RE: PH Fleet: C63 AMG Going Nowhere...

[ArosaMike]

marc2 said:

As you say it should be possible to not need a shower after pedaling 4-5 miles, however- if you are even mildly competitive, you will soon get sucked into the 'I think I can just catch him if I speed up a bit' mindset & be almost melting by the time you stagger into work... or is that just my midlife crisis kicking in?
Still, a wash & change into clean clothes from your locker & all is well.

LOL! True Still.....saves going to the gym in the evening!

[marc2]

ArosaMike said:

LOL! True Still.....saves going to the gym in the evening!

Yea, it'd be the last thing on your mind! My favourite thing is to sit next to a fatty (ooops not all that pc is it) & eat crap constantly whilst remaining thin. Nothing gets to them more.

[vonuber]

mrclav said:

And it it me of does it seem like everyone I've ever met who regularly rides a bike/moped/motor-bike in London has ended up in some kind of skirmish with another road user!? If I'm going to get into an accident I'd rather be in a car than on any of those.

Ah but if you were on a bike, along with everyone else, we wouldn't be hit by car drivers.. because there would not be any.

Apart from psychopathic Addison Lee taxis, of course, hell bent on killing everything that is not one of them.

[ecs0set]

On a 40mph road near my house, there is a large steel pedestrian bridge in excellent order. 20 yards away, they are now putting in a pedestrian crossing. FFS why?! Probably because pedestrians are too damned lazy to climb the steps or slope to the bridge.

Underpasses are being replaced by pedestrian crossings. Roundabouts are being controlled by traffic lights 24/7.

The road planning people seemed determined to create stop/start driving, thus wasting fuel and harming the environment. They should be removing obstructions to free-flowing traffic, not creating them!

Ian A.

[KP]

mrclav said:

Do you people actually live in London? I don't agree with these statements in the slightest. I live in (East) London and I will ALWAYS pick the car option whenever I can going into town.

Trains - it's damned expensive for a ride in a extremely filthy, often delayed tube and I don't just mean the actual carriages, I mean the air itself (try blowing your nose into a tissue after 30-40 mins travel on the underground and you'll see what I mean). Furthermore, rush hour being stuck like a sardine with some-ones sweaty armpit in your face and no seat five days a week is not the business.

Buses? You're joking. I've no interest in waiting around for a bus that doesn't run on time and so upsets my plans for the day let alone having to dodge peoples spit whilst having to sit with feral, gobby kids who think it's cool to play crappy music as loud as possible through mobile phone speakers.

As for bikes, I don't want to arrive at my destination feeling like I need to shower again, I've already been to the gym in the morning for a work-out so I don't need another one thanks. Of course, that's assuming the weather is reasonable... If it's raining forget it. And it it me of does it seem like everyone I've ever met who regularly rides a bike/moped/motor-bike in London has ended up in some kind of skirmish with another road user!? If I'm going to get into an accident I'd rather be in a car than on any of those.

In conclusion; I will pay to drive my car, regardless of how much it ends up costing me if it means I get to enjoy the privilege of air-conditioned comfort, cleanliness, music of my choice and the ability to take a different route when I come up against a traffic jam!

Well said, as a London dweller i couldn't agree more. Given the cost of having the priviledge of a nice car there is NO WAY that i will give up using it, leave it at home and use the Cr*ppy, overpriced, dirty, dangerous public transport we have in the city.

It is not an option and it is extremely niave of others to assume that the already overcrowded trains, buses and tubes will be able to cope with the influx of C63, M3 etc users when they all roll up at the train station on Monday morning!

Totally laughable!

KP

[KP]

Munich said:

I couldn't agree more. How ever much it pains me to admit it because I love cars and driving, I would much rather spend my journey to and from work each day doing something else than looking at the rear number plate of the car in front.

I also think that if people who are in a position to walk or use another form of transport do so and free up the roads for those that have no other choice, then not only does it make their commute easier but it also stops the government imposing blanket measures that penalise everyone because there are simply too many people on the roads.

There is too many people on the trains! How do you suggest they will cope when we all simply hop on?

Or do you live in the utopia of being able to hop on your commuter train and get a seat?

Given the choice between sitting in traffic in a climate controlled car with music or paying £8.00 a day for a ticket to stand next to someone with their stinky armpit in my face I'd say 11.6mpg represents much better value for money!

There's also less chance of being mugged for my iPOD as I struggle home.

Cheers,

KP

[Equinox96]

I found cycling 3.5 miles to work in London just not worth it - you don't get enough exercise because it is too short, you hardly enjoy battling with cars and traffic plus the whole shower / getting changed in the office logistics effort.. And when it is cold and raining..

I drive to work (3.5 miles each way) and it is pretty much a no-brainer to me given it is Tower Bridge to Canary Wharf and I work 7am-7pm on average so traffic is not an issue and the journey is actually quicker in a car.

And yes, I do it in a V10 M5 and love it every time (Having a separate commuter car does not actually make economic sense given the extra depreciation and parking costs)

[alolympic]

Equinox96 said:

I found cycling 3.5 miles to work in London just not worth it - you don't get enough exercise because it is too short, you hardly enjoy battling with cars and traffic plus the whole shower / getting changed in the office logistics effort.. And when it is cold and raining..

I drive to work (3.5 miles each way) and it is pretty much a no-brainer to me given it is Tower Bridge to Canary Wharf and I work 7am-7pm on average so traffic is not an issue and the journey is actually quicker in a car.

And yes, I do it in a V10 M5 and love it every time (Having a separate commuter car does not actually make economic sense given the extra depreciation and parking costs)

I found the same thing, the bike road was too short almost.
The difference is, I decided to walk. Not sure why you didn't?.........I guess you not bothered about the easy exercise it provides, or costs, or congestion, or the environment. Rhetorical question really.

[alolympic]

mrclav said:

Do you people actually live in London? I don't agree with these statements in the slightest. I live in (East) London and I will ALWAYS pick the car option whenever I can going into town.

Trains - it's damned expensive for a ride in a extremely filthy, often delayed tube and I don't just mean the actual carriages, I mean the air itself (try blowing your nose into a tissue after 30-40 mins travel on the underground and you'll see what I mean). Furthermore, rush hour being stuck like a sardine with some-ones sweaty armpit in your face and no seat five days a week is not the business.

Buses? You're joking. I've no interest in waiting around for a bus that doesn't run on time and so upsets my plans for the day let alone having to dodge peoples spit whilst having to sit with feral, gobby kids who think it's cool to play crappy music as loud as possible through mobile phone speakers.

As for bikes, I don't want to arrive at my destination feeling like I need to shower again, I've already been to the gym in the morning for a work-out so I don't need another one thanks. Of course, that's assuming the weather is reasonable... If it's raining forget it. And it it me of does it seem like everyone I've ever met who regularly rides a bike/moped/motor-bike in London has ended up in some kind of skirmish with another road user!? If I'm going to get into an accident I'd rather be in a car than on any of those.

In conclusion; I will pay to drive my car, regardless of how much it ends up costing me if it means I get to enjoy the privilege of air-conditioned comfort, cleanliness, music of my choice and the ability to take a different route when I come up against a traffic jam!

Yes, I live in London, although, seemingly in a whole different world to you. I exist in a world with millions of others, you seem to live in your own world.

[v300]

to3m said:

PSBuckshot said:

gumsie said:

Then perhaps we should make billboards out of it?

I'm actually for people having crappy little save the planet cars, means less fuel is used and there is more for us petrolheads.
Jay Leno said something similar, mentioned it like how the car saved the horse.
I could never drive an eco car though, it'd ruin me, be angry and annoyed all the time.

I've been thinking about the horses quote all evening, and it just gets more wrong the more I think about it.

For starters, if people aren't using horses to get around, surely they will need fewer of them than if they were. It's not like horses are a great source of food, and it's not like they do much that's useful to humans if they aren't being used as transport. And sure enough, in general it certainly seems like there are not too many horses about, and I live next to the country, about 100m from some stables. I suspect that compared to the early 1900s, considering horses per capita, we would see a massive decrease relatively speaking, and probably a decrease in absolute terms despite the increase in population. Is this "saving the horse"? Strikes me that it is not.

Secondly, horses thrive on there being lots of horses. The whole point of a horse, in fact, is to make more horses. They're not just there for show. So if you have more horses to start with, because people use them for transport, then you'll have more horses to end up with. Horses mean more horses; more horses, means more more horses. It's like magic (but more fun (for the horses)).

That's ignoring the economic aspect, which is that if there's a big demand for horses, people will pay for the things. So people will arrange things so that there are even more more horses than there might have been otherwise! Not only would you naturally get more more horses from your huge stack of horses that people are using to get about, but you'd get even more more more horses, because people can make money from getting horses to fk.

Now I could really do with some statistics to back up my argument (it seems like the internet isn't interested in historical horse data, and I don't care enough to visit my local library) but I'm pretty confident that it would turn out that any feeling that horses had been somehow "saved" by the advent of the motor car would turn out to be somewhat wide of the mark, and probably wide of the mark by a long way. And indeed the very notion that horses needed "saving" in the first place is a bit curious. Saving from what, exactly? (Saving from being plentiful, and valued? Well, if you put it like that, maybe.)

As for the save-the-planet cars, I think that is wrong too. If driving is cheap, people will do more of it, and they'll end up using as much petrol as they did before. It's not like there's some limit on how much extra convenience people will put up with, or anything like that.

(Yes, I know - this is completely the opposite of what happened with computers, because we've ended up with just one small and cheap computer per household rather than having a small and cheap computer in every last thing from your car to your washing machine to your walkman. I don't have any explanation for this.)

Ah interesting postulation – thank you for your intelligent thought. I too am bereft of horse-born fact, nor have I read Leno’s article. However after a modicum of grey matter combustulation exploring your proposals; I have still come to the conclusion that the Leno’s theory is correct but the statement should have read:

“The car saved the horse....but, ruthlessly massacred the donkey”

You see, controversial as it may seem, unlike our assessment that humans are all equal, we are allowed to grade critters. Horses compared to their donkey brethren are considered more valuable for their form and function and indeed their taste. All I’ll say is that ordering the entrecote in northern Italy can be fraught with “Does this steak taste funny to you?” I digress.

I postulate that the advent of the motorcar may have had a significant reduction in the number of horses roaming this planet but it did save the horse. The horse is now a treasured commodity at the vertex of its evolutionary development. This breeding leading to an ever more genetically perfect specimen*, preserved in its current state, the horse is saved from drifting back in to the primordial soup from which we all emerged – saved from extinction itself. The horse is now immortal.

In short, the increased use of the car has limited the horse to further evolutionary development by removing its prime function but allowing value to be bestowed upon it. By removing the opportunity for the horse to impose itself upon the impressionable donkey or other quadruped with slack morals, the car has preserved the horse infinitum (as long as the punter continues to line the betting office’s pockets – even if they don’t, the car still saved it!).

What has become clear to me though is that the advent of the cheap, economical car has all but killed the donkey. By making the donkey obsolete, the affordable car has restricted the donkey to breeding within its own circle of odd-toed ungulates, sentencing the lowly common donkey to evolutionary annihilation. The best hope for the donkey currently rests with species diversification, but at what cost. I personally am a big fan of Equus africanus (wiki it) but this alone will not save the donkey.

The result in automotive terms is the preservation of the 1962 Ferrari GTO accompanied by the proliferation of the Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion. In a sense this proliferation is essential to the preservation of the finer specimens. It does of course mean the motorcar is reaching its evolutionary pinnacle as we know it. The common automobile will slowly drift into extinction whilst all but a few thoroughbred oil dependent relics will be the preserve of the very wealthy.

Interestingly, if we take the theorem full circle it could therefore be postulated that the horse did in fact kill the car!

And on that bombshell.....you know the rest.

PS I'm not sure it is the opposite as computers, I have a small computer in my walkman, i carry one as a phone, also one laptop, one netbook, my car has several and i haven’t checked the washing machine but i’m guessing.

• Yes even my limited knowledge of evolutionary biology suggests this is somewhat divisive, if for example we take the Royal Family there is clear evidential proof that inbreeding may result in good table manners but it can be rather damaging to the electronic functions of the brain. However to my knowledge the horse never had the opportunity to inform our constitutional rights.

[Equinox96]

alolympic said:

Equinox96 said:

I found cycling 3.5 miles to work in London just not worth it - you don't get enough exercise because it is too short, you hardly enjoy battling with cars and traffic plus the whole shower / getting changed in the office logistics effort.. And when it is cold and raining..

I drive to work (3.5 miles each way) and it is pretty much a no-brainer to me given it is Tower Bridge to Canary Wharf and I work 7am-7pm on average so traffic is not an issue and the journey is actually quicker in a car.

And yes, I do it in a V10 M5 and love it every time (Having a separate commuter car does not actually make economic sense given the extra depreciation and parking costs)

I found the same thing, the bike road was too short almost.
The difference is, I decided to walk. Not sure why you didn't?.........I guess you not bothered about the easy exercise it provides, or costs, or congestion, or the environment. Rhetorical question really.

Because it would take 45 minutes and I am at work by 7am - that extra 30 minutes in bed is priceless. For exercise, I'd rather go to the gym properly a couple of times a week for an hour and get home quickly.


I'm also pretty lazy.....

[splitpin]

Equinox96 said:

alolympic said:

Equinox96 said:

I found cycling 3.5 miles to work in London just not worth it - you don't get enough exercise because it is too short, you hardly enjoy battling with cars and traffic plus the whole shower / getting changed in the office logistics effort.. And when it is cold and raining..

I drive to work (3.5 miles each way) and it is pretty much a no-brainer to me given it is Tower Bridge to Canary Wharf and I work 7am-7pm on average so traffic is not an issue and the journey is actually quicker in a car.

And yes, I do it in a V10 M5 and love it every time (Having a separate commuter car does not actually make economic sense given the extra depreciation and parking costs)

I found the same thing, the bike road was too short almost.
The difference is, I decided to walk. Not sure why you didn't?.........I guess you not bothered about the easy exercise it provides, or costs, or congestion, or the environment. Rhetorical question really.

Because it would take 45 minutes and I am at work by 7am - that extra 30 minutes in bed is priceless. For exercise, I'd rather go to the gym properly a couple of times a week for an hour and get home quickly.


I'm also pretty lazy.....

45 minute walk in what will half the time be the cold and damp or a few minutes blat in the M5? Tough choice that (isn't)

[mrclav]

alolympic said:

mrclav said:

Do you people actually live in London? I don't agree with these statements in the slightest. I live in (East) London and I will ALWAYS pick the car option whenever I can going into town.

Trains - it's damned expensive for a ride in a extremely filthy, often delayed tube and I don't just mean the actual carriages, I mean the air itself (try blowing your nose into a tissue after 30-40 mins travel on the underground and you'll see what I mean). Furthermore, rush hour being stuck like a sardine with some-ones sweaty armpit in your face and no seat five days a week is not the business.

Buses? You're joking. I've no interest in waiting around for a bus that doesn't run on time and so upsets my plans for the day let alone having to dodge peoples spit whilst having to sit with feral, gobby kids who think it's cool to play crappy music as loud as possible through mobile phone speakers.

As for bikes, I don't want to arrive at my destination feeling like I need to shower again, I've already been to the gym in the morning for a work-out so I don't need another one thanks. Of course, that's assuming the weather is reasonable... If it's raining forget it. And it it me of does it seem like everyone I've ever met who regularly rides a bike/moped/motor-bike in London has ended up in some kind of skirmish with another road user!? If I'm going to get into an accident I'd rather be in a car than on any of those.

In conclusion; I will pay to drive my car, regardless of how much it ends up costing me if it means I get to enjoy the privilege of air-conditioned comfort, cleanliness, music of my choice and the ability to take a different route when I come up against a traffic jam!

Yes, I live in London, although, seemingly in a whole different world to you. I exist in a world with millions of others, you seem to live in your own world.

I really wish I DID live in my own world - that way buses and trains would be clean, cheap and run on time and people could travel without fear of overcrowding or being mugged/stabbed/shot. As it stands, if you've never been a victim (or a witness) of crime in this city then I would suggest it is you who exists in a world with millions of others - but only in your head.

Plus, I'm a keyboard player - if you're going to suggest that I should ride a bike or get a train/tube/bus carrying gear worth thousands then I really have nothing more to say...

Edited by mrclav on Wednesday 9th March 22:00

[Garlick]

alolympic said:

or the environment

Really? My word, if the man wants to drive his hard-earned M5 don't attack his conscience on here! PH is one of the the last places us combustion fans can live in peace

[splitpin]

Garlick said:

alolympic said:

or the environment

Really? My word, if the man wants to drive his hard-earned M5 don't attack his conscience on here! PH is one of the the last places us combustion fans can live in peace

With a handle like that he should be running rather than walking?

(Soon be running if one went for walkies in the superlative locality of where that 2012 Malarky is going to be held )

[Havoc856]

kambites said:

You couldn't drive anything built in the last five years then, because they just about all seem to be designed with an eye on fuel economy these days.

My VXR and RS have been rinsing my wallet since 2008.. Fortunately there are some hatchbacks that are still fuel guzzling mentalists. Alas, I'll be keeping the RS, just so in the future I can look at it in the garage long after petrol is £5 a litre and say.. "Bloody good car, drove it until the government stealth taxed it and euro regulations on emissions took it off the road".

Wouldn't see me in an eco box. Closest I've been in is a diesel astra and 330d works cars.

[kambites]

Havoc856 said:

My VXR and RS have been rinsing my wallet since 2008..

But you can be pretty certain that Ford and Vauxhall respectively put a fair bit of effort into the fuel economy/emissions of both of those cars. And even if they didn't want to, there are various pieces of legislation which will have pushed them that way.

Even Lamborghini and Ferrari are going on about fuel economy these days.

[alolympic]

mrclav said:

Plus, I'm a keyboard player - if you're going to suggest that I should ride a bike or get a train/tube/bus carrying gear worth thousands then I really have nothing more to say...

Edited by mrclav on Wednesday 9th March 22:00

Could be a problem I admit.....

[Havoc856]

kambites said:

But you can be pretty certain that Ford and Vauxhall respectively put a fair bit of effort into the fuel economy/emissions of both of those cars. And even if they didn't want to, there are various pieces of legislation which will have pushed them that way.

Even Lamborghini and Ferrari are going on about fuel economy these days.

True.. But still, when you can get to the sunny side of 15mpg... After market mapping and components does wonders to undo all that OEM Fuel consumption buisness!

[ktm301p]

Mr Whippy said:

You have to be a bit mental to use that kinda car on that kinda commute, or really wealthy.

Just get a little diesel runabout and then have something better for the thrills (ie, Caterham or whatnot)

Dave

^^ +1