Car adverts to carry cigarette style CO2 warmings

No not eveything, just things that produce several tonnes and more of CO2 per annum. Cars make up a significant CO2 contribution of and individual and hence will be targeted I guess. Does a newspaper, probably yer over an entire year but its the big obvious things first to get hammered. Poltitics works like that.
 
Guys becareful you have mentioned other CO2 emmissions and breathing out, if they are watching they may find out we are breathing for free :(

Good move by the EU, they should keep up with these useless laws and the UK should keep taking them as you can see the benefits have been huge for us all!
 
NathanE said:
Bananas get shipped over on massive cargo ships which burn the dirtiest of dirty shipping oil for their engines...
Click to expand...

Emissions from transport isnt ignored. More and more companies have emissions targets and the reason they arent passed on the consumer normally is because our use doesnt change the fact that they made it.

If we had a banana, didnt eat it, or ate it, there is no change in the carbon footprint of that banana. If we have a car, if we use it, carbon emissions increase, if we dont use it, it falls. Therefore it is useful for us to know the emissions efficiency of a car as it is directly related to tax.

Now onto the problem of me paying £230 to drive 20 miles a day, and the other chap paying £230 driving hundreds.
 
cosmogenesis said:
Whats done is done. Aint that the way of the world. When it comes to politics anyway otherwise we would not have gone to war on that premise but alas it was not to be.
Click to expand...

If only you could be so pragmatic when politics doesn't go the way you want it on your personal pet crusade eh?
 
MrMatteh said:
theres a 40mph sign round the corner from me and someone has written on the back of it (so you see it when you're going the other way) "Stop CO²"
Click to expand...

This is way cooler
Stop-Hammer-Time-resized-96.jpg
 
Janesy B said:
would you buy a PC without knowing what the speed of the cpu was or how much ram it had?
Click to expand...
I would buy a PC on the basis of its suitability for the tasks I need to complete. This has on occasion resulted in my buying, or to be more exact, building PCs with powerful CPUs and lots of RAM. I wouldn't buy a PC with a QX9775 to browse the internet and send a few emails.

Anyone who buys a car based on its BHP, top speed and acceleration data should have his licence revoked - and it is invariably a he, women aren't that stupid.
 
stockhausen said:
Anyone who buys a car based on its BHP, top speed and acceleration data should have his licence revoked - and it is invariably a he, women aren't that stupid.
Click to expand...

I purchased my car after drawing up a shortlist of vehicles all of which met a minimum performance criteria (0-60 less than 7 seconds, 0-100 less than 20 seconds, at least 145mph (Not becuase I ever intend to travel that fast but becuase invariably cars designed for suhc speed are far more comfortable at lower speeds), at least 200bhp).

Why should I have my license revoked?
 
stockhausen said:
I would buy a PC on the basis of its suitability for the tasks I need to complete. This has on occasion resulted in my buying, or to be more exact, building PCs with powerful CPUs and lots of RAM. I wouldn't buy a PC with a QX9775 to browse the internet and send a few emails.

Anyone who buys a car based on its BHP, top speed and acceleration data should have his licence revoked - and it is invariably a he, women aren't that stupid.
Click to expand...

Ooh look, a troll :)
 
[TW]Fox;11830347 said:
I purchased my car after drawing up a shortlist of vehicles all of which met a minimum performance criteria (0-60 less than 7 seconds, 0-100 less than 20 seconds, at least 145mph (Not becuase I ever intend to travel that fast but becuase invariably cars designed for suhc speed are far more comfortable at lower speeds), at least 200bhp).

Why should I have my license revoked?
Click to expand...

I think Stockhasen's going a little overboard saying that kind of data should be banned, but I also think you're far overstating the importance of the same data.

0-60 and 0-100 times are largely irrelevent - what a test driver can achieve on a track in a factory fresh machine doesn't have much bearing at all on what you can do in your 4 year old car on the M25. I don't quite see why something as nebulous as 'overtaking ability' is quite so important, which is the reason I assume you mentioned it, you can achieve the same safety by driving better.

Engine power is also irrelevent if not matched up to a load of other factors, such as weight, the design of the drive train, fuel and tyres, it also declines as the engine ages. Top speed as a measure of being 'comfortable' - I'm not sure what you mean by this, but assuming you mean the engine's ability to work 'comfortably' surely a better indication of this is the car's optimum fuel efficiency speed, which you can get an idea of from the displacement as much as the top speed.

I've owned about half a dozen cars in my life and I've honestly never known the 0-60 times or engine power of any of them.
 
Scottly said:
0-60 and 0-100 times are largely irrelevent - what a test driver can achieve on a track in a factory fresh machine doesn't have much bearing at all on what you can do in your 4 year old car on the M25. I don't quite see why something as nebulous as 'overtaking ability' is quite so important, which is the reason I assume you mentioned it, you can achieve the same safety by driving better.
Click to expand...

It gives you an idea as to the overall performance of the car - it enables you to distinguish between, say, a Mondeo 2.0 Duratec and a Mondeo ST220. You can look at the stats and think 'One car offers considerably better performance than the other.

I will never, ever do 0-100 but a car that does it in a certain time is, generally speaking, quicker across the board than one which takes 5 seconds longer to do it. It's probably a more accurate figure for comparing cars than 0-60 as a few gearbox tweaks here or a good launch there gives a bigger time variation.

It's a base from which to compare cars.

As for the top speed thing, a car with a top speed of 155mph will make a considerably more competent and more comfortable Motorway cruiser than one with a top speed of 110mph.

Not sure where you get the engine will degrade noticeably over time thing from - I personally dispute this, at least before the car is 10-20 years old anyway. I've had both the cars I've owned recently tested for power and both made around stock power. Even if you argue that RR's are inaccurate, you are still in the same ballpark.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;11830615 said:
It's a base from which to compare cars.
Click to expand...

Okay, but I think the major problem going forward is that these are the wrong things to be comparing if your goal is CO2 and fuel efficiency, they're better gauges of speed and acceleration. One of the problems with CO2 policy is that personal choices have to be curtailed for the greater good, to some extent. Unfortunately, that means the fast gas-guzzlers will suffer in favour of econoboxes, which is fine provided your transport goals are getting from A to B cheaply (which mine are).

As for the top speed thing, a car with a top speed of 155mph will make a considerably more competent and more comfortable Motorway cruiser than one with a top speed of 110mph.
Click to expand...

What's your definition of 'comfortable' in this context?

My car tops out at 110 but it's optimum speed in terms of fuel efficiency is around 75, which is great for me because I spend the vast majority of my driving time at that speed on the motorway. Therefore I'd say my car is pretty comfortable for the majority of my driving. If I was puttering around town at 30 I'd probably be better off in a SmartCar or something.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;11830347 said:
I purchased my car after drawing up a shortlist of vehicles all of which met a minimum performance criteria (0-60 less than 7 seconds, 0-100 less than 20 seconds, at least 145mph (Not becuase I ever intend to travel that fast but becuase invariably cars designed for suhc speed are far more comfortable at lower speeds), at least 200bhp).
Click to expand...
Most fast cars are normally far more uncomfortable then there slower lower range models....

As they normally have harder suspension....
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;11830347 said:
I purchased my car after drawing up a shortlist of vehicles all of which met a minimum performance criteria (0-60 less than 7 seconds, 0-100 less than 20 seconds, at least 145mph (Not becuase I ever intend to travel that fast but becuase invariably cars designed for suhc speed are far more comfortable at lower speeds), at least 200bhp).

Why should I have my license revoked?
Click to expand...
Do you mean that a car with the specification you have described must have necessity be more comfortable than a car capable of a measly 0-62 time of only 12 seconds and only capable of exceeding the national speed limit by 50%?

I suspect that if you looked a little harder, you would be able to find yourself a comfortable car that didn't do 0-62 in 7 seconds and wasn't capable of 145mph - I think that comfort may not have been a significant factor in your choice of car.

Incidentally, did your chosen car have nice soft suspension as well?

High speed and rapid acceleration is not a rational basis for selecting a road car.
 
stockhausen said:
High speed and rapid acceleration is not a rational basis for selecting a road car.
Click to expand...

Choosing a car is not something I put a great deal of rational thought into. I buy cars I think I will enjoy owning.

If save rational thought for buying consumer durables, white goods, that sort of thing. A car may just be a transportation device to you, but to millions of people it is so much more than that.
 
stockhausen said:
High speed and rapid acceleration is not a rational basis for selecting a road car.
Click to expand...

Since when did selecting a car have to be a rational process?

If i picked rationally i would have a 26" telly which uses far less power than my projector, i'd have a 1 bedroom flat which would cost less to run than my whole house with only me in it, and a diesel mondeo for work which would be more economical than my S-class 4.3L

The world and everyones lives would be very boring if everything was rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom