Jump to content

The slow death of diesel


Malo37

Recommended Posts

I think all the talk of Euro6 etc is only postponing the inevitable demise of the diesel motorhome. The motorhome dealers claim to be optimistic that the current situation will go on forever. I disagree.

While retrospective legislation is unusual, it i s effectively happening eg the progressive imposition of road charges on pre Euro6 engines by local authorities. I don't expect central Government to retrospectively increase road tax on older vehicles but they will no doubt increase fuel duty, particularly on diesel, perhaps punitively.

Commercial hauliers can offset their operating costs against tax so big increases in diesel fuel tax would target private diesel powered vehicles and help drive them off the road. I see this as the inevitable way forward by Government who have a declared intention to reduce deisel emissions and eventually eliminate them entirely. I would like to buy a motorhome to replace the Burstner I sold last year, but I don't want to be the proud owner of a £60k vehicle when the bottom drops out of the motorhome market.

Any reassurance based on fact rather than optimism would be welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'facts' are that when you consider the MO of a motorhome a suitable alternative to deisel is only likely to be when SSB's are mainstream, and that's not going to be for at least another 5 years. Hydrogen is another possible alternative, but AFAIK one of the biggest mainstream vehicle manufacturers who where promoting this seem to have stopped development.

Our next van will be deisel unless there is an alternative in the next year, and that is very unlikely, if it is valueless in ten years so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that imminent elimination of diesel large vehicles is over pessimistic. I had to smile at your comment “Any reassurance based on fact rather than optimism would be welcome.” when your own pessimism is not based on facts either. There’s no doubting the direction of travel but the speed at which we get there is pretty unclear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malo37

 

Aren’t you just revisting your 2018 enquiry

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Diesel-motorhomes-obsolete-/49089/

 

having decided to go ‘boating’ in late-2017

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Decided-to-sell-my-motorhome-/47920/

 

The logical approach would be for you to opt for a smallish caravan and a non-diesel towing-vehicle. Then, when electric power becomes more suitable for motorcaravanning (or for towing), you can rethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Derek Uzzell - 2020-08-18 9:15 AM

 

Malo37

 

Aren’t you just revisting your 2018 enquiry

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Diesel-motorhomes-obsolete-/49089/

 

having decided to go ‘boating’ in late-2017

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Decided-to-sell-my-motorhome-/47920/

 

The logical approach would be for you to opt for a smallish caravan and a non-diesel towing-vehicle. Then, when electric power becomes more suitable for motorcaravanning (or for towing), you can rethink.

 

Or if it's of a suitable vintage......... whack a Essex V6 in it B-) ..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many older vans were petrol engined and if fear of depreciation is your motive why not buy an older van and spend some of the huge savings both in cost and depreciation on a refurb and overhaul?

 

If we were able to have another motorhome diesel would be my first choice and it would not be new so buy now and enjoy the time you have.

 

Worry about the unknowns when they become known and at the very worst your kids will inherit less - so no big deal there then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

retro fit e-conversion is already a thing in the classic car market and as the price drops will spread.

 

how the commercial vehicle / van marfket changes is anyones guess right now (and that seems to be the tech that goes in to MHs, rather than car tech) but bio fuels have found a place around the world

 

Roll forward 10 years and bio sourced fuel seems a viable option, 25 years from now more likely e-power - assuming civilisation is still going

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine any worse form of motorhoming than having to be tethered to an umbilical cord every night - YUCK.

 

Limited range, limited overnight freedom, having to find and even pre book destinations just to get power - YUCK YUCK

 

Site lovers may like it but many other freedom wanderers won't. YUCK YUCK YUCK

 

No thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2020-08-18 4:57 PM

 

I cannot imagine any worse form of motorhoming than having to be tethered to an umbilical cord every night - YUCK.

 

Limited range, limited overnight freedom, having to find and even pre book destinations just to get power - YUCK YUCK

 

Site lovers may like it but many other freedom wanderers won't. YUCK YUCK YUCK

 

No thanks!

 

Don't forget vastly reduced payload due to lugging batteries around.. YUCK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, we could consider why there is downward pressure on diesel, and petrol come to it. I feel guilty driving our motor caravan, knowing how any vehicle contributes to global warming, but console/kid myself that as we don't fly anywhere or eat meat, we balance things out.

If you're really bothered, look at future-proofed electric 'vans - there are a few on the market, albeit small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never felt in the least bit guilty when I consider how insignificantly small my personal pollution is compared to carbon belching shipping, aircraft, power stations, industrial production, deforestation and too many others to mention.

 

When they all put their house in order I may think differently but holdinmg my breath while I wait I am not!

 

I won't even contemplate giving up meat or reducing farting - few enough pleasures left these days as it is!

 

Typical enviiron mentalists to target the soft targets first - you and me - first.

 

Global warming is not caused by burning, it's caused by political hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am planning to buy a £100,000 motorhome next year when I retire, and I plan to keep going in it until the end, Now if the powers that be want to stop me because of engine/diesel, I will take the engine and gear box out, and use a pair of horses to drag me every where, see how they like that when I block the streets in the cities going 5 miles ahour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2020-08-18 5:33 PM

 

I have never felt in the least bit guilty when I consider how insignificantly small my personal pollution is compared to carbon belching shipping, aircraft, power stations, industrial production, deforestation and too many others to mention.

 

When they all put their house in order I may think differently but holdinmg my breath while I wait I am not!

 

I won't even contemplate giving up meat or reducing farting - few enough pleasures left these days as it is!

 

Typical enviiron mentalists to target the soft targets first - you and me - first.

 

Global warming is not caused by burning, it's caused by political hot air.

 

You're missing the point - reason for climate change is the shipping, aircraft etc you mentioned which are for your benefit, or do you grow all your own veg, breed your own meat, make your own clothes etc? You're not a soft target, it's the sum total of everyone. Suggest you need to look into this more, as well as reason why coronavirus moved from wild animals to humans - encroachment on wild environment. Same as HIV, Ebola, SARS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conrad - 2020-08-19 9:13 AM. ....,,,why coronavirus moved from wild animals to humans - encroachment on wild environment. Same as HIV, Ebola, SARS.

 

Coronavirus doesn’t have any sort of thinking or choosing capacity and the idea that it switched to humans because of environmental pressure on wild animals is not remotely sensible. It simply reproduces itself efficiently in any hospitable circumstances In which it finds itself and overflows from there to spread itself to pastures new. And unfortunately for us it’s also very good at making itself available to spread around in the environment (as extremely small particles which travel in aerosols) to enter new hospitable media (eg human respiratory tracts) so it’s highly infective. Coronavirus started infecting humans when the opportunity of contact with humans arose, purely by chance. Proximity with wild animals facilitated this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conrad - 2020-08-19 9:13 AM

 

Tracker - 2020-08-18 5:33 PM

 

I have never felt in the least bit guilty when I consider how insignificantly small my personal pollution is compared to carbon belching shipping, aircraft, power stations, industrial production, deforestation and too many others to mention.

 

When they all put their house in order I may think differently but holdinmg my breath while I wait I am not!

 

I won't even contemplate giving up meat or reducing farting - few enough pleasures left these days as it is!

 

Typical enviiron mentalists to target the soft targets first - you and me - first.

 

Global warming is not caused by burning, it's caused by political hot air.

 

You're missing the point - reason for climate change is the shipping, aircraft etc you mentioned which are for your benefit, or do you grow all your own veg, breed your own meat, make your own clothes etc? You're not a soft target, it's the sum total of everyone. Suggest you need to look into this more, as well as reason why coronavirus moved from wild animals to humans - encroachment on wild environment. Same as HIV, Ebola, SARS.

 

I have long espoused the need for each country in the world, where possible, to be self sufficient in at least food and preferably most things. The benefits in so many ways far outweigh the costs, but it would now take a monumental change of attitudes to make it happen as the world worships low prices. Low at the point of sale maybe but not so low socially?

We as individuals are all soft targets because it is considerably easier to penalise law abiding individuals than it is to tax greedy multi nationals and it is far easier to restrict an individual than it is a government of any country.

Stuart is right about Covid but without so much needless and cheap flights and a general 'it won't happen to me' attitude the spread would have been much slower and maybe controllable. In many ways mankind has brought this pandemic upon itself - but so few can see that and it seems the world is hell bent to get back to the old ways? Will mankind never learn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-08-19 10:09 AM

 

Conrad - 2020-08-19 9:13 AM. ....,,,why coronavirus moved from wild animals to humans - encroachment on wild environment. Same as HIV, Ebola, SARS.

 

Coronavirus doesn’t have any sort of thinking or choosing capacity and the idea that it switched to humans because of environmental pressure on wild animals is not remotely sensible. It simply reproduces itself efficiently in any hospitable circumstances In which it finds itself and overflows from there to spread itself to pastures new. And unfortunately for us it’s also very good at making itself available to spread around in the environment (as extremely small particles which travel in aerosols) to enter new hospitable media (eg human respiratory tracts) so it’s highly infective. Coronavirus started infecting humans when the opportunity of contact with humans arose, purely by chance. Proximity with wild animals facilitated this.

 

Exactly right - the "proximity with wild animals" came about because of encroachment into their environment to sait our increasing need for food, especially meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiat announced an all-electric version of Ducato over a year ago

 

https://newatlas.com/fiat-ducato-electric-van/60384/

 

with more recent details here

 

https://tinyurl.com/yyhupc9z

 

but, although this may be fine for ‘commercial’ applications, I can’t see it being suitable for traditional motorcaravanning.

 

(I understand that Greta Thunberg has registered to use this website, so there’ll ne a new forum soon called “Save the Planet” that will be a cross between Motorhome Matters, Hints & Tips and Chatterbox. That way - hopefully - the Motorhome Matters stuff can stay reasonbly on topic. ;-) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you’re missing the point, too many lies and deceiving tactics have been used in the last twenty years, passed as facts, when it is not fact at all, There are two sets of arguments on this matter, more believable argument is by the scientists, that state, the natural world is to blame for global warming, the biggest being the volcanos, now your side say it is just ash belching out of them, it is just common sense to know better, the main gas released from volcanoes is water vapour, which is harmless. However, significant amounts of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen halides is released in Hugh quantities, not counting of course the Hugh oil fields that they burn off when pushing up though the ground, they can burn off more oil in a week then the whole world uses in ten years, but of course they don’t want you to know the real facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travelbob - 2020-08-19 7:20 PM

 

 

Maybe you’re missing the point, too many lies and deceiving tactics have been used in the last twenty years, passed as facts, when it is not fact at all, There are two sets of arguments on this matter, more believable argument is by the scientists, that state, the natural world is to blame for global warming,........

 

I suspect you are just trolling because, these days, very few scientists subscribe to that view.

 

Over 95% subscribe to the evidence based view that climate change is driven by mans activities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

peterjl - 2020-08-19 7:42 PM

 

Travelbob - 2020-08-19 7:20 PM

 

 

Maybe you’re missing the point, too many lies and deceiving tactics have been used in the last twenty years, passed as facts, when it is not fact at all, There are two sets of arguments on this matter, more believable argument is by the scientists, that state, the natural world is to blame for global warming,........

 

I suspect you are just trolling because, these days, very few scientists subscribe to that view.

 

Over 95% subscribe to the evidence based view that climate change is driven by mans activities.

 

Maybe, but the planet's climate has always evolved over many millenia and calling it Global Warming is a very convenient way to raise taxes based on a natural planetary cycle of warming and cooling.

 

There was a time when very few scientists said the world was round and there was a time when 95% of scientists said the Sun orbited the Earth?

 

It could be said that the claim that mankind has single handedly altered the planetary climate is a supreme arrogance on the part of mankind - and whatever else mankind is he is certainly arrogant.

 

I can still remeber not so many years ago after a spate of cold winters we were all warned that we were heading for another ice age - so much for that theory which was quickly forgotten when GW conveniently came along as the latest theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for most, common sense is anything but common. And related to that is the ability to follow, read and understand scientific discussions and findings. It's just a natural progress of things that most science these days goes waaaaaay over the heads of most people on earth. Even, and often, also scientists.

 

One thing is certainly true, people trust and support science in general only as long as it agrees with their views. On the points where it doesn't, no ammount of persuasion will convince them otherwise and they are quick to forget (if they ever understood) the scientific process and method. Note I'm not claiming science and scientists are perfect or that anything is ever settled for good. But eventually the process leads to decent enough approximations within certain constraints. To ignore the current consensus simply because it conflicts with your views, not via credible and verified counter arguments, is what separates a true sceptic from a conspiracy theorist.

 

In other words, stop cherry picking long debunked theories. It will take a lot of effort on your part to design and adequately test a hypothesis that will change the consensus on most topics. That most people (sadly not all) trust earth is round and revolves around the sun is a prime example of just that process of introducing a radical new theory but one that was backed by solid evidence that even the most stubborn traditionalists (i.e. old farts who liked the status quo) couldn't argue against with any credibility no matter how the odds were stacked against it in the beginning. To turn this argument upside down is somewhat ironic to say the least.

 

Not that I'm expecting to convince anyone either way... but science abuse (i.e. pseudoscience) is a bit of a sore point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spirou - 2020-08-19 10:04 PM

 

Unfortunately for most, common sense is anything but common. And related to that is the ability to follow, read and understand scientific discussions and findings. It's just a natural progress of things that most science these days goes waaaaaay over the heads of most people on earth. Even, and often, also scientists.

 

One thing is certainly true, people trust and support science in general only as long as it agrees with their views. On the points where it doesn't, no ammount of persuasion will convince them otherwise and they are quick to forget (if they ever understood) the scientific process and method. Note I'm not claiming science and scientists are perfect or that anything is ever settled for good. But eventually the process leads to decent enough approximations within certain constraints. To ignore the current consensus simply because it conflicts with your views, not via credible and verified counter arguments, is what separates a true sceptic from a conspiracy theorist.

 

In other words, stop cherry picking long debunked theories. It will take a lot of effort on your part to design and adequately test a hypothesis that will change the consensus on most topics. That most people (sadly not all) trust earth is round and revolves around the sun is a prime example of just that process of introducing a radical new theory but one that was backed by solid evidence that even the most stubborn traditionalists (i.e. old farts who liked the status quo) couldn't argue against with any credibility no matter how the odds were stacked against it in the beginning. To turn this argument upside down is somewhat ironic to say the least.

 

Not that I'm expecting to convince anyone either way... but science abuse (i.e. pseudoscience) is a bit of a sore point.

 

I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...