From the perspective of your heirs, is it wasteful? Isn't it true that an activity can have both useful and wasteful components? Does one have a duty to weigh those components and engage in entertainments that are cost effective, or is even the least amount of entertainment value worth any exorbitant cost?
My mom had a fully kitted Wrangler for years. Great fun, but still amazingly more practical and efficient than most of these faux-offroad vehicles people drive.
For a vehicle that can actually off-road, and is used primarily for such? Certainly. The Wrangler wasn't taken on the highway when it could be avoided, and it would be ludicrous to use one as a daily-use car.
I'm assuming that your mother doesn't live on a backwoods, boulder strewn road. If I am wrong, please forgive me.
So let me get this straight. It's wasteful to drive an SUV when the benefits (e.g., higher clearance or increased towing capacity) are rarely, if ever, needed. It's fine, though, to own a vehicle that is used on such occasions, as long as an entirely different vehicle is used daily? If it's her only vehicle, and it's just used rarely, then you still have the same waste issue. If she doesn't live on an unmaintained road, it's not needed - especially in a warm climate. Even if it gets better mileage than an SUV, it's wasteful.
I'm no fan of SUVs. I drive a very modest car. It certainly belies my purchasing power. But this logic absolutely escapes me. If you don't need the SUV, you don't need the Jeep sitting in the driveway. And if you do need the Jeep, it stands to reason that it is wasteful to have two cars, and only use the Jeep when its needed. Nobody suggested that the contractor buy two vehicles. Why is that okay for your mother?
If you take the stance of having the most fuel efficient car. You need a manual transmission. You will get from 5 to 15 mpg more in a manual then in an auto. How many others drive a manual?
If you take the stance of having the most fuel efficient car. You need a manual transmission. You will get from 5 to 15 mpg more in a manual then in an auto. How many others drive a manual?
I drive stick and absolutely refuse to drive an auto. However, 5-15 MPG? Come now, that's a bit optimistic. I think a properly driven manual (most people don't know how to drive for fuel economy, let alone a manual for efficiency) will see at best 10% more MPG these days. The modern automatic with its electronically controlled full torque converter lockup is a magical thing.
How so? You have specific vehicles for specific applications. If you live in upstate (real upstate) New York, you can easily justify having a car for travel and an old diesel truck for heavy work. A lot of people do that; not so many just grab an SUV thinking it'll suffice for whatever they need to do. You need the right tool for the job.
What if that second vehicle was otherwise destined for the junk yard?
This also gets back to entertainment, if the person derives entertainment on a semi-regular basis from this vehicle, is it wrong? I plan to get a second car as soon as I can afford/house such a thing. Where my primary vehicle is sporty enough so I don't get bored, my secondary vehicle would be all out sports/race car. A race suspension alone is not suitable for for daily use (well you might be able to get by in Germany, but not in America) and the turbocharger would be too large for anything but track use. I don't see a problem with having a second car for a specific purpose (all out racing, off-roading, etc) if you still have a primary vehicle whose purpose is efficient transport.
If you take the stance of having the most fuel efficient car. You need a manual transmission. You will get from 5 to 15 mpg more in a manual then in an auto. How many others drive a manual?
I drive stick and absolutely refuse to drive an auto. However, 5-15 MPG? Come now, that's a bit optimistic. I think a properly driven manual (most people don't know how to drive for fuel economy, let alone a manual for efficiency) will see at best 10% more MPG these days. The modern automatic with its electronically controlled full torque converter lockup is a magical thing.
My Mini Cooper gets 37.6 mpg right now and climbing. When my car goes in for any type of service my dealership gives me a free rental. They are always automatic. I have been in at least 3. Everyone is hovering around 23.2 - 28.1 mpg. 15 mpg is on the high side but 10 mpg is almost universal.
If you take the stance of having the most fuel efficient car. You need a manual transmission. You will get from 5 to 15 mpg more in a manual then in an auto. How many others drive a manual?
I drive stick and absolutely refuse to drive an auto. However, 5-15 MPG? Come now, that's a bit optimistic. I think a properly driven manual (most people don't know how to drive for fuel economy, let alone a manual for efficiency) will see at best 10% more MPG these days. The modern automatic with its electronically controlled full torque converter lockup is a magical thing.
My Mini Cooper gets 37.6 mpg right now and climbing. When my car goes in for any type of service my dealership gives me a free rental. They are always automatic. I have been in at least 3. Everyone is hovering around 23.2 - 28.1 mpg. 15 mpg is on the high side but 10 mpg is almost universal.
You're either doing highway driving almost exclusively, or you're driving very efficiently. A manual Mini Cooper is EPA estimated to get 28 MPG in the city. My Honda Fit is rated to do 27 MPG city, and I usually beat that (typically get between 28 - 30). Right now, I'm doing 25, but I think that has a lot to do with the cold weather, and the different traffic flow this time of year.
Getting that much better fuel economy really is a matter of how you drive your vehicle.
For a Mini Cooper. The SAAB 9-5 doesn't see anything like that gap, with auto and manual owners seeing very similar mileage.
Check this out.Mazda is reporting that the fuel efficiency of the 2009 5-door Mazda 3 is identical between both transmission options. On the 4-door they report that the manual has a measly 1 mpg better in the city, 2 on the highway. I own an '06 5-door, and it gets in the high 20s on average, so these numbers are not far from the truth.
The weakness of the manual transmission has always been human error. It is impossible to shift gears with optimal efficiency, even if you are Michael Schumacher. However, automatic transmissions used to be so bad at being efficient, that even bad drivers in a manual would be more efficient than the best driver in an automatic. Nowadays automatics are much better because technology has advanced. Meanwhile, the efficiency of a manual still depends too much on the driver, who has not gotten any better. You have to drive a manual very carefully to beat out a new automatic. An older automatic will still be crap, but new ones are very good.
If you live in upstate (real upstate) New York, you can easily justify having a car for travel and an old diesel truck for heavy work.
What if you built one vehicle yourself, out of 100% recycled parts, after you bought the first vehicle, and used both equally?
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I was referring to a Rym's mother. Last time I checked, she wasn't a farmer or a horse trainer.
Let's not be hypocrites here. If it's wasteful to own an SUV as your only vehicle, it's wasteful to own an extra vehicle that you don't have (or very rarely have) a specific need for. And even if you DID have a specific need, you should rent it on the rare occasion when needed. Even if you rarely drive a second vehicle, there was an environmental impact in producing it. Renting such a vehicle spreads that impact around and is much more efficient. Efficiency is good. Inefficiency is wasteful.
And don't even get me started on people that own recreational vehicles to use a handful of days a year...
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I was referring to a Rym's mother. Last time I checked, she wasn't a farmer or a horse trainer.
No, but maybe she has an otherwise active outdoor lifestyle. Maybe she goes whitewater rafting every weekend. I would concur is she drove it once or twice a year, but if you're using a vehicle for a certain purpose multiple times a month, you have a pretty legitimate reason to have that vehicle for that purpose.
I concur about the people who use RV's once or twice a year. That's a colossal waste of money.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I was referring to a Rym's mother. Last time I checked, she wasn't a farmer or a horse trainer.
Why is this an exception to the rule?
Let's not be hypocrites here. If it's wasteful to own an SUV as your only vehicle, it's wasteful to own an extra vehicle that you don't have (or very rarely have) a specific need for. And even if you DID have a specific need, you should rent it on the rare occasion when needed. Even if you rarely drive a second vehicle, there was an environmental impact in producing it. Renting such a vehicle spreads that impact around and is much more efficient. Efficiency is good. Inefficiency is wasteful.
And don't even get me started on people that own recreational vehicles to use a handful of days a year...
By your definition, having anything we don't need right now is wasteful. I just don't buy into that.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I was referring to a Rym's mother. Last time I checked, she wasn't a farmer or a horse trainer.
I wasn't taking the piss,I had broken into a separate line of thought from your comment - I was trying to ask as a general quesion if it would be wasteful to own a vehicle made predominantly from recycled parts, and also have a vehicle that is stock, as it were. I just didn't express myself clearly.
By your definition, having anything we don't need right now is wasteful. I just don't buy into that.
That's correct. The question is where to draw the line. No human life is going to be free of waste. It's this very question that the thread was originally about.
That's correct. The question is where to draw the line. No human life is going to be free of waste. It's this very question that the thread was originally about.
As I have already explained, we know the line lies somewhere between two extremes, but the exact positioning of said line is the result of subjectivity. Therefore, I think it safest to err on the side of awesomeness and put the line such that I will admonish only obvious wastes. There are plenty of wastes out there that are not obvious, but there are enough completely and utterly obvious total wastes to eliminate, that we can let those wastes requiring subjective judgement to wait.
Let us concentrate on wastes which have no benefit whatsoever, such as leaving lights on when there are no people present, or driving vehicles that are physicall impractical and inefficient for any purpose. Once we clear those out, then we can start worrying about partial and subjective wastes like private jets or very large sculptures.
That's correct. The question is where to draw the line. No human life is going to be free of waste. It's this very question that the thread was originally about.
As I have already explained, we know the line lies somewhere between two extremes, but the exact positioning of said line is the result of subjectivity. Therefore, I think it safest to err on the side of awesomeness and put the line such that I will admonish only obvious wastes. There are plenty of wastes out there that are not obvious, but there are enough completely and utterly obvious total wastes to eliminate, that we can let those wastes requiring subjective judgement to wait.
Let us concentrate on wastes which have no benefit whatsoever, such as leaving lights on when there are no people present, or driving vehicles that are physicall impractical and inefficient for any purpose. Once we clear those out, then we can start worrying about partial and subjective wastes like private jets or very large sculptures.
Exactly. You start with the obvious stuff: if you live in Florida and see snow never, you probably don't need an SUV. If you live 1 mile from work, try walking there instead of driving. Don't cook/order/take more food than you and others can eat before it spoils.
Owning a second vehicle for recreation is comparable, if not worse, in "waste" to owning an SUV. It's quite often worse from a strictly financial perspective. If it's a gift, I don't have a problem. Purchasing any unneeded vehicle for recreation crosses my "waste" threshold by a large margin.
Actually, she lives on a ranch in Airzona, and has horses.
Then a truck would make lots of sense. A Wrangler doesn't make any sense. Can't carry hay, marginal towing capacity Most Wranglers can't even think about towing a horse with a trailer, let alone multiple horses.
Leaving lights on while not at home can deter crime
Let us concentrate on wastes which have no benefit whatsoever, such as leaving lights on when there are no people present, or driving vehicles that are physicall impractical and inefficient for any purpose. Once we clear those out, then we can start worrying about partial and subjective wastes like private jets or very large sculptures.
Leaving the lights on when no one is home (or having them on a timer) is a simple way to deter someone from breaking into your house as they might think you are home. As for art, I don't object to the creation of it but I do object to people paying huge sums of money for what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded together.
Since we seen to be on the topic of being perfect little power users, does anyone use fluorescent lights? I use them and they're pretty good. Something with equivalent lumens to a 60 watt bulb only uses 14-15.
Back home, I had a motorbike, and a long wheelbase van I picked up for 500 Bucks from a company that was cutting some deadweight. Motorbike for day to day use, and the van was Mostly dual use - I used it for everything I couldn't use the bike for, and anytime I had to loan one of my mates a vehicle. At the moment, it spends time shuttling between my father(Business purposes) and mother(Moving her stuff to her new house) and my mates(Usualy scouting stuff, load all the gear into one van instead of everyone taking their own vehicle out to whatever the site is)
Also, it was handy when the motorbike(Or one of my mate's motorbikes) Broke down, and we'd just load the bike into the van, tie it down, and take it to get fixed.
As for art, I don't object to the creation of it but I do object to people paying huge sums of money for what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded together.
So I can object to people paying for movies? It's nothing more than a series of film clips strung together.
Comments
So let me get this straight. It's wasteful to drive an SUV when the benefits (e.g., higher clearance or increased towing capacity) are rarely, if ever, needed. It's fine, though, to own a vehicle that is used on such occasions, as long as an entirely different vehicle is used daily? If it's her only vehicle, and it's just used rarely, then you still have the same waste issue. If she doesn't live on an unmaintained road, it's not needed - especially in a warm climate. Even if it gets better mileage than an SUV, it's wasteful.
I'm no fan of SUVs. I drive a very modest car. It certainly belies my purchasing power. But this logic absolutely escapes me. If you don't need the SUV, you don't need the Jeep sitting in the driveway. And if you do need the Jeep, it stands to reason that it is wasteful to have two cars, and only use the Jeep when its needed. Nobody suggested that the contractor buy two vehicles. Why is that okay for your mother?
This also gets back to entertainment, if the person derives entertainment on a semi-regular basis from this vehicle, is it wrong? I plan to get a second car as soon as I can afford/house such a thing. Where my primary vehicle is sporty enough so I don't get bored, my secondary vehicle would be all out sports/race car. A race suspension alone is not suitable for for daily use (well you might be able to get by in Germany, but not in America) and the turbocharger would be too large for anything but track use. I don't see a problem with having a second car for a specific purpose (all out racing, off-roading, etc) if you still have a primary vehicle whose purpose is efficient transport.
Getting that much better fuel economy really is a matter of how you drive your vehicle.
The weakness of the manual transmission has always been human error. It is impossible to shift gears with optimal efficiency, even if you are Michael Schumacher. However, automatic transmissions used to be so bad at being efficient, that even bad drivers in a manual would be more efficient than the best driver in an automatic. Nowadays automatics are much better because technology has advanced. Meanwhile, the efficiency of a manual still depends too much on the driver, who has not gotten any better. You have to drive a manual very carefully to beat out a new automatic. An older automatic will still be crap, but new ones are very good.
Let's not be hypocrites here. If it's wasteful to own an SUV as your only vehicle, it's wasteful to own an extra vehicle that you don't have (or very rarely have) a specific need for. And even if you DID have a specific need, you should rent it on the rare occasion when needed. Even if you rarely drive a second vehicle, there was an environmental impact in producing it. Renting such a vehicle spreads that impact around and is much more efficient. Efficiency is good. Inefficiency is wasteful.
And don't even get me started on people that own recreational vehicles to use a handful of days a year...
I concur about the people who use RV's once or twice a year. That's a colossal waste of money.
Let us concentrate on wastes which have no benefit whatsoever, such as leaving lights on when there are no people present, or driving vehicles that are physicall impractical and inefficient for any purpose. Once we clear those out, then we can start worrying about partial and subjective wastes like private jets or very large sculptures.
It's all about baby steps.
Also, it was handy when the motorbike(Or one of my mate's motorbikes) Broke down, and we'd just load the bike into the van, tie it down, and take it to get fixed.
Right. But that will be different, I bet.