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!

The average mileage might be falling but that doesn’t mean people aren’t on motorways. They might just be on motorways less often.

…..

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.

Less likely than what/when?
All the stats show that numbers of cars have increased far more than motorway miles.
Cars in general are doing less motorway miles… and if SUV’s only follow that trend then each individual car/SUV is doing less so we should plan accordingly.

Other than the imperative to minimise fuel consumption, which is the point here.

Is it? Why is that an imperative over cleaner burning ?

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.

***** Assuming people are paying for their own fuel ***** most people are going to try and buy something that minimises their spend even if they don’t give a toss about climate change. Given your theoretical driver doing the 100 mile commute it’s insignificant if that isn’t the norm.

Outside a few professions (IT consultancy, sales reps etc) most people I know get a new job and a new car most appropriate / least cost (or move closer if its more permanent) or get rid of the car or only keep one for weekends.
This is reflected in the data… and average journey lengths which you can break down.

***** Assuming people are paying for their own fuel *****
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advisory-fuel-rates

If you REALLY want to reduce emissions in ICE vehicles then I’m trying to explain you’re looking in the wrong place.

Who is most likely to be doing the 100 mile commute in a 3L SUV? A nurse / teacher or a consultant incentivised to spend more as a depreciating asset and rewarded per mile by engine size?

Bunnyhop

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.

Well the poorer people that can’t afford a drive are going to be well and truly shafted once they are forced into EV’s and using public charge points.

The travels, and the travel nots.

Your new two tier society, coming soon to a Britain near you.

***** Assuming people are paying for their own fuel ***** most people are going to try and buy something that minimises their spend even if they don’t give a toss about climate change

Nah, not really… not many… not even that many at all of the people i know buy their cars for that reason.

Clever SUV anyone?