Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by hippy, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Peter Signorini wrote:
    > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote


    >> How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a
    >> bigger problem than a little RAV4?


    > You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of
    > vehicle - delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road
    > to do a task that demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's
    > not much functional utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by,
    > say, a Toyota Corolla. And what about the fuel consumption and visual
    > obstruction comparisons here?


    In another post I pointed out that the RAV4 is a whopping 80 mm longer than
    a Corolla. OK it is 215mm higher and, not to ignore, 90mm wider. Comparing
    Toyota website specs the Top of the Wazza RAV4 gets 9.7 l/100 km whilst the
    very frugal, also top of the line, Corolla manages 8.1. The cheapest manual
    Corolla is the same length but uses only 7.7l/100 km. The cheapest RAV4 uses
    9.3 but, Oh my Gawd, is 315 mm shorter than the Corolla. Feel free to browse
    away.

    Theo
     


  2. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    suzyj wrote:

    > Trucks at least have a real reason for existance, unlike the standard
    > 4WD owner's "oh, we bought it because we might like to go out to the
    > country one day" excuse.


    My wife has no intention of ever taking her RAV4 off-road. She just likes
    it.

    Theo
     
  3. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Shabby wrote:
    > >> Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > >> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit.

    >
    > > We could start on Conformodore drivers as well if you want Theo.

    >
    > It was the singling out 4WD's as 'pointless poluting status symbols' that
    > got my goat. I don't see 4WDs as being any more poluting than the average
    > Falcodore or blocking anyone's forward vision any more than a bus or a
    > delivery vehicle.
    >
    > > So far the debate has been about bicycle safety, not environmental
    > > vandalism. Hippy's link references this quote: "but - even during
    > > light-footed urban saunters - you won't get better than 16.5-litres
    > > per 100 clicks."
    > >
    > > Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of
    > > person who then drives it efficiently.

    >
    > My daughter in law bought this specific vehicle last week, trading in her
    > Kia Sorento (big 4WD), because the Kia has considerably less luggage

    space.
    > She has to carry around two of my grandchildren, the older being 2 1/2,

    and
    > the twin stroller, etc, etc, that goes with two toddlers. The Kia simply
    > doesn't have the boot space, the Adventra does. And yes, she will probably
    > be driving it very mildly. Actually it's her 'company' car.
    >
    > Theo
    >
    >

    Actually, on a per load carried basis, 4WD vehicles do use more fuel and
    therefore, on the basis that fuel consumed is a reasonable indicator of
    pollutants emitted, they do pollute more. More driveline losses (less
    insignificant than you might think), big chunky wheels and tyres (more
    rotating mass), heavier construction in general and a greater cross
    sectional area coupled with a more upright shape and more "parasitic drag"
    causing protrusions mean that they're simply not as efficient as a
    conventional car with the same power and carrying capacity. Granted, I
    personally find a RAV4 a lot less offensive than a 100 series Landcruiser,
    which positively REEKS of gratuitous consumption and basically declares to
    the world that the owner just couldn't give a toss about anyone else. If you
    need a large station wagon for general family hauling duties fair enough,
    but I'd argue that the 6 cyl version would be far more appropriate for
    pretty much everything. Anyone who seriously considers a Commodore to be a
    sports car is dreaming. The thing that the Commodore will do far, FAR better
    than the big 4WD is turn and stop, thus not mashing other road users. Also,
    even if the Commodore does hit another car, the normal bumper heights mean
    far fewer injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle. Point to note:
    accident and death stats for occupants of 4WD vehicles conform pretty much
    to the norm. Accident and death stats on occupants of vehicles HIT by 4WD
    vehicles most distinctly do NOT conform to the norm. Refer back to the 100
    series Landcruiser owner not giving a toss about anyone else. I could go on,
    but this is already waaaaay too long. I think I made some of the points I
    wanted to.
     
  4. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:
    > Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >> Yes. Do you think keeping a safe distance, one that enables you to
    >> stop or evade a changed traffic condition, is the responsibility of
    >> yourself, or that of the driver in front of you?

    >
    > Do you think being able to see more than one car ahead is a benefit
    > or a hindrance???


    It is a benefit. Does that somehow diminish your responsibility to drive
    safely to the conditions?

    Theo
     
  5. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Stuart Lamble" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 2005-02-22, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Just going way off thread and bringing this back to bicycles for the

    moment
    > > I suspect the sales ratio discrepancy between road bikes and mtbs (1:10

    I am
    > > told by my lbs) is largely down to the same phenomenon - and bless 'em

    you
    >
    > I have a hybrid. I want a road bike for commuting. $1,000 and up for
    > something reasonable. As somebody with a new mortgage, I can't justify
    > that money, especially since I already have a perfectly serviceable
    > bike.
    >
    > Maybe in a year or so. *sighs* Something like the OCR 3, but I
    > definitely need panniers. AFAICT, the OCR 3 doesn't have the lugs I'd
    > need to hook up the pannier frame.
    >
    > --
    > My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    > the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".


    I have an OCR3. With a rack and panniers :) Works a treat, it does. Find a
    nice 2nd hand 04 model (yeah you miss out on the carbon forks, but that's
    what I have and I can't say I hate the alloy forks) and save, save SAVE!!!
     
  6. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Dave wrote:
    > > All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation. The way to
    > > out heavy a volvo is with a 4wd. The 4wd drivers are merely armoured
    > > volvo drivers.

    >
    > Does Aussie Disposals sell tanks??
    >
    > Check it:
    > http://www.daystoamaze.co.uk/pages/product331.tpl
    >
    > hippy
    > - off to mess with some Toorak Tractors.. ;)


    Saracen APCs come onto the market now and then. Vast torque from the big
    chunkin' diesel and bullet proof tyres so you can laugh off the bogan
    droppings.
     
  7. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Resound wrote:

    > Actually, on a per load carried basis, 4WD vehicles do use more fuel
    > and therefore, on the basis that fuel consumed is a reasonable
    > indicator of pollutants emitted, they do pollute more.


    Agreed but we're talking a 10% fuel consumption difference between a RAV4
    and a Corolla. Hardly significant, IMHO.

    > Granted, I personally find a RAV4 a lot less
    > offensive than a 100 series Landcruiser, which positively REEKS of
    > gratuitous consumption and basically declares to the world that the
    > owner just couldn't give a toss about anyone else.


    And yet is still 150 mm shorter than a Commodore wagon.

    > If you need a
    > large station wagon for general family hauling duties fair enough,
    > but I'd argue that the 6 cyl version would be far more appropriate
    > for pretty much everything.


    The Commodore we (the company) bougth for the D-I-L was the Adventra, so it
    is all wheel drive, and the only one available in the colour she desired
    (black) with leather upholstry (natch) came with the 5.7 V8. Only cost $50K,
    you could buy several bicycles for that.

    Theo
     
  8. ProfTournesol

    ProfTournesol New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0


    again, a necessary evil, unlike a RAV4 in urban Melbourne.
     
  9. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > The Commodore we (the company) bougth for the D-I-L was the Adventra,
    > so it is all wheel drive, and the only one available in the colour she
    > desired (black) with leather upholstry (natch) came with the 5.7 V8.
    > Only cost $50K, you could buy several bicycles for that.


    Hmmm, sounds nice. Need any more Citrix guys or do I have to marry into the
    family before qualifying for a company car? ;) (I'd settle for a Greenspeed
    recumbent)

    Graeme
     
  10. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 08:16 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > sports car is dreaming. The thing that the Commodore will do far, FAR better
    > than the big 4WD is turn and stop, thus not mashing other road users. Also,


    Cue the story of a Yank friend of mine who claimed that she was
    driving down a motorway, and SUVs were passing her left, right and
    centre at twice her speed, during snow. Oddly enough, there were
    several upturned SUVs on their roofs.

    Damn that physics.

    > to the norm. Accident and death stats on occupants of vehicles HIT by 4WD
    > vehicles most distinctly do NOT conform to the norm. Refer back to the 100
    > series Landcruiser owner not giving a toss about anyone else. I could go on,


    I wish I had the stats here. Something like a side on collision with a
    4WD causing 20 times the death rate for the passenger of the car being
    hit. All head injuries, due to the bull-bar and more generally, the
    height of the 4WD, being at fault.

    But hey, we only care about ourselves, right? RIGHT?

    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    Error: Fuzzy Pointer Exception
     
  11. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 08:20 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > "Stuart Lamble" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> I have a hybrid. I want a road bike for commuting. $1,000 and up for
    >> something reasonable. As somebody with a new mortgage, I can't justify
    >> that money, especially since I already have a perfectly serviceable
    >> bike.
    >>
    >> Maybe in a year or so. *sighs* Something like the OCR 3, but I
    >> definitely need panniers. AFAICT, the OCR 3 doesn't have the lugs I'd
    >> need to hook up the pannier frame.
    >>

    > I have an OCR3. With a rack and panniers :) Works a treat, it does. Find a
    > nice 2nd hand 04 model (yeah you miss out on the carbon forks, but that's
    > what I have and I can't say I hate the alloy forks) and save, save SAVE!!!


    Anyone selling? Pretty please? Keeping in mind that I may be out of
    the country in a little while, and can't really afford shipping.

    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    DISCLAIMER: THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT REQUIRED BY LEADER KIBO. THIS ARTICLE
    DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF LEADER KIBO. THIS ARTICLE
    DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH LEADER KIBO EITHER. HAVE A NICE DAY!
     
  12. On 2005-02-22, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
    > hippy wrote:
    >> Imagine if every one of the 'solo' Land Cruiser drivers caught the bus
    >> instead? The roads would be almost empty.. ahh.. cycling bliss.. ;)

    >
    > Surely every 4WD containing one person would only be replacing a car with
    > one person. Contrary to popular opinion a 4WD takes up no more road space
    > than a car.


    You aren't reading what has been written on the thread. Instead, you're
    picking and choosing points to nitpicking, and ignoring those that you
    can't nitpick. It's not about the length of the car. It's about the
    HEIGHT of the car.

    Get in something around the size and shape of a Holden Barina, and go
    for a drive. They're cheap to rent -- a quick peek at Budget's website
    says around $50. You'll see *exactly* what I'm talking about as soon as
    you find yourself behind a four wheel drive: you CANNOT see past them.

    I don't give a damn if their length is more or less than another car.
    What I give a damn about is their height -- when you're behind them, you
    can't tell what's going on ahead, and that's one thing I *very* much
    want to know as a driver.

    Case in point. This evening, I was driving from Mitcham to Glen
    Waverley. I was able to see the traffic lights on Springvale Road at
    least a km, possibly several km (depending on whereabouts; hills make it
    problematic at times) ahead of time. This meant that I was able to slow
    down gradually for the red lights, instead of braking at the last
    minute; this saves wear and tear on the brakes, and also makes it safer
    for me: if something happens at the last minute, I have that much more
    room to manoeuvre.

    If I had had a 4WD in front of me, that would not have been possible in
    the same way. Imagine what it would be like with three 4WDs abreast on
    the road. You'd be squinting through their windscreen, trying to see
    ahead. Not a sure fire thing at all.

    When I was making the trip up, I pulled up at the right hand turn lane
    at Canterbury Road (I wanted to go east from Springvale Road) just as
    the lights changed to red. This would have been around 7:30pm. Between
    stopping at the red and heading off with the green, I counted no less
    than ten four wheel drives. Of those, *one* was being used in a manner I
    would consider a reasonable justification for a 4WD purchase. TEN
    PERCENT. *Every* *other* 4WD I saw in that time period could have just
    as easily been replaced by a low, easy to see over Commodore, and I'd
    bet good money that at least half could have been replaced by a pokey
    Barina.

    *THAT* is what gets me riled about 4WDs, more than anything else. Yes,
    the fuel guzzling part of it (refer to somebody else's post about drive
    chain inefficiencies, wind resistance, and the like) contributes to that
    annoyance, but it's the vision problem that gives me the most grief. The
    Rav 4 is a lesser annoyance than other 4WDs, but it still irks.

    --
    My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
     
  13. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    >
    > > Actually, on a per load carried basis, 4WD vehicles do use more fuel
    > > and therefore, on the basis that fuel consumed is a reasonable
    > > indicator of pollutants emitted, they do pollute more.

    >
    > Agreed but we're talking a 10% fuel consumption difference between a RAV4
    > and a Corolla. Hardly significant, IMHO.


    Announce that you've found a way to reduce vehicle emissions by 10% and
    you'll be hailed as a genius.

    >
    > > Granted, I personally find a RAV4 a lot less
    > > offensive than a 100 series Landcruiser, which positively REEKS of
    > > gratuitous consumption and basically declares to the world that the
    > > owner just couldn't give a toss about anyone else.

    >
    > And yet is still 150 mm shorter than a Commodore wagon.


    Length, as you've pointed out elsewhere, is not an issue. Weight is.

    >
    > > If you need a
    > > large station wagon for general family hauling duties fair enough,
    > > but I'd argue that the 6 cyl version would be far more appropriate
    > > for pretty much everything.

    >
    > The Commodore we (the company) bougth for the D-I-L was the Adventra, so

    it
    > is all wheel drive, and the only one available in the colour she desired
    > (black) with leather upholstry (natch) came with the 5.7 V8.


    Ooh, all of the penalties of AWD and very few of the advantages. Throw in an
    engine reknowned for the fact that it has surprisingly little low down
    torque and you've got a vehicle that'll slurp fuel with the worst of them.
    AWD on the road only really works in something lighter that doesn't result
    in the squandered traction budget of the front tyres being turned into
    "Hello armco" understeer. I hate to say it, but my mind is melding the
    social profile of people who drive black, V8 Commodores with those who think
    that just under 2 tonnes (1985kg) of raised AWD vehicle is perfect for urban
    commuting and we're back to the kind of person who shrieks imprecations at
    cyclists for being on the public highway and wasting 1.7 seconds (not
    including aforementioned shrieking) of their valuble time. If they notice
    the cyclist, that is.

    > Only cost $50K,
    > you could buy several bicycles for that.
    >
    > Theo
    >

    And several other things besides. Like a car that fulfills all the functions
    of the LX8 Commodore (fetish object aside) and probably a paint job to make
    it black, if you really want a car that'll roast the kids properly on a
    summer's day. Note that I'm not anti-car. I'm actually rather enthusiastic
    about cars, hence the reason that I actually know (amongst other things) the
    salient features of a GenIII Chev engine. I prefer cars designed with more
    thought and much less marketing.
     
  14. eddiec

    eddiec New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm no fan of the 4wd (I refuse to call them SUVs - damn Amerian term! :D) fetish myself, so would be unlikely to voice support for them (and am looking forward to when the tariffs are brought into line, or perhaps even reversed for urban use...), but I'm wary of your 10% figure as it's based on pure visual assumptions...

    I have the benefit of a partner who works for Ford and as such we get to play with a new car every six months. Over the last few years we've therefore played with 3 4wds (2 Escapes and an Explorer), and while the Explorer was overkill (and we felt guilty about it), the Escapes were lovely cars for our lifestyle, so much so that we might eventually buy one... We have kids, and a lifestyle involving cycling, MTBing, camping, bushwalking, etc, and the space and ruggedness of the Escape in doing those things suited us nicely. I'd love a nice Mazda6 or a diesel Citroen, but our needs tends to something like the Escape...

    Anyway, coming back to my point, if I was one of those people turning in front of you at Springvale Rd you'd assume that I had no need for it. That I was some ego-tistical prick needing a pecker boost. That my wife was a typical soccer-mom in a car that she didn't need...

    Of course, anybody else I see driving a 4wd while I'm riding I'll probably assume the same of! :eek:

    Eddie (who doesn't mind RAV4s, but has a real distaste for people in Prados.)
     
  15. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > hippy wrote:
    >>Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >>>Yes. Do you think keeping a safe distance, one that enables you to
    >>>stop or evade a changed traffic condition, is the responsibility of
    >>>yourself, or that of the driver in front of you?

    >>
    >>Do you think being able to see more than one car ahead is a benefit
    >>or a hindrance???

    >
    > It is a benefit. Does that somehow diminish your responsibility to drive
    > safely to the conditions?


    What do you think? Of course not!

    Lets ignore the fact that leaving a couple of seconds gap between cars
    will be instantly filled by impatient arseholes trying anything to get
    home quicker - even if I slow down enough to avoid 'any' possible
    accident, my vision is still 'more' obscured by the unnecessarily large
    vehicle in front of me.

    Paris has the right idea - ban all Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles from the
    city.
    Paris's Deputy Mayor Denis Baupin commented on-air on Europe 1 radio:
    "We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to
    others and take up too much space"

    There's no need for these vehicles unless you are off-road in the bush
    where a standard car wouldn't operate safely - 4wd owners should be made
    to justify their use of such vehicles before being allowed to purchase
    them. Yuppies using 2t of steel to drop of little Sarah to MLC is NOT a
    justifiable use. Driving to the Yarra Valley for wine tastings of a
    Sunday afternoon is NOT a justifiable use. Claiming you need it to pack
    your kite-surfer or tow your boat, when a Commodore will do, guess what?
    NOT a justifiable use.

    hippy
     
  16. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:
    > On 2005-02-22, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Surely every 4WD containing one person would only be replacing a car with
    >>one person. Contrary to popular opinion a 4WD takes up no more road space
    >>than a car.

    >
    > You aren't reading what has been written on the thread. Instead, you're
    > picking and choosing points to nitpicking, and ignoring those that you
    > can't nitpick. It's not about the length of the car. It's about the
    > HEIGHT of the car.


    "you took the words right outta my mouth.."
    "it musta been.. um.. cut!"

    hippy
     
  17. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in news:421b05f2
    @dnews.tpgi.com.au:

    > Announce that you've found a way to reduce vehicle emissions by 10% and
    > you'll be hailed as a genius.


    Not really. Many people could do this just by changing their driving style
    to a more relaxed and even one (not necessarily slow) rather than a a less
    fluid stop-start style. You don't hear advocates of smoother driving styles
    being declared geniuses, usually they're called boring old farts or
    similar.

    People don't have to wait for some advance in car design to save themselves
    money on fuel etc, they can do it right now.

    Graeme
     
  18. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in news:421b05f2
    @dnews.tpgi.com.au:

    > I prefer cars designed with more
    > thought and much less marketing.


    I don't think you'll see many cars on the road that haven't had a massive
    amount of money spent on marketing them. True, some vehicles may be a
    triumph of marketing over design but even the more 'sensible' cars have
    millions spent on marketing to persuade the public that they really want
    one instead of a competitor's offering or even to persuade you to
    'upgrade' from the car you were quite happy with.

    Graeme
     
  19. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Graeme wrote:

    > Hmmm, sounds nice. Need any more Citrix guys or do I have to marry
    > into the family before qualifying for a company car? ;) (I'd settle
    > for a Greenspeed recumbent)


    You seriously looking for a job? Citrix would be a good thing on your
    resume.

    Theo
     
  20. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:

    > You aren't reading what has been written on the thread. Instead,
    > you're picking and choosing points to nitpicking, and ignoring those
    > that you can't nitpick.


    Of course, thsi is usenet isn't it? :)

    > It's not about the length of the car. It's
    > about the HEIGHT of the car.
    > Get in something around the size and shape of a Holden Barina, and go
    > for a drive.


    Can I assume your personal vehicle is a Barina?

    > I don't give a damn if their length is more or less than another car.
    > What I give a damn about is their height -- when you're behind them,
    > you can't tell what's going on ahead, and that's one thing I *very*
    > much want to know as a driver.


    I'm saying that many vehicles on the road (for whatever use) are as much of
    a vision block as a 4WD. Yet you do not take umbrage at them because they
    have some, to you, legitimate reason for blocking your view. I personally
    don't see the difference.

    > *THAT* is what gets me riled about 4WDs, more than anything else. Yes,
    > the fuel guzzling part of it (refer to somebody else's post about
    > drive chain inefficiencies, wind resistance, and the like)
    > contributes to that annoyance, but it's the vision problem that gives
    > me the most grief. The Rav 4 is a lesser annoyance than other 4WDs,
    > but it still irks.


    Try a three second gap. Another vehicle will possibly pull into the gap and
    it may not be a 4WD and your problem will be gone. :)

    Theo
     
Loading...
Loading...