Forum menu
I wonder how much of the ire directed at their owners is down to pure envy and how much is actually anything to do with a genuine rational thought process.
Hammer, meet nail.
I don't think the Disco quite qualifies as a Chelsea tractor.
.
There are 'proper' 4x4s:
Defenders
Old Troopers
Fourtracks
Unimogs
Discos
Old Range Rovers
Old G Wagons
New Range Rovers. Maybe?
Landcruisers?
Wranglers?
.
and there are silly SUVs, X3, X5, Q5, Q7 Cayenne, Vitara, CRV, M-Class, etc, etc.
.
Interesting to note different repsonses to different ones. X5 = ****hole, Defender doesn't, and yet Defenders are also expensive and thirsty
.
My own opinion is that some just scream tasteless (and probably chav) like X5s and Q7, you can sure 99% of the time the driver will be a [expletive deleted], people who think an X5 with silly wheels and a silly number plate is cool generally are.
.
And if you really want to make a statement, there is nothing quite like an X5 for shouting, very loudly, 'Hey everyone, look at me! I can't afford a Range Rover.'
.
.
Posted by a former 110 driver (never went off-road in it, but it was fantastic for towing boats out of lakes)
Forgetting the practicalities a Chelsea tractor is a simple statement of wealth
Or debt.
I like the elevated seating position.
I have to admit, I like the elevated seated position in my camper.
I wonder how much of the ire directed at their owners is down to pure envy and how much is actually anything to do with a genuine rational thought process.
If Chelsea Tractor = 110 Defender, then yes: paint me green and call me a monster. 😉
Remember those TV ads a few years ago, filmed from the point of view of a well spoken couple in a Range Rover, voicing their innner thoughts? They moved in a bubble of comfort and effortless progress, carefully insulted from the urban landscape that lay far below them.
At one point, they drew up behind a group of cyclists, one of whom was riding a Chas Roberts. The woman passenger peered down from her elevated seating positiong and condescendingly announced "Don't fancy yours much, Chas..."
Can't argue with Range Rover - they're a successful company, so I assume they know their target market pretty well...
I used to have a range rover,it was a great car all in. Comfortable, safe, very fast (V8 turbodiesel), I used to regularly drive it across Europe fully loaded, it was brilliant off road too. One of the best cars I ever owned; I could drive from London to Italy in a day and be fresh as a daisy on arrival. The high seating position made me feel very safe and unstressed on the road.
Downsides were the horrendous running costs, it wasn't very reliable and almost everyone thought I was a plonker which led to not being let out at roundabouts or junctions, the paint being keyed and general aggressive driving towards me, which sucked.
I think big 4X4s get a bad rep - perceptions are a funny thing; I also had an S65 Merc which cost twice what the range rover did, took up as much if not more space on the road, had worse emissions and was a much less practical car; hardly anyone ever noticed me in it.
Anyway I had a mental breakdown and quit my job, and now I drive a crappy old Vectra. It's worse in every way apart from being so anonymous that I notice people tend to treat me better on the road 🙂
Are pickups considered a Harrogate shopping trolley or not? Need to know sharpish please.
If you have to ask...
Are pickups considered a Harrogate shopping trolley or not? Need to know sharpish please.
.
Acceptable ones:
Old Hilux
130/110/90
Vauxhall Bravo
Transit tipper
Nissan Cabstar
.
Not acceptable:
New Hilux
L200
Navara
F-150
(all a bit chav)
I guess it's a harmless pursuit of vanity.
Not really harmless. There is an environmental cost, per mile.
Can't beat a bit of reverse snobbery. A 4X4 like a RR or Q7 is a statement of wealth, the same as a big house or a holiday home in the sun. People are entitled to send their wealth as they see fit. And I'm pretty sure (although I have't checked) that the environmental argument doesn't stack up.
And I'm pretty sure (although I have't checked) that the environmental argument doesn't stack up.
Land Rover claim to be one of the best environmentaly. Something like 60% of the cars they have ever made are still running. Once you factor in the polution from making the things they have a point. Even Friends of the Earth say it's better to keep old cars running longer, than buy new, lower emmission ones.
It's new cars which are more of a problem, not big cars.
.
A 4X4 like a RR or Q7 is a statement of wealth
RR is more likely to be old money though, the Q7 is just a bit tatseless
They're awesome!
they look great,
they provide a confidence inspiring driving position for shit drivers who shouldnt be on the road,
they are a great vehicle for making sure the best kids in the world (your own) get to school safely.
if you run over an adult or a lesser kid (someone else's) then they'll definitely be killed rather than badly maimed (this is a good thing right?)
they keep oil companies in business
they have incredible small bump sensitivity
Theres probably loads more reasons to own one
Remember those TV ads a few years ago, filmed from the point of view of a well spoken couple in a Range Rover, voicing their innner thoughts? They moved in a bubble of comfort and effortless progress, carefully [b]insulted [/b]from the urban landscape that lay far below them.
can't say i recall the ad, but sounds interesting.
Land Rover claim to be one of the best environmentaly. Something like 60% of the cars they have ever made are still running
Except that the bulk of a vehicle's emissions are during its use, not manufacture or disposal. I guess the Land Rovers still running are mainly the ones built for utility.
And I'm pretty sure (although I have't checked) that the environmental argument doesn't stack up.
Please explain that.
Something like 60% of the cars they have ever made are still running.
That's not because they are 4x4 gas guzzlers, are they? Or are you trying to say that Landrover make reliable vehicles? Lolz 🙂
Early rule of marketing....
...no one buys a Rolex to tell the time!
I needed one when on ones estate, now I've moved no longer need one 😀
[img] 
[/img]
Early rule of Rolex wearers.. they always have to tell you they have one.
I quite fancy an Audi Q7. You can pick them up for reasonable money once the arse had dropped out of them in depreciation.
FF - I wasnt implying that (!) just repeating an early lesson in marketing. I think its applicable to this debate!
Not acceptable:
New Hilux
L200
Navara
F-150
(all a bit chav)
Posted by a former 110 driver ([b]never went off-road[/b] in it, but it was fantastic for towing boats out of lakes)
[img] 
[/img]
andrewh - Member
I don't think the Disco quite qualifies as a Chelsea tractor.
Isn't the Disco the definitive Chelsea tractor?
Surely the environmental thing is dependent on your mileage?
I find it amazing that anyone who lives in the UK has the front to pretend they are in some way helping the environment. There may be a few people that live frugally and sustainably here but one lot of polluters berating another group for driving a slightly larger car is just sour grapes.
Big premium brand fast saloons (RS4, Jag XFR etc) and supercars are generally admired, but as soon as the topic turns to 4x4, even though the are often slower, cheaper, less poluting than the saloons, everyone gets annoyed.
This is so right. Really if people want to spend their money on big 4X4 or any other form of luxury goods then it's their choice. There are plenty of cars that take up as much road space or use as much fuel that no-one gives a hell about.
The two richest guys I know, one drives a Golf (new thought :)) and the other a Ferrari FF. It just down to their personal choice.
I bought one specifically to piss off the 4x4,Tesco,Daily Mail,Anything that is fashionable to hate at the moment, haters on here 🙂
I owned a Q7 up until recently. It was comfy, quite economical for what it was and fast enough. It was (dare I say it) much more environmentally friendly than the Porsche and RS4 it replaced (35mpg vs 22/23 mpg for the Audi and Porker). When I had those I had to have two cars so I could carry my bikes about. In fact, the 3-series I've replaced the Q7 with gets much worse MPG yet I never get any hate directed at me in that compared to the aggression you'd see driving the Q7.
On another note, I'd drive the Q7 much more sensibly than I did the others, there just wasn't the need to hammer about everywhere. The only downsides to owning it were the cost of tyres and parking it, which was a total ballache.
It was comfy, had lots of nice toys and space to carry my bikes, had a nice driving position and on the odd occasion I had to take it off road, it fared much better than I thought it would (see bike race car parks). I don't understand this hatred towards people who drive a certain type of car. Seems a bit like sour grapes to me.
Surely the environmental thing is dependent on your mileage?
Yes of course, but however many miles you drive in a 4x4, you're going to use more fuel than in a more economical car, aren't you? I can't believe people have trouble with this concept.
Buying an estate doesn't mean your travel needs are suddenly double.
Except that the bulk of a vehicle's emissions are during its use, not manufacture or disposal.
.
Takes about 200,000 miles worth of energy to build one. Can't remember the source so waits to be corrected...
.
.
Please explain that.Something like 60% of the cars they have ever made are still running.
That's not because they are 4x4 gas guzzlers, are they? Or are you trying to say that Landrover make reliable vehicles? Lolz
LR's figures, not mine. I expect it's down to easy parts availablity and ease of repair on Series vehicles, nothig to do with whether it's a 4x4 or not. Just saying that ones which last longest are least bad for the environment.
Takes about 200,000 miles worth of energy to build one. Can't remember the source so waits to be corrected...
Most life cycle analyses put the use phase at 70-80% of a vehicle's total lifetime impact. And let's not forget that a large vehicle such as a 4x4 requires more resources to make.
teamhurtmore - Memberandrewh - Member
I don't think the Disco quite qualifies as a Chelsea tractor.Isn't the Disco the definitive Chelsea tractor?
Its not what it is its how much more it costs in comparison to the car next to you.
Often it's a symbol of skewed fiscal priorities and debt. I find it odd that many people on 'average' salaries borrow to buy depreciating assets that cost more than their yearly income, but then it's their money and if it makes them feel good about themselves as they sit in traffic then I guess it's a harmless pursuit of vanity.
yep
This is so right. Really if people want to spend their money on big 4X4 or any other form of luxury goods then it's their choice.
And if people choose to spend their money on making life a tiny bit less pleasant for everyone else, it's my choice to call them names.
I owned a Q7 up until recently. It was comfy, quite economical for what it was and fast enough. It was (dare I say it) much more environmentally friendly than the Porsche and RS4 it replaced (35mpg vs 22/23 mpg for the Audi and Porker).
Assuming all bought new and the figure of 200,000miles above is correct the new Q7 would have to cover just over 400,000 miles before the total environmental damage done by buying and running a new 'more efficient' car was less than that caused by keeping the other car going for the same distance...
.
.
But unlike Q7s X5s etc a Disco isn't writing cheques it can't cash, it can do what it says it can. Obviously if it has road tyres and those silly side steps which take all the ground clearence away that's another matter...Dales_rider - Memberteamhurtmore - Member
andrewh - Member
I don't think the Disco quite qualifies as a Chelsea tractor.Isn't the Disco the definitive Chelsea tractor?
Its not what it is its how much more it costs in comparison to the car next to you.
Not this one,AGAIN ??????
I have the answer/s................
Inbred .....................
Conti Vert Pro's.................
andrewh - Member"And I'm pretty sure (although I have't checked) that the environmental argument doesn't stack up."
Land Rover claim to be one of the best environmentaly. Something like 60% of the cars they have ever made are still running
Something like? Very scientific.
andrewh - Member
It's new cars which are more of a problem, not big cars.
Small old cars > Big old cars though.
Just saying that ones which last longest are least bad for the environment.
Most cars that get scrapped could easily be repaired. The only reason LRs are being looked after is because they are classic or niche vehicles. So it's a bogus statistic in environmental terms. Especially as (I would guess) most people who are spending their weekends working on their series I almost certainly have a normal family car AS WELL.
What's the point? Well, they annoy people like Molgrips, so that has to be a good thing in itself.
*Browses LR website to buy a nice Disco (as it happens, I might be going to anyway!) *
Well, they annoy people like Molgrips
If only that was all you had to do in life eh?
Most life cycle analyses put the use phase at 70-80% of a vehicle's total lifetime impact.
.
From greenpeace site:
Vehicle manufacturers report an average of 0.6 tonnes per vehicle of CO2 generated from manufacturing,” says Simon Barnes, environmental affairs manager at UK auto industry body the SMMT. “But we need to at least treble this figure to take into account component and material manufacture.”Some manufacturers produce even more misleading figures
"In its environmental report, Volkswagen only reports emissions from power generated on site. It omits bought-in electricity because of different standards for calculating greenhouse gas emissions."
"But in the VW’s 2005 sustainability report, it gives only its in-house CO2 figure. Divide this by the number of vehicles produced and it appears that each car coming off the line is responsible for just 0.26 tonnes."
The manufacturing figures do not take into account emissions from their suppliers. It is a fact manufacturers no longer manufacture the vast majority of the parts they use, as they are bought in. Manufacturers are now effectively run as design / assembly operations.
Also they do not take into account the transportation emissions to transport all of these components.
Another thing, what about the emissions of the labour used in assembly. Car assembly plants are based away from residential areas. All of their staff have to travel to the site, I presume the vast majority of this is done by car and not bicycle.
That also doesn't take into account the huge energy cost of gathering and processing the raw materials used in make the car components.
The true figures are a lot higher than the motor industry declare.
It is a fact over 70% of Land Rovers ever made (since 1948) are still on the road. You will not be able to find another manufacturer with this exemplary record for the longevity of their vehicles as their simply isn't one.
.
And I was wrong about there being 60% of LRs still running, it's actually 70% above, 75% according to wikicars
Assuming all bought new and the figure of 200,000miles above is correct the new Q7 would have to cover just over 400,000 miles before the total environmental damage done by buying and running a new 'more efficient' car was less than that caused by keeping the other car going for the same distance...
the only bit I understood of that was 'assuming bought new' which it wasn't. It had done a few miles by the time I'd finished with it though...
And why the hell would you want to go anywhere in a Defender...they're bloody awful
And why the hell would you want to go anywhere in a Defender...
Because they can go anywhere in a Defender...................
No to the first question and taught how to drive in the snow to the second question...
the only bit I understood of that was 'assuming bought new'
OK, environmental cost of building an old car is a sunk cost, the damage has already been done and cannot be undone. There is an environmental cost to building a new car over.
However, the new car does less damage in use, in terms of fuel consumption.
In this particular example the break-even point was just over 400,000 miles, ie the point at which the total damage done by making and running the new car is less than that done by continuing to use the old one.
So if you intend to use the car for more that that the new one is less bad.
.
Another thing, what about the emissions of the labour used in assembly. Car assembly plants are based away from residential areas. All of their staff have to travel to the site, I presume the vast majority of this is done by car and not bicycle.
Talk about clutching at straws. If these people all went to work somewhere else, why on earth would you assume that would be closer to where they live?
By admitting this I know that i`m going to be talked about in the same breath as Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter!! but here goes ,I drive a Disco ,great for taking 5 of us biking without a push, the wife drives a Shogun and I use a Navara for work!!! I am so so sorry!!!