Ineos Grenadier

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: We had a all electric minibus at a company I worked for ran well for 3 years then it needed new batteries which cost £3500 + £ 800 to dispose of the old ones electric cars make me laugh the batteries crap out after 3 or so and the batteries need special disposal in a few years the new problem facing the planet will be the millions of batteries from electric cars
So it did 100,000 miles in 3 years?
NO but it still needed doing
So unless it as something homebrew on lead acid batteries, then it was definitely still in warranty of 5 years and 100,000 miles.

I call BS.
Like it or not that is what happened this happened 6 years ago things maybe better now but two things remain first as old batteries need replaceing they will need special disposal second most of these cars will be charged from the grid meaning more power will need to be found and at this time that means more carbon or Nuc power

Now I am not saying that we can carry on as we are but cars carrying batteries that are charged from Nuc and carbon power is little or no better it is just kicking the can down the road

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: We had a all electric minibus at a company I worked for ran well for 3 years then it needed new batteries which cost £3500 + £ 800 to dispose of the old ones electric cars make me laugh the batteries crap out after 3 or so and the batteries need special disposal in a few years the new problem facing the planet will be the millions of batteries from electric cars
So it did 100,000 miles in 3 years?
NO but it still needed doing
So unless it as something homebrew on lead acid batteries, then it was definitely still in warranty of 5 years and 100,000 miles.

I call BS.
Like it or not that is what happened this happened 6 years ago things maybe better now but two things remain first as old batteries need replaceing they will need special disposal second most of these cars will be charged from the grid meaning more power will need to be found and at this time that means more carbon or Nuc power

Now I am not saying that we can carry on as we are but cars carrying batteries that are charged from Nuc and carbon power is little or no better it is just kicking the can down the road
And the ignorant comments continue.

The only mass produced, OEM electric minibus that existed 6 years ago (and was on sale 10 years ago) was the Nissan NV200.

The National Grid, again release a report every year, and they've made it perfectly clear that there isn't a need to start building power stations because of electric cars. Most of which charge overnight when grid demand is low, and most people don't even need to charge every night because of how few daily miles the average driver does.

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future- ... 0%20target.

Secondly, well to wheel efficiency of a ICE vehicle is about 15% by the time you extract, process, deliver and use. But even if an EV is run purely on fossil fuels it's already at 45% efficiency simply by avoiding inefficient combustion and refining. When you combine it with the low carbon energy on the UK grid (>50% of annual production), you get a car that is many, many times more efficient.

Do EVs take more energy to produce? Yes. But aside from the most coal intensive grids (Poland, American Midwest) the EV pays back the carbon deficit typically in 3 years or usage. Obviously a car with a large battery doing low miles won't, but equally a car with a small battery doing 20,000 miles overcomes the deficit much faster.


Please, do some research before you start making broad, baseless statements.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by Tempest414 »

Then maybe you know less than you fucking think as the one we had was a Ford transit from Ford

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:Then maybe you know less than you fucking think as the one we had was a Ford transit from Ford
You mean the Smith Edison :lol: The company that went bust because they crow-barred batteries into commercial vehicles.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks for the info up stream.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by SKB »

(The Telegraph) 3rd August 2020
Jaguar Land Rover has lost a legal battle to trademark the shape of its Defender 4x4 – clearing the way for billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe to build his “spiritual successor” to the famed off-roader.

A High Court judge dismissed an appeal by JLR after the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) refused to issue a trademark for the model.

The decision allows chemicals tycoon Sir Jim to forge ahead with his own version of the original Defender as he seeks to plug a gap in the market left when JLR halted production in 2016.

JLR has been trying to trademark the Defender shape for four years. But the IPO said it lacked “distinctiveness”, a verdict backed by judge Melissa Clarke.

The ruling removes a potential hurdle for Sir Jim's firm Ineos, which last month unveiled its design for the “Grenadier”, describing it as a rugged and uncompromising off-roader.

Ineos is pumping £1bn into the car. It is expected to hit the market in 2021, though industry experts question whether enough will ever sell to be profitable.

The company is in talks about buying a car plant in France from Daimler to build the vehicle, scuppering hopes of creating 500 jobs in south Wales, where work had started clearing a site earmarked for a Grenadier factory.

Earlier this year JLR started selling a new version of the Defender which shared no components or technology with its predecessor.

Sir Jim has previously dismissed JLR’s off-roaders as not being true to the Defender’s origins as workhorses, suggesting they are “Chelsea tractors” unlikely to ever go cross-country.

Ineos, which opposed JLR’s trademark applications, said: "The High Court has confirmed that the shape of the Defender does not serve as a badge of origin for JLR’s goods and therefore lacks the necessary distinctiveness to be a trade mark for car.”

JLR said that the Defender “is an iconic vehicle which is part of Land Rover’s past, present and future. Its unique shape is instantly recognisable and signifies the Land Rover brand around the world, with the classic shape being trademarked in many key markets”.

A spokesman added that the company was disappointed by the judgment but respects the decision of the court.

The firm did not rule out a further appeal. A spokesman said: “We will take whatever decisions we think are needed to protect our design.”

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ineos Grenadier

Post by mr.fred »


Post Reply