Linas.P

Except it takes 2 minutes to refuel and that fuel as well last longer, whereas BEV you may have to charge overnight. Who is there to monitor that every person won't charge at the same time, who is to say who has priority to charge... Where most of important details are lost are in generalisations - assumption is made that everything will happen on "average", people will charge their cars on "average" etc. So yes based on average power production and transmission capacity and assuming people on average charge their cars every 3 days just for the mileage they do it may work. But in reality there will be no average, instead many peaks and quiet times. As well don't forget this is not necessary an issue on the national level, but it may be an issue on town by town, or estate by estate basis. The number of people nationally is high enough for likelihood that they will charge every day and all at the same time to be low, so nationally we may have enough capacity... however if you have transmission line for particular town with 2000 homes, the likelihood that 800 of those homes will start charging 6PM on Friday night is high, on top of overall higher demand for electricity, because of heaters, washers, cookers, dryers and everyone being at home with all the lights on, TVs, PCs and so on. Obviously, solution would be to have smart meters for car charging, so that national grid can tell the meter when capacity is available. But this another cliché - "we just have smart metres - simple". First of all many people don't have parking spaces at all, never mind smart meters for each space... and in the end... even if they have it, how good is smart meter for you if you just came back from work at 6PM with nearly flat battery and you have agreed to come and pick-up say your parents from airport at 4AM in the morning next day, but "smart" meter decides that one of your neighbour car will be charged from 8PM to midnight, another neighbour from midnight to 4AM and you car will be charged from 4AM to 8AM. Doesn't sound like great solution anymore... does it?

It will be interesting to see how long you going to be able to ignore the point... I am sure you understand it, but instead you create your own narrative which you then pretend to defeat, without ever addressing the actual topic (strawman). Almost every point and sentence you make are archetypical logical fallacies... to the point that if we look at the list of recognised fallacies your comment would match description of every second of them if not more. At which point I am certain you are trolling...

Yes, I agree with that - my comment was rather following-up of idea of big and powerful V8, but where the owner is not sure if he could afford to use that power. You right - there is benefit of EV which I have not mentioned, in that it scales better than ICE and it could be 90%+ efficient at low load of 200hp, at medium load of 500hp or at maximum load of 1000hp, whereas ICE has some inherent losses and it is only efficient in certain load scenario. Going back to the original post I responded to however, I was making comparison how BEVs owners "cannot afford to drive them hard", because inherently that crazy power doesn't come out of nowhere (say 2.5s to 0-60 acceleration), it still comes from very powerfully and power hungry motor, resulting in same overall feeling - "I have a power, but I can't afford to use it".

Sorry, wasn't aware of that... somehow missed the memo.

Electric does not mean efficient... Tesla has nearly 1000hp motors so it's energy consumption is as well like you would expect from equivalent car, sure it is fast, but it as well consumes a lot of energy. People have this misconception that BEVs are very efficient, but not emitting tail-pipe emissions does not mean they are not consuming mind boggling amount of energy. Make no mistake - Teslas are not green, they are super cars. This is why - if you drive them fast you won't get far. Same is true for pollution. The statistics that BEV produces 30% less Co2 than ICE car is when comparing similar cars, not when comparing 2l 200hp ICE car with 1000hp Tesla. What is true is that Electric motors are 90%+ efficient, whereas ICE motors are 30-50% efficient. So 400hp BEV will be not only faster, but as well 30% "greener" over it's lifetime compared against 200hp ICE as far as CO2 is concerned, yet 1000hp Tesla or 784hp Model X will be more polluting... Meaning one may as well be driving Lexus IS220d and they will generate less pollution than our dear friend in his Model X.

Well, yes I would have to pay for it if I wanted to, what I am saying is that - you can refuse and just take a risk of £1000 excess would anything go wrong. This charge is optional. Now I have not considered it when I had warranty job, perhaps you right - I should have insisted that warranty company should pay the excess. The situation was that I took car for inspection and at the time it was not clear if it will be covered under warranty or not. Perhaps if it is clear warranty job they would waive it (same as they did for brake job), but they didn't waive it before they figured out it will be covered. In short when I brought the car for inspection I had to make a decision whenever to pay ~£300-600 excess cover for duration or not. Because I would have never paid it anyway, I have not even considered who should be paying it.

Agree - mere fact that they have to labour the point of charging so hard shows, how experience is shaped by said charging. One thing I like the most is how they justify issues with charging as "requiring the change of attitude" or "we may need to start thinking about it differently". Sure - everything is personal perspective and literally anything could be justified in such way. One person may say "waiting for 40 minutes in cold and rain until it charges is terrible", but another person could disagree "it was great to have nice tasty pizza with my family whilst the car was charging". Yet if you remove subjective personal experiences and perspective then simple and objective fact is that to refuel ICE car it takes 2 minutes and it could be done at any of over 8000 petrol stations in UK, all of which are conveniently positioned - compared to limited number of charging points which takes 40-60minutes to charge. Now obviously, you can chose to go and have pizza after 2 minutes refuelling, but you don't have to... so ICE car still gives far more flexibility and are far more practical. point is - this whole claim that "charging is non-issue if you have right attitude" is reduction to absurd argument. If we change attitude, we may as well can cycle, take a bus, walk or live without electricity like amish. This is just not objective comparison of pros and cons of technology.

Hopefully I don't need to apologise for not liking alcantara? It being used in premium cars is kind of irrelevant, sure it looks like suede and people confuses alcantara with it, so car makers can get away with using something what is cheap and pretend it is premium - win-win. Suede is underside of natural leather and thus is much softer and comfortable. Alcantara in most basic term is fake suede and indeed it is made from polyester and polyurethane, it is plastic and it is extremely cheap to make, just slightly more expensive than fake lather vinyl. Same as I don't like fake leather interiors, at the same time I don't like alcantara, because it is type of fake leather as well. When it comes to point of practical application of it, that is another story - many synthetic surfaces are often more practical... in some cases plastic is better than wood, rubber is better than leather etc. But what I don't like is alcantara being regarded as "premium" or "luxurious" material - which it isn't. it is very cheap plastic which is nice to touch and may be confused with suede. To be fair my dislike for alcantara mostly stems not from material properties itself, but because I don't like being sold fake and cheap thing for the price of real, natural and expensive thing. If people like it, then it is absolutely not a problem - it is their choice and they can choose to sit on anything they like. As for IS in particular, the issue is not only alcantara, but that F-sport doesn't have ventilation function as well.

To be fair, this isn't really telling. The problem is that "Lexus Relax" is Lexus policy obviously and Toyota representative may not be the best person to answer it. One thing which I found slightly worrying the the use of phrase "if the issue develops as a result of a manufacturing defect". Who is to say if after 60k miles it developed to to wear and tear, accidental damage or manufacturing defect... and who is to check that decision is correct. The answer is - Lexus themselves and I can see quite obvious conflict of interest. So we going from approach of: - something is not working, but should be working, check if there is any obvious external damage and if not then replace for free. Which is easy to define, because as long as there isn't clear external damage it is covered. To approach of: - something is not working - prove if it is not working due to manufacturing defect and replace for free if it is covered in T&Cs. Which is nearly impossible without good will of Lexus, because it is only Lexus themselves who can determine it and even then just maybe.

Quite a few issues with this article - first of all it is clearly partial, because it is made by site which openly support BEVs. As such I am always very careful with sources which are not independent. Secondly, most of the information they are quoting has no sources or those sources are clearly biased. This bias is very clear in the article itself, because VW is 3rd largest BEV maker, this makes Herbert Diess no better than Elon - both of them are personally benefiting from BEVs, so why would they support alternative technology which competes with them. This is same as I would take article about hydrogen commissioned by Toyoda with a pinch of salt. Now going into specific claims - they are self-refuting. Stating that simply charging cars with electricity we produce is "obviously better" is clearly ignoring the fact that there are loses all along the line, production, conversion, transmission, charging and using it. In the end of the day we only get like 40% of the electricity we produce to hit the road in BEV. Sure maybe on hydrogen that is only 30%, but the way they word the comparison sounds like we comparing 100% instead of 40% vs 30%. Same argument completely ignores the practical challenges of BEVs i.e. that many people can't charge them at home as facilities does not exist and the time it takes to charge. Basically they ignore everything which is inconvenient to talk about. Next they point out that fuel main not be as "green" depending of how it is made - clearly the same applies to electricity which is used by BEV. Then they presume that this may prolong life of ICE, which in itself implies that ICEs are the issue, which is not true - issue is fossil fuel, because it releases stored carbon. If we use synthetic fuel then ICEs by themselves are not issue. In the end - this article is obvious "hit piece" on hydrogen and all parties in the article are objectively biased, from editorial staff, to the people they quoted in the artical.

I never step away from that - c'mon... This exactly the point - it is easy to enjoy ICE car on road trip when you don't need to worry about fuel. Never in my life I had to think if there will be petrol station around. Sure - few times I made mistake myself driving the car all the way to reserve fuel, then taking detour to get cheapest petrol and finding that petrol station has since be closed or doesn't have petrol. Only even happens in very remote locations, but even then I could find alternative station within 15-20 miles and just paying 3p more for petrol. And that what makes the road trip fun - you have fun and then you worry about petrol when it runs out. As result you end-up driving through all sorts of interesting places. In BEV you plan the trip based on charging point, so there could be very little randomness in the route. It is almost like a train, just that you have to drive it yourself and you don't have random people around you. But that said - considering the future of self-driving and ride sharing... it will be exactly like train just on the road 😅 Other thing - I know this not going to be popular opinion, but I don't want to bother about my speed in the car. In ICE car speed is not problem, going faster means you will get 6MPG less and 40miles less range, not a major issue when you can refuel in 2 minutes. On BEV anything past 70MPH is unsustainable, because it just destroys the range and you may not even reach your destination at all if you go faster, or you will be forced to stop every 100miles for hour to recharge - not ideal. In the end - I am not saying it is impossible, but it is absolutely not comparable.

Made no difference for me. Had car for warranty last September, I was asked if I want to get excess cover and I said no, because at the time it sounded as it may take 3-4 weeks for parts to be available (meaning £450 for just excess cover). They phoned me later and advised that maybe it is better if I return their courtesy car and they will book me in separately when parts becomes available, so I did that. Then I came for actual repair and this time they didn't even ask me about excess. Then there was whole story with my brakes and car moved from one dealership to another and when I swapped courtesy car the dealership guy said - "ohh there is excess cover fee... ahh never mind we include it for free". Probably fair considering that they let me buy the car without brake pads. So I had the cover, but not paid the fee. Then finally, I took car for service and I was asked if I want to have excess protection for £15 and just said no again.

Agree - using blankets every-time doesn't sounds like workable solution.

Actually it is kind of funny, because I never actually thought about it. I just assumed it is the policy to return the car same way you found it.. like full-to-full or 1/4-to-1/4th.

I had my car under cover for over a year before selling, but it would not be suitable for outside use. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00DEH6KOG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Size L - 486 x 139 x 120 cm and it fits just right, but it kind of stretch type so dimensions are approximate. Using cover is real pain ... and I am saying it despite my car being garaged. I only bought it to protect it from dust because it wasn't used very often. To begin with car has to be clean before you put it on otherwise cover will turn into massive piece of sandpaper, then because you will keep car outside you need to find way of attaching the cover to the car somehow (some covers has strings) and you need thick and expensive cover which is suitable for outdoors and would actually protect your car from hail - most covers don't do that.

Meanwhile I live in the flat without any way of charging the car. That hydrogen IS would not sell, that is not Lexus fault, but if I would have a choice between BEV IS and Hydrogen one I am sure which one I would get. And finally as far as I remember you had something like 25 faults with your amazing Tesla in first 2 years. I have driven my car less times last year than that. Not that is not to say all BEV sucks, but Tesla quality is just atrocious.

I haven't seen it written down, but over the phone they always claim it. To the point that I think either that is the briefing Lexus own staff was given or they are complicit in miss-advertising it. I have challenged 3 different Lexus representatives and they all stated that now manufacturer warranty is extended for up-to 10years/100k miles, as long as car is serviced with Lexus. When I said - "well it does not cover same parts as extended/manufacturer warranty" they have insisted it does. There is third option - they are ignorant and miss-informed, which wont surprise me either. To answer you questions - I doubt there is case against Lexus GB who is behind it, but individual Lexus dealerships are playing dangerous game either by being complicit or by being misinformed, or both. Voice recording would still count against them, but it would require making a precedent out of it and taking all the way to court.

That is kind of unfortunate, because Multimedia and Sat-Nav faults are as well most likely to be caused by manufacturing defects i.e. it is not out in the open and generally is not abused that much. Seems that logic to exclude this is firmly based not on mode of failure, but simply because it is generally expensive part to replace. I mean again - Lexus Relax is master stroke when it comes to deception... how to make something worse to sound like it is actually better.

Yes, but if we making comparison to high end mechanical watches, then the difference is that quartz didn't mechanical watches and even today you can buy brand new high-end watch. This is not the same as valuing vintage mechanical watch in age of quartz. The issue with E10 and ethanol as a whole is that it is inferior as fuel despite maybe being more environmentally friendly i.e. power and engine efficiency is reduced compared to petrol. Other thing to consider is purely synthetic fuels, which may be carbon neutral and may replace the process of extracting and refining fossil fuel. If that is the case then fuel could be made same as any generic chemical anywhere in the world and without a need for large refinery. It is actually already the case with many high octane race fuels which have no organic/fossil components. Yes they currently rather pricey, but price isn't astronomical ~ £3/litre. If we talking about level of appreciation for mechanical watches which could cost £10k or even £100k despite being inferior when it comes to function of time keeping, then £3/litres isn't prohibitive cost for future ICEs... and likely it will be far cheaper than that. At the same time you make good point regarding regulation - there are no such thing as "mechanical watch free zones", so the reason for change was purely technological advancement of quartz, and current appreciation again is just natural and irrational human bias because mechanical watches simply looks so cool. It is not comparable with cars in this aspect, because change in car technology is much more artificial, we are forced to change more than BEV technology actually being universally better rendering ICE engines obsolete.

Actually it is likely, that petrol and diesel will become very cheap in future. Current price is based on huge demand and as well being huge stream of income for government. However, if most people will switch to alternative power source, then there will be abundance of fossil fuels and low interest from goverment to tax it, because few people will use it. That is not to say overall maintained of high-end ICE cars of the future will be cheap... dwindling supply of parts and expertise could make them similar to horse ownership nowadays... here I agree with you.

Maybe, but not in the way high-end mechanical watches are valued compared to quartz. First of all, I don't believe BEVs will ever becomes as mainstream as quartz watches, simply because we don't have enough lithium to achieve it, never mind to sustain it. Sure we could speculate that some new technology will come along and make batteries from unobtanium, but that isn't currently the case. Secondly, whereas quartz watches eventually became much cheaper to manufacture, the BEVs are likely to become increasingly expensive to make due to material shortage... or at very least maintain the price. Process making them may become more streamlined reducing the costs, but raw materials may become more expensive at the same time. Third reason, is kind of opposite from first two - high end "mechanical" cars are already far more valued than any BEV could ever be, and they were valued long before BEVs came to existence. So the market for high-end sophisticated and unique cars is already there - take for example Lexus LFA. But the risks exists, that if we move towards BEV or hydrogen cars, ICE cars may become so irrelevant that they may loose all value, like steam powered vehicles have done in the past. Finally, if we looking purely in the sense that ICE cars will become more of fashion accessory piece to show-off rather than practical vehicles to drive your around... like mechanical watches are more of fashion accessory rather than necessity to show the time. Then yes - I can see it happening. However, regulation has to change from banning ICE cars, to providing some sort of exception for low volume, high end manufacturing.

Indeed - lowering first and then measuring what you can fit would be wise. My understanding is that speedo works of driving wheels, as such size of front tyres does not matter. Difference between 245/45/18 and 255/40/18 is small (-2.6%). From my experience on IS250 speedometer shows almost exactly 10% more, so presumably similar in GS (in most cars it is 5-10%). Even if it is less (say 5% over) you would have some margin left to spare and if anything speedometer will be closer to actual speed. Other benefit of 245 over 255 is as well lower fuel consumption, obviously marginal difference, but positive nonetheless. And they wear more evenly with 225. Whereas if you have 225/255, the rears may still have 40% of thread left by the time you need to change fronts, putting yourself in tricky situation - should you replace tyres which are still good to keep all the same, or should you replace fronts and leave part worn tyres on the rear, inducing more oversteer than desirable.

G-Spider / Baransu are OEM Lexus wheels and fitment is identical of most Lexus models (GS/IS/RC/ES), I think only different fitments used are on newer LS/LC and on CT.

From experience I am almost 100% it will be less than perfect. The best it could do is to reduce the visible damage and indeed most other people who never knew damage existed won't be able to tell it is there. But the owner who has seen the damage will always be able to see where it was - just no way around it. It was most likely damaged by sharp metal "ears" of infotainment system rather than tool. That said you are technically correct - on assembly line they use rubber or plastic jig which helps to align entire unit and prevents it damaging the surrounding panel when fitting. Whenever dealership should have such jig or whenever they should use it that is different question. What is ultimately clear is that they have not taken enough care and that has resulted in damage, even without jig they could have used some masking tape to protect edges from damage during fitting. It may not make you feel any better, but I have had one of my watches serviced and it came back scratched. All superficial as well, but still very annoying! First reason I mention it is that high end watch technicians (called master watchmakers) are know to be rigorously selected for their expectational attention to the detail, yet who ever worked on my watch had none of that. Secondly, when I researched what would be acceptable level of scratching after service, somebody on watch forum made comparison to the car, so it just feels fair to do it in revers. The comments was along the lines - "if you get your bonnet scratched on the car during the service, would you expect bran new car? Or brand new bonnet? Or repainting the bonnet would be acceptable?". I am not saying this is acceptable as it is, I am just saying in reality things get scratched during the service and it is just matter of deciding where to draw the line between "able to live with and unable to live with". So perhaps it is unfair to judge average mechanic for lack of care when master watchmakers do such mistakes as well. It sounds to me that pragmatic way of solving this is a "smart repair", but if quality is not fully satisfactory then I would not accept it either. Now again I think expecting brand new dash for that tiny damage is unrealistic and frankly impossible (there are simply no new dashes made). Perhaps they can offer some other sort of remedy i.e. branded accessories or discounted service plan?

These wheels are for IS250/350 and the tyre size was 225/40/18 and 255/40/18. Now because you fitting them on GS which has more space in wheel arches, you may as well have 45s. Besides I would always favour 245/45/18 over 255/40/18 - GS300 simply does not have enough power to really justify 255 tyre. Now because you are lowering the car this may change a bit i.e. I am not sure how much space there will be after it so 40 or 35 may be a way to go. You can as well go wider at the front - 235 should fit all else being equal... or at least that would be the case before lowering. Why wider at the front and narrower at the rear... that is because at least on IS250 car gets very unnatural balance and tends to understeer despite being RWD car, having square set-up would be more natural for the handling, but because you have staggered alloys that isn't really possible. So the next best thing in my opinion would be bringing tyre width closer together towards square set-up - 235/245. This should give nice neutral balance and maximise grip.