Found this recent article. It’s about the harm SUVs cause, much of which stems from weight and size. I don’t approve of the direct action. I’d be interested in the thoughts of lightweight sports car owners like us. For me, I’m pleased to be driving a lightweight car that is easier on the environment, and my pocket in terms of the longevity of components. The antithesis of SUVs:
1 Like
Road wear/damage increases with the fourth power of the vehicle weight. So a 2 tonne car takes 16 times as much out of the road as a 1 tonne mx-5, load being pro rata.
Surprising that.
1 Like
Makes me laugh that so many people are buying huge hybrid suvs now. Any plausible gain from the hybrid tech is swallowed up by the fact that you’re lugging around so much mass, the hybrid tech itself adding weight to the mix. A friend’s volvo xc90 weighs 2.2 tonnes and has a 2.0 engine and an electric motor. The result? He gets around 22mpg real world mixed driving on shop trips and dropping the kids to school.
If you want something then have it I say, but they don’t make much economic or environmental sense and don’t exactly qualify as enthusiast cars where people normally throw common sense to the wind…
1 Like
The article says “Will” is not looking for cars to vandalise, but then promptly lets one of the tyres down, but in a way that is slow (the lentil). With some tyres, the tyre wall is damaged, and a new tyre is needed. Or maybe the owner, in a rush to get to a hypothetical hospital, doesn’t notice, drives off, where upon the bead comes off the rim and car crashes etc. Or maybe doesn’t, but the partially deflated tyre leads to increased fuel consumption and emissions.
Not a pleasing article at all, condoning criminality. Does Will do this to electric SUVs, such as many MGs… Is he following the organisation inciting people to do this, by targeting “posh areas”. ie. why aren’t reading about him creeping around on the hardcore frontage of a council house with a couple of 30 year old Bobbed Discovery V8 Greenlaners?
Other studies found a relationship between congestion and buying larger cars. As congestion increases, people become more likely to buy a larger car (SUV) because if you are going to spend your time sitting in traffic, you might as well be comfortable, or because of a feeling of safety.
The supposed environmental credentials of the MX5 fall apart when you consider it only has 2 seats, the same as a Smart Fortwo, but its 40% longer, thus disproportionly contributing to congestion. More congestion leads to more large car purchases. Also, do you factor in the impact of driving your lightweight sports car like it should, or do you hypermile it everywhere? And while the MX5 is lightish, there are many cars lighter than it, and most of them seat more than 2 people. While you might not be harming the environment as potentially a SUV might, you are still harming the environment, but having fun while doing so. Is that morally better or worse than the school run slog in the Chelsea tractor?
Am I pleased that I drive a 27 year old MX5? Well, not driving, because its been stuck waiting recon injectors since september. No, pleased is the wrong word. There is always a level of guilt because ultimately it is an indulgence.
Will the tyre extinguisher says "An SUV is a complete indulgence, an unnecessary luxury. I understand in other cases when people say, don’t force your hairshirtedness on other people, but with this issue it’s utterly clear.”. He could equally say "“A lightweight sportscar is a complete indulgence, an unnecessary luxury. I understand in other cases when people say, don’t force your hairshirtedness on other people, but with this issue it’s utterly clear.” And he won’t be wrong.
You have a MX5. The components might last ok. The body though will dissolve.
Want less SUVs, give up the MX5.
What the guy is doing is wrong - nobody should be targeted for punishment just because they do what they want with their own money, within the law.
I was more pointing out the fallacy that large suv’s can be absolved of their perceived environmental unfriendliness through hybrid technology. I don’t often see them at capacity either.
Oftentimes (but not always) the same people that invest in new, ‘environmentally friendly’ vehicles are the same people that replace them as soon as the warranty expires - I know many and don’t bother to comment on the relationship between buying a new car every three years and the damage it does to the environment. Same goes for dealers that want to encourage your purchase of said new environmentally friendly cars touting their virtue - and come back to convince you to buy a new one every three years!
I still stick to my personal view that the most environmentally friendly car is one that’s looked after and well maintained, kept for many years without replacement.
My household has the mazda for fun which won’t do a lot of miles - it is an indulgence yes but I can’t drive 2 vehicles at once therefore my contribution to congestion and emissions remains pretty much unchanged even with the second car. We also have 2 petrol suzuki swifts that can get around 56mpg - 1 for me for commuting and 1 for my partner who just likes no frills motoring that is reliable, comfortable, cheap to run and maintain. When I bought the cars the dealer tried to up-sell me on a ‘mild hybrid version’. I compared the spec sheets and there was no difference in performance or mpg to gain whatsoever, perhaps the other car weighed a little more due to the extra kit. Once I’d pointed their own literature out to him I asked why I should buy one for £1600 more? His answer- unironocally - ‘because it’s better for the environment’.
Anyway, I don’t advocate for one thing or the other. ‘your money, your choice’ is how things should be, however I do find it difficult to ignore things like this. Kind of reminds me of these anti-capitalist protesters in their Nike trainers, updating their instagrams from their iPhone 14 
.
2 Likes
I thought this would spark a healthy debate.
I absolutely don’t condone the direct action in the article.
I think the debate that people feel safer in a large SUV has become self fulfilling as people perceive they want to protect themselves against other large SUVs, especially in city centres. In my MX-5 I do feel a little vulnerable when I pull up beside a lorry or large SUV but my MX-5 replaces a Triumph Bonneville so I’m much safer than on that, life is not without risk.
My MX-5, bought second hand, I admit is an indulgence, I have another car (and a campervan) but if the journey is just me and Mrs C it has a lower environmental impact than my other two vehicles…
Dah! Who am I kidding, I just love it and blast it when I can - can’t honestly say I bought it with a view to reducing my environmental impact!
1 Like
I find that people in large suv’s must feel inherently safer, because it seems to embolden them to do more reckless and selfish things on the road. Whether or not they’d drive like this in any other car is unknowable, but anyone that’s ever been sat patiently in a filter lane will know what I mean. See which cars come barreling down in the last 100m to barge in at the very end - high end German cars and large SUV’s (in my experience).
1 Like
I simply let them go their merry way, never get involved.
Eventually they will meet up with other like-minded souls and have an appropriate argument.
Maybe they will benefit from the lesson, maybe not, but it will be their problem and not mine.
2 Likes
And how often do you see them with more than one occupant, never mind more than two.
Also we are getting to the point of “my SUV needs to be bigger than your SUV to keep me safe” and it is literally becoming an arms race. If all cars were small and light the safety issues would be far less.
Most of these cars are bought as a show of wealth (even though many are probably bought on the never never) and safety is just an excuse.
2 Likes
A debate usually needs at least two sides. So far no one who owns a SUV has chipped in to respond to the attacks.
“Most of these cars are brought as a show of wealth” is instructive. I’m not sure that is true. Most of them are now brand new Range Rovers, Jaguars, Bentleys etc. Most of them seem to be utiliarian Renaults, Nissans, Vauxhalls, Skodas etc. Are MGs now seen as a sign of wealth?
Is a Nissan Juke ok? At 1163kg for a base model, its lighter than some versions of the ND.
What is the threshold for a SUV to be considered “heavy weight”?
The article picked up that Will was driven by the politics of envy. He apparently was University educated. I can guarantee it though he’s not an employed professional. He’s really motivated by attacking what he can’t have.
During the 2011 London riots, a MX5 was attacked. Not a new one, but a rather old one. It might well have been the owner’s pride and joy, but his car was picked out of all the others on the street.
One less early UK spec car… Maybe the rioters were aggrieved because he was driving an old, polluting vehicle. Or maybe having a sportscar meant he was showing off, and no one should show off.
I think the assumption here was ‘suv’ in reference to the unnecessarily large, juicy tanks. There are a lot of cars marketed as suv that are basically built on a hatchback platform but made taller, wider and longer (but most of the time still use the same little engines). These shouldn’t really get a bad rap from their association as like you say, they’re pretty utilitarian and make a lot of sense to a lot of people 
.
1 Like
We have a Skoda Roomster a very practical car, a Mitsubishi Outlander (the only one that can tow our Eriba caravan) and an MX-5.
Average age of the cars is just over 7 years. I buy one when I need to, and buy what I want/need.
Granted, the MX-5 is a luxury, a toy. We’d need the other two anyway. So it’s pretty difficult to argue that that MX-5 is helping the planet, even if it does do 47mpg!
We use it for holidays in Europe. So we don’t fly on those trips. But, two up, I think the CO2 per person is roughly the same.
What about cars like Jags? Or just SUVs.
MX5’s with jag engines 
It’s not black and white is it? How about taxing vehices based on their weight as well as their emissions?
If you’re referring to a merge in turn where two lanes merge into one, you are supposed to use all available road (both lanes) and then merge at the end. I appreciate that there’s merging and forcing your way in, but there’s also people that sit across the white line to incorrectly “punish” what they see as late mergers. A bit more live and let live in those situations would go a long way.
I like to have a vehicle that’s no bigger and heavier than it should be for the job it’s intended for. It frustrates me that there aren’t more cars that occupy a small footprint, are light, quick, and fun to drive, yet use clever packaging to keep them practical. The packaging on my Jazz is amazing, but I can’t buy a quicker version that handles well.
Referring to the article: Will is clearly a knob and should leave other people’s hard earned belongings alone.
Yes merge in turn, but ones that warn you 800m out that it’s coming. Everyone merges and gets over ready but the ones who want to merge last minute to get ahead make everybody slow down to let them in. Not considerate.
1 Like
We had just the one do it on the A1 Northbound yesterday, my OH said, well it says it all, a Subaru with the big wing on. I just said yes dear. Up to that point everyone merged in pretty early and neatly well before the one lane situation.
I live in an area that’s solely accessed by motorway and dual carriageway (a249) so I see it every day, that and the fact that they’re constantly coning areas off to do work that you never see happening but that’s another story!