I like it!

Not Responding said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:58:36 +0100, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I
have
> >no idea how to do it :-)
>
> Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man fulfilled by a
very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his pages on Walden. Buy the book
and study it.

Or, there *was* a man fulfilled etc. I doubt the same can be said for
the drunk [censored] who ran him down and killed him.

Indeed. Careless abbreviating. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally, fuel tax can't do things like discourage stupidly short
journeys whilst limiting the effect on longer, more sensible trips -
something we need to be thinking about.

Just because a trip is longer, it isn't automatically more sensible.
We have buses and trains in the UK.

Al, I've been meaning to ask this since we ran into each other in The
Other Place but do you own a car or have you taken the plunge?

Not for the last three and a bit years, since the company went over to
an allowance. Somehow, I never quite got round to buying a car. I
was going to get one if I needed it. Station less than 10 mins from
home. Other station less than 10 mins from work. Stations on same
length of track. (Journey allows brief view of M3 which is usually
slow or stationary, and convinces me that I am right).

School ten minutes walk away.

When all else fails, 20 mins cycle to SOU and collect a hire car.

Mrs. C-F runs a car for weekly shopping and ferrying children to
activities after school, this is probably more economical than using
taxis as said activities are spread across neighbouring towns/villages
and occur most evenings. Lifts are shared with other parents as
appropriate.
--

Cheers,

Al

On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:35:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came in) is chasing
a myth that you can have it all. That you can live in a city but 'be a
country person really'. That you can be a merchant banker (or whatever)
through the week and a mountaineer at weekends.

Worse still, the view held is that you can achieve these wilderness
aspirations if only you have such a vehicle. So people buy the
vehicle and are immediately fulfilled - without ever experiencing the
wilderness. So the goal becomes just to own more 'kit'. Not actually
to do anything with the kit.

--

Cheers,

Al

Simon Brooke [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you do with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

"The future is no place, to place your better days" - Dave Matthews

Jon

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:32:38 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different from a two wheel
drive car that only the former seriously adversely impinges on others' quality
of life?

Well, a big 4x4 (Toyota Land Cruiser Amazon) can, according to the
govt. milage and emissions stats, easily pump out 4 times the
emisions/gobble four times the fuel as an efficient small car (VW
Lupo/Audi A2/Seat Arosa).

A big 4x4 can easily have twice the stopping distance as a typical
saloon car or hatchback. (pulling as little as 0.55g from 60mph or so
to zero vs. the .90g-1.05g of typical saloons, hatches and sports
cars)

Their steering and cornering abilities are typically much less capable
than those of typical saloon cars or hatches.

A big heavy 4x4 (especially the ones with bull bars) creates a much
greater pedestrian/cyclist hazard in event of collision.

Quoted message said:

If I have a car with switchable two and four wheel drive, does using
the switch convert me in and out of being a selfish ar$eh*le? Curious minds
want to know.

The switch from four to two wheel drive is unlikely to affect fuel
economy hugely, and certainly will not affect the vehicles mass. It's
unlikely to improve the stopping distance, or make the sterring more
precise or improve wallowing through corners vs. 4WD.

HTH.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gawnsoft said:

The switch from four to two wheel drive is unlikely to affect fuel
economy hugely

On a vehicle whose differentials are crude enough that the manufacturer
feels the need to fit free-wheeling hubs, it will. On a more modern
vehicle it wouldn't, which is why the switch isn't fitted in the first
place.

No one is raising the main problem with 4WD vehicles. There are only
three off-roaders which are aesthetic objects: the wartime [censored]'s Jeep,
the Series I through Series III Land Rover, especially in 108" form, and
the original 2 door Range Rover with hose-out interior. The rest are
just gin-palaces, surely? Obviously the original Quattro and the pre-02
Impreza are lovely, but they're not the 4x4s Ken's looking for.

It's possible that someone has bought an X5 or an M-Series who isn't an
idiot. But I'm guessing it's unlikely.

And all MPVs are [censored], too, except the original Matra-built Espace.
If you want a big estate car, buy a big estate car. 4x4s and MPVs are
just rubbish ways to avoid it.

ian

To be honest, I'm fed up with this debate. And Simon has put my point in a
manner far better than I have or could have managed, I'm going to leave it
at that.

As I said earlier, can't we all just get along?

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:07:16 +0100, "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):
....

Quoted message said:

Beats me why a cycling newsgroup has such a downer on other road users.

Because the greatest danger to cyclists comes from motorised vehicle
users.

4x4s are massive, poorly controllable, heavily polluting (up to 4
times as much as some four seater city cars), and many cannot brake
well (as little as 55% as well as a typical UK hatch or saloon, and
less than half as quickly as some sports cars)

Quoted message said:

Who
really gives a flying fart what anyone else drives, rides or uses, when it's
the driver/rider/user that's the idiot, not the machine ...

Some machinery makes lower levels of driving skills idiocy more
dangerous for others.

Unless one goes off road or wants to tow big caravans while developing
minimal towing skills, why would one get a big 4x4 other than idiocy?

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:19:39 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Doki said:

I generally drive quite quickly myself, but doing it in a 4x4 is a
particularly daft thing to do because they don't go round corners or stop
nearly as well as a big car does.

Providing you make allowances for that and corner more slowly and leave more
braking room why's it a problem? Or should we all drive Porsches and Lotuses
on the basis that they corner and stop much better than your average car?

Most Lotuses stop about as well as most ordinary cars.

Most Porsches stop about 11%-15% better than most ordinary cars.

Most ordinary cars can stop 50%+ faster than big 4x4s.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:19:02 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But even if you are making allowances by cornering more slowly and
leaving more braking room, that's taking up more road space and
increasing congestion, which in London is still pretty antisocial.

How much more. Can you quantify it? Should they all drive Smart Cars

Lots.

Yes.

No - 'cos then you can't car pool with more than one person.

(To be serious, the braking distance issue has been recently posted by
me to uk.rec.driving. If you can't find it by googling, let me know
and I'll turn it into a web-page for you.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:55:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:24:49 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Des Cartes maybe?
I kant see what you're getting at here, Tony.

Just a bit of philosophical Witt-genstein Guy

I guess it has it's nietsche in urc.

I think it's being put a bit before the horse.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:50:29 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

....

Quoted message said:

If people drive slowly, with care in quiet vehicles that don't pollute
or endanger others[1], we shouldn't care less whether it's a Ferrari
designed for a racetrack, a Landrover designed for the country or
Guy's Volvo. KL's condemnation of Mercedes MLs but not the equally
"unnecessary" Ferrari or big Jag illustrates his inconsistency.

....

Quoted message said:

[1] I know of no such vehicle.

Of course, some are worse or better than others.

Four times + as polluting for the 4x4.

Much poorer accident avoidance capabilites. (typical cars braking 63%
better, and some sports cars braking more than twice as fast as some
4x4s, poorer steering precision, worse cornering control and lower
levels of grip)

Much greater danger to pedestrian/cyclist/saloon car road users in
event of accident (design of frontal areas, much greater mass, etc)

Differences in degree matter. Otherwise the marginal quantity of
methane that cyclists emit from the exercise of cycling vs the sloth
of armchairs would be enough to cause the anti-pollution lobby to
clamp down! :-)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:21:10 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which is about average
fuel consumption .I think you need a Humvee to get 8mpg.

Of course, the substantial minority of Discos which are petrol do
16mpg. (Admittedly better than the H2's 8mpg. Although the US's cars
have worse mpg figures is that US gallons are only 80% the size of
imperial gallons).

Big MPV diesels tend to do a fair bit over 40mpg, and 30mpg in petrol
trim.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:32:09 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Al C-F said:

I'm sure that with numerous short, stop-start journeys in London in
the morning hate, you could manage it.

And what would be the mpg of a frugal car in those circumstances? 12mpg? You
could make them all 0mpg by parking them up and leaving the engine running

Typically about 3.5 to 4 times the milage of a big petrol 4x4.

(V8 Discovery 16.9mpg, vs. Seat Arosa 64.2mpg (official mixed-use
figures).

So about 27-32mpg for the Arosa for driving that would get the Disco
to 8mpg.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:33:35 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

OK. What about the other 95% :-)

No idea but prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt along with all the
mountain bike riders you see on the roads.

Mountain bikes cope well with the gravel-surfaced cyclepaths and
heavily potholed roads that make up my urban commute.

Bikes with razor thin tyres and delicated road wheels are unlikeley to
have the same longevity for this use.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:04:11 +0100, "Neil Hardman"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I cited the 8mpg programme from a J*r*my Cl*rks*n dockumentary on the
history of cars. They took an off-road (a Freelander IIRC) and drove it
around town for a while (in true stereotypical "Chelsea tractor" style)

and

Quoted message said:

then calculated the milage - which worked out a 8 mpg. Of course you'd get
higher in the country.

It was a Range Rover (V8 thingie in it).

And the petrol Range Rover does /better/ mpg than the petrol Disco!

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:30:25 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

PK said:

they are big and clumsy when driven by people who do not know how to drive
them properly ie most mums in a 4x4 on the school run in london.

Just more stereotyping

For any given degree of driver's car control skills, 4x4s have less
precise steering, less cornering grip, substantiall poorer braking
performance, and less cornering control.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:47:37 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In news:[email hidden],
Nathaniel Porter <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

People do have freedom of choice. But that doesn't necessarily mean
the choices they make are not idiotic - and I think most "off-roader"
owners in London are, for they use it only in situations which
highlight the disadvantages to 4x4s without ever enjoying the
beneifts of 4x4s.

That's a load of [censored]. They use it for being seen in and for towering over
people. This is a key benefit to the status-conscious who don't care about
propping themselves up by treading down other people.

Of course, they rationalise it with something else, normally about being a
lot safer to see high up

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

Quoted message said:

and how it will protect their kids, and (more
reasonably) how convenient it is for getting stuff in and out of. But
basically they do it cause it gives them power over people.

A

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:39:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:24:28 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Many people like the fact that you do not have to bend down to get into them.
Certainly as I've gotten older I've appreciated something with the seat that
is easy to sit on and my wife with her bad back certainly does. The days of
folding up and tucki

Precisely the reason my parents chose the frugal and entirely
practical Toyota Yaris Verso (listed 40mpg with the auto box; I've
actually got an indicated average 48mpg on longish round trip in it).

And the deisel manual lists at 57mpg.

Quoted message said:

The side-hinged rear door is a boon for my Mum with her back problems,
and Dad, who is over six foot tall and disabled, finds the seat easy
to get in and out of.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:24:28 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

davek said:

OK, fair enough, but they're still not *really* designed to go off road, are
they?

Well if they are not they have wasted a lot of money building them so they
can. After all what use is 4WD, traction control, limited slip
differentials, low range gearboxes etc if you are only designing them for the
road?

Marketing. What good to a car selling organisation is an off-roader
that no-one buys because it's not listed as having all the 'necessary'
off-roader features?

Quoted message said:

They certainly can't claim the 4WD and traction control is there for
on-road performance as it is on the Porsche (not the Cayenne)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sun, 23 May 2004 13:35:08 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

paul said:

>
the porshe 911 is my altime favorite car, which I have coverted si
nce I was a wee bairn, and i have a great dealof respect for porsche.
however, the very idea that a sports car manufacturer makes an
offroad veichle is dow n right stupid. Can you see any of the italian
sprots car houses entertainig such an idea. Porsches pathetic atempt
rather proves the point.

Lamborghini have long made an extravagent off-road vehicles.
http://www.lambocars.com/framed/lm/lm.htm
They also make tractors. http://www.lambocars.com/tractor.htm
Point not proven

Yebbut, they were originally a tractor firm. Sportscars have always been
are a sideline.

Of course, the mad offroad cars came after the road cars.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk