What is that quote about the log in your own eye first?
F1 Cars or bikes – which is more sustainable?
And that's exactly why I'm selling my F1 car at the moment - and am in the market for an Isuzu D-Max to replace it. Who says that Isuzu's media-buying research is rubbish now?
To be fair, the F1 car had real problems carrying a bike, was awful off anything other than mirror-smooth tarmac and went through fuel and tyres ridiculous quickly, worse even than a Volvo T5. Also no factory stereo supplied, just some glorified walkie talkie, no SatNav, no heating/air-con and horribly uncomfortable seat. You have to take the bloody steering wheel off to get in and out. Really impractical. The D-Max looks way better imho.
lots of tubby, white males
Why would you be so cruel? And so accurate?
Peak pick-up? That Skoda doesn’t come close.
I raise you:
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-spottedykywt/bentley-flying-spur-decadence-pickup-for-sale/47542
Yeah I know it's a ute, but still.
Strange comparison F1 cars and bicycles, one is used as a way to generate companies millions and to provide entertainment. The other to generate companies money, provide entertainment, transport for many and produce no emissions.
misses the mark Mark camp here
I’m in the “don’t care” camp
I'm in the "lets just take the piss out of Pickup owners" camp.
For all but a handful of niche use cases, pickups are always just slightly the 'wrong' vehicle, sold and then justified by owners on the illusion of being "working vehicles" rather than simply admitting they are drawn to the aesthetics and the idea of a pickup, a Van you can't actually leave anything in the back of...
Don't get me wrong, like lots of people I can appreciate Pickup's appeal, but the truth I have to accept is they are in reality mostly impractical if you need to move more than two full-sized humans, they're a bit inefficient, yes just like a van, but worse. I'd have one if I didn't have to answer to anyone else for my choices...
My Neighbour with the L200, their second car is a Jazz.
At some point practicality needs to kick in.
@mick_r I love that Skoda 'Elmo' I feel like Skoda used to be a more interesting company in the 90s after they first laid their hands on that sweet, sweet VW money... Novelty folding seat pickups, Electric pickups, what else did they dream up before becoming just another VAG sub-brand?
I'm off out to buy an old Favorit and a pallet full of Lead-acid batteries, that's how I'm saving the planet!
Can't believe STW didn't wait for the Tesla Truck to be released before making this declaration.
What is that quote about the log in your own eye first?
F1 Cars or bikes – which is more sustainable?
The bit that's not covered is what happens after a few million people watch the race on TV.
Cycling - goes out and rides a bike, maybe even replacing a car journey and lowering the carbon footprint a bit compared to what it otherwise might be.
F1 - car go vroom vroom
Saw this today:Peak pick-up? That Skoda beats these.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/xmJGwGF/IMG-5340.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/xmJGwGF/IMG-5340.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://i.ibb.co/gTDbysV/IMG-5341.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/gTDbysV/IMG-5341.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://i.ibb.co/VY90FBH/IMG-5342.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/VY90FBH/IMG-5342.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://i.ibb.co/p4xDJKY/IMG-5343.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/p4xDJKY/IMG-5343.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://i.ibb.co/6v4dSQK/IMG-5344.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/6v4dSQK/IMG-5344.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
(I'm a Berlingo fan!)
(I’m a Berlingo fan!)
Some of the early beringo concept cars were really cool. I had the soft top version for a few years, which TBH probably nullifies any criticisms about pickup security! It didn't so much have "scuttle shake" like most open topped cars, as "whole body jelly wobble" you could feel everything moving in different directions!
Does anyone genuinely ‘Need’ a pickup?
mountain bikers do!
is STW trying to push towards a global market rather than a UK centred one?…
at a guess, STW has a reputation in the uk as being for tubby old men. if the site is to survive when the subscribers have passed away, they’ll need new customers. it may be easier to attract foreigners who don’t realize what they are looking at.
didn’t someone at stw just marry an american? coincidence?
I don’t normally moan but balls to this. Last thing we need is more vehicles off road, there’s enough on road.
Illegal to drive off-road in Scotland, not that you’d know it with the increase in ignorant, selfish pigs this year.
And breathe.
51.76% of our monthly users are from the UK.
25% from US & Canada.
The rest from everywhere else.
And every north American lusts after a Japanese pickup that doesn't appear to be available in their home market 🤷♂️
this could be isuzu’s attempt to break into north america!
Assumed this was a pisstake when I saw the thread title. Appears not!
I don’t normally moan but balls to this
What he said.
Completely tone deaf.
You might as well have put those "cyclist hit count" bumper stickers in the web shop.
As a way to "connect with nature" driving an oversized diesel vehicle through it seems a bit like "connecting with friends" by punching them in the face.
Indefensible. And it shows in the response.
As I view this thread, it's literally serving a video with a still image saying "Mark considers his carbon footprint".
Do you think Private Eye would put it in their Malgorithms piece, or is STW too niche?
MarkFull Member
51.76% of our monthly users are from the UK.25% from US & Canada.
The rest from everywhere else.
So you're appealing to the 25% of the readership who live in the countries with the worst per-capita carbon footprint? That's alright then.
51.76% of our monthly users are from the UK.
25% from US & Canada.
The rest from everywhere else.
Irrespective, just because pickup/truck use is endemic in a lot of the us and Canada, there's no need to encourage it on here.
That 25% don't contribute much, do they. Is this an attempt to engage with them?
D Max is not a American style truck. Compact truck at best
Erm, the blanket advertising on here for this truck is via a UK operation called Pink Car Leasing.
This campaign is not targeting Transatlantic users.
Honestly, the numbers of threads started about cars, buying cars, repairing cars, what car to choose, what car would be best for MTB, what camper van, here's my old car and on and on and on. No one is forcing anyone to buy an Izuzu, you don't even have to open the adevrt and read it, just ignore it. In the meantime, I've lost count at the numbers of times Mark and the rest of Singletrack have suggested the best way they'd like both the magazine and forum to continue to be funded and paid for.
At the end of the day it's a commercial business and will make decisions that best support what it wants to continue to do. Only a few weeks ago, Cranked closed it's doors, and although Seb has said that the decision wasn't money based, it's clear reading between the lines, that he closed it before that became the reason. If we want this forum to be here and the mag to be continued to be produced, then we shouldn't be surprised if it sells advertising space
At the end of the day it’s a commercial business and will make decisions that best support what it wants to continue to do.
I don't think anyone has a problem with car adverts being displayed on STW. Those would be displayed based on the browsers profile and STW would have no control over that.
It's that only a few weeks ago STW were publishing articles on climate change affecting cycling then choose to run a paid promotion of a 4x4 pick-up parading as a lifestyle article.
They can run what ads they want for me (I'm a 4x4 and making-progress car owner), but don't then preach about the climate in another feature.
Not in the market for a pickup at the moment, but fair play to STW for landing this deal. Open marketplace digital ad revenues are stupidly low at the moment, it's no secret lots of bike brands are struggling so have cut budgets, so keeping STW running by sourcing alternative, demographically relevant (and historically better paying) advertorial incomes from the motor industry is a good move.
Easy to get all upset based on personal opinions, but if the choice is either diversify advertising or go under/lay people off, or at best barely struggle along, then fair play.
From some of the responses here, I’m surprised Mark has found the time to go round all your houses and shit in your beds.
munrobiker Free Member
Read the room Mark.
LOL!
It's not just an ad, it's a featured ad, suggesting editorial endorsement. Which doesn't sit easily with mark considering his carbon footprint.
To me at least.
They can run what ads they want for me (I’m a 4×4 and making-progress car owner), but don’t then preach about the climate in another feature
We all contradict. You get to take what information you want, leave what you don't want. It's not my type of vehicle so I leave it.
Yes, most of us have vehicles of some kind, and drive to ride, but that doesn't mean we can't take exception at one that's conspicuously wasteful.
No problem with trying to make money from adverts to keep the mag/site going, but surely you can see the cognitive dissonance here? This rather cheapens the editorial line about getting the train to ride to reduce your environmental impact doesn't it?
To say nothing of promoting off-roading (which 99% of these will never be used for, but still) and the effect that has on the trails a lot of us like to ride... the sort of trails on the brown hills of the north that feature so regularly in the mag!
F1 v UCI World tour
23 x 2 hr races with c 20 competitors versus 26 weeks of 4-5 hr races with 100-180 competitors...far better VFM for the polution.
To say nothing of promoting off-roading (which 99% of these will never be used for, but still) and the effect that has on the trails a lot of us like to ride…
I'm going to take exception at that, the country is for all of us or none of us within reason. I'm not a fan of 4x4 and mx bikes but, if we want better access to the country that's what we want, not better access for some of us based on how we choose to access it. See no cycling on a public footpath.
As for the ad, 🤷🏻♀️, buy one or don't buy one but let's face it, no one buying one was ever going to buy a 20 year old banger because a new car is wasteful* and anyone likely to be swayed by that already has been and probably isn't driving anyway because it turns out an Isuzu D Max idling on the m6 at 17.30 on a weekday is "better" than a "clean" 20 year old banger or a heavily laden stealth camper lugging fridges and batteries in the school run.
Pretending we're better isn't better.
*see also new clothes, especially cheap ones which tend to have the environmental credentials of piper alpha. Coffee, wood burners, new bikes etc. Short of asking STW to only advertise well used preowned stuff it's all conspicuously wasteful.
They can run what ads they want for me (I’m a 4×4 and making-progress car owner), but don’t then preach about the climate in another feature.
No one is preaching at you.
but that doesn’t mean we can’t take exception at one that’s conspicuously wasteful.
The industry that supports Singletrack (and that we all of us presumably are content to continue to partake in) is an entirely derived form of conspicuous consumption. In the western world that entirely functions this way, it is an act of singularly wilful blindness to be angry at this particular small business behaving in the same way that we all do on a day to day basis. Mark and the rest of Singletrack have not asked to be put on a pedestal, to then try to knock them off it, seems a wee bit supercilious
FWIW I'm not outraged so much as I'm gobsmacked and amused by the incongruity of this campaign.
On a more serious note, let's look at a couple of other cycling-related sponsorship deals...
1. Shell sponsoring British Cycling
Absolute outrage and disgust from members and volunteers.
2. Mercedes Benz as title sponsor for UCI World Cup series (now finished?)
Widely welcomed that a mainstream external sponsor is backing the sport.
I'm not playing devil's avocado, so much as pointing out that the differences in "optics" is subtle but important and STW's deal (which I personally don't begrudge them), does err on the "tone deaf" side of the line TBH.
How would we feel if MB were to renew their deal with the UCI? Would that generate as much angst in the current climate (pun intended)?
I’m going to take exception at that, the country is for all of us or none of us within reason. I’m not a fan of 4×4 and mx bikes but, if we want better access to the country that’s what we want, not better access for some of us based on how we choose to access it.
There's a gross fallacy there, even you would draw the line somewhere, 4x4's on byways, contentious but legal, MX bikes on footpaths, that'd be shit? Riflemen on the ridgeway? Bow hunters on bridle paths? Rave sound systems in the Rivelin valley?
There's a simple definition of sustainability by the UN "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own" which boils down to "doing what you need to to, but don't f*** it up for the next person". There's a byway past my house that's part of the King Alfred's Way, it must get hundreds of cyclists every weekend (base don every time I walk the dog I see a group), yet they cause no obvious erosion at all. It also gets maybe 10* 4x4's a weekend and a handful of motorbikes. As a result sections of it are still feet deep puddles and mud.
*they're easy to count because you can hear some tit in a straight piped TD5 a mile away and watch them go past. And you can tell who's caused the erosion, because cycle tourists don't aim for the ruts and have enough torque to rip the manhole covers off the the burried BT fiber line.
Mountain biking in itself (excluding the van fettishers and the miles they'll drive to a trail) is sustainable. Off road driving isn't.
heavily laden stealth camper lugging fridges and batteries in the school run.
Pretending we’re better isn’t better.
At least part of the problem (like this article) is the effort the industry goes to in order to normalize that level of consumption. The average MTB'er probably still throws their bike in the back of a small hatchback and drives a relatively short distance to their local trails. Or rides from the door. But I guess Isuzu and VW pay for better advertorials than boot liners and duffbags.
The carbon footprint of actual mountianbiking is probably just a new bike every 5 years and an annual refresh of consumables. It's pretty small. The driving, the anodized trinkets, the vans, the fast fashion surrounding it, that carbon footprint will dwarf actually getting out for a ride.
The carbon footprint of a carbon MTB is about 12 gallons of diesel, or one return trip from the home counties to the Tweed Valley.
Read the room Mark.
I think he has done so very well.
All the lefty STW world will have looked at this post in distain whilst secretly looking at how much the said pickup is as its looks more cool than their van/motorhome
My dream is still a gas guzzling 3.4 litre straight 6 Porsche Mmmm
The other to generate companies money, provide entertainment, transport for many and produce no emissions.
Bikes do produce emissions when they are made, disposed of and during operation ie brake dust, tyre wear, oil loss
The fact is 99%* of people use a vehicle of some sort to participate in cycling
* made up figure, but I bet its very high
Riflemen on the ridgeway? Bow hunters on bridle paths? Rave sound systems in the Rivelin valley?
Do you mean actually shooting things? That is already covered by other laws and isn't an access issue, it's [among others] a public safety one. Carrying a rifle? Within the bounds of safety /the law, why should that be any different to walking your dog? (though I imagine most folks don't leave shell cases behind when carrying a rifle)
Ditto the sound systems, it's covered by public nuisance and you can't just do that in a town centre or a housing estate either.
doing what you need to to, but don’t f*** it up for the next person
No matter how small the impact walking, riding, skipping or whatever changes the land around you, you or I don't need to go walk up or ride down a hill. We choose to do it because we like it and it changes the world for future generations like it or not.
What you need to do is live in a cave and forage, everything beyond that is optional and comes at a cost. What's worth the cost is a personal judgement - and very very few would put eg a fridge beyond the line, but a new bike every five years to throw down a hill you could walk down? Yeah that's a lot of cost, for zero need.
Nice looking truck!
Not as nice as the RAM 1500 Big Horn I drove around Florida though...
5.7L Hemi rarrrrrrrrrrrr! 13 (yes, 13) MPG.
Makes my current vehicle look positively green...
This is primarily (although you wouldn't necessarily know it) a mountain biking publication website with a forum.
A lot of MTB'ers use pick-up's, adopt the outdoor lifestyle etc etc, just not so much the ones that populate this forum
Just because this place has become a lefty noticeboard, should topics only be covered/promoted that suit your views? Standard I suppose....
I get the double standards take, but perhaps sometimes the revenue is needed and the subject may interest some readers
Just because this place has become a lefty noticeboard, should topics only be covered/promoted that suit your views?
Attaching political affiliation to environmental concern was a very clever trick to making people think it's not a real problem 🙁
And of course, let's not forget plenty of mountain bikers (just check any trail centre or bike park car park) are self employed in construction, so may well buy/lease a bike friendly pickup for/through the business.
So it may well be a masterstroke of good audience profiling here.
Either way, looking entirely dispassionately - STW needs £X to operate it, who is in the market with that figure to spend within the time frame? Easy to get sanctimonious without remembering there's bills to pay and that cash has to come from somewhere.
The Ride Companion podcast had a really good episode about the BC/Shell thing where Olly Wilkins looked at exactly this in a pragmatic way, one of their best ones I thought because it actually dived into the "who's got the budget, desire and ability" better than anywhere else I saw.
Do you mean actually shooting things? That is already covered by other laws and isn’t an access issue, it’s [among others] a public safety one. Carrying a rifle? Within the bounds of safety /the law, why should that be any different to walking your dog? (though I imagine most folks don’t leave shell cases behind when carrying a rifle)
Ditto the sound systems, it’s covered by public nuisance and you can’t just do that in a town centre or a housing estate either.
So why is a 4x4 any different to either the shooting things (because it's a big massive dangerous pedestrian/cyclists unfriendly thing), or a nuisance (because it causes erosion, pollution and noise).
No matter how small the impact walking, riding, skipping or whatever changes the land around you, you or I don’t need to go walk up or ride down a hill. We choose to do it because we like it and it changes the world for future generations like it or not.
Except it doesn't does it.
On an average bridleway the next person along has no idea there was a person before them except the trail remains worn in. Most trails get a sustainable level of use in that regard. An unsustainable level of use use is when the erosion stops the next person being able to have the same enjoyment you had.
Hundreds of mountainbikes down that trail has negligible impact, you could have hundreds more and not know about it (we already do, prior to the KAW being a thing it probably only got a few users a day at most). Yet a handful of of motor vehicles make sections impassable for everybody.
What you need to do is live in a cave and forage,
Reductio ad absurdum, it should be entirely possible to live life sustainably, have a carbon footprint the ecosystem can manage with and not leave things worse for the next generation. You're obtusely misunderstanding the definition of sustainability. Ploughing a field to meet your food needs has an impact, but as long as it's done sustainably (whether that's by not ploughing rainforest to plant palm, or adopting a no-till approach on the shallow soil of the Chilterns) it doesn't impact on the future's ability to also use that field for food production.
In just the same way riding bike down a bridleway doesn't impact on the future's ability to either carry on riding a bike down it, or leave it to re-wild.
Or there is a point where you're sustainable between being a hermit eating elderberries in a cave and driving a pickup because .....freedumb. It's a point on a scale at which your activity becomes unsustainable, that's not zero, it's just moderation.
For those complaining, do you phone OFCOM when an advert you don't like comes on during the 10 o clock news or do you just think "nah, not for me" and move on as the news wouldn't be broadcast without a top up of ad revenue?
