|
That doesn't seem anywhere near as safe a car as being able to force a screwdriver into the door barrel and hotwire it from under the steering column...(sarcasm).
|
|
|
|
I suppose the explosion in cars bought on credit (e.g. via PCP deals) hasn't helped, because so many people who previously could not 'afford' many of these high-end /expensive cars now 'can' (at least on the surface). Lots more targets for the thieves.
The same goes for certain types of car and makes/models where their CATs are easy to steal and apparently VERY valuable.
|
|
And talking about modern technology, how do the panel feel about low speed autonomous braking.
S-i-Law was targeted at a roundabout by by (what he thinks) may have been one of these cash for crash characters jamming on the anchors unexpectedly. Because the braking cut in so quickly, no accident occurred and the driver just sped away.
|
Because the braking cut in so quickly, no accident occurred and the driver just sped away.
Great, but that will improve the chances of the car behind - without this device - hitting the rear instead. OK, so not your fault, insurance will pay, but swings & roundabouts just the same.
|
|
I still feel the benefits outrank the drawbacks. If, for example, it saves a child from being knocked down (which is one of the original design elements) then I'm all for it.
|
|
Continuing my theme of interesting side effects of this thread it is really bringing the Luddites out of the woodwork. However, in spite of my liking for EPBs I do agree with @smallcar that something should be done to standardise the way they operate.
|
Continuing my theme of interesting side effects of this thread it is really bringing the Luddites out of the woodwork.
We Luddites don't hide in the woodwork. We try to offer a reasoned antidote to the wiles of overzealous salesmen. Those who fall for, or genuinely desire, gizmos of rather intermittent value are welcome to them. The problem for Luddites is that they gradually become forced to accept them too, with all their downsides :-)
Edited by Andrew-T on 19/10/2020 at 17:35
|
|
|
|
|
'Great, but that will improve the chances of the car behind - without this device - hitting the rear instead. OK, so not your fault, insurance will pay, but swings & roundabouts just the same.'
If the following car is under three years old, it too probably has AEBS, and will react accordingly.
|
'Great, but that will improve the chances of the car behind - without this device - hitting the rear instead. OK, so not your fault, insurance will pay, but swings & roundabouts just the same.'
If the following car is under three years old, it too probably has AEBS, and will react accordingly.
Or do as I do in my 10 year old car and keep a sensible distance not that most do.
|
|
Not too sure about tyre pressure indicators which I always seem to struggle with resetting after an alarm .
|
|
|
|
I still feel the benefits outrank the drawbacks. If, for example, it saves a child from being knocked down (which is one of the original design elements) then I'm all for it.
It depends - I know quite a few colleagues over the years who've admitted driving faster, driving far closer to vehicles in front and braking later because they believe their ABS and emergency brakeforce assist systems will always come to their aid should they do something really silly.
That's not to say we should all drive as if the man waving the red flag in front of a car is still in operation, but people should realise these are safety features in case of unexpected emergencies, and not to be relied upon during normal driving instead of your driving skills.
As I said before, the more gizmos cars have that take our attention away from driving/the road, the more I think people will become complacent and possibly take more risks.
I have no issue with safety features that reduce the effect of accidents or that bring extra information to the driver's attention that normally wouldn't be done by looking or hearing by ourselves.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 20/10/2020 at 13:20
|
|
|
|
Because the braking cut in so quickly, no accident occurred and the driver just sped away.
Great, but that will improve the chances of the car behind - without this device - hitting the rear instead. OK, so not your fault, insurance will pay, but swings & roundabouts just the same.
Keep a good distance away.
|
|
How did we manage all these years before all this electrickery came long.
Anwsering my own question.
Most of us did, we learned how to control our vehicles and ourselves, sadly there is always an element that needs protecting from themselves and their failings, and in the great progressive dream of utopian western wonder where all are equal, we all must be as hopeless as the worse case, the rule is one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator.
|
|
And on that great philosophical bombshell, I’ll carry on embracing any new technology that keeps me and mine safer on the roads, gets me to places economically and efficiently, and with the minimum of effort or discomfort.
|
|
|
How did we manage all these years before all this electrickery came long.
Anwsering my own question.
(Deleted the next bit as not sure what it is saying)
How did we manage all the years before these cars for the masses came along?
Answering my own question.
Most of us did in the decade after WWII when private cars were few and far between. We learned how to walk, use buses and make a trolley from a tea chest and pram wheels to fetch DIY stuff from the builders merchant.
I am, of course, addicted to the car like the rest of you. As I said earlier, the car itself is the greatest gadget yet invented but its not a necessity of life any more than its keyless entry system.
|
|
|
How did we manage all these years before all this electrickery came long.
Anwsering my own question.
Most of us did, we learned how to control our vehicles and ourselves, sadly there is always an element that needs protecting from themselves and their failings, and in the great progressive dream of utopian western wonder where all are equal, we all must be as hopeless as the worse case, the rule is one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator.
Statistically speaking most people didn't - in fact despite far less traffic, slower roads and slower cars a lot more people managed to kill or injure themselves in some sort of accident. Some of that may have been because they were p***ed at the time but nonetheless motoring in UK has never been safer.
Personally I think that is a good thing and I'll happily take a comfortable, warm, stable modern car with a great stereo to sooth me, good wipers, good headlights, sensible driving aids than some s*** box from yesteryear for a long journey.
The progress is quite remarkable really. In the past you'd have needed some sort of luxury saloon to enjoy any long journey in comfort. You could now take any supermini and drive it to the south of France tomorrow (if allowed) and it would be fine. That's progress in my book.
Edited by pd on 19/10/2020 at 23:05
|
|
<< I'll happily take a comfortable, warm, stable modern car with a great stereo to sooth me, good wipers, good headlights >>
Don't get us started on headlights, we've been down that road several times. Headlamps on modern cars are now unpleasantly bright, partly to help drivers see through the glare caused by all the others. That, for me, is progress that has gone too far, it's just a wattage war.
|
|
Would agree some of the latest are OTT. There is a happy medium however.
|
|
With car headlights the direction, shape and scatter of the beam is at least or probably more important than its brightness. Modern headlights using diodes have much better beam control so it is misleading to assume that they cause problems for other drivers simply on the basis of their greater brightness.
|
With car headlights the direction, shape and scatter of the beam is at least or probably more important than its brightness. Modern headlights using diodes have much better beam control so it is misleading to assume that they cause problems for other drivers simply on the basis of their greater brightness.
Precise alignment is negated when opposing traffic transits a speed bump or plateau and also when coming over a crest. On a narrow, winding road this is a hazard when faced with God knows how many lumens from a Chelsea tractor with every bulb lit.
|
|
How did we manage all these years before all this electrickery came long.
Anwsering my own question.
Most of us did, we learned how to control our vehicles and ourselves, sadly there is always an element that needs protecting from themselves and their failings, and in the great progressive dream of utopian western wonder where all are equal, we all must be as hopeless as the worse case, the rule is one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator.
My sentiments exactly.
|
|
Bit of a conundrum about headlights.
Accept current headlights with megawatt power occassionally blind oncoming drivers.
Go back to the good old bad old days where three candlepower was standard issue
Both are safety features - people drive slower when they can't see where they are going.
|
Both are safety features - people drive slower when they can't see where they are going.
Hopefully most do. But as Galileo says above, even clever alignment cannot allow for real-world roads. It's as if mega-lamp designers assume that everyone drives on M-ways, where there are almost no bumps or curvature, and a median barrier may alleviate glare from facing drivers - who aren't straight ahead anyway.
|
|
|
Bit of a conundrum about headlights.
Accept current headlights with megawatt power occassionally blind oncoming drivers.
Go back to the good old bad old days where three candlepower was standard issue
Both are safety features - people drive slower when they can't see where they are going.
Not sure about people driving more safely when they can't see where they're going. The professional advice is to tailor your speed at night to how far ahead you can see. So if you're dazzled by an oncoming car, you should slow down. But I've been with drivers who 'drive through' the dazzle and they are usually the sort that mutter if a driver in front brakes because of oncoming lights. So my thinking is that if cars were fitted with dimmer headlights, a lot of drivers wouldn't drive any slower at night.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/10/2020 at 13:42
|
|
|
|
How did we manage all these years before all this electrickery came long.
Anwsering my own question.
Most of us did, we learned how to control our vehicles and ourselves, sadly there is always an element that needs protecting from themselves and their failings, and in the great progressive dream of utopian western wonder where all are equal, we all must be as hopeless as the worse case, the rule is one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator.
My sentiments exactly.
In the period following the First World War more and more cars were fitted with 4-wheel brakes, which greatly improved stopping ability compared to brakes on the rear wheels only, which had been common practice up until then. Yet 4-wheel brakes were controversial at the time because some motorists claimed it would make drivers less careful and take more risks, while others thought it would de-skill driving and wasn't quite 'playing the game'.
|
|
Reading some of the comments in this thread you could be forgiven for believing the posters are still driving pre First World War cars. No chance of dazzling anyone with oil lamps!
|
Reading some of the comments in this thread you could be forgiven for believing the posters are still driving pre First World War cars. No chance of dazzling anyone with oil lamps!
I sometimes wonder how people got about in WW2, when the feeble headlamps were made even feebler with shrouds.
|
Reading some of the comments in this thread you could be forgiven for believing the posters are still driving pre First World War cars. No chance of dazzling anyone with oil lamps!
I sometimes wonder how people got about in WW2, when the feeble headlamps were made even feebler with shrouds.
Night vision not destroyed by the ridiculous amount and intensity of lights we suffer now.
You don't have to go back many years and everyone in London would be driving on sidelights only, a safer for everyone (especially pedestrians and cyclists) and much more pleasant experience than now with the worsening light wars.
I doubt the game-boy generation would understand.
|
Reading some of the comments in this thread you could be forgiven for believing the posters are still driving pre First World War cars. No chance of dazzling anyone with oil lamps!
I sometimes wonder how people got about in WW2, when the feeble headlamps were made even feebler with shrouds.
Night vision not destroyed by the ridiculous amount and intensity of lights we suffer now.
You don't have to go back many years and everyone in London would be driving on sidelights only, a safer for everyone (especially pedestrians and cyclists) and much more pleasant experience than now with the worsening light wars.
I doubt the game-boy generation would understand.
I remember the original campaign encouraging everyone to use headlamps in well-lit urban streets: it was mainly sponsored by Joseph Lucas, & Co, chief supplier of vehicle light bulbs and car batteries, dynamos etc. Purely for safety of course, not to drum up more replacement business, only someone cynical would doubt that.
|
|
I doubt the game-boy generation would understand.
They would, lighting is a major part of a game which most makers of screens now try to make as good as possible, its the difference between winning a game and losing
Ask a gamer
and I agree sidelights were better than headlights in certain conditions there was a time I only drove on sidelights untill the law changed
|
|
One system that I would dearly love is a built in sat nav.
Currently using a plug in stick on the windscreen type , which I often don’t bother fixing up because of the loss of windscreen vision and long power lead fowling the gear lever.
Is there any alternative apart from a phone with google maps ?
|
|
A car with Apple CarPlay/Android Auto. You’ll get all the advantages of Google Maps but on the car’s screen, and your phone can live in the centre console, passenger seat, wherever as long as it’s still on a charging lead.
|
One system that I would dearly love is a built in sat nav.
Currently using a plug in stick on the windscreen type , which I often don’t bother fixing up because of the loss of windscreen vision and long power lead fowling the gear lever.
Is there any alternative apart from a phone with google maps ?
The downside of a builtin sat nav is the cost/complexity of updates to the maps and soiftware - often restricted to dealer computers, the repeated charge can be double the cost of a stand-alone sat nav although some brands include it as free during warranty.
Invest in a holder for your phone, positioned where it suits you with a hard-wired cable for your phone charger.
|
|
Android Auto / Apple Carplay is really the best way forward instead of a built in sat nav - if only vehicle manufacturers would upgrade there systems for wireless connection.
Modern smart phones are ready for this but hardly any vehicle manufacturers built in Android / Apple compatible infotainment unit supports wireless connection for the feature.
|
|
I'd imagine the battery drain from the phone would be horrific on wireless CarPlay/Android Auto, so I'm happy to keep mine plugged in and charging.
|
|
I took the base Karoq mainly because it doesn't have keyless entry. So many cars in out area with keyless are stolen.
Liked the cruise control - which I had on my CRV beforehand
Took a while to get used to the electronic brake but like it now
Detest the stop/start and disable it as soon as I start up
Miss not having a rear camera, so thinking of fitting one - something I loved in the CRV
Auto lights? Great - had the in the CRV so think every car should have them
Auto wipers - good - and I like that if they're on for more than 20 seconds the headlights come on - the CRV did that too
Don't miss heated seats as thankfully I have material seats (I hate leather)
|
Detest the stop/start and disable it as soon as I start up
Until the car I have now I'd never had this - and from what I read thought I was going to hate it. But don't understand why people dislike it. When I come to a stop it turns the car off and as soon as it's in gear it gets going.
|
Detest the stop/start and disable it as soon as I start up
Until the car I have now I'd never had this - and from what I read thought I was going to hate it. But don't understand why people dislike it. When I come to a stop it turns the car off and as soon as it's in gear it gets going.
Because under many types of car usage, those systems drain their batteries and then go dead, meaning they are dead weight (lower mpg) until they self-recharge (not easy if you mainly do short urban trips or in heavy traffic with little chance to charge back up).
Many of these systems fail quite quickly and cost more to replace than the ordinary car battery, which often has to be beefed up to cope with many new systems and costs quite a bit more than traditional cars' ones.
Have a look at (say) the problems with cars like the Yaris hybrid and failing batteries - not the fault of the car, just how it's used - a flaw in the design of the system itself because it's not tailored to the type of use that sort of car gets. Because the car runs often on its hybrid battery, the ordinary battery goes dead quickly because the ICE engine isn't recharging enough it on short trips and the initial startup draw reduces the life further.
I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.
|
|
'I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.'
I'm curious why people do this in a Mazda, since iStop doesn't use the starter motor (hence battery) to restart.
A Toyota Hybrid will charge the 12V battery from the traction battery - it doesn't need the engine to be running.
|
'I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.'
I'm curious why people do this in a Mazda, since iStop doesn't use the starter motor (hence battery) to restart.
AFAIK, the Mazda system uses its own 'battery' (I'm not sure, but it may in some guises have something similar to a capacitor), which will dissipate and then, once drained won't work until its own charging system works.
Whether it doing so 'steals' electrical power from the main battery charging system or engine power when charging, I don't know. Needless to say, which the system in operation seems to work better than other makes (I was told it doesn't have the 'car startup noise' most systems have), it is prone to getting discharged quickly, and can fail, resulting in a hefty bill (its a special 'battery' device) to replace it if it can't be recharged before it permanently expires.
Perhaps not the same effect as on the car as say on thye Yaris.
Misar may know more then me on this - I'm only relaying what I can remember from our Mazda3 forum, and Misar has owned newer versions of the car (mine doesn't have stop-start) and may well have personal experience with the device.
I know that Aussie car guru John Cadogan hates these devices and advocates turning them off (he was midly annoyed that the Mazda system has to be turned off every time you re-start the engine rather than just a off or on switch until you change the setting).
|
|
I suspect you're getting your technologies mixed up - iEloop is/was the capacitor on the 165ps petrol variants of Mazda6 and CX-5. It would rapidly charge ( a downhill motorway slip road would be long enough), and it would then give the car enough electrical power to run without the extra drag from the alternator for a little while.
iStop is the ability to restart the engine without the starter motor, hence no starter motor noise.
|
'I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.'
I'm curious why people do this in a Mazda, since iStop doesn't use the starter motor (hence battery) to restart.
In over 11 years with two Mazda 3s i-Stop has worked faultlessly. I leave it on all the time because it has no adverse effect on my driving. Not to save fuel but because it is nice to sit in a silent car while it is just waiting to go somewhere. Thanks to Mazda's mild hybrid system and lithium battery the new car uses it sooner after startup and for longer periods.
Mazda have a clever system to minimise the need to use the starter motor to restart but it may still take some current. The older one was the first 3 with stop start and had a special I-Stop battery which did fail once during its 10 years - in the first 6 months due to a faulty batch replaced under warranty. There are so many criteria to meet before I-Stop will operate that it is impossible for it to cause a flat battery.
My comment is only on the Mazda 3 implementation because I have never used any other but I find it hard to believe that they are the only manufacturer to make a good job of stop start. In my view those with the most vocal criticisms have either not owned a car with stop start or never used it properly.
|
I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.
In pursuit of my interest in factual posting I just went over to mazda3forums.co.uk and did a search on I-stop. That is the name used exclusively for Mazda's stop-start system since 2009 when it first appeared (on the Gen 2 Sport 2.0L DISI model).
From mid 2009 to date it found a total of only 57 hits. Looking at the titles plus a few spot checks the vast majority discuss the system, its benefits, how it works, etc. There seem to be just a few reports of issues.
Depends on your definition of many of course but possibly Engineer Andy exaggerates. Or perhaps his memory is failing these days.
|
I remember seeing many posts over on the Mazda3 forum about similar issues with their stop-start systems (fine in use) because of the usage pattern. Many people just turn them off when they get into the car if they are going to be using it for the sort of trip that the system doesn't like.
In pursuit of my interest in factual posting I just went over to mazda3forums.co.uk and did a search on I-stop. That is the name used exclusively for Mazda's stop-start system since 2009 when it first appeared (on the Gen 2 Sport 2.0L DISI model).
From mid 2009 to date it found a total of only 57 hits. Looking at the titles plus a few spot checks the vast majority discuss the system, its benefits, how it works, etc. There seem to be just a few reports of issues.
Depends on your definition of many of course but possibly Engineer Andy exaggerates. Or perhaps his memory is failing these days.
Perhaps you should've carried out more than just 'a few spot checks' before making such rather rude remarks. Whilst you appear to believe I now hate everything Mazda - I don't - my comments related to posts on both on this forum and on the Mazda3 forum where members said that the Mazda system wasn't always suited to every driving situation, which then caused problems - not the tech itself per se, and would likely not be any worse than other brands.
I was also generous in my earlier, despite your previous comments on other threads directed at myself, to put you forward to describe your experiences with using the system.
Rather than just state what you have experienced, you decided to put the boot in again for no good reason. I was in no way trying to start an argument.
|
Whilst you appear to believe I now hate everything Mazda - I don't - my comments related to posts on both on this forum and on the Mazda3 forum where members said that the Mazda system wasn't always suited to every driving situation, which then caused problems - not the tech itself per se, and would likely not be any worse than other brands.
That statement makes no sense from someone who claims to understand stop start.
The system is designed to operate only under appropriate circumstances. As I have mentioned previously, Mazda has a long list of criteria which prevent it. For example, if the climate control is running full blast on a hot day in a traffic jam the i-Stop will not operate at all or only for very brief periods. That is not a failure, it is common sense operation and should be clear to any owner who bothers to read the manual.
|
Because under many types of car usage, those systems drain their batteries and then go dead, meaning they are dead weight (lower mpg) until they self-recharge (not easy if you mainly do short urban trips or in heavy traffic with little chance to charge back up).
Many of these systems fail quite quickly and cost more to replace than the ordinary car battery, which often has to be beefed up to cope with many new systems and costs quite a bit more than traditional cars' ones.
Don't the cars monitor the battery and only use the stop start when the battery is fine? I know mine does not always stop the car. And how much fuel saving would you need to compensate the extra cost of the battery would be intersdting to know.
|
|
They do - there are multiple criteria they have to hit before activating, including battery voltage.
If you factor in fuel consumption of approximately 1 litre per hour at idle, so that's about £1.14 per hour saved on stop/start.
|
If you factor in fuel consumption of approximately 1 litre per hour at idle, so that's about £1.14 per hour saved on stop/start.
You might have stopped at the first comma. The system is intended to save fuel (and pollution), not money. Anyhow you are very unlikely to save even an hour's idling, so the cash saving must be trivial.
When operating stop/start 'manually', as I often do at a traffic light which I know will be red for some while, I recall that some of the fuel saved while the engine is stopped will be needed to recharge the battery - especially starting a diesel motor, which takes more effort but uses less fuel while idling.
|
|
I was responding to the comment above regarding the fuel saving overcoming the extra cost of a more expensive battery. So it is relevant in this case.
|
If you factor in fuel consumption of approximately 1 litre per hour at idle, so that's about £1.14 per hour saved on stop/start.
I suspect that in Europe and the UK manufacturers have a wider interest in stop start than saving a drop of fuel for their owners. The system may give a significant improvement in the official CO2 or pollution tests, reducing EU penalties and (where appropriate) some road tax or business use tax rates. This also explains why they cannot provide an option to permanently disable the system.
|
If you factor in fuel consumption of approximately 1 litre per hour at idle, so that's about £1.14 per hour saved on stop/start.
I suspect that in Europe and the UK manufacturers have a wider interest in stop start than saving a drop of fuel for their owners. The system may give a significant improvement in the official CO2 or pollution tests, reducing EU penalties and (where appropriate) some road tax or business use tax rates. This also explains why they cannot provide an option to permanently disable the system.
I wonder if there have been an tests to compare the amount of fuel/CO2 etc saved by stop-start systems compared to that used to make, ship, fit and maintain them over the lifetime of the car, especially when factoring in that many appear to require replacement because they don't suit the driving pattern of many people and in many cases go flat and are often just dead weight, raising CO2 emissions when the car is used.
The problem with 'official' CO2 and mpg tests, even the newer WLTP ones is that they are still not real world tests across a range of driving patterns and over a sufficient amount of time to give a decent average or range of values.
I think they'd do better to just keep the weight down on cars to save of fuel/CO2 that way, plus make them more reliable by making them simpler and needing less replacement of wear and tear parts.
|
|
You've made the point that 'many' fail before. Are there any figures for this, or is it based on forums where people tend to say what's gone wrong, rather than post that things are carrying on as normal?
I can't imagine that every motor manufacturer in the world is fitting stop/start systems because they haven't explored other options at cleaning up emissions, regardless of the reason for cutting them.
Toyota's R&D budget is approx $10 billion annually - I think it's fair to say that they, along with other manufacturers, know what they're up to.
|
If you factor in fuel consumption of approximately 1 litre per hour at idle, so that's about £1.14 per hour saved on stop/start.
I suspect that in Europe and the UK manufacturers have a wider interest in stop start than saving a drop of fuel for their owners. The system may give a significant improvement in the official CO2 or pollution tests, reducing EU penalties and (where appropriate) some road tax or business use tax rates. This also explains why they cannot provide an option to permanently disable the system.
I wonder if there have been an tests to compare the amount of fuel/CO2 etc saved by stop-start systems compared to that used to make, ship, fit and maintain them over the lifetime of the car, especially when factoring in that many appear to require replacement because they don't suit the driving pattern of many people and in many cases go flat and are often just dead weight, raising CO2 emissions when the car is used.
The problem with 'official' CO2 and mpg tests, even the newer WLTP ones is that they are still not real world tests across a range of driving patterns and over a sufficient amount of time to give a decent average or range of values.
John Cadogan has educational talks on YouTube which explain that these systems are used by manufacturers because on the standard EU test cycle of about 20 minutes about one third of the time the car is stationary. Obviously this 'games' the emissions/road tax figures. on the same ethical level as VWs emissions cheat.
Scotty Kilmer also has a 5 minute YouTube piece explaining why theoretical savings aren't achieved in real-world driving.
|
|
'Obviously this 'games' the emissions/road tax figures. on the same ethical level as VWs emissions cheat.'
Hardly - VW had a whole set of software that recognised when it was on test and was never utilised when on the road. It was illegal, and has incurred huge fines to the company.
Stop start is transparent - there is a button on the dashboard, a warning light that indicates when its operational. It's a use of technology that, in this case, cuts emissions on the WLTP test.
NEDC has a stationary time of 13% of the total test time. Typically, cars will idle for less than that - obviously variable on conditions. The test below has a figure of 9%.
www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/do-the-benefits-of...s
Edited by mcb100 on 29/10/2020 at 18:11
|
NEDC has a stationary time of 13% of the total test time. Typically, cars will idle for less than that - obviously variable on conditions. The test below has a figure of 9%.
www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/do-the-benefits-of...s
Thanks for that. I have long surmised that stop start is especially beneficial for the official test results but this is the first time I have seen supporting data. This outcome means stop start has benefited owners (less tax) even if they keep turning it off!
|
NEDC has a stationary time of 13% of the total test time. Typically, cars will idle for less than that - obviously variable on conditions. The test below has a figure of 9%.
www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/do-the-benefits-of...s
Thanks for that. I have long surmised that stop start is especially beneficial for the official test results but this is the first time I have seen supporting data. This outcome means stop start has benefited owners (less tax) even if they keep turning it off!
Rather like car owners 'benefitting' from their car not having a spare tyre as standard (just the tube of goo) but having the underboot space for one and not paying more VED for the extra CO2 having one produces because of the extra weight.
Clown World.
The problem I have with these 'tests' is that they don't replicate real-world driving - even the WLTP one isn't, it just is less bad as the previous one. None of them factor in the large cost of having and replacing the system when it inevitably fails.
|
These ‘tests’ are tests whether you agree or not. They test fuel economy and emissions in a controlled and uniform manner - how else do you suggest we do it?
Again you make the assertion that stop/start inevitably fails. Where is the evidence for this, apart from contributors to a Mazda forum? Batteries do fail, they’re a consumable item.
|
|
In fact even the Mazda forum lacks any real evidence of failed stop start systems. If you look carefully on the Mazda 3 forum you will find a handful of problems with the original Gen2 version probably due to the aging I-Stop battery. Any owner reluctant to replace it (probably about £80) can continue to use their car normally but without I-Stop so hardly a catastrophic "system failure".
|
|
Grateful for the mini review of the Karoq. I’m in 2 minds about it as a car. As a VAG man, I feel I know what I’d be buying, but I can’t decide whether it would be big enough for the load carrying we do and unless you go up to the Sportline - which I wouldn’t want - the looks are a bit bland. And whereas not so long ago it seemed pretty attractive price wise, I got a shock a couple of weeks ago when I saw how much they now cost.
Seat Ateca is a good alternative, being essentially the same car but more sporty looking and having just had a refresh. Main problem is that SWMBO is now our driver and I’d need to get her onside first. Test driving cars is not her idea of a fun afternoon.
|
|
Idling a 12/13 litre Diesel lorry engine uses between 3 and 4 litres per hour, even at a fast idle of 700 rpm driving a hydraulic driven compressor and hydraulics via the pto only uses just over 5 litres for an hour.
The savings on fuel for a typical car engine utilising this stop start faff must be so small as to be barely worth mentioning, i'd be surprised if the savings over several years covered the ridiculously priced battery such cars are supposed to require.
|
Not sure it’s all about saving fuel. But cleaner air for cities.
A line of cars at a red light with functioning start stop must be a good thing.
|
he savings on fuel for a typical car engine utilising this stop start faff must be so small as to be barely worth mentioning, i'd be surprised if the savings over several years covered the ridiculously priced battery such cars are supposed to require.
Just looked up battery prices...old car £89.99 for a 1.2l petrol with no stop start...new car £88.99 for a 1.5l diesel with stop start...so don't see any ridiculous prices there.
And if the car even stops for a few minutes each day it's a saving in my pocket and better than spewing fumes out when you don't need to.
|
|
Stop/start has never been about money saving. As mentioned above in any busy town or city during much of the day there are hundreds/thousands of stationary cars at any one time often sitting their pointlessly chucking out pollution in a very concentrated area.
OK, so drivers could turn off their engines manually, but they tend not to.
Edited by pd on 29/10/2020 at 22:34
|
|
Does this stop start mania extend outside the reach of the European Union? Can’t imagine those big American V8 bothering with such a fad?
First thing I do when I get in the car is to disable the dam thing !
Surely it must take its toll on the starter ring , not too worried about the motor as it’s replaceable.
Feel sorry for the residents of busy urban roads as all they must hear is the clunk clunk as the parade of cars travel two cars lengths before cutting out again.
|
|
I'm not checking them all, but the 2021 Corvette Stingray has stop/start.
If you hear a clunk clunk then there's something wrong...A decent article here explaining the technicalities of it - www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/stop-start-lon...e
Why do you disable it?
Edited by mcb100 on 30/10/2020 at 12:54
|
Idling a 12/13 litre Diesel lorry engine uses between 3 and 4 litres per hour, even at a fast idle of 700 rpm driving a hydraulic driven compressor and hydraulics via the pto only uses just over 5 litres for an hour.
The savings on fuel for a typical car engine utilising this stop start faff must be so small as to be barely worth mentioning, i'd be surprised if the savings over several years covered the ridiculously priced battery such cars are supposed to require.
Based on my 26 mile trip into work - Doncaster to Wakefiled via tha A roads I was sat stopped with the engine off for 4.5 minutes. So each day that would be 9. So 45 minutes a 5 day week. So 39 hours over the year...so if 1 litre is used every hour that's about £45 a year saved in fuel...5 year approx on a battery lasting - £225. So would more than pay for the cost of the battery with a £100 or more in my pocket. And that's just on that one journey.
Also not putting out fumes/pollution when the car has stopped is a good thing.
|
|
<< Also not putting out fumes/pollution when the car has stopped is a good thing.
That is the real purpose of stop/start, plus the maker's wish to get below some theoretical CO2 threshold.
But I suggest that you may have overestimated your money saving because (as I said above) restarting a car takes charge from the battery which will be replaced by using some of the fuel saved. I don't know how much, but I don't think it's insignificant, especially with a diesel engine.
|
|
The RAC are happy to quote a fuel saving of between 5-7% and a reduction in Co2 of up to 20%.
www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/road-safety/stop-start-.../
|
The RAC are happy to quote a fuel saving of between 5-7% and a reduction in Co2 of up to 20%.
That must be relating to an assumed mixture of driving, as used to be quoted by car makers 20+ years ago. It clearly won't apply to motorway alone.
|
|
As you correctly said - clearly.
|
|
As Mazda seems to have been mentioned a lot in this thread its also worth pointing out that their current system makes minimal use of the starter motor to restart. It sounds quite different from the normal push button cold start and is mostly imperceptible as you pull away. This may now be helped by their mild hybrid system used in conjunction with it. I assume as usual that the current system used by many other makes is much the same even it the precise mechanism differs.
|
|
I’ll have to check this, but I think I’m right in saying that on cars with M Hybrid it’s the motor/generator that does the restarts, via a belt and drawing from the 24V traction battery. So still no starter motor or ring gear wear.
|
|
In fact Mazda claim they do not "rely on" the starter motor:
While conventional idling stop systems rely on a starter motor to restart the engine, Mazda's i-stop restarts the engine through combustion; fuel is directly injected into a cylinder while the engine is stopped and ignited to generate downward piston force. The result is a quick and quiet engine re-start compared to other systems and a significant saving in fuel.
There is more information plus pictures here: www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-stop/
Looking at the pictures this seems to be their older system without M-Hybrid (separate starter and alternator). Also one of the captions says "combustion + motor assist" which is vaguely what I remember reading years ago about my previous Mazda.
Edit: Google also found this which confirms that the above also applies to the M-Hybrid cars even if the picture is out of date:
Working in conjunction with the Mazda M Hybrid system, all versions of the 2020 Mazda2 are also equipped with the i-stop idle-stop technology as standard. Developed entirely in-house and tailored specifically for its application in Mazda’s Skyactiv engines, the i-stop idle-stop system uses combustion energy for restarting the engine, and only requires an electric-powered starter motor to provide a small degree of momentum during the initial restart phase.
Edited by misar on 30/10/2020 at 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
