Linas.P

Agreed, but air quality in the city has nothing to do with climate change. Conflating the issues does not help to address either. BEVs are indeed helping with city air quality, but at the cost of making it worse for climate change. As well, please admit that currently nothing is being done with main contributor, which basically is consumerism + manufacturing sector. Cars on other hand are portrayed in the way as if they are main issue, which they are not. Just o illustrate my example - many governments are looking to ban ICEVs between 2025 and 2050, yet I have not seen any proposal, and certainly no firm deadlines for banning coal power plants, or banning industrial processes which are way more pollution. As such I think it is fair to say that motorists are used as scapegoats, because there is disproportionate focus on minor contributor like cars and complete lack of focus on industrial complex which is like 40% of all pollution.

I think news made huge deal of the new rules, but after reading them I was not moved at all. In fact I always thought that was always the case (probably incorrectly), it may have not been a law, but best practice at least. I always thought that pedestrians crossing the side road have a right of way. Not cyclists thought - they should not be using pavement anyway. Where there are cycle lanes it was always an issue and now it just seems it was legalised. I put it down with the issue of infrastructure design rather than highway code. One should never design the road with conflicting priorities, but cycle lanes are exactly that - so issue here is not who has priority, but that direction clashes. I feel that any sane person can see issue with below sign: But that is effectively how every road with cycle lane now looks. Getting hit from behind should not be an issue - if you indicate in advance and slow down before the turn as you should, then it only becomes an issue of keeping the distance. That said discipline on the road is very poor in UK and people see indicating almost as optional, so in practice I can see this becoming an issue.

I don't think anyone denies that BEV technology has ways to improve. But making ever larger battery packs is not the solution, instead for example solid-state batteries will be major step in terms of capacity, density and charge times. Issue with BEV is not capacity and range, it is charging time. There are various workarounds, but they are limited in use. Simply fitting larger battery is one, charging at home is another, but they are not ideal if one can't charge at home or if the range is exceeded in single journey. So until we can genuinely charge battery in 2 minutes or battery packs will be made to single standard and could be swapped, it will continue to be an issue. For me personally, the move from ICEV to BEV seems irrational, just because cars are minor contributor to climate change and whole issue is overblown and seems like scape goat scenario. Government want "they cake and it too" - they want they never ending growth and inflation, but don't want associated waste and pollution. That is fine by me, but car owners should not be the ones to pay for this ill informed policy.

Probably best to ignore you, because having meaningful debate with person who misconstructs and misquotes everything is pointless. I just find it funny that most EVangelists are like that, EV religion seems to appeal the most to certain type of strange people. Just for the record - I am not against EVs and they have their strengths and weaknesses, but I hate EVangelists who literally associate EVs with some magic and impossible features they don't have and then choose to wilfully ignore any arguments which don't look at EVs like some divine creation or points out anything even remotely negative or objective. Does not surprise me that they can do that in country without functioning and independent courts, nor law and order. As result 9 times out of 10 when you see EV going out in flames it is from China. It would be interesting to see T&C and applicable liabilities in Norway thought.

First of all you misquoted me and that is rude - I said: That is indeed correct, just doesn't prove anything. You said how long does it take to fuel the car and the answer is 90 seconds. How long it takes to get coffee and go to toilet is irrelevant for this discussion. As well you clearly have noting to say about battery swap technology being fake, because there is nothing to say - if Elon could not make it in 8 years, then he was simply lying in 2013 as he always does.

I am sure there was a queue waiting to be able to pay extra for clock 😄

Just like the guy in Tesla promo - took 21s to just get out of the car 😄 As for fill rate - it was my gut feel that UK pumps are slower although I never personally timed them, but it seems study supports that. On top of that UK pumps are very sensitive and often clicks-off for no reason, never happened to me in other countries. And obviously aforementioned lack of locking on trigger (because of babysitter state) may give impression that it takes forever to fill the car. That is again about how long people tend to spend inside the station, not how long it actually takes to fill the tank. Elon just tried to prove the point which was not important, via technology which was not feasible for some reason. I agree that average fuel stop overall, takes somewhere between 5-10minutes for me, but that is not the pumping part that takes the most of time. Furthermore, I am sure this time could literally be reduced to 90s and petrol station could simply send you invoice based on your number plate or deduct it from some autopay account, but incidentally about 10minutes is the time which feels about right to stretch you hands and legs after few hundred miles of driving. So as it was never a problem, nobody ever bothered to shorten it further. Obviously there is always some EVangelists 😄 LOL nobody cares and he failed to even mention the time, because that is in hours not minutes.

Well... I guess that is just terminology I have used and you could use different terminology to describe same things, but that was what I meant when I said "basic trim".

This comparison is clearly ridiculous and you simply ignored what I have said. The car in the event is not production car (as I assumed) - it is prototype at best, but realistically just mock-up of real car, it is one off gimmick (or two of them) specifically made to show off idea of what battery swap could be in future. Elon the Fraud claims they using factory robot under the car to torque all the bolts, but that is clear fantasy and lie. If you ever seen Tesla battery actually being taken out - there are dozen of cables which needs to be disconnected and bolts which have to be undone from inside, as well multiple floor plates and under trays protecting the battery which have to be removed before the battery can even be access. Basically what they doing on the stage is fake and certainly not something you can do with Tesla Model S anywhere in the world even to this day. Note as well that this was something Elon the Fraud showed off in 2013, yet 8 years later there are no such stations anywhere? Do you ever wonder why? Superchargers are not free anymore either! Don't get me wrong, Elon is evil genius, he is smart guy, but he is proven liar, he always shamelessly used strategy - "fake it until you make it" and this is just another example. Same with autopilot, same with actual Model 3 (it took 2 more years than promised to actually ship it) and so on. Likewise, it takes just over 2 minutes to fuel the car and that is only in UK, because pumps are very slow here and triggers doesn't lock. In most European countries gas just flows quicker and you can simply put the hose, lock the trigger and walk away. I reckon full tank of ~65L take about 90s to fill. Besides they literally found slowest pump (despite claiming it is fastest) and chosen the car with literally the largest tank available - that Audi A8 has 85L tank + reserve (so probably 90L to fill). Counting time it takes you to pay, buy coffee and take a *****, is neither here nor there - presumably you have to pay somehow for battery swap as well. I may be misguided if you say so, but if you believe this is legitimate and fair comparison of how long it takes to refuel vs. battery swap, then you are clearly brainwashed. P.S. I am not saying that the idea isn't possible, I am sure it is possible and it could be done if anyone wanted to do it. I even suspect it is not engineering challenge - just swap bolts for lock tabs, few dead bolts to lock-it in place, replace standard harness with some sort of contacts which just slides in and it is done. I think the reason we don't have it yet is legal issues and liabilities. What if your Tesla catches fire after battery swap and god forbid somebody dies. If that would have been your battery which is damaged, that would be just matter of insurance, but if that battery was swapped in by Tesla and they missed the tiny dent in it, then it becomes Tesla liability and they would never risk that. Even simpler issue - battery becomes faulty, Tesla says it is you who damaged it, but it is them who swapped it 2 days ago - who is responsible, you? The person before you? Tesla? How to prove when and who exactly damaged the battery? If it wouldn't be the case, then I am sure Elon would have figured out how to do it in 8 years.

Not exactly, at least what you mentioned are not "trim levels". Trim levels were SE > Sport > SR > Advance > SE-i ~= F-Sport > SE-L. More of less in this order from worst to best in terms of standard equipment. There were no such thing as "basic", but in each trim there were range of features which were either standard, optional or not available. For example SE-L came with every single possible feature as standard and only had 4 options - Sunroof, DCC, Sat-Nav and ML. So - Sport as trim is basic in itself, but this particular one has optional Sat-Nav and ML. As well it has optional for the trim Xenon lights, despite them being standard on better trims. However it doesn't have for example leather seats, memory seats, cooled seats, folding/dimming mirrors and many other things which would have been standard for more premium trims. Sure - those may be minor things, but you really only notice them when they are missing. Heated seats were standard across the range. I note that car comes with 18 Spoke F-Sport wheels, which is nice extra and upgrade over original Sport wheels.

When we talking about specifically 4680 cell battery in Model Y - yes that is the case. Still it forms entire floor of the car, seats are bolted to it as is rest of the interior. It may not be impossible to remove, but unlikely to be feasible on 12 years old car. However, if you look at the vision and principle of structural batteries (Elon used example for airplane wing) then the target and future is that any free space in frame would be filled with cells. From integration and engineering point of view it actually makes sense, as structural components can be made lighter, because filling them with batteries makes them more rigid, on top of that car will weight less and there will be more interior space in smaller car. All good until... ...it becomes a problem when battery pack deteriorates or when some individual cells dies... you can't simply swap them out and car becomes basically consumable thing - use once and discard. And even the theory of reusing batteries as cheap solar storage option goes out of the window.. unless you want to keep half of car frame in your shed.

Dual exhaust rather than engine... Simply said there is loads of pipes which takes long time to warm-up and then it is doubled by making exhaust twin piped for no reason.

So you saying they changed the battery twice on production Tesla, not some fake Elon the Mr. Fraud demo made-up car in ~ 1 minute?! Because fuelling average size passenger car takes 2 minutes at most (~65L). I doubt it! Now sure - in theory, changing the battery on the car could be as quick as replacing one on say impact driver if underside is designed with quick detach connections - say 15 seconds. But that is most certainly not the case on any current production BEVs... Tesla in particular - it is probably 90-120 min job, undoing few dozen bolts, getting access to them, disconnecting dozen of wires etc. It is very doable on the lift, but not at all very simple or very quick. That is excuse or assumption at best. That something is reusable, it doesn't mean replacement won't create pollution. We can argue that car tyres are not waste, because some artist created flower pot of one, that is just exception from the norm nothing more. Yes some people have reused old Tesla batteries as storage for solar panels... very useful indeed for the rest of the population who neither have skill required to do it, nor solar panels on the roof (maybe like me - living in the flat). And yes again - Tesla have built some proof of concept storage facilities in Australia, but that is special case and was built at no cost for the owner there (subsidised by Tesla and Government). However, if we try to make it commercially variable I am quite sure looking at cost of used batteries it soon will become clear that isn't that great.

113 million is literally drop in the ocean for crapple, fines for planned obsolescence in my opinion should exceed annual company revenue to really make it clear - don't do it or we make you go bankrupt for such rotten behaviour. Now it is just cost of doing business, not even a realistic threat - their revenue last year was $365 billion (nicely averages to billion every day), so such fine is a joke. Give them fine of 100 billion and then they will think twice.

That is only the case if you believe in free and fair elections, or assume that we live in representative democracy. I am not saying that we definitely don't, but I would not take that for granted. Many recent developments shows otherwise, especially in UK with two party system and first past the post system, the elected politicians are not representative of the voters at all. And even if they would be, then their promises are non-biding which fundamentally undermines the system of elections and democracy. So in theory you right, but practice is more complicated than that.

No - "structural" means they fit the batteries in all the crevices in the chassis rails and other structural components making them impossible to remove. The only way to remove batteries will require cutting structural cassis components apart, which is basically not viable. You are partially right that some part of batteries will be just simply part of sub-assembly which is load bearing, still much more difficult and expensive to replace, but not impossible. However again if you look to the proposed design some batteries will literally form part of the shell or will be filling some cavities and will be impossible to remove without destroying the body shell itself. In principle - yes, smartphone battery replacement is not worth it because it is made as such that buying new one is simply cheaper than fixing old. That is already the case with most BEVs. In practice it is even worse than that. When it comes to smartphones - it is possible to replace the battery if one is willing to use heat gun, remove the glue and then glue everything together again. In future Teslas it will be literally impossible - battery will be part of body shell and removing them will require destroying it, rendering it impossible to do. In smartphone world it be equivalent to fitting battery in between the layers of PCB.

I think key point still applies here - as long as you drive 90k miles in you BEV over those 10-12 years, it will have same impact as ICEV. So even if new battery is required it doesn't suddenly become less green - it just means that after battery replacement it would be best to cover at least another 90k miles (or slightly less, because rest of the car doesn't need to be made again). I think the key problem here will be battery design and "right to repair" question. For example what Tesla is proposing with "structural" battery is outright criminal from this point of view, meaning that once battery dies the rest of car will be scrap as well. Secondly "right to repair" - if owner will be forced to use authorised dealer, then for 10-12 years old car this will never be economical to change, in other hand if they won't require authorised dealer - then we potentially have high voltage safety risk at hands. What I am saying here is neither pro, nor against BEVs - I am just saying that many things of how to use and maintain these cars, and environmental impact of it is not fully understood or well appreciated yet.

Agreed - the company behind the sale is fishy at best. However, there are only two possible scenarios in motor sale, 1 - private individual selling the car where no statutory rights apply, 2 - motor trader sale where they do. I guess there are situations like this where the motor trader pretend to be backed by dissolved company, it is still scenario 2 and technically makes no legal difference for buyer (and load of legal trouble for seller). I think it is good spot and OP certainly has to be careful with this trader, if they lie about the company, then they may lie about condition of the car as well. However, company status itself does not limit statutory rights at all, so same rights can be exercised here as it it would be buying from any dealer and it isn't comparable with what you get when you buy from individual.

So basically... you just disproved your point and confirmed what Kieran originally said - ideally you should not charge BEV to 100%. This is not because you overcharge (there is protection for that), but because charging it always to 100% will degrade battery quicker. Secondly, don't forget fast charging of any type degrades batteries faster as well. And finally, what you need to understand that from warranty stand point - 70% is total battery capacity, not 70% of capacity available for the consumer. They can still have arbitrary limit to prevent you using last 10% or top 10%, leaving you with 50% of usable capacity. So if you range drops from 250Miles to say 150Miles after 8 years, this still may not be valid warranty claim. I am sure they have it in small print that "range may vary based on circumstances" so what counts is only the test they perform in the way they like want and can prove anything they like.

I reckon from the point of consumer protection they would still be treated as "motor trader" even after the business is dissolved, so statutory rights still apply. As well it is crime (fraud) in itself to pretend to be selling under the company which dissolved. If there are any issues with the car and they refuse to honour it, then I think this would end-up same as Dudley guy case - charge for fraud and miss-selling. As for car itself - I assume OP knows all the topics surrounding ownership of Manual IS250 i.e. higher road tax (£600),costly clutch/DMF and similar? When it comes to car itself - looks tidy, but very basic spec. Sport was basically SE + 18" rims, cloths seats, not electric, no memory etc. Sure - it has optional Xenon and Optional Sat-Nav, but that isn't really big value items, first coming standard with better trims, second being literally useless anyway. I think price is little bit too high for the spec. even disregarding it is manual which is normally cheaper.

Maybe I am mistaken - I remember there being some weird limitation on it, probably can't get it with Leather, but you can get it with AT. Lexus is always strange with these limitations - for example one could add optional leather on SE, but not SR... bizarre. Putting leather interior is not big deal, just memory seats going to be difficult to retrofit.

looks like Ultrasonic Blue Mica - code 8U1

I thought SR was only available with manual and cloth interior? Sort of SE + bodykit. https://www.motor1.com/photo/62805/lexus-is-250-sr-special-edition-uk-62805/ I think the bodykit looks great, would be great to put it on SE-L.

I think ECU would come with 1JZ, so it should not be a problem. The problem is rather other way around - if you wanted to run 4GR in other car that would be an issue. That said I can't see benefit of 1JZ in place of 4GR - both are 2.5L engines, for £5k - we are talking 70-80HP or £71 per HP... that is loads money for not a lot benefit. If it would be built 2JZ with 600HP, then it would make more sense, but still it would be a lot more money. I just can see benefit building on the basis of IS250, all options of getting more power are very expensive, to the point where it snot economically viable.

I knew from the title that conclusion will be opposite from the title, so didn't expect anything else when watching as I knew there will be no new information provided and it will be just shallow review of headline figures which are convenient for BEV makers. It is already known that in long term "lifetime" pollution study average BEV was found to be ~30% less polluting than average ICEV. The word average is very important - Tesla Model X is not average, Tesla Model 3 long rage is not average, Model S plaid - you guessed it not average, Lucid Air... not average, Audi etron GT/Porsche Taycan Turbo S (what a stupid name) are not average... and so on. These BEVs are equivalent to Bugattis of ICEVs world. When we going to do another study considering all these long range electricity guzzles - I really doubt 30% less pollution estimate is going to stand. The study was done for years 2012 ~2020, that is when most of BEV on the roads were like Renault Zoes, Nissan Leafs and rare early production Teslas. In this video in particular they looking at Volvo XC40, which is poor example - to begin with it is exactly that sort of "average" BEV with average range and not comparable to silly 500 miles+ Teslas. So although nothing is wrong in this video factually, it is still made in such a way that it misleads average person who doesn't do their own research - it is not lying, just not saying all the truth. Simple reason - ICEV pollution comes mostly from tailpipe emissions, BEV pollution comes mostly from 2 sources - power grid and battery itself. As such smaller battery BEV is automatically greener than one with large capacity BEV. Simplest way to look at BEVs - Battery capacity on BEV is the same as engine capacity on ICEV, the bigger is the battery the worse it is for environment... and that is before it even drives a single mile. That is why super cars are fine - they only drive few miles so it does not matter that their 7L V12s produce loads of pollution, but that is why long range BEVs are not fine, that pollution is right there no matter if you drive it or not.