Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bonefishblues »

bigjim wrote:
I expect they don't worry overmuch what you think.

I thought the idea of paying a lot of money, for something you will not use to that much, is to impress others.

People have lots of different motives - trying to attribute motives to others is a work of speculation at best, and often informs us more about our own prejudices, perhaps?
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

bigjim wrote:Surely the main criteria for any car is "will my bike fit in the back?".


+1

Needs a good battery too, I do not use mine for weeks on end
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Bonefishblues wrote:
bigjim wrote:
I expect they don't worry overmuch what you think.

I thought the idea of paying a lot of money, for something you will not use to that much, is to impress others.

People have lots of different motives - trying to attribute motives to others is a work of speculation at best, and often informs us more about our own prejudices, perhaps?


If I had a lot of money I would buy an old reconditioned volvo or maybe a vw bus
But not new!

What is your dream vehicle?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bonefishblues »

old_windbag wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:Focus Style 1.0 EcoBoost 99bhp is quoted by Parkers as 1276kg.
Focus Style 1.5 TDCi 103bhp is quoted by Parkers as 1275kg.


I got my figure from a road test when I was looking at second hand cars. I've searched for it but cannot find it, what I am finding are figures like yours from car spec sites that are nearly identical but as the 1.0l engine alone is 40kg lighter than the diesel engine I'd expect at least that to be present in the difference but it isn't. So what is balancing that difference alone, given body spec should be the same like for like.

The newer generation of diesels don't have the weight penalty that used to be commonplace, but I've just had a look at Ford UK's site and I reckon Parkers has it wrong and the diesel has a c60kg weight penalty like-for-like.

It's notable that the diesel has significantly better economy and lower CO2, likely due to its being a generation newer than the EcoBoost (which is noted as struggling to get close to its official figures, rather like Mick's old Fiat TwinAir) so weight's a factor, but not the whole story.

https://www.ford.co.uk/content/dam/guxe ... -Focus.pdf
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bonefishblues »

Cyril Haearn wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
bigjim wrote:I thought the idea of paying a lot of money, for something you will not use to that much, is to impress others.

People have lots of different motives - trying to attribute motives to others is a work of speculation at best, and often informs us more about our own prejudices, perhaps?


If I had a lot of money I would buy an old reconditioned volvo or maybe a vw bus
But not new!

What is your dream vehicle?

These days I have little interest beyond economical and safe transport tbh*, and I got the whole "car piece" out of my system in my younger years (so my 40s...) when I was fortunate to be able to afford to run nice things.

If pushed on a couple of cars I'd love to own as things, then the Citroen SM and the Maserati Khamsin come high up the list (well top, actually :D )

*Although I still enjoy the process of driving when I have to do it, irrespective of velocity! Our two household cars have a combined ago of 26 years, and 285,000 miles, and happen both to be Volvos, there being a local independent garage specialist to apply a Volvo-specific hammer when they need it.
millimole
Posts: 909
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by millimole »

If you want a car that is small, simple and thin then look no further than ' heavy quadricycles' (yes it's a real licensing term) - of the top of my head the ones available in the UK are from Ligier, Microcar, and the (weird / innovative) Renault Twizy if you want electric.
They are slow (limited to 56mph) dirty (the first two are dirty diesels) noisy and dangerous (not NCAP tested, although I think the AA did sooner some NCAP tests on them, which showed how bad they were).
You can drive these on a motorcycle licence as they are the modern equivalent of the motor tricycle.

(There are also Light Quadricycles limited to 28mph, but I'm unsure of their legal status in the UK.)

Such cars as are being discussed are available, but it doesntst take a genius to see why there aren't many out there!

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Day rides on my Dawes; Going to the shops on a Decathlon Hoprider
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by bigjim »

Bonefishblues wrote:
bigjim wrote:
I expect they don't worry overmuch what you think.

I thought the idea of paying a lot of money, for something you will not use to that much, is to impress others.

People have lots of different motives - trying to attribute motives to others is a work of speculation at best, and often informs us more about our own prejudices, perhaps?

No prejudice at all. More bewiderment. Struggle to get my head around the fact that somebody would pay up to £50,000+ to buy a hard to live with vehicle, just to go to the shops or school. But my experience of trying to dodge these behemoths on Sunday rides on narrow Cheshire lanes may cloud my thinking. I consider myself admonished for such uncharitable thoughts.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bonefishblues »

bigjim wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
bigjim wrote:I thought the idea of paying a lot of money, for something you will not use to that much, is to impress others.

People have lots of different motives - trying to attribute motives to others is a work of speculation at best, and often informs us more about our own prejudices, perhaps?

No prejudice at all. More bewiderment. Struggle to get my head around the fact that somebody would pay up to £50,000+ to buy a hard to live with vehicle, just to go to the shops or school. But my experience of trying to dodge these behemoths on Sunday rides on narrow Cheshire lanes may cloud my thinking. I consider myself admonished for such uncharitable thoughts.

I wasn't admonishing anyone, I promise. One thing I do know, nobody much "pays" £50k for a vehicle that costs £50k these days. Mr and Mrs Never-Never buy it with their children the PCP twins. I think it's a real credit bubble that may have bad consequences in months/years to come.

A personal story. My wife runs an aged XC70 Volvo. 99% of the time it's she and our young daughter in the car, and they really have little or no need of something of that size. However I selected it from a local independent for a number of reasons:

It's built very very well indeed. It has high profile tyres. It's 4wd when needed. It will run out to 200K+ miles, minimising its cost of ownership.
My wife isn't the most confident or tbh competent driver. Mostly she misses things, but she has been known to visit stuff which is not exactly tarmac-related, although with great irony she was on the road when she misjudged a tree which had been felled in a storm, and hit it at c30mph on the side my daughter's child seat occupies. Both occupants were fine, and the car was repairable. I think I made a good call in my very particular circumstances. She also no longer bends wheel rims and destroys tyres as she used to do on her previous car (3 of each in total) by driving into potholes on the narrow lanes she has to use to do the school run. I also feel slightly better that with Winter tyres on, she will get to and from school without major incident on ungritted roads.

On a lighter note, this is on her route too, but someone else from the village got there first: :D

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourto ... two_hours/
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

simonhill wrote:I then point out that many urban roads have parking on both sides which means that they often accommodates 4 car widths. Simple maths shows (less a wing mirror or two for the parked ones) that on these roads there is now about 6 feet less road for cyclists and other users

Many urban streets have parking on both sides which means they can't quite accommodate a third car width unless the parked cars occupy half the pavement.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Cunobelin »

Bonefishblues wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Bigger and heavier makes you feel safer and more invulnerable, and the more worrying realisation was that bad drivers knew they would have accidents, but also wanted to ensure that when they did... the size and weight of their vehicle would mean that the other guy was the one who was hurt or killed

I suspect that this is exactly the same with other vehicles now.

The other concern is the way that safety has been allowed to lapse for other road users. Many vehicles are much "safer" for the occupants, but far, far less safe for other road users. There is no specific cyclist test, but EuroNCAP does test for pedestrian safety and many of the modern vehicles score very poorly in this regard whilst scoring highly on the occupant safety.


I think the way you put that isn't quite correct. People want themselves and their passengers to be safe. They do not want to ensure others are killed. That might be a byproduct, depending on who is involved in the collision (nobody but my wife, child, and a tree in an incident that comes to my mind for reasons you might understand) but it is not their motivation.

Pedestrian collision is now at least being tested for. Car design is changing as a result - as an example, note the higher bonnet lines that began to appear c5 or so years ago. That is because in impacts, bonnets were deforming and pedestrians were being killed by the engine block. Fundamentally, something very large is coming into contact with something very vulnerable, so the consequences will typically not be good, no matter what, but design is attempting to ameliorate the consequences.



Not the way I put it, it is the way that Clotaire Rapaille the guy who successful pioneered the marketing of the SUV and is responsible for its success. This was one of the key promoting factors, appealing to the primeval "Reptilian" brain puts it

It is also a decision that someone takes when choosing a vehicle with the knowledge that they are choosing something that will inflict more injury than alternatives... the "my safety is more important than your health" decision


If you don't like that interpretation, then you need to take it up with him
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Cunobelin »

old_windbag wrote:Don't have a downer on the original mini. It was very clever design at the time. I also liked the concept of the "new" mini when it was launched but it lost its appeal as it's not really in the spirit of the original. It's too big and too popular in the wrong way. I think the countryman version may be bigger again. The ford fiesta on the other hand is dynamically a very good car indeed, and on the whole as much a car as many driving jukes, cashcows, mokka's actually need but chose not to buy.

The tree that killed marc bolan is still alive as it only got 3 years and a driving ban for 2( it's a shrine nowadays ). The driver of the mini, tainted love's gloria jones is also still alive. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.



Another aspect of bigger vehicles is pollution.

There are a number of older diesels being penalised for their emissions because of their age... yet the "Cashcow" emits 18 times the limit and there is nothing being done about it
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Cunobelin wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Bigger and heavier makes you feel safer and more invulnerable, and the more worrying realisation was that bad drivers knew they would have accidents, but also wanted to ensure that when they did... the size and weight of their vehicle would mean that the other guy was the one who was hurt or killed

I suspect that this is exactly the same with other vehicles now.

The other concern is the way that safety has been allowed to lapse for other road users. Many vehicles are much "safer" for the occupants, but far, far less safe for other road users. There is no specific cyclist test, but EuroNCAP does test for pedestrian safety and many of the modern vehicles score very poorly in this regard whilst scoring highly on the occupant safety.


I think the way you put that isn't quite correct. People want themselves and their passengers to be safe. They do not want to ensure others are killed. That might be a byproduct, depending on who is involved in the collision (nobody but my wife, child, and a tree in an incident that comes to my mind for reasons you might understand) but it is not their motivation.

Pedestrian collision is now at least being tested for. Car design is changing as a result - as an example, note the higher bonnet lines that began to appear c5 or so years ago. That is because in impacts, bonnets were deforming and pedestrians were being killed by the engine block. Fundamentally, something very large is coming into contact with something very vulnerable, so the consequences will typically not be good, no matter what, but design is attempting to ameliorate the consequences.



Not the way I put it, it is the way that Clotaire Rapaille the guy who successful pioneered the marketing of the SUV and is responsible for its success. This was one of the key promoting factors, appealing to the primeval "Reptilian" brain puts it

It is also a decision that someone takes when choosing a vehicle with the knowledge that they are choosing something that will inflict more injury than alternatives... the "my safety is more important than your health" decision

...


One imagines most chelsea tractor drivers don't bother thinking about such things

(your health? your life!) :cry:
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Bonefishblues »

Cunobelin wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Bigger and heavier makes you feel safer and more invulnerable, and the more worrying realisation was that bad drivers knew they would have accidents, but also wanted to ensure that when they did... the size and weight of their vehicle would mean that the other guy was the one who was hurt or killed

I suspect that this is exactly the same with other vehicles now.

The other concern is the way that safety has been allowed to lapse for other road users. Many vehicles are much "safer" for the occupants, but far, far less safe for other road users. There is no specific cyclist test, but EuroNCAP does test for pedestrian safety and many of the modern vehicles score very poorly in this regard whilst scoring highly on the occupant safety.


I think the way you put that isn't quite correct. People want themselves and their passengers to be safe. They do not want to ensure others are killed. That might be a byproduct, depending on who is involved in the collision (nobody but my wife, child, and a tree in an incident that comes to my mind for reasons you might understand) but it is not their motivation.

Pedestrian collision is now at least being tested for. Car design is changing as a result - as an example, note the higher bonnet lines that began to appear c5 or so years ago. That is because in impacts, bonnets were deforming and pedestrians were being killed by the engine block. Fundamentally, something very large is coming into contact with something very vulnerable, so the consequences will typically not be good, no matter what, but design is attempting to ameliorate the consequences.



Not the way I put it, it is the way that Clotaire Rapaille the guy who successful pioneered the marketing of the SUV and is responsible for its success. This was one of the key promoting factors, appealing to the primeval "Reptilian" brain puts it

It is also a decision that someone takes when choosing a vehicle with the knowledge that they are choosing something that will inflict more injury than alternatives... the "my safety is more important than your health" decision


If you don't like that interpretation, then you need to take it up with him

I'll take a look and consider my reptilian brain.
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by The utility cyclist »

New Nissan Leaf weighs over 100kg more than my old Passat estate, how the heck are we going to tax electric vehicles by weight?

All the additional gadgets and safety features plus the batteries mean that even mid sized vehicles are ever more bloated than even very large vehicles of just 10/12 years ago.
With the huge financial incentives given to buy EVs and the very low rate to charge will mean that EVs will contribute even less to the damage personal motorvehicles do and will continue to do despite localised pollution being less.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

Post by Mick F »

Cyril Haearn wrote:What is your dream vehicle?
Mine would be a custom Mini. (a real Mini, not one of those BMW things)
Stainless steel bodywork, space-frame chassis subframes and coil spring, and with a modern engine and gearbox.
Mick F. Cornwall
Post Reply