RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review
Discussion
740EVTORQUES said:
flatso said:
The new 5er is gigantic in size, and looks cheap.
Since when is CO2 poison or bad? How much is CO2 from our atmosphere?
If you accept the greenhouse gas hypothesis, are there other greenhouse gases in MUCH larger proportions in our atmosphere?
How much greenhouse gas is expelled from a vulcano eruption?
Just some puerile questions from semeone who profoundly dislikes waste, polution, and ideological manipulation.
Now back to bashing the Bayerischer Marmite Werke
The thing is we don't control volcanoes. We do control the use of fossil fuels, deforestation and livestock populations.Since when is CO2 poison or bad? How much is CO2 from our atmosphere?
If you accept the greenhouse gas hypothesis, are there other greenhouse gases in MUCH larger proportions in our atmosphere?
How much greenhouse gas is expelled from a vulcano eruption?
Just some puerile questions from semeone who profoundly dislikes waste, polution, and ideological manipulation.
Now back to bashing the Bayerischer Marmite Werke
If you're triggered about Ev's just wait till they start pressurising people to switch to a (healthier) more plant based diet...
If you are triggered by some simple questions and refuse to answer any of them you may start reading about imposed diets by the commies in eastern europe and asia and ask yourself how beneficial that experiment was.
And about controling volcanoes, isen't this thw whole hypothesis that our farting of CO2 destabilises and affects everything?
Harry_523 said:
flatso said:
The new 5er is gigantic in size, and looks cheap.
Since when is CO2 poison or bad? How much is CO2 from our atmosphere?
If you accept the greenhouse gas hypothesis, are there other greenhouse gases in MUCH larger proportions in our atmosphere?
How much greenhouse gas is expelled from a vulcano eruption?
Just some puerile questions from semeone who profoundly dislikes waste, polution, and ideological manipulation.
Now back to bashing the Bayerischer Marmite Werke
"just asking questions..." is one of the most pathetic way of thinking you are making anything close to a point. Come with information or walk on.Since when is CO2 poison or bad? How much is CO2 from our atmosphere?
If you accept the greenhouse gas hypothesis, are there other greenhouse gases in MUCH larger proportions in our atmosphere?
How much greenhouse gas is expelled from a vulcano eruption?
Just some puerile questions from semeone who profoundly dislikes waste, polution, and ideological manipulation.
Now back to bashing the Bayerischer Marmite Werke
So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
flatso said:
If someone makes such huge claims that a trace gas upon which all life on earth depends is to be suddenly categorised as poison then one should be prepared to answer at least one of the basic questions above. And low budget ad hominems do not count as answers.
So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
Luckily the vast majority of scientists have looked at this in detail and advised governments who as a group have made some pretty clear decisions that need to be made now to avoid serious climate effects if this is still possible.So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
You don’t need to worry about it but let your elected representatives do what you elected them to do!
740EVTORQUES said:
flatso said:
If someone makes such huge claims that a trace gas upon which all life on earth depends is to be suddenly categorised as poison then one should be prepared to answer at least one of the basic questions above. And low budget ad hominems do not count as answers.
So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
Luckily the vast majority of scientists have looked at this in detail and advised governments who as a group have made some pretty clear decisions that need to be made now to avoid serious climate effects if this is still possible.So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
You don’t need to worry about it but let your elected representatives do what you elected them to do!
Please point out any of our politicians that have any scientific competence at all. And as I remember it was the same competent scientific politicians that were going on about a new ice age, ozone holes, acid rain, global warming etc.just a few years ago.
Lots of hot air produced by your beloved political saviours.
flatso said:
740EVTORQUES said:
flatso said:
If someone makes such huge claims that a trace gas upon which all life on earth depends is to be suddenly categorised as poison then one should be prepared to answer at least one of the basic questions above. And low budget ad hominems do not count as answers.
So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
Luckily the vast majority of scientists have looked at this in detail and advised governments who as a group have made some pretty clear decisions that need to be made now to avoid serious climate effects if this is still possible.So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
You don’t need to worry about it but let your elected representatives do what you elected them to do!
Please point out any of our politicians that have any scientific competence at all. And as I remember it was the same competent scientific politicians that were going on about a new ice age, ozone holes, acid rain, global warming etc.just a few years ago.
Lots of hot air produced by your beloved political saviours.
I said excess CO2.
We have a lot more of it in the atmosphere than we had before the industrial revolution, everyone knows where it comes from.
Now google 'average global temperature vs CO2 concentration' and select images.
Pick a graph, any graph.
The correlation is so incredibly obvious.
Sure, correlation is not necessarily causation.
If that is the case, we must surely have an obvious alternative explanation?
Some mythical natural weather phenomenon that just happened to arrive at the exact moment, pretty much to the year, in the several billion year history of the planet, that human activity starting increasing CO2 concentration?
How incredibly unlucky is that?
Maybe the methane concentration is a possible cause instead, or as well as CO2?
Good spot, yes the methane concentration and temperature chart also correlate.
Not one, but two of the most significant greenhouse gas concentrations are on the rise due to human activity and temperatures are also rising.
Sure, even in the face of such a blindly obvious explanation, a proportion of the population will simply deny that.
Or maybe they don't think that rising temperatures are something to address?
Humans population has always had, and will always have, a certain proportion of psyches that are drawn to conspiracy theories.
And like a broken clock, they are probably right 0.1% of the time.
On this one, I'm going with the obvious.
flatso said:
740EVTORQUES said:
flatso said:
If someone makes such huge claims that a trace gas upon which all life on earth depends is to be suddenly categorised as poison then one should be prepared to answer at least one of the basic questions above. And low budget ad hominems do not count as answers.
So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
Luckily the vast majority of scientists have looked at this in detail and advised governments who as a group have made some pretty clear decisions that need to be made now to avoid serious climate effects if this is still possible.So how about letting pathetic old me know some of that information so we can all walk on.
You don’t need to worry about it but let your elected representatives do what you elected them to do!
Please point out any of our politicians that have any scientific competence at all. And as I remember it was the same competent scientific politicians that were going on about a new ice age, ozone holes, acid rain, global warming etc.just a few years ago.
Lots of hot air produced by your beloved political saviours.
those scientists assess things using data, following the scientific method, and put their work through peer review, and much scrutiny. A simple enough system that has given us amongst many things ... well, given us "almost everything", really.
but - that reading that will make you furious, and make you post "sheeple" nonsense like the above, because stuff like "data", and "objective scientific fact" don't really matter anymore to so so many people. Stuff is happening you don't like, you have a set of views that says this stuff is all bull****, and some kind of conspiracy, and nothing - literally nothing will shift your mind.
And what is the *actual* conspiracy here? allll of your views were put there by west coast algorithms with one singular objective: to keep you online for longer, so you watch more adverts. That is it. Every meme you click, all the Youtube "research" you form your world view by, all of those groups on FB you're in that just bounce around the same drivel in a little echochamber: all there to keep you online for longer.
Meanwhile poor Dave the Scientist is plodding along working more stuff out that should benefit humanity, but his lifetime's work just discredited because when bellend creates another meme.
(back on topic: that M5 is still too heavy to be desireable)
flatso said:
...ozone holes, acid rain...
2 absolutely great examples of serious environmental problems identified by scientists who worked with the worlds governments and supranationals to find solutions that were implemented and helped resolve the problem. Or did you think they just went away on their own?
Nomme de Plum said:
Yes but the EV is still much better over its lifetime and this advantage only gets better as we decarbonise our energy production.
The details have been published on this forum numerous times and explained by those that work and have real expertise in the field.
I must admit I don't really get the hybrid thing for this M5 and IMO they would have been better to stick with pure ICE until ready with a bespoke design EV version in say 3-5years time. Having said that the only 5 I owned was a diesel touring about 15 years ago.
A little bit better at best. And thats open for interpretation. The 'science' is backed by sponsors.The details have been published on this forum numerous times and explained by those that work and have real expertise in the field.
I must admit I don't really get the hybrid thing for this M5 and IMO they would have been better to stick with pure ICE until ready with a bespoke design EV version in say 3-5years time. Having said that the only 5 I owned was a diesel touring about 15 years ago.
cidered77 said:
Meanwhile poor Dave the Scientist is plodding along working more stuff out that should benefit humanity, but his lifetime's work just discredited because when bellend creates another meme.
Haha.I reckon you just summed up why I spend so much time in these threads.
Whilst I'm not called Dave, I do think I can lay claim to striving throughout my entire engineering career to use whatever knowledge and abilities I have to continuously improve technology and products in this sector.
I suppose it does get to me sometimes that the immediate go-to for some people is scam/lie/must-be-a-hidden-agenda.
What ever happened to intrigue and open-mindedness?
Metaphorically, having your work checked by an idiot is not something anyone wishes for.
For the benefit of the doubt, that is not directed at anyone in particular.
GT9 said:
Sure, but it's the weight of what you cumulatively burn and not what you carry to burn it with that really matters.
If you can avoid burning, you avoid waste heat.
That fact never goes away.
As per my earlier post, waste heat, either in the production of fuel, or from the engine when you burn that fuel, or even from the friction brakes is contributing 4 out of every 5 tons of a conventional car's CO2 footprint during the usage phase.
Only the last ton is doing any useful work to accelerate the car, to keep pushing it through the air and to overcome rolling resistance of the tyres.
In that respect, about half goes to drag, and half goes to weight, so if the car is twice as heavy but half as draggy, it's a zero sum game.
Less draggy means less cooling apertures for waste heat...
Adding mass to the car to save many multiples of that mass outside the car is the unfortunate crux of the scientific argument.
The planet wins, the driver doesn't like it.
Unless of course they can learn to live with the different taste of cheese after it has been moved.
Understood and agreed. Evidently I was not clear enough that I was referring to the production 'cost' of these cars. Not to labour the point but it was simply to say that at zero miles a 2.5 tonne beast like this is going to have cost what 15, 20 tonnes of Co2 in material processing and manufacture? Compared to say a 1400kg car which I'll wager is *roughly* half that. Of course over a lifetime, assuming clean leccy the tables are turned. The poster we were replying to asserted that it would have been better to have invested in lighter cars than EV's which OK is wrong at a system level, but he's not entirely wrong in many cases and shouldn't just be dismissed as anti scientific. We already know how to build sub 1500kg cars, I've got half a dozen, so it's not a case of either EV or light weight ICE, we can do both and that is surely better than behemoth ICE/hybrids.If you can avoid burning, you avoid waste heat.
That fact never goes away.
As per my earlier post, waste heat, either in the production of fuel, or from the engine when you burn that fuel, or even from the friction brakes is contributing 4 out of every 5 tons of a conventional car's CO2 footprint during the usage phase.
Only the last ton is doing any useful work to accelerate the car, to keep pushing it through the air and to overcome rolling resistance of the tyres.
In that respect, about half goes to drag, and half goes to weight, so if the car is twice as heavy but half as draggy, it's a zero sum game.
Less draggy means less cooling apertures for waste heat...
Adding mass to the car to save many multiples of that mass outside the car is the unfortunate crux of the scientific argument.
The planet wins, the driver doesn't like it.
Unless of course they can learn to live with the different taste of cheese after it has been moved.
Maccmike8 said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Yes but the EV is still much better over its lifetime and this advantage only gets better as we decarbonise our energy production.
The details have been published on this forum numerous times and explained by those that work and have real expertise in the field.
I must admit I don't really get the hybrid thing for this M5 and IMO they would have been better to stick with pure ICE until ready with a bespoke design EV version in say 3-5years time. Having said that the only 5 I owned was a diesel touring about 15 years ago.
A little bit better at best. And thats open for interpretation. The 'science' is backed by sponsors.The details have been published on this forum numerous times and explained by those that work and have real expertise in the field.
I must admit I don't really get the hybrid thing for this M5 and IMO they would have been better to stick with pure ICE until ready with a bespoke design EV version in say 3-5years time. Having said that the only 5 I owned was a diesel touring about 15 years ago.
I will defer to real experts like GT9 and a couple of others but even my generalist Mech Eng degree studies allowed me to understand some pretty basic fundamentals of the associated physics.
Who are these sponsors to whom you refer? Some of the major motor manufactures have been dragging their heals in relation to EV role out and have been caught with their pants down and resent the likes of Tesla and now the Chinese.
If you want to look for vested interests look to the fossil fuel industry some of who are behaving in much the same way as the tobacco industry did decades ago. They managed to delay smoking restrictions and bans leading to many billions wasted and unnecessary suffering. We should have learnt from this.
pheonix478 said:
Understood and agreed. Evidently I was not clear enough that I was referring to the production 'cost' of these cars. Not to labour the point but it was simply to say that at zero miles a 2.5 tonne beast like this is going to have cost what 15, 20 tonnes of Co2 in material processing and manufacture? Compared to say a 1400kg car which I'll wager is *roughly* half that. Of course over a lifetime, assuming clean leccy the tables are turned. The poster we were replying to asserted that it would have been better to have invested in lighter cars than EV's which OK is wrong at a system level, but he's not entirely wrong in many cases and shouldn't just be dismissed as anti scientific. We already know how to build sub 1500kg cars, I've got half a dozen, so it's not a case of either EV or light weight ICE, we can do both and that is surely better than behemoth ICE/hybrids.
These heavy hybrids are sort of in no-man's land in terms of decarbonisation, and your point is very valid, they won't be making a whole lot of difference on a lifetime footprint analysis, i.e. the breakeven is quite far right on the timeline.They will be looked back on as a stepping stone.
They are basically softening up buyers of these type of cars to the ultimate incarnation of 'wall of torque', which in all probability is pure EV. Hyundai got the jump on BMW with the 5N, but I'd say the first of the pure EV M cars will take a similar formula and turn it up to 11.
Simulated intense sensations, massive acceleration, complex positive and negative torque vectoring, hefty kerb mass smashed into submission by a wall of 4WD torque, that sort of thing.
Whilst it's not an impossibility that something dislodges EV as the lowest lifetime footprint technology, the timelines and trajectories for renewable electricity, battery production footprints and battery recyclability are all so obviously and steeply heading in that direction that it would take some sort of major revolutionary breakthrough for an alternative to overcome that.
I guess you saw my (tongue in cheek) post about banning forced induction and low cylinder count but not banning ICEs.
I believe that would achieve exactly what you are describing, lightweight, high-revving, petrol ICEs for enthusiasts and EVs for everything else.
Weight is much more of a disadvantage for ICE than it is for EV, as you know...
GT9 said:
cidered77 said:
Meanwhile poor Dave the Scientist is plodding along working more stuff out that should benefit humanity, but his lifetime's work just discredited because when bellend creates another meme.
Haha.I reckon you just summed up why I spend so much time in these threads.
Whilst I'm not called Dave, I do think I can lay claim to striving throughout my entire engineering career to use whatever knowledge and abilities I have to continuously improve technology and products in this sector.
I suppose it does get to me sometimes that the immediate go-to for some people is scam/lie/must-be-a-hidden-agenda.
What ever happened to intrigue and open-mindedness?
Metaphorically, having your work checked by an idiot is not something anyone wishes for.
For the benefit of the doubt, that is not directed at anyone in particular.
Yahonza said:
Is it agile and still a driver's car, or is it fundamentally compromised?
Was a large saloon with a good engine and decent suspension ever a proper driver's car, whatever that means? It was always big so never going to compete with more nimble machines many with more modest output.Metrics like 0-60 mph or 0-100 mph were never a good measure so track times were added to the bragging rights. Now apparently those metrics don't count either especially if the vehicle is an EV and therefore a bit lumpy like this car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff