22 Sept. No petrol day

[Peka]

On 2005-09-15, Peka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> LotteBum Wrote:
>> how dumb does this make those who drive 4WD's and other large vehicles?
> Not all who drive 4WD's are dumb. A 2+ tonne turbo diesel wagon can use
> less fuel than a standard petrol family car. A smaller diesel 4wd will
> use less again. Diesel also requires less refining. There must be
> reason why Europe has heaps of diesel passenger cars?

Yes. Diesel is taxed less than petrol in Europe. That makes it
significantly cheaper ...

While the cost per litre of petrol might be significant enough in Europe, the difference here does NOT make it more expensive. Not if you actually do some calculations. My Patrol 4.2TD uses ~12.5L/100km for normal daily driving. It's a pretty agricultural engine, the EFI models are better. Before that I had a dual fuel (ie. LPG/Petrol) 3.2L V6 Rodeo which typically used 18L/100km when on petrol - smaller engine with EFI, 4 valves per cyl etc, less weight to push around, and still chews that much extra fuel in normal daily driving. At current prices, that's nearly 6L and >$6 extra per 100km. I get ~800km per tank, so it's using nearly 50L less! The difference is much bigger if you compare it to a Patrol or Landcruiser petrol.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Peka wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD

>ROFL, a Kia Sorento is a '4WD'? Surely you jest

In that it has a 2-4, Hi-Lo selections on it's gear shift, unlike an AWD.

> It's a common misconception that the bigger a vehicle is, the more
> space it has for passengers.

I think I pointed out that a Commodore wagon is considerably longer than
"big" 4WDs.

Theo

 

[Resound]

Resound wrote:

> Oh I'm not saying that the 121 wasn't a bit small, it would be. Those
> things have a tiny boot. But a Falcon? I suppose all those famillies
> in Europe driving Fiat Puntos and Citroen Saxos just bung the baby in
> the glovebox?

Or maybe they have different rules for child capsules etc. My
daughter-in-law had two children less than 18 months apart. Two child
capsules, a twin stroller and the shopping just did not fit into the Kia
Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD. She got a Holden Adventra which has
more rear-seat depth and a much larger boot. The Adventra is 500mm longer
than even a Land crusher.

Theo

Then, nasty as it sounds, she's not doing something effectively. The largest car my family had when I was a kid was a Datsun 180B station wagon and we certainly didn't suffer. Again, I point at Europe, and I rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale. The Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter months, especially with very young children, you're deluding yourself. Trying to say that someone NEEDS a two tonne (or near as dammit) monster like an Adventra simply because they have children is a crock. If you get the all terrain 4½ foot wide stroller then you might find it needful, but that's the same sort of mindless bigger is better mentality that says that a two tonne vehicle is exactly what you need to cope with a family.

In short, bollarks.

 

[ghostgum]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> So what's with the baby capsules mounting in the centre of the back
> seat anyway. Is that just so that, should something go wrong, baby
> won't hit head on the seat in front but rather will fly through the
> front windscreen?

That's so you fit a child each side of it. Stops the others fighting as well
because they can't reach each other with their fists over the baby capsule.

The joys of child-rearing.

Theo

Also so you can fit an adult on either side in the back seat.
If the capsule is on one side, there is 30cm of wasted space
between the capsule and the door, leaving insufficient
room for 2 bums on the other side. The alternative would
be to buy a bigger car.

 

[LotteBum]

Resound wrote:

Then, nasty as it sounds, she's not doing something effectively.

BINGO!!

The largest car my family had when I was a kid was a Datsun 180B station wagon and we certainly didn't suffer.

But didn't you know that in 'modern' day Australian culture (actually, I'd hardly call it modern - how about 'this day'), you are abusing your child if your car does not weigh at least 2 tonnes.

My nephew goes to a private school and my sister reckons there is nothing worse than when she drops him off at school in her late model Mazda 323, and all the other mothers turn up in their Patrols and Landcruisers to drop their children off.

People can attempt to justify driving a big car all they want - I'll never buy it. I don't care how little you drive. In reality some people due to personal circumstances do need to drive further than others, but that doesn't justify driving a gas guzzling death trap to the local school twice a day. Think about it.

Anyway, apparently fuel sales are down 5% this week. It wasn't that hard, was it?

Again, I point at Europe, and I rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly
OR abuse their children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale.

Precisely. Over there, it's the norm.

The Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter months, especially with very young children, you're deluding yourself.

Perfect example: My mum rode her bike to work on a daily basis until just days before she had my sister and I. I was born in December, my sister in February. Those are hardly warm months over there.

Trying to say that someone NEEDS a two tonne (or near as dammit) monster like an Adventra simply because they have children is a crock. If you get the all terrain 4½ foot wide stroller then you might find it needful, but that's the same sort of mindless bigger is better mentality that says that a two tonne vehicle is exactly what you need to cope with a family.

You've hit the nail on the head. I think it's a status thing and it's oh so pathetic in my view.

In short, bollarks.

Agreed.

LotteBum

 

[EuanB]

There's a screening tonight in Fairfield (Melbourne)
8pm - at the international headquaters of the Institute for Sensible Transport.
If you're interested, call Eliot on 0438 547 450 & bring snacks.

Well that'll teach me to check Usenet a bit more regularly :-S

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:03:47 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote:

> So what's with the baby capsules mounting in the centre of the back seat
> anyway.

It's a cunning plan to knacker the backs of the poor sods who have to plonk
their bloody heavy kids in a low vehicle at the same time as reaching way
forward! I can tell you from first hand experience that it works :-(

Graeme

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:15:19 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> That's so you fit a child each side of it. Stops the others fighting as well
> because they can't reach each other with their fists over the baby capsule.

My wife's parents had a very effective method of kid control on trips over
east from Perth. On the first sign of a fight leaving Perth they'd chuck
the kids out and get them to walk along the top of the Kalgoorlie water
pipe telling them "We'll wait for you a couple of miles down the road. Stay
on the pipe and you'll avoid the snakes". Once they were past Kal, the
threat of the long walk without being out of reach of snakes was enough to
keep them quiet (most of the time).

Graeme

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:06:33 +1000, Resound wrote:

> Again, I point at Europe, and I
> rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their
> children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale.

Please don't keep pointing at Europe as if it's a haven of all things
sensible. There's a fair selection of regulations/behaviour that are pretty
silly there too. The child car seats over there are increasingly going the
way of those over here. When we were back home in Scotland last Christmas
the best child seat we could find was a bugger to fit properly and even
when it did fit it swayed from side to side with even gentle cornering.
Some countries (it may even be an EU wide change) are introducing standard
which require the rear fixing similar to Australian models (in addition to
the seat belt). There are a few, primarily manufacturer specific, fittings
which hold the seat absolutely rock solid (it's fixed to the floor pan).

Even in Europe they're going with the "bigger is better" for kid seats. And
yes, in many cases it means either getting a bigger car or sacrificing the
ability to fit an adult in the front passenger seat. That said a "bigger
car" can often mean just a better designed car. Many cars that would be
considered small over here provide more space for passengers than a
Commodore/Falcon could ever hope of doing.

Graeme

 

[Bob]

"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>

> Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
> thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter

The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?

It is not enormous, but it is no small car.

I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller than
a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot fit
across the width.

 

[Resound]

"Graeme Dods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:06:33 +1000, Resound wrote:
>
>> Again, I point at Europe, and I
>> rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their
>> children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale.
>
> Please don't keep pointing at Europe as if it's a haven of all things
> sensible.

I'm not, per sé. What I'm pointing out is that they seem to manage perfectly
well, including the scandinavian countries who are huge on road safety,
while driving much smaller cars than we have here. What I was saying
originally was that to justify the purchase of a Ford Falcon of the basis
that you've have a child (as this woman did) and then complain about fuel
prices is a bloody stupid thing. I refuse to believe that having a child
requires the purchase of a huge vehicle.

 

[Resound]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>
>> Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
>> thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter
>
> The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?
>
> It is not enormous, but it is no small car.
>
> I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
> talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
> new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
> requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
> Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
> anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
> still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller
> than a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot
> fit across the width.
>
>
So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:24:45 +1000, flyingdutch wrote:

> OK OK. I agree to not buy any petrol for my bike

And you mustn't oil it, either

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[rooman]

So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's smaller than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?

1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum trucks and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto. Way ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack today...oh and it has carried three bikes on the roof and a full frame in the boot plus three sons, a partner and the Esky plus picnic basket.....forget the "Mom Trucks" and the "Dunnydore" and the "Bord", they just perpetuate disposable wasteful engineering exploitation of society's weakness for advertisng and ego tripping.

If you have to drive go retro and ride a bike when you can, what a combo...like beer and chips

 

[BrettM]

rooman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>> So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's smaller
>> than a
>> Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
> 1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum trucks
> and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post
> millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto. Way
> ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack
today...oh
> and it has carried three bikes on the roof and a full frame in the
boot
> plus three sons, a partner and the Esky plus picnic basket.....forget
> the "Mom Trucks" and the "Dunnydore" and the "Bord", they just
> perpetuate disposable wasteful engineering exploitation of society's
> weakness for advertisng and ego tripping.
>
> If you have to drive go retro and ride a bike when you can, what a
> combo...like beer and chips
>
>

Newsflash for you - cars are about personal choice same as bikes. Does
anyone need a Trek Madone - do you have any idea of the comparative
environmental cost of the Madone vs a cheap chinese steel framed bike (I
don't because I've never checked). What about limited production carbon
cranks?

I also hate the soccer mums and dads in their 4wds. Many don't know how
to drive them nor do they realise that they are in fact not particularly
safe. Sitting up high makes them feel better. I save most of my hatred
for the F150/F350 utes and the Humvee though. These things have no
place on our roads - there are alternatives that do the job much better.
But if that's what someone wants then I suppose I can't object. I'd
just make it harder for them to buy them (100% excise anyone?)

I drive not one but two commodores. I feel like a tool in the work one
since it mostly has only one occupant. The ute I own I have because it
is the most comfortable multi purpose vehicle I could get. It carries
750kg without any worries, handles dirt roads (camping/MTB), takes the
fishing rods etc.

I'm involved in a fair bit of volunteer/community service work as well.
Most of the people I do it with have smaller hatches and sedans. Good
for them, I like their cars but guess who does most of the fetching and
carrying. Ever tried to get 4 eight foot tables in a Mazda 3? And
small front wheel drive cars should not ever tow trailers, they don't
have enough command authority.

If I was buying a sedan I would almost certainly buy a Subaru Liberty.
If I wanted to carry a lot of kids stuff I'd probably try the Forester
or the Outback. If I had 3 kids then I'd probably get the Odessy. And
I'd still own the ute.

I and a lot of blokes my size (about 10% of the male popn) simply don't
fit in the Mazda 3, Impreza etc. I actually can't drive these cars
safely (due to the lack of space). I wouldn't want to sit in back any
further than a trip up the street. And I have to do long trips, I live
1300k from the capital for example. If I drove that distance in Europe
I would normally be in the next country or across several (Obviously not
in France, Germany or Russia)

The BMW 3, C Class merc, Saab 9 series are just as bad. To be
comfortable I have to move to the 5 series which isn't much different in
size to a commodore. Don't critise the body - the boat anchor engines
are what needs to change.

Why can't I buy a commodore with a highly effcient 3.0l straight six
(V6s require additional balancing and are less efficient) or better yet
a 2.5l common rail high pressure turbo diesel. I'd pay an extra 10
grand for a commodore ute with that engine. Simmarily why can't I get a
hybrid commodore/falcon to replace the work car with a 4cyl petrol motor
and electric assist?

Simple - because the bogans won't buy them.

If you want to work out whether falcadoors have a place in this world
look at the taxi fleet. These guys will run the cheapest car they can.
They'll abuse it and drive it in everything from gridlock to motorway
cruising.

In most regional towns (without the motorways or long distance travel)
many are using the 4cyl Camry. In the major cities where that would be
a really good economical choice they are predominately using falcons.
The engine lasts a long time, the car is roomy and it uses less fuel
with a load on board at highway speeds than the Camry.

Buy whatever car or bike you want. But don't make sweeping
generalisations, there are pros and cons to each vehicle. If you are
happy and comfortable with a small car then good, in some ways I envy
you. But don't put down people just because they don't make the same
choices or think exactly like you.

Cheers

BrettM

 

[Bob]

"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
>>> thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter
>>
>> The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?
>>
>> It is not enormous, but it is no small car.
>>
>> I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
>> talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
>> new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
>> requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
>> Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
>> anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
>> still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller
>> than a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot
>> fit across the width.
>>
>>
> So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than
> a Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
>

I said three. one baby and two toddlers still in car seats. Signifiantly
more than the current average family size of 1.9 kids. But not completely
uncommon.

 

[Plodder]

"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than
a
> Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?

Hm. I thoght my girlfriend must have been cheating when she managed to fit 2
kids (one kid seat, one capsule), me and whatever we needed for the trip
(including going camping) into a Hyundai Excel 2 door.

Yes, it's more awkward than using a Falcodore Cruiser but, with proper
packing, it all fitted. It sounds to me like the "got to buy a big car for
carting the kids around" thing really means "got to buy a big car because
I'm incapable of organising myself properly".

Now the kids are bigger she still manages all she needs with a Hyundai
Accent - still a two door.
I'll grant that, say, 3 kids, two adults and assorted other stuff needs a
bigger car but I don't think anyone is complaining about vehicles to suit
the situation. A Landcruiser is perfectly justified for trips to the bush,
fishing trips, carrying trade tools, etc. Carting kids is not what I'd
consider justification for a Landcruiser. It's over size vehicles for the
use to which they are put that's the problem.

I still see little need to push 2 tonnes of metal around all week for the
occasional trip though. I have an Elantra. With the fuel savings compared to
driving my old Nissan Patrol (when I had a farm) I can hire a landcruiser
when I want to go bush. I don't understand why people don't simply use what
they need and no more (and prestige is not a need!).

Just my 2 litre's worth...

Frank

 

[Resound]

rooman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>> So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's smaller
>> than a
>> Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
> 1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum trucks
> and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post
> millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto. Way
> ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack
today...oh
<schnip>

I do like the old Benzes. They're getting a bit long in the tooth to be considered truly efficient anymore, but compared to virtually anything else that age they're fabulous cars.

Newsflash for you - cars are about personal choice same as bikes.
<schnip again>
Buy whatever car or bike you want. But don't make sweeping
generalisations, there are pros and cons to each vehicle. If you are
happy and comfortable with a small car then good, in some ways I envy
you. But don't put down people just because they don't make the same
choices or think exactly like you.

Cheers

BrettM

I agree with you and I'm not suggesting that there are no legitimate uses for larger vehicles. There are any number of reasons why someone might need a lareg vehicle and those that you've mentioned are among them. What I'm railing against is the idea that having a child requires the purchase of a large vehicle for that reason and that reason alone. I've come across a number of instances where someone has had a child and they immediately start looking at large vehicles to replace the small or medium size vehicle which, with a little thought, would still be perfectly suitable.

 

[Kathy]

SteveA wrote:
> PiledHigher Wrote:
>
>>I'm working under the assumption that this might actually reduce the
>>energy input into food, in that it will make sense for distributers to
>>buy food from closer to the point of sale. This could improve food
>>quality through food spending less time in storage before sale, in
>>addition should support local grown products.
>>
>>Yes, I know that there are energy inputs in manufacture but from what I
>>understand these are much less than the international travel of food,
>>that said a recent study suggested that one of the highest energy
>>inputs is getting the food from the shop to the home.
>>
>>PiledHigher
>
> We should go *really* local in sourcing our food. When we were kids,
> we lived in inner suburban Brisbane and in the backyard (about a 500 sq
> m block) we had chooks (eggs and meat), spuds, corn, carrots, broccoli,
> lettuce, strawberries, zucchini, pumpkins and an orange tree. Food
> scraps went to the chooks or into the mulch. And this was not unusual
> in the neighbourhood. And we were firmly middle class.
>
> We are going to have to get back to doing this more.
>
> SteveA
>
>
My parents have just retired to Tas - reasonably large block (why they
bought it) but on the outskirts of town. My Dad is in heaven - he hasn't
had that big a vege patch (actually two when I think about it) since we
were in Adelaide - he's back to raving about all the home grown veges
they've got and the ones they've picked and put in storage in the shed -
they have an extra fridge out there just to hold the stuff that needs to
stay cool! And believe me, they are essentially middle class too...

 

[vaudegiant]

I still see little need to push 2 tonnes of metal around all week for the
occasional trip though. I have an Elantra. With the fuel savings compared to
driving my old Nissan Patrol (when I had a farm) I can hire a landcruiser
when I want to go bush. I don't understand why people don't simply use what
they need and no more (and prestige is not a need!).

Just my 2 litre's worth...

Frank[/QUOTE]

Whilst it is obviously better if people only arm themselves with a vehicle that absolutely suits their needs (rather than wants), and I appreciate that drivers are basically the enemy, than are many aspects of peoples' lifestyle choices that need to be looked at, not just the soft-target of 4WD owners. In many instances, the order of magnitude b/w a "sensible" car and a 4WD in terms of envronmental impact is not as great as other comparisons, such as types and uses of home energy systems, aircraft travel, food consumption etc. Having a go at urban 4WDers just for the sake of it is intellectually lazy, and in some cases plainly incorrect.

Pat