Carryfast:
Firstly the ‘average’ worker of the 1970s will now be earning closer to minimum wage than the 80 quid a week that time served skilled factory workers earn’t then.
Ironically unskilled production line at Ford would have earn’t even more but the job was even more onerous so they earn’t it.Bearing in mind that manufacturing sector jobs are now more likely to be done by someone in China.
75p per gallon is almost 12x less than £1.80 per litre.Which would need a wage of more than 900 quid a week for 40 hours to match.
An obvious diesel car fan calling a 6 cylinder petrol engine a rattler says it all.
You were talking about the 80s, not the 70s…
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
stu675:
What are you talking about? Nitrogen doesn’t burn. And nitrogen oxides are far more pollutive than carbon oxides.
Oops my error. I meant to say Hydrogen not Nitrogen.
stu675:
What are you talking about? Nitrogen doesn’t burn. And nitrogen oxides are far more pollutive than carbon oxides.
Nitrogen is already powering vehicles !! And it is a non pollutant because it only produces water as a bi-product ! So Nitrogen could solve the fuel problem and help alleviate the water shortage !!
msgyorkie:
stu675:
What are you talking about? Nitrogen doesn’t burn. And nitrogen oxides are far more pollutive than carbon oxides.Oops my error. I meant to say Hydrogen not Nitrogen.
No you were correct,
Hydrogen is an uncontrolable explosive as proved by the Hindenburg disaster
Reasoning behind it could simply be… why waste money going 70-80mph if you’re not in a rush to get somewhere. I now do 56-60mph to save money on fuel, nothing wrong with that. Obviously if you hit a cluster of traffic or wagons then adjust your speed accordingly to avoid an HGV sitting out in the middle lane unnecessarily.
On the subject of the car driver flashing you in too early, I find that happens with truck drivers far to frequently than I’d like. Not sure why there is this urgency to “flash you in” when you’re barley 6 feet past the front of their truck, not exactly safe in my opinion.
Roymondo:
Carryfast:
Firstly the ‘average’ worker of the 1970s will now be earning closer to minimum wage than the 80 quid a week that time served skilled factory workers earn’t then.
Ironically unskilled production line at Ford would have earn’t even more but the job was even more onerous so they earn’t it.Bearing in mind that manufacturing sector jobs are now more likely to be done by someone in China.
75p per gallon is almost 12x less than £1.80 per litre.Which would need a wage of more than 900 quid a week for 40 hours to match.
An obvious diesel car fan calling a 6 cylinder petrol engine a rattler says it all.You were talking about the 80s, not the 70s…
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
I was clearly talking about the late 70’s you know around 75p per gallon and running a Triumph 2.5PI on an apprentice wage I was 21 in 1980.In which it wasn’t the price of fuel which stopped me running a 3.8 or 420 Stype or even a big V8 American motor.
I actually knew someone who had a 4.7 Mk 2 Sunbeam Tiger among others with even more serious American V8 hardware.Before the insurance firms stopped the party by loading even fronted policies.
In the 80’s I ran an old BMW 3.0Si on council wages despite Thatcher’s best efforts to put me on a bicycle.
Sabretooth:
Hydrogen is an uncontrolable explosive as proved by the Hindenburg disaster
It’s no more combustible or volatile than petrol or LPG or natural gas.Hydrogen runs fine in an ICE and no more difficult to store than petrol.
Trapped.in.hell:
Reasoning behind it could simply be… why waste money going 70-80mph if you’re not in a rush to get somewhere. I now do 56-60mph to save money on fuel, nothing wrong with that. Obviously if you hit a cluster of traffic or wagons then adjust your speed accordingly to avoid an HGV sitting out in the middle lane unnecessarily.On the subject of the car driver flashing you in too early, I find that happens with truck drivers far to frequently than I’d like. Not sure why there is this urgency to “flash you in” when you’re barley 6 feet past the front of their truck, not exactly safe in my opinion.
Quite simple - they’ve learned that if they don’t flash passing lorries in early, 90% of the time they’ll be too late anyway!
Sabretooth:
And looking to the future I foresee EV’s becoming obsolete as Nitrogen takes the lead. After all they are doing trials with it at the moment, and its an inert gas with a biproduct of water. 78% of the Universe is Nitrogen 25% oxygen and other gasses its clean and will easily replace EV batteries and fossil fuels. The Goodyear Blimp already uses it in order to fly as do a number of other vehicles.Note to self buy shares in Nitrogen producing companies…
I know you actually meant to write “hydrogen” rather than “nitrogen” - but the Goodyear blimp uses neither of these gases - it uses Helium. Which doesn’t burn.
Nitrogen is indeed fairly inert, but as a consequence is of no use at all as a fuel. Helium also is very inert (that’s why they use it in balloons, blimps etc), but it’s certainly not abundant on this planet. Hydrogen also is not abundant here (although, as with Helium, it is in stars such as our own sun - just need to install a pipeline to bring it here). Manufacturing Hydrogen (typically by using electrolysis to split water molecules) is the issue as it needs quite a lot of electricity to do it…
Sabretooth:
stu675:
What are you talking about? Nitrogen doesn’t burn. And nitrogen oxides are far more pollutive than carbon oxides.Nitrogen is already powering vehicles !! And it is a non pollutant because it only produces water as a bi-product ! So Nitrogen could solve the fuel problem and help alleviate the water shortage !!
Peter Dearman is a very innovative guy. I`m sure we had a discussion about him and his nitrogen engine in fridges?? Very clever stuff.
The nitrogen in his engine isn`t a prime source of energy. It needs energy to produce it in a liquid form. It might be best to think of it as a means of “carrying” energy?
It has nothing to do with water (H2O).
Sabretooth:
Hydrogen is an uncontrolable explosive as proved by the Hindenburg disaster
Just as liquid fuels are, as proved by Buncefield.
Franglais:
Sabretooth:
stu675:
What are you talking about? Nitrogen doesn’t burn. And nitrogen oxides are far more pollutive than carbon oxides.Nitrogen is already powering vehicles !! And it is a non pollutant because it only produces water as a bi-product ! So Nitrogen could solve the fuel problem and help alleviate the water shortage !!
Peter Dearman is a very innovative guy. I`m sure we had a discussion about him and his nitrogen engine in fridges?? Very clever stuff.
The nitrogen in his engine isn`t a prime source of energy. It needs energy to produce it in a liquid form. It might be best to think of it as a means of “carrying” energy?
It has nothing to do with water (H2O).
Sabretooth:
Hydrogen is an uncontrolable explosive as proved by the Hindenburg disasterJust as liquid fuels are, as proved by Buncefield.
Also the Bantry Bay disaster
Ok so a Blimp uses Helium ! it is also used to cool MRI machines and Welding, they also use it for testing Diving equipment.
Nitrogen in its liquid form powers vehicles.
washington.edu/alumni/colum … /car3.html
And lets not stop at Nitrogen…
The saturation divers breathe Helium. Great fun in McDonalds with the balloons.
Hydrogen will be too expensive to manufacture for a while yet for just HGV’s alone let alone other vehicles. They’re still favouring the overhead charging infrastructure for the HGV industry.
“Whatever happens, the UK must be cognisant of what is happening in Europe. We can’t end up with totally different approaches.”
“To power our HGV industry an ERS (electric road system) network would require 10.6 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 3,500 wind turbines. In comparison hydrogen vehicles need 35.6 GW, equivalent to 12,000 wind turbines, he said.” 
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … ctric-hgvs
lancpudn:
Hydrogen will be too expensive to manufacture for a while yet for just HGV’s alone let alone other vehicles. They’re still favouring the overhead charging infrastructure for the HGV industry.
“Whatever happens, the UK must be cognisant of what is happening in Europe. We can’t end up with totally different approaches.”“To power our HGV industry an ERS (electric road system) network would require 10.6 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 3,500 wind turbines. In comparison hydrogen vehicles need 35.6 GW, equivalent to 12,000 wind turbines, he said.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … ctric-hgvs
Overhead lines would restrict the route options to the point of defeating the object of trucks.
Even freight trains use diesel engines to power them rather than existing overhead cabling.
While we all know that an all electric energy policy would be all about nuclear not wind turbines regardless.
The truth is Electric trucks won’t cut it hydrogen fuelled ICE powered trucks is the obvious choice.
Either way it’s just replacing the lie of greenhouse CO2 with the all too real greenhouse water vapour from steam turbine exhausts and hydrogen combustion.Also the risk of irradiating swathes of this small Island in a nuclear disaster.
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
Hydrogen will be too expensive to manufacture for a while yet for just HGV’s alone let alone other vehicles. They’re still favouring the overhead charging infrastructure for the HGV industry.
“Whatever happens, the UK must be cognisant of what is happening in Europe. We can’t end up with totally different approaches.”“To power our HGV industry an ERS (electric road system) network would require 10.6 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 3,500 wind turbines. In comparison hydrogen vehicles need 35.6 GW, equivalent to 12,000 wind turbines, he said.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … ctric-hgvsOverhead lines would restrict the route options to the point of defeating the object of trucks.
Even freight trains use diesel engines to power them rather than existing overhead cabling.
While we all know that an all electric energy policy would be all about nuclear not wind turbines regardless.
The truth is Electric trucks won’t cut it hydrogen fuelled ICE powered trucks is the obvious choice.
Either way it’s just replacing the lie of greenhouse CO2 with the all too real greenhouse water vapour from steam turbine exhausts and hydrogen combustion.Also the risk of irradiating swathes of this small Island in a nuclear disaster.
If they electrified just the motorway network, you would only need the equivalent of a hybrid sized battery to reach your delivery points.
stu675:
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
Hydrogen will be too expensive to manufacture for a while yet for just HGV’s alone let alone other vehicles. They’re still favouring the overhead charging infrastructure for the HGV industry.
“Whatever happens, the UK must be cognisant of what is happening in Europe. We can’t end up with totally different approaches.”“To power our HGV industry an ERS (electric road system) network would require 10.6 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 3,500 wind turbines. In comparison hydrogen vehicles need 35.6 GW, equivalent to 12,000 wind turbines, he said.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … ctric-hgvsOverhead lines would restrict the route options to the point of defeating the object of trucks.
Even freight trains use diesel engines to power them rather than existing overhead cabling.
While we all know that an all electric energy policy would be all about nuclear not wind turbines regardless.
The truth is Electric trucks won’t cut it hydrogen fuelled ICE powered trucks is the obvious choice.
Either way it’s just replacing the lie of greenhouse CO2 with the all too real greenhouse water vapour from steam turbine exhausts and hydrogen combustion.Also the risk of irradiating swathes of this small Island in a nuclear disaster.If they electrified just the motorway network, you would only need the equivalent of a hybrid sized battery to reach your delivery points.
Which effectively makes road transport entirely dependent on using motorways with no alternatives.
While the whole EV scam is based on using expensive anything but green nuke and biomass fuelled electric v cheap safe fossil fuel.
Might as well use hydrogen fuelled ICE powered vehicles as opposed to diesel fuelled trains and jet cargo planes if the climate scam is all true.
stu675:
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
Hydrogen will be too expensive to manufacture for a while yet for just HGV’s alone let alone other vehicles. They’re still favouring the overhead charging infrastructure for the HGV industry.
“Whatever happens, the UK must be cognisant of what is happening in Europe. We can’t end up with totally different approaches.”“To power our HGV industry an ERS (electric road system) network would require 10.6 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 3,500 wind turbines. In comparison hydrogen vehicles need 35.6 GW, equivalent to 12,000 wind turbines, he said.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … ctric-hgvsOverhead lines would restrict the route options to the point of defeating the object of trucks.
Even freight trains use diesel engines to power them rather than existing overhead cabling.
While we all know that an all electric energy policy would be all about nuclear not wind turbines regardless.
The truth is Electric trucks won’t cut it hydrogen fuelled ICE powered trucks is the obvious choice.
Either way it’s just replacing the lie of greenhouse CO2 with the all too real greenhouse water vapour from steam turbine exhausts and hydrogen combustion.Also the risk of irradiating swathes of this small Island in a nuclear disaster.If they electrified just the motorway network, you would only need the equivalent of a hybrid sized battery to reach your delivery points.
Yeah their way of thinking is you wouldn’t need a really big heavy battery traction pack if a lot of your journey was under Pantograph infrastructure.
It wont be just expensive ICE cars Eking out every bit of mpg from petrol/diesel it looks like lorries will have a lot more BEV’s slip streaming them too this Winter fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest … t-increase
I found this article interesting,