Linas.P

Sales just dropped to 40 cars per year then! I mean they won't get ChongChi either... so that leaves them with German cars... which it is indeed most likely. But the point remains - MPVs are only considered "luxury" in Southern Asia, in Middle-East they could be considered "luxury for servants", so for very posh household they would have maybe a Royce Royce and their body guards and cooks and nannies could sit in LM...

I don't think it is bad car - family MPVs were kind of staple since like mid-90s, I think they kind of lost their popularity to SUVs in last ~10 years, but there is nothing inherently wrong with MPV. Sure they look maybe a little silly with small wheels and SUV kind of have nicer proportions and maybe even slight "offroad" capability, but I am not hating on MPV in principle. What I am hating on is the cost - £112k from MPV?! These suppose to be family cars slitting somewhere between saloon and SUV, they just can't replace the limousine. And this is exactly what LM is trying to do here. Note - LM basically is now Lexus "flagship". Because it is more expensive than LC and it is more expensive than most of LS (LS starts at £95k and end around £125k)... who... WHO in their right mind would chose LM over LS (outside of Southern Asia obviously, where they have different understanding about cars and different values)? Now what counts as "sales flop" for Lexus I don't know, as I can't imagine they are selling many of LS right now. maybe even single digits. So if they sell 50 LMs of them, say 10 each to Malaysian, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Philippian and Chinese embassies in London... then does this counts as a sale success? I am sure this will be sales flop with general public, like literally NOBODY will buy them as personal vehicle in UK. Again - with Lexus selling such a small numbers maybe 50 cars makes sense for them? I mean surely they would have sold way more IS350s and RC350s, but they decided it was "too small fish to fry", so I am just surprised that they decided LM is worth it. Perhaps their profit margin is astronomical on it... which to be honest is most likely - Toyota Alphard is like £35-50k car, turning it into LM cannot cost more than £10k to Lexus, so the rest ~£50-60k must be profit. So not only I find it ugly and overpriced, but it seems to be the most overpriced, highest margin (so by default worst value) car Lexus has to offer. On the positive note - these will absolutelly sink like rocks in value, so when Chinese embassy offloads them in 5 years time I would not be surprised to see them at £10-20k used. At which point they probably will be great value!

Absolutelly... wanted to add myself... before fitting, just make sure to clean it, treat it with some rust converter and protect it with paint to make sure same issue does not repeat few years later.

The change happened long before covid, face to face meetings really started disappearing 20 years ago, but I agree with the rest of the points.

Generally speaking agree and I genuinely support reduction of personal waste of any sort and policies that promotes it for the society as a whole, yet that is not what is happening right now. Currently majority of the policies are just taking advantage of climate change to levy higher taxes and use it as excuse to limit freedoms. And that is basis of my objection. I think there is sufficient evidence already provided to make this conclusion.

We are going in circles... 6C temperature increase is inevitable, if we burn fossil fuel or not. All ice melting is inevitable, including all changes resulting from that... all that happened without human activity and will happen again, with or without human activity. So all this discussion about what is more cost effective is irrelevant, it is not like we have choice not to have this climate change. I mean sure - we can way the cost benefit for "climate control", that is stopping and reversing natural climate change via technological means, but that is totally different goal and topic. And there is no point making this about you or me, I have just used few examples from personal experience to illustrate how bad policies hurt interests of people. I am not losing sleep or sanity over it, but this is just purely philosophical discussion about good vs. bad policy, why bad policy is made, what are causes etc. And my point being that lack of perspective on climate processes and lack of understanding of natural boundaries is causing this. Housing price is separate topic and unlikely climate related, at least not directly... that said I would rather pay 15% interest on £80,000 property than 3% on on one for £800,000. Housing prices is incredibly complex topic and why market is so messed-up right now requires different topic on it's own.

No I doubt it, except now all the cars can be leased individually, so you can no longer tell who is the boss just by looking at the car, there are no longer ladder or restrictions. The removal of E200 badge is funny thought, because that is still so relevant... except nowadays you can have "debagging" as option from dealer. Just look around - all E-Class Mercs are either E220d or E200, so like 30 years ago people are getting cheapest version of most expensive car they can afford. As well as I mentioned company car schemes are mostly dead nowadays, especially if you are in bigger city now the new virtue is to wear lycra to the office and look like homeless, having nice car not only doesn't work positively to your image, but will actually get you penalised and considered snob and out of touch. Even knowing the cars, models and their options would be disadvantage to admit, it is just so unfashionable nowadays. So nothing has changed just symbols are different and to be fair more ridiculous. It can at least be rationally explained why having better car could be seen as achievement, not so much with modern equivalents.

How about finding a breaker car - quite a few GS450h/GS300 on Copart (I do believe subframe is same for them) and just swap the subframe out? Or just used subframe on it's own - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224933977499 I know not ideal, but better than scraping good car and entire car can be had for £800 and that will be cheaper than new just subframe alone. In short what I am saying - this has to be used part, repairing subframe is not an option, waste of time, new part is out of question, just not economical repair... So I would go with swapping the subframe to used one. Obviously above is assuming the place where subframe mounts is still solid, but I guess that could be repaired to some extent.

Not legal advice, but there is case law now that councils will prosecute landlords who fails to update themselves on various regulations i.e. not knowing is not an excuse. From policy perspective private landlords with single property are treated the same as professional landlords/agencies and are expected to always stay on top of the regulation. There are several examples of exactly this situation and council has not informed landlords and still penalised them later. As such I would advise to get license as soon as possible to comply, the past non-compliance may be missed by council and all turns out good, or if it is noticed then having the license now will be a mitigating circumstance i.e. "I did not know I need one and I know this is not an excuse, but as soon as I find out I have applied and got my license, so I did best I could considering I am just private individual and not professional". Does not mean he will avoid penalty, but prolonging non-compliance really does not help at all. Secondly, I don't believe having tenant since 2017 matters here, it is the landlord that is licensed, not tenant-landlord relationship together (at least based on my understanding). So I don't believe he needs to even mention since when the property was rented, just that he is renting it right now and wants to get a license for that to be compliant. Again - not doing it now and delaying it just makes situation worse.

I guess if there is no cheaper way then £118 isn't end of the world, just little bit surprising. At first I thought maybe it is discontinued part, but actually it is shared with GS350/RC350/IS250/IS200t, so there are plenty of relatively modern cars that still uses it. Luckily mine are just cosmetic problem, the lip all around can be crumbled with fingers and turns into dust, but the holes for pins and areas pressed for pads where grease goes are still solid. If they were £40 or let's say £60 each because of slightly more complicated pressing then I would definitely replace them. Now I probably leave them alone until I start working tidying-up surface rust on rear subframe.

If my math is right, then it would make it 30... I found this satire quite funny and truthful... things that everyone thinks about once in a while, but never tells them out loud. But worry not - nowadays people don't get company cars at all, so enjoy your bicycles and annual train ticket loan! Remember trying get MB E350e back in 2018 when I was told the company car scheme was "discontinued".

Happy to report that car has now passed MOT without advisories. In the end it did require new brake shoes for £18 and mounting kit for £12, as well few welds on exhaust for £40. The brakes realistically would have been fine with simple adjustment, but I didn't want to risk it so replaced them with new parts. The exhaust will probably require full middle section replacement eventually, patching it worked this time, but it will become harder and harder to weld on it as the rust slowly consumes it from inside. Those who have done brake shoes on their cars hopefully will agree that the design of the parts is probably the worst design of any serviceable car part ever, particularly the pins with caps that hold shoes in place. No wonder Lexus charges 3 hours labour to replace them, which I was advised would be ~£700. Yep - £700 to replace brake shoes that costs £81.88 for Lexus genuine part (https://lexuspartsdirect.co.uk/product/lexus-gs-phase-3-hand-brake-shoe)! Math works out £180x3h for labour +£82 and I assume £30-70 for various miscellaneous things like grease, brake cleaner, old parts disposal. So despite wanting to punch the Lexus rep in the face when he told me the price... I can see where he is coming from. And obviously I am joking, but I was like "what £700 and 3 hours labour, I reckon I can do it in 1 hour and I am not even qualified technician with the lift and specialised tools". And that is true - I completed the work in 2 hours, but lost my knuckles, finger tips (still hurts after a week) and decent amount of my hand skin in the process... despite wearing gloves and amount of swearing involved was certainly very high! Quick question - does anyone know where to get rear brake dust shields for reasonable price? Mine are literally crumbling away as I drive, but replacement are £400 each (https://lexuspartsdirect.co.uk/product/lexus-gs-phase-3-o-s-parking-brake-backing-plate/), I have found them for slightly more reasonable ~£118 each directly from Japan + risk of import duties (https://www.amayama.com/en/part/toyota/4650330230), but it still seems to be unreasonably pricey considering identical plate for front only costs £40 in UK (https://lexuspartsdirect.co.uk/product/lexus-gs-phase-3-n-s-front-brake-heat-shield/). What is so special about rear plates that they are 10 times the price?

But that is pretty much the argument we having here. Cars are mere 2.4% of pollution, replacing them all with electric will potentially save 0.8% from total pollution (importantly - potentially! because there are many things that should happen for this to actually work out at the larger scale). And this is why I said that despite arguing that climate change isn't big issue I actually take a lot of steps to meaningfully reduce my own footprint. Like for example I don't buy fast fashion or any cheap clothing or footwear. This has double effect - first of all more premium clothing are more likely to be made more locally, secondly materials used are likely be more sustainable, tertiary they last longer and finally I am willing to wear them longer. I just generally have less clothing and I only replace clothing/shoes when they are fully worn down... including taking some for repairs in the past which were not economically viable, but ecologically viable. Same applies to electronics - I only ever buy premium brands and high-end electronics, not only they are more sustainably made, but they last longer, so I have to replace them less often. Same goes for food - I buy less, but better quality food, I rarely throw any food away. Same goes with the cars - only ever buy used more premium cars, this has much lower climate impact than constantly buying cheap brand new trash cars. Same goes for the tools, same goes for the furniture, same goes for many things. And this is just few examples, but in principle I actually do a lot to minimise my personal waste... not really because I care about climate change or temperature rising, but because I find it morally important for myself to minimise my personal waste. I would do it with or without government forcing me to do it. So yes - I am driving older petrol vehicle and I am missing on the opportunity to save maybe 0.8% of pollution, but I am cutting my use in case of other 90% of pollution by 60%, maybe more. Yet some idiot virtuous just stop oil ecomentalists will be holding me stuck in traffic for hours because of this 0.8%, despite doing nothing to address the remaining 99%+ of the pollution. Hence I am arguing this topic and saying the police if flawed because we focusing our efforts in wrong place.

@Bluemarlin First of all, I wanted to clarify that we have 5000 years until the "doom" scenario happens and we enter interglacial period, not that cycle repeats every 5000 years. I have already provided date to support such argument. Last interglacial period happened 120,000 years ago. Current one is actually late, so we should already be in the interglacial period for some time, but something happened this time around and it is delayed. Human activity in this case is kind of "helping along" for climate to catch-up. I am not saying that human activity does not make a difference. I quite like your analogy with tobacco and cancer. Except more correct analogy here would be being alarmed by body temperature reaching 36.9C when somebody has just run the marathon. Yes normal temperature may be 36.6C, but after heavy exercise temperatures up-to 38C are acceptable. I remember being like 8 years old and being alarmed by when I checked my temperature for some reason in summer after paying basketball on sunny day for several hours and telling my parents that I am dying and need to be taken to hospital, because in school I was told normal temperature is 36.6C. Just to be told that is normal. And that was the problem of context - I have learned as a child that normal body temp is 36.6C and that is correct, but I was not told that there are exceptions and lacking this context I was scared. This is true in our current climate debate, we are told temperature is raising, and we are told it will eventually melt the ice, but lacking proper context we wrongly consider that to be negative. As I have said - I have already provided this context, it is not even-up for debate. Normal temps could rise as much as 6C more and we shouldn't be alarmed about it, and that is true just for 3 million years. It could be way way higher if we look in even longer time perspective, but then we may end-up with climate that is not acceptable for our own survival (despite being normal). As for people understanding this - "just stop oil" retards clearly do not understand anything... It would be hard to find any climate related topic that they do understand... they are just headless chicken basically pushed to run into certain direction. As for scientists, I am not sure, there could be many different reasons, they may be dishonest or have certain agenda, they may be misunderstood and misquoted, taken out of context etc. First of all - I do not agree that scientists agree that climate change is ONLY human made and that consequences of it are all negative. I think this is narrative which is being forcefully pushed to us by various organisations that are not scientific themselves. That is why I am quoting science in this topic, not pre-digested conclusions. The glacial and interglacial periods are not even controversial in any way and I assume any self-respecting climate scientist knows about them. So I would suggest going to the sources and checking that the information you getting is scientific and not already manipulated to drive particular agenda. And this manipulation is very easy, half-truth works well here, good example of that is looking at climate for limited period e.g. 150 years, or 2000 years, instead of relevant periods like 300,000-3,000,000 years. So yes - it is true that temperature has increased compared to 2000 years ago, but at the same time it would be dishonest to say that it is "record high" or that it was caused by human activity. The tax argument. I would say that our politicians are like stray dogs, they often bark-up wrong policy, because they don't understand anything and they will bark-up anything that seems beneficial for them in short term. So yes - you as a person who is open minded can argue that this would be madness... we have already highly taxed the oil related industries and activities, so driving them and their users further to the level of complete elimination makes no sense. But that is because you are assuming that politician either cares or even understands what they are doing. So first of all I want to be clear that I never said "it has just started". No the excessive taxation with excuse of being climate related has been going on for good 30 years, probably longer and that is why I am arguing my quality of life has been diminished. Not going to get diminished in the future if that continues... no it has already been diminished, it is continue to be diminished and it will be further diminished as long as this policy continues. Excessive taxation has caused inflation, inflation has caused all sorts of other issues and if I now have to spend double for most activity than generation before me, then my quality of life is naturally half as good as if it would be otherwise. Secondly, this is quite common for politicians to do, example I just used in another topic are speed limits. As well I have used brexshaite in this topic. These are just example of politicians lying about something, which informs wrong policy, then instead of educating the public and reversing that wrong policy they double down on it to the point where it not only hurts public interests, but their own interests as well. So climate is just one of those policies - they wrongly blamed burning of fossil fuel every time when something like flooding happened, then public demanded action, their action was to increase taxes on fossil fuel, then they realised this was convenient argument just to raise taxes in perpetuity and now we arriving to the point where it is basically eradicating whole successful industry and all it's users (as result making us all poorer) rather than admitting past policy mistakes. Politicians will never admit making mistakes. Just look at what happened with diesel - has any politician stood-up and said "we were wrong in 80s and 90s to push it for personal use"... no it was all drivers fault for buying diesels. So yes indeed - they will push taxation past the point where it hurts us all and even their own interests and destroy whole beneficial industry, unless public stops them. But make no mistake - tax will have to be paid, we will pay it one way or another, except in future we won't be able to have personal transportation, yet still we going to fund the government somehow from other areas. I don't have fears, I have concrete, current quality of life damage. I don't understand why can't you see it, perhaps you value different things and what is valuable for me are simply not valuable for your. I mean we already been trough this topic so I am not going to repeat it, but I am being punished right now for basically being alive, this is not some "fear about the future". As well I don't understand how can you say that we are "not being forced to get EVs", I am not sure if this could even be honest assertion or play on words? It is like saying "nobody is planning to execute you" to the inmate with pending death penalty in 10 years... "cheer-up you still alive today". Everything is pointing to forced EV introduction, ULEZ, LEZ, Congestion charge, Parking Charges, excessive taxation, to have any more reasonable car will cost you £600+ on road tax a year and alternative is very clear - get electric. They are exempt from most of these taxes. As well even the choice of the cars I have is very limited. You may not want RC350, but you cannot deny that reason why we don't have it in UK is the stupid climate action. Lexus knew that if they were to introduce IS350, GS350 and RC350 in UK then these cars would attract maximum road tax. As result they would not sell many of them, as result they simply decided not to sell them at all. I understand that you do not care about it and for you this is "making mountain out of molehill", but that is huge problem for me. Like literally this is the difference between me having the car I like and being literally frustrated sine ~2018, because I just can't find the car which I would like to own. Again you may say -"this is just a car, find something else, who cars, that is not big problem"... NO it is a big problem for me, because that is specific, particular car I want and I cannot have... and even past RC350 example... the whole segment of the market was destroyed, so it is not like I am missing on one particular model, I am missing out on whole segment of cars that I want to drive. For example what if climate action would result in SUVs being banned i.e. you cannot have an RX? This by the way isn't even a joke, some activists were advocating for that. Would you be happy? And again you may say - who cares, I don't really care what car I am forced to drive, cars and driving are simply not really that important to me... well okey - they are not important for you, but they are important to me. So to say that you cannot see any diminishing quality of life requires closing your eyes and covering your faces with your hands in this context. Finally, it is just ridiculous to suggest that people will be inconvenienced because coast line will shift in 5000 years, this is such a ridiculously long period of time that nobody gives a damn. What is this? Like 150 generations of people, could you tell me what house your family owned even 10 generations ago? I doubt it... so this is 15 times more. It will have literally not perceivable impact on anyone and it is so slow that from human existence perspective this will be seamless transition.

It is not too bad, I agree that above 150MPH it really becomes unreasonable, where even on Autobahn I would not go over 150MPH in any car, past 150MPH regardless what you driving it becomes just diminishing returns. For example set at 120MPH my old IS250 would do 32-36MPG and that is on E85. On proper petrol even 40MPG would be within reach. BMW 530D is absolutelly happy at 120MPH, in car fully loaded and with 4 people we were getting good 45-50MPG. Sure at 90MPH, you can probably get 55MPG, but the difference was not huge... note as well that 5MPG difference when you already getting 50MPG is tiny. Generally speaking the smaller is the engine, the more punishing the high speed cruising will be to the car. I am kind of generalising here, but cars with 3L+ engines, especially diesels don't mind 120MPH, the cars with 2L or less, hybrids or SUVs are really sensitive past ~60MPH. And by the time you get to 90MPH it really starts to hurt. So I guess it depends what you driving. You are spot on. I have rented a car severe times where it had tracker in it and I am not going to bore you with the detail, but the rental agreement stipulated that 50 Euro fine will be automatically applied if I go over 25km/h over the limit. It is so UNSAFE that it is literally ridiculous. Instead of driving with the flow and instead of making sure you are overtaking safely, you just end-up watching the speedometer all the time. So some level of discipline and keeping to the speed limits makes it safer, but if country gets very strict with speed limits I would argue it makes roads less safe. The driver who is looking at the road ahead and concentrating on driving will always be safer than driver who cannot see what is happening around them and just watches the speedometer. There is balance to be had here... I do agree that going at 50MPH in the school area when the kids are out is outright criminal and should result in driving ban (despite it being only 20MPH over), but I absolutelly cannot see any issue travelling at 90MPH or more on empty motorway at night. And that is why having a human police officer is so much better than having speed camera, the human can apply leniency when that is fair to do, or be harsh when requires... sadly we moving away from that and now everything is monitored by increasing number of money grab cameras. Camera does not care where you gone 20-over, it does not care if it was safe or not safe... it just goes *flash* - fine will be sent within 14 days.

I agree with most of what you said and I said myself that driving in UK, in western Europe in general is becoming less enjoyable and more and more hostile towards the drivers. Although I wanted to add one more point - I actually don't mind speed limits being enforced, BUT only if they set reasonably high in the first place. For example I honestly do not see the reason and don't have have desire to drive faster than 90MPH on British motorways. In Germany sure, it is completely different, lane discipline and driver training is far better and when I go on Autobahn I just set cruise control at 120MPH and leave it there, but on British motorways 90MPH would be sufficient and they can even enforce it strictly if they want. Incidentally most of Europe adopted 130-140KPH speed limits so 80-90MPH would not be anything crazy, just in line with the rest of the continent. So that is the main problem in UK - speed limits are already set too low to be efficient and comfortable to travel at, and now we have pressure to lower them even further. If speed limits were reasonable then they can be enforced, but sadly it seems we will be getting double whammy, not only the limits which are way unreasonable and too low, but as well maniacs enforcing it to the single MPH. Again I would add - this is mostly to do with dishonest politicians, for very long time they blamed all accidents on speed, because that is convenient excuse - "nothing wrong with the road, just people using it wrong, driving too fast etc". So overtime the sentiment was created that speed = danger and therefore to avoid injuries the speed has to be reduced, despite accidents being caused by all sorts of things, not only speed. And we see this happening over and over again in different context - politicians creates the false narrative to shift the blame somewhere else, then people demand the issue to be death with and then politicians deals with wrong issue in wrong way. Basically, because they never want to admit lying, they just throw new lies after the old ones and leads us all into wrong direction. This is particularly convenient when that wrong direction as well means raising money for government.

The argument isn't complicated here. I have no motivation to convince anyone of anything here, but I am just pointing out "missing" perspectives. It is not different from BEVs being called "zero emission vehicles", which is very obviously false. It is right to call them lower emission. Same as 1.6 Ecoboost Fiesta is lower emissions than 5.0L Ford Mustang, but they are not "zero". It is undeniably large amount of emissions generated by making these vehicles and electricity that they use is as well not "zero" emissions. If you want the panel to tell you that then it is fair enough, but what I usually use to answer this question is large study that European Union Commission did, tens of thousands of cars, millions miles and 8 years. And they concluded that "average" BEV is about 30% cleaner than "average" ICEV over their "lifetime". Now I put many things in "quotes" because there is issue with the language used - what is average BEV, what is average ICEV and what is their lifetime? So the conclusion changes depending on those variables, BUT the most comprehensive study to the date concluded that with EU energy mix (which is by the way most important thing for conclusion) the BEVs are 30% cleaner. Meaning over their lifetime they still emit 70% of pollution compared to ICEV. So they are NOT zero emissions. And that is before we even start arguing about the charging, infrastructure etc. Note - the electric motor of electric car is not an issue, the battery and charging it is an issue. Same argument is about Hydrogen. It is actually very simple - Hydrogen is colour coded depending on how it was produced https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrogen-colour-spectrum#:~:text=Green hydrogen%2C blue hydrogen%2C brown,between the types of hydrogen. this is simplified so everyone understand. Ideally what we want is "White" hydrogen, that is naturally occurring and there are no emissions burning it, but despite hydrogen being most abundant element in universe on Earth this pretty much does not exist and there are no plans of extracting it at the moment. Then we are left with "Pink" (nuclear), "Green" (renewables) or "Yellow" (solar) hydrogen, in principle these all could be just called "Green". Problem is - 70% of electricity generated is then wasted in the process to make this hydrogen. It is in principle lower emissions, but we may as well use low emissions electricity itself, why use it in wasteful way to convert it to hydrogen to then inefficiently burn it? In my opinion "Pink" hydrogen is most promising as nuclear reactors have to run at consistent rate, therefore we have huge waste at night (hence the cheaper tariff in the past), in fact up-to 40% of electricity ever produced by nuclear plats is wasted this way as it just never get used at night and it would make sense to at least use this wasted electricity to generate hydrogen, but realistically we talking about niche product, small amounts... it may be capable of running fleet of 10,000 cars in UK... what about remaining 30+ millions? As well if we happened to have BEV charging infrastructure and if we would force owners to charge them exactly at the time when there is surplus electricity, then technically speaking it would be "cleaner" to just charge those existing BEVs anyway (this is Elun Mushks argument, he is liar, but on this one he is right). We are left with then - Blue and Grey are by-products of oil production, approximately 1% by volume. So from 100 barrels of oil extracted we can get 1 barrel of hydrogen (currently it is burned, those are the fires above the oil rigs + other gasses like methane). As such if we talking about the future without hydrocarbon fuels we automatically lose these hydrogen sources. Black and Brown are respectively made from burning natural gas, coal, or oil to produce electricity and then turn it into hydrogen - self-explanatory really. Turquoise and Blue relies on yet unproven carbon storage technologies... I am not going to waste time discussing them, basically the whole process doesn't make sense as if we could capture the carbon, then we can simply capture the carbon and continue burning normal fuels, why bother making hydrogen. What sort of hydrogen - we have? What are they using in their hot rod project? Most likely Grey hydrogen which is by-product of oil production and therefore is not scalable and not very clean, or largest by quantity available, but very very dirty Black or Brown. Finally, very low scale and not very useful Green. So as amazing as they car is, it is actually polluting more than equivalent petrol car. One day we may have nuclear fusion, not sure what colour they going to use, but at that point we will have such abundance of electricity that it will make sense to convert it into hydrogen, that day is not even close thought. As above - because fuel coming into it IS NOT CLEAN. What you focusing on here is "tailpipe emissions". Yes it emits water, amazing... but to get the hydrogen it is filled with somebody somewhere had to emit more pollution than equivalent petrol car would make. If you just looking from perspective of city air quality, then fine - this has no tailpipe emissions. If you looking from perspective of climate change, then this is actually even worse than petrol or diesel equivalent.

Well it makes sense - because your new/used car warranty is more comprehensive, so there is no point of using Relax. But let's say you have 6 month left on your used car warranty and you just had service done. From this point on you will be covered by Relax warranty for up-to 12 months or 10,000 miles (with other T&C applying obviously), so once your new/used car warranty expires you can fall back on Relax. So it is not like it is "not given", it is just irrelevant until other warranty runs out, because it's coverage is inferior. I guess I get what you are saying and we are kind of splitting hairs here.

Yes, but that is all irrelevant if hydrogen itself has double the Co2 content than even the petrol. I am all for keeping the ICE and I love the thermo-mechanical nature of it, but why get rid of one perfectly fine engine running on petrol an replace it with more polluting engine running on hydrogen. Sure it has no tailpipe emissions, but that is just flawed way looking at it. As I said - the engine, both for hydrogen combustion and for hydrogen cell are fine. They were fine for a while now. BMW has done, Toyota has done, I believe few more companies have done it. CAT excavators have done it. It works, worked for long time. The hydrogen as a fuel is a problem. No less the problem as electricity generated by coal fired power plants. So let's not get distracted here - we have ICE engines which works completely fine, cars are minor contributor to climate change anyway. This hotrod is cool and all, basically it is science hobby project, but it isn't "green", nor is it "clean" and even if it would be it addresses the issue that doesn't exist. Cars are not an issue, IC engines are not an issue - they are looking at the wrong place. I am against stupid mandates and making issue of the climate despite it not being an issue, but likewise I am against the solutions that doesn't solve anything - why transition to hydrogen if the result of that is just more pollution? So not only we are inconvenienced by the pollution itself and never ending nonsense from ecomentalists, but we as well are actually polluting more - how does that make sense?

The hydrogen is long solved as far as powering the car with it, to be fair the same applies to electric engines - they are all solved efficient and simple at the point where electricity is turned into rotational force. For hydrogen the fuel itself is problem, truth is - there is no clean hydrogen nor there is technology to make green hydrogen. Yes sure - it could be made from solar or wind, but same electricity then is better used otherwise. Why wasted 70%+ electricity in making the hydrogen. For electric the problem is battery and charging, the electric motors are fine and great, but they need large batteries and large batteries require long time to charge. So sad to say but above solves nothing... P.S. just to correct some incorrect statements in the video - hydrogen is not "less efficient to burn", the problem here is the volume. So liquid hydrogen indeed has more power, the problem is that in practice it is never liquid, because it requires immense pressure or well past -200C to liquify. So what happens is that 1L of hydrogen gas has significantly less power than 1L of petrol, if somehow theoretically on could have 1L of liquid hydrogen then it would have more power. And hydrogen burns completely efficiently, actually more efficiently than petrol because it 100% pure H2 gas, further it has cooling effect, but the problem again is that when it is in gas form one requires loads of volume to make it turn the engine at all. That is why he is saying "we are injection limited" despite 16 injectors.

Not sure what you mean "cannot have two at the same time"? User approved sales warranty is same as the warranty for new car and therefore more comprehensive than Relax. So basically it supersedes Relax until it ends. If there would be a fault that is not covered by Relax, then it could be claimed under Sales warranty. If the fault is covered by both then it does not matter which one you use. It is not like getting Relax warranty as part of service cancels the Sales warranty, or buying car which was recently serviced and still has Relax cancels it.

Relax warranty is transferable, not sure if "used approved" warranty is transferable, perhaps best to ask Lexus. It is more like promised Lexus made to you as part of sale, the next owner is not buying from them, so there is nothing to transfer, but I may be wrong.

5000 years is the timeline for all permanent ice to melt on Earth currently agreed by scientist i.e. official end of glacial period and entry into interglacial period. Both are cyclical and normal. The storms, landslides, droughts all do happen, but there is no evidence that they are more frequent than they were in the past. I put this down to 1. instant information space 2. politicians just blaming something else i.e. climate change is convenient excuse for collecting more taxes and example give "extreme weather events are more frequent, wouldn't you want to pay more tax, because you are the cause". Flooding I have already addressed, this is 100% absolutelly fake... it is excuse for lacking infrastructure. Simple answer to that - urbanisation coverts the ground with impenetrable roads and pavements, water can't be absorbed, so it pools up and floods place. The answer to that is larger, more complicated and more sophisticated drainage systems, using permeable materials for roads and pavements and in the end of the day simply maintaining existing drainage systems. So more frequent flooding is just "fake news", what is actually happening is poor maintenance and poor drainage planning an implementation, it is not related with climate. Altogether, this could be explained by humans settling in areas which were in the past not suitable for permanent settlement, like floodplains... now we can control flooding, but not sufficiently enough to reliably prevent it all the time. Why then we mandating batteries with lithium batteries which are fundamentally flawed? Why are we mandating them in 6 years (moving to 11 now). Why don't we first get those technologies (batteries with different and better chemistry) available first and then making decision on mandating them. Why are we mandating highly toxic, damaging, polluting technology of car propulsion now, just to replace it in 10-20 years? Seems very wasteful to me... As well note - just stop oil ecomaniacs quite specifically exists with sole goal to stop oil extraction in UK. Just think about it for a second - UK has limited oil resources, but talking about "energy independence" that is good thing to have our own oil and secondly exploration in UK is proven to be cheaper and cleaner than importing. So talking about energy independence - wouldn't it be right to try to exhaust as much resources as we have logically before importing? "No-one is being forced to buy EVs" - that is just 100% false, alternative modes of propulsion will be literally BANNED by 2035 (at least it seems like now, as of last week it was 2030). So yes indeed - people are being FORCED to buy flawed BEVs. if we want to compare this to mobile phones, that is equivalent of banning landlines in 1980s and mandating that every household have to have a very flawed and expensive mobile phone OR NOTHING, despite it still being in it's infancy with NiCd batteries. I would repeat - I am not against BEVs or any other type of EVs. I am against mandating the flawed and largely unproven technology now, whilst it is still unproven and flawed. Instead I am saying we should invest in that technology make it viable and then people will buy it voluntarily in 2045. I may still keep classic RC-F or LC500 in 2045 as a weekend car to enjoy on some synthetic fuel, but I have no issue having daily hydrogen/aluminium oxide battery hybrid, which will have 120 miles range chargeable in 1 minute and extra hydrogen on board to go 1000 miles, when this technology will be cheap enough that I can buys such car for 50% less than equivalent ICEV. So my argument should not be confused with anti-change and anti-technology argument. My argument is instead - uneducated people who don't understand climate processes have jumped to conclusion that we are living in some sort of "climate catastrophe", despite there being no evidence for that, likewise they don't understand and don't have perspective of boundaries of naturally occurring climate change. As such they wrongly concluded that climate change is both human made and bad, and furthermore that it is imminent and imminent tragic outcomes are about to materialise, both of which is false. And therefore based on their wrong perspective and wrong conclusions they are advocating for strict, immediate and illogical restrictions which will significantly diminish our quality of life. So this is one group. Second group is politicians and government who were looking for excuse to extract more tax, they are always looking for one, because their inefficiency and corruption wastes large amount of tax collected, therefore it seems like there is never enough money ion the budget to keep even basic services going. Now this second group found argument of first group as convenient excuse to raise the taxes. I want to be very clear here - second group DOES NOT CARE about environment, they just using ecomentalists argument as an excuse to raise taxes and raise more money, that is all. What I am saying is that technological advances are good and it is undeniable that there must be more efficient way to propel us than controlled explosions of flammable liquid, however we have not yet mastered those other technologies and anything that is mandated is always bad. It basically does exactly opposite from what you advocating. If mobile phones would have been mandated over landlines in 1980s, then they would have never improved to the level we have today. WHY? because once you mandate flawed technology you remove any incentive to improve it, if manufacturers would have had captive market for NaCd batteries phones, then they would have never even tried to improve them. Why fix something that "works"?! So same with lithium powered electric cars - they are scam, they are trash, they do not work, they are shaite technology demonstrators, sure that technology has huge potential, but it is not there yet. So the answer here is - "go back to your dungeon and comeback when you figured it out". If we now mandate adoption of flawed technology, then we just removing the incentive to improve it!

I don't think it is age thing i.e. younger people appreciating old technology less (or something along the lines). This is more of quartz vs. automatic thing. Quartz watches are factually superior to any mechanical watches, yet would you rather have £20 Casio or £6000 Omega as present? Similar reason as well why there is so much debate about manual vs. automatic gearbox. As well different people appreciate different things and I don't think it is age thing either. I just appreciate nice, naturally aspirated, high revving engine - electric may be faster, but I don't care, I just don't enjoy driving them. And trust me I tried... not l ludicrous mode, but Model S and Model 3 are plenty fast enough of the line even without it. If anything in todays traffic I started appreciating opposite of "efficient" - that are cars that create a lot of drama at low speeds, hence I am looking for classic car, like your Rover P8 example, not fast but creates noises at low speed. Because Tesla is just no good - in most places you can't even do 60MPH, so what is the point of 3s to 60MPH? 1.5s enjoyment at the time getting to 30MPH? we getting to the point of 20MPH... I do appreciate safety aspect of acceleration, but car that can do 6s to 60MPH is plenty fast enough in my experience. 5s or 4s perhaps is nice to have, anything below 4s are diminishing returns and I can't see any use for that. So when it comes to electric cars - their acceleration advantage is useless, ICEVs can easily reach the point of 4-6s acceleration and ICEVs can give sense of speed and drama at lower speeds. I guess EVs are theoretically good in terms of comfort when cruising, in theory they are quieter and that perhaps is appreciated by some. However, in practice that is an issue - ICE engine humming is rather relaxing for most and it masks annoying wind and road noises (turns out to be something with frequencies that human body enjoys), so in practice EVs have to be way more insulated for noise otherwise they just annoying at cruising speeds. As well I would not be worried about dashcams as much, I have one as well, but in practice unless you admit to offence when asked the chances of prosecution are very low. Not to mention - police literally does not care. I even had hit and run case on dashcam and they told me "not in public interest to investigate". So the chances for them investigating you harmlessly accelerating from the lights is beyond impossible.

It is reported that we are now at the risk of becoming dependant on Chinese Communist regime for our battery supply. So whereas I agree that energy independence would be good thing, the conversion from fossil fuel into battery technology simply does not achieve that. On second point - climate change is very slow process, so even us accelerating it still means at very least 5000 years before noticeable change happens... kind of circles back to the video which started this thread - we de facto have huge methane emissions right now, it is debatable why, but the fact is we have those emissions and it may temporarily heat the climate until methane degrades in atmosphere (which takes 15-20 years). So it is entirely possible that once methane emissions ends and methane degrades we can see sudden drop in temperatures by 2C. Basically, what I am saying is that argument of "human cause acceleration" is incomplete, secondly even if it is human caused it would still take thousands of years and therefore argument of "what is more economically viable" becomes irrelevant. The change that takes 500 years to propagate is way too slow to make policy decisions now, and the one which takes 5000 years is totally irrelevant from current economy perspective. I agree with you that variety of technologies will be beneficial for us if we decided to colonise other planets. So I have no issue with their development happening, what I disagree instead is that we should be making sacrifices today to prematurely use flawed technologies which present degradation of quality/performance/value right now. I have no doubt that when BEV or HCEV technologies develops to the point where they in all possible ways are better than ICEV people will voluntarily buy them without being forced, same applies to heat pumps etc. Just look at mobile phones - nobody forced people to have them, yet more or less every person on earth has mobile phone. Why? Because that is genuinely good technology where people can see clear utility and benefit of using it. The so called low carbon and green tech is basically synonymous of overprice expensive shaite now, they are not viable as truly competitive options. Again - this is not me speaking against "green tech", I am just saying it has to be actually good and then people will adopt it voluntarily and even stand in the lines to get it, but it is not good as it is today. Today it is basically scam where you have to overpay to get something inferior, or there is some catch in some way, or it is simply subsidised by other people... so it still does not make economic sense, the only difference is that others are wasting money on your purchase (like BEV or heat pump).