[GeeTee TSI]

While this may come across as overkill to RR brand admirers, I wish India to takes a leaf out of this regulation for reducing light pollution to enforce 'default low beam' for all two wheelers with always-on headlamps.

I am at my wit's end especially with the LED equipped Activas as they blind the hell out of my fore and aft field of vision

[ZenMaster]

Originally Posted by GeeTee TSI

I am at my wit's end especially with the LED equipped Activas as they blind the hell out of my fore and aft field of vision

Also add the Bajaj Dominar to that list as well as the previous gen Hondda City's DRLs.

On a more serious note, I don't think this issue needs to be given that much importance unless they are banning all kinds of Hood Ornaments. This is only the illuminated version. And I do find it quite sensible especially in countries that have two-way traffic. You don't want a sleepy driver to be confused as to whether its your hood ornament or oncoming traffic.

[vredesbyrd]

This is absolutely appalling. EU has already made numerous passes at ruining motoring for everyone except karens and people who don't like cars. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from NGT was present while rendering this policy.

[maheshm619]

Originally Posted by ZenMaster

Also add the Bajaj Dominar to that list as well as the previous gen Hondda City's DRLs.

I beg to differ.The Dominar's LED setup is one of the better designed headlamps, while Activa + most other two-wheelers lack any kind of focus.I think the reason for your argument might be being high-beamed by a dominar in the past.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by vredesbyrd

This is absolutely appalling. EU has already made numerous passes at ruining motoring for everyone except karens and people who don't like cars. I.

You don't like air bags, seat belts, collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, ABS, EPS, low emissions, high FE etc etc. the list goes on. There is decades of EU legislation that has brought stuff as standard to cars sold in the EU. There are actually quite a few threads on the forum where members are demanding some of this should be made mandatory in India.

Jeroen

If you

[vredesbyrd]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You don't like air bags, seat belts, collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, ABS, EPS, low emissions, high FE etc etc. the list goes on. There is decades of EU legislation that has brought stuff as standard to cars sold in the EU.

I am not complaining about safety features at all. I am irked by their policies on enforcing electric vehicles and soon on displacement restrictions. Light pollution? RR isn't exactly a mass market vehicle. What are they even going to get with this?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by vredesbyrd

This is absolutely appalling. EU has already made numerous passes at ruining motoring for everyone except karens and people who don't like cars. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from NGT was present while rendering this policy.

Originally Posted by vredesbyrd

I am not complaining about safety features at all. I am irked by their policies on enforcing electric vehicles and soon on displacement restrictions. Light pollution? RR isn't exactly a mass market vehicle. What are they even going to get with this?

Request you to substantiate your views with some hard facts. You are irked by rules on EVs?? I suppose you won't be irked by climate change, melting Artic, rising seas and dropping food production. Thank God Europe is doing the right things because USA lost the plot on strategic global issues needed to save the planet and China doesn't care. You are young enough to witness the rising seas and dramatic climate changes that are coming.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by vredesbyrd

I am not complaining about safety features at all. I am irked by their policies on enforcing electric vehicles and soon on displacement restrictions. Light pollution??

It would help if you would read some of the earlier comments. This particular legislation has nothing to do with light pollution. It was neither intended for a particular type or brand. It is a general set on what kind of lights, position of lights, colours and intensity cars in the EU are allowed to carry. It is a standardization and safety regulations. That, as far as I can tell, RR choose to circumvent as these rules have been valid for a number of years already. So now RR needs to adjust all new cars and the ones already sold when this regulation came into force.

Jeroen

[vredesbyrd]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank God Europe is doing the right things because USA lost the plot on strategic global issues needed to save the planet and China doesn't care. You are young enough to witness the rising seas and dramatic climate changes that are coming.

I have no qualms with green energy. But there are some major points in consideration:

1) Rare earth elements are required to manufacture Li-Ion or Li-Po batteries. The only way of doing it is mining and no way that is a healthy activity. Green mining is still in infancy and we do not know the effectiveness yet

2) Infrastructure support is a big concern (though not much in EU but in the world scenario, yes). Many EU countries have green/renewable energy but it is still 18.9% of the total energy consumed. The source of power is either thermal or nuclear power generation. Not so green

3) Would one rather wait for an hour to recharge or get refilled within minutes, especially if there is an emergency?

4) It will be years before we could get range as good as an IC engine (exception: Tesla)

5) Coal contributed to 68% of total CO2 pollution in 2016, the power plants at it again. EVs have air conditioning too, CFC galore

6) We should first strengthen our renewable energy sources than forcing everyone to buy EVs. The world needs to tackle this problem at the root level instead of doing face changes and pushing people like Greta on the stage. Here, a post on TBHP itself about how displacement isn't proportional with pollution: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...any-sense.html (Why engine capacity-based diesel vehicle bans don't make any sense)

Most people from my generation care less about being a petrolhead and are more into laptops with wheels. That does not mean that everyone should stop us few from enjoying nicely done IC engines. I take responsibility for the environment, I recycle, I save resources. I do respect your opinion, sir. But if someone puts an absurd blanket rule, I will not stay quiet. I stand with Mr. Clarkson and I rest my case

[Starfire]

Legend has it that the next country to leave the EU is Germany. If it happens, remember you heard it here first folks!

[gthang]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank God Europe is doing the right things because USA lost the plot on strategic global issues needed to save the planet and China doesn't care. You are young enough to witness the rising seas and dramatic climate changes that are coming.

Is that commitment reflected by disinvestment in the North Sea oil industry?

It's farcical for Europe to claim the high ground when majority of their countries benefit from better infrastructure paid for by centuries of colonization. The spearhead of the"Green" movement, Scandinavia is funded by the biggest Oil fund in the world. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Keep the conversation about the "grim" future, so that the"gory" past can be ignored. The harsh reality of the present, of children dying while mining for rare earth elements required for EVs also not as critical as the impending doom of "climate change".

No generation can "witness" climate change. Please consider the age of the earth and the changes that have happened in time to get a perspective.

Cheers.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by vredesbyrd

1) Rare earth elements are required to manufacture Li-Ion or Li-Po batteries. The only way of doing it is mining and no way that is a healthy activity. Green mining is still in infancy and we do not know the effectiveness yet

2) Infrastructure support is a big concern (though not much in EU but in the world scenario, yes). Many EU countries have green/renewable energy but it is still 18.9% of the total energy consumed. The source of power is either thermal or nuclear power generation. Not so green

3) Would one rather wait for an hour to recharge or get refilled within minutes, especially if there is an emergency?

4) It will be years before we could get range as good as an IC engine (exception: Tesla)

5) Coal contributed to 68% of total CO2 pollution in 2016, the power plants at it again. EVs have air conditioning too, CFC galore

6) We should first strengthen our renewable energy sources than forcing everyone to buy EVs. The world needs to tackle this problem at the root level instead of doing face changes and pushing people like Greta on the stage. Here, a post on TBHP itself about how displacement isn't proportional with pollution: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...any-sense.html (Why engine capacity-based diesel vehicle bans don't make any sense)

1) A genuine concern but mostly likely, we will see increased recycling as EV's get popular and with genuine scrapping policies being crafted for EVs. Moreover, gadgets such as smartphones and PCs require much more rare-earth metals than EVs. It's true that manufacturing EVs produce twice as much CO2 emissions as manufacturing ICE cars but most of emissions in the life-cycle of an ICE is during its life-time and not manufacturing, so EVs are still more eco-friendly by a huge margin.

2) Nuclear energy is actually quite green despite its negative image especially with the new-gen reactors which are exceptionally safe. Anyway, the shift to renewable energy has been very significant in the EU and we should see many if not most of them being carbon-neutral by 2050. Even the US is turning towards renewables despite a hostile administration because of how cheap it has become.

3) Charging times have been coming down drastically especially with the Tesla Model 3 (150w) and Porsche Taycan (250W) which promise between 15-25 mins of charge? (correct me on this). And this is within 5-6 years mind you! By 2030, we should have genuinely quick chargers with charges times of under 10 mins.

4) The fact that Tesla has cars while can go over 500 km means that other manufacturers won't be too far catching up. When you are at 500-600 km, you are already really close to ICE cars and moreover EVs tend to have ranges closer to their advertised range as compared to EVs (as per Matt Watson's test).

5) Yes but the share of coal production is shrinking rapidly (though not as rapidly as required) because right now, wind power and solar power are actually cheaper than coal in many countries (including India I believe). Also, thermal plants are much more expensive to operate and that's why when India went under lockdowns, more thermal plants were closed as compared to renewable energy. Also CFCs have either been banned or phased out and cars don't use CFCs since atleast the 90s. Also thermal plants are much more efficient than ICE's in cars because of their size, so you are still saving emission.

6) The displacement rules were silly so lets ignore it. But it's really important we understand the seriousness of climate change. It's not about polar bears as Clarkson keeps saying, its millions and millions of people who will end up being climate refugees. India will probably have to host the ENTIRE country of Maldives when it will inevitably go underwater. This is not fear-mongering - this is real! The fact that the effects of climate upto now has actually been WORSE than what scientists had predicted means we need action NOW. The whole 'if it doesn't affect me, its not my problem' attitude has made the COVID-19 crisis from bad to worse and trust me climate change would be far worse. Please understand that scientists (I'm one) of all people don't fear-monger and society will suffer if you don't listen to your scientists.

About Clarkson, I adore that guy since I was a kid but he's a dinosaur unfortunately and even he had to concede on climate change during the recent Cambodia-Vietnam episode in the Grand Tour. He is from a generation resistant to change (unlike his own kids) but that doesn't mean that you have to be. I understand that you are either a millennial or Gen Z (like me). When I can actually afford a powerful car, it will probably be only EVs and that's quite saddening since I LOVE ICE engine sounds but this is bigger than our pleasure and our senses. This is about the survival of millions of people which might lead to a much more unstable world.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by gthang

No generation can "witness" climate change. Please consider the age of the earth and the changes that have happened in time to get a perspective.

Cheers.

I said this before and I will say it again. Changes which happen over millions or even tens of thousands of years is not the same as changes within 150 years. There is no way any species even one as advanced as humans can deal with such a change. I'm sorry but as someone who works in this field, I feel like us scientists work in an echo-chamber!

Also, WE ARE WITNESSING climate change! All the data suggests so and we've already seeing some of the consequences.

Perhaps we should keep the climate change discussion for another thread.

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by gthang

Is that commitment reflected by disinvestment in the North Sea oil industry?
It's farcical for Europe to claim the high ground when majority of their countries benefit from better infrastructure paid for by centuries of colonization. The spearhead of the"Green" movement, Scandinavia is funded by the biggest Oil fund in the world. Hypocrisy, anyone?

You have rightly called out the hypocrisy.

Economic progress eventually affords countries to adopt eco friendly means of living. The alternative is day dreaming of elitists.

United States rolled back regulations got out of stupid climate accords, encouraged fracking , now natural gas is fast replacing coal in many sectors and resulted in lower carbon emissions YoY since 2016 all the while enabling economic growth. Without going nuclear its impossible for industrial nations to give up fossil fuels, simple as that.

Some interesting graphs from Trading economics.

This is the United States.



And this is a Scandinavian country.



And this is another Scandinavian country.



The important aspect is - US GDP is ~ 18% of world economy and Denmark only 0.29% and Sweden at 0.44%. US also has the lowest corona virus contraction of economy among major western nations, they are on point.

[vredesbyrd]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I understand that you are either a millennial or Gen Z (like me). When I can actually afford a powerful car, it will probably be only EVs and that's quite saddening since I LOVE ICE engine sounds but this is bigger than our pleasure and our senses. This is about the survival of millions of people which might lead to a much more unstable world.

1) It won't help. You can't just undo the damage caused by mining. Besides, if they want to be ethical, batteries will cost way more since swapping child labour with adults will require more expenditure

2) "Nuclear energy is actually quite green despite its negative image especially with the new-gen reactors which are exceptionally safe." I agree and have had the first preference for nuclear energy. However, it is not just about the reactors being safe. We need to take car of the radioactive waste. We can't just chuck it in a pool or bury it and forget it. Can't be recycled unless we reach production-level fusion reactors (then we can say that we have progressed in the Kardashev scale)

3) "Charging times have been coming down drastically especially with the Tesla Model 3 (150w) and Porsche Taycan (250W) which promise between 15-25 mins of charge? (correct me on this). And this is within 5-6 years mind you! By 2030, we should have genuinely quick chargers with charges times of under 10 mins." - Oh well, you've got me there! But, putting high wattage chargers everywhere with thick amperes flowing will be quite a task for any country

4) Yes, the range is improving, but even with tech like regenerative braking, there is still vampiric battery drain. Using anything will affect your range, like AC, radio, headlights etc. I know, ICEs will have the same effect (alternator sapping power/mileage) but it is negligible compared to what using these would do to an EV

5) Yes, ICEs are only about 21% efficient but we are ignoring some fundamental laws of thermodynamics and energy conversion. To save time, effort and have efficiency, I'll copy-paste an answer from someone on Quora (do you see what I did there ):

"Most of these answers are wrong because they ignore two things.

They count the energy to refine gasoline or cost of transportation but when looking at gas or coal powered electric plans they ignore that gas is part of the gasoline refinery and still must be transferred and coal must be dug out of the ground and transported

They rightly point out the inefficiency of combustion engines but presume electric generation is 100% efficient, that electric distribution is 100% efficient, and finally that the electric motor in your car is 100% efficient. None of that is true.

Generally the laws of conservation of energy and laws of thermodynamics is that each time you transfer energy to work as a cycle, efficiency is reduced. There are heat losses creating electricity from any carbon based energy, transmission lines are not 100% efficient. That is why the electricity at the pole outside your house is >240 and there are transformers between you and the electricity company. R=V/I. Electric motors are also not 100% efficient they also lose energy to heat thats why they have bearings. Batteries are also not 100% efficient. In fact they suck over time and get worse and worse with age. You don’t believe me, charge your ecar, let it sit for 6 mos. and then drive the normal distance you go your normally charged batteries.

when you count everything, your electric car is really partly a coal car (worse emissions on the planet) and partly a nat gas refinery car. Your electric car is over 85% a fossil fuel car. The only difference is you are paying for your energy twice . It simply costs you less because coal and nat gas are the cheapest carbon based energy on the planet and the electric company gets the best deals based on quantities. Sleep well driving your e-carbon vehicle."

6) I never said that I don't understand the seriousness of this. Instead of attacking all points of pollution and greenhouse gas generation, everyone is only focused on berating ICEs

While I completely understand your concern about the environment (trust me, I am concerned as well), but if only one target is being pursued and that is something I (we) love more than anything, I am bound to rebuke at these policies. I did not even complain when BS4-BS6 transition happened (which is a good thing) but this pure evil hate towards ICEs by the world is not justified. I hope I have made my points clear.