A green mans view of 4x4s

[maxrider]

dhutch said:

As someone who is heavly dyslexic and asbergers, my spelling is one of the things ive had to battle with all my life.

Daniel

Ah yes the usual "reasons" then, there seems to have been a veritable explosion of cases in the last decade or so.

[MilnerR]

dhutch said:

As someone who is heavly dyslexic and asbergers, my spelling is one of the things ive had to battle with all my life.

Daniel

Get a web browser spell checker?

[gopher]

RobM77 said:

but it's not hard to see why people who buy off roaders for road use get laughed at.

But people who buy sports cars for road use get laughed at. It's those doing the laughing that have the problem.

[sjp63]

RobM77 said:

gopher said:

dhutch said:

Im personally am against 4*4 for the school run, for people who dont need them, and should just get a volvo or a audi estate or something.
- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
- And they also use more oil and service etc, for all the extra diffs and gearboxs. And you look like a bit of a cock.

However at the same point, he does have a point that if you actually do need a 4*4 then you should be penalised.
- I only directly know three people with 4*4, one of them has a 6tonne steamboat that he tows all over the place, inc steep small roads to marinas, launch and recovered etc, and the other two have them as farm vehicals as the guy in the essay does, going across unmade feilds in all weathers etc.

But yeah, largly, urrrm. Yeah, thing. And that....


Daniel

What happened to freedom of choice?

So what if they use more fuel, oil, extra diffs and boxes? If someone is willing to spend the money why can't they? What if someone needs a 4 x 4 just to feed their ego? why shouldn't they?

In the same way as sports cars are unnecessary, people carriers for people with only a small dog are unnecessary, personal boats and planes are unnecessary.

I just think that it's not the business of anyone else what I do with my money (as long as it's within the law etc).

(no I don't have a 4x4)

Paul

I don't wish to start another huge thread regarding this, but that particular viewpoint is often raised, and there are so many misunderstandings.

At its base level, every car offers its owner the ability to get from A to B. With almost all cars, on top of this ability come extra things. Those extra things might be great fuel economy, space for your dog, or the ability to tow a trailer etc. Sports cars offer great responses, nimbleness, feedback and handling, usually at the expense of carrying capacity. However, all of the facets of a sports car can be used and enjoyed tangibly on the public road. They also offer good acceleration and speed (at the expense of fuel economy over a similar weight of car). Whether acceleration and speed are dangerous or not is getting into the debatable, so we'll stick to the facts. Now, what 'features' does a 4x4 like a Range Rover offer its owner? It primarily offers good ground clearance so you can straddle ruts on tracks and cross unulating rocky ground (been there, done that, it's great!). Secondarily, it offers four wheel drive to offer grip on slippery off road surfaces. These are wonderful facets that make off roaders perfect for certain people - a forester or gamekeeper's life would be very tricky and difficult without one. However, these facets have absolutely no use at all on the public road. In fact, these facets make an off roader compromised for use on the public road because a higher CofG and large wheel travel means less stability than if the same vehicle was lower, and the extra weight and friction of 4WD inevitably leads to lower mpg than if the car was 2WD. Additionally, concentrating the mass and strength of a vehicle higher up means that if it hits something like a Focus or a Fiesta they will be carnage. Those are facts, whether you're a greeney or not. I'm sure we all agree on everything there.

Freedom of choice must be respected, but anyone owning an off roader purely for road use must be ready to be laughed at or puzzled over, much like someone who chooses a Chihuahua as a guard dog, or a bench drill as a bottle opener. Of course, we're all free to do these things, but don't expect people to understand!

Single are you?

[GKP]

Why do these threads pop up every now and again? You either 'get' 4x4s or you don't. I've had a Range Rover of some description on the fleet for about 15 years. I love 'em.

Here's me doing the schoolrun:




Here's me making sure it handles really well on a tight and twisty A road (notice the lack of Sportscars trying to see round me because it's too tall)




And here's me having fun on different sort of 'track' day:



FFS. Let it lie, if the antis on this thread were that concerned about road safety and the environment they'd be cycling everywhere. I'm quite sure they have a car, too.

[tybo]

snotrag said:

Sometimes, I wonder quite what website I'm on.

My thought exactly

[RobM77]

gopher said:

RobM77 said:

but it's not hard to see why people who buy off roaders for road use get laughed at.

But people who buy sports cars for road use get laughed at. It's those doing the laughing that have the problem.

My original point was intended to clear up this confusion. The vast majority of sports cars are designed for the road. The characteristics of a sports car (agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc) are of value on the road, and they don't detract from the road driving experience, much like being Carl Lewis doesn't get in the way of a quick walk to the shops and back. The fact that a Boxster has a lower centre of gravity from a Vectra doesn't get in the way of the car being used on the road, nor does the fact that the engine is in the middle. Off roaders, on the other hand, carry around their off road credentials like a mill stone around their neck - the high CofG, large wheel travel and additional weight result in a poorer driving experience than a Vectra. I suppose it's like being a competitive strong man and trying to go about your everyday life - your extra size and weight will make things difficult without ever offering an real benefits.

As I said before, I'm not against off roaders as such, it's just that buying one for mainly road use obviously causes a lot of people to be rather puzzled! Check out the pictures above for how capable off roaders can be. What the Range Rover's doing in all of those shots just wouldn't be possible in a normal car. The ability to have a car that'll do that and cruise down the M4 in silence is an amazing feat of engineering!

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 10th December 16:23

[Gorvid]

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

[gopher]

RobM77 said:

gopher said:

RobM77 said:

but it's not hard to see why people who buy off roaders for road use get laughed at.

But people who buy sports cars for road use get laughed at. It's those doing the laughing that have the problem.

My original point was intended to clear up this confusion. The vast majority of sports cars are designed for the road. The characteristics of a sports car (agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc) are of value on the road, and they don't detract from the road driving experience, much like being Carl Lewis doesn't get in the way of a quick walk to the shops and back. The fact that a Boxster has a lower centre of gravity from a Vectra doesn't get in the way of the car being used on the road, nor does the fact that the engine is in the middle. Off roaders, on the other hand, carry around their off road credentials like a mill stone around their neck - the high CofG, large wheel travel and additional weight result in a poorer driving experience than a Vectra. I suppose it's like being a competitive strong man and trying to go about your everyday life - your extra size and weight will make things difficult without ever offering an real benefits.

As I said before, I'm not against off roaders as such, it's just that buying one for mainly road use obviously causes a lot of people to be rather puzzled!

And my point is those that are puzzled are the ones with the issue. If a product is available on the open market for my personal use why should I not not buy and use it? Of what interest is it to anyone else, why is it any of their business and why should they bother me with their POV?

Although I think we largely agree.

[RobM77]

Gorvid said:

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.

[RobM77]

gopher said:

RobM77 said:

gopher said:

RobM77 said:

but it's not hard to see why people who buy off roaders for road use get laughed at.

But people who buy sports cars for road use get laughed at. It's those doing the laughing that have the problem.

My original point was intended to clear up this confusion. The vast majority of sports cars are designed for the road. The characteristics of a sports car (agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc) are of value on the road, and they don't detract from the road driving experience, much like being Carl Lewis doesn't get in the way of a quick walk to the shops and back. The fact that a Boxster has a lower centre of gravity from a Vectra doesn't get in the way of the car being used on the road, nor does the fact that the engine is in the middle. Off roaders, on the other hand, carry around their off road credentials like a mill stone around their neck - the high CofG, large wheel travel and additional weight result in a poorer driving experience than a Vectra. I suppose it's like being a competitive strong man and trying to go about your everyday life - your extra size and weight will make things difficult without ever offering an real benefits.

As I said before, I'm not against off roaders as such, it's just that buying one for mainly road use obviously causes a lot of people to be rather puzzled!

And my point is those that are puzzled are the ones with the issue. If a product is available on the open market for my personal use why should I not not buy and use it? Of what interest is it to anyone else, why is it any of their business and why should they bother me with their POV?

Although I think we largely agree.

We do agree, yep.

If you saw a guy wandering through London in a wetsuit just cause it was raining a bit, I'm sure you'd be puzzled or point and laugh I'd hope neither of us would start shouting abuse at him (like greenies might to a 4x4 driver), but a certain amount of ridicule would be understandable!

[sjp63]

RobM77 said:

Gorvid said:

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.

So Subaru's, Audi's, 911C4's...etc all pointless...

[RobM77]

sjp63 said:

RobM77 said:

Gorvid said:

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. Off road 4x4s (Range Rovers etc) on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.

So Subaru's, Audi's, 911C4's...etc all pointless...

EFA

[turbobloke]

Any or all 4x4 users giving up or keeping their 4x4s won't make any measurable difference to so-called man made global warming, whether it exists or not, but as there is no evidence for its existence, a point acknowledged by the IPCC in 2001 (it hasn't appeared in the data since then, but the IPCC have become even more political in the same period) what is there to convince anybody, PHer or not, that it exists?

Adopting a position which sides with evidence isn't extreme, it's sensible. When it comes to closing down debate, the green control freaks as described by the quote at the beginning of the thread are looking to do that all the time, and not - as far as I see or hear or know - 4x4 owners.

To see why the 4x4 hate campaign is envyist lifestyle totalitarianism not environmentalism, enter the world of evil plant food gas and do the sums. According to the IPCC and DEFRA, where these figures come from, mankind is responsible for 3.4% of annually cycled carbon dioxide. Of this, 2% is from the UK, and of that, 16% from cars, while peak sales of 4x4 vehicles made up 8% of cars sold (less now but leave it at that). So all the 4x4s in this country contribute 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% to the atmospheric level currently 0.039% by volume of carbon dioxide.

That's 0.0009% an immeasurably small and irrelevant percentage, which would reduce the atmospheric level from 0.039% to 0.039%

Even if carbon dioxide was driving the current modest climate change, which it's not, why is doing something that will make no difference so important?

Then when you look at the data again and realise that carbon dioxide isn't driving climate change the whole charade is pointless anyway. It's lifestyle control, envy, jealousy, control freakery, anti-consumerist anti-wealth anti-human submarxist ecoclaptrap.

There are real environmental problems out there, why waste time on this nonsense? Because it's a means to control lifestyles, consumption, redistribute wealth and generally force us all to become brainless joyless freaks like the pinkogreens behind ant-4x4 hate campaigns. They are the extremists.

[Gorvid]

RobM77 said:

Gorvid said:

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.

I don't think I read them to be honest.

I got about 10 posts in and someone had said "don't need a 4x4".

I don't need any cars...but I want them. so the MMGW - I'm off for a petrol heavy drive.

[RobM77]

turbobloke said:

Any or all 4x4 users giving up or keeping their 4x4s won't make any measurable difference to so-called man made global warming, whether it exists or not, but as there is no evidence for its existence, a point acknowledged by the IPCC in 2001 (it hasn't appeared in the data since then, but the IPCC have become even more political in the same period) what is there to convince anybody, PHer or not, that it exists?

Adopting a position which sides with evidence isn't extreme, it's sensible. When it comes to closing down debate, the green control freaks as described by the quote at the beginning of the thread are looking to do that all the time, and not - as far as I see or hear or know - 4x4 owners.

To see why the 4x4 hate campaign is envyist lifestyle totalitarianism not environmentalism, enter the world of evil plant food gas and do the sums. According to the IPCC and DEFRA, where these figures come from, mankind is responsible for 3.4% of annually cycled carbon dioxide. Of this, 2% is from the UK, and of that, 16% from cars, while peak sales of 4x4 vehicles made up 8% of cars sold (less now but leave it at that). So all the 4x4s in this country contribute 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% to the atmospheric level currently 0.039% by volume of carbon dioxide.

That's 0.0009% an immeasurably small and irrelevant percentage, which would reduce the atmospheric level from 0.039% to 0.039%

Even if carbon dioxide was driving the current modest climate change, which it's not, why is doing something that will make no difference so important?

Then when you look at the data again and realise that carbon dioxide isn't driving climate change the whole charade is pointless anyway. It's lifestyle control, envy, jealousy, control freakery, anti-consumerist anti-wealth anti-human submarxist ecoclaptrap.

There are real environmental problems out there, why waste time on this nonsense? Because it's a means to control lifestyles, consumption, redistribute wealth and generally force us all to become brainless joyless freaks like the pinkogreens behind ant-4x4 hate campaigns. They are the extremists.

Also have a look at the graph in New Scientist a few weeks ago. It showed how changing our lifestyles in various ways would cut our CO2 emissions. All is not as it's made out to be.. buying different vegetables and changing your lightbulbs has more effect than stopping driving altogether...

[RobM77]

Gorvid said:

RobM77 said:

Gorvid said:

Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?

I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....

I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way.

I don't think I read them to be honest.

cool. As you were!

[Ranger 6]

I'm confused (easily done some would say ) - you talk here;

dhutch said:

....mpvs for two people... ...are as mad

about MPVs for two people are mad, then you say

dhutch said:

....my mum drives the 806...to work on her own each day....

and you're critical of 4x4s....

So while you're

dhutch said:

...just exersizing my mind on the issue...

Why not ponder the fact that your Mum's MPV is heavier slower and less economical than many 4x4s. You say you're not perfect - I would suggest that there's many folk around who are as blind as you and can't see that all this anti-4x4 rubbish is just that - rubbish.

ETA - he says it much better....

turbobloke said:

It's lifestyle control, envy, jealousy, control freakery, anti-consumerist anti-wealth anti-human submarxist ecoclaptrap.

There are real environmental problems out there, why waste time on this nonsense? Because it's a means to control lifestyles, consumption, redistribute wealth and generally force us all to become brainless joyless freaks like the pinkogreens behind ant-4x4 hate campaigns. They are the extremists.

Edited by Ranger 6 on Monday 10th December 16:54

[turbobloke]

RobM77 said:

Also have a look at the graph in New Scientist a few weeks ago. It showed how changing our lifestyles in various ways would cut our CO2 emissions. All is not as it's made out to be.. buying different vegetables and changing your lightbulbs has more effect than stopping driving altogether...

True but all of those together and the rest won't make any difference to climate change, as they have no effect on solar eruptivity, solar irradiance, the tilt of the earth's axis, precession, the eccentricity of our orbit, or the solar system's motion around the galaxy's centre.

The focus on carbon dioxide is because it is a product of energy generation and capitalism requires energy to make goods and sell services. As a result carbon dioxide would be a limitless source of tax hikes and controls over trade and mobility if somebody could convince enough voters to accept the absolute nonsense that carbon dioxide is doing anything much apart from feeding trees and crops. However, due to the widespread lack of astronomy and geology education even in wealthy nations, and the general glandular guilt and gullibility of wealthy lazy sheeple who can't be bothered to look into anything beyond a soundbite or populist fashion, they have largely succeeded already.

[otolith]

I was driven, on Saturday, by a relative who owns a BMW 328Ci. He drives very, very slowly. His whole drive, about 7.5 miles of mixed rural NSL and urban, would have been well within the performance envelope of even the most inept off roader. He never got over 40.

From his point of view, he already drives something which is engineered to do things he never uses it for (like corner, accelerate and brake at anything more than pedestrian capabilities) and which is somewhat less fuel efficient than many things which would do what he needs perfectly well. If he were to announce that he quite fancied changing it for an X5 3.0D (unlikely, but for the sake of argument), I can't really see any argument about dynamics or efficiency convincing him to change his mind. He'd be slightly reducing his CO2 emissions, he'd still have far more braking, cornering and acceleration than he'd ever use and he would gain some all-weather capability that he wouldn't use either. Yet, if he did that, reducing his carbon footprint in the process, he'd somehow become an environmental pariah. Go figure.