16-10-2023, 05:52 PM
Of course, tax bands have essentially gone for anything made this side of 1st April 2017. The CO2 output only determines the tax for the first year. After that, you pay almost exactly the same as everyone else, whatever your vehicle. The exception being the "luxury car tax", currently an extra £390 if the list price of your car (not the final price you might negotiate) is greater than £40k. With inflation of car prices in recent years, it's surprising how even quite ordinary cars are at risk of falling into that category, especially if you option them up. Note that the £40,000 threshold hasn't changed since inception, so that's yet another stealth tax rise (a bit like the income tax thresholds for higher and additional rates).
I saw that article this morning before work. I had to re-read it now to check it was the same one, because I don't recognise the comments made about it. Nowhere does it say that a new car won't meet ULEZ. I'm not sure where the inaccuracies are, but they are quoting a report, which they clearly cited. I thought it was quite well done, personally. Given their target audience, which isn't us, I generally think their technical articles are good. Much better than most of the press (even the BBC at times). Fine to criticise, but be specific and accurate. E.g. CO2 was better targeted prior to 2017, when the bands affected the cost of VED for the life of the vehicle, not just the first year. The people behind the report - Possible - are arguing for more taxation of big, heavy vehicles, and saying that folk who can afford a massive SUV could afford to buy an EV instead. The newspaper is reporting on that. It's not an opinion piece. The comments here look like they come from people who simply skimmed it.
As is pointed out in the article, CO2 is an environmental issue; ULEZ is a public health concern - in other words, it's to improve air quality rather than drive down CO2 (although that is a useful side-benefit). So that's why it's based on particulate emissions rather than CO2, and that's why old petrol engines are often fine, despite generating more CO2 than diesels of a comparable vintage. I've never liked diesel passenger cars, and won't be sorry to see the back of them - dirty, noisy, smelly things. When cycling, or even just walking through town, you can literally taste them. But petrol isn't innocent - modern direct-injection engines produce higher NOx than port injection. That's why particulate filters are now pretty much standard on petrols.
People have been experimenting for years to make motors in hubs work, but it's much harder than it sounds. Easy to say from the comfort of the armchair, but try doing it, then put it in production. There's lots of information out there about all of this, but just for starters, it's a much harsher environment to put a bunch of electronics and a motor - no cushioning from the suspension, and much harder to give protection from water and other elements. The HV cables have to travel with the suspension and never break, while being protected from road debris, etc. Talking of brakes, they still have to fit there too! And then you've got to sort the handling and ride, given the massively increased unsprung weight. Whereas diffs and driveshafts are proven technology that allow you to overcome all the issues at low cost. Hmm...
Famously they managed to find a Tesla owner who thought he would have to pay ULEZ. I'd have thought that if you could afford a Tesla, you'd be able to do the most basic research, but perhaps not. But now that it's in place, people realise that it's not the big bad bogeyman that certain quarters made out it would be (for obvious reasons that we don't need to stray in to).
I saw that article this morning before work. I had to re-read it now to check it was the same one, because I don't recognise the comments made about it. Nowhere does it say that a new car won't meet ULEZ. I'm not sure where the inaccuracies are, but they are quoting a report, which they clearly cited. I thought it was quite well done, personally. Given their target audience, which isn't us, I generally think their technical articles are good. Much better than most of the press (even the BBC at times). Fine to criticise, but be specific and accurate. E.g. CO2 was better targeted prior to 2017, when the bands affected the cost of VED for the life of the vehicle, not just the first year. The people behind the report - Possible - are arguing for more taxation of big, heavy vehicles, and saying that folk who can afford a massive SUV could afford to buy an EV instead. The newspaper is reporting on that. It's not an opinion piece. The comments here look like they come from people who simply skimmed it.
As is pointed out in the article, CO2 is an environmental issue; ULEZ is a public health concern - in other words, it's to improve air quality rather than drive down CO2 (although that is a useful side-benefit). So that's why it's based on particulate emissions rather than CO2, and that's why old petrol engines are often fine, despite generating more CO2 than diesels of a comparable vintage. I've never liked diesel passenger cars, and won't be sorry to see the back of them - dirty, noisy, smelly things. When cycling, or even just walking through town, you can literally taste them. But petrol isn't innocent - modern direct-injection engines produce higher NOx than port injection. That's why particulate filters are now pretty much standard on petrols.
People have been experimenting for years to make motors in hubs work, but it's much harder than it sounds. Easy to say from the comfort of the armchair, but try doing it, then put it in production. There's lots of information out there about all of this, but just for starters, it's a much harsher environment to put a bunch of electronics and a motor - no cushioning from the suspension, and much harder to give protection from water and other elements. The HV cables have to travel with the suspension and never break, while being protected from road debris, etc. Talking of brakes, they still have to fit there too! And then you've got to sort the handling and ride, given the massively increased unsprung weight. Whereas diffs and driveshafts are proven technology that allow you to overcome all the issues at low cost. Hmm...
Famously they managed to find a Tesla owner who thought he would have to pay ULEZ. I'd have thought that if you could afford a Tesla, you'd be able to do the most basic research, but perhaps not. But now that it's in place, people realise that it's not the big bad bogeyman that certain quarters made out it would be (for obvious reasons that we don't need to stray in to).
