Buy all your VW California Accessories at the Club Shop Visit Shop

Which electric car to buy?

Do you know where you’re heading…?
My experience of Dutch campsites is very good. Fingers crossed the weather is good for you. It’s cycling paradise when the sun shines :thumb

2024 International Tandem Rally

Saturday 25th May 2024 to Saturday 1st June 2024

RCN de Schotsman holiday park
Schotsmanweg 1
4493 CX Kamperland
Zeeland,
Netherlands

I haven’t researched it at all, other than a cursory look at Gurgle Maps.

But it’s cheap, and the Tandem Club really know how to organise rallies, with a choice of four rides (easy, medium, hard and family) on five days of six, and social events every evening.
 
Take one of these over a Citroen Ami any day. 230km range, 90km/h max speed and a safer metal unibody.
 
I've got a day loan of the RR Spectre on Friday, which if you believe the hype pushes the boundaries of EV technology etc...... If I remember I'll post an update and some photo's, but I'm still not convinced high end EV's a worth the money. They can't seem to give Porsche Turbo S Taycans away at the moment and the depreciation is scary.......
 
Take one of these over a Citroen Ami any day. 230km range, 90km/h max speed and a safer metal unibody.

About twice the price of the Ami.

For driving within the boundary of the M25, I don’t think I need a greater range than the Ami offers, and rarely would I be on a road with a greater speed limit than the Ami.

And if I needed more passengers than 1, I’d just take the Cali.
 
About twice the price of the Ami.

For driving within the boundary of the M25, I don’t think I need a greater range than the Ami offers, and rarely would I be on a road with a greater speed limit than the Ami.

And if I needed more passengers than 1, I’d just take the Cali.
The curious thing about the Ami is that you can legally drive it at 16 if you’ve passed your moped test, and you can take a passenger..
 
The curious thing about the Ami is that you can legally drive it at 16 if you’ve passed your moped test, and you can take a passenger..
Reminds of the one we saw in France last year carrearing round a roundabout, leaned over to one side, and what looked like a 12 year old driving it :D :D
 
Reminds of the one we saw in France last year carrearing round a roundabout, leaned over to one side, and what looked like a 12 year old driving it :D :D
You only need to be 14 in France to drive one. Also allowed to use one there if you have lost your driving license, so popular pub transport in rural areas.
 
You only need to be 14 in France to drive one. Also allowed to use one there if you have lost your driving license, so popular pub transport in rural areas.
Which is why it's crucial survival intel to stay well out of the way of any micro-car you spot in a French town at any point after lunchtime.
 
Yes, Sultan Al-Jaber, present of COP and CEO of a major oil company.

Wow, just wow.

Anyone who takes the telegraph link seriously is most lightly a flat earther…
 
Yes, Sultan Al-Jaber, present of COP and CEO of a major oil company.

Wow, just wow.

Anyone who takes the telegraph link seriously is most lightly a flat earther…
Sorry - could you please advise what source I should be using for factual reporting then?

I have just checked on line sources & found that the Telegraph, Guardian, Times, BBC, New York Times, Aljazeera & sky news are all saying exactly the same thing. Thats an awful lot of flat earthers.

I did try the Sun & Mirror, but they appear more concerned about some Ex Royals.
 
Sorry - could you please advise what source I should be using for factual reporting then?

I have just checked on line sources & found that the Telegraph, Guardian, Times, BBC, New York Times, Aljazeera & sky news are all saying exactly the same thing. Thats an awful lot of flat earthers.

I did try the Sun & Mirror, but they appear more concerned about some Ex Royals.
Sun & Mirror are always the newsworthy heavy hitters.
 
Sorry - could you please advise what source I should be using for factual reporting then?

I have just checked on line sources & found that the Telegraph, Guardian, Times, BBC, New York Times, Aljazeera & sky news are all saying exactly the same thing. Thats an awful lot of flat earthers.

I did try the Sun & Mirror, but they appear more concerned about some Ex Royals.

That there’s no scientific fact that cutting emissions will starve off the rising global temperatures?
You really believe we do nothing and keep pumping the oil…???
 
That there’s no scientific fact that cutting emissions will starve off the rising global temperatures?
You really believe we do nothing and keep pumping the oil…???
Ive not said that anywhere & it doesn't answer the question, what source should I be using for factual information?
 
The Telegraph isn’t really a newspaper anymore. More of a right wing comment pamphlet.
I had a subscription for quite a while but it went very down hill after 2020.

They called Qwarteng’s mini budget the best they’d ever seen. Up there with GB News. Although MATT is the best cartoonist!

I can understand why some don’t like the BBC and Guardian. But they’re pretty good at environmental reporting.
 
Ive not said that anywhere & it doesn't answer the question, what source should I be using for factual information?

I guess the vegetable wax wrappers don’t really bother me too much…
 
The Telegraph isn’t really a newspaper anymore. More of a right wing comment pamphlet.
I had a subscription for quite a while but it went very down hill after 2020.

They called Qwarteng’s mini budget the best they’d ever seen. Up there with GB News. Although MATT is the best cartoonist!

I can understand why some don’t like the BBC and Guardian. But they’re pretty good at environmental reporting.
Isn't all journalism more tribal than ever?

Pick your belief system and find a paper that echoes it seems to be the choice of most?

As per the EV debate, the conversational theme seems to be, either you agree with me, or you are wrong. Media/social media thrive on this.
 
The Telegraph isn’t really a newspaper anymore. More of a right wing comment pamphlet.
I had a subscription for quite a while but it went very down hill after 2020.

They called Qwarteng’s mini budget the best they’d ever seen. Up there with GB News. Although MATT is the best cartoonist!

I can understand why some don’t like the BBC and Guardian. But they’re pretty good at environmental reporting.
Allison Pearson yesterday, just a small part of her article.

"Last week, I was lucky enough to interview Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at Cambridge University and fellow of the Royal Society, for the Planet Normal podcast. The transition from fossil fuels would, he said, be “the biggest engineering project undertaken in British history” – and we are nowhere near ready for what amounts to the Industrial Revolution on steroids.
Prof Kelly has published a devastating, jaw-dropping paper called Achieving Net Zero: A Report from a Putative Delivery Agency. Because the British government has singularly failed to do a cost-benefit analysis of what it will take for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050 (sound familiar?), Prof Kelly decided to imagine that he’d been appointed CEO of a new agency with the explicit goal of meeting that target.

Among his horrifying conclusions: the cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 will comfortably exceed £3 trillion (at least £180,000 for every household), a workforce comparable to the entire NHS will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers. The country would effectively have to “go on a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defence. will be needed”. The electricity supply will have to increase by about 67 per cent in order to maintain transport at today’s level. The national grid needs to be 2.7 times bigger in 2050 than it is currently if the UK economy as we know it now is to continue to function. That is eight times the rate at which new capacity has been added over the past 30 years, including all the renewables to date.
Oh, and every home in the country will have to be rewired, plus all street distribution and local sub-stations. It has been estimated it will cost £700 billion to carry out this work, and we don’t have the manpower to do it. Without that spending, we will have to live with frequent circuit breaks, and suboptimal performance of domestic appliances. Folks, do your washing at 3am and buy a battery-powered torch for the blackouts.
If this sounds mad it’s because it is mad. To use Prof Kelly’s starkest image, if we take the cost of HS2 now as being about £100 billion, then achieving net zero will require 36 HS2s or more than one a year until 2050. You may recall, we tried to deliver just one HS2. And failed.
The struggle to reach agreement at Cop28 is a harbinger of growing international resistance to this folly. Now is the time for a complete rethink on net zero. It is morally wrong to stubbornly adhere to a goal which will cost trillions of pounds, and isn’t even achievable. Not in the timeframe. The damage to peoples’ lives from this misguided target will be incalculable, and civil unrest a likely consequence. We need to start again with proper cost-benefit analyses. Engineers of the calibre of Prof Kelly should be given the task of working out what is feasible with a longer horizon, and be free to express their honest view. The Climate Change Committee, which exerts a powerful hold over the thinking of clueless MPs, should be scrapped. Enough with the Green grandstanding."
 
Allison Pearson yesterday, just a small part of her article.

"Last week, I was lucky enough to interview Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at Cambridge University and fellow of the Royal Society, for the Planet Normal podcast. The transition from fossil fuels would, he said, be “the biggest engineering project undertaken in British history” – and we are nowhere near ready for what amounts to the Industrial Revolution on steroids.
Prof Kelly has published a devastating, jaw-dropping paper called Achieving Net Zero: A Report from a Putative Delivery Agency. Because the British government has singularly failed to do a cost-benefit analysis of what it will take for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050 (sound familiar?), Prof Kelly decided to imagine that he’d been appointed CEO of a new agency with the explicit goal of meeting that target.

Among his horrifying conclusions: the cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 will comfortably exceed £3 trillion (at least £180,000 for every household), a workforce comparable to the entire NHS will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers. The country would effectively have to “go on a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defence. will be needed”. The electricity supply will have to increase by about 67 per cent in order to maintain transport at today’s level. The national grid needs to be 2.7 times bigger in 2050 than it is currently if the UK economy as we know it now is to continue to function. That is eight times the rate at which new capacity has been added over the past 30 years, including all the renewables to date.
Oh, and every home in the country will have to be rewired, plus all street distribution and local sub-stations. It has been estimated it will cost £700 billion to carry out this work, and we don’t have the manpower to do it. Without that spending, we will have to live with frequent circuit breaks, and suboptimal performance of domestic appliances. Folks, do your washing at 3am and buy a battery-powered torch for the blackouts.
If this sounds mad it’s because it is mad. To use Prof Kelly’s starkest image, if we take the cost of HS2 now as being about £100 billion, then achieving net zero will require 36 HS2s or more than one a year until 2050. You may recall, we tried to deliver just one HS2. And failed.
The struggle to reach agreement at Cop28 is a harbinger of growing international resistance to this folly. Now is the time for a complete rethink on net zero. It is morally wrong to stubbornly adhere to a goal which will cost trillions of pounds, and isn’t even achievable. Not in the timeframe. The damage to peoples’ lives from this misguided target will be incalculable, and civil unrest a likely consequence. We need to start again with proper cost-benefit analyses. Engineers of the calibre of Prof Kelly should be given the task of working out what is feasible with a longer horizon, and be free to express their honest view. The Climate Change Committee, which exerts a powerful hold over the thinking of clueless MPs, should be scrapped. Enough with the Green grandstanding."
Thankfully those Torygraph articles are behind a paywall. What a shambles they leave this country in. I've no interest in reading anything that soft-soaps those simpleton clowns.
I'm not sure we did fail to deliver HS2, bit early to say. Its very likely it will run from Old Oak Common via Birmingham to the west coast main line and the trains then on to Manchester and Glasgow, those tunnels are being finished now. So HS2 will very likely now exist in some form.
To say 'we have failed' when in fact the government said in 2019 we should build a new railway from London to both Leeds and Manchester, and then on a whim, in order to find a theme for a failing party conference, the clueless current PM decided to waste over £2bn cancelling part of it doesn't mean the project has failed. It means this Government has.
 
Isn't all journalism more tribal than ever?

Pick your belief system and find a paper that echoes it seems to be the choice of most?

As per the EV debate, the conversational theme seems to be, either you agree with me, or you are wrong. Media/social media thrive on this.
All politics is moving to extremes. I hope it will correct itself.

Some of the occasional aggressive pro EV posts are partly born from the anti EV guff/fake news. It’s frustrating for some. I personally wish @Wildcamper would stop amplifying right wing nonsense crapola.

There you go another frustrated post! There is an anti-EV thread which @Wildcamper could post on.
 
I find the arguments against EV's often verge on the ridiculous.

I find the arguments against setting timetables for "no more ICE cars" compelling.

I enjoy my EV but I am very aware of the limitations and that in no way in current form can they be a replacement for the transportation utility in the way we view transportation now. I can see a transportation model in the future but sadly it would take a national will we haven't seen since the Iceni raised their spears behind Boudica.
 
Allison Pearson yesterday, just a small part of her article.

"Last week, I was lucky enough to interview Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at Cambridge University and fellow of the Royal Society, for the Planet Normal podcast. The transition from fossil fuels would, he said, be “the biggest engineering project undertaken in British history” – and we are nowhere near ready for what amounts to the Industrial Revolution on steroids.
Prof Kelly has published a devastating, jaw-dropping paper called Achieving Net Zero: A Report from a Putative Delivery Agency. Because the British government has singularly failed to do a cost-benefit analysis of what it will take for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050 (sound familiar?), Prof Kelly decided to imagine that he’d been appointed CEO of a new agency with the explicit goal of meeting that target.

Among his horrifying conclusions: the cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 will comfortably exceed £3 trillion (at least £180,000 for every household), a workforce comparable to the entire NHS will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers. The country would effectively have to “go on a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defence. will be needed”. The electricity supply will have to increase by about 67 per cent in order to maintain transport at today’s level. The national grid needs to be 2.7 times bigger in 2050 than it is currently if the UK economy as we know it now is to continue to function. That is eight times the rate at which new capacity has been added over the past 30 years, including all the renewables to date.
Oh, and every home in the country will have to be rewired, plus all street distribution and local sub-stations. It has been estimated it will cost £700 billion to carry out this work, and we don’t have the manpower to do it. Without that spending, we will have to live with frequent circuit breaks, and suboptimal performance of domestic appliances. Folks, do your washing at 3am and buy a battery-powered torch for the blackouts.
If this sounds mad it’s because it is mad. To use Prof Kelly’s starkest image, if we take the cost of HS2 now as being about £100 billion, then achieving net zero will require 36 HS2s or more than one a year until 2050. You may recall, we tried to deliver just one HS2. And failed.
The struggle to reach agreement at Cop28 is a harbinger of growing international resistance to this folly. Now is the time for a complete rethink on net zero. It is morally wrong to stubbornly adhere to a goal which will cost trillions of pounds, and isn’t even achievable. Not in the timeframe. The damage to peoples’ lives from this misguided target will be incalculable, and civil unrest a likely consequence. We need to start again with proper cost-benefit analyses. Engineers of the calibre of Prof Kelly should be given the task of working out what is feasible with a longer horizon, and be free to express their honest view. The Climate Change Committee, which exerts a powerful hold over the thinking of clueless MPs, should be scrapped. Enough with the Green grandstanding."
Have you Googled Professor Michael Kelly Global Warming Policy Foundation? He’s a trustee of the UK’s principal climate science denial group.

An excellent example. This is what they do. Thanks!

Let me ask you a question. Why doesn’t it say he’s a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the article? Do you not feel tricked?

The Telegraph is not a newspaper. Alison Pearson is a (hate-filled) columnist, not a journalist. Feel free to carry on reading her if it makes you happy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top