"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
(t'other) Dave
[email protected] opined the following...
> > Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes
> > up most room? This is a sliding scale.
>
> On which all cars sit.....
At different ends. If you want to start making changes, but
don't want to (or can't) make the sweeping change of banning
them all, you start with the worst and work from there.
> >For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
> >passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads,
> >require more fuel,
>
> My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more
> on a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car
And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A
'normal' 4x4 presents a greater surface area to the wind,
thus suffering higher drag, and weighs more than a 'normal'
car. Like-for-like, the car is going to have better
efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old Volvo, but
it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall Astra, and
not a contender to my mother's (much newer) Renault Megane.
> > take up more room, and are far more intimidating.
> >
> A matter of perspective.
To return to a previous comparison. Modern equivalent to the
Bubble Car (Smart) vs 4x4. The latter has a higher driving
position, more angular bodywork and is larger in general. If
I have to be overtaken too closely, by one of them, I'd
prefer the Smart car.
I'd prefer not to be overtaken too closely by anything, so
ride accordingly...
> > See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different
> > maximum G values for braking vehicles. The basic point
> > is that in the same circumstances, you can't stop a
> > larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter one.
> >
> So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't
> push it to the limits. Cornering, accelerating or
> otherwise.
Most (IME) don't. Most are blissfully unaware of this.
Yeah...perhaps an insistence on an additional driving course
when purchasing.
> > > >They're a caricature of a car."
> > >
> > > Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?
> >
> > It means that they have had the normal features of a car
> > exaggerated out of proportion.
> >
> But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a
> 'normal' car....
Because they are a caricature of a car... this could go
round and round. ;-)
It could, but they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....
> > "the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most
> > damage for the same performance. Secondly; removing all
> > polluting vehicles would severely damage the economy.
>
> Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the
> damaging parasite to
get
> as much from its host without terminating it...or at least
> slowing the process down slightly ;-) very good.
True. But the balance needs to exist. The Parisian economy
will not suffer greatly from a ban / tax on 4x4s. It would
suffer greatly from a ban on all motorised vehicles. Since
there is a beneficial effect from both, but one has an
enormous downside... you do the beneficial one.
> I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses.
> They were all,
by
> strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I
> got the feeling that they didn't drive them regularly and
> therefore weren't quite used to the size of the
> things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
> other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec
> car drivers, obviously very important and late for some
> world saving meeting.
Of the two, I've had far more problems (Both as a cyclist
and as a driver) with the car-ridden execs. With regard to
the trailers, since it is very difficult to find a trailer
which a new driver (Since 1997) can tow, the government has
already done this. You now have to take a trailer test in
order to tow one.
> ....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply
> to all motor vehicles. A congestion charge for parking
> within half a mile of a school
Definately. I'd be in favour of having an enormous fleet of
lifters on stand by to take away any car breaking the rule.
A £100+ fine for parking would soon discourage them!
That'd do.....
> ?..... ...and the local schools here suffer from 40
> tonners speeding by, less
than
> 5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the
> day...and what
do
> the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their
> awareness of
caring
> for future generations??...build a f*cking lorry park 200
> yards up the
road
> from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from
> the biggest polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice
> one!!! - we get at least 40 per night, nice and cheap,
> see?....that's 40 coming past the poor little sods on the
> way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for a few
> inconveniently placed 4x4s.
While I agree that a lorry park has no place near a school,
until we get a government with the sense to force freight
onto rail, I think that lorries are going to remain useful.
An economic thing again!
> > What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or
> > an example of something gone wrong?
> >
> Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just
> my personal opinion..
Congestion charging? Everyone I've spoken to who lives there
goes on about how much better life is since it was
introduced.
Not the congestion charging, just London as a general thing
> and that's how we should be expecting these poor car
> owners with small penises to drive in compensation for
> their lack of tackle??
Indeed. The point however was that the performance
features of a sports car are designed to be appreciated
on-road, while those of a 4x4 are designed to be
appreciated off-road.
> Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even
> take your family of five touring with your caravan, in
> comfort and style"
He wasn't the only one. A reasonable number of the sports
car owners that I've met over the years, had one for the
towing ability.
> ...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket
> on a Saturday,
Bike / car.
I am actually thinking of buying a Ford Ka for just that
purpose. My wife don't do bikes!
> running the length and breadth of the country on holiday
> with my family,
Car.
need room, tend to go self catering...
> or taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,
Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)
Convenience of lobbing bikes in back wins out.
> climbing gear to rockfaces,
Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)
Provides cost free sleeping facilities (very
comfortable...or as a climbing friend said - "that is the
most comfortable car I've ever slept in...and I've slept in
a few!!")...and we are both over 6'
> surfboards
Car. Probably wouldn't want to cycle with a surfboard.
Ford Ka??....hhhmmm, have to get a slightly bigger one for
that...gosh, at this rate I'll end up with more cars than
bikes...and I've only got 10 bikes ;-)
> to the beach and that kind of thing....
As in... things that don't actually require 4 wheel drive.
Things that can all be achieved with an ordinary car
(Maybe requiring a roof rack), or which at most might need
an estate.
Choice....I can do it all in my (wifes) 4x4, ta!....not
doing it every day, but haven't got to anything yet that I
haven't managed to do in it...
> > Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close
> > to the limit, it's still a pass. Another vehicle can
> > pass the same checks with room to spare, thus making it
> > less polluting.
> >
> Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more
> polluting
'little
> family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas
> guzzling monster abhorrence'
What is your 'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'? Just
think what wonderous things could be done by putting that
engine and transmission into a lighter weight, more
aerodynamic car.
See below....
> > True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car
> > could become far less polluting than your 4x4 if they
> > switched too. I recently read a report of a new GM 1.3
> > diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa series).
> > In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really
> > roadworthy) it achieved something like 111mpg. The same
> > engine (presumably the same car but not the same fuel
> > economy) also took them to 190mph.
>
> Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over
> a speed hump at any speed though ;-)
Not meant to... it was a showcase vehicle.
and a joke....on my part there...
> ....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
> trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by
> continuing to 'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners
> when there are other options readily available.
Since it is a diesel it will also probably easily convert to
bio-diesel. In the meantime... like-for-like against other
vehicles it will use considerably less fuel. This is a Good
Thing (TM).
> 130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
> up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and
> nothing more than
a
> distraction.
To quote your example. 130mpg vs 30mpg means over 4 times
the distance for the same negative effect. Yes fossil fuels
will still run out, but that's not a good reason to burn
through as fast as possible.
Agreed, but see previous below...
> The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As
> the worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth'
> more and more individuals will want the 'luxury' of a
> motor vehicle. This year you've
got
> 5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years
> time you've got 50 million in vehicles that can do
> 100mpg.....it all still leads to armageddon.
Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.
But only marginally and temporarily, in the geological
timescale of things.....
> > True, but they have no incentive to do so when the
> > consumers are buying increasing fuel hungry cars.
> >
> ...and the options they are offering are......?
Only on the increase due to university projects and home-
builds. IIRC Ford were recently (within the last 2 years)
demonstrating an electric car.
and whatever happened to the water powered motors that the
oil companies all bought up and suppressed??...
> That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling
> cigarettes to the populace 'cos they buy 'em '....verging
> on pure evil!
Possibly. The difference is that smoking is (AFAIK) on the
decrease, while purchasing of over-sized, over-specced, under-
performing cars is on the increase.
> > I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where
> > practical, at a level that makes in nonsense not to use
> > public transport. I'd also like to see bull-bars on 4x4s
> > made completely illegal,
>
> ...totally agree, only with the provision that the law
> breakers are seriously penalised...
Yup. Ban from driving and a compulsory purchase of a bicycle
to be used as a replacement vehicle.
eminently reasonable...
> >and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a
> >legitimate need or
> face heavy taxation.
>
> Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners
> didn't purchase with a view to having to justify and pay
> heavier govt. subsidies.
Those that bought them for genuine off-road use will have no
problems with this. Those that bought them as a status-
symbol can usually afford it anyway. There will be one or
two caught in the middle who can undoubtedly survive with a
smaller car.
98% of the population could happily survive without a car at
all...I know, I tried it following a temporary loss of
licence several years ago...however.... So why penalise one
particular section when they're all (mostly) being selfish
and thoughtless?....it's only a matter of degree.
> > But then I hate the things.
> >
> (hadn't noticed ;-)
He he.
> Which of course, is your perogative
Free Country an' all that.
Jon.
indeed...tired now, going to bed..... ....only response I
can give is that I like it....it's actually my wife's car,
but she don't drive and wanted our own following loss of my
company car Freelander when I took voluntary redundancy. She
*really liked* that....As it is we now have a Ssangyong
Musso, No. 50 in Jeremy Clarkson's 50 worst vehicles ever,
(see - not a status symbol ;-) I checked his reasoning and
it was mainly because it is slow and not very aesthetically
pleasing (to him). He actually reckoned the diesel was not
quite as disappointing as the petrol, although the GX220
will happily see off most hot hatches. Funnily enough, since
I took it in to have a transmission oil leak fixed last
November, the switchable 4x4 hasn't worked, so I 've been
driving in 2 wheel drive. I'd only switch to 4 wheel drive
off road and so far this hasn't been a problem....
<yawn>...bored now, night-night.... Dave.
