RE: Suzuki forced to cut UK Jimny allocation
Discussion
muchacho said:
Olas said:
Every farmer and every squaddie in the county knows his way round a defender.
Is that the of a jimny?
I was a squaddie, now a farmer and I drive a new Jimny.Is that the of a jimny?
Edited by muchacho on Tuesday 28th January 10:25
Japanese pickups mostly, in my experience. muchacho said:
Olas said:
Every farmer and every squaddie in the county knows his way round a defender.
Is that the of a jimny?
I was a squaddie, now a farmer and I drive a new Jimny.Is that the of a jimny?
Edited by muchacho on Tuesday 28th January 10:25
That aside, Suzuki sell 250k cars a year in Europe and over 110k cars a month in India.
I don't think losing a few jimny sales here will keep them up at night.
DonkeyApple said:
It’s a pretty fair argument to say that there is almost no domestic journey that cannot be fulfilled by a 1L Focus sized vehicle.
Those with large families or who holiday in the UK may beg to differ, but certainly the vast majority of journeys could be done in a four seat car with negligible luggage space. Suspect that more than half could be done in a two-seater.
Chris944_S2 said:
It’s funny to see this solely pinned on the back of the EU, without realizing that it’s our own making. The UK has one of the strongest green lobbies at Brussels, and we’ve been making big inputs to EU environmental regulations.
Asside from a few Scandinavian countries, we’ve set ourselves the most ambitious carbon neutral targets of all member states
I expect that one we leave we will eventually move away from EU regulations but our environmental protection rules will likely be even stricter. We chose to be carbon neutral by 2030, can’t blame this one on the Belgian capital.
Can you post a link to an article or news or something where this can be read into please? Asside from a few Scandinavian countries, we’ve set ourselves the most ambitious carbon neutral targets of all member states
I expect that one we leave we will eventually move away from EU regulations but our environmental protection rules will likely be even stricter. We chose to be carbon neutral by 2030, can’t blame this one on the Belgian capital.
otolith said:
Ah, I knew there was a point to telescopics and travel rods!
not sure about telescopics but there certainly is with travel rods. the blokes i know have the bonnet and roof clips for sticking the rods in while travelling along the bank/coast so they don't have to break the rods down.
wc98 said:
otolith said:
Ah, I knew there was a point to telescopics and travel rods!
not sure about telescopics but there certainly is with travel rods. the blokes i know have the bonnet and roof clips for sticking the rods in while travelling along the bank/coast so they don't have to break the rods down.Two piece 13' beach rod, not so much!
DonkeyApple said:
Just a longer walk to some of the best spots. 
My old farmer-spec Impreza wagon was the best thing for that. Didn't really need ground clearance, but four wheel drive and a hi/lo ratio gearbox was enough for my needs. Also cheap and scruffy enough not to care about mud, scratchy twigs and brambles, potholes, etc.otolith said:
My old farmer-spec Impreza wagon was the best thing for that. Didn't really need ground clearance, but four wheel drive and a hi/lo ratio gearbox was enough for my needs. Also cheap and scruffy enough not to care about mud, scratchy twigs and brambles, potholes, etc.
Likewise my Vauxhall Calibra Turbo 4x4 was ideal for saving on shoe leather down at the fishing lake. Did a lot of off roading in that.
DonkeyApple said:
However the argument is very fair that this would hit the mobility of the lower incomes far too harshly and be very detrimental to the wider economy.
But there is nothing to stop an intelligent solution such as tiered pricing so that your typical income earner with a prudent vehicle can fill up at the base level of taxation but for others filling their much larger tank hits a secondary taxation level. Such people would very quickly get bored of having to stop for fuel twice as often as they could only half fill their car to avoid the additional tax and naturally select more frugal vehicles at the next change point. The tax would essentially be purely voluntary but be a strong driver of change.
Yep, thanks for the reality check -- with fuel taxes high enough to induce change, there would likely be riots. It's part of the social contract that mobility is _not_ a privilege of the rich any more.But there is nothing to stop an intelligent solution such as tiered pricing so that your typical income earner with a prudent vehicle can fill up at the base level of taxation but for others filling their much larger tank hits a secondary taxation level. Such people would very quickly get bored of having to stop for fuel twice as often as they could only half fill their car to avoid the additional tax and naturally select more frugal vehicles at the next change point. The tax would essentially be purely voluntary but be a strong driver of change.
Like the idea of that "voluntary" tax, think that could actually work and sounds nice and simple. But with modern tech, it could likely be done fairly accurately digitally at the pump. Say x litres of fuel per month per person (ID via driver's license) at reduced tax. Anything over at the higher rate. Can't or do not want to submit ID? Higher tax rate applies. Or totally different route, one could think of reducing income tax on lower to middle incomes sufficiently to compensate.
Anyway you cut it, the current model isn't great. It doesn't take into account the real Co2 output per user as that's a function of how and how much a vehicle is driven. The weight bias in the formula penalizes light weight cars. Big OEMs that have the resources to massively optimize for WLTP have an advantage...
PS: before I get accused of being an environMentalist
I would fully accept higher fuel costs for myself. Upside for the PHers: we would have somewhat less crowded roads, more sensible car weights, manufacturers with the freedom to build what the market wants -- and reduced Co2 on top of it.Not going to happen of course.
For those that like smaller + higher emissions cars, probably worth securing a Clio RS or Fiesta ST as long as they are available. Could be a couple of "dry" years coming up while manufacturers work on reaching their fleet emission targets.
Kolbenkopp said:
Yep, thanks for the reality check -- with fuel taxes high enough to induce change, there would likely be riots. It's part of the social contract that mobility is _not_ a privilege of the rich any more.
Like the idea of that "voluntary" tax, think that could actually work and sounds nice and simple. But with modern tech, it could likely be done fairly accurately digitally at the pump. Say x litres of fuel per month per person (ID via driver's license) at reduced tax. Anything over at the higher rate. Can't or do not want to submit ID? Higher tax rate applies. Or totally different route, one could think of reducing income tax on lower to middle incomes sufficiently to compensate.
Anyway you cut it, the current model isn't great. It doesn't take into account the real Co2 output per user as that's a function of how and how much a vehicle is driven. The weight bias in the formula penalizes light weight cars. Big OEMs that have the resources to massively optimize for WLTP have an advantage...
PS: before I get accused of being an environMentalist I would fully accept higher fuel costs for myself. Upside for the PHers: we would have somewhat less crowded roads, more sensible car weights, manufacturers with the freedom to build what the market wants -- and reduced Co2 on top of it.
Not going to happen of course.
For those that like smaller + higher emissions cars, probably worth securing a Clio RS or Fiesta ST as long as they are available. Could be a couple of "dry" years coming up while manufacturers work on reaching their fleet emission targets.
It's kinda ridiculous that weight is a consideration really , Aerodynamic drag is what really effects how hard your engine works at 70-80 mph.Like the idea of that "voluntary" tax, think that could actually work and sounds nice and simple. But with modern tech, it could likely be done fairly accurately digitally at the pump. Say x litres of fuel per month per person (ID via driver's license) at reduced tax. Anything over at the higher rate. Can't or do not want to submit ID? Higher tax rate applies. Or totally different route, one could think of reducing income tax on lower to middle incomes sufficiently to compensate.
Anyway you cut it, the current model isn't great. It doesn't take into account the real Co2 output per user as that's a function of how and how much a vehicle is driven. The weight bias in the formula penalizes light weight cars. Big OEMs that have the resources to massively optimize for WLTP have an advantage...
PS: before I get accused of being an environMentalist
I would fully accept higher fuel costs for myself. Upside for the PHers: we would have somewhat less crowded roads, more sensible car weights, manufacturers with the freedom to build what the market wants -- and reduced Co2 on top of it.Not going to happen of course.
For those that like smaller + higher emissions cars, probably worth securing a Clio RS or Fiesta ST as long as they are available. Could be a couple of "dry" years coming up while manufacturers work on reaching their fleet emission targets.
Smaller cars that weigh less still need to push through that drag and weight is a minor factor.
Bagzie88 said:
It's kinda ridiculous that weight is a consideration really , Aerodynamic drag is what really effects how hard your engine works at 70-80 mph. Smaller cars that weigh less still need to push through that drag and weight is a minor factor.
Problem is the WLTP test has many slow sections and a fair amount of speed changes. High speed driving isn't really covered, some bits nudge into the area where drag becomes relevant. That's a problem for makers of fat cars, although (unfortunately IMO) SUVs get away lightly as the full impact of their dreadful CdA isn't relevant enough. So the luxury car brands used their lobbying power to introduce an average fleet weight component in the legislation. Gram of Co2 from an X7 is cheaper than one from a Jimny...
Kolbenkopp said:
Yep, thanks for the reality check -- with fuel taxes high enough to induce change, there would likely be riots. It's part of the social contract that mobility is _not_ a privilege of the rich any more.
Like the idea of that "voluntary" tax, think that could actually work and sounds nice and simple. But with modern tech, it could likely be done fairly accurately digitally at the pump. Say x litres of fuel per month per person (ID via driver's license) at reduced tax. Anything over at the higher rate. Can't or do not want to submit ID? Higher tax rate applies. Or totally different route, one could think of reducing income tax on lower to middle incomes sufficiently to compensate.
Anyway you cut it, the current model isn't great. It doesn't take into account the real Co2 output per user as that's a function of how and how much a vehicle is driven. The weight bias in the formula penalizes light weight cars. Big OEMs that have the resources to massively optimize for WLTP have an advantage...
PS: before I get accused of being an environMentalist I would fully accept higher fuel costs for myself. Upside for the PHers: we would have somewhat less crowded roads, more sensible car weights, manufacturers with the freedom to build what the market wants -- and reduced Co2 on top of it.
Not going to happen of course.
For those that like smaller + higher emissions cars, probably worth securing a Clio RS or Fiesta ST as long as they are available. Could be a couple of "dry" years coming up while manufacturers work on reaching their fleet emission targets.
It won’t happen but fuel pricing is the most logical way to steer consumers naturally into smaller, more efficient vehicles as well as using them less. Like the idea of that "voluntary" tax, think that could actually work and sounds nice and simple. But with modern tech, it could likely be done fairly accurately digitally at the pump. Say x litres of fuel per month per person (ID via driver's license) at reduced tax. Anything over at the higher rate. Can't or do not want to submit ID? Higher tax rate applies. Or totally different route, one could think of reducing income tax on lower to middle incomes sufficiently to compensate.
Anyway you cut it, the current model isn't great. It doesn't take into account the real Co2 output per user as that's a function of how and how much a vehicle is driven. The weight bias in the formula penalizes light weight cars. Big OEMs that have the resources to massively optimize for WLTP have an advantage...
PS: before I get accused of being an environMentalist
I would fully accept higher fuel costs for myself. Upside for the PHers: we would have somewhat less crowded roads, more sensible car weights, manufacturers with the freedom to build what the market wants -- and reduced Co2 on top of it.Not going to happen of course.
For those that like smaller + higher emissions cars, probably worth securing a Clio RS or Fiesta ST as long as they are available. Could be a couple of "dry" years coming up while manufacturers work on reaching their fleet emission targets.
If the average UK annual mileage is 12,500 and the apparent average MPG of new cars is 50 then that suggests very crudely that the typical car user could be given a 250 gallon annual allowance at standard rate or about 5 gallons a week.
Lots of fudges such as borrowing the credit card of a non driver who registers a vehicle etc etc
But with modern tech you could link fuel purchases to a smart phone and even put your excess allocation up for sale for excess users to buy.
The key is to not impact on the lowest income households, preferably to give them an income stream through their sale of credits while encouraging high users to use less but doing fewer journeys, switching to more frugal vehicles etc.
The price of fuel is the purest means to inhibit excess burning of fuel but it has to be done intelligently but the tech exists to do so.
Such a system has the potential to reduce the average size and weight of vehicles on the roads as well as how much they are used. And over time you’d break the trend of ever larger and more wasteful vehicles.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff