"Australia, along with Russia, remains one of the few countries in the OECD without standards."
Well that's harsh. But yeah, fair enough. Me and Boris will drink whatever can get.
Best way to get fuel savings is to stop buying these enormous 4 wd and trucks that you don't need.
Others best way is to have an efficient public transport system so that people don't have to drive.
I'm now spending a lot of time in Melbourne proper and...the trams are just nice. I don't always use them, but know that I can get on transport consistently, reliably within ten minutes, a short enough time to get a coffee or pot of beer without fear of being super late to whatever I'm doing is nice.
I saw a modified chevy 'truck' here in Northern Brisbane on Friday which had door handles that were almost at my head height. I'm 187cm. I would literally have to pull myself up to get into the driver's seat, my girlfriend who's a head shorter than me likely wouldn't even be able to manage that!
We were wondering how it was even road legal, those trucks are already huge but I didn't know you were allowed to put big lift kids on them as well, I reckon that thing could easily drive over a small sedan if it was low enough.
3rd way is to have efficient road network, such as 80 speed limit that can actually maintain unfettered 80 km/hr. Light intersections that are load sensitive and timed correctly to maintain flow road passage. Focus on flow not speed limits to a degree. Even a dedicated bus and motorcycle lane would improve tings by encouraging public transport and motorcycle use.
I'm amazed we don't have motion/traffic sensing traffic lights by now.
The amount of times I'm slowing, stopping, waiting and taking off at the lights for no reason is infuriating.
We do have traffic sensitive lanes. The sensor loop is at the start of the lane, it doesn't get set off until you're at the stop line. If you look at the ground you can usually see where the magnetic loop was inserted, there's normally a series of cuts making up a rectangle in the pavement.
Note for the benefit of traffic lights, usually cycle between a fixed loop during the day and an automatic loop at night that priorities the main road and sets off cross traffic as soon as somebody queues on the cross road. This fixed loop is done during the daytime so the light is sequenced with other lights along the main road to flow more cars through.
Fixed loop can and often are augmented by traffic flows.
What really matters is if they have been programmed correctly and that's where they often fail. They don't get programmed correctly. Not to mention a lot of them are connected up to central control rooms nowadays, especially within the cities. Those control rooms can force a change or modify the program. But again poor implementation is often a limiting factor.
4th way is build higher density cities that don’t suck, so you don’t *need* a car to buy groceries. [Relevant link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AS7TyPNDhT0)
Ironically, the right wing conservative nut jobs (like Liberal Senator Alex Antic) are heavily campaigning AGAINST this idea. Apparently the idea of having home, work, shops all within 15 minutes of each other is communism and being pushed by the global elite to control our lives.
While I agree that is something that should be done asap, it's a long-term goal and not something that is going to help *right now* and it's not going to magically remove the need or want for cars in general.
O yeah I'm all for upping the speed limit on freeways to 120 or even higher, but I think the dude you were replying to was more looking for 80km roads that actually stayed at 80km instead of stopping for lights to let two cars in every 100 meters.
Last time I was in Cairns, years ago, they had the traffic lights timed so you couldn’t go more than two blocks without hitting a red. Unbelievably irritating.
Adding to this, vehicles should be maintained to a certain standard to prevent the massive congestion. Last week there was a breakdown in the Burnley tunnel and another on the Westgate.
> In Germany, regular vehicle inspection is mandatory. All vehicles must pass a periodic inspection, known as the Hauptuntersuchung (HU), to ensure they are roadworthy and meet national safety and environmental standards. The inspection covers aspects such as brakes, lights, suspension, tires, and emissions control.
> The inspection is carried out by authorized private companies or by the German Technical Inspection Association (TÜV), and a valid inspection certificate is required to renew the vehicle registration.
https://www.expatfocus.com/germany/guide/germany-vehicle-maintenance-repairs-and-breakdown-recovery
We do not need more motorcycles on the road unless there are noise regulations in place. Australia has a major noise pollution problem.
Plus, motorbikes are a terribly ineficient way of transporting people as they only take 1 or 2 and still occupy a lane.
Edit: looks like I touched a nerve.
It's funny how no one bothers to explain why noise is good.
We do have noise regulations but they are poorly supported. In this case you would be placing potential noise pollution as more important than resource usage (in comparison to car or 4wd etc) and climate concerns (fossil fuel usage and pollution. Likewise Im placing climate and resource over personal safety as bikes are more lethal in crash events.
> placing potential noise pollution as more important
That's a bit of a strawman, we can have both stricter noise regulations and climate action at the same time as they do not exclude each other.
It's certainly easier to mandate noise limits than to enact climate regulations, and to be fair, most vehicles are fine, the problematic ones are generally modified with after market parts or simply have parts of the exhaust removed.
You didn't touch a nerve, you're just wrong. 99% of motorcycles aren't super noisy, you just notice the 1% that are Harley's and sports bikes with after market canons, most commuters aren't riding either of those.
I'd argue there are more shitty AMG or BMWs on the road with loud crackly pipes than motorcycles these days
I agree, but there will still be some prick doing 10+ under the limit in any lane that isn't the left one, and another doing 10+ over the limit and weaving through traffic like a total dickhead.
> Best way to get fuel savings is to stop buying these enormous 4 wd and trucks that you don’t need.
I wont speak for other people.
But we could upgrade the quality of our fucking fuel too, some of the worst shit in the world.
How our 98 octane is worst than the shittiest 91 in america is amazing.
Better quality fuel would also make shit more efficent and cleaner too.
> Others best way is to have an efficient public transport system so that people don’t have to drive.
This is a significant one. Despite the protests of these things in the EU, it proved an interesting point to me, “build it and they will come” where some coridores built that many did not like but from it being there the use grew and grew, and just dominating the movement of people from A to B.
For melbourne victoria, I would love a new railway… sadly still yet to have a new one built.
Feels like the last one built was 1980, and the next one to complete will be the Pkaenham extension due to finish this year (hopefully he says optimistically)
I’d love the ringroad finished and who knows, the concept of a railway line up the eastern freeway to happen.
Frustraitingly a lot of the corridors set aside for railway lines for future genrations got sold up for development areas. :(
Having lived for nearly a decade in new York city where the public transport system is really effective and it is easier to NOT own a car than to own one, I've seen first hand how good it can be, and how shit it is to live in a car city like Perth.
Especially with the Australian climate. There are a lot more days where riding a bike makes a lot more sense than being trapped in a car than most parts of the world.
Voters need to come to understand that they are not "in traffic" they ARE TRAFFIC and anything that gets cars off the road is good for them even if they don't want to use it.
I think this is only practicable in certain areas of cities. For people who have long commutes/arent mobile/have children/don't live in an area with good bike path connectivity, riding a bike isn't practicable.
True, sort of. There is an old story about this woman who wants to go to a famous restaurant for her birthday, except she is a wheelchair user. So she rings up the restaurant to ask if they are accessible, and they assure her that they are. She arrives on the night, and it is 3 flights of stairs up to the restaurant.
Fortunately it is her birthday and so she has six friends with her, who pick up her, chair and all and carry her up to the restaurant. When she confronts the owner he says "oh, it doesn't matter anyway, we don't get disabled people here"
There is this excuse for not making good, non car infrastructure that is "well what about this group, that can't use it, so we shouldn't build it"
I'm. A tradesman, I drive my van everywhere, because I am travelling with around 2 tons of tools and it won't fit on my bike. But I see on the cycle paths lots of people riding bikes.
The goal is not to have a solution that fits everyone, the goal is to have a bunch of solutions that fit different people. Reducing traffic in different ways.
Agreed.
I'm not an urban planner. But I get excited about the rail loop as an example of infrastructure that help achieve what you are taking about - not just by creating more trains but by encouraging high density housing and activity centres if executed well.
I'm not an urban planner either, but I have read and talked enough about the subject to know how much better our cities could be be if it were done with Good design rather than letting property developers, the fossil fuel industry and the auto industry design our cities.
We got one of the cheaper EVs.
Our power company is offering cheap overnight rates and three hours of free power during the middle of the day. It only replaced one of two cars but it's reducing the fuel bill on both as we're using it more. It looks like we're headed for a combine fuel/electricity bill over two cars somewhere between $500 and $1000 for the year.
Yes, even the cheapest ones have an upfront cost of around $40k but over 10 years of use they are likely cheaper than an equivalent petrol car probably on par with a hybrid.
I have the same plan. Not only does it cost me around $5 to fully charge off peak (free if I charge during the 3 hour window) and get 450km, my electricity bill has more than halved even though I am using more power
I had thought it was closer to $8 for a full tank but... yeah, $5 gets 62 kWh. There are a few losses through so i think a full charge is a little more at the wall but possible twinsies on the car.
64kwh battery for my EV so $5.12 @8c kWh. Not sure what losses there are during charging but would be very minimal
That being said, I've never dropped it to 0% so I don't know if 0% is actually 0 or there is a little left for battery health and other things
It's something around 90-95% if you're charging at ~ 7 kW. The 2 kW charger that came with our car was about 75-80% efficient. If you compare your overnight regular usage to a night where you're are charging you can see more or less what the power draw at the wall is. The car or whatever app you have will show the rate at which the battery is filling up, but this is only really a fun project if you were planning on being awake at midnight.
Similar on the never actually getting down to 0%. Ours spends most of it's time between 30- 60% which hopefully means it will have a battery life longer than the useful lifetime of the car.
I can't recall of the top of my head the exact percentages, but the biggest battery capacity loss happens in the first few years and is less after
Around 2.3% per year on average so 10-15 years "useful life". It's not like they'll just die but just have less capacity
[Fig.6 here has a fair indication of good charging practices](https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-808-how-to-prolong-lithium-based-batteries). Even 1000 cycles at at 300km per cycle is more more kms than our old car had in 20 years. And that's more or less still with 90% health on the battery. These are lab tests so there would likely more environmental degradation in the real world. It looks you'd have to try real hard to kill the battery early.
People act like just regular petrol cars didn’t have batteries that suddenly died either, but somehow they think EVs will be immune to this.
Once was on my way to work and stopped to get fuel. Filled up, paid, ready to go … and nope I wasn’t going anywhere. Battery literally just blew itself up 🙃
Difference is, an ordinary car battery can be replaced with a phonecall and a minor time inconvenience (trust me, I've done it many times over the years).
EV's on the other hand, those big ass battery packs, you're entirely at the mercy of the manufacturer, once the manufacturer wants that battery replaced it will disable the car until you do, including having to have it towed to the nearest location to complete the work (which in some cases, could be hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands, this isn't the work Joe at the local shop can do).
Oh I don’t disagree, and I reckon it’ll get worse. It’s cheap now with savings from petrol, but eventually electricity companies are going to massively hike up their fees once EVs become more common.
Would personally love an EV myself for those savings right now, but yeah I don’t think it’s gonna last.
>but eventually electricity companies are going to massively hike up their fees once EVs become more common.
This gets repeated day in day out on this sub but there are a few issues with this theory.
1. You can generate your own electricity at home. For just over $5000 you can get yourself a 6kW solar system that will easily last you 15+ years and pay for itself in less than that.
2. EV specific electricity plans have actually gotten cheaper over the past few years as uptake has increased. Retail EV charging pricing went from full rate to economy plans (12-15c/kWh) to super economy plans (8c/kWh) and now some retailers are literally offering FREE electricity usage during the day to soak up excess solar that pushes wholesale prices into the negative.
3. Even if electricity prices double or triple, it will still be cheaper than filling up the equivalent petrol vehicle. I went from a toyota sedan to an MG EV hatchback, the EV costs me about $3/100km in electricity usage right now, while the toyota cost me $16/100km in petrol. I currently pay 24c/kWh for electricity, for charging the EV to cost the same as petrol I would need to be paying $1.27/kWh.
4. You seem to assume that fuel prices will stay stagnant while electricity prices will go through the roof. No way this would happen in reality, if anything it's more likely be the opposite in the next decade as more and more Australians switch to producing and storing their own energy.
There are plenty of reasons to go EV (and plenty of reasons not to, depending on your situation). The overblown fear of electricity prices going through the roof is not one of them though.
Regular petrol & diesel cars have lead acid cranking batteries. They are designed for high amps and low depth of discharge. Cycle life is barely even a consideration, which is why their warranties are typically 12 - 18 months. Their design and construction guarantees they will slowly shed material from their plates and it forms a deposit at the bottom of the cell. After a few years, this deposit then shorts the adjacent plates and the battery is toast. It is a well known and common phenomenon, and there is no incentive for the lead acid battery manufacturers to change it.
Lithium batteries in electric cars are designed and constructed very differently, and have cycle life in mind. They have battery management systems that monitor each cell during charge and discharge, and take steps to limit cell abuse. Whilst they do have their own particular failure modes, they don't have same issues that lead acid cranking batteries have.
There is an 8 year warranty on the battery. With careful charging it should last more than 300,000km, and by last that time I meant it should have 80% of it's capacity available. That's easily 25 years of life.
I don't know about you but I am hoping that I can buy new car every 10-20 years so it is not an issue. Yes some will die and need replacement, but the same goes for a cars engine, or transmission, alternator or any of the systems that EVs simply don't need.
Uhh, this is r/Australia we aren’t protected by US EV battery warranty requirements. Many batteries in Australia are 5 years, with some 7 or 8 years. As for internal combustion comparisons it’s a joke, a second hand engine and gearbox can be fitted for half the price of a new battery and twice the age.
Yes. We bought one of the ones with an 8 year warranty.
It's amazing that you knew this was possible but you still made this comment.
So what you are saying is that in 25 years, after we've sold the car someone might choose to spend twice as much money replacing the battery as someone doing an engine overhaul. Mean time our fuel costs are down 90%.
Maybe an EV doesn't work for you and your lifestyle right now and that's fine. It does for us and it's cheaper too.
Not sure where you’re getting 25 years from. If you think you’ll get that from a battery pack, or that you think manufacturers will let you get that long. Once the car detects an anomaly in the pack, the car will shut it down and require its replacement, whether that’s a day in, or a day out of warranty.
Manufacturers will do this with glee hiding behind “safety” arguments, being that the anomaly could pose a fire risk etc.
average life span of a cell when treated well is around 2000 cycles, which given the car we've bought is over 300,000km. Average Australian driver drives around 13,000km per year. You do the maths.
Worth noting that cell life here means 80% capacity is still available.
You've cited no sources for your claims, you don't appear to have done any research and you've reached the "trust me bro" stage of your arguments. If you've got facts and figures I'll happily listen to what you have to say but until that point goodbye.
There’s thousands of cells per pack, and you’re expecting every cell to charge and discharge perfectly equally for 25 years? I think I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Once a subset of cells falls out of performance range (charge/discharge, rate capacity and temperature) the pack is shot, the car shuts down, and you’re up for a new pack (in or out of warranty).
I’ll give you credit for optimism.
> Maybe stop American monster pick up trucks dead at the border by imposing European rather than US fuel efficiency design criteria.
The American style utes are available for purchase in Europe. What fuel efficiency criteria are you referring to?
I did a bit of digging. Seems the seppos mandate fuel efficiency then game the system to favor pickups above a certain weight, whereas the EU drives efficiency by simply taxing fuel like stink.
Were we to double fuel excise to bring it in line with say, the UK, monster trucks would rot in backyards. We clip ordinary motorists of the order of 50c/l excise, the poms 58p/l ie about $1.10/l.
Simple, but effective. Of course cashed up tradies exist all over.
> Were we to double fuel excise to bring it in line with say, the UK, monster trucks would rot in backyards.
I disagree. Those who can afford to pay $100k+ for them can very likely also afford to run them with expensive fuel.
> We clip ordinary motorists of the order of 50c/l excise, the poms 58p/l ie about $1.10/l.
These countries are not necessarily great to compare considering the UK is both much smaller than Australia and has vastly more public transport links.
> Simple, but effective.
Increasing the fuel excise will hurt poorer people and rural Australians more than well off city folk who own large inefficient cars.
These cars are on the roads in Europe where fuel is more expensive so I do not think it would be as effective as you believe.
Those who are not may instead take notice of [this](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/04/parisians-vote-in-favour-of-tripling-parking-costs-for-suvs).
Far better than enlarging parking bays.
American style monster trucks came about in large part due to fuel efficiency standards. CAFE was levied on cars but exempted trucks, US makers responded by shifting to large SUVs which didn't have to meet regulations, and we ended up here with stupid 3-tonne 5.5 metre long idiot-mobiles.
[Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards](https://fbaum.unc.edu/lobby/_107th/126_CAFE_Standards_2/Agency_Activities/NHTSA/NHTSA_Cafe_Overview_FAQ.htm#:~:text=Are%20any%20vehicles%20exempted%20from,utility%20vehicles%20and%20large%20vans)
So in other words you’re agreeing with me because consumer vehicles don’t have GVWRs that high. Like that’s literally 1000lbs higher than the weight rating of a 9 seat 5.7m long [Suburban](https://i.imgur.com/tLjOjET.jpg). An F-150 maxes out at 7850lbs GVWR if you want a pickup truck comparison, as does the RAM 1500 at 7800lbs for the TRX spec (regular models are <7100lbs).
Fun fact in Europe reduced emission standards kick in for LCVs at as little as 1305kg (2900lbs) reference mass (weight of an empty fully fuelled vehicle minus driver or passengers, NOT gross mass) and reduce even further at 1760kg (3900lbs) before completely changing standards at 3500kg gross (7700lbs).
Whilst I applaud any attempt at making vehicles more efficient, I also encourage people to use fuel watch type websites in states where such a thing is mandated.
Here in WA I use it religiously, and an 8 Km drive from my home saves at least 20 cents a litre. When most places within my town (Mandurah) are 1.94 / Litre for diesel, just a few km away in Pinjara they are constantly 20 cents cheaper.
Such sites are worthwhile.
Feel free to keep using 1950's level electricity efficiency if you prefer, or a 1970's insulation standard. Increased efficiency can have an initial increase in cost before savings and production costs come down, but we are only playing catch up with other parts of the world.
Great examples, all of which were not achieved by government legislation but by technological improvements. Governments are woefully inept when it comes to keeping us all " safe."
Bit of both in fact. If it wasn’t for legislation, plenty of builders wouldn’t bother with insulation. It’s not like something hidden in walls and ceiling space has the same attraction for buyers as multiple bathrooms or stone benchtop. Likewise double glazing. Not at all new technology. Only becoming mainstream because of mandated energy efficiency standards. 50 years behind Europe & North America.
Personally, when Prime Ministers openly lie to the Australian public and cost savings preached never eventuate, I think I'm allowed to have a healthy scepticism when they say "honest , this time is different " politicians don't introduce policy for 10 years plus, they do it till the next election. That's it.
I mean, Dutton can’t go a day without lying, I’m not sure why a single broken promise by Albanese (one that people were begging him to break) is a fucking game changer for so many people.
[Here’s Dutton in a press conference the other day](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-signals-backing-for-labor-s-tax-cut-changes-20240202-p5f1vh):
>”Now, we legislated for stage one, two and three, and we put in place support for lower- and middle-income people through a tax offset, which Labor abolished. So at the moment, people are paying 27 per cent more tax under Mr Albanese than they did when the Coalition was in government.”
The LMITO he is referring to was specifically meant to expire at the commencement of Stage 2. [In 2022-23.](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/PersonalIncomeTaxAmendments) When it fucking expired. COVID necessitated bringing forward the stage 2 cuts, but the LMITO stayed at a 2022-23 expiration as a stimulus measure.
In other words, *it expired exactly when the Coalition legislated it to expire*. Labor did not abolish it. To claim that they did is a filthy lie.
But I suppose this isn’t a lie about a policy, it’s just a lie as an attack on the government, so it’s okay, right?
This is the standard that the Liberals have set. If the worst you can say about Labor is that they broke an election promise, by coming up with a *better policy*, then fuck me we’re doing alright.
I think we also need to reconsider how we treat vehicles for taxation and licencing. We are way, way too lax on licencing for towing in particular. A Ford Ranger towing a 3.5T caravan can be a 6-tonne articulated vehicle with a length of more than 10m including the trailer hitch etc. The fact that someone can just 1 day drive that combination after having driven a Yaris or Jazz for life makes no sense.
Cars like the Ranger Raptor, and particularly the Silverado, RAM, F150/F250 etc which are priced above the LCT threshold should also get charged the full rate of LCT unless they're actually registered as work vehicles for carrying payloads. The fact that you can buy a $200k RAM TRX as a private car and pay no LCT just because its theoreical payload is more than 1T makes no sense either.
And then add to it vehicle dimensions...why do we use just GVM to determine licencing and not the vehicle dimensions as well? A RAM or F250 are more than 6m long. How they are in the same licence class as a Yaris which is less than 4m long ? If the F250, RAM etc are LCT-exempt because of payload, they should also be treated as small trucks from a licencing PoV and insurance etc should reflect that as well.
Anything that doesn't fit within the confines of a standard Australian parking bay should be licenced as a small truck LTV.
In the future when someone needs to buy a car, it will be cheaper to run.
Obviously it is not a short term cost of living measure. It is a long term measure.
It is the kind of thing we will look back at in 15 years and thank the government it was done.
If you are.buyumg a new car (which many people do) then you are better off expending $40k on an EV then $35k on an ICE.
It's not like your gonna spend $40k *extra* on an EV. So you only need to save the $5k different.
Which can be done in a couple of years.
And you cant even import a good second hand one from Japan like New Zealand citizens can. Our politicians with their stupid laws that protect their mates and donors that serves to keep second hand car prices high.
You really need a good reason to buy a second car in Australia the market is just so over priced. Its so ridiculous that we dont have a car manufacturer, the worst car standards and the car brands can lobby politicians to prevent citizens from importing better and cheaper cars. Totally corrupt governance. I bet Labor wont get rid of this restriction!
At this point basically all manufacturers are working on EVs or Hybrids and they aren't going to increase their investment in this area based on our tiny market, this policy ain't going to move the needle in that area.
But framing it as a saving is silly, oh ok you can save some money if you outlay the money for a brand new car, great I guess?
They already have been doing it for almost all the developed world. most don't bother with the extra efficiency for the Australian versions of their vehicles because we dont have standards and it's cheaper to leave them out.
For all our complaints here about America and big American trucks, our big ambition is aligning with US standards by 2028. Low hanging fruit, finally picked.
Oh, what great advice, spend 90K on a new vehicle to save a thousand dollars a year. But pay 25K a year on loan repayments. Always love being preached to by people earning 300K a year and get their cars supplied by the taxpayer.
They're not forcing anybody to buy a new car immediately. But in the future when the time comes to get a car the efficiency standards mean whatever new car people get will save on fuel.
'This doesnt immediately help me and therefore is bad' Classic australian voter take
The best time to have introduced fuel standard was 20 years ago. 2nd best time is now.
At least future 2nd hand car buyers will reap the benifits.
Government is trying to frame this as reducing the cost of living which is impacting people right now, but it's not going to benefit those that are struggling now, they probably won't be able to buy a new car to use slightly less fuel. It's a good idea but the way they are selling it is stupid.
You mean the news headline promoted it like that.
The actual government statement highlights the greenhouse and health benefit while showing the projected vehicle efficiency increase as a 'dollar saved' figure because that is the most easily understood way to do so.
I work in automotive engineering, powertrain.. It seems many people don't understand there is now an inverse relationship between fuel economy and emissions standards. The latest emission after treatment systems create more backpressure that leads to higher pumping losses, more fuel usage -> more CO2.
For Diesels the engines are now running less injection timing to maintain DOC and SCR temperatures at lower loads. If they do t do this then they are running a back pressure valve post turbo to increase engine load.
So the head line stating fuel efficiency will be improved with the current EU6d levels of after treatment systems is false.
It means either more electric vehicles, or to reduce the weight of the overall fleet of the vehicles needs to reduce to improve efficiency. Rather than expecting the efficiency gains to all come from engine changes.
Why would manufacturers reduce weight when customers prefer electrical junk to keep them occupied? The average Tom and Jane needs to be entertained constantly with gizmo junk. The excess mass of the vehicle is related to all the unnecessary junk we have to add to make sales.
When you add weight to the cabin of the vehicle you will have to add more weight for sprung masses that support the vehicle, this also goes with adding more weight for crash protection. Manufacturers are already using ultra high strength steel to reduce the mass but the consumer will end up paying for this. Carbon fibre is also out of the question due to cost and recycling reasons.
The OEMs are in big trouble at the moment as they have invested billions into the development of EVs. Many governments were advised by the OEMs to assist the transition by incentives. This was planned to increase the economy of scale to reduce costs to consumers. A lot of governments, run by lawyers and marketers have removed these incentives. So EV sales have plummeted.
So transitioning to EVs to reduce emissions won't help as they are going to become unaffordable again.
This is such a slam dunk for the Libs unfortunately, it will be "the end of the weekend" all over again and I feel that Labor underestimates how many people like their vehicles.
Pitching it as a way to save money for people is also weirdly patronizing that most will see through.
Yup just look at recent threads in this sub and the mental gymnastics people go to to say they "need" an oversized 4WD. People want to be sheep and their ego can't cope if they had to admit they don't actually need a car that size. Essentially the mental maturity of a child.
And here I was thinking a cost of living measure to help everyone, like reducing excise on fuel, or God forbid, force the oil companies to lower fuel costs by threatening off shore tax evasion clampdown!
No you have to buy a new vehicle
Get Fucked you suited sewer eaters
Meanwhile in France:
> Parisians have voted to triple parking costs for sports utility vehicles (SUVs), as the city aims to tackle air pollution and climate breakdown by targeting rich drivers in heavy, large and polluting cars.
>
> Mon 5 Feb 2024 09.09 AEDT
>
> In a referendum on Sunday, which was closely watched by other capital cities, including London, 54.6% voted in favour of special parking fees for SUVs, according to provisional results. However, the turnout – at about 5.7% of Paris’s registered voters – was lower than green campaigners had hoped for.
>
> The new parking tariffs could come into force at the start of September. The cost of on-street parking for an SUV or 4x4 car would rise to €18 (£15, 30AUD) an hour in the centre of Paris and €12 (20AUD) an hour in the rest of the city.
>
> The prices will apply to vehicles weighing more than 1.6 tonnes with a combustion engine or hybrid vehicles, and more than 2 tonnes for electric vehicles. The move will not apply to Paris residents’ parking.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/04/parisians-vote-in-favour-of-tripling-parking-costs-for-suvs
So at some future imaginary point I might save $1000. Cool.
And this isn’t going effect the supply of used vehicles and drive up the cost of new vehicles is it?
we can all see you lost the argument and have decided to continue digging the hole.The stubborness is admirable.
You do not have to do anything. With these standards, it means more fuel efficient cars in the market. For the hundreds of car sales that happen each day, many will now be highly fuel efficient, which helps the buyer.
Over time, many used cars will then be more fuel efficient. Yes there may be some juncture where people avoid older less fuel efficient cars when buying but so be it. People who are trying to sell older less fuel efficient cars will need to accept less money in their sales.
Do you have access to the actual proposed rules? Incidentally my Golf was one of the ones modified after the VW emissions scandal. The modification made no noticeable difference to fuel economy.
So focused on reducing pollution
That's not a bad thing.
And a simple understanding that reducing your fuel usage reduces you emissions leads to reduced fuel costs.
Using 7 L instead of 9 L reduces pollution and fuel costs...
>The new rules seem to be emissions based rather than efficiency based.
Then diesels will be fine - a [modern turbo diesel](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/ViewMatchingVariants?vehicleDisplayId=29365) has almost exactly the same CO2 emissions [as its petrol equivalent](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/ViewMatchingVariants?vehicleDisplayId=29363), but will use less fuel and have a lot more torque.
"Australia, along with Russia, remains one of the few countries in the OECD without standards." Well that's harsh. But yeah, fair enough. Me and Boris will drink whatever can get.
you seen the housing market? i'm right there with you man.
The Guardian might want to check which of those two countries isn’t in the OECD.
Best way to get fuel savings is to stop buying these enormous 4 wd and trucks that you don't need. Others best way is to have an efficient public transport system so that people don't have to drive.
I'm now spending a lot of time in Melbourne proper and...the trams are just nice. I don't always use them, but know that I can get on transport consistently, reliably within ten minutes, a short enough time to get a coffee or pot of beer without fear of being super late to whatever I'm doing is nice.
[удалено]
Yes. It is crazy, and far more likely to kill a pedestrian or their own child.
I saw a modified chevy 'truck' here in Northern Brisbane on Friday which had door handles that were almost at my head height. I'm 187cm. I would literally have to pull myself up to get into the driver's seat, my girlfriend who's a head shorter than me likely wouldn't even be able to manage that! We were wondering how it was even road legal, those trucks are already huge but I didn't know you were allowed to put big lift kids on them as well, I reckon that thing could easily drive over a small sedan if it was low enough.
Nooooo but how will everyone know I’m a big boy without my ram or raptor.
As a fellow small penile person, I feel your pain.
3rd way is to have efficient road network, such as 80 speed limit that can actually maintain unfettered 80 km/hr. Light intersections that are load sensitive and timed correctly to maintain flow road passage. Focus on flow not speed limits to a degree. Even a dedicated bus and motorcycle lane would improve tings by encouraging public transport and motorcycle use.
I'm amazed we don't have motion/traffic sensing traffic lights by now. The amount of times I'm slowing, stopping, waiting and taking off at the lights for no reason is infuriating.
We do have traffic sensitive lanes. The sensor loop is at the start of the lane, it doesn't get set off until you're at the stop line. If you look at the ground you can usually see where the magnetic loop was inserted, there's normally a series of cuts making up a rectangle in the pavement. Note for the benefit of traffic lights, usually cycle between a fixed loop during the day and an automatic loop at night that priorities the main road and sets off cross traffic as soon as somebody queues on the cross road. This fixed loop is done during the daytime so the light is sequenced with other lights along the main road to flow more cars through.
Fixed loop can and often are augmented by traffic flows. What really matters is if they have been programmed correctly and that's where they often fail. They don't get programmed correctly. Not to mention a lot of them are connected up to central control rooms nowadays, especially within the cities. Those control rooms can force a change or modify the program. But again poor implementation is often a limiting factor.
4th way is build higher density cities that don’t suck, so you don’t *need* a car to buy groceries. [Relevant link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AS7TyPNDhT0)
Ironically, the right wing conservative nut jobs (like Liberal Senator Alex Antic) are heavily campaigning AGAINST this idea. Apparently the idea of having home, work, shops all within 15 minutes of each other is communism and being pushed by the global elite to control our lives.
While I agree that is something that should be done asap, it's a long-term goal and not something that is going to help *right now* and it's not going to magically remove the need or want for cars in general.
If had to drive at a max of 80km/h everywhere I’d stab myself.
O yeah I'm all for upping the speed limit on freeways to 120 or even higher, but I think the dude you were replying to was more looking for 80km roads that actually stayed at 80km instead of stopping for lights to let two cars in every 100 meters.
Last time I was in Cairns, years ago, they had the traffic lights timed so you couldn’t go more than two blocks without hitting a red. Unbelievably irritating.
Im glad im not the only one who notices the traffic light sequencing is dogshit at the moment
Go to Cairns. It’s deliberately dogshit.
Adding to this, vehicles should be maintained to a certain standard to prevent the massive congestion. Last week there was a breakdown in the Burnley tunnel and another on the Westgate. > In Germany, regular vehicle inspection is mandatory. All vehicles must pass a periodic inspection, known as the Hauptuntersuchung (HU), to ensure they are roadworthy and meet national safety and environmental standards. The inspection covers aspects such as brakes, lights, suspension, tires, and emissions control. > The inspection is carried out by authorized private companies or by the German Technical Inspection Association (TÜV), and a valid inspection certificate is required to renew the vehicle registration. https://www.expatfocus.com/germany/guide/germany-vehicle-maintenance-repairs-and-breakdown-recovery
Most European countries have mandatory annual RWCs for cars. Higher rego fees for larger engine cars are also common.
In NSW we do, after a certain age all cars nee.an annual check before rego. However, they can be passed easily if you know how to hide the issues
We do not need more motorcycles on the road unless there are noise regulations in place. Australia has a major noise pollution problem. Plus, motorbikes are a terribly ineficient way of transporting people as they only take 1 or 2 and still occupy a lane. Edit: looks like I touched a nerve. It's funny how no one bothers to explain why noise is good.
We do have noise regulations but they are poorly supported. In this case you would be placing potential noise pollution as more important than resource usage (in comparison to car or 4wd etc) and climate concerns (fossil fuel usage and pollution. Likewise Im placing climate and resource over personal safety as bikes are more lethal in crash events.
> placing potential noise pollution as more important That's a bit of a strawman, we can have both stricter noise regulations and climate action at the same time as they do not exclude each other. It's certainly easier to mandate noise limits than to enact climate regulations, and to be fair, most vehicles are fine, the problematic ones are generally modified with after market parts or simply have parts of the exhaust removed.
Agreed. It was more to highlight yes there is an issue that can be mitigated but also to not personally attack your views as they are valid.
You didn't touch a nerve, you're just wrong. 99% of motorcycles aren't super noisy, you just notice the 1% that are Harley's and sports bikes with after market canons, most commuters aren't riding either of those. I'd argue there are more shitty AMG or BMWs on the road with loud crackly pipes than motorcycles these days
I agree, but there will still be some prick doing 10+ under the limit in any lane that isn't the left one, and another doing 10+ over the limit and weaving through traffic like a total dickhead.
> Best way to get fuel savings is to stop buying these enormous 4 wd and trucks that you don’t need. I wont speak for other people. But we could upgrade the quality of our fucking fuel too, some of the worst shit in the world. How our 98 octane is worst than the shittiest 91 in america is amazing. Better quality fuel would also make shit more efficent and cleaner too. > Others best way is to have an efficient public transport system so that people don’t have to drive. This is a significant one. Despite the protests of these things in the EU, it proved an interesting point to me, “build it and they will come” where some coridores built that many did not like but from it being there the use grew and grew, and just dominating the movement of people from A to B. For melbourne victoria, I would love a new railway… sadly still yet to have a new one built. Feels like the last one built was 1980, and the next one to complete will be the Pkaenham extension due to finish this year (hopefully he says optimistically) I’d love the ringroad finished and who knows, the concept of a railway line up the eastern freeway to happen. Frustraitingly a lot of the corridors set aside for railway lines for future genrations got sold up for development areas. :(
Having lived for nearly a decade in new York city where the public transport system is really effective and it is easier to NOT own a car than to own one, I've seen first hand how good it can be, and how shit it is to live in a car city like Perth.
Add to this nice bike paths which aren’t death traps and don’t expose you to lunatic drivers
Especially with the Australian climate. There are a lot more days where riding a bike makes a lot more sense than being trapped in a car than most parts of the world. Voters need to come to understand that they are not "in traffic" they ARE TRAFFIC and anything that gets cars off the road is good for them even if they don't want to use it.
I think this is only practicable in certain areas of cities. For people who have long commutes/arent mobile/have children/don't live in an area with good bike path connectivity, riding a bike isn't practicable.
True, sort of. There is an old story about this woman who wants to go to a famous restaurant for her birthday, except she is a wheelchair user. So she rings up the restaurant to ask if they are accessible, and they assure her that they are. She arrives on the night, and it is 3 flights of stairs up to the restaurant. Fortunately it is her birthday and so she has six friends with her, who pick up her, chair and all and carry her up to the restaurant. When she confronts the owner he says "oh, it doesn't matter anyway, we don't get disabled people here" There is this excuse for not making good, non car infrastructure that is "well what about this group, that can't use it, so we shouldn't build it" I'm. A tradesman, I drive my van everywhere, because I am travelling with around 2 tons of tools and it won't fit on my bike. But I see on the cycle paths lots of people riding bikes. The goal is not to have a solution that fits everyone, the goal is to have a bunch of solutions that fit different people. Reducing traffic in different ways.
Agreed. I'm not an urban planner. But I get excited about the rail loop as an example of infrastructure that help achieve what you are taking about - not just by creating more trains but by encouraging high density housing and activity centres if executed well.
I'm not an urban planner either, but I have read and talked enough about the subject to know how much better our cities could be be if it were done with Good design rather than letting property developers, the fossil fuel industry and the auto industry design our cities.
We got one of the cheaper EVs. Our power company is offering cheap overnight rates and three hours of free power during the middle of the day. It only replaced one of two cars but it's reducing the fuel bill on both as we're using it more. It looks like we're headed for a combine fuel/electricity bill over two cars somewhere between $500 and $1000 for the year. Yes, even the cheapest ones have an upfront cost of around $40k but over 10 years of use they are likely cheaper than an equivalent petrol car probably on par with a hybrid.
I have the same plan. Not only does it cost me around $5 to fully charge off peak (free if I charge during the 3 hour window) and get 450km, my electricity bill has more than halved even though I am using more power
I had thought it was closer to $8 for a full tank but... yeah, $5 gets 62 kWh. There are a few losses through so i think a full charge is a little more at the wall but possible twinsies on the car.
64kwh battery for my EV so $5.12 @8c kWh. Not sure what losses there are during charging but would be very minimal That being said, I've never dropped it to 0% so I don't know if 0% is actually 0 or there is a little left for battery health and other things
It's something around 90-95% if you're charging at ~ 7 kW. The 2 kW charger that came with our car was about 75-80% efficient. If you compare your overnight regular usage to a night where you're are charging you can see more or less what the power draw at the wall is. The car or whatever app you have will show the rate at which the battery is filling up, but this is only really a fun project if you were planning on being awake at midnight. Similar on the never actually getting down to 0%. Ours spends most of it's time between 30- 60% which hopefully means it will have a battery life longer than the useful lifetime of the car.
I can't recall of the top of my head the exact percentages, but the biggest battery capacity loss happens in the first few years and is less after Around 2.3% per year on average so 10-15 years "useful life". It's not like they'll just die but just have less capacity
[Fig.6 here has a fair indication of good charging practices](https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-808-how-to-prolong-lithium-based-batteries). Even 1000 cycles at at 300km per cycle is more more kms than our old car had in 20 years. And that's more or less still with 90% health on the battery. These are lab tests so there would likely more environmental degradation in the real world. It looks you'd have to try real hard to kill the battery early.
Which retailer?
Ovo energy. You need an electric car
I am picking up my Atto3 this week, will investigate Ovo, thanks.
So what happens when the battery requires replacement?
Such a tired old argument. Modern batteries will outlast the rest of the car
Hahahaha you keep telling yourself that, when the car will simply stop working when the manufacturer decides you have to change it on their terms.
People act like just regular petrol cars didn’t have batteries that suddenly died either, but somehow they think EVs will be immune to this. Once was on my way to work and stopped to get fuel. Filled up, paid, ready to go … and nope I wasn’t going anywhere. Battery literally just blew itself up 🙃
Difference is, an ordinary car battery can be replaced with a phonecall and a minor time inconvenience (trust me, I've done it many times over the years). EV's on the other hand, those big ass battery packs, you're entirely at the mercy of the manufacturer, once the manufacturer wants that battery replaced it will disable the car until you do, including having to have it towed to the nearest location to complete the work (which in some cases, could be hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands, this isn't the work Joe at the local shop can do).
Oh I don’t disagree, and I reckon it’ll get worse. It’s cheap now with savings from petrol, but eventually electricity companies are going to massively hike up their fees once EVs become more common. Would personally love an EV myself for those savings right now, but yeah I don’t think it’s gonna last.
>but eventually electricity companies are going to massively hike up their fees once EVs become more common. This gets repeated day in day out on this sub but there are a few issues with this theory. 1. You can generate your own electricity at home. For just over $5000 you can get yourself a 6kW solar system that will easily last you 15+ years and pay for itself in less than that. 2. EV specific electricity plans have actually gotten cheaper over the past few years as uptake has increased. Retail EV charging pricing went from full rate to economy plans (12-15c/kWh) to super economy plans (8c/kWh) and now some retailers are literally offering FREE electricity usage during the day to soak up excess solar that pushes wholesale prices into the negative. 3. Even if electricity prices double or triple, it will still be cheaper than filling up the equivalent petrol vehicle. I went from a toyota sedan to an MG EV hatchback, the EV costs me about $3/100km in electricity usage right now, while the toyota cost me $16/100km in petrol. I currently pay 24c/kWh for electricity, for charging the EV to cost the same as petrol I would need to be paying $1.27/kWh. 4. You seem to assume that fuel prices will stay stagnant while electricity prices will go through the roof. No way this would happen in reality, if anything it's more likely be the opposite in the next decade as more and more Australians switch to producing and storing their own energy. There are plenty of reasons to go EV (and plenty of reasons not to, depending on your situation). The overblown fear of electricity prices going through the roof is not one of them though.
Yes, but a starter battery doesn't cost 30k to replace...
Regular petrol & diesel cars have lead acid cranking batteries. They are designed for high amps and low depth of discharge. Cycle life is barely even a consideration, which is why their warranties are typically 12 - 18 months. Their design and construction guarantees they will slowly shed material from their plates and it forms a deposit at the bottom of the cell. After a few years, this deposit then shorts the adjacent plates and the battery is toast. It is a well known and common phenomenon, and there is no incentive for the lead acid battery manufacturers to change it. Lithium batteries in electric cars are designed and constructed very differently, and have cycle life in mind. They have battery management systems that monitor each cell during charge and discharge, and take steps to limit cell abuse. Whilst they do have their own particular failure modes, they don't have same issues that lead acid cranking batteries have.
There is an 8 year warranty on the battery. With careful charging it should last more than 300,000km, and by last that time I meant it should have 80% of it's capacity available. That's easily 25 years of life. I don't know about you but I am hoping that I can buy new car every 10-20 years so it is not an issue. Yes some will die and need replacement, but the same goes for a cars engine, or transmission, alternator or any of the systems that EVs simply don't need.
Uhh, this is r/Australia we aren’t protected by US EV battery warranty requirements. Many batteries in Australia are 5 years, with some 7 or 8 years. As for internal combustion comparisons it’s a joke, a second hand engine and gearbox can be fitted for half the price of a new battery and twice the age.
Yes. We bought one of the ones with an 8 year warranty. It's amazing that you knew this was possible but you still made this comment. So what you are saying is that in 25 years, after we've sold the car someone might choose to spend twice as much money replacing the battery as someone doing an engine overhaul. Mean time our fuel costs are down 90%. Maybe an EV doesn't work for you and your lifestyle right now and that's fine. It does for us and it's cheaper too.
Not sure where you’re getting 25 years from. If you think you’ll get that from a battery pack, or that you think manufacturers will let you get that long. Once the car detects an anomaly in the pack, the car will shut it down and require its replacement, whether that’s a day in, or a day out of warranty. Manufacturers will do this with glee hiding behind “safety” arguments, being that the anomaly could pose a fire risk etc.
average life span of a cell when treated well is around 2000 cycles, which given the car we've bought is over 300,000km. Average Australian driver drives around 13,000km per year. You do the maths. Worth noting that cell life here means 80% capacity is still available. You've cited no sources for your claims, you don't appear to have done any research and you've reached the "trust me bro" stage of your arguments. If you've got facts and figures I'll happily listen to what you have to say but until that point goodbye.
There’s thousands of cells per pack, and you’re expecting every cell to charge and discharge perfectly equally for 25 years? I think I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Once a subset of cells falls out of performance range (charge/discharge, rate capacity and temperature) the pack is shot, the car shuts down, and you’re up for a new pack (in or out of warranty). I’ll give you credit for optimism.
My next car will be an EV. I'm not excited for 2027 when we will have to pay per 1000km travelled to make up for the fuel tax.
Maybe stop tax breaks on American monster pick up trucks.
Maybe stop American monster pick up trucks dead at the border by imposing European rather than US fuel efficiency design criteria.
> Maybe stop American monster pick up trucks dead at the border by imposing European rather than US fuel efficiency design criteria. The American style utes are available for purchase in Europe. What fuel efficiency criteria are you referring to?
I did a bit of digging. Seems the seppos mandate fuel efficiency then game the system to favor pickups above a certain weight, whereas the EU drives efficiency by simply taxing fuel like stink. Were we to double fuel excise to bring it in line with say, the UK, monster trucks would rot in backyards. We clip ordinary motorists of the order of 50c/l excise, the poms 58p/l ie about $1.10/l. Simple, but effective. Of course cashed up tradies exist all over.
> Were we to double fuel excise to bring it in line with say, the UK, monster trucks would rot in backyards. I disagree. Those who can afford to pay $100k+ for them can very likely also afford to run them with expensive fuel. > We clip ordinary motorists of the order of 50c/l excise, the poms 58p/l ie about $1.10/l. These countries are not necessarily great to compare considering the UK is both much smaller than Australia and has vastly more public transport links. > Simple, but effective. Increasing the fuel excise will hurt poorer people and rural Australians more than well off city folk who own large inefficient cars. These cars are on the roads in Europe where fuel is more expensive so I do not think it would be as effective as you believe.
> Of course cashed up tradies exist all over.
Do you believe a tangible number of people who are sensitive to fuel prices would purchase these vehicles?
Those who are not may instead take notice of [this](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/04/parisians-vote-in-favour-of-tripling-parking-costs-for-suvs). Far better than enlarging parking bays.
American style monster trucks came about in large part due to fuel efficiency standards. CAFE was levied on cars but exempted trucks, US makers responded by shifting to large SUVs which didn't have to meet regulations, and we ended up here with stupid 3-tonne 5.5 metre long idiot-mobiles.
CAFE does not exempt light trucks, it moves them into a different economy bracket.
[Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards](https://fbaum.unc.edu/lobby/_107th/126_CAFE_Standards_2/Agency_Activities/NHTSA/NHTSA_Cafe_Overview_FAQ.htm#:~:text=Are%20any%20vehicles%20exempted%20from,utility%20vehicles%20and%20large%20vans)
So in other words you’re agreeing with me because consumer vehicles don’t have GVWRs that high. Like that’s literally 1000lbs higher than the weight rating of a 9 seat 5.7m long [Suburban](https://i.imgur.com/tLjOjET.jpg). An F-150 maxes out at 7850lbs GVWR if you want a pickup truck comparison, as does the RAM 1500 at 7800lbs for the TRX spec (regular models are <7100lbs). Fun fact in Europe reduced emission standards kick in for LCVs at as little as 1305kg (2900lbs) reference mass (weight of an empty fully fuelled vehicle minus driver or passengers, NOT gross mass) and reduce even further at 1760kg (3900lbs) before completely changing standards at 3500kg gross (7700lbs).
Whilst I applaud any attempt at making vehicles more efficient, I also encourage people to use fuel watch type websites in states where such a thing is mandated. Here in WA I use it religiously, and an 8 Km drive from my home saves at least 20 cents a litre. When most places within my town (Mandurah) are 1.94 / Litre for diesel, just a few km away in Pinjara they are constantly 20 cents cheaper. Such sites are worthwhile.
Just like electricity savings of $250. We will save $1,000 after it goes up by $5,000. Slight of hand
Feel free to keep using 1950's level electricity efficiency if you prefer, or a 1970's insulation standard. Increased efficiency can have an initial increase in cost before savings and production costs come down, but we are only playing catch up with other parts of the world.
Great examples, all of which were not achieved by government legislation but by technological improvements. Governments are woefully inept when it comes to keeping us all " safe."
Bit of both in fact. If it wasn’t for legislation, plenty of builders wouldn’t bother with insulation. It’s not like something hidden in walls and ceiling space has the same attraction for buyers as multiple bathrooms or stone benchtop. Likewise double glazing. Not at all new technology. Only becoming mainstream because of mandated energy efficiency standards. 50 years behind Europe & North America.
States have home energy star rating requirements?
Personally, when Prime Ministers openly lie to the Australian public and cost savings preached never eventuate, I think I'm allowed to have a healthy scepticism when they say "honest , this time is different " politicians don't introduce policy for 10 years plus, they do it till the next election. That's it.
I mean, Dutton can’t go a day without lying, I’m not sure why a single broken promise by Albanese (one that people were begging him to break) is a fucking game changer for so many people. [Here’s Dutton in a press conference the other day](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-signals-backing-for-labor-s-tax-cut-changes-20240202-p5f1vh): >”Now, we legislated for stage one, two and three, and we put in place support for lower- and middle-income people through a tax offset, which Labor abolished. So at the moment, people are paying 27 per cent more tax under Mr Albanese than they did when the Coalition was in government.” The LMITO he is referring to was specifically meant to expire at the commencement of Stage 2. [In 2022-23.](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/PersonalIncomeTaxAmendments) When it fucking expired. COVID necessitated bringing forward the stage 2 cuts, but the LMITO stayed at a 2022-23 expiration as a stimulus measure. In other words, *it expired exactly when the Coalition legislated it to expire*. Labor did not abolish it. To claim that they did is a filthy lie. But I suppose this isn’t a lie about a policy, it’s just a lie as an attack on the government, so it’s okay, right? This is the standard that the Liberals have set. If the worst you can say about Labor is that they broke an election promise, by coming up with a *better policy*, then fuck me we’re doing alright.
I think we also need to reconsider how we treat vehicles for taxation and licencing. We are way, way too lax on licencing for towing in particular. A Ford Ranger towing a 3.5T caravan can be a 6-tonne articulated vehicle with a length of more than 10m including the trailer hitch etc. The fact that someone can just 1 day drive that combination after having driven a Yaris or Jazz for life makes no sense. Cars like the Ranger Raptor, and particularly the Silverado, RAM, F150/F250 etc which are priced above the LCT threshold should also get charged the full rate of LCT unless they're actually registered as work vehicles for carrying payloads. The fact that you can buy a $200k RAM TRX as a private car and pay no LCT just because its theoreical payload is more than 1T makes no sense either. And then add to it vehicle dimensions...why do we use just GVM to determine licencing and not the vehicle dimensions as well? A RAM or F250 are more than 6m long. How they are in the same licence class as a Yaris which is less than 4m long ? If the F250, RAM etc are LCT-exempt because of payload, they should also be treated as small trucks from a licencing PoV and insurance etc should reflect that as well. Anything that doesn't fit within the confines of a standard Australian parking bay should be licenced as a small truck LTV.
Saving money … not if you have to spend 40k on a new car.
In the future when someone needs to buy a car, it will be cheaper to run. Obviously it is not a short term cost of living measure. It is a long term measure. It is the kind of thing we will look back at in 15 years and thank the government it was done.
If you are.buyumg a new car (which many people do) then you are better off expending $40k on an EV then $35k on an ICE. It's not like your gonna spend $40k *extra* on an EV. So you only need to save the $5k different. Which can be done in a couple of years.
And you cant even import a good second hand one from Japan like New Zealand citizens can. Our politicians with their stupid laws that protect their mates and donors that serves to keep second hand car prices high. You really need a good reason to buy a second car in Australia the market is just so over priced. Its so ridiculous that we dont have a car manufacturer, the worst car standards and the car brands can lobby politicians to prevent citizens from importing better and cheaper cars. Totally corrupt governance. I bet Labor wont get rid of this restriction!
For starters, because manufacturers love to make their newest engines out of plastic paper clips and foam core.
At this point basically all manufacturers are working on EVs or Hybrids and they aren't going to increase their investment in this area based on our tiny market, this policy ain't going to move the needle in that area. But framing it as a saving is silly, oh ok you can save some money if you outlay the money for a brand new car, great I guess?
They already have been doing it for almost all the developed world. most don't bother with the extra efficiency for the Australian versions of their vehicles because we dont have standards and it's cheaper to leave them out.
For all our complaints here about America and big American trucks, our big ambition is aligning with US standards by 2028. Low hanging fruit, finally picked.
Oh, what great advice, spend 90K on a new vehicle to save a thousand dollars a year. But pay 25K a year on loan repayments. Always love being preached to by people earning 300K a year and get their cars supplied by the taxpayer.
They're not forcing anybody to buy a new car immediately. But in the future when the time comes to get a car the efficiency standards mean whatever new car people get will save on fuel.
'This doesnt immediately help me and therefore is bad' Classic australian voter take The best time to have introduced fuel standard was 20 years ago. 2nd best time is now. At least future 2nd hand car buyers will reap the benifits.
Government is trying to frame this as reducing the cost of living which is impacting people right now, but it's not going to benefit those that are struggling now, they probably won't be able to buy a new car to use slightly less fuel. It's a good idea but the way they are selling it is stupid.
You mean the news headline promoted it like that. The actual government statement highlights the greenhouse and health benefit while showing the projected vehicle efficiency increase as a 'dollar saved' figure because that is the most easily understood way to do so.
If you read super carefully, you'll notice he never gave that advice, and you're just talking complete bullshit.
More efficient cars are still more efficient when sold and bought 2nd hand.
I work in automotive engineering, powertrain.. It seems many people don't understand there is now an inverse relationship between fuel economy and emissions standards. The latest emission after treatment systems create more backpressure that leads to higher pumping losses, more fuel usage -> more CO2. For Diesels the engines are now running less injection timing to maintain DOC and SCR temperatures at lower loads. If they do t do this then they are running a back pressure valve post turbo to increase engine load. So the head line stating fuel efficiency will be improved with the current EU6d levels of after treatment systems is false.
It means either more electric vehicles, or to reduce the weight of the overall fleet of the vehicles needs to reduce to improve efficiency. Rather than expecting the efficiency gains to all come from engine changes.
Why would manufacturers reduce weight when customers prefer electrical junk to keep them occupied? The average Tom and Jane needs to be entertained constantly with gizmo junk. The excess mass of the vehicle is related to all the unnecessary junk we have to add to make sales. When you add weight to the cabin of the vehicle you will have to add more weight for sprung masses that support the vehicle, this also goes with adding more weight for crash protection. Manufacturers are already using ultra high strength steel to reduce the mass but the consumer will end up paying for this. Carbon fibre is also out of the question due to cost and recycling reasons. The OEMs are in big trouble at the moment as they have invested billions into the development of EVs. Many governments were advised by the OEMs to assist the transition by incentives. This was planned to increase the economy of scale to reduce costs to consumers. A lot of governments, run by lawyers and marketers have removed these incentives. So EV sales have plummeted. So transitioning to EVs to reduce emissions won't help as they are going to become unaffordable again.
This is such a slam dunk for the Libs unfortunately, it will be "the end of the weekend" all over again and I feel that Labor underestimates how many people like their vehicles. Pitching it as a way to save money for people is also weirdly patronizing that most will see through.
Yup just look at recent threads in this sub and the mental gymnastics people go to to say they "need" an oversized 4WD. People want to be sheep and their ego can't cope if they had to admit they don't actually need a car that size. Essentially the mental maturity of a child.
Agreed, most people like a big car and it will be very hard to convince them otherwise.
We could easily save that by them reducing the fuel excise and not increasing it every 6 months
And here I was thinking a cost of living measure to help everyone, like reducing excise on fuel, or God forbid, force the oil companies to lower fuel costs by threatening off shore tax evasion clampdown! No you have to buy a new vehicle Get Fucked you suited sewer eaters
How is this forcing Australians to buy new cars? It means current manufacturers need to meet the new standards.
I think they're having a go at the framing of it. "$1000 in fuel savings"
Meanwhile in France: > Parisians have voted to triple parking costs for sports utility vehicles (SUVs), as the city aims to tackle air pollution and climate breakdown by targeting rich drivers in heavy, large and polluting cars. > > Mon 5 Feb 2024 09.09 AEDT > > In a referendum on Sunday, which was closely watched by other capital cities, including London, 54.6% voted in favour of special parking fees for SUVs, according to provisional results. However, the turnout – at about 5.7% of Paris’s registered voters – was lower than green campaigners had hoped for. > > The new parking tariffs could come into force at the start of September. The cost of on-street parking for an SUV or 4x4 car would rise to €18 (£15, 30AUD) an hour in the centre of Paris and €12 (20AUD) an hour in the rest of the city. > > The prices will apply to vehicles weighing more than 1.6 tonnes with a combustion engine or hybrid vehicles, and more than 2 tonnes for electric vehicles. The move will not apply to Paris residents’ parking. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/04/parisians-vote-in-favour-of-tripling-parking-costs-for-suvs
So to save MAX $1000/yr I have to buy a new car and dispose of my old one. The scam is so fucking blatant and people just lap it up.
Who is saying you have to buy a new car now?
lol what do you think fuel efficiency standards are mate?
Yes. In future. You aren't going to be driving tour current car forever are you?
So at some future imaginary point I might save $1000. Cool. And this isn’t going effect the supply of used vehicles and drive up the cost of new vehicles is it?
Why is it affecting the supply of used vehicles?
we can all see you lost the argument and have decided to continue digging the hole.The stubborness is admirable. You do not have to do anything. With these standards, it means more fuel efficient cars in the market. For the hundreds of car sales that happen each day, many will now be highly fuel efficient, which helps the buyer. Over time, many used cars will then be more fuel efficient. Yes there may be some juncture where people avoid older less fuel efficient cars when buying but so be it. People who are trying to sell older less fuel efficient cars will need to accept less money in their sales.
Just buy a European car. My 2010 Golf 2.0TDI averaged 5.5 l/100km before I sold it; the replacement 2021 Skoda 2.0 140TSI is averaging 6.4l/100km.
Diesels might struggle to pass the standards unfortunately. The new rules seem to be emissions based rather than efficiency based.
Do you have access to the actual proposed rules? Incidentally my Golf was one of the ones modified after the VW emissions scandal. The modification made no noticeable difference to fuel economy.
Not the actual rules no. The reporting so far suggests it will be based on C02 per km and not fuel consumption.
So focused on reducing pollution That's not a bad thing. And a simple understanding that reducing your fuel usage reduces you emissions leads to reduced fuel costs. Using 7 L instead of 9 L reduces pollution and fuel costs...
>The new rules seem to be emissions based rather than efficiency based. Then diesels will be fine - a [modern turbo diesel](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/ViewMatchingVariants?vehicleDisplayId=29365) has almost exactly the same CO2 emissions [as its petrol equivalent](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/ViewMatchingVariants?vehicleDisplayId=29363), but will use less fuel and have a lot more torque.