if I need a car bigger than a 108, what is my choice?
Berlingo.
Next!
Berlingo.
They are great but woefully fuel inefficient due to their height and frontal area. 😉
At least compared to a small SUV.
My point is choosing the version that does attract a 10% mpg penalty (the SUV) which will average 45mpg rather than 50mpg shouldn’t not attract criticism from others unless
Again I'm not criticising anyone. I'm pointing out that it's a poor choice in most cases. Sacrificing economy for utility is one thing, sacrificing it for image is something else.
It's not as bad as buying a genuine gas guzzler for bragging rights and extra ways to be dangerous and antisocial on public roads, mind.
Hypocrisy of the highest order IMHO.
Not at all. It's a fact that SUVs are less efficient, which is where all this started. It makes no difference who says it.
I'm not criticising you for choosing one, I'm saying they are objectively a poor choice, and admitting that I also make poor choices. This is not a personal battle.
Anyway
Bikes
What a shit CO2 footprint they have to manufacture all of that steel, aluminium, titanium, carbon (not magnesium), ship that raw materials to the Far East to be built in some kind of non-environmentally friendly sweat shop, shipped to the four corners of the world, delivered onwards through distribution centres to shops and on to our houses, then repeated for all of those fancy accessories, spares, replacement parts, etc. Then consider the footprint of the piece of technology and power generation to be use to discuss meaningless things like cars.
Far better to walk everywhere
Bare foot
Naked
Having pointless arguments with passers by
That's the real Green agenda
Well, one bike for transport instead of owning a car, that's a huge net reduction in CO2.
Five bikes so you can choose which one to drive 2hrs to ride, that's not.
(I own 6 bikes)
Again I’m not criticising anyone. I’m pointing out that it’s a poor choice in most cases. Sacrificing economy for utility is one thing, sacrificing it for image is something else.
I am sure that is your perception, that a majority of people buy them for image reasons. And it explains your viewpoint.
I’m not criticising you for choosing one, I’m saying they are objectively a poor choice, and admitting that I also make poor choices. This is not a personal battle.
We will have to agree to totally disagree on that. Anything other than a 108 or a EV 500, and particularly a (presumably heavy) Mercedes (which I believe you drive based on the tyres thread, even though you're now quite shy about it now) is an objectively poor choice (compared to a light small SUV) and makes you a massive hypocrite.
Fine. But I'm still not wrong, am I?
For perspective. Having 1 child will produce an additional 58t of CO2 per year . That's 58,000,000 grams per year.
Choosing the SUV version of a Ceed (the Xceed) rather than the Estate version adds 8g per km (129 vs 137). So per year, @8k miles, you add 102,400 grams. (the delta is similar when comparing same platform Skodas or VWs)
So 102,400 vs 58,000,000 or 1 vs 566.
So have 1 child more than a Xceed SUV driver and every year you increase CO2 emissions 566 times more in your estate.
I expect the anti-SUV militants to spend 566 times more energy and focus on people having children than people choosing a car that is a slightly different shape to an estate and slightly worse environmentally but negligibly so in the scheme of things.
But they don't. They point at SUVs for misplaced perception reasons.
Fine. But I’m still not wrong, am I?
Very much so. Wrong target if you care about the environment. What about that Mercedes, which is it? Emissions?
Fine. But I’m still not wrong, am I?
Yes because our SUV is more economical than than the much smaller Fiesta it replaced.
environmental organisations who want to sneak through their agenda’s on the back of climate change and rather billions die of the effects of climate change than abandon their agenda
LOLWUT?
“sustainable” needs to take a back seat if you are actually bothered about climate change.
So what? Who cares about long term sustainability when we have a climate emergency ?
Once again showing your ignorance by getting it completely arse backwards. Do you actually understand what the word means?
The energy used to keep this thread alive is equal to the emissions of a Range Rover doing 20,000 miles of urban driving.
@johndoh do you have a bovine equivalent? Because there's a lot of it about.
For perspective. Having 1 child will produce an additional 58t of CO2 per year . That’s 58,000,000 grams per year.
QED. Utter whataboutery.
Well, this thread got a lot bigger and off track than I thought it would do when I started it...
But heck, as we're being holier than though...
In the end I went with an 1.4l estate (typo in the tyre thread for those wishing to cross reference) that is pretty damn fuel efficient, certainly more efficient (according to manufacturers numbers) than the SUV that uses the same platform. It also has more boot space and looks better to my eyes. Only issue was I paid more for it than the equivalent SUV as there are a lot less of them around. It'll compliment my wife's 10 year old 1l Nissan Mirca well...
Oh, and yes, we have a well insulated house, no kids and few overseas holidays.
I do own a dog though.
Am I allowed to be smug about my choices?
Depends.
How big is your dog?
Another moronic argument
I find that in a debate, the people having to resort to insults to convey their point of view are the irrational ones. It says far more than you think about you and your inability to think critically.
Particularly when they truncate a quote for effect.
Berlingo.
They are great but woefully fuel inefficient due to their height and frontal area. 😉
At least compared to a small SUV.
Yet, ironically, the weapon of choice recommended by so many on here in the past 😉
How many logs can you carry in one for the logburner ? Asking for a friend
Berlingo.
They are great but woefully fuel inefficient due to their height and frontal area. 😉
At least compared to a small SUV.
Yet, ironically, the weapon of choice recommended by so many on here in the past 😉
How many logs can you carry in one for the logburner ? Asking for a friend
Oh FFS are we bashing Berlingo's now? I own one of them and an XC90.
My Berlingo can legally carry 24bags of coal smokeless fuel
Depends.
How big is your dog?
Mines about 7 kilos, far more environentaly efficient than a child, plus he doesn't demand new trainers/X-boxes/designer energy drinks every 10 seconds, heheh
My Berlingo can legally carry 24bags of coal smokeless fuel
You can use it to stoke the fires of hell ( you know where you are going don't you 😉 )
I find that in a debate, the people having to resort to insults to convey their point of view are the irrational ones
But you are quite happy to shout 'hypocrite' as if you think that invalidates the points being made. You aren't even debating those points, just going for the ad hominem.
You can use it to stoke the fires of hell ( you know where you are going don’t you 😉 )
I thought I was exempt due being 6'6" and possibly having a bad back if Old Nick asks
🙂 🙂
My Berlingo can legally carry 24bags of coal smokeless fuel
Doesn't your coal merchant deliver?
Doesn’t your coal merchant deliver?
No , but his butcher does .....
boom tish , i'll get me coat
I don't have the actual need or desire to have an SUV.
I don't really have the need for a Ti road bike, a carbon road bike, a steel MTB and an aluminium gravel bike, all made from finite resources and shipped around the world to me.
So on that basis, if people have a desire for an SUV and the costs of owning one, I'll just tut and leave them to it.
But you are quite happy to shout ‘hypocrite’ as if you think that invalidates the points being made. You aren’t even debating those points, just going for the ad hominem.
I didn't shout it, you invented that. I don't think it invalidates anything, you invented that.
If you think calling someone's rational comment "moronic" is on the same level, it's up to you.
Missus wants one, she’s 5’3 and wants to be higher up!
We have a 6 month old and will allow us to take loads more things on holiday or anywhere.
Her issue is finding one that can rival the 165bhp that her 64 plate Astra 5dr has!
It’s surprisingly quick, and more roomier than my A3. Then again you can fill a donut with more than you can an A3….
We have a 6 month old and will allow us to take loads more things on holiday or anywhere
It won't though, really, compared to an estate. SUVs generally are not as big as you think on the inside.
A Skoda Superb estate has a bigger boot than a Kia Sportage, but a lot of the listed volume in the Sportage is vertical, and it's quite difficult to utilise that unless you jam stuff up to the ceiling which isn't exactly safe. Estate boots are longer which IMO gives a lot more practical use.
Also if you're short I'd think it would be a lot harder to see over the outsized bonnet. My wife hated this aspect of the Sportage and she's 5'7
To be honest I totally agree with you. SUV’s are just taller smaller cars than an estate so me personally I’m thinking of changing to an A4 Avant (I love Audi’s) . Or possibly a Skoda as boots are huge.
I don’t think I was thinking too much when I replied earlier (babybrain).
I suppose SUV’s are likely popular as they make you feel like you have more presence on the road? Taller for passengers?
Tbh I’m clutching at straws here, similar to OP I can’t really see the use for them. Just another way for a manufacturer to sell more cars
find that in a debate, the people having to resort to insults to convey their point of view are the irrational ones. It says far more than you think about you and your inability to think critically.
Particularly when they truncate a quote for effect.
I didn’t insult you, I said your argument was moronic, not you. And what part of your prose that I cut off for brevity, nothing more, essentially changed the tone of it?
There’s a significant difference between critical thinking and pragmatic planning. What’s your solution? Your argument suggest children and not cars are the problem. What do you suggest? Without immigration, Europe's population is already strongly declining. So having fewer kids is already happening.
How does your argument contribute right now to helping billions of people contribute to reducing climate change?
Your argument essentially boils down, once again, to carbon footprint - kids SOO bad, so everything else should be ignored because it’s essentially noise, but it’s not.
Changes in lifestyle, adopted on mass will make a far bigger impact.
The global use of SUVs vs conventional cars has led to the use of 500000 extras barrels of oil PER DAY.
All for something completely unnecessary.
Come on, this shouldn’t even be a debate. If they were banned, at a stroke you’d save over 30bn litre of oil annually.
That’s the UKs annual oil use for 66 years!
The average CO2 emissions for cars are 220g/mile. For SUVs, that 282g/mile. If you remove 2WD crossovers from that, it’s 337g/mile.
If they were banned, at a stroke you’d save
That's pretty unrealistic... how are you replacing them all ?
So, I’ve been through the report you linked to, used the UKs current and projected energy mix, and real numbers for the average CO2 difference in SUVs. The SUV produces 620kg of CO2 per year (@10k miles) extra rising to 1170kg if you exclude crossovers. The ancestral debt of children reduces to 16400kg and that assumes no technology improvements or any child positive contributions. So now we’re down to 26 SUV/Crossovers or 14SUVs per child.
Go and do some ACTUAL research. Don’t pick a single vehicle and a single data source to back it up. Look at what drove those numbers, what models and simplifications were used, what projections were considered.
SUVs are an easy target BECUASE they’re an easy target. A simple way to make a BIG difference and are almost completely unnecessary.
For all those talking about multiple bikes. A bike is 10kg. The difference between even the most feather touched SUV and it’s car equivalent would be more material than all of your bikes combined. And after that the SUV would continue its negative contribution to climate change, your bikes wouldn’t. The in use phase is the biggest contributor, but again manufacturing is a factor.
A Range Rover uses 3-4x the embedded energy of a Jaguar XE during production.
That’s pretty unrealistic… how are you replacing them all ?
sorry, I meant banned from sale. Not outlawed from use.
With regards vehicle size, it's like anything else - you adjust to fit the space available. When our two kids were little we travelled around the UK quite a bit in our Prius and sometimes the Passat (saloon), and we chose our baby gear to fit the car, not the other way round. We used slings rather than a pram at first, then switched to a pushchair that folded up small. For those times the sling wasn't going to work we had a pushchair thing with a little seat that would fold flat or switch around forward/backward facing where necessary. All chosen to be as compact as possible so that we didn't have to acquire a huge car. Car manufacturers have subtly conditioned us to think that huge cars are normal for the modern family - we tend to think kids = MPV or SUV so we accept this as our fate, then buy large crap to fill it - but this needn't be the case.
If we keep buying huge cars then baby crap manufacturers will keep making big stuff to sell us to fill them.
Molgrips
You talk as if there is one body with all the knowledge and they drip-feed it to us to suit their own ends.
Nope I'm talking about THE MESSAGE about climate change and how that message is diluted and made ineffective by flipping and conflation of other environmental issues with climate change.
Scientists told them that we needed to reduce CO2 so they created incentives to reduce the average CO2 emissions of the UK fleet – they didn’t say buy a diesel, by the way, they said buy a low CO2 car and diesels are usually lower CO2.
Then different scientists pointed out that our NOx emissions were a problem, so they tried to encourage legislation to address that. In both cases governments were reacting to scientists, but you must remember that ‘science’ isn’t one thing, it’s a continuous stream of research and yes, the recommendations based on that do change unfortunately.
So the government reacted to a different set of scientists by then pretending the former set were just bullshitting or is it all cool now cos we solved climate change now so lets do something to increase greenhouse emissions?
they didn’t say buy a diesel, by the way, they said buy a low CO2 car
However for the average consumer they heard scrap your perfectly good car and buy a diesel and pay less then they heard diesels are bad scrap your perfectly good if mis-sold diesel and buy a petrol
Now the same people are being told to increase their driving distances by going miles out of their way .. I think most people will realise when it uses double the fuel it's producing more CO2
Now the govt has said we will ban sale of new ICE cars by 2030
and now people HEAR scrap your petrol or hybrid and buy a house with a drive
Just mixing this in ...
My point is choosing the version that does attract a 10% mpg penalty (the SUV) which will average 45mpg rather than 50mpg
The AVERAGE (mean) speed in the UK is <<30 mph (multiple sources) and
The average speed on Local 'A' roads in England across 24 hours in 2021 was estimated to be 24.1 mph.
^^^ The point is your dislike for SUV's needs to reflect the speeds at which people are driving them ^^^
I'd just point out that the cross sectional area is a bit moot when towing a caravan as well ...
Now – I’m not sticking up for the government here – a smart govt would have invested its own money in EV development years ago and we’d have manufacturers churning out batteries from local sources or even British built cars. But they didn’t because we have a chronic skills gap in government.
Hmm, so Japan is investing in new reactors that it can build in 5yrs and also be used for direct hydrogen production and also be used for heavy industry such as smelting... but we can't do that because a UK reactor takes 25yrs ??? , because we refuse to acknowledge the new technology ...???
and erm.... even Japanese built cars and HGV's
Again – not endorsing what happened you give the impression there’s an all-knowing cabal that’s purposefully controlling everything and misleading us – but it’s not really like that IMO.
I'm sure you have heard of the phrase "follow the money".
Trying to create a conspiracy when Occams razor more than suffices just seems pointless.
Totally OT .. "Why did you give your mate a PPE contract" - "er because he have me money"
It's the same as the question being asked about MP's second jobs as "directors" and "board members" .. companies and organisations aren't paying for some special insight that only a MP or cabinet member can provide they are paying for a mutual understanding of making money.
Climate change has become so important that most people accept(ed) it and we collectively need to do something drastic however pinning it to other "environmental" issues or just plain dodgy environmental accounting is quickly losing popular support and the message is becoming diluted and untrustworthy.
So the government reacted to a different set of scientists by then pretending the former set were just bullshitting or is it all cool now cos we solved climate change now so lets do something to increase greenhouse emissions?
What are you even on about?
I’d just point out that the cross sectional area is a bit moot when towing a caravan as well
You do know caravans can be detached from cars, don't you? You can leave them parked up for like 49 weeks of the year, where they don't affect your MPG?
From the arguments above - we should therefore ban ALL cars that are inefficient.
I'm much more for that than this idiotic targetting of SUVs. It'd be fair, for one.
Anyway:
The ancestral debt of children reduces to 16400kg and that assumes no technology improvements or any child positive contributions. So now we’re down to 26 SUV/Crossovers or 14SUVs per child.
So, I can buy another 13 SUVs then?
I mean, I knew I was way better than 90% of the UK population by my eminently sensible decision not to have children, but this sort of news makes me want to go out and buy some battery-farmed steak.
:smugface:
🙂
we should therefore ban ALL cars that are inefficient.
I’m more for that than this idiotic targetting of SUVs.
Yes, of course. Sports cars can get in the sea too.
Missus wants one, she’s 5’3 and wants to be higher up!
MrsMC is 4'10 and thought the same, but having had a few SUVs as pool cars for work, she doesn't find it much better. We're on our second Octavia estate
Hmm, so Japan is investing in new reactors that it can build in 5yrs and also be used for direct hydrogen production and also be used for heavy industry such as smelting…
You just made that up.
but we can’t do that because a UK reactor takes 25yrs ??? , because we refuse to acknowledge the new technology …???
Well first it needs a Generic Design Assessment before we even licence it to be built, then any site needs to go through the relevant planning approvals (which if it's being done by private industry won't be done until a GDA is given) and then final funding has to be found and approved.
Then you start building it.
If it's an already common design that your builders have experience of then you could knock up a pair of ABWR's fairly quickly but only towards the end of a series of builds. First builds are always slow.
Once it's built you have to do a lot of commissioning, testing and training before you even pull rods never mind get it on the bars.
Again, you seem to be waxing lyrical on things you know sweet FA about and just making things up to suit your argument.
molgrips
Yes, of course. Sports cars can get in the sea too.
makes more sense to ban luxury cars that are carrying 400KG more than they need to just to be luxurious than it does to ban an 800kg elise.
Fine by me. I bought mine cos it was there. If it hadn't have been there I'd have bought something else. The only other choice at the time was an SUV 🙂
makes more sense to ban luxury cars that are carrying 400KG more than they need to just to be luxurious than it does to ban an 800kg elise.
Although thinking about that a little, I guess that most Elises are bought as toys not utilitarian transport, no? The second or third car 'for fun' as a concept must have a fairly large climate impact, I'd guess?
Those people buying them 'so they can see better' would be better off getting Advanced lessons to improve their driving, roadcraft & awareness, etc
Car manufacturers have subtly conditioned us to think that huge cars are normal for the modern family
molgrips makes a very good point. When I was a kid, we made the annual 6-hour pilgrimage from North London to North Wales in one of these.
2 adults, 3 kids and luggage for a two week holiday.
<edit> Although interestingly almost any SUV short of a Bentayga would get better mpg than one of those. Our first 850 Mini did 26mpg. It's obvious why - yesterday, coincidentally, I was out on my road bike and one passed me and the mixture of soot and unburned fuel I had to breathe for the next couple of miles was truly unpleasant. </edit>
Molgrips
What are you even on about?
That changing the message or conflating the message isn't winning over popular support it's simply making more people (increasingly the majority) feel like they might as well just sod it.
You're upset about the difference in efficiency between a SUV and a low slung sports car at 25mph ... (or you just refuse to accept the average speed they are being driven at) yet the difference is sod all and totally insignificant compared to the big picture of power generation.
You do know caravans can be detached from cars, don’t you? You can leave them parked up for like 49 weeks of the year, where they don’t affect your MPG?
You know you can hire a SUV for 3 weeks a year or even a caravan at the destination instead of driving the gas guzzler you don't need for the other 3?
Yes, of course. Sports cars can get in the sea too.
Surely it would be better to ban caravans?
It's not like there is an EV can actually tow them further than you can ride in a day. (or the biggest battery BMW did 100 miles round trip on a flat route in a real world test)
Whilst you are getting all het up about SUV's being driven at 25mph we are again missing starting building new reactors that could be here in 5-6 years (well assuming we ask Japan for help) ... and providing hydrogen for a HGV fleet and vehicles can be used to tow caravans...
