Linas.P

Seen that one today... cracked me up in the train... what is socially acceptable term now "eggs producing individual"?! 😄 I have no issue listening to the actual experts, the problem is that so called "experts" nowadays more often are the same vegetables who are just pretending to be smart and maybe have degree in gender studies or something laughable like that... but importantly on shows like GMB, they put panel with one actual expert and 3 others who have no qualification at all, but the thing is - they ask and respond to questions in equal way, hosts giving everyone equal time to express themselves and making it look like there is debate between 4 equally qualified people... despite one being actual doctor, other one actual professor in some scientific subject, the third one barista and the last one pink hair lady who hasn't had a job in her life... and she is 37! And we looking at them and expecting a balanced debate where everyone have equal rights to express their "opinion". I am sorry to say, but some people opinion just doesn't matter, because they are not qualified to have an actual opinion...

Global warming is GLOBAL issue, so it does not matter what EPA says, because EPA is JUST US. This is exactly how vegetables contrive and conflate unrelated issues. There is huge problem with figures from EU and US... why? Because we don't have have industry, we outsourced that to China, India, Mexico etc. etc... and that is why in US and EU transport always has disproportionate % compared to global average. We import the CO2 and don't account it, all out crap is made in China, but we consider that to be China's CO2, but they are not making that crap for themselves, they are making it for us... so if we start correctly attributing the CO2 emitted by the crap we import, suddenly picture changes and transport becomes much smaller part of the issue. The global - that is what matters - global emissions from transportation is fluctuating between years and it is about 10-16%. Passenger cars are 41% of that 10%... but taxis would be passenger cars, police cars will be passenger cars and cars that are not buses and vans are passenger cars, and personal vehicles are subsection of that. What you, me and everyone on this forum are driving are personal vehicles. That is about 24% as far as transportation is concerned. How about not walking next to the road? Do you go to major harbour and complain about ships sailing there? Do you go behind the engine of the plane before boarding and complaining that it blows emissions into your face? Same here - just don't walk next to the busy road, take a walk on the side street (I always do), cycle on the side street or the path further away from the road. Granted it is partially and issue with city planners that they put walks next to the major roads (or none at all)... move them further away from the road and it will be fine. Roads is public infrastructure which helps to move goods and people around, they not meant to be pretty, they don't meant to be nice to walk on the side of... they are meant to bring the chinese crap you ordered on amazon, they meant to be there when you call ambulance or police and they meant for people with cars to get where they going FAST. Besides tailpipe emissions is just part of the pollution, there as well isparticulate matter is from tyres and brakes and road surface wearing down (which us about 25% off all pollution from the cars).. the BEVs being heavier (and all the so popular SUVs - as RX driver you surely part of the problem!) produces much more particle matter (approximately 8% more... that means minimum of 33% of pollution will stay even when tailpipe emissions is 0)... so anyway you cut it there is no avoiding the road pollution, unless you solution is to go back to stone age and just walk everywhere and live "off-grid".

I travelled across most of the world, if there is one thing I done then travel would be that... been in every single country in Europe, been on all continents and I have never seen SMOG in my life. I only know how it looks from historic footage of like 70's US and then maybe 90's China. But last time there was real smog problem in Europe I was either too young or not even born. I remember when I was a kid they used to spray roads with water in summer, but that was particulate matter issue, not smog. I guess this goes to the same visuals as "child in the pram and smoke being blown from the street in the child's face"... except "it is not smoke, just water vapour on cold foggy morning... and picture is so blurry that one can't even tell if it is coming away from the street or towards the street". Or that picture of pollution raising from the funnels... except they are not funnels, but instead nuclear power station cooling towers... Honestly, I think people nowadays don't know what the smog looks like and with our vegetable vegan pedocylists media they think every time there is fog in the air it must be smog. And by the way as I said - I don't know either as I have never seen smog in my life except of old videos, at least I know what ISN'T a smog.

I think they are just being over-sensitive... I would just package it well and simply do not declare it is ATF as long as you shipping it domestically. In the end of the day you not shipping something illegal, so I would say it is none of their business to know what is in the package, they getting their money for the weight, their job is to deliver it not to ask questions. That said if it get's damaged or lost I would not expect them to cover it. Now to be fair I have never shipped any oil/ATF, but I have received it many times and there aren't even any stickers to say "oil" inside, so I kind of surprised they mention it is not allowed.

He is full of crap, misinformed and clearly confused between the stats - 41% claimed is flawed "kerbside" emissions test. These are 2 separate measurements - one is global pollution usually converted into CO2 to simplify stats and that is what matters for global warming... and that is clearly only 10-11% for transportation as a whole (road transportation is 5%, so that is probably the measure you mentioning), and private vehicles are only 2.4%, the rest is planes, ships, trucks, public transport etc. So maybe 41% could be private cars within the rest of road transport. There is different measure which has nothing to do with global warming is local/city air quality measures... for that they use so called "kerbside" methodology, which is extremely flawed, easily manipulated. Here is how test is set-up - they put measurement device 1m away from road at 1m height. Now this is all good so far. Seems like quite reasonable set-up representing the emissions from perspective of maybe pedestrian walking on the side of the road, they often like to take example of child being pushed in the pram, because that will be exactly the air they breathing in. This is why I am always amazed that people are so stupid and they do their runs on the side of the road... and cycle on the road... and have their cars set to fresh air (instead of recirculation) when driving in the city. Where this methodology falls apart is that measurements are only correct for that spot, it is not a measurement for overall air quality in the city. Stick the probe next to the exhaust for the gas boiler and you measurement will say that 90% of pollution in the city is from private homes, heating etc. It seems what the agencies conducting these tests are doing is trying to get most flawed results possible. For example I looked at the extensive test in Germany and what they did... they put the probe 20 metres before the traffic lights in busy intersection... they even say in the video "this is pollution hotspot"... Yes absolutely it is because all the cars come to the stop and idle before the intersection, if they for example put the same probe 20 metres after intersection, then measurements would be totally different, or if they put it next to free flowing motorway it would be way lower. Or if they fitted the probe say 25 metres away from the road in somebodies garden, the results will show a lot more pollution from household itself and a lot less from the cars. Besides they don't even know how much exactly private cars are contributing compared to the busses or HGVs, what they do they simply count the number of vehicles passing and attribute it to the number, but that is clearly flawed because bus emits more than a car and loaded HGV more than a bus... and sure in some other tests they specify the weighting e.g HGV is 4x, Bus is 3x, Car is 1x... but that is still way oversimplified and easily manipulated. And this is where they get the ridiculous numbers which The Guardian likes to put on the front page "70% of emissions in London comes from road traffic and 41% of that is from private cars!!!!". So two completely separate measurements which should be used for completely different purposes. The global emissions are important for global warming and this is where BEVs are basically useless and cars are minor issue - basically 2.4% of pollution, which BEVs reduces by about 30%, net improvement of 0.8% in best of circumstances. The second one ("kerbside emissions") which is in theory tool for city planning, logic says - don't put playground next to major intersection... I could figure that out without any measurements, but there is method to madness I guess. In theory it is nothing wrong with the test. For example improved intersection layout could be tested and justified by saying that when you put roundabout or flyover the pollution dropped by 50% in local area. However, this test is susceptible to manipulation and misunderstanding and in last decade was consistently used in anti-car propaganda as the way to "scientifically" claim cars are the issue and fool people who don't know better. Obviously BEVs looks like silver bullet if we just consider this test because they have no tailpipe emissions, but that is because people don't understand the set-up of the test and what it measures. That is like that saying goes - "when the only tool you have is hammer, then all the issues looks like nails"... and that is exactly the case here - if ones is using single flawed test which only measures tailpipe emissions, then the only solution is to eliminate tailpipe emissions. Yes I have been in US, I live in London and I have been in China and I have never seen smog in my life... this thing does not exist since 80s. The dirtiest cities I have been in was Rio and Sao Paulo, Cairo is quite bad as well, and even there I have not seen any smog. Sure there are cloudy days in London, there are foggy days in London, but "smog" induced by sulphur and lead mixed-up with humidity didn't exist at least since leaded fuel was removed from sale. Sure near the major roads it stinks, but I would say major contributor are HGVs which are pumping visible smoke and which are diesel, not private cars and certainly not petrol. Likewise - please share your sources, I am interested!

Yeah... any old laptop will do. Something like that ... £93 - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275519351011 and you don't need to be careful if you have oily hands etc.

It has risen steadily since 90s, so you can count as disagreement... even if it is splitting hairs... I mean we already agree you have arbitrary time measurement for that... so not sure what else is there to discuss. That's is true... the problem is that majority of people can't charge at home and there is nothing that government does to change this situation, the 2030 dates is quickly approaching and we still have massive housing project popping-up not only without charging, but even without parking. And obviously nothing is done to retrofit the existing homes with chargers either. It is not like I disagreeing here - just pointing out the obvious. And the charging is still an issue if you ever go above the range of BEVs, which isn't really that hard to do. Again you talking theory here... "So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level" basically means charging at 7-22Kw... anything faster than that and it requires cooling and all the fancy "battery management" which was already discussed. You can repeat the same sentence another 100 times, but it won't make you more correct (or rather more wrong). I have no issue with your theories, it is just a fact that it does not happen in practice. Simply said in practice batteries can charge at much lower rate than you would like to think, yes they are managed at the cell level and that is why all the overprovisioning. Basically, no battery can fast charge at the cell level at the moment (depending where we put arbitrary "fast charging" line, according to government even 7Kw is "fast") and any charging at 100, 150, 250Kw are achieved by managing battery pack at cell level. And indeed all advertised charge levels are just up-to (you said that as well basically) and they do hurt batteries. Yes they are designed in such way that even if you always charge them at fast charger, they most likely going to meet or exceed their warranted capacity. But that is not because they don't degrade, but because there is built in spare cells to manage this and still have enough warranted capacity. I don't know if you don't understand it, don't want to understand it or don't want to admit it... The reason there is no perceptible degradation at first is because 75Kwh battery isn't 75Kwh battery, it is most likely starting as 90Kwh or 100Kwh battery and all degradation is absorbed/hidden. You kind of said that in your last sentence, but you still maintain that you right... point is - when computer limits the charging speed is because charging at any faster rate would cause damage beyond the the level of degradation allowed. I think it is you who splitting hair now. Dendrites are what and where they attach to? Still lithium structure, still material transfer between anode and cathode. I am sure you can explain chemistry of all this in more complex way, but that just doesn't matter. End result is same... overtime battery loses capacity and degrades. You calling me out where you disagree with me, whenever I am wrong it remains to be seen.

I generally with you on this... I am not against BEVs... I am just against the current "type" of BEVs . And I think the "range-anxiety" is misplaced... really it isn't the problem with range, it is problem with charging. Imagine if you would have to pay £500 to refill at petrol station and had to wait 3 hours vs. £5 to do it at home overnight... you would look at the range of your petrol car as well and would always try to have as much range as possible when leaving your home! So it isn't range, it is the cost and the time it takes to charge that is a problem! And sure... Elun the liar Mushk and all the EVangelists keeps saying how it is not an issue - "yeah sure maaaan... but how often you stop at services and you sit down for 40 minutes to have coffee there... and then on occasion as well decide to watch the movie as well... and then as well have massive sticky dump as well which takes you 40 minutes to clean-up after... and then how often you as well just say ffff-it I am just going to stay at stinky Holiday-In for the night... so yeah maaaaan that isn't an issue if it takes 2 hours to charge, because you staying overnight in the motorway services anyway...". NOPE - sorry not for me! Sure on occasion I have to spend 10 minutes looking at some idiot at the till who can't decide what sauce he wants on his hot-dog and maybe overall stop takes much longer than I expected... so instead of taking 2 minutes it takes maybe 15. But I am not waiting more than 15 minutes to refuel... I am not into this "new way of thinking" where I have to alter my perception to convince myself it is ok to spend 2 hours every 200 miles in the motorway services. This "new way of thinking" is basically a brain-rot... it is not just changing "perspective", it is literally dumb and retarded. And ok... I am driving more than 30 miles only once a week, and more than 200 miles only once a month... but when I am driving I want every thing to be ON... and I am not sticking to 60... 70... 80... If I am in Europe I go as fast as it actually goes, because I generally want to get where I am going as fast as possible. Because on 1500 miles trip the last thing I am interested in is my range! (small side note - BEVs not only **** at charging, they as well crap at any speed above 60MPH). So in the end of the day the biggest problem in my mind is charging and that is literally endless pit of problems... capacity, generation, transmission, how long it takes, battery degradation etc. Like there is a lot of problems with that... and until they are resolved I can't see myself in BEV. The global emissions from private vehicles are 2.4% - 2.1 diesel and 0.3% petrol and hybrid combined. So not quite "less than 1%", but the point remains the same - how comes 2.4% are such a big focus, when remaining 97.6% requires no attention. Just doesn't make sense... unless like you say this is a trick to make us all into slaves, who have no freedom and no control... and who can only go where public transport takes them, when it works and only on routes where it goes.

This was the statement you made... So is it arbitrary or is it not?! I have picked-up two random buzzwords from last few years where it was on every EVangelist dream-list as the tech "which will change the world as we know it tomorrow". Yet nothing come out of it and I have no reason to believe anything going to change that soon. As I said - the discussion is about what exists now and when we have something else tomorrow, then we can make different concussions. For example if there is electric car tomorrow which can do 200miles per charge in most adverse conditions (meaning high altitude, winter, -20C, heating on full blast, everything that could be ON is ON) and most importantly can charge within 5 minutes without degradation of the battery, then I am sold - count me in, I can get rid of my petrol car tomorrow. I don't even need long range, even 150miles will do as long as I can stop and refuel it within the time it takes to ***** and go another 150 miles, because I always said it is not the range that is an issue, most off current BEVs have plenty of range already. But I am not going to count something that doesn't exist yet. That the battery has Lithium in it, that does not mean it is the same battery tech, there is like dozen different types. Then there is battery architecture, other battery aspects like whenever it is passively, actively, water or air cooler. Sure - it seems for the time being water-cooled NCM are the primary type, but it is far from only type... and they all have different properties. Yes the main reason for battery degradation is crystallisation (we can call it "dendrites" if you prefer, crystals are more Lead-Acid terminology, but principal is the same - material transfer between anode and cathode), they grow with every cycle... But this is where we disagree... as you talking purely theoretically and I am talking about what is happening now in practice of BEV ownership/charging. That is where I said - depending on the technology, quality, design etc. they may degrade faster or slower and further it depends on how empty the battery is discharged, how full it is charged, how fast it is discharged and charged, the voltage and amperage of charging, the temperature and a lot more things. Generally speaking charging is what causes this and the faster is the charging the faster battery will crystallise. In theory you right, if battery is overall designed for say 1000 cycles at 100Kw charge, then it should survive 1000 cycles, regardless if it was charged at "1KW, 20KW or 100KW"... However, I simply don't agree that all current batteries are designed for say 100Kw charge, most of batteries in current BEVs are cycle-rated at 7-22Kw, meaning that they will degrade quicker when charging at 100Kw (not saying that all BEVs going to even allow 100Kw). Anyway - point is (and I agree with you here) charging slower than rating won't slowdown battery degradation, but charging faster than rating will increase degradation. Most current fast chargers are above the battery rating for common BEVs, and most current BEVs will allow charging above their rating (obviously not full 350Kw, but many for example allows 55Kw), so in practice it means that "fast charging degrades the batteries" and owner of average BEV basically have to compromise... either choose faster charger to get advertised 40% charged in 30min, but degrade battery faster, or they wait 2 hours and preserve the battery life. Basically you came-up with your strawman interpretation of what you thought I said and then proven the strawman wrong... well done! Calling others uneducated for not being hyped about tech which doesn't exist is not "slightly" optimistic... I would describe it more fanatical... maybe.

Repair manual usually has them. Some part sellers as well use them on their sites. If it has part numbers I assume it is from parts seller, I assume they have parts journals from manufacturer e.g. https://partsouq.com/en/catalog/genuine/vehicle?c=LEXUS00&ssd=%24*KwEdKThQQEUYX39fcUhFKUVRcXZoGRYbGggODUtuUgpMTQsRVlpWGxwYGh8MBQtUERANFAkKf297ajtaSA8MREsNFAkJMSshHR4EaWp6ZWNUVEQNWEoKFQ4LGERKMw0CCQpJR00JTFhVUgAAAAB-rd-6%24&vid=0&q= Yes - battery mounting is overengineered and at the same time kind of silly on IS mk2... I always thought there must be better way!

That is true - Lexus itself is an option. I remember needing headlight washer jet cover. Lexus supplies them painted in the right colour for £18+VAT, whereas breakers wanted £60 and you get the colour you get and need to find somebody would will paint it for you.

It is most likely where it is, Lexus battery clamp design in these models is really finicky and kind of requires 4 hands just to do a simple clamp. That said the old one most likely have it's bottom rotten away or mangled. That is what you need: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394119576960 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/225370515158 If you want one from UK, then ask the breakers, but be prepared to pay arm and leg, because they won't go looking for it in the yard for anything less than £50. That is sort of standard fee for any part regardless of the size or value.

Tesla, Nissan, Mitsubishi and several other manufacturers are throwing big money at it for at least 10 years (really only Toyota was out of this for most of the time) and still no breakthroughs... so what makes you believe that in next 2 years there will be breakthrough made. Unless you have some insiders information which we don't. And that is before we even consider all other tech giants like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Sanyo who were perfecting lithium batteries for use in mobile devices since 90s. I mean sure - incremental improvements were made, but nothing in the ground-breaking or making any fundamental differences. And I was following this topic for quite some time, not only from cars perspective, but technology as well... there were hundreds of "extremely promising tech" project every year. Anyone remembers solid state batteries, graphene - that was big buzz few years ago... one is yet to be put in production. So - a lot of tech is very promising in limited lab testing, there is company in Australia making aliminium-suphur battery which has ~60% capacity of lithium battery, but it is ~20% more compact per pack as it does not require cooling... meaning the equivalent size/weight battery pack would have 80% of lithium capacity per size/weight... and most importantly it could charge at 600Kw in 5-10 minutes. That is before we even consider benefits like not using rare and expensive lithium, or dirty and slave mined cobalt! Great I guess... but somehow that hasn't made it into mass production, despite prototype pack being completed in 2019 and I have not heard any plans of it becoming mass produced. There are reasons for that... and those reasons are that mass producing something at scale and at cost is more complicated then you think. Then it comes to fast charging and charging cycles. Where did I say we talking about Lithium here... it is you who made this assumption. Sure - lithium was mentioned from time to time as this is most common battery type nowadays. My statement was simply "depending on battery tech and how fast you charge it the degradation could be from 50% higher to 10 times higher" and this is the range from absolute worst case scenario to absolutely best case scenario. The problem is that there is no such definition what is "fast charger", the consensus seems to be that anything below 7Kw is slow and anything above 22Kw is "fast". But that is just because of historic reasons as charger tech improved, however 22Kw is clearly not as fast as 150Kw or as 350Kw. I guess you can say "if battery is well designed" then it should not be damaged by whatever charger even if it is 5000Kw... and that is true, because car is charging at the fastest rate it could charge, regardless what charger it uses. However, we are not talking about "damage" here, we talking about accelerated degradation of cells. All the research shows that batteries consistently degrade more when "fast" charging, how much again depends. All in all you sounds like overhyped EVangelist with lid blown-off after reading some science fiction. We are talking about what exists today and what one could buy... what will happen 2 years from now is speculation at best, so it is a bit strong to come up here claiming that I haven't done basic research, by which you mean - I am not hyped like a child about technology which may or may not come to the market. I may be pessimist, but you need reality check!

Completely agree - net zero is basically anti-human policy. There was good video I have posted to other thread which nicely puts everything in right perspective. Human life means creation of pollution, it can be reduced, but it won't be eliminated and most importantly cars have nothing to do with reducing the pollution, they are way too minor source to make any difference. The focus should be on developing world, because that is where majority of people are and where poor people live... and poor people do not care about climate. What net zero policy is... is basically dehumanizing policy... Government can't quite stand-up to their desire to reduce the numbers of "undesirables", so at very least they are trying to take away everything they can, cars, freedoms, homes and just make it look like a massive ant nest.

Maybe/If - that is pretty much same thing, but I can't say it won't work because that is subjective. Rather limited range depends on where it started and again depends on the needs... I keep repeating it but the key fault of BEV thinking is "average daily journey"... and with that in mind even if 10 years old BEV going to have 70% of 200 miles range left, it would be plentiful enough city driving... assuming that 30 miles a day is all you need... that will be plenty of range. I am just saying that going electric confines us into situation where instead of having freedom to drive anywhere we like anytime we like (like the main advantage of having personal transportation)... we instead are constricted to flawed nature of the technology. Those flaws won't disappear, but if BEV works for you today, then it will work for you in 10 years time as well. So from the perspective... will 10 years old BEV be good buy in 10 years time... yes for those for whom it works today when new, and no for those for whom it doesn't work anyway. Simply said it is more nuanced then simply being good or bad.

Overall in Europe maybe? In UK: IS250 ~14,100 (which includes like 500 mk3 and 1000 250C) IS220d ~ 15,250 (including ~700 IS220d). But time clearly wasn't kind to them... despite starting at ~1:1, now there is ~7,800 diesels left, yet still ~12,000 petrols. So diesels lost nearly half of the cars whereas petrols only 2000.

It is not "knocking" it is just saying what are the issues related to these cars, they are known to fail land be expensive to fix. And besides of that - it is objectively the worst Lexus ever made and if there is one car NOT to get with Lexus badge then IS220d would be that. It is nothing personal, it is just Lexus tried making diesel, made an absolute mess out of it and never made another one again. I know forum is a little bit wrong place to do numbers as people don't usually come to forum unless they have an issue, but 90% of the issue related to Mk2 Lexus IS are the ones related to IS220d... and the ones related to IS250 more often tends to be previous damage, or lack of maintenance, but not something inherent to the model. 200k miles may actually be a good sign, probably means that car was doing loads of miles on motorway, rather than short city trips and that is better. You should as well note that you had particularly good use case and 120 daily miles on mostly motorways, I already said that if that is sort of driving one is doing the IS220d/any diesel may not be a bad choice. Further you were expert owner doing your own preventative maintenance and that is what helped the car along. But that should not be expectation of any owner. 9 out of 10 ownership stories ends-up in tears...

I would say yes... but it depends on a lot of things... like family needs, whenever they can charge at home, whenever public infrastructure has improved etc. So if the need is just to drive 20-30 miles per day, can charge at home, there are no rolling blackouts and electricity price is affordable... I am quite sure 10 years old BEV still going to be usable car... but I don't think BEV itself will be an issue. All the things surrounding it will be problematic.

Not by as much and as well, it is much less relevant. If one buys decently powerful car (say between 200-300hp), then even with 20% less power the car will still be completely useful for all normal speeds which are legal. Whereas range on EVs is already an issue even when new e.g. 300 miles isn't that amazing considering how long it takes to charge... and we all know that in real life with heater, A/C, music, headlights and all the rest of the stuff real range will already be much less. let's say 240 miles... and then -20% after 8 years really leaves just 190miles range. Now sure - that is not an issue for the ranges they are "intended" to be used for, the problem is that the assumption of average 30 miles per day is just wrong. I guess we can twist it any way we like, but charging, battery capacity and degradation, range etc. are all weaknesses of BEVs... they have positives as well, for example that in the city they do not pollute, so air quality improves in the city... the only problem I have with all this is only - they are not yet good enough to replace ICEVs as single do-all vehicle and therefore they should not be mandated. So really the issue is not with BEVs, they have their little niche which they are good at and I have no problem with them being in that niche, the problem is with mandates which will force them onto everyone. It is like going to supermarket and saying - do people like beef? The answer is yes - some people like beef and it is ok, I think everyone can agree with that... but now take that step further... let's ban all other meats, by 2030 no turkey, no pork, no lamb, no chicken will be allowed! Well that is now clearly an issue! So it is same here - BEVs are not issue per say, it is the mandate banning other types of cars which are an issue. The most ironic part is that the reason is to supposedly help the environment, but as it turns out at the moment there seems to be no clear benefit to environment either.

It is ok to charge to 100%, because 100% isn't 100%...

No radio code required for battery removal. Not 100% sure if they have one (maybe it would ask if you fit head-unit from another car), but battery removal certainly doesn't cause that.

I hope this is sarcasm as you clearly have no clue what you talking about, but it is me who needs to do some "basic research before typing"... Yeah sure "lithographic substance and whale liver pate distilled into pure gold".... and that will happened in "next few years"... which is the same story for last 15 years... and every year there is some sort of "ground breaking" technology coming in "next few years". As far as I am concerned in "next few years" we may as well have nuclear fusion, but let's not jump over ourselves alright? When it is going to be in the market, then we can see what impact it has. And I think this is the bit I like the most, honestly one of the dumbest thing I heard in a while - "They could charge a lot faster if they weren't worried about battery damage"... ohh so you are saying they could not charge faster... because faster charging would damage the batteries? Isn't that exactly what was said... or this is some language problem? When you charge batteries faster (this is particularly true for lithium based batteries) they degrade quicker. So if just for illustration let's say single "slow" charge at 7Kw degrades the battery by 0.01%, then charging the same battery with 350Kw "fast" charger may actually degrade it by 0.1%... which part of that you didn't understand? The charge cycle is approximate arbitrary measurement same as MTTF or MBTF, it is meaningless... each battery type is affected differently by the charging, some can be half-charged (shallow-charge) without issue, some are actually damaged more by it, therefore it is better to fully discharge them before recharging and vice versa. Yes technically full cycle is one cycle when battery is charged from 0% to 100%, however charging battery 5 times for 20% between 40% and 60% could be much more damaging than charging it once from 0% to 100%. So if you have say have battery with 5000 cycles warranty, it may fail after just 1000 cycles, if they were not full cycles (deep-charges). It is comparative measure so that manufacturers could compare the longevity of the battery, it is not reflective of real-life charging patters. One battery with 10k charge life-span is expected to outperform another battery with 5k in the same conditions, but apart of that it doesn't mean much more.

This is good example of something we touched on on another thread - people do not understand what they buying, they do no understand the terms and then they are shocked and surprised when what they wrongly believed to be true isn't true. PHEVs are really the simplest to explain, the MPG is not based on "real" MPG, not even close to real MPG expectations, it is based on WLTP... I am sorry but that is just stupid if somebody comes to BMW dealer looks at 330e sticker and realistically believes they are getting 134MPG. Well I guess, it is not as much stupid as much it is NOT BMW fault. It is fault of our government and our agencies that created this unrealistic way of comparing cars fuel consumption and to be honest that we even use MPG which is quite stupid measurement in itself. Key point here being that within WLTP test BMW can run mostly on it's battery and even in real life this probably stands true if your return journey is 30 Miles (remember "average" journey)... I reckon you can do even better than 134MPG... considering that 24 out of 30 miles you in theory can do on electricity and how much fuel will you consume in 6 miles 0.5L maybe? (that works out as 1.55L/100km or 156MPG). But that is what needs to be very clear - you have to stick to this sort of 20, 30 or 40 miles journeys. If you doing anything other than 30 miles... it is basically 2L petrol engine and 30-40MPG is about what one would expect. It probably still makes sense for up-to 60 miles per day as almost half of journey you using nothing, you can regenerate some electricity when braking sometimes and in ideal situation you have maybe 30 miles worth of "free" range and 30 miles at 35MPG... ending-up with something like 70MPG average... which is still better than diesel. However for anything beyond this range it will be just normal petrol car. Same thing about CO2 - the whatever ridiculous 49g CO2 it claims is not wrong, it is true based on the flawed testing methodology, so don't blame BMW, they not cheating, it is not diesel gate, blame people who came up with that methodology, but indeed for whatever length of the test I am sure BMW actually managed the 49g, because it must have been idling all the time. The only part where I agree with video is that due to flawed taxation policy people are pushed away from more economical and cleaner cars, into using these PHEVs which in their use case (say 300 miles a day driving) are worse cars, but they have no option because those are the only cars available. And it is not like you just have to pay more tax... no you are not allowed to take any other car at all. I was in exactly same situation in my previous work - I believe at the time only cars below 75g CO2 were allowed, so no Lexus cars were an option, and all the options were either BEVs or PHEVs... I honestly was considering 530e for quite a long time and on my journey it would have worked perfectly (~18 miles each way, so I would have barely used any petrol at all). In my case the problem was that I could not charge at home and it automatically killed this option for me. But again... it wasn't like cheaper on BIK, it was simply not allowed to choose any car above 75g CO2... end of story... and whose fault it is? Not BMW... it is our government which created such toxic and flawed system. BMW looked at what is required for them and created the car which complies, as such 330e is not a product of BMW, it is a product of our stupid taxation system.

Well... again not exactly. Because laptops and phone will degrade at the rate of the second example where battery is "not managed"... because laptops and phones are very small, there is no space inside to put bigger battery than it needs and further it is deemed unnecessary, because 1... they are just disposable and having them keep the same capacity for long time is just not important (would you buy phone which holds charge 1 day, but does it for 10 years, or the one which holds charge for 2 days, but drops to 1 day after 4 years... the logic that if you change phone every 3 years you are likely to pick second option)... and 2. because manufacturers wants you to change your electronics (planned obsolescence - if you battery and the rest remains as good as on the day you bought it, then there is no motivation to upgrade). So it is realistic to believe (at least in theory) that by having extra cells car battery only degrades by 10%, where laptop battery without extra cells degrades by 30% in the same period.

Well it is not exactly like that but close. If they don't put twice as many cells, then the battery will be toasted within 3 years. For example imagine there are 2 cars (just illustrative example), both has 75KWh batteries, but one actually has 100KWh an only allows 75KWh to be used, the other only has 75KWh and allows all of it to be used. After 3 years of using the first car will have say 90KWh capacity left and will allow 70KWh to be used, so the battery will degrade 10% and user will notice 6% degradation, the second car will have 50KWh left and 50KWh available to the user, or 33% drop in both stated and available capacity. As clear from above example overprovisioning the battery and managing the charging and discharging significantly reduces the speed at which battery degrades (or that is theory anyway), but at the same time it hides the real level of degradation. For example for normal owner there is no real way of knowing if the battery degraded by 10KWh, or 20KWh or by whole 30KWh... The car companies would like us to believe it is just 10KWh, but my point was that I have not seen any reliable source definitively showing the degradation, because the real capacity is most of the time not advertised and only estimated.