molgrips
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?
Even taking the embedded carbon from manufacture into account, it's hard to imagine that an Elise weighing 800-900kg or an MX5 weight 1100-1200KG would have anything like the lifetime carbon footprint of a 1800-2300KG mobile armchair.
Plus there are relatively few produced. Example - something like 80% of porsches sold are SUVs not sports cars.
nb. the original comment was not a personal attack on your choice of car
That changing the message or conflating the message isn’t winning over popular support
I think it is, gradually. Far more people care more about the environment than they used to. But you seem to be under the impression that there's one organisation producing 'the message'. It doesn't really work like that. Lots of organisations publish a lot of stuff, the media reports it.
Even taking the embedded carbon from manufacture into account, it’s hard to imagine that an Elise weighing 800-900kg or an MX5 weight 1100-1200KG would have anything like the lifetime carbon footprint of a 1800-2300KG mobile armchair.
Of course not, but I'm wondering how many Elises actually replace an SUV, or are bought in addition to an SUV.
Surely it would be better to ban caravans?
How far do you think I actually drive with it?
How far do you think I actually drive with it?
You seem to be suggesting if you drive fewer miles you are ok to drive a less economical one?
Just wondering why stevextc keeps going on about caravans.
Just wondering why stevextc keeps going on about caravans.
Because they are clearly evil. Just a big lump of plastic destined for landfill, unless Top Gear or Brainiac manage to blow them up first.
Just wondering why stevextc keeps going on about caravans.
Probably for the same reason you keep going on about SUVs
Just saw this @molgrips:
Yes, of course. Sports cars can get in the sea too.
Then caravans are fair game too - because they're massively inefficient, increase emissions and less-polluting / environmentally damaging alternatives are readily available - at cheaper prices.
Now, be advised, I'm not trolling here - if you're making the assertion that environment trumps everything then you cannot limit your sights to SUVs. In fact, as you're aware of these facts it would be a moral failing for you do so.
If, however, you accept that there are "other factors" in people's decisioning that are valid - then you need to define what they are so we can assess the different things according to that ruleset and/or debate that ruleset.
But you've pretty much invalidated the whole SUV argument - because to vilify them, and ignore the rest, is hypocritical.
squirrelking
You just made that up.
If by made it up you mean rounded up the figures of the Japanese NRA and IAEA the actual figures for Japan are eight nuclear power plants since 1996 with an average of 46 months to build each plant
Whereas Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 6 took only 39 months for completion
But you’ve pretty much invalidated the whole SUV argument – because to vilify them, and ignore the rest, is hypocritical.
As I said above, an argument is not invalidated because the person putting it forward is a hypocrite. The argument exists entirely independently of its proposers.
if you’re making the assertion that environment trumps everything
No, I'm not, that would be ludicrous.
My viewpoint is that emissions have to be minimised. But we clearly need to create some, simply by being alive. The question is, what's justified? This a really difficult question. For example, I grew up believing that travel was a wonderful thing, that we would all benefit from being able to see the world and understand its many varied cultures and landscapes. This is absolutely true, but it has a high cost. Do we really want to go back to a time when we stayed in our towns or local areas our whole lives? We don't want to but do we need to?
I'm not caravanning this summer, I'm taking a plane to the USA. I attempt to justify this by saying that my wife hasn't seen her parents or sisters in three years, and due to certain tragic events we think they really need to see each other. But it's not really essential, is it?
I try to balance CO2 emissions of things we do against what I perceive to be a wholesome positive impact on the lives of my family. Caravanning in West Wales is a relatively small impact for an overall positive. It's smaller than many options we could take but not the minimum. Clearly though, the weak point in that thought process is the question of what sort of positives I'm entitled to? Millions of people don't even get holidays, why should I get to go to the seaside for two weeks? I'm not prepared to sacrifice that for the sake of the environment, at least not yet.
The point about SUVs though is that in most cases, buying a normal car instead isn't really a sacrifice, is it? If blue paint caused more air resistance, and resulted in 10% more fuel consumption, what would you think of people insisting on buying blue cars in their millions, to the point where manufacturers stopped production of other colours? You'd think it insane. And yet, for most people (not all, as we've covered) this is pretty much what's happening.
But you’ve pretty much invalidated the whole SUV argument – because to vilify them, and ignore the rest, is hypocritical.
As said - it makes no difference who's saying it. The arguments are scientific and philosophical. To extrapolate to extremes, if Hitler said Putin was bad, would Putin become good?
Also the reason we are focusing on SUVs here is that this is a thread about SUVs.
Molgrips
I think it is, gradually. Far more people care more about the environment than they used to. But you seem to be under the impression that there’s one organisation producing ‘the message’. It doesn’t really work like that. Lots of organisations publish a lot of stuff, the media reports it.
That's not what I'm under the impression of (though perhaps a not insignificant % of the electorate might be)
What I'm saying is its an "eco" (pick word) business and what gets implemented and to some extent reported is what makes money not what is best for climate change. (or of anything else)
Do more people care or is it just becoming more divisive?
Personally I find many of the environmental aims nice to have but I'm increasingly meeting people who just totally reject anything.
To me you either accept the evidence that climate change is the absolute and over-riding issue we have or you don't.
I think the hypocrisy comes from the exclusivity of of the 'argument' - needling away at a specific issue without trying to draw it back and explain it as an example of a broader concern . More than hypocrisy - it's attracts blindness too. Think supermarket carrier bags - the middle class hypocrisy of decrying all those unthinking oiks still buying their 10p bags at the till instead of the lovely hemp bags for life they use; conveniently forgetting their rather unfortunate habit of filling said hemp virtue bags with food delicacies with enough air miles it would be jetting it's family off for a free holiday if it was a marketing executive rathan than a mango.
If there is anything we can learn from this generation of populist politicians is that the debating style of division and point and sneer never ever moves things forwards.
To me you either accept the evidence that climate change is the absolute and over-riding issue we have or you don’t
Why would there be only one overriding issue?
If there is anything we can learn from this generation of populist politicians is that the debating style of division and point and sneer never ever moves things forwards.
I agree. And if we want to move forward we need to all examine our actions together, not simply throw mud at others instead. Do not make this a personal dick waving contest, because we will all lose out of that's all we end up doing.
Everything has trade-offs. My wife wants to become a teacher. She'd be brilliant at it, and this would be a net positive especially if she ends up teacher training at the school she's currently TAing at. It's a deprived school and the teachers are crap. They really need people like her to make a positive impact on the kids in the area. BUT the only way to get there from here is by car. Alternatively, she could get a job at Costa down the road, and all the positives she could bring would be lost.
Why would there be only one overriding issue?
Because that's what overriding means - "more important than any other considerations."
Just wondering why stevextc keeps going on about caravans.
The point about SUVs though is that in most cases, buying a normal car instead isn’t really a sacrifice, is it? If blue paint caused more air resistance, and resulted in 10% more fuel consumption, what would you think of people insisting on buying blue cars in their million
Except they don't because the average speed in the UK <<30mph
Whereas ... Driving a big 3L V6 52 weeks for the year for the 3 weeks you tow a caravan (absolutely not because you like premium cars) over something doing 60-70mpg or an EV...
As said – it makes no difference who’s saying it. The arguments are scientific and philosophical.
If you want the argument to be scientific you need to compare efficiency figures at the speed people are driving at.. all the evidence seems to indicate a MEAN speed of 25mph... up to 30mph.. where I am not convinced there is anything like 10% difference in fuel consumption but where a 3L V6 is very inefficient.
From a philosophical argument its like you drive around and see an SUV and assume they have no reason other than "it's cool" whilst they are looking back at you from their much more efficient at typical urban speeds SUV thinking "he must tow a caravan and that's his well considered reason he bought a big merc"
Molgrips
Why would there be only one overriding issue?
onewheelgood
Because that’s what overriding means – “more important than any other considerations.”
Like you are in a train and the driver has dropped dead as it thunders along towards the track off the cliff edge and you start worrying about the air quality on the train or the dirty seats or it set off 5 mins late ...
The "overriding" concern for me at least would be stopping the train before it flies off the end of the cliff and worry about the airquality and dirty seats or the fact is was late etc. later.
If by made it up you mean rounded up the figures of the Japanese NRA and IAEA the actual figures for Japan are eight nuclear power plants since 1996 with an average of 46 months to build each plant
Whereas Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 6 took only 39 months for completion
I'm talking about the fact that Japan have announced no such thing, they said they are looking to build more but said absolutely nothing about what type they would build except that they would be "next generation". That could be an ABWR or something else.
You're also glossing over the fact that they needed 16 months of upgrades after the 2007 earthquake and still aren't considered safe to start after modifications since 2011. In fact no BWR or ABWR has been allowed to restart since then, every reactor in the country that is currently operational is a PWR.
So thanks but no thanks, I'd say there are fairly good reasons HPC is taking so long to build, not least the lessons learned from Three Mile Island to present day.
The “overriding” concern for me at least would be stopping the train before it flies off the end of the cliff and worry about the airquality and dirty seats or the fact is was late etc. later.
So you're proposing the very thing you complain about, a complete u turn with no forward planning at all.
Do you even know or understand what sustainability is?
A **** it, nope, I'm out, I'm not smacking my head off this brick wall again.
The “overriding” concern for me at least would be stopping the train before it flies off the end of the cliff and worry about the airquality and dirty seats or the fact is was late etc. later.
That's not a very good analogy. There are waaaaay more moving parts in the entire world economy.
Except they don’t because the average speed in the UK <<30mph
That doesn't mean everyone's doing 30mph all the time. Flippin eck you don't just have the wrong end of the stick, you're actually holding on to a banana.
From a philosophical argument its like you drive around and see an SUV and assume they have no reason other than “it’s cool” whilst they are looking back at you from their much more efficient at typical urban speeds SUV thinking “he must tow a caravan and that’s his well considered reason he bought a big merc”
You're debating wether or not SUVs are in fact less efficient than cars. My caravan and my car HAVE. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. THAT.
Speed affects drag. SUVs are worse.
Mass affects inertia. SUVs are worse.
The more moving parts you have, the greater the losses. Heavier cars usually need bigger or more complicated engines or make do with poorer performance from a similar spec unit. They also have bigger wheels and tyres to support their weight. Their additional weight needs bigger brakes, etc. Many SUVs have AWD/4FWD. All of this mounts up to greater losses. Thus, SUVs are worse.
So whether you’re on the motorway or going about in town, the force required to overcome either restraining force is greater for an SUV. SUVs are worse.
Molgrips
That’s not a very good analogy. There are waaaaay more moving parts in the entire world economy.
Except when you are on the train that the engine is going over the cliff and nothing can prevent that at this point the number of moving parts is largely irrelevant
Lucky the cattle class passengers (developing nations) are at the front maybe so perhaps we just cut their carriages free from ours and start thinking about how we can have a lovely clean carriage after they plunge to their deaths.
That doesn’t mean everyone’s doing 30mph all the time. Flippin eck you don’t just have the wrong end of the stick, you’re actually holding on to a banana.
Erm nope it means they average <<30mph in total (Different data sources but non of it is >30 mph.. )
Given the scale is 0-70 and 30 is in the lower part it means overall they spend very little of their driving time at 70.
You’re debating wether or not SUVs are in fact less efficient than cars. My caravan and my car HAVE. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. THAT.
Only to you... you seem to be saying that because something has a 25-50% bigger CSA it should be banned without some special use certificate but 200-300% bigger displacement is totally justified?
Only to you… you seem to be saying that because something has a 25-50% bigger CSA it should be banned without some special use certificate but 200-300% bigger displacement is totally justified?
My car's a 2.2l diesel, you know that right? What are you on about with 200-300% more displacement?
Also, as I said earlier, whilst I like the car I am not attached to the concept. If it hadn't have been there I wouldn't have bought it, and I would not have cared. Just because there is one on my drive doesn't mean I'm a particular fan of the concept. If I'd been browsing for a car at leisure I probably wouldn't have bought it.
The reason I didn't subsequently sell it is because it would've lost me loads of money.
What are you on about with 200-300% more displacement?
Well.......
You know my analogy of the middle class shopper looking down the nose of those buying carrier bags for every shop whilst conveniently ignoring the air miles of the unnecessary items in their own shopping bag.....well, this is what I was referring to.
I'm not saying you are wrong to describe SUVs as a concept is a poor choice for most. But honestly, you being the champion of the cause (on this nerdy forum at least - or is it last man standing/bothering to reply, I digress) is doing the cause a disservice. Cos a shed dragger who drives a 3lt merc has got too much glass in his house to make the point stylishly.
Cos a shed dragger who drives a 3lt merc has got too much glass in his house to make the point stylishly.
It's 2.2l
And I don't really care about being stylish. It's not a personal competition, as I keep saying. Making it personal will reduce the entire debate to finger pointing and bickering - which is what's happening here.
And I don’t really care about being stylish. It’s not a personal competition, as I keep saying. Making it personal will reduce the entire debate to finger pointing and bickering – which is what’s happening here.
Them's the breaks. This is not your war soldier. Your debating style and personal circumstances means others are better placed to take it from here than you. And relax......
I understand there is a bike forum here too - I hear it's rather good.
Incidentally:
CLS 250 CDI official MPG: 54
ML 250 CDI official MPG: 46
I can't explain why in 2023, when the talk of climate change has shifted to the coming catastrophe, why a brand like BMW has just released the XM - 650Bhp+ , 2.7tonnes !, looks only a mother could love - and all the reviews confirm it doesn't even drive well. I guess for a certain type of punter it will provide 'a nice place to sit' to watch approaching disaster come lapping up to its door handles.
Dissonance seems to be the answer. And profits for shareholders.
why a brand like BMW has just released the XM – 650Bhp+ , 2.7tonnes
Because, people - as in this thread. I have driven Aygo's for the last 12 years and very happy driving them as I have nothing to prove.
They are cheap, light, fast enough and when driven in a 'spirited' manner such as mine still get 60mpg. I can also fit lots of stuff in it but there are clearly compromises with its size.
Queue the reasons/excuses why everyone can't drive one but if it was the only car available the majority of people would not be losing a great deal but I suppose that all sounds a bit communist...
So whether you’re on the motorway or going about in town, the force required to overcome either restraining force is greater for an SUV. SUVs are worse.
Even more so for a lifestyle choice like, say, a Transit Connect, a T4/5, a Vito…
Doesn’t seem to stop people buying those while living in urban areas and driving said in same.
Anyway, when I had my old Octavia, a car that carries the STW Official Seal of Approval, my late partner would only travel in the back seats, and even then had panic attacks on several occasions. When I replaced it with the blue one below, while she would still only travel in the back, she was much more relaxed and calm when being driven. Quite likely because she was sat higher and felt less anxious without vehicles coming towards her at eye level.
Molgrips
My car’s a 2.2l diesel, you know that right? What are you on about with 200-300% more displacement?
Also, as I said earlier, whilst I like the car I am not attached to the concept. If it hadn’t have been there I wouldn’t have bought it, and I would not have cared. Just because there is one on my drive doesn’t mean I’m a particular fan of the concept. If I’d been browsing for a car at leisure I probably wouldn’t have bought it.
The reason I didn’t subsequently sell it is because it would’ve lost me loads of money.
Sorry, I'd confused it with another 3L V6 but all I'm saying here isn't personal to you it's about glass houses and stones and someone otherwise rational seems to have a particular bee over something very minor and marginal.
A Peugeot 2008 1200cc about 1200kh (from memory) isn't quite as efficient as a 208 but its way more efficient overall than your car or my van and the biggest margin will be on short/urban/low speed journeys with a cold engine which is statistically most of the journeys in the UK.
We have both considered what we bought within timeframes and limits but you seem to think the 2008 SUV owner hasn't and it's purely a fashion statement...
To misquote from Daffy (sic) "some of them are AWD/4WD" ... erm - sure but surely it's better the former Discovery/XC90 whatever driver is driving something like a 2008 than a Discovery/XC90 they even steer around muddy bits on the road so it doesn't get dirty?
Isn't this how the whole SUV thing happened because people wanted the driving position to drop the kids at school?
It just seems pointless to me to moan about excess height when excess weight or excess power are equally pointless?
If I’d been browsing for a car at leisure I probably wouldn’t have bought it.
I'm sure plenty of SUV owners went and did some test drives, sat in something and went "oohh I like this driving position, height to get in and out"... I mean most people get to the point of needing a new car and then try and replace it.. seems to me the majority (or loads) then either replace it with something very similar but newer or replace it with something really different in some way die to some change in lifestyle and most SUV owners are not buying them to bomb up and down the motorways as the main use.
it’s about glass houses and stones
No, it's really not. The facts are what they are, it makes no difference who points them out.
the biggest margin will be on short/urban/low speed journeys with a cold engine which is statistically most of the journeys in the UK.
It's statistically a very small number of the journeys my particular car makes, on purpose. I know it's inefficient around town like all cars so I try my best to avoid using it. It's only there for holidays, the odd work trip and the occasional long trip for an outdoor adventure. And by occasional I mean about once a year lately. On long trips it's returning 55-59mpg which isn't bad but it could be better. After its purchase I did put a lot of effort into trying to find a reasonable replacement, but that was pretty difficult without losing a lot of money. So now I've invested time and effort in prevetative maintenance and improvement, which will help ensure it's on the road for a long time to come. We're trying to arrange things for my wife to work locally, which will mean we should be able to go down to one car. If that doesn't work out, then she may well end up driving it for a bit until we can replace it, hopefully with an EV.
It just seems pointless to me to moan about excess height when excess weight or excess power are equally pointless?
This thread is about SUVs. Weight and aerodynamics have been covered. Excess power is also a bad thing - we didn't start a thread about unnecessarily powerful sports cars, but if we did I'd be on it. Check the recent thread about the 'ultimate' MTB vehicle, I was on there arguing in favour of estate cars, and I wasn't the only one.
most SUV owners are not buying them to bomb up and down the motorways as the main use.
Do you have a source for that fact?
There are so many people looking for personal validation on this thread and missing the point entirely.
most SUV owners are not buying them to bomb up and down the motorways as the main use.
Do you have a source for that fact?
Lots, because the wealth of data says people aren't using cars like that (at least anymore) car use for especially cars bought not leased or company had shifted a lot.
Loads of sources heres one (they are all from the same data so slice and dice)
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/largest-car-insurance-companies/average-car-journey-uk#distance
Average journey is 8.9 miles and
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021/travel-time-measures-for-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021-report#:~:text=2.1%20National%20overview%20of%20average,average%20speeds%20from%202021%20onwards.
even on A roads 24 mph average
It’s statistically a very small number of the journeys my particular car makes
I'm sure it is .. my point is your average car buyer isn't buying a car to bomb up and down the motorways anymore.. and the remaining ones who actually BUY a car (not lease) and pay for their own fuel are buying more efficient motorway cars... and I'm sure most SUV owners are going to say "It’s statistically a very small number of the journeys I go above 40 mph my particular SUV makes"
I'm sure when you do go on motorways you do see SUV's... but that doesn't mean they do it every day more than you do. My local observations are a huge number are used to drop the kids at school, go to the supermarket and then the gym or something... (then I'm close to the gym, leisure centre and several schools).
This thread is about SUVs. Weight and aerodynamics have been covered. Excess power is also a bad thing
Sure but that needs to be taken in the context of how these SUV's are being used.
When you see SUV's on the motorway/dual carriageway that could be the first time this year or month they've even been on a motorway or be a small part of their journey.
I know this is just a personal observation but as the conversation with my mate the other day he wants tpo sell his BMW 3 series and get a Berlingo or similar because other than the odd trip to bikeparks he hardly ever goes on a motorway or dual carriageway for any distance AND at 70 mph (unlike 5 yrs ago) and despite that being a single data point it reflects car use data.
towpathman
There are so many people looking for personal validation on this thread and missing the point entirely.
Well the original point was what was lunge missing .. as in what are the positive aspects of SUV's.
A bunch of people have estates, SUV's and vans because we
a) Carry bikes all the time
b) tend to cycle locally over driving
c) the estate/van/SUV has some characteristics that are desirable
d) pretty minor but towing a caravan
I'm perfectly happy that people are self validating, whatever their choice but just because their self validated choice is one thing doesn't make any other choice less valid.
my point is your average car buyer isn’t buying a car to bomb up and down the motorways anymore.
The average mileage might be falling but that doesn't mean people aren't on motorways. They might just be on motorways less often. In fact, if more people are WFH but still travelling at weekends then the average milage might fall but the proportion of miles spent on motorways might actually go up.
So I don't think your statistics say what you think they say. I don't see anything that says SUVs are less likely to be on the motorway.
When you see SUV’s on the motorway/dual carriageway that could be the first time this year or month they’ve even been on a motorway or be a small part of their journey.
Er yes, but they could equally be on a 100 mile daily motorway commute, you have no way of knowing.
But in any case, that would be correlation, not causation. Choosing an SUV doesn't mean you will then go on to do fewer miles; and however many miles you do choosing an SUV will cost you more fuel.
just because their self validated choice is one thing doesn’t make any other choice less valid.
Other than the imperative to minimise fuel consumption, which is the point here.
Other than the imperative to minimise fuel consumption, which is the point here.
Exactly
Another thing I've noticed is the paving over of front gardens.
Now this has been going on for many decades, However because cars have got larger then more gardens have been paved. Our neighbour has an old fashioned drive way, fits 2 smallish cars in tandem, I just know if they sell the house the gorgeous garden next to the small long driveway will be blasted off the face of this earth in favour of a full paving over, to get 2 larger type vehicles onto the front of the property.
We need all green space not less. Paving over anything, then the water level rises, the insect, bird and wildlife population is driven down. All to put some stupidly sized piece of metal on it.
I think that's the number of cars more than the size. Our street looks like a car dealership.
I think that’s the number of cars more than the size. Our street looks like a car dealership.
And kids don't/can't move out anymore. So they become 5 person households with 5 cars to go with it.
Yeah the people opposite have two adult kids living at home and one of them has her own kid. Four cars.
Its not just gardens we are paving over!
