Flying.. why? why not?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 6460
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby Tangled Metal » 12 Feb 2020, 4:32pm

reohn2 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:My S60 is a Euro 3 too, so free of emissions strangulation

Its economy gauge lies and lies and lies, so mpg is always measured tank to tank.


That's how I measure mine.

Of course don't take your little computer thingy for granted but every tank refill I've checked gives the same average mpg range as my computer gives. Within an mpg either way. That's as accurate as I need it to be.

francovendee
Posts: 1262
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby francovendee » 12 Feb 2020, 5:27pm

661-Pete wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:It's a vital service to get to one's holiday home. :twisted:
There isn't a 'sneer' emoticon on this forum, but I've done my best! Touché!

I have to admit that buying the house in SW France was one of my many mistakes - I had the inheritance from my late mother, and was wondering what to do with it ... everyone I knew seemed to be buying houses overseas ... end of. At least I know full well that I'll lose out on money when the place is finally sold, that's something that eases my conscience a bit...

...not the travelling though. I'll be glad when I no longer have the obligation to do a 1100-mile round trip three or four times a year.

I hate airports more than I hate Channel ferries and motorways, so it has to be the car. I won't get into an argument about diesel mpg's, but I suspect my medium-sized car does a lot more economically than some of those quoted above...

What do we love about the French place? Lots of things. The quiet situation. The dark skies (not as dark as they used to be, alas!). The abundance of fruit from our mini-orchard (listed in a post in the 'marmalade' thread). The wild flowers, especially orchids, some of them fairly rare, springing up unasked-for on our lawn. The abundance of butterflies and other insects. The occasional visits from hoopoes, golden oriole (just once), and owls. Also lizards, snakes, the occasional hare and red squirrel.

You can see where my motivation comes from!

But as we get older the trips become harder to manage. Mowing the lawn and pruning trees becomes a frequent drudge. And in colder weather it's hard to keep the house warm.

Have I expiated my sins in having such a place?

We've lost count of the number of ex pats who've returned to the UK in our 17 years here. Often they bought a place with lots of land, pool and big house. Some, quicker than others found it all too much and their bargain wasn't so good and sold up.
I'd be very saddened if I'm forced to return permanently to the UK.
Going back by ferry or plane to see family are both miserable experiences regarding the travel. If I was younger I'd make it into a holiday and go by bike

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9799
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby 661-Pete » 12 Feb 2020, 7:23pm

francovendee wrote:Often they bought a place with lots of land, pool and big house. Some, quicker than others found it all too much and their bargain wasn't so good and sold up.
At least we heeded the warnings about swimming pools and deliberately chose a house without one. Pools may be nice to have in hot weather, but they are a pain to look after and there are all sorts of safety regs. in France.

As I'm sure you know all about...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

iandriver
Posts: 2273
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 2:09pm
Location: Cambridge.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby iandriver » 12 Feb 2020, 8:03pm

I think your mpg can vary a lot depending on where you live. Out here in the Fenlands, my petrol Mondeo was pretty good, just flat land top gear cruising.

Took it to Cornwall on holiday, lots of hills and gear changes on the smaller roads and I thought someone must be siphoning it off. Couldn't believe how much I was getting through.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....

rmurphy195
Posts: 1592
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby rmurphy195 » 13 Feb 2020, 10:29am

pwa wrote:When VW diesels came in 1.9l guise they could give astonishing mpg. The best I had with a 1.9TDI Skoda Octavia was about 80mpg on the M4 from Cardiff to Reading under freak conditions of strong tailwind and a succession of large HGVs to drive behind. But even in more typical mixed use 50mpg was easy to get. That's all in the past. Today's VW diesels look great on paper but on real roads the mpg is mediocre. My 1.6l Golf is doing well if it gets 40mpg in mixed use.


Not quite - we have a VW diesel (2014 vintage, disguised as a Skoda 1.6tdi) and despite the strangling effects of the DPF I can make 70 or 80 real mpg out of it under the conditions iandriver describes - much less CO2. Typical mixed use is 50-55mpg, topping 65 on a longer motorway journey.

I wouldn't have bought it without the DPF - I commuted 25k pa for years and could have saved a fortune but the diesels at the time pumped out the particulates so I wouldn't have one. Bought this one, more expensive to buy but less CO2 output, and 2 weeks later the excrement hit the fan over NOx, you just can't win sometimes.

If the NOx could be (properly) sorted then use of "dirty diesels" should, all other things being equal, help cut down greenhouse gasses. Along perhaps with the banning of the sale of bigger fuel-guzzlers before the sharp cutoff in 2032. (I read a report somewhere recently that since diesels became a no-no the amout of carbon being chucked out has risen by 2.5% with the switch to petrol-engined cars)
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !

pwa
Posts: 11702
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby pwa » 13 Feb 2020, 10:41am

rmurphy195 wrote:
pwa wrote:When VW diesels came in 1.9l guise they could give astonishing mpg. The best I had with a 1.9TDI Skoda Octavia was about 80mpg on the M4 from Cardiff to Reading under freak conditions of strong tailwind and a succession of large HGVs to drive behind. But even in more typical mixed use 50mpg was easy to get. That's all in the past. Today's VW diesels look great on paper but on real roads the mpg is mediocre. My 1.6l Golf is doing well if it gets 40mpg in mixed use.


Not quite - we have a VW diesel (2014 vintage, disguised as a Skoda 1.6tdi) and despite the strangling effects of the DPF I can make 70 or 80 real mpg out of it under the conditions iandriver describes - much less CO2. Typical mixed use is 50-55mpg, topping 65 on a longer motorway journey.

I wouldn't have bought it without the DPF - I commuted 25k pa for years and could have saved a fortune but the diesels at the time pumped out the particulates so I wouldn't have one. Bought this one, more expensive to buy but less CO2 output, and 2 weeks later the excrement hit the fan over NOx, you just can't win sometimes.

If the NOx could be (properly) sorted then use of "dirty diesels" should, all other things being equal, help cut down greenhouse gasses. Along perhaps with the banning of the sale of bigger fuel-guzzlers before the sharp cutoff in 2032. (I read a report somewhere recently that since diesels became a no-no the amout of carbon being chucked out has risen by 2.5% with the switch to petrol-engined cars)


A couple of years ago a journo on the BBC did a test of diesels to see how the 2005 Octavia 1.9 TDI compared with more recent "cleaner" equivalents and found that in real life conditions the older car was cleaner and more efficient (less Nox, less CO2, better mpg) than the more recent and (on paper) better modern diesels. The latter were better in the lab but worse on the road. The journo's testing involved driving on real roads with loads of testing equipment.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 3479
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby Oldjohnw » 13 Feb 2020, 11:03am

pwa wrote:
rmurphy195 wrote:
pwa wrote:When VW diesels came in 1.9l guise they could give astonishing mpg. The best I had with a 1.9TDI Skoda Octavia was about 80mpg on the M4 from Cardiff to Reading under freak conditions of strong tailwind and a succession of large HGVs to drive behind. But even in more typical mixed use 50mpg was easy to get. That's all in the past. Today's VW diesels look great on paper but on real roads the mpg is mediocre. My 1.6l Golf is doing well if it gets 40mpg in mixed use.


Not quite - we have a VW diesel (2014 vintage, disguised as a Skoda 1.6tdi) and despite the strangling effects of the DPF I can make 70 or 80 real mpg out of it under the conditions iandriver describes - much less CO2. Typical mixed use is 50-55mpg, topping 65 on a longer motorway journey.

I wouldn't have bought it without the DPF - I commuted 25k pa for years and could have saved a fortune but the diesels at the time pumped out the particulates so I wouldn't have one. Bought this one, more expensive to buy but less CO2 output, and 2 weeks later the excrement hit the fan over NOx, you just can't win sometimes.

If the NOx could be (properly) sorted then use of "dirty diesels" should, all other things being equal, help cut down greenhouse gasses. Along perhaps with the banning of the sale of bigger fuel-guzzlers before the sharp cutoff in 2032. (I read a report somewhere recently that since diesels became a no-no the amout of carbon being chucked out has risen by 2.5% with the switch to petrol-engined cars)


A couple of years ago a journo on the BBC did a test of diesels to see how the 2005 Octavia 1.9 TDI compared with more recent "cleaner" equivalents and found that in real life conditions the older car was cleaner and more efficient (less Nox, less CO2, better mpg) than the more recent and (on paper) better modern diesels. The latter were better in the lab but worse on the road. The journo's testing involved driving on real roads with loads of testing equipment.



Yes, I read that. Apparently, despite the increase in sales of EVs, CO2 has increased, due to massive fall in sales of diesels and the current flavour of the month being SUVs.
John

PH
Posts: 8451
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby PH » 13 Feb 2020, 11:55am

landsurfer wrote:So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??

Why drive to Scotland? The train to Liverpool from Sheffield takes a couple of hours. I can easily do Derby > Belfast return cheaper than the airfare and I live round the corner from EMA. No it can't be done in a day, but I expect I could find a cheap room in Belfast for the night with the change.
People do what they want, then find the justification, all of us, I'm not excluding myself. I just get irritated when people present their choices as if there was no alternative.

peetee
Posts: 1832
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby peetee » 13 Feb 2020, 12:07pm

pwa wrote:
rmurphy195 wrote:
pwa wrote:When VW diesels came in 1.9l guise they could give astonishing mpg. The best I had with a 1.9TDI Skoda Octavia was about 80mpg on the M4 from Cardiff to Reading under freak conditions of strong tailwind and a succession of large HGVs to drive behind. But even in more typical mixed use 50mpg was easy to get. That's all in the past. Today's VW diesels look great on paper but on real roads the mpg is mediocre. My 1.6l Golf is doing well if it gets 40mpg in mixed use.


Not quite - we have a VW diesel (2014 vintage, disguised as a Skoda 1.6tdi) and despite the strangling effects of the DPF I can make 70 or 80 real mpg out of it under the conditions iandriver describes - much less CO2. Typical mixed use is 50-55mpg, topping 65 on a longer motorway journey.

I wouldn't have bought it without the DPF - I commuted 25k pa for years and could have saved a fortune but the diesels at the time pumped out the particulates so I wouldn't have one. Bought this one, more expensive to buy but less CO2 output, and 2 weeks later the excrement hit the fan over NOx, you just can't win sometimes.

If the NOx could be (properly) sorted then use of "dirty diesels" should, all other things being equal, help cut down greenhouse gasses. Along perhaps with the banning of the sale of bigger fuel-guzzlers before the sharp cutoff in 2032. (I read a report somewhere recently that since diesels became a no-no the amout of carbon being chucked out has risen by 2.5% with the switch to petrol-engined cars)


A couple of years ago a journo on the BBC did a test of diesels to see how the 2005 Octavia 1.9 TDI compared with more recent "cleaner" equivalents and found that in real life conditions the older car was cleaner and more efficient (less Nox, less CO2, better mpg) than the more recent and (on paper) better modern diesels. The latter were better in the lab but worse on the road. The journo's testing involved driving on real roads with loads of testing equipment.


Doesn’t surprise me in the least. When I looked for my car back in August I looked for real world consumption figures on various user-input info websites. Honest John seemed to be the most comprehensive. Looking at VW group vehicles alone it was obvious across their range of vehicles that the 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 TDi engines were not as fuel efficient as the older 1.9. Looking at the Polo alone the 1.4 diesel can’t match the 1.9 Even with newer tech and power and torque figures that are not puny for the size of the vehicle.
Current status report:
Back on two wheels in deepest Pastyland and loving every minute. Mission: to enjoy big, bad hills again.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2789
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby roubaixtuesday » 13 Feb 2020, 12:09pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
Yes, I read that. Apparently, despite the increase in sales of EVs, CO2 has increased, due to massive fall in sales of diesels and the current flavour of the month being SUVs.


EV sales are trivial, they'll have essentially no impact on overall emissions at the moment.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 3479
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby Oldjohnw » 13 Feb 2020, 12:11pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
Yes, I read that. Apparently, despite the increase in sales of EVs, CO2 has increased, due to massive fall in sales of diesels and the current flavour of the month being SUVs.


EV sales are trivial, they'll have essentially no impact on overall emissions at the moment.


Perhaps in total, but the fastest growing segment. But emission should not be increasing, with or without EVs.
John

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2789
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby roubaixtuesday » 13 Feb 2020, 12:20pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
Yes, I read that. Apparently, despite the increase in sales of EVs, CO2 has increased, due to massive fall in sales of diesels and the current flavour of the month being SUVs.


EV sales are trivial, they'll have essentially no impact on overall emissions at the moment.


Perhaps in total, but the fastest growing segment. But emission should not be increasing, with or without EVs.


By percentage, perhaps. By absolute numbers, no way.

I absolutely agree that reducing emissions should be a policy objective. Moving away from the most polluting vehicles (large, high powered) would make much more difference than EVs in the short term, *and* make the roads much less intimidating to non-motorists.

Of course, the trends are the exact opposite.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 3479
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby Oldjohnw » 13 Feb 2020, 12:34pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:
EV sales are trivial, they'll have essentially no impact on overall emissions at the moment.


Perhaps in total, but the fastest growing segment. But emission should not be increasing, with or without EVs.


By percentage, perhaps. By absolute numbers, no way.

I absolutely agree that reducing emissions should be a policy objective. Moving away from the most polluting vehicles (large, high powered) would make much more difference than EVs in the short term, *and* make the roads much less intimidating to non-motorists.

Of course, the trends are the exact opposite.


Fastest growing means: if one year there were 1000 EV sales and the next year 2000, that is sales have doubled. It it appears we now agree where we never disagreed!
John

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2789
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby roubaixtuesday » 13 Feb 2020, 12:59pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
Perhaps in total, but the fastest growing segment. But emission should not be increasing, with or without EVs.


By percentage, perhaps. By absolute numbers, no way.

I absolutely agree that reducing emissions should be a policy objective. Moving away from the most polluting vehicles (large, high powered) would make much more difference than EVs in the short term, *and* make the roads much less intimidating to non-motorists.

Of course, the trends are the exact opposite.


Fastest growing means: if one year there were 1000 EV sales and the next year 2000, that is sales have doubled. It it appears we now agree where we never disagreed!


I think we have agreed all along, and are merely achieving clarification!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Postby mjr » 13 Feb 2020, 2:13pm

Why not fly? Well it's very polluting, airports are horrible places and they're also usually kind of difficult to get to. You're restricted what luggage you can take or it costs a lot. Sometimes it's awkward too, such as if you want to take a bike. Security checks are very intrusive. Connections are often poor, as there are necessarily few stops. I hate the feeling of takeoff. Others dislike the feeling of landing. All in all, it's travel that you ensure more than enjoy.

Why fly? It's faster and tickets are currently cheaper than alternatives, making some journeys feasible for people who couldn't make them otherwise. I suspect Bryn doesn't think that's desirable but I do.

I hope that some mix of faster trains and sleepers might replace flights for the masses but it probably needs more backbone than most of our governments have, starting with things like levelling the taxes on air fuel and rail/coach power supply to allow fairer competition, but that needs international coordinated action.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.