[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4087850.stm[/URL]
I've got plenty of Shropshire mud spattered all over my series 3 Landy, free as well! And it's all over my car, mosickle and MTBs.. Must clean them one day.
I must get some for my brother, to go on his Range Rover (c/w Linn hifi) which goes from one side of Highgate to the other some days when it isn't sitting on the street getting vandalised. But he'd need to be careful not to get it on the suede upholstery.
Well people at thick enough to buy such vehicles, they'd buy the spray on mud too, not like 99% of these vehicles ever see a field.
If you're not going to drive it off road, you should be forced to pay 3000% road tax, since you're obviously some selfish tosser who doesn't care about the environment or your offsprings' health. Spray on mud? How about spray on social responsibility and IQ?
Round here 4wd is largely essential... I don't even go out in the winter on the Guzzi as it's so scary in the mud, never mind if it's icy! And I don't think my Landy could be classed as a Chelsea Tractor.. There's nothing electrical on it, apart from lights, wipers and engine starting. Even the windscreen washer is a hand pump! And there's no suspension to speak of - though weirdly it's just as bumpy careering over a rutted field as it is on road. Your average poncey town 4wdriver would have a heart attack trying to drive it - perhaps comfort in cars should be taxed, as 10 miles in my Landy is much less comfy than 100 miles in an average motor!
No Land Rovers are not Chelsea Tractor because they are a utility vehicle ie built for the job, and creature comforts come 2nd to practicalities, where as a Range Rover IMHO, IS a Chelsea Tractor because its built for comfort and grandure (oh look at me in my big fat 4x4, I must be more important than you because I take up more road, etc.) rather than tackling the rough stuff and the Landies take up less room too!
The thing which really pisses me off about the anti 4x4 brigade is that they rarely make a distinction between the huge <20mpg beasts and the economical "soft roaders". For balance they should really have a list of acceptable 4x4s on their website. My wife's getting a CRV diesel on Friday and if anyone questions the unfriendliness of that vehicle when I'm around they'd better be ready to be shot down in flames. It does 42mpg on the combined cycle, 177 g/km CO2 emissions and no CAR has ever scored higher than it for PEDESTRIAN safety in an accident! Hell, it's even only 2WD most of the time and only switches to 4WD if extra grip is needed. Matt.
I've always believed that road tax should be based on a couple of factors: a) Levels of polution created. That's absolute levels not percentages. b) Kerb weight of the vehicle. Road tax was originally introduced to counter the damage done to road surfaces by vehicles. That's why motorcycles have always paid less than cars which have always paid less than HGVs. It's in need of a review though. Because at the time of introduction there wasn't really a huge range in the weight of normal cars. These days cars range from micras up to humvies. The gross division of engine size currently used doesn't allow for the huge variation in kerb weights of the vehicles being used. GTM
Quite. You burn more fuel by flying to one holiday destination abroad than the difference between the fuel consumption of a land rover and a mini for decades. People who want to cut down on burning fossil fuels need to carefully target their audience. I
I know this is going to go somewhere I don't want to go, but its not just about "burning fossil fuels", its also about safety, not to the driver but to any unfortunate road user that happens to get in their way. Some 4x4's are so large that their owners can barely see over the steering wheel, and somehow that is considered safe? Might be safe for the driver, but its all about selfish travel isn't it, the "I'm alright jack" attitude of people today, one person drives an armoured car so the next has to drive a tank, its got to stop somewhere. I agree base road tax on Kerb weight, then see how many of these 3 tone tanks stay on the road. My problem with 4x4's isn't their environment impact, its their safety, or rather lack of, even if the vehicle is safe, it gives the driver a false sense of security and they pay less attention to the world around them, than if they would in a normal car. They are also wider than a car, so when stuck in traffic its impossible to pass them if your on a bike (motor or otherwise). Just selfish road hogs IMHO.
What size is it? Same size as a car, or the size of a minibus? If Transit sized, I feel Lhatkins' comments are fair game. If not, fair play leonard smalls - A Landy used in your case is fair. A Landy used to ponce around Exeter Sidwell Street to go to the Odeon is taking the piss. As for the holiday flight melarky - I've not been abroad in 12 years, and the last time I went abroad, it was on a tall ship with only motor used for the last 3 miles back to Southampton, so I can say what I like - he he! Here's one though - are ships more efficient than planes, and what about AIRSHIPS? Laugh me out the room (my mates down the pub did), but with modern technology and HELIUM, airships are viable. Hydrogen didn't down the Hindenberg, aluminium powder in the doping paint did.
I quite like 4wd but even I cant see the sense in driving round in the huge land cruiser or the Patrol and dont get me started on that porsche. The 4wd class is to wide-ranging to class them all as one.
Again, people talk a lot of hot air about various things.... The new Airbus A380 when flying 550 people uses less fuel per person per mile than one person driving in a car. The Boeing 787 is yet more efficient.
Airships seem like a great idea I don't know why they aren't used more. With something like that you can go even higher than most airplanes. Though for passenger use you probably wouldn?t bother. For cargo it would be brill, all computer controlled, massive capacity, take it up into the jet stream and be at your destination in no time. Safety is far better than an airplane, if an engine burns out you just stay hanging there! There is not much air traffic to worry about in the jet stream either.
Note that the 747-400 is the same size as the 747-300 and the long top deck 200s. Overall length is the same as the 747-100. The only smaller 747 was the SP... it's the only successful modern airliner that has not spawned a stretched variant although Boeing has offered various such ideas for sale (747-500, 747-600, 747X, 747QXLR and currently 747Adv) but none have yet made production.
Strangely and somewhat surprisingly it is only a couple of mm longer and a couple of mm wider than the Audi A4 cabriolet that it is replacing! And the Honda is a biggest of the so called soft-roaders. Another interesting comparison is that the Audi (2.4) is atrocious on fuel, averaging mid 20s mpg (despite not being particularly quick) and has high >200 g/km CO2 emissions. On top of this, with the hood up it is bordering on dangerous to reverse (and Audi don’t see fit to put parking sensors on it as standard) – you can see absolutely bugger all – if there was a child behind you well, it doesn’t bear thinking about. So, the A4 is being replaced by a more environmentally friendly, safer vehicle and yet I’m sure you’d be more likely to get stick driving the CRV around London than the A4. And when you think about it, with our weather, is there really a need for the number of cabriolets/convertibles on the roads – aren’t they as much of an unnecessary display of wealth as 4x4s are? Don’t they generally burn more fuel and are heavier than is really necessary? Aren’t they unsafe for other road users and pedestrians when they are being reversed? In fact, one could argue that in a country with our weather, a ‘sensible’ 4x4 might be more of a logical choice than a cabriolet! The thing is though, we so say live in a country of free choice so if you want to spend your dosh on a sports car, a cabriolet or a 4x4 you can do it as long as you are happy to pay the extra cost in purchase price, fuel and road tax. Sorry but I just don’t buy that. I can’t imagine that I will be less attentive to the road driving the CRV than I am be when driving my car – in fact I would have thought I will be more attentive if anything as I may be able to see a bit further ahead – I’ll report back on that one though. To me, an inattentive driver will be just that regardless of what they are driving. It’s also worth pointing out on the safety front that some 4x4 manufacturers (and I think Honda are one of them) are now building their vehicles with a lower strength point (or whatever it’s called) so that they don’t ‘ride over’ the lower vehicle (i.e. the car). Having said that riding over can happen with two cars with different heights and even if you take two identical cars and load them differently one can ride over the other! On the width issue, you are falling into the trap I mentioned of lumping all 4x4s into the same category. A RAV4 is no doubt has a much smaller footprint than most executive saloons. A Nissan Patrol however is a monster an pretty inappropriate for urban motoring. Putting a Patrol and a RAV4 in the same category is a bit like doing the same with a Fiesta and a 7 Series! Matt.
I personally dont like like 4x4's (unless an evo etc) but will defend others rights to have them. Motorists should stand together rather than being divided to fall, if 4x4's get it in the neck for being un necesary then it will be sports cars on speed grounds, then petrol cars and then before we know where we are we will all be in sensible 1.5 deisal corsas, which there is nothing wrong with if thats your choice. If someones car uses more fuel they pay for it not the ones complaining! My car is a high emissions car, I get taxed extra for it and even more when you take fuel duty into account, but I pay it not anyone else.
