RE: New Audi RS Q8 launched with up to 640hp
Discussion
pmn3 said:
I drive a small SUV (Macan Turbo) and every time I drove one of these large SUVs (=RSQ8 sized, one size up from Macan) my conclusion was these are too big for the UK. On B-roads and in cities they’re just not fun. I know plenty of people have these cars but I prefer something smaller.
After spending some time in a Macan i would say it is closer in size to a q3/GLA/X1 than a Q5/GLC/X3, so in my eyes the RSQ8 is two sizes up. 
I don't understand why those who don't like any car can't just state 'I don't like these, I think they are too big/heavy/ugly' without making aspersions about those who do like them. Happens all the time on most threads. It's puerile, rude and needless, which might be a good tagline for PH now I think about it.... 
Julian,
First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
Edited by Ray_Aber on Tuesday 25th June 19:40
Ray_Aber said:
Julian,
First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
I understand your viewpoint however i feel the tax them to death due to their weight is opening a door for government to go after all heavy vehicles, how much weight difference is there between a super fast SUV and the equivalent fast estate? First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
Edited by Ray_Aber on Tuesday 25th June 19:40
Climate change and emissions is also very subjective, what if a couple had one fast SUV in the house hold, did 8k annual mileage, went on zero holidays and had no kids compare to a family of 4 with two EV’s covering 15k miles, and two holidays a year compare in terms of emissions created?
WY86 said:
I understand your viewpoint however i feel the tax them to death due to their weight is opening a door for government to go after all heavy vehicles, how much weight difference is there between a super fast SUV and the equivalent fast estate?
Climate change and emissions is also very subjective, what if a couple had one fast SUV in the house hold, did 8k annual mileage, went on zero holidays and had no kids compare to a family of 4 with two EV’s covering 15k miles, and two holidays a year compare in terms of emissions created?
RS6 Avant: 2090kgClimate change and emissions is also very subjective, what if a couple had one fast SUV in the house hold, did 8k annual mileage, went on zero holidays and had no kids compare to a family of 4 with two EV’s covering 15k miles, and two holidays a year compare in terms of emissions created?
RSQ8: 2315kg
Difference: 225kg....... or about half a Caterham!
Bispal said:
Do car companies make these because people actually want them? Or in the hope they will want them when they see them?
Either way it not a great reflection on modern life.
I really can't wait for the SUV fad to be over and return to free flowing roads where there isn't a queue of slow moving SUV's struggling to find room to pass a bicycle.
People actually want them. Nobody with money and need for sime speed nowadays want a station wagon. I sure do not. I want my faily to be big, comfortable and kind of fast. And high. You know, to see over those SUVs. Either way it not a great reflection on modern life.
I really can't wait for the SUV fad to be over and return to free flowing roads where there isn't a queue of slow moving SUV's struggling to find room to pass a bicycle.
WY86 said:
I understand your viewpoint however i feel the tax them to death due to their weight is opening a door for government to go after all heavy vehicles, how much weight difference is there between a super fast SUV and the equivalent fast estate?
Or just for shytz and giggles - for all my biker brethren out there........ an entire Honda Africa Twin 1100. So basically an RSQ8 is an RS6 Avant with a massive 1100cc Adventure Bike strapped to the roof.Ray_Aber said:
As SUVs go, it's not bad looking at all. Nice profile. However, when you see them in real life, they are gargantuan; bloated. That's the overriding impression, notwithstanding the grill that's so large, it looks like a RORO ferry.
If this were 1600kg and 85% scale, I'd admire it even if I never bought it. However, as it stands, it's a monument to excess (for me). I'd tax it heavily due to its bloated weight.
Just my view.
They have something like that already - the RSQ3 If this were 1600kg and 85% scale, I'd admire it even if I never bought it. However, as it stands, it's a monument to excess (for me). I'd tax it heavily due to its bloated weight.
Just my view.
Edited by rodericb on Tuesday 25th June 22:46
Ray_Aber said:
Julian,
First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
Comments stimulate debate, where opinions are shared. If you don't like some people's responses/comments/posts, just ignore them. That's what I do. Everyone one has the right to a free speech, to share their opinion, since, twice, a thousand times. You di not have to read every single post word for word. First off, apologies for double posting. I promise it's not an attempt to increase my post count.
Second point, I'm relaxed about you referring to me as Mr Corbyn, although it's a bit of an easy jibe.
The bigger issue is that you do seem defensive about larger SUVs and any opprobrium being doled in their direction. Others have commented in a more direct manner. My response is more measured. If you attack every post that slags off large SUVs, then it suppresses a healthy debate.
Here's my take on large SUVs. I'm sure you will not agree, but in the spirit of this forum, I'll try to make it as rational as possible.
When SUVs first came out, I thought that some were quite attractive in a crude "farm implement" sort of way - the sort of admiration you had for a John Deere tractor or a Landy Defender. Built to perform a task, and equipped to do so.
Then we started to see the SUV as a desirable town vehicle, where its attributes (largely being ground clearance, all wheel drive and good visibility) were largely useless (apart from the good visibility). I have always admired efficiency in things; the lightness in an Alpine A110, the aerodynamics of a Gen 1 Audi 100, and the practicality of a Fiat Panda. I don't see efficiency in large SUVs. When SUVs started bloating in size and weight without any functional benefits, that was a concern. The fact that these cars were being used in an inappropriate environment was of concern. In towns, they blocked up car park spaces, making it hard to park next to them. due to their width. Their bulk blocked your view on a road. They appeared to do nothing that an estate car could not do, other than present ease of ingress and egress, especially for those with limited mobility.
Now you may argue that arguments could be applied to thirsty inefficient sports cars too. Yes, they do, and I despair when I see a wide bodied Aventador farting and burping down a high street. Yet, I love seeing these cars on the open road, ,much as I give great respect to a FFRR on a shoot. They are both in their element, where their engineering is used to best effect.
I'm a realist. Man made climate change is real, and sticking our heads in the sand does not help. Driving about in cars that are unnecessarily large/heavy doesn't help matters. Additionally, I find super-fast SUVs pointless. They are fast despite their weight. They corner decently despite their high CG. Yet, you're asking these things to be dynamically capable when physics gets in the way. In almost every respect, I cannot see them being any better than an estate car. That's why I drive an estate car. I need dog space, and I like dynamic efficiency.
I wouldn't ban SUVs, but I would tax them heavily for their environmental impact. There's millions of the things. There aren't anything like the same number of sports cars. A weight tax, if you will. The fuel aspect is already covered off. I'd also put in width restrictors in multistorey / urban car parks. If they are too big for the width restrictors, they are too big for the car park. We cannot go on allowing cars to get bigger and heavier. Oh, and I'd add a weight tax on electric SUVs too (with an allowance for battery weight).
That's just my view. I'm happy to hear other arguments put forward. For now though, I think the Audi Q8 is a waste of space and the Earth's resources.
Edited by Ray_Aber on Tuesday 25th June 19:40
Back to SUVs. You are allowed to not like them. I don't like estate cars. I don't like MPVs. I also don't like Anthea Turner or Hugh Grant. It's just that, I don't like them. My opinion.
I don't try and add science to 'prove' why they are inferior. Nor do I try to justify my dislike, because it is just that, a dislike. I also don't try and punish people who don't like what I don't like.
After 20 years of 'sports saloon' ownership (and one 'sporting estate'), I've had a fast SUV for nearly 2 years. It's amazing. I love it. It's probably a car I will keep long-term. Part of that love, a big part, is the thumping great V8 under the bonnet. It makes the car go as well as any four-door car I have owned, and elicits a grin equally as big. It also sounds better than any car I have ever owned, like Thor after he has been clicked in the testicles. The car would be substantially less attractive with a 2.0 diesel lump under the bonnet, in the same way as an Audi 2.0 diesel would be awful compared to an RS6.
You may not see efficiency in SUVs, I do. For me they are easier to get in and out of. I find it easier to get my parents in and out of. I find the load space is far more useable and practical to load things into. I can load and carry my bike fair easier than I could with any estate car I've experienced. But that's my opinion, my findings, my experience my choice. Not a universal fact.
My SUV has a smaller footprint than an estate car with the same load area, so the car park thing is a bit of a misnomer. Mine is also a lot lighter than many many many cars let alone SUVs.
Having this car means I only have one car (plus my wife has a car). I also cycle twice as much each year as a drive. Combined, I'm comfortable with my environmental impact on this planet.
To lay any blame for climate change on peoples' choice to drive SUVs is nothing sort of lunacy, in my opinion. Sorry. If every SUV driver bought an estate car, or an EV, or an MPV, climate change would not be affected.
If you feel excessively and punitively taxing just one sector of cars because you don't like or agree with them, then it comes as little surprise that you are relaxed about being referred to as 'Mr Corbyn', and I trust you will see my comments as constructive and not ill-mannered.
Arsecati said:
WY86 said:
I understand your viewpoint however i feel the tax them to death due to their weight is opening a door for government to go after all heavy vehicles, how much weight difference is there between a super fast SUV and the equivalent fast estate?
Or just for shytz and giggles - for all my biker brethren out there........ an entire Honda Africa Twin 1100. So basically an RSQ8 is an RS6 Avant with a massive 1100cc Adventure Bike strapped to the roof.Julian
Thanks for your post.
A couple of comments in response.
1. You don't justify your views. I do, as I think it helps explain things. Both approaches can coexist.
2. The Jag F-Pace is a fabulous car. It's relatively light, not bloated. It's not the size of an Audi Q8, Q7, or any other full fat car. I like them. I'd still prefer an estate though.
3. I get the high hip point. I think I did acknowledge that.
4. I find my estate car far easier for bikes, as the boot (seats down) is longer than on an SUV.
5. A car's footprint is not the measure you are looking for in a multistorey car park (which I specifically referenced, and which is more common in cities). It's the width, not the length, which causes the problem.
6. I'm not laying environment blame solely at the foot of cars that are too heavy or too large, but they certainly do not help. I stand by my belief that excess environmental damage has to be recognised, and discouraged. Tax is a fiscal mechanism designed to do that. I also have the same issues with overweight EVs, as some of my previous posts will attest. I have similar issues with fast fashion and the pollution it causes.
What we cannot do is just sit with our heads in the ground. We're polluting the hell out of the planet, and causing climate change. If you want an overweight car with unnecessary functionality, then help pay for the environmental damage through tax. I'd tax the hell out of £25 internal flights so that trains were a better choice. I'd also be tempted to take that flight tax levy and invest in trains. We don't all have to stop driving or flying, but we do have to start acknowledging - and paying for - the damage we cause.
If you think all of the above makes me a raving socialist, then you have that right to think so. After all, you're the one standing in judgement. You do not know where my political allegiances lie, but hey; don't let that stop you profiling me. I'm relaxed about you thinking I'm Corbyn because you're a complete stranger. You mean nothing to me. Why would I care about your views of me? I'm more interested in your views in general.
Ray
Thanks for your post.
A couple of comments in response.
1. You don't justify your views. I do, as I think it helps explain things. Both approaches can coexist.
2. The Jag F-Pace is a fabulous car. It's relatively light, not bloated. It's not the size of an Audi Q8, Q7, or any other full fat car. I like them. I'd still prefer an estate though.
3. I get the high hip point. I think I did acknowledge that.
4. I find my estate car far easier for bikes, as the boot (seats down) is longer than on an SUV.
5. A car's footprint is not the measure you are looking for in a multistorey car park (which I specifically referenced, and which is more common in cities). It's the width, not the length, which causes the problem.
6. I'm not laying environment blame solely at the foot of cars that are too heavy or too large, but they certainly do not help. I stand by my belief that excess environmental damage has to be recognised, and discouraged. Tax is a fiscal mechanism designed to do that. I also have the same issues with overweight EVs, as some of my previous posts will attest. I have similar issues with fast fashion and the pollution it causes.
What we cannot do is just sit with our heads in the ground. We're polluting the hell out of the planet, and causing climate change. If you want an overweight car with unnecessary functionality, then help pay for the environmental damage through tax. I'd tax the hell out of £25 internal flights so that trains were a better choice. I'd also be tempted to take that flight tax levy and invest in trains. We don't all have to stop driving or flying, but we do have to start acknowledging - and paying for - the damage we cause.
If you think all of the above makes me a raving socialist, then you have that right to think so. After all, you're the one standing in judgement. You do not know where my political allegiances lie, but hey; don't let that stop you profiling me. I'm relaxed about you thinking I'm Corbyn because you're a complete stranger. You mean nothing to me. Why would I care about your views of me? I'm more interested in your views in general.
Ray
Ray_Aber said:
Julian
Thanks for your post.
A couple of comments in response.
1. You don't justify your views. I do, as I think it helps explain things. Both approaches can coexist.
2. The Jag F-Pace is a fabulous car. It's relatively light, not bloated. It's not the size of an Audi Q8, Q7, or any other full fat car. I like them. I'd still prefer an estate though.
3. I get the high hip point. I think I did acknowledge that.
4. I find my estate car far easier for bikes, as the boot (seats down) is longer than on an SUV.
5. A car's footprint is not the measure you are looking for in a multistorey car park (which I specifically referenced, and which is more common in cities). It's the width, not the length, which causes the problem.
6. I'm not laying environment blame solely at the foot of cars that are too heavy or too large, but they certainly do not help. I stand by my belief that excess environmental damage has to be recognised, and discouraged. Tax is a fiscal mechanism designed to do that. I also have the same issues with overweight EVs, as some of my previous posts will attest. I have similar issues with fast fashion and the pollution it causes.
What we cannot do is just sit with our heads in the ground. We're polluting the hell out of the planet, and causing climate change. If you want an overweight car with unnecessary functionality, then help pay for the environmental damage through tax. I'd tax the hell out of £25 internal flights so that trains were a better choice. I'd also be tempted to take that flight tax levy and invest in trains. We don't all have to stop driving or flying, but we do have to start acknowledging - and paying for - the damage we cause.
If you think all of the above makes me a raving socialist, then you have that right to think so. After all, you're the one standing in judgement. You do not know where my political allegiances lie, but hey; don't let that stop you profiling me. I'm relaxed about you thinking I'm Corbyn because you're a complete stranger. You mean nothing to me. Why would I care about your views of me? I'm more interested in your views in general.
Ray
great post Thanks for your post.
A couple of comments in response.
1. You don't justify your views. I do, as I think it helps explain things. Both approaches can coexist.
2. The Jag F-Pace is a fabulous car. It's relatively light, not bloated. It's not the size of an Audi Q8, Q7, or any other full fat car. I like them. I'd still prefer an estate though.
3. I get the high hip point. I think I did acknowledge that.
4. I find my estate car far easier for bikes, as the boot (seats down) is longer than on an SUV.
5. A car's footprint is not the measure you are looking for in a multistorey car park (which I specifically referenced, and which is more common in cities). It's the width, not the length, which causes the problem.
6. I'm not laying environment blame solely at the foot of cars that are too heavy or too large, but they certainly do not help. I stand by my belief that excess environmental damage has to be recognised, and discouraged. Tax is a fiscal mechanism designed to do that. I also have the same issues with overweight EVs, as some of my previous posts will attest. I have similar issues with fast fashion and the pollution it causes.
What we cannot do is just sit with our heads in the ground. We're polluting the hell out of the planet, and causing climate change. If you want an overweight car with unnecessary functionality, then help pay for the environmental damage through tax. I'd tax the hell out of £25 internal flights so that trains were a better choice. I'd also be tempted to take that flight tax levy and invest in trains. We don't all have to stop driving or flying, but we do have to start acknowledging - and paying for - the damage we cause.
If you think all of the above makes me a raving socialist, then you have that right to think so. After all, you're the one standing in judgement. You do not know where my political allegiances lie, but hey; don't let that stop you profiling me. I'm relaxed about you thinking I'm Corbyn because you're a complete stranger. You mean nothing to me. Why would I care about your views of me? I'm more interested in your views in general.
Ray
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff