eUKenGB

In addition to what I said above, my lazy Sunday morning brain now remembers that one of the Lotus team stated how they realised they needed to improve ingress and egress and managed to make the Emira as easy as the Evora. Which means the low 2 seaters are more of a possibility for me than something like the Elise. However the taller +2 mentioned, based on a 'skateboard' battery positioning would of course also be higher off the ground and even easier, as I think is mentioned in the video. It also occurs to me, why would Lotus design such a flexible platform and then not take advantage of that themselves. Instead, just letting other manufacturers reap the benefits. Sure, allow other manufacturers to use/license those platform variants, but I can't help thinking that only makes sense if Lotus themselves are making full use of it. It also seems to me that a range of cars, from 2 seaters with either just RWD or longer with 4WD, plus a slightly taller (4WD?) 2+2 would be ideally suited to comprise Lotus' range of E-Sports. So my considered opinion (clearly just speculation though) is that we will see such cars from Lotus as it makes the most sense from the information we have today. Which of course helps me not at all. 🙄

For sure I am very attracted by the idea of the 135, unfortunately however I think my days of very low 2 seaters is over as e.g. the Elise is almost impossible for me to get into and worse to get out - if the roof is in place. My back and neck just don't bend like they used to. The Evora was ok though and its +2 practicality made it a very attractive proposition. My heart yearns for an Emira, but my body says "no way". ☹️ In any case, no more ICE for me, so beautiful as both the Evora and Emira are, neither are an option. However I am very interested in Lotus' EV future. While an SUV or crossover is also attractive from the point of view of getting in and out, the idea of an electric Evora is still at the top of my list and with the possibility of such a 2+2 based on the new 135 platform, it occurs to me that Lotus must be thinking of producing something like that. Certainly 'interesting times', but I've never been more undecided.

Interesting info about Lotus' plans for its E-Sports cars. Looks like a regular RWD and a slightly longer 4WD are on the cards. However of greater interest to me is the slightly taller 2+2 it seems they are also preparing for. So an electric Evora, which is what I always wanted since first discovering the Evora. However, are all the above intended to be under the 135 umbrella or would that take us to 136 and 137? Since any of them are apparently 3-5 years away and Toyota will reportedly release an EV with Solid State Batteries this year, I think SSBs would be a distinct possibility for these forthcoming Lotus models.

Well I think it looks great. There, I've said it. However 2 things come to mind. First of all this is pure guesswork by a magazine and secondly, there's no way anything that extreme would get made. Manufacturers are far too conservative and anyway as pointed out, some of the apparent 'features' would be too impractical to be possible. However, as far as I can estimate, it seems that the 132 is intended to be an SUV and the 134 a Crossover. The above fanciful speculation surely is more representative of a Crossover than an SUV is it not?

Is it just me struggling to grasp the concept of an "SUV-coupe". I know manufacturers like to keep things secret, but I'm not sure in this case it will be serving in Lotus' best interests to do so. There are several of us here interested in what it looks like they will be producing, but there is considerable doubt about what each of the projected 3 models will be like, in terms of size etc. Much confusion stemming from different interpretations of exactly what 'E' and 'D' segment/class actually mean. Many reports seem to assume that 'E' means bigger, but as far as I can determine, that is not actually the case. What Lotus needs to be concerned about is that many potential customers cannot wait until 2025 to find out exactly how the 3 models will compare and in which case, will very possibly/likely simply go and buy something else. Seems to me that Lotus could avoid this situation by providing some clear information about the cars and expected timelines. Only that way can any of us really decide whether it's worth the wait. Those that decide it is, will be saved as Lotus customers, those that do not wouldn't be buying one any way, so no loss. I just think all this secrecy is counter productive, certainly these days as there are so many new EVs in the process of being announced and/or launched. I think a manufacturer has to proactively promote their products ahead of time and secure the 'desire to purchase' from the customer, rather than leave them in the dark and hence more likely to simply drift off and buy one from a different manufacturer.

Ok, that's good evidence, but as you say, final proof will be when Lotus launch it. Actually, even then it may not be completely clear as it would always be possible to make something bigger or smaller. Would be good to know Lotus' real plan for all this.

Why is everyone so certain the 132 is the big one? I'm not saying it won't be, but not yet seen any real evidence either way. The 132 is apparently 'E' type, but that's 'Executive' and not size related. What has convinced everyone?

Damn, it's all still so unclear though. The 132 is supposed to an E segment vehicle, which is the same as this Zeekr. The 134 will be D segment, but no idea if that's bigger or smaller than E segment as they are not both size based definitions. The 133 will be more of a saloon than SUV? Does that fit with this Zeekr? If 700km range is to be believed though… wow. If only I wasn't so interested, I wouldn't care. 😄 I guess they ran out of interesting visual features as there's been no more teasers for a while.

Well there were 3 consecutive posts and 2 of them clearly implied it was the smaller one first. Regarding your quote from Lotus' website, I'd say that is far from clear. The 132 will be E segment, while the 134 will be D segment and since E basically means executive and D is for 'large cars', I'd say the jury is still out as to whether the 132 or 134 will be the larger.

Thing is, I see it from a totally different perspective and all the doom-mongering about batteries is almost entirely based on fear, doubt and uncertainty as well as a large dose of ignorance. I'm still hearing in this thread about how batteries 'explode' and references to running out of materials for batteries, when the whole point of my last post was to explain the reality that batteries do NOT use anything up. I am fully aware that battery re-cycling needs to step up a gear, but it IS possible. Fossil fuel however can NOT be stuffed back into the ground - well not in any meaningful time scale. What does :Electric is only ever a stop gap…" actually mean? What comes next? Nuclear fusion? Not in our lifetime, but even then, it's almost a certainly that an electric motor is what will actually move the car. Meanwhile we see continued blather about Hydrogen that is so unsuitable as a fuel it's not funny and I've yet to see ANY actual advantages being proposed for its use. Talk about conveniently ignoring the negatives.. However, I also like to keep my mind open and provided a link to a very interesting video about synthetic fuel production in a very acceptable time-frame and cost. Surely the answer to all the gnashing of teeth on here. Nope. Did anyone actually bother to look at it? Since no-one has mentioned it, I suspect not. Why on earth not. Most on this forum are confirmed petrolheads constantly bemoaning the change to electric power, yet when the solution is presented, can't even be bothered to check it out. Repeated complaints about the cost of converting to electric are of no consequence. It CAN be done and it will be done. 120 years ago there was concern about how anyone could get hold of this mysterious 'petrol' for their new fangled Internal Combustion Engined 'car'. Look how that turned out. So yes, since I am not personally in the business of upgrading the national grid, I can dismiss those issues because it IS possible and continually gritching about it does not change that. I refrain from venting my scepticism about climate change on here as so many are obvious zealots with enormous disregard for anyone who doesn't 'believe'. Strange though isn't it that I'm the (only) one arguing for a cleaner and sustainable Planet Earth. Isn't 'Climate Change zealot' petrolhead an oxymoron? The other irony of course is that this forum is about Lotus, who are on course to become the first motor manufacturer to switch to all electric production. I look forward to it.

I read somewhere that the plan was to launch/unveil it before the end of the year, with availability sometime next year. But appears we cannot rely on what has been said, whoever actually said it. I normally try to avoid pre-launch hype, but I am sufficiently interested in this case to break the habit of a lifetime. However, as you say, just how many more obscure angles of the car can they find to make more teasers.

Same here. I was hoping it would be the smaller one and that is what the post earlier in the thread (quoting from Lotus apparently) implies. I thought it impossible to judge from that video snippet, but is there any (f)actual clarification on this rather than just speculation?

The big point being missed is that coal and other fossil fuels are finite and non-recoverable, whereas all the components of a battery can be recovered and re-cycled. So once enough batteries have been made, all new ones can be manufactured purely from what is re-cycled from old batteries. The raw materials in a battery are NEVER used up. At the end of a battery's life, they're all still there. Not saying it's simple or that it is happening right now, BUT it is possible and is the ultimate goal, whereas burning fossil fuels will always be one way only. All the arguments against battery manufacture seem to conveniently ignore this one simple, but rather significant fact.

It's easy to quote stuff like that, but it fundamentally isn't true when you take all factors into account. You cannot take statements like that at face value. You have to understand exactly what figures are being used as nonsense like that conveniently leaves out the 'costs' of obtaining and refining all the fossil fuel that will be used by the vehicle. So it's not a true picture at all. As always, it depends on your agenda.

Well I still say it's not gonna happen, but we will continue to disagree on that. 😀 What I think IS an obvious avenue to explore is whether hydrocarbon fuels can be practically converted into electricity - in the vehicle. So that a car merely needs to fill up, as it does now (but with synthetic fuel - for which BTW an iCE engine needs NO adjustment) and that is then converted to electricity to power the drive motor(s). In this way we get to carry around a highly energy dense fuel source (as with current petrol) that is quick to refill, its use is overall fully carbon neutral but the advantages of an electric powertrain can be utilised. So rather like a HFCEV, but using synthetic liquid fuel instead of H2, which provides all the expected advantages of the HFCEV, but with fewer disadvantages, particularly due to the difficulty of storing H2. The new synthetic liquid fuel can use the EXACT same transportation/storage infrastructure as current fossil fuels and is as energy dense and it can be manufactured 'on-site'. None of which H2 can satisfy. Anyone so keen on the concept of HFCEVs should be jumping for joy at this development, which is a double whammy as it also allows the continued use of ICE vehicles. I've not yet come across any such hydrocarbon fuel cell, but I'm sure it would be possible with enough research. Either way, it would still require batteries, just like a HFCEV.

So with all the same arguments for and against batteries being trotted out, it would appear no-one bothered to follow the link I posted to a video in which a very plausible alternative is being discussed. A way to manufacture liquid hydrocarbon fuels at lower cost than current pump prices and use them in vehicles, all in a totally carbon neutral way. So everyone who so desires can continue to use their precious ICE powered vehicles, without causing any additional pollution. A modular production method that can be scaled from as small as a single household's requirement to full on commercial fuel production - anywhere that fuel is needed. So while those who prefer the characteristics of electric power can graduate to that, but all those who want to continue to hate on batteries can also have their way with continued, but environmentally friendly use of an ICE. Isn't this worth getting excited about - rather than simply regurgitating the same old over-discussed (and largely misguided) criticism of batteries? I'd be interested to know how governments will figure how to tax vehicles utilising such a synthetic fuel since it is still an ICE powered vehicle with an exhaust from which carbon (oxides) will still be emitted. However, the fuel only exists due to that same carbon having been extracted from the atmosphere, so the net carbon change is ZERO. How are they going to get their heads around that.

I have previously made clear my feelings about our polluting the planet and how much better an EV is to ride/drive and that what many currently perceive as problems for EV adoption will be solved in time. However there are still some 'holes' in that philosophy. Namely:- Aircraft are the biggest problem as the power density of batteries is still so far from allowing anything but the smallest of light aircraft to be solely battery powered. There are also some other commercial vehicles whose usage still precludes their being replaced by EVs - yet. However both those could be solved if the energy density and re-charge times can be sufficiently improved, but for those specific uses, that's a tall order and how long will it take. There's another group of vehicles that can NEVER be replaced by any sort of EV. Classic and Historic vehicles whose very existence depends on their continued use of their current ICE power. Not to say that some EVs won't one day become classics, but an E-Type is a classic ICE car and that can never change. Sure, it can be converted to electric, but for most classic enthusiasts, the joy of a classic vehicle is largely dependent on its liquid hydrocarbon fuel burning ICE. So where does that leave us? Electric power is certainly the best answer for most transportation uses (don't get me started on the Hydrogen dead end), but not for 100%, not for a long time and for some, never. Bio-fuels are another dead end but Porsche have partnered with Siemens in a synthetic fuel production facility in South America. However, their claim to want to satisfy the demand for keeping classic Porsches on the road is at odds with their extortionist tendencies to continually raise those classics' parts prices as stocks decrease and finally to simply discontinue the parts, leading me to rather suspect that their aim is purely for financial profiteering. But then I saw this which looks to me very much like it is perhaps the answer for when an electric powertrain is not practical or possible:- https://youtu.be/y6iQlkUXUsE Ken G i l l e t t _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Once the tyre is off, feel how thin it is on that worn strip. Scary.

The new 1200 has to be a cracking good bike. Shame about the weather we're currently having. ☹️

Well I'll be. I am also in Surrey, near Weybridge and have a FireBlade and SP-2 (and a few others).

Hydrogen powered trains is a stupid idea. The do not need a mobile power source as they can suck it up as they are moving. Why create a problem that doesn't exist. That's what really worries me, that those in charge get so caught up in the popular trends that they don't see the obvious solutions and even even problems that they then apparently solve. Utterly stupid.

I think everyone is aware that there is room for improvement in the production of materials required for current battery technology, but it IS and will continue to improve with enormous research being conducted to reduce the requirement for those materials that create such objection and that's the point about batteries, the technology is changing, improving and ultimately they're re-cycleable which can never be said for fossil fuel despite your humorous point made earlier as of course the way we are currently deforesting the planet means there will not be the vegetation required to make more oil for use in a million years or so. So, however you want to describe your dislike or, or concern about batteries, how does Hydrogen power solve the battery problem when they still require batteries? Something of a rhetorical question as there is no current answer to this debate. The world does still require personal (and commercial) transportation. Reliance on fossil fuel HAS to be eliminated (or we wait until it runs out which leads to the same problem) and you want no batteries, so what's your solution because Hydrogen fuel cell power ain't it.

Battery hatred is a big thing. Really. I come across it everywhere and if memory serves me correctly you've been pretty vociferous in condemning them. Even in your post above you complain about the damage done due to mining their raw materials. But the reality is there is no great problem there with plenty available for all the batteries we'll ever need - as long as we re-cycle and that's another issue. It is possible, but not enough is being done due to there being insufficient obvious profit and "there lies the rub". Sadly it's still all about money. I wasn't trying to say it's 100% Hydrogen or 100% batteries. I did state I see Hydrogen as possible for commercial fleet usage, but there is no getting away from the fact that it offers no advantage for cars over just batteries. At least, none that I've yet heard. Trains are not a problem. They are already largely electric as it is possible to feed them the required power from overhead lines or along the tracks, without a need for mobile energy storage. It's already being done. For shipping, what about nuclear? I was astonished to discover a few years ago that submarines are built around a lifetime nuclear power plant. A self contained module that is installed when the sub is constructed and is never replaced and the sub never refuels in its entire lifetime. The output is electricity that drives electric motors that turn the screws. This is already being done and has been for years, tried and tested. So why not simply apply this to ships. No need then for huge battery storage, nor massive Hydrogen tanks, nor some on-board Hydrogen conversion plant. No new technology needs to be developed. So that's trains and ships sorted. Now, planes. Hmm. Not so simple. Fly less?

Cannot disagree there, except that transportation of Hydrogen is even more problematic than you describe. It CANNOT be compressed to a liquid at normal (room) temperatures, so storing it in bulk requires massive pressure and massive cooling, both of which use up much of its potential energy. Plus it leaks, from anything. Those single protons just cannot be contained by anything larger and EVERYTHING is larger. Obviously this is not a rapid process, but as with the previously mentioned shortcomings, it makes long term storage for Hydrogen impossible. BMW's Hydrogen test cars with cooled and insulated pressure tanks for the Hydrogen would leak to nothing in just 2 weeks. Improvements have come from storing Hydrogen over special materials that hang on to the protons and allow lower pressures to be used etc, but these are very specialised materials and no doubt as 'unpleasant' as the constituents of batteries. Did I say that Hydrogen fuel cell cars also require batteries. 😀 I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the use of Hydrogen in cars. I wish it were not so, but the laws of physics dictate otherwise. All we need is a portable way to store energy that can be released as electricity to drive electric motors. Hydrogen has so many fundamental problems with no conceivable solutions. Batteries however are improving at a rapid rate and will continue to do so with no laws of the universe imposing any conceivable upper limit on their capacity and practicality. But as you say, whatever the method of propulsion, driving will never again be what it once was. 😠

Not really. Once we reach saturation, there would be no need to make 'new' batteries as they're all re-cycled. So no new minerals need to be mined. The only throughput is energy, but everything needs that. Burning fossil fuels can never achieve such balance and will ALWAYS be depleting a finite resource, i.e. it WILL run out. Some people either don't get this or are prepared to shrug their shoulders in an apparent 'not my problem' attitude. Future generations will not appreciate that selfishness. But I digress… Hydrogen or pure battery, that is the question. I agree that for commercial transportation, particularly trains and planes, Hydrogen could be an option with the transport suppliers large enough to have their own plant and also that type of usage only requires a constant source of power. Cars however have very variable requirements and Hydrogen fuel cells cannot produce the massive current spikes that are necessary and batteries can easily provide. Horses for courses as they say. Speaking of horses, back in the day no-one complained about a horse not being able to go for 600 miles without rest. Everyone simply accepted their limitations and planned accordingly. Same for BEVs. We will simply need to adapt to their shortcomings, while taking advantage of their huge benefits. Not only to the environment, but also to our pockets and the convenience of always starting out from home with a full 'tank'. There are cars now that would satisfy 99.9% of everyone's requirements. Who regularly drives over 400 miles per day (cars, not trucks)? For those very few, they'll just have to take into account a stop to re-charge which quite frankly they should be doing anyway after driving 400 miles. So it's back to batteries. They are not the root of all evil and Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars will also need them, so everyone has to accept them. In the brief time that batteries have been seriously researched and developed for cars, they are already twice as energy dense and I believe about 20% of what they used to cost and there are new technologies on the horizon that promise to improve that twofold at least. In 20 years time, things will be very different. In 50 years? 100 years it would probably be unrecognisable to us. One thing is for SURE though. There'll be less oil left, or even none at all. Batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, chemical. It's all about energy and how best to produce and use it in a sustainable way. Perfect solution would be if we could fill up with water, crack that into Hydrogen and Oxygen, re-combine into water which is released back into the atmosphere, releasing enough instant energy to power a vehicle without need of additional battery storage. I agree, that would be marvellous, but currently that takes more energy than is released. If anyone can solve that, they'd be on to a winner.