[Tom_77]

Interesting piece in The Guardian about SUVs.

[quote]

Sold as a means of escape from the concrete realities of the modern world, a symbol of individualism and the pioneer spirit, the SUV represents instead a uniform kind of selfishness, a collective indifference to community to which, alas, we are all more or less prone.

[/quote]

 

Topic

[ktache]

Monday is now a quietish day

Monday is now a quietish day on the train part of my bike-train-bike morning commute, Tuesday is now the busiest morning, tailing off until the very quiet Friday.

[ktache]

My parents took us on lond

My parents took us on lond distance drives, for 2 week self catering beach holidays in an original VW Scirocco.

[BalladOfStruth]

I’m slightly confused by this

I’m slightly confused by this post – your reasoning seems to be that you wanted an estate comparable to a Mondeo, so you look only at what Ford make, and as they don’t make them any more, you… got a Hyundai?

If a Mondeo-ish estate was what you’re after, what was wrong with:

• Skoda Octavia Estate
• Skoda Superb Estate
• Peugeot 508 SW
• Peugeot 308 SW
• Kia Proceed Estate
• Kia Ceed Estate
• Vauxhall Astra Tourer
• MG MG5
• Subaru Outback
• VW Passat Estate
• VW Arteon Estate
• VW Golf Estate
• Seat Leon Estate
• Suzuki Swace
• Hyundai i40 Estate
• Toyota Corolla Estate
• Cupra Leon Estate
• Mini Clubman
• Ford Focus Estate

Or if you’re happy to go approved used (as these are the price segment above):

• Volvo V60 estate
• Volvo V90 estate
• Audi A4 Avant
• Audi A6 Avant
• BMW 3 Series Touring
• BMW 5 Series Touring
• Mercedes C Class Estate
• Mercedes E Class Estate
• Jaguar XF Sportbrake

I mean, if you looked at the options and got what you wanted – whatever, but your post seems to suggest you had to get an SUV because nobody makes anything else, which ^^ isn’t true.

[lio]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

There’s a reason people who WFH are known as TWATS.

People who work from home aren’t know as “TWATS”[sic].  It’s people who work from an office Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday not people who work from home.

If you don’t know what the acronym actually means but you’ve been throwing it around, ever wonder if there are other things you might be wrong about too?

[Rendel Harris]

It does make for an excellent

It does make for an excellent cartoon though…

[Anonymous]

For the last twenty-odd years

For the last twenty-odd years I’ve been driving a Golf IV, smallest petrol engine, 1.4l, 75hp. I’ve got two kids, and a part from doing the daily transport in it (less and less now, as we more and more get around by bike and public transpport), we’ve gone on holiday in it, all over the place (I’m at 320.000 km now…). For the last 15 years of those, I’ve always taken a bike with me, when I had a road bike it went into the roof box, the Rinko Randonneur now goes into the boot. So luggage for four, plus a bike, no problem.
Or skiing in the mountains, five people, skis in the roof box, winter tyres of course and a set of chains that I’ve never needed.
Lately I transported a load of planks, up to four metres in length, on the roof carrier. Ok, I had to go twice, as there were to many of them, but that would have been the same with any other car as well.

[BalladOfStruth]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

In short, the harder you drive, and aggressively, the lower your MPG will be. The baseline for MPG will have to be very low, for example, slower moving traffic around towns will have a much lower mpg generally. 

Yeah, I get that – I’m just struggling to see why it’s an argument against regulating for more efficient engines. If you drive in a certain way in a modern, high-efficiency engine, you will get better efficiency than if you drive in exactly the same way with an older, lower-efficiency engine.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Maybe for you, but for younger people (assuming you are not fresh out of Uni or something) it’s definitely a lot more difficult to integrate into a team, and build a culture. 

Cost savings – depends what, yes commutes may offer a cost saving, but then you have to keep your home warm too, coffee, food, and electricity will also add up. 

It definitely is a limiter for collaboration too. Much easier to speak to someone in an office than call, or discuss impromptu ideas. 

If you’re not in front of your clients, your competitors may be – much better to be out and about than not. 

Cost savings are more for the business – heating and lighting the office, etc. For staff – the cost savings might not be as much, but the benefits focus more around time: not having to get up at 05:00am to be in the office for 07:00, not having to waste two hours of their own time sat in traffic, etc.

The rest of what you’ve said is somewhat role-dependant, and I think you’re over-estimating how important they are. Most job roles do not require meeting clients – in most businesses, this is a specific role for a person or department. A back-end server guy doesn’t go out meeting clients, a draftsman doesn’t go out meeting clients. That’s what the sales department is for. I think you’re over-estimating the amount of collaboration most roles have too. Most of the roles I’ve been in, collaboration has been the occasional request to fix a DXF or asking what a recommended spindle-speed is – maybe 2-3 times per day.

As for the “forming a culture”, I can’t say that’s been my experience – it certainly doesn’t hamper the tech sector. I’ve worked for a couple of companies now that don’t have an office, and we’ve had no issues forming a culture.

Additionally, it’s not exactly as if the current status quo has been carefully crafted to get the best out of staff – take open plan offices for example, these have become the standard everywhere, despite being widely regarded to be the absolute devil for productivity and staff morale. Half of the middle-manager playbook is massively detrimental to morale and productivity. Meetings that should be emails, etc, etc, etc.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

I’d say it’s common sense, you wouldn’t pay someone to work 4 days on a 5 day salary. There are variables, what role you do, how many hours you work. But in an established business, it would be like saying have an extra 52 days holiday per year – you only need to do that 5 times and you’re effectively paying for a non-existent employee for a year. 

Except that staff “value” is measured in output, not time. There are plenty of studies where businesses have done exactly that (dropped a day with no drop in salary), and output has either stayed the same or increased. As it turns out, people are happier to give 110% when they’re not exhausted and miserable. That’s what the trials should be based on.

Where do you think the weekend we currently have came from? It was campaigned for by trade unions and workers’ rights groups – not only did it not hamper efficiency and productivity, but workers having Saturday afternoon off with nothing to do, literally gave us the leisure industry.

This laid the groundwork for the full 48-hour weekend as we now know it – although this was only established in the 1930s. Once again, it was embraced by employers who found that the full Saturday and Sunday break reduced absenteeism and improved efficiency.

[Shades]

The royal chariot of the

The royal chariot of the supremely self-entitled; the other argument is protection for kids which is why private schools are rammed with them.  You hear that SUV ‘growl’ on the road and you think a Challenger tank is approaching.  I grew up in South Africa/Zimbabwe in the 70s-80s; the only 4x4s available were very unreconstructed Land-Rovers, Toyota pick-ups and (poss) Land Cruisers; pretty much exclusively used by farmers (understandably).  Not for urban use.  We had a (not all at the same time) Chrysler, Mercedes (vertical lights) and a Ford Granada which happily towed camping trailers etc over some pretty hideous gravel roads; 100 Km of gravel road into the Zambezi valley once.  Happily trucked around game reserve gravel roads for a week.  Ordinary cars are more than capable.

[FlyingPenguin]

So, open question, is it

So, open question, is it necessary to protect the non-SUV models in manufacturers ranges?  I know there have been moves to look at average emissions across a range, do we need to do similar for average size?

Recently, we were looking to replace our car, it’s a Mondeo, average, standard family saloon, it’s been great, it’s just getting (very) long in the tooth.  We needed something with a little bit more load space (kids and family crap, we don’t live on a farm) so, Mondeo Estate?  Mondeo gets discontinued.  Bugger.  Next step up, MPV?  So S-Max?  Discontinued.  Galaxy?  7 seats, but eh….  Bit big.  Only thing left in that “estate car would work fine” niche is the Kuga crossover, which isn’t a good fit, but now we’re getting into SUV territory.

In the end, we went for a Hyundai Tuscon, it’s just 1cm wider than a Mondeo and quite a bit narrower than an S-Max and Galaxy, it’s definitely not “Chelsea Tractor” territory, but it’s high (although the same can be said of the S-Max and Galaxy).  There aren’t that many non-SUV options between “average saloon” and “Chelsea tractor”, and they’re getting fewer by the year, which leaves SUVs (mid size at least) to fill the gap.  Things like the Ioniq, Niro and Kona (to take Hyundai and Kia as an example) don’t really fulfil the “Estate Car” gap very well, or are getting into SUV territory anyway.

[60kg lean keen climbing machine]

mattw wrote:

Fuel economy levels have been policed across the world since the early 1970s – we know how to do that.

Standards on new vehicles are relatively easy to impose – we have some of them now on eg emissions.

Then regulate using price – fuel excise duty is currently LOWER in CASH terms that it was in 2010. If we added say 30p per litre excise duty on to bring the price back in line with inflation, more economical vehicles would be incentivised. 

Yes there has been legislation, whilst it was born out of good intentions, it has had some adverse effects.  Take for example when catalytic converters were introduced via state intervention, this raised C02 tailpipe emissions, if we had gone down a different path for example, clean burn technology then this would not have been the case. Then there is the push for lowering only C02 so along came the mighty diesel, oh but what about PMs and Nox?   Now we are pushing for BEVs as the only path to save the planet, but to get something that goes the distance and with current battery density you need a big volume battery, and so a massive tank of a SUV to put it in!   Take for example Mazda, it is trying to go down the clean burn light weight ICE (active X) and their BEV car has a smaller lighter, with less range thinking about it (not very pop, sales flop!!) They, I believe, correct Me if I am wrong, have tried to lower their fleet sales emissions down, so are no longer selling the 6 and have a re-badged Toyota Yaris hybrid as a 2 hybrid, just to keep the state legislation happy, is this good or bad???

 

[Rendel Harris]

I’m sure – I freelance from

I’m sure – I freelance from home and if I can will do it until I retire, so much more preferable. The pandemic was a specific situation obviously where people couldn’t send their kids off to school and enjoy an undisturbed working day!

[chrisonabike]

Exactly – per BalladOfStruth

Exactly – and (nod to BalladOfStruth) it also depends on where (often what age / point in your personal “growth”) you are in your life.

Obviously there were lots of feedback loops keeping the pattern of “commute to work” going.  It certainly isn’t the case that this was the “best” solution; it was just stable and established.  (What exists in quantity has inbuilt advantage over the novel).  It is certainly hugely wasteful of time and resources.

OTOH travelling elsewhere to labour on most days (sometimes for an hour or more) and working together with other people are ancient behaviours.  Large scale independent working is the novelty here.  Time will tell just what kind of feedback loops / social pressures that needs / creates.

[BalladOfStruth]

Rendel Harris wrote:

My neighbour is a director at a firm of architects, I remember during the pandemic he said that all the twentysomethings were loving working from home, all the thirtysomethings and above with kids at home were absolutely begging to be allowed to come into the office!

Half of my freinds quit after their companies ended WFH after Covid. A lot of people really want if because it’s just so much better for quality of life.

[Left_is_for_Losers]

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sometimes it’s just better working around other people / working face-to-face (if you’re old enough to remember times before zoom, anyway).

Sometimes it’s good to get out of your house / away from your family for a bit!

Agree on both counts. 

[Left_is_for_Losers]

BalladOfStruth]

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I’m really struggling to see the point you’re trying to make here

In short, the harder you drive, and aggressively, the lower your MPG will be. The baseline for MPG will have to be very low, for example, slower moving traffic around towns will have a much lower mpg generally. 

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Don’t agree with any of that. It’s becoming the standard for some sectors, such as tech. I WFH, my productivity has increased, I have no issues collaborating/troubleshooting with colleagues, and I’ve had no issues securing pay-rises or promotions, so you’re wrong on all those counts. If hands-on collaboration is required, then have 1-2 days in the office – you still have the benefits (such as happier, more productive staff, cost savings, less traffic, etc) on the other days. How many people need to visit clients these days, even in the small minority of roles where that would be a thing anyway? I visit a client at most, every couple of years in my role and company-wide only a couple of staff have regular interaction with clients (which has been done via Teams for years).

Maybe for you, but for younger people (assuming you are not fresh out of Uni or something) it’s definitely a lot more difficult to integrate into a team, and build a culture. 

Cost savings – depends what, yes commutes may offer a cost saving, but then you have to keep your home warm too, coffee, food, and electricity will also add up. 

It definitely is a limiter for collaboration too. Much easier to speak to someone in an office than call, or discuss impromptu ideas. 

If you’re not in front of your clients, your competitors may be – much better to be out and about than not. 

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

4 day weeks are a myth – companies will lose money, unless they pay to a 4 day week rate, i.e. less than a 5 day employee.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

You’re going to need to substantiate that. Every study I’ve seen suggests the opposite. Also, I said in my initial comment that a 4-day week does depend on a company’s operations being suitable to it.

I’d say it’s common sense, you wouldn’t pay someone to work 4 days on a 5 day salary. There are variables, what role you do, how many hours you work. But in an established business, it would be like saying have an extra 52 days holiday per year – you only need to do that 5 times and you’re effectively paying for a non-existent employee for a year. 

[Author]

Replies