Jump to content

Lee65

Member
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lee65

  1. 2 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

    ... what is your verdict?

     

    Illuminating.  All bow down to Saint George!  A great expose of politics running roughshod over common sense.  And of the stupid masses & media showing their stuff.

     

    There was one issue poorly addressed in the film.  Did Chauvin - who used the technique he was taught - use it longer than was necessary.

    • Agree 1
  2. 4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

    My point was that if a car has been smashed enough to damage the battery the rental company would not be handing it out to the next driver as the car would be so severely damaged as to be unusable. So your argument that EVs are bad because you might rent one and you don't know what the previous renter did to the battery is just nonsensical. You are inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios each time.

     

    That was me inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios, not Lacessit (who was polite not to take credit).

     

    Damage to the bottom of vehicle - where the battery pack is - would almost certainly be missed by the rental car company.  Ever bottomed out a vehicle on a back road strewn with large, embedded rocks?  I have - as might have a previous rental driver.  

     

     

     

     

    • Haha 1
  3. On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

    I thought they were pretty well balanced and fair. Would be keen to hear feedback from any open minded anti-EV posters.

     

    I thought they were ridiculous and exemplified the bias and low-level rationality/"science" to be expected from The Guardian.

     

    I'm not "anti-EV" but rather an EV skeptic/realist.

     

    On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

    (Yeah yeah, the Guardian, lefty liberal, pushing the woke agenda, blah blah)

     

    Your attempt to preempt reader's complaints about The Guardian betray your own lack of open-mindedness.

     

    Hope we're even now.

  4. 2 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

    Imagine, then you stop somewhere for a battery change, you just got a new car with new battery, after the change you find out you have a 4-year-old battery....

     

    Good point.  And it might be a damaged 4-year-old battery.

     

    (As, incidentally, might be the case for an EV rental car ...)

     

     

     

    • Confused 1
    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
  5. KhunLA - In some posts here you've reported the money you've saved on fuel by driving your EV.  If I understand correctly, you state most of your vehicle charges are from your home solar charger and that you count these as "free" of cost as you are charging with "excess" solar power.  I.e. You already had your home solar power system before you began charging your vehicles with it.

     

    This seems to me disingenuous accounting.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to apportion your cost of charging your EV at home as a percentage of the Cost of Ownership (initial outlay, maintenance, depreciation, repairs, etc.) for your home solar energy system.

     

    For example, if charging your EV accounts for 30% of your systems annual energy output, then your annual EV energy cost would be 30% of your systems annual Cost of Ownership.  It is not really "free energy" as you claim.

     

  6. 10 hours ago, BenStark said:

    CP now owns 7/11 - Makro - Lotusssssss - Lotusssss go fresh, as well as many of the main brands sold in those, so creating a monopoly.

     

    I don't know if you have noticed the significant price increases in makro, and the much lesser products available.

     

    CP has turned most of the food floor space at big Lotus stores into giant 7-11s.  "Do what you know ..."    :saai:

     

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...