The Porsche engine is virtual (aka a fantasy) as is the Yamaha V8. Doesn’t exist. The whole thing is a fantasy thanks to the NOx and carbon you release when you burn engine lubricants is also a problem To tackle a few more of the misunderstandings you have - Green hydrogen doesn’t exist in quantity and when it does it will be prioritised for other users like aviation and energy storage. Otherwise it’s just less efficient grid energy - BEV is not losing, market share has been almost doubling in all major markets and all major OEMs have announced a full ICE end date in the next 10 years or so - if electricity is expensive… then so is hydrogen because it’s the raw ingredient

What an incredible thread. Literally the text book example of arguing on the internet where there's an actual expert in the topic giving totally reasoned and very scientifically sound information in a very calm and well presented way, being shouted at by someone who doesn't want to believe it! Let's have a bit of topical comedy: p.s. GiantCardboardPlato is right and I agree with him

RacerMike said: What an incredible thread. Literally the text book example of arguing on the internet where there's an actual expert in the topic giving totally reasoned and very scientifically sound information in a very calm and well presented way, being shouted at by someone who doesn't want to believe it! Let's have a bit of topical comedy: p.s. GiantCardboardPlato is right and I agree with him Not what I'm reading. The pro-EV loons have been brainwashed by a cult, their dogma is like a religion. Not content to discuss other possibilities they will spend hours telling you why EVs are better (which they're clearly not.) Whether you have the hours to waste is another matter, but they always certainly seem to.

john41901 said: Not what I'm reading. The pro-EV loons have been brainwashed by a cult, their dogma is like a religion. Not content to discuss other possibilities they will spend hours telling you why EVs are better (which they're clearly not.) Whether you have the hours to waste is another matter, but they always certainly seem to. If you're using the term 'brainwashed', it leads me to really question quite how unbiased your viewpoint is. Happy to see what science those who don't agree that BEVs are a better solution for mass personal transport can present that is as strong as the evidence posted by the PhD qualified chemist here without unironically falling into the trap of what Ricky Gervais talks about in his standup.... Perhaps there's no a belief that Education now means Brainwashing which, if that is the case, means society really is f'd.

LasseV said: Yes you can focus on single issue, ie thermodynamics but real world car manufacturers can't do that. I like this bit best.

GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: Yes you can focus on single issue, ie thermodynamics but real world car manufacturers can't do that. I like this bit best. So, tell me why BMW will start mass producing hydrogen cars? I know the reasons. Do you?

RacerMike said: What an incredible thread. Literally the text book example of arguing on the internet where there's an actual expert in the topic giving totally reasoned and very scientifically sound information in a very calm and well presented way, being shouted at by someone who doesn't want to believe it! Let's have a bit of topical comedy: p.s. GiantCardboardPlato is right and I agree with him I get your point, but the whole EV debate is based on hypothesis, not facts. So the Gervais example is a bit apples and oranges.

LasseV said: GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: Yes you can focus on single issue, ie thermodynamics but real world car manufacturers can't do that. I like this bit best. So, tell me why BMW will start mass producing hydrogen cars? I know the reasons. Do you? The BMW cars use a fuel cell to generate electricity to power motors from the oxidation of H2 catalysed by platinum. They are not going to burn H2 in an ICE. The reason is that their biggest/fastest X series models are so heavy their range/performance would be severely limited if battery powered. Edited by GiantCardboardPlato on Monday 22 August 13:56

hypothesis apart from the bit where we can measure the energy efficiency of fuel extraction, ICEs, electrical power transmission, battery charging, energy recover, etc. etc. and clearly see that BEV is much more efficient. ‘Better’ is a silly word here and probably the origin of all of the wailing and gnashing going on… We need to think in terms of ‘better if’. BEV better if you want to be energy efficient. ICE better if you want to maximise vehicle performance. BEV better if you want to prioritise air quality. Hydrogen fuel cell better if you want to minimise vehicle weight but still be electric. But BEV better if you think there isn’t enough platinum in the world for everyone to have a H2 fuel cell car. But ICE better if you like a nice noise from your car.

GiantCardboardPlato said: *hypothesis apart from the bit where we can measure the energy efficiency of fuel extraction, ICEs, electrical power transmission, battery charging, energy recover, etc. etc. and clearly see that BEV is much more efficient. ‘Better’ is a silly word here and probably the origin of all of the wailing and gnashing going on… We need to think in terms of ‘better if’. BEV better if you want to be energy efficient. ICE better if you want to maximise vehicle performance. BEV better if you want to prioritise air quality. Hydrogen fuel cell better if you want to minimise vehicle weight but still be electric. But BEV better if you think there isn’t enough platinum in the world for everyone to have a H2 fuel cell car. But ICE better if you like a nice noise from your car. This

Also. Just to get dangerously back on topic for a moment. I spent some time benchmarking a Taycan 4S a couple of weeks ago for work and it left me fairly excited about the electric Cayman/Boxster. Not only does it feel very, very Porsche and very engaging to drive, it was actually way better in many ways than a Panamera. The method by which it was powered also ceased to matter for longer than about 5mins. I will miss the sound that a flat 6 makes in the new cars, but bear in mind that the likelihood is none of us here will live to see the day where you won't be able to drive around in an ICE.

esotericar said: Terminator X said: Did you also bet on diesel a few years back? Flat earth? Hardly the same thing as petrol vs diesel vs electric vs hydrogen vs something yet to be invented. TX. The flat earth bit involves denying everything that's happening, you know in the real world, from cars going electric to the climate in favour of alternative anti-factual fantasies. I'm not convinced battery electric is the best way to go. But that's irrelevant to the fact that it's happening right now at huge scale. Quote some people on here in denial. All I can see is people with an alternative view to yours, you know personal opinions and all that. Big push on diesel a few years ago - are we all driving around in diesels today? TX.

esotericar said: LasseV said: Yes, you are right. Pro-BEV guys are losing this fight. https://renewablesnow.com/news/german-chilean-h2-e... In the pilot phase of the project, the plant will produce around 130,000 litres of e-fuels per year starting in 2022. In the next two phases, capacity will reach some 55 million litres per year by 2024, and around 550 million litres by 2026. And pure hydrogen is coming to ICE too. If you think they're big numbers, they're not. For the UK alone in 2019, these are the consumption figures. Petrol - 16.2bn litres White Diesel - 20.8bn litres Red Diesel - 9.5bn litres For the US, 2021 saw gasoline consumption of 134 billion US gallons or roughly 500 billion litres. US energy agency link if you doubt the numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t... So your 2026 figure of 550 million litres for that plant would be around 0.1% of US gasoline consumption. Just another 1,000 of those plants needed. For the US alone! Lol did EV start small and grow over time or did it appear all of a sudden To note that we are still waiting for Miraculous Battery Improvements promised every year but never arrives. TX.

Terminator X said: esotericar said: Terminator X said: Did you also bet on diesel a few years back? Flat earth? Hardly the same thing as petrol vs diesel vs electric vs hydrogen vs something yet to be invented. TX. The flat earth bit involves denying everything that's happening, you know in the real world, from cars going electric to the climate in favour of alternative anti-factual fantasies. I'm not convinced battery electric is the best way to go. But that's irrelevant to the fact that it's happening right now at huge scale. Quote some people on here in denial. All I can see is people with an alternative view to yours, you know personal opinions and all that. Big push on diesel a few years ago - are we all driving around in diesels today? TX. The fact is modern diesels are still cleaner than petrols and the science backs that up. The change in buying habits has been entirely political, and largely due to the media rather than governments. The only diesels that weren't cleaner were the ones that physically weren't cleaner because they dodged all of the actual emissions regulations they were meant to adhere to. There weren't any vehicles that broke the laws of physics to achieve their efficiency benefits (as would need to be the case for H2 to be viable for small passenger vehicles). The science supports the fact that out of ICE, BEV and H2, BEV is the most efficient method of powering personal transportation (cars). Furthermore, politically it's been chosen as the way to go as it makes the most sense in terms of environmental benefit, ease of infrastructure creation and future proofing. By all means have the debate over policy. But to try and pretend that in some way H2 is a viable alternative to BEV assumes that we discover a way of beating the laws of thermodynamics within the next 5 years.

Terminator X said: Lol did EV start small and grow over time or did it appear all of a sudden To note that we are still waiting for Miraculous Battery Improvements promised every year but never arrives. TX. I guess you actually mean improvements in range and charging. These actually have greatly improved year on year. In the last decade alone, we've gone from 7kW charging speeds to 350kW, and the average range of an EV has improved significantly:

GiantCardboardPlato said: LasseV said: "don’t have the expertise or understanding to do any of those things" Honestly, go f k yourself I'm not expert and neither are you. These are not my opinions they are car manufacturers views what i linked here. You are arguing against car manufacturers not my "expertise". Who do i believe more, you or Toyota for example? Hmm. Firstly, I did write “perhaps it’s possible that you don’t have the…”. i.e. I did not accuse you of not knowing anything, merely acknowledged it was a possibility. Secondly, it’s not a bad thing - certainly not so bad as to justify telling people go “go f k themselves” - to not know something. We all do not know many things. I am not arguing against car manufacturers. If Porsche believed that E fuels were going to work out on scale, for all cars, why build the Taycan, etc. etc.? The reason is because they know that e-fuels are only going to viable for supporting the far top-end of their specialist performance models for driving enthusiastic. The mass market will be electric cars. And as for expertise… well, actually I am a (relative) expert in the energy costs (thermodynamics) of producing hydrocarbon fuel from CO2, H2 from water by electrolysis, charging a battery, etc. etc. In fact, I have a PhD in chemistry and I teach and actively research it at a leading university. That’s how I can say that e-fuels are not viable - energetically - compared to electric cars. Because I understand the science - which in terms of the thermodynamics is an opinion so thoroughly qualified and measured as to be as close to a fact as we can possibly get. Your opinion though is that EV will see the end of ICE or at least will replace 99% of ICE which ain't necessarily the case PHD in chemistry or not - you can't predict the future^ All I see here is other opinions simply stating that the future may still include ICE for multiple reasons vs the EV Brigade "it will be wiped out like the Dinosaurs for certain". TX. ^which has a bad habit of biting people in the ass when they try of course.

Terminator X said: Your opinion though is that EV will see the end of ICE or at least will replace 99% of ICE which ain't necessarily the case PHD in chemistry or not - you can't predict the future^ All I see here is other opinions simply stating that the future may still include ICE for multiple reasons vs the EV Brigade "it will be wiped out like the Dinosaurs for certain". TX. ^which has a bad habit of biting people in the ass when they try of course. Well it will because the law says so. As has been explained on this thread already.

RacerMike said: The method by which it was powered also ceased to matter for longer than about 5mins. I will miss the sound that a flat 6 makes in the new cars, but bear in mind that the likelihood is none of us here will live to see the day where you won't be able to drive around in an ICE. On that, I would take issue. Obvs BEV has great 'throttle' response. But my issue is that you get maximum thrust immediately, after which is just gradually tails off as you keep your foot in and the speed builds. A good ICE car builds to a power crescendo at the top of the rev range if you keep your foot in. And then you get to experience that again in the next gear. The harder you push the car, the more it gives you. Perfect. For enjoyment, that is. In a BEV, it's not like that. It's sort the opposite, the more you keep your foot in, the less you get. Am also not totally convinced we'll retain carte blanche to potter about in ICE cars for multiple decades. They might not be blanket banned. But if they're increasingly, excluded from city centres, if the number of filling stations dwindles, if the cost of fuel or road access for ICE gets even more out of hand, well, it won;t be much different in practice.

esotericar said: RacerMike said: The method by which it was powered also ceased to matter for longer than about 5mins. I will miss the sound that a flat 6 makes in the new cars, but bear in mind that the likelihood is none of us here will live to see the day where you won't be able to drive around in an ICE. On that, I would take issue. Obvs BEV has great 'throttle' response. But my issue is that you get maximum thrust immediately, after which is just gradually tails off as you keep your foot in and the speed builds. A good ICE car builds to a power crescendo at the top of the rev range if you keep your foot in. And then you get to experience that again in the next gear. The harder you push the car, the more it gives you. Perfect. For enjoyment, that is. In a BEV, it's not like that. It's sort the opposite, the more you keep your foot in, the less you get. Am also not totally convinced we'll retain carte blanche to potter about in ICE cars for multiple decades. They might not be blanket banned. But if they're increasingly, excluded from city centres, if the number of filling stations dwindles, if the cost of fuel or road access for ICE gets even more out of hand, well, it won;t be much different in practice. The Taycan has a two speed transmission. It doesn't tail off. Unintentionally your post sums up a lot of PH. Someone shares some experience. Someone else tells them they're wrong from behind a keyboard. I've driven a good number of the BEVs on sale today and spent 3 years developing one of them. The Taycan feels different. Which is impressive and good. The BEV Cayman will, I suspect, be an incredible car that's very, very good to drive. Edited by RacerMike on Monday 22 August 15:37

RacerMike said: Well it will because the law says so. As has been explained on this thread already. Laws can and do change... Especially when they are clearly not viable.

RacerMike said: I've driven a good number of the BEVs on sale today and spent 3 years developing one of them. The Taycan feels different. Which is impressive and good. The BEV Cayman will, I suspect, be an incredible car that's very, very good to drive. Edited by RacerMike on Monday 22 August 15:37 Currently I can drive from Cork to the South East of England via Holyhead on one tank of fuel, that's around 500+ miles. That's with a 718 base. I did look at a Taycan via my company scheme - but people seemed to be getting barely 200+ out of a charge. I hope any EV Cayman will have far more range than that, as anything else would be a significant downgrade. I also do not appreciate being forced to move to an EV with new vehicle bans etc. If an EV Cayman is clearly better then let the market decide.

RacerMike said: Terminator X said: Your opinion though is that EV will see the end of ICE or at least will replace 99% of ICE which ain't necessarily the case PHD in chemistry or not - you can't predict the future^ All I see here is other opinions simply stating that the future may still include ICE for multiple reasons vs the EV Brigade "it will be wiped out like the Dinosaurs for certain". TX. ^which has a bad habit of biting people in the ass when they try of course. Well it will because the law says so. As has been explained on this thread already. Well as most politicians are Vain, fickle and hypocritical i would certainly not bet on some aspect of the law changing depending on Election cycle and public opinion. Remember there is also in law a NetZero target by 2050 for CO2, One things for sure there will still be millions of ICE vehicles being used post 2030 and that will take decades to get rid off, unless the poor will just be forced to use public transport

jimbo761 said: Currently I can drive from Cork to the South East of England via Holyhead on one tank of fuel, that's around 500+ miles. That's with a 718 base. I rarely drive my Cayman more than 30miles. I suspect 90% of customers are the same, and for those who do more no one is holding a gun to their head to buy an EV. You could, for instance, either stick with your current car, or buy one of the probably many low mileage cars around on the second hand market. Regardless of that, a Taycan can charge at 250kW on an 800v charger. It has an 83kWH battery, and even if you're taking the worst case of 200 miles (if you're getting 500+ out of a Cayman....you'll definitely get more than 200 miles out of a Taycan btw!) then you'll be adding 100miles of range in 10mins. Or roughly as long as it takes you to fuel a car up, go inside, have a wee and pay. Much more than 300 miles a day in the UK is good going.

theDOCTOR said: Well as most politicians are Vain, fickle and hypocritical i would certainly not bet on some aspect of the law changing depending on Election cycle and public opinion. Remember there is also in law a NetZero target by 2050 for CO2, One things for sure there will still be millions of ICE vehicles being used post 2030 and that will take decades to get rid off, unless the poor will just be forced to use public transport No one here is debating the fact that ICE cars will be around for decades. The move to EV for the majority of all new cars though is happening and will happen. And no matter how much hand wringing occurs on here, it won't change the fact the next Macan, Cayman and Boxster are electric. The prototypes are already driving around as it happens.

john41901 said: RacerMike said: Well it will because the law says so. As has been explained on this thread already. Laws can and do change... Especially when they are clearly not viable. Not viable how though? It is more than viable that in 8-13 years time you will be able to either charge your car up while you sleep from a home charger or on street charging or fast charge it in no more and likely less than 20 minutes from a hub. This is what Shell/Ionity etc are putting in at a huge rate. There’s not really a problem left to solve, it’s being solved/been solved. To the original point, this is why Porsche have the confidence to push ahead with the next Cayster as an all electric car in 2024/25. And no of course they won’t engineer it to be dual powertrain - it’ll have a bespoke platform with a mid mounted layout for the battery so it feels like todays car. They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch...

RacerMike said: The Taycan has a two speed transmission. It doesn't tail off. Unintentionally your post sums up a lot of PH. Someone shares some experience. Someone else tells them they're wrong from behind a keyboard. I've driven a good number of the BEVs on sale today and spent 3 years developing one of them. The Taycan feels different. Which is impressive and good. The BEV Cayman will, I suspect, be an incredible car that's very, very good to drive. Edited by RacerMike on Monday 22 August 15:37 You're being way too defensive. I agree with most of what you posted, just not with one bit and explained why in non confrontational terms. And yes, all EVs tail off, including the Taycan. It's inherent to the tech. Gearing in the Taycan is irrelevant. Even if it had six gears and used them, the issue would remain. The thrust tails off in any given gear, whereas the thrust builds in any given gear in a good combustion car as you rise up the engine's rev range. They're very different in that regard.

D4rez said: They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... A quote by a motoring journalist does not equate to a formal Porsche press release. Has there been one?

I'm sure that most of the design work will already be done and Porsche will be working with manufacturing partners for the procurement of components and manufacture of sub-assemblies required to productionise the EV Cayman on the proposed time scale ... It is the perfect EV platform and enables them to retain an ICE segment ... which surely will be the 911 ?? To retain their green credentials P are developing synthetic ICE fuels which will scrub CO2 from the atmosphere ... CO2 which will be given back in a green driving cycle ... whilst servicing also all their heritage cars, making them also "green" and on a much shorter timescale than bio crops. My 2p !

julian987R said: D4rez said: They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... A quote by a motoring journalist does not equate to a formal Porsche press release. Has there been one? This is directly from the CEO https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official...

D4rez said: julian987R said: D4rez said: They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... A quote by a motoring journalist does not equate to a formal Porsche press release. Has there been one? This is directly from the CEO https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official... No, I mean an official .com press release, not what a CEO mentions to a journalist. Has there been? I don't think so. Therefore all bets are off.

julian987R said: D4rez said: julian987R said: D4rez said: They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... A quote by a motoring journalist does not equate to a formal Porsche press release. Has there been one? This is directly from the CEO https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official... No, I mean an official .com press release, not what a CEO mentions to a journalist. Has there been? I don't think so. Therefore all bets are off. They already have some M1 prototypes running around, and the car they had at Goodwood has some early versions of the motors in. You can put your fingers in your ears all you like, but the next Cayster is EV only.

julian987R said: D4rez said: julian987R said: D4rez said: They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... A quote by a motoring journalist does not equate to a formal Porsche press release. Has there been one? This is directly from the CEO https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official... No, I mean an official .com press release, not what a CEO mentions to a journalist. Has there been? I don't think so. Therefore all bets are off. Oh right OK so the CEO was just hamming it up for some journos and they have an ICE replacement waiting in the wings? Not important to you that he was giving an investor/media business update on sustainability and 2021 performance which all will have been signed off by the board? https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsc... Haha, it’ll only be a couple of years to wait for that major strategic pivot to not happen. Meanwhile back in the real world they will have begun to tool the line about now, suppliers will have been contracted and finances approved. In my estimation they are probably about to commence build on the mules/prototypes. You’ll see them on spy shots probably early next year running with high voltage stickers just so you can be doubly sure you’re incorrect.

RacerMike said: They already have some M1 prototypes running around, and the car they had at Goodwood has some early versions of the motors in. You can put your fingers in your ears all you like, but the next Cayster is EV only. Sorry should’ve read this more closely, so they’re already into Mule/Proto testing. Thanks for the info

D4rez said: Oh right OK so the CEO was just hamming it up for some journos and they have an ICE replacement waiting in the wings? Not important to you that he was giving an investor/media business update on sustainability and 2021 performance which all will have been signed off by the board? https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsc... Haha, it’ll only be a couple of years to wait for that major strategic pivot to not happen. Meanwhile back in the real world they will have begun to tool the line about now, suppliers will have been contracted and finances approved. In my estimation they are probably about to commence build on the mules/prototypes. You’ll see them on spy shots probably early next year running with high voltage stickers just so you can be doubly sure you’re incorrect. I appreciate you sharing the link, but it says we 'want to' and 'expect to'. Copywritten to not explicitly say 'it will, categorically, be all electric'. Bets are still off. Good attempt though.

julian987R said: D4rez said: Oh right OK so the CEO was just hamming it up for some journos and they have an ICE replacement waiting in the wings? Not important to you that he was giving an investor/media business update on sustainability and 2021 performance which all will have been signed off by the board? https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsc... Haha, it’ll only be a couple of years to wait for that major strategic pivot to not happen. Meanwhile back in the real world they will have begun to tool the line about now, suppliers will have been contracted and finances approved. In my estimation they are probably about to commence build on the mules/prototypes. You’ll see them on spy shots probably early next year running with high voltage stickers just so you can be doubly sure you’re incorrect. I appreciate you sharing the link, but it says we 'want to' and 'expect to'. Copywritten to not explicitly say 'it will, categorically, be all electric'. Bets are still off. Good attempt though. I think you’re too far down your own rabbit hole but sure let’s wait and see. It’s going to be a great car, but quieter but buyers don’t care. Look at the Taycan

RacerMike said: What an incredible thread. Literally the text book example of arguing on the internet where there's an actual expert in the topic giving totally reasoned and very scientifically sound information in a very calm and well presented way, being shouted at by someone who doesn't want to believe it! Let's have a bit of topical comedy: p.s. GiantCardboardPlato is right and I agree with him I agree about the sayings of GiantCardboardPlato but the last few times have shown us once again that scientists can be bought by different lobbies. it's very easy to fool yourself "scientifically" in a field you don't know by embedding information in technical terms

RacerMike said: Terminator X said: esotericar said: Terminator X said: Did you also bet on diesel a few years back? Flat earth? Hardly the same thing as petrol vs diesel vs electric vs hydrogen vs something yet to be invented. TX. The flat earth bit involves denying everything that's happening, you know in the real world, from cars going electric to the climate in favour of alternative anti-factual fantasies. I'm not convinced battery electric is the best way to go. But that's irrelevant to the fact that it's happening right now at huge scale. Quote some people on here in denial. All I can see is people with an alternative view to yours, you know personal opinions and all that. Big push on diesel a few years ago - are we all driving around in diesels today? TX. The fact is modern diesels are still cleaner than petrols and the science backs that up. The change in buying habits has been entirely political, and largely due to the media rather than governments. The only diesels that weren't cleaner were the ones that physically weren't cleaner because they dodged all of the actual emissions regulations they were meant to adhere to. There weren't any vehicles that broke the laws of physics to achieve their efficiency benefits (as would need to be the case for H2 to be viable for small passenger vehicles). The science supports the fact that out of ICE, BEV and H2, BEV is the most efficient method of powering personal transportation (cars). Furthermore, politically it's been chosen as the way to go as it makes the most sense in terms of environmental benefit, ease of infrastructure creation and future proofing. By all means have the debate over policy. But to try and pretend that in some way H2 is a viable alternative to BEV assumes that we discover a way of beating the laws of thermodynamics within the next 5 years. "modern diesel cleaner tha gasoline car ?" In which way ? Diesels cars produce less CO2 but they produce much more NOx and NO2 gases in comparison of petrol cars. Diesel is "better for the planet" and gasoline is "better for the human beings".

RacerMike said: esotericar said: RacerMike said: The method by which it was powered also ceased to matter for longer than about 5mins. I will miss the sound that a flat 6 makes in the new cars, but bear in mind that the likelihood is none of us here will live to see the day where you won't be able to drive around in an ICE. On that, I would take issue. Obvs BEV has great 'throttle' response. But my issue is that you get maximum thrust immediately, after which is just gradually tails off as you keep your foot in and the speed builds. A good ICE car builds to a power crescendo at the top of the rev range if you keep your foot in. And then you get to experience that again in the next gear. The harder you push the car, the more it gives you. Perfect. For enjoyment, that is. In a BEV, it's not like that. It's sort the opposite, the more you keep your foot in, the less you get. Am also not totally convinced we'll retain carte blanche to potter about in ICE cars for multiple decades. They might not be blanket banned. But if they're increasingly, excluded from city centres, if the number of filling stations dwindles, if the cost of fuel or road access for ICE gets even more out of hand, well, it won;t be much different in practice. The Taycan has a two speed transmission. It doesn't tail off. Unintentionally your post sums up a lot of PH. Someone shares some experience. Someone else tells them they're wrong from behind a keyboard. I've driven a good number of the BEVs on sale today and spent 3 years developing one of them. The Taycan feels different. Which is impressive and good. The BEV Cayman will, I suspect, be an incredible car that's very, very good to drive. Edited by RacerMike on Monday 22 August 15:37 "The BEV Cayman will, I suspect, be an incredible car that's very, very good to drive." I suspect that the BEV Cayman/Boxster will be 1700-1800 kg so not a brilliant driver car for me but it will be certainly an high performing car in straight line.

D4rez said: john41901 said: RacerMike said: Well it will because the law says so. As has been explained on this thread already. Laws can and do change... Especially when they are clearly not viable. Not viable how though? It is more than viable that in 8-13 years time you will be able to either charge your car up while you sleep from a home charger or on street charging or fast charge it in no more and likely less than 20 minutes from a hub. This is what Shell/Ionity etc are putting in at a huge rate. There’s not really a problem left to solve, it’s being solved/been solved. To the original point, this is why Porsche have the confidence to push ahead with the next Cayster as an all electric car in 2024/25. And no of course they won’t engineer it to be dual powertrain - it’ll have a bespoke platform with a mid mounted layout for the battery so it feels like todays car. They’ve already announced this and the tooling/factory will have committed the investment and won’t be changing this plan now. I imagine they will be in prototype phase next year https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/porsch... Installing new chargers is quite simple, producing green electricity energy to fullfill an hypothetical zero CO2 commitment is much more difficult. Moreover, there are many problems of scale for raw materials to the mass production of batteries. in short, not so easy and no so viable (for the moment with the actual technology).

Lunarr said: Installing new chargers is quite simple, producing green electricity energy to fullfill an hypothetical zero CO2 commitment is much more difficult. Moreover, there are many problems of scale for raw materials to the mass production of batteries. in short, not so easy and no so viable (for the moment with the actual technology). Not viable for mass production? 4.2 million EVs were sold worldwide last year. Not exactly a niche market is it….

I love cars and engines but drove my first EV a few weeks ago, a BMW i3s. I thought it was great and almost bought it. I'm still thinking about it actually. I think it's really exciting that we are the generation that get to enjoy this change. I have the same reservations as many others. I not quite ready to shift to EV and wouldn't necessarily want to for my fun car but having the choice *right now* is cool. It's just a shame so few EVs are exciting or even interesting apart from a few hyper-cars, the i8, the NSX. I can't wait to see what Alpine and Lotus do. No doubt Porsche will have a staggeringly good 911 Hybrid and hopefully other brands will follow suit with interesting hybrids/EVs. Edited by minimalist on Tuesday 23 August 16:48

RacerMike said: Not viable for mass production? 4.2 million EVs were sold worldwide last year. Not exactly a niche market is it…. that is about 6%of global yearly sales. It's not a market as such, more so 4.2 million brainwashed.

RacerMike said: Not viable for mass production? 4.2 million EVs were sold worldwide last year. Not exactly a niche market is it…. 80 millions of vehicules sold last year. 4 millions of Ev is quite good but 80 millions, that is another consideration.

julian987R said: RacerMike said: Not viable for mass production? 4.2 million EVs were sold worldwide last year. Not exactly a niche market is it…. that is about 6%of global yearly sales. It's not a market as such, more so 4.2 million brainwashed. you beat me.

julian987R said: RacerMike said: Not viable for mass production? 4.2 million EVs were sold worldwide last year. Not exactly a niche market is it…. that is about 6%of global yearly sales. It's not a market as such, more so 4.2 million brainwashed. Where’s the brainwashing? EVs are great as daily vehicles and can be great as performance/drivers cars too. The cycle plan of every major manufacturer is 100% BEV from 2035 on, and I’d say if what I’ve seen of the cycle plans of a few companies and what’s in development, at least 50% will be BEV in 5 years time. If you want a new car you’ll have to get used to it!

RacerMike said: Where’s the brainwashing? EVs are great as daily vehicles and can be great as performance/drivers cars too. The cycle plan of every major manufacturer is 100% BEV from 2035 on, and I’d say if what I’ve seen of the cycle plans of a few companies and what’s in development, at least 50% will be BEV in 5 years time. If you want a new car you’ll have to get used to it! I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it.

clintel.org Not everybody falls to the agenda

stichill99 said: clintel.org Not everybody falls to the agenda That’ll whip the eco loons into a frenzy…

julian987R said: RacerMike said: Where’s the brainwashing? EVs are great as daily vehicles and can be great as performance/drivers cars too. The cycle plan of every major manufacturer is 100% BEV from 2035 on, and I’d say if what I’ve seen of the cycle plans of a few companies and what’s in development, at least 50% will be BEV in 5 years time. If you want a new car you’ll have to get used to it! I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it. I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US?

RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: Where’s the brainwashing? EVs are great as daily vehicles and can be great as performance/drivers cars too. The cycle plan of every major manufacturer is 100% BEV from 2035 on, and I’d say if what I’ve seen of the cycle plans of a few companies and what’s in development, at least 50% will be BEV in 5 years time. If you want a new car you’ll have to get used to it! I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it. I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? I imagine it’s a case of “don’t read the mainstream media, do my own research” ie not a scooby doo

RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment'

D4rez said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: Where’s the brainwashing? EVs are great as daily vehicles and can be great as performance/drivers cars too. The cycle plan of every major manufacturer is 100% BEV from 2035 on, and I’d say if what I’ve seen of the cycle plans of a few companies and what’s in development, at least 50% will be BEV in 5 years time. If you want a new car you’ll have to get used to it! I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it. I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? I imagine it’s a case of “don’t read the mainstream media, do my own research” ie not a scooby doo Indeed. And it’s somewhat ironic that in doing their own research, despite apparently being a car enthusiast, they have absolutely zero understanding of how car companies work, and how cars are developed. I’m sure many CEO’s dearly wish they could steer the ship in a different direction every 6 months (and indeed many try) but the momentum behind making cars is simply massive. What people will be driving in 10-15 years time is already in the planning phases, and what you’ll be driving in 4 is already designed. Let’s put it this way. The choice is basically electric cars or no cars. People can conspire all they wish about the motives behind that and the true environmental benefits of EVs. That is easily open to discussion, but the fact is, that argument will still be going on whilst every new car sold is electric in 10 years. It’s as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning that the car industry as a majority has chosen electricity as the means to power the majority of its future vehicles. There will be some fringe cases, and the Japanese are determined to believe H2 is in some way viable (I believe there’s something related to half the CEOs of the Japanese car industry having investments in various H2 production companies) but they are certainly unlikely to win out in Europe and the US, and least of all the 3rd world. It’s BEVs or nothing….

julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source.

RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source. So basically you have given up. Way to go.

julian987R said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source. So basically you have given up. Way to go. I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice.

RacerMike said: I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice. But you have! you just said 'the only option is EV' You seem totally unwilling to entertain that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives/technologies. Hey I respect your tenacity on it, sincerely I do. You are firm on EV as the future, I am less certainly. Lets shake hands and compare notes in 50 years.

julian987R said: RacerMike said: I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice. But you have! you just said 'the only option is EV' You seem totally unwilling to entertain that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives/technologies. Hey I respect your tenacity on it, sincerely I do. You are firm on EV as the future, I am less certainly. Lets shake hands and compare notes in 50 years. The only option is EVs because of decades of research into it. To disagree with that you need to provide some form of an alternative that’s not already been thought of. The situation isn’t that some politician woke up one morning last year and went ‘yeah so let’s go for EVs’. It’s at least 30 years of active research into alternatives to fossil fuels led by the automotive industry, higher education and think tanks of scientists, industrial experts and policy making. The laws coming into effect in the next decade are not dictatorial. They’re based around the feedback and consultation of the automotive industry. Let’s put it this way. The switch to EVs is monumentally expensive to do for automotive companies, it’s expensive for national infrastructure, and it undermines the profits of oil companies. There is A LOT of resistance to EVs within the industry, largely for reasons of profit, but the fact is, we have no other viable solution. We can’t just magic a plan B with some new laws of physics and unicorn dust out of thin air in the space of 5 mins. The problem is your naivety is blinding you. You’re unable to understand how much work has already been put into it because you have never actually looked into it. To say ‘you’re unwilling to entertain alternatives’ is like saying I’m unwilling to entertain the idea that I can invent a time machine. Sure. I am unwilling to entertain that idea because it’s as fantastical as discovering a new source of powering cars in the next 6 months that would change the overwhelming research that’s been done by everyone making these decisions.

RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source. So basically you have given up. Way to go. I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice. Is there enough raw material for produce batteries to replace and electrify the 1,4 Billions vehicles in circulation around the world ? Lot of experts in this subjects aren't sure about that. otherwise political elites want to reduce drastically the use of personal vehicles and keep them only for rich people ?

julian987R said: I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it. Admit it. You are just salty that a family hatchback destroys your cayman off the line.

Lunarr said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source. So basically you have given up. Way to go. I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice. Is there enough raw material for produce batteries to replace and electrify the 1,4 Billions vehicles in circulation around the world ? Lot of experts in this subjects aren't sure about that. otherwise political elites want to reduce drastically the use of personal vehicles and keep them only for rich people ? Hyrogen ICE is well and truly a none starter….it still produces NOX and is even more woefully inefficient than a fuel cell….which also requires batteries and platinum, and synthetic fuels for mass transit have the same issue. Absolutely vast power requirements. We have far larger natural resource issues in generating the power for H2 or Synthetic fuels than we do in making batteries. So sure. There are difficulties to overcome. But they’re less than the difficulties for the other methods of powering vehicles. As I said. This isn’t an overnight decision. The industry isn’t blindly going down the route of electric vehicles ‘because someone said do it’. It’s the best option we have to continue making cars that we can all individually own. Let’s just be happy no one went as far as saying personal transport would cease to exist….

Dingu said: julian987R said: I suspect you watch BBC, C4 and/or Sky News. That you have to question 'wheres the brainwashing' means you have fallen prey to it. Admit it. You are just salty that a family hatchback destroys your cayman off the line. Oy vey

RacerMike said: The only option is EVs because of decades of research into it. To disagree with that you need to provide some form of an alternative that’s not already been thought of. The situation isn’t that some politician woke up one morning last year and went ‘yeah so let’s go for EVs’. It’s at least 30 years of active research into alternatives to fossil fuels led by the automotive industry, higher education and think tanks of scientists, industrial experts and policy making. The laws coming into effect in the next decade are not dictatorial. They’re based around the feedback and consultation of the automotive industry. Let’s put it this way. The switch to EVs is monumentally expensive to do for automotive companies, it’s expensive for national infrastructure, and it undermines the profits of oil companies. There is A LOT of resistance to EVs within the industry, largely for reasons of profit, but the fact is, we have no other viable solution. We can’t just magic a plan B with some new laws of physics and unicorn dust out of thin air in the space of 5 mins. The problem is your naivety is blinding you. You’re unable to understand how much work has already been put into it because you have never actually looked into it. To say ‘you’re unwilling to entertain alternatives’ is like saying I’m unwilling to entertain the idea that I can invent a time machine. Sure. I am unwilling to entertain that idea because it’s as fantastical as discovering a new source of powering cars in the next 6 months that would change the overwhelming research that’s been done by everyone making these decisions. I have totally accepted that EV is the future 'for now'. Like it or lump it...I have to lump it. That I accept. What I don't accept is POV that can not conceive that in 10, 50, 100 years, wherever, that technologies and strategies may well produce alternatives to supersede EV technologies. EV's are superseding ICE...so why can't X (whatever technology/physics/chemistry = =X) supersede EV'S. I find it unfathomable that you can't see it that way and that the trend 'now' is the automotive trend forevermore....but hey, hats off to you...I respect you single focussed POV, fair enough i say.

RacerMike said: Lunarr said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: julian987R said: RacerMike said: I’m an automotive engineer working for an OEM with 15 years of vehicle development experience. I travel worldwide doing vehicle development, spend a lot of time at industry proving grounds and have friends and colleagues industry wide. I know the outline of what most of our competitors are producing for the model years 25 and on and very very few of them are ICE powered. Is your belief that the car manufacturers are blindly continuing to develop ICE cars from 30MY and beyond despite the fact that they won’t be able to sell them in Europe or the US? That is not my belief. My belief is that EV's are not the silver bullet and that there is still all to play for with other technologies and that those that are so hell bent on the proposition of EVs are far too blinkered and unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives that may supersede and make the era of EV seem like a 'WTF was that moment' Given that H2 is literally not viable from an energy perspective (using up to 4 times the energy per mile as EVs) what’s the alternative? Sure Electric vehicles aren’t about to reverse climate change and create word peace, but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner and more workable than absolutely any other propulsion source. So basically you have given up. Way to go. I haven’t given up at all. The practicalities of electrical infrastructure and distribution and basic physics and chemistry have dictated the path we need to go down if we still want our own personal cars. No one is about to stop anyone driving an existing ice car, but something simply has to change. Burning fossil fuels is the absolute worst of the 3 options we realistically have for powering personal transportation. So given that we have to move away from Fossil Fuels, and H2 is impossible to make on a scale big enough to power all our cars on, the only option is EV. So nobody has given up. It’s just that after decades of studies and research, and the development of battery, motor and charging tech, electricity has come out on top as the method of choice. Is there enough raw material for produce batteries to replace and electrify the 1,4 Billions vehicles in circulation around the world ? Lot of experts in this subjects aren't sure about that. otherwise political elites want to reduce drastically the use of personal vehicles and keep them only for rich people ? Hyrogen ICE is well and truly a none starter….it still produces NOX and is even more woefully inefficient than a fuel cell….which also requires batteries and platinum, and synthetic fuels for mass transit have the same issue. Absolutely vast power requirements. We have far larger natural resource issues in generating the power for H2 or Synthetic fuels than we do in making batteries. So sure. There are difficulties to overcome. But they’re less than the difficulties for the other methods of powering vehicles. As I said. This isn’t an overnight decision. The industry isn’t blindly going down the route of electric vehicles ‘because someone said do it’. It’s the best option we have to continue making cars that we can all individually own. Let’s just be happy no one went as far as saying personal transport would cease to exist…. Could be a lot worse, the EU is also considering banning the sales of used ICE vehicles in region I agree with you and it’s funny to be even debating these points because the laws have been passed, the detailed studies done by scientists and engineers and the product plans signed off meanwhile Joe Public think this all some new idea that “may happen at some point, sometime”. It’s going to happen pretty quickly from now, especially here with the U.K. BEV target mandates ahead of the full deadline that’s a little further off. You go to some of the Nordics and it’s quite unusual seeing an ICE already, Norway’s outright ban is 2025 and it won’t be any issue for them

julian987R said: But you have! you just said 'the only option is EV' You seem totally unwilling to entertain that maybe, just maybe, there could be alternatives/technologies. Hey I respect your tenacity on it, sincerely I do. You are firm on EV as the future, I am less certainly. Lets shake hands and compare notes in 50 years. The reason for this is the fundamental physics and chemistry involved in the electrochemical production of H2 and then the combustion of it in ICEs. There is no way around it. When your burn H2 in O2, you release energy because the bonds you break (2 H-H, O-O) are weaker than the bonds you make (4 O-H). The energy is released as heat. If you do the combustion in a sealed chamber like in an ICE piston, you can use that energy for work. (To move your car!). But you only get about 50% (tops) of the energy as work, the rest is lost as heat. So you want to make the H2 from the water again. You have to break four strong O-H bonds and form the weaker 2x H-H and O-O bonds. To do this, you have to put a bunch of energy IN. The energetic cost of going backwards like this- from water to H2 and O2 - is higher than the energy released by burning the H2. You are going thermodynamically uphill. NO TECHNOLOGY CAN UNDO THIS SITUATION. IT WILL ALWAYS COST MORE ENERGY TO MAKE H2 FROM WATER THAN YOU GET BACK BY BURNING H2.

D4rez said: You go to some of the Nordics and it’s quite unusual seeing an ICE already As on end of 2021, 22.1% of the Nordics are running EVs. Are you telling me the other 77.9% of cars are invisible?

D4rez said: Could be a lot worse, the EU is also considering banning the sales of used ICE vehicles in region I agree with you and it’s funny to be even debating these points because the laws have been passed, the detailed studies done by scientists and engineers and the product plans signed off meanwhile Joe Public think this all some new idea that “may happen at some point, sometime”. It’s going to happen pretty quickly from now, especially here with the U.K. BEV target mandates ahead of the full deadline that’s a little further off. You go to some of the Nordics and it’s quite unusual seeing an ICE already, Norway’s outright ban is 2025 and it won’t be any issue for them its seems that the used vehicles aren't concerned by the sales ban.

julian987R said: D4rez said: You go to some of the Nordics and it’s quite unusual seeing an ICE already As on end of 2021, 22.1% of the Nordics are running EVs. Are you telling me the other 77.9% of cars are invisible? No, just that in the city centre the majority of cars I saw were BEV or hybrid. Anecdote but it was striking

D4rez said: No, just that in the city centre the majority of cars I saw were BEV or hybrid. Anecdote but it was striking Back to topic, what do we think of how it might look?

julian987R said: D4rez said: No, just that in the city centre the majority of cars I saw were BEV or hybrid. Anecdote but it was striking Back to topic, what do we think of how it might look? I think bang on like the Mission R concept minus the wing. Honestly if they can find some way to make it sound vaguely interesting without completely faking it then they’d be on to a winner. Of all the companies I back to make EVs truly truly fun and great sounding it’s Porsche