22 Sept. No petrol day

Resound Wrote:

So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's smaller
than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum trucks
and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post
millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto. Way
ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack today...oh
and it has carried three bikes on the roof and a full frame in the boot
plus three sons, a partner and the Esky plus picnic basket.....forget
the "Mom Trucks" and the "Dunnydore" and the "Bord", they just
perpetuate disposable wasteful engineering exploitation of society's
weakness for advertisng and ego tripping.

If you have to drive go retro and ride a bike when you can, what a
combo...like beer and chips


--
rooman

rooman wrote in
:


Resound Wrote:

So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's smaller
than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum trucks
and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post
millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto. Way
ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack
today...oh
and it has carried three bikes on the roof and a full frame in the
boot
plus three sons, a partner and the Esky plus picnic basket.....forget
the "Mom Trucks" and the "Dunnydore" and the "Bord", they just
perpetuate disposable wasteful engineering exploitation of society's
weakness for advertisng and ego tripping.

If you have to drive go retro and ride a bike when you can, what a
combo...like beer and chips



Newsflash for you - cars are about personal choice same as bikes. Does
anyone need a Trek Madone - do you have any idea of the comparative
environmental cost of the Madone vs a cheap chinese steel framed bike (I
don't because I've never checked). What about limited production carbon
cranks?

I also hate the soccer mums and dads in their 4wds. Many don't know how
to drive them nor do they realise that they are in fact not particularly
safe. Sitting up high makes them feel better. I save most of my hatred
for the F150/F350 utes and the Humvee though. These things have no
place on our roads - there are alternatives that do the job much better.
But if that's what someone wants then I suppose I can't object. I'd
just make it harder for them to buy them (100% excise anyone?)

I drive not one but two commodores. I feel like a tool in the work one
since it mostly has only one occupant. The ute I own I have because it
is the most comfortable multi purpose vehicle I could get. It carries
750kg without any worries, handles dirt roads (camping/MTB), takes the
fishing rods etc.

I'm involved in a fair bit of volunteer/community service work as well.
Most of the people I do it with have smaller hatches and sedans. Good
for them, I like their cars but guess who does most of the fetching and
carrying. Ever tried to get 4 eight foot tables in a Mazda 3? And
small front wheel drive cars should not ever tow trailers, they don't
have enough command authority.

If I was buying a sedan I would almost certainly buy a Subaru Liberty.
If I wanted to carry a lot of kids stuff I'd probably try the Forester
or the Outback. If I had 3 kids then I'd probably get the Odessy. And
I'd still own the ute.

I and a lot of blokes my size (about 10% of the male popn) simply don't
fit in the Mazda 3, Impreza etc. I actually can't drive these cars
safely (due to the lack of space). I wouldn't want to sit in back any
further than a trip up the street. And I have to do long trips, I live
1300k from the capital for example. If I drove that distance in Europe
I would normally be in the next country or across several (Obviously not
in France, Germany or Russia)

The BMW 3, C Class merc, Saab 9 series are just as bad. To be
comfortable I have to move to the 5 series which isn't much different in
size to a commodore. Don't critise the body - the boat anchor engines
are what needs to change.

Why can't I buy a commodore with a highly effcient 3.0l straight six
(V6s require additional balancing and are less efficient) or better yet
a 2.5l common rail high pressure turbo diesel. I'd pay an extra 10
grand for a commodore ute with that engine. Simmarily why can't I get a
hybrid commodore/falcon to replace the work car with a 4cyl petrol motor
and electric assist?

Simple - because the bogans won't buy them.

If you want to work out whether falcadoors have a place in this world
look at the taxi fleet. These guys will run the cheapest car they can.
They'll abuse it and drive it in everything from gridlock to motorway
cruising.

In most regional towns (without the motorways or long distance travel)
many are using the 4cyl Camry. In the major cities where that would be
a really good economical choice they are predominately using falcons.
The engine lasts a long time, the car is roomy and it uses less fuel
with a load on board at highway speeds than the Camry.

Buy whatever car or bike you want. But don't make sweeping
generalisations, there are pros and cons to each vehicle. If you are
happy and comfortable with a small car then good, in some ways I envy
you. But don't put down people just because they don't make the same
choices or think exactly like you.

Cheers

BrettM

"Resound" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
u...

"Resound" wrote in
message ...



Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter

The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?

It is not enormous, but it is no small car.

I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller
than a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot
fit across the width.


So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than
a Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?


I said three. one baby and two toddlers still in car seats. Signifiantly
more than the current average family size of 1.9 kids. But not completely
uncommon.

"Resound" wrote in message
...


So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than
a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?

Hm. I thoght my girlfriend must have been cheating when she managed to fit 2
kids (one kid seat, one capsule), me and whatever we needed for the trip
(including going camping) into a Hyundai Excel 2 door.

Yes, it's more awkward than using a Falcodore Cruiser but, with proper
packing, it all fitted. It sounds to me like the "got to buy a big car for
carting the kids around" thing really means "got to buy a big car because
I'm incapable of organising myself properly".

Now the kids are bigger she still manages all she needs with a Hyundai
Accent - still a two door.
I'll grant that, say, 3 kids, two adults and assorted other stuff needs a
bigger car but I don't think anyone is complaining about vehicles to suit
the situation. A Landcruiser is perfectly justified for trips to the bush,
fishing trips, carrying trade tools, etc. Carting kids is not what I'd
consider justification for a Landcruiser. It's over size vehicles for the
use to which they are put that's the problem.

I still see little need to push 2 tonnes of metal around all week for the
occasional trip though. I have an Elantra. With the fuel savings compared to
driving my old Nissan Patrol (when I had a farm) I can hire a landcruiser
when I want to go bush. I don't understand why people don't simply use what
they need and no more (and prestige is not a need!).

Just my 2 litre's worth...

Frank

BrettM Wrote:[color=blue]
rooman wrote in
:


Resound Wrote:

So anyone who has two children and manages with a car that's
smaller
than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?
1970 mercedes compact 4 cyclinder 220, big enough to scare mum
trucks
and small enough to occupy less roadway than most medium size post
millenium models and it has 4 wheel disc brakes and 4 speed auto.
Way
ahead of the others in its day and still a great family hack
today...oh
schnip

I do like the old Benzes. They're getting a bit long in the tooth to be
considered truly efficient anymore, but compared to virtually anything
else that age they're fabulous cars.

Newsflash for you - cars are about personal choice same as bikes.
schnip again
Buy whatever car or bike you want. But don't make sweeping
generalisations, there are pros and cons to each vehicle. If you are
happy and comfortable with a small car then good, in some ways I envy
you. But don't put down people just because they don't make the same
choices or think exactly like you.

Cheers

BrettM

I agree with you and I'm not suggesting that there are no legitimate
uses for larger vehicles. There are any number of reasons why someone
might need a lareg vehicle and those that you've mentioned are among
them. What I'm railing against is the idea that having a child requires
the purchase of a large vehicle for that reason and that reason alone.
I've come across a number of instances where someone has had a child
and they immediately start looking at large vehicles to replace the
small or medium size vehicle which, with a little thought, would still
be perfectly suitable.


--
Resound

SteveA wrote:
PiledHigher Wrote:

I'm working under the assumption that this might actually reduce the
energy input into food, in that it will make sense for distributers to
buy food from closer to the point of sale. This could improve food
quality through food spending less time in storage before sale, in
addition should support local grown products.

Yes, I know that there are energy inputs in manufacture but from what I
understand these are much less than the international travel of food,
that said a recent study suggested that one of the highest energy
inputs is getting the food from the shop to the home.

PiledHigher

We should go *really* local in sourcing our food. When we were kids,
we lived in inner suburban Brisbane and in the backyard (about a 500 sq
m block) we had chooks (eggs and meat), spuds, corn, carrots, broccoli,
lettuce, strawberries, zucchini, pumpkins and an orange tree. Food
scraps went to the chooks or into the mulch. And this was not unusual
in the neighbourhood. And we were firmly middle class.

We are going to have to get back to doing this more.

SteveA


My parents have just retired to Tas - reasonably large block (why they
bought it) but on the outskirts of town. My Dad is in heaven - he hasn't
had that big a vege patch (actually two when I think about it) since we
were in Adelaide - he's back to raving about all the home grown veges
they've got and the ones they've picked and put in storage in the shed -
they have an extra fridge out there just to hold the stuff that needs to
stay cool! And believe me, they are essentially middle class too...

I still see little need to push 2 tonnes of metal around all
week for the
occasional trip though. I have an Elantra. With the fuel savings
compared to
driving my old Nissan Patrol (when I had a farm) I can hire a
landcruiser
when I want to go bush. I don't understand why people don't simply use
what
they need and no more (and prestige is not a need!).

Just my 2 litre's worth...

Frank

Whilst it is obviously better if people only arm themselves with a
vehicle that absolutely suits their needs (rather than wants), and I
appreciate that drivers are basically the enemy, than are many aspects of
peoples' lifestyle choices that need to be looked at, not just the
soft-target of 4WD owners. In many instances, the order of magnitude b/w
a "sensible" car and a 4WD in terms of envronmental impact is not as
great as other comparisons, such as types and uses of home energy
systems, aircraft travel, food consumption etc. Having a go at urban
4WDers just for the sake of it is intellectually lazy, and in some cases
plainly incorrect.

Pat


--
vaudegiant

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:30:39 +1000, "Resound"
wrote in aus.bicycle:


If you had to expend as much energy to extract it as you get from it, it
wouldn't be worth a thing. You'd be running at a loss from the start.

Pumping water up the snowy and Shoalhaven hydro schemes at night only
recovers 80% of the enery it takes to pump but there are other
benefits.

Its the convenient way of storing energy that makes it worth while


Regards
Prickles

"vaudegiant" wrote in
message ...

Whilst it is obviously better if people only arm themselves with a
vehicle that absolutely suits their needs (rather than wants), and I
appreciate that drivers are basically the enemy, than are many aspects of
peoples' lifestyle choices that need to be looked at, not just the
soft-target of 4WD owners. In many instances, the order of magnitude b/w
a "sensible" car and a 4WD in terms of envronmental impact is not as
great as other comparisons, such as types and uses of home energy
systems, aircraft travel, food consumption etc. Having a go at urban
4WDers just for the sake of it is intellectually lazy, and in some cases
plainly incorrect.

Pat


Agreed, although I'm not sure about the "...drivers are basically the enemy"
bit. I drive too. However, at the risk of overgeneralising, often someone
who drives an oversized vehicle for their needs is someone who is less
likely to consider environmental impacts in general. The use of a
Landcruiser to ferry the kids to school or to drive to the office can, I
think, provide a fair indication that the driver is making less of an
environmental effort than many others.

I'm very reluctant to talk in absolutes. I think the thread here is about
general tendencies and is not intended to be 100% correct. The discussion is
also centred around bikes vs cars, so other aspects becomes less relevent to
*this* discussion (not less relevent overall).

I wouldn't trot around assuming everyone driving a fuel-guzzler is
environmentally irresponsible any more thn I'd laud everyone who rides a
bike for their green footprint. I try to bear in mind that this is
essentially a chat forum, not an academic debate...

Cheers,

Frank

Plodder Wrote:
"
I wouldn't trot around assuming everyone driving a fuel-guzzler is
environmentally irresponsible any more thn I'd laud everyone who rides
a
bike for their green footprint. I try to bear in mind that this is
essentially a chat forum, not an academic debate...


Braking on descents is a waste of energy, unGreen.
Crashing is an extreme form of braking, extremely unGreen.


--
aeek