OT Some ammo for those arguing against the use of 4 x 4 vehicles

[Michael Macclan]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > OK I wasn't clear enough......too many people make journeys for the sole purpose of recycling
> > glass, paper and plastic etc thus negating the energy saving benefits of recycling. Ownership of
> > a 4 x 4 was incidental to the recycling journey.
>
> Yes -- but the argument of the BBC piece was that driving a 4x4 was 400 years of recycling worse
> than driving a normal small saloon.

This link leads to essentially the same item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3355927.stm

..... of which the following is the claim about 4x4s (or 4WDs, I don't know if there's a
difference).

"A household whose car travels 40 miles per gallon (family saloon car) instead of only 20 miles per
gallon (a typical 4-wheel drive) saves in one year the energy equivalent to recycling all of its
glass bottles for 400 years."

This seems to me to be a gross generalisation. There are many 4-wheel drive vehicles that are
basically family saloons or sports cars (a la Audi TT or Subarus). To claim that their fuel
efficiency is so hugely higher seems wrong.

A further point is that energy savings aren't the whole story. Glass manufacture involves digging up
the raw materials and potentially ruining landscapes. Recycling reduces this.
___
Michael MacClancy

 

[Peter B]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I note with interest that those ruthlessly pragmatic people, the French,
do
> not have a Gallic equivalent of a Land-Rover, in spite of their large
rural
> population, and instead put their trust in old vans and, in extremis, the four-wheel drive version
> of the Renault Kangoo...

What, has the old "tin shed on wheels" 2CV van finally died?

Pete

 

[\ Dave]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
> >
> > You know, I'm really beginning to resent this?
> ...
> > So next time you're sitting in your this-years-model air-conditioned turbo-charged sixteen valve
> > five door Volvo estate (or whatever it is you happen to drive), you can just be a little less
> > self-righteous about the choices other people make.
>
> OK then. Get a car. unless you really do need a tractor.
>
>

It's a free choice thing.....would you dictate to others what their free choice should be??....have
we GOT TO wear helmets then ??... My last three cars have been....
1. - An American Dayvan - Ford Econoline: 'kin huge beast V8, 5 litre about 12 mpg....2 wheel drive
- loads of fun. Planned to convert to LPG, never got round to it, too busy repairing fuel tank
doing a swiss cheese impression. Sold it after 3 months.
2. - Volvo 740GLE estate: lovely car, leather upholstery, heated seats, 'D' reg, 16-20mpg but done
400,000 miles so starting to cover itself environmentally as most of a cars damage to the
environment is done during extraction of raw materials and construction. Kept for about a year.
3. - Ssangyong Musso: Loads of fun 4x4, 30mpg. Mostly used for the supermarket run, never used for
the school run, occasionally used for accessing off-road leisure pursuits such as rock-climbing,
MTB & kayaking. Never used for farming.

I always do the recycling thing during the supermarket run, so the cost to the environment of me
specifically recycling waste material, over and above the damage I would be doing anyway is
zilch....although I fully appreciate that was not the point of the OP, rather that recycling is so
inefficient and driving a car, any car is extremely damaging to the environment, with which I'd
agree...but anti-4x4 ammo....for fcuks sake GET A LIFE!!!!

Before I 'dropped out', disillusioned with the whole capitalist pig game, I used to have a
wonderfully responsible IT job that gave me a nice new car to drive around in every 2-3 years,
dependant upon mileage - do more miles, get a new car quicker, koool!!.....Got through 5 of 'em
before I rediscovered the pleasure of 'The Bike', thanks to that marvellous invention, the hand held
speed gun (x3)....personally, I think they should be more widely used, speed cameras all over the
place and ignore the whingers who think they are an infringement of their right to break the law (no
matter what they're driving). ...Oh, just remembered another advantage of the 4x4...it's so slow on
acceleration that I physically never manage to break the speed limit before reaching the next reason
to stop or reduce speed...bet you can't say that about the majority of those lovely friendly family
saloons..... Remember the day when the Ford Sierra came out, closely followed by the Vauxhall
Cavalier of a similar shape??...it seemed manufacturers were all moving to the most efficient
aerodynamic design, all in the name of fuel economy.....baaa-baaa, variety is the spice of life

Dave. ;-)

(bored yet??)

 

[Peter Clinch]

W K wrote:
>
> what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get anywhere near winning a race.

I never race but like to go fast on a bike, and there are certainly people who like to do that far
more than me. I'd prefer to do it on a 'bent, but you can get a normal road racer for a good deal
less and it's practical to live up 4 flights of stairs with corners in a tenement with an upright.

If you're riding primarily for recreation on pleasant days, don't need to carry anything besides
yourself and enjoy speed with relatively little effort a road racer would be a good choice.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mseries]

W K wrote:
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:50:18 +0000, in <[email protected]>, "vernon.levy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>>>>
>>> I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality
>>> of 4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used
>>> for their intended purpose.
>>
>> It's the same as MTB owners who only cycle on roads, just on a bigger and more dangerous scale.
>
> No, they are cheap and some people have the belief that the suspension will make them much more
> comfortable.
>
> what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get anywhere near winning a race.

What about them ?

--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk

 

[Peter B]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
anywhere
> near winning a race.

But a road race bike feels fast, lively and responsive and if you don't need to carry anything but
you're own body and a minimum of essentials what's wrong? The only ecological downside of a road
race bike is generally a short tyre life.

Riding an mtb on tarmac requires extra effort for the same speed and distance, riding a road bike in
a proper mtb environment is a non-starter.

Pete

 

[W K]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> > I note with interest that those ruthlessly pragmatic people, the French,
> do
> > not have a Gallic equivalent of a Land-Rover, in spite of their large
> rural
> > population, and instead put their trust in old vans and, in extremis,
the
> > four-wheel drive version of the Renault Kangoo...
>
> What, has the old "tin shed on wheels" 2CV van finally died?

old citroens never die. There are quite a few C15s left.

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>Dave. ;-)
>
>(bored yet??)
>

Totally, I didn't realise how my mischievious posting would stir up so many strong emotions.

Chaque a son goute.

Vernon in Leeds

>
>

 

[W K]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
anywhere
> >near winning a race.
> >
>
> But they are functioning in their intended environment.

hmmm. strange argument. Its the use its put to as well as where it goes. I don't buy a chain saw for
when I go walking in the woods.

 

[Phileas]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
anywhere
> >near winning a race.
> >
>
> But they are functioning in their intended environment.
>
And they are more efficient.

Phileas

 

[W K]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
> anywhere
> > near winning a race.
>
> But a road race bike feels fast, lively and responsive and if you don't need to carry anything but
> you're own body and a minimum of essentials what's wrong?

The price tag.

> The only ecological downside of a road race bike is generally a short tyre life.
>
> Riding an mtb on tarmac requires extra effort for the same speed and distance

Hence shorter training rides.

 

[\ Dave]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
> anywhere
> > >near winning a race.
> > >
> >
> > But they are functioning in their intended environment.
>
> hmmm. strange argument. Its the use its put to as well as where it goes. I don't buy a chain saw
> for when I go walking in the woods.
>
>
Don't know what you're missing out on ;-)

 

[Peter Clinch]

W K wrote:
> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>what's wrong?

> The price tag.

You can buy a perfectly acceptable road racer for a little over =A3300 if=
=20
you shop around and can live with "adequate" rather than "best". But=20 even if we talk about "best"
we aren't in the same ballpark as a typical =

4x4 by a wide margin. You can *easily*[1] spend an order of magnitude=20 more on a family-tank.

Pete.

[1] well, not that easy if you don't have it, but if you're just=20 comparing numbers it's not hard.
--=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Vernon.Levy]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090902020807040409010202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

W K wrote:

>"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get
>>>
>>>
>anywhere
>
>
>>>near winning a race.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But they are functioning in their intended environment.
>>
>>
>
>hmmm. strange argument. Its the use its put to as well as where it goes. I don't buy a chain saw
>for when I go walking in the woods.
>
And I don't buy a submarine when I go paddling in the sea.

Any more surreal and pointless additions?

>
>
>
>
>

--------------090902020807040409010202 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-
Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-
Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body text="#000000"
bgcolor="#ffffff"> <br> <br> W K wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">"vernon.levy" <a class="moz-txt-link-
rfc2396E" href="mailto[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote in
message <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>... </pre>
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">what about - road race bike owners
who don't race or will never get </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->anywhere
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">near winning a race.

</pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">But they are functioning in their intended environment.
</pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> hmmm. strange argument. Its the use its put to as
well as where it goes. I don't buy a chain saw for when I go walking in the woods.</pre>
</blockquote> And I don't buy a submarine when I go paddling in the sea. <br> <br> Any more
surreal and pointless additions?<br> <br> <br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">

</pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>

--------------090902020807040409010202--

 

[Richard Bates]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:18:51 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, "vernon.levy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[stuff about 4x4 vehicles]

I think theterm 4x4 is stupid - the vehicle is quite clearly 2x2 or occasionally 2x3.

So if the number of wheel along any side of a vehicle is doubled to produce the term 4x4, then is my
bike a 2x4? Or maybe it is a 4x2?
--
Due to a typing error on the Children's Hospital menu Saturday evening now offers "Beef burger in a
bum". Email: Put only the word "richard" before the @ sign.

 

[Peter B]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:18:51 +0000, in <[email protected]>, "vernon.levy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [stuff about 4x4 vehicles]
>
> I think theterm 4x4 is stupid - the vehicle is quite clearly 2x2 or occasionally 2x3.
>
> So if the number of wheel along any side of a vehicle is doubled to produce the term 4x4, then is
> my bike a 2x4? Or maybe it is a 4x2?

Your bike is a 2x1 (most likely), that is it has 2 wheels one of which is driven. A trike without a
diff would be a 3x1.

Pete

 

[Anonymous]

vernon.levy posted ...

>> Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>>
> I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality
> of 4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used for
> their intended purpose.

And that intended purpose is what ?

Maybe going off-road a bit like this ..

http://groups.msn.com/losipaulspictures/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=97

Mine gets used to carry seven people, tow a caravan, drive green-lanes, carry loads / tow trailers
with full loads to repair other green-lanes, tow motorbike trailer, play in quarries and such-like,
carry bikes to the top of hills, take the kids to and from school, shopping, driving long distances
etc etc ... In fact everything that using a non-4x4 vehicle would need maybe three different
vehicles to achieve .. or a much, much better transport infrastructure. We can currently only afford
one primary vehicle for the family, though we do have seven bicycles, six sets of skates/blades and
a few skateboards between the four of us ..

In fact I couldn't possibly list _all_ the activities we use our car for, sorry our 4x4 for. We
don't see it as a 4x4, we see it as the most convenient vehicle we've ever had, bar none.

--
Paul

 

[Tony W]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I note with interest that those ruthlessly pragmatic people, the French,
do
> not have a Gallic equivalent of a Land-Rover, in spite of their large
rural
> population, and instead put their trust in old vans and, in extremis, the four-wheel drive version
> of the Renault Kangoo...

Didn't the original spec for the 2CV have something about the ability to traverse a ploughed field
on 3 wheels carrying a basket of eggs?

T

 

[Dave Larrington]

Peter B wrote:

> What, has the old "tin shed on wheels" 2CV van finally died?

Production ceased in 1987... The normal 2CV lasted until 1990.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > I note with interest that those ruthlessly pragmatic people, the French,
> do
> > not have a Gallic equivalent of a Land-Rover, in spite of their large
> rural
> > population, and instead put their trust in old vans and, in extremis, the four-wheel drive
> > version of the Renault Kangoo...
>
> Didn't the original spec for the 2CV have something about the ability to traverse a ploughed field
> on 3 wheels carrying a basket of eggs?

I hadn't heard the 'three wheels' element, but for the rest I believe that that was part of the
design brief. Another part, allegedly, was than Andre Citroen, who was 195 cms tall, should be able
to sit in the prototype, comme les thompson twins, with his bowler hat on.

I loved my 2cv and still regard it as the world's most under-rated sports car - a total
hoot to drive.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]