Time to give us cyclists a bit more respect

[LLB]

No. It's bollocks.

The VED and insurance (and depreciation if relevant) are a sunk cost. The only rational decision for any given trip is based on the marginal cost - the cost of the fuel. The only rational decision across the year is based on the total economic value - including VED, insurance and depreciation.

In both cases the small car wins out. It's also less polluting, in particulates, noise and CO2, takes up less road space, takes up less car park space and does less damage to the road. So you're actually being unselfish.

Depreciation is enormously relevant - you are showing your ignorance on this subject as obviously you have never had to deal with the day to day reality of running a thirsty vehicle or one with a steep depreciation curve. I was speaking to a friend yesterday evening and he divulged that he had sold an X5 4 weeks ago after 12 months of ownership with a depreciation of £5,000 (or £100 per week over the period of ownership). You don't need a degree in psychology to work out that anyone who take on such a financial burden will want to enjoy the fruits of their labour - IE drive the damn thing

Source of damage to the road if you will as well as the amount of road space one takes ?

 

[Jaded]

You don't need a degree in psychology to work out that anyone who take on such a financial burden will want to enjoy the fruits of their labour - IE drive the damn thing

So they wouldn't want to sell the damn thing? Like your friend?

Make your mind up!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I was speaking to a friend yesterday evening and he divulged that he had sold an X5 4 weeks ago after 12 months of ownership with a depreciation of £5,000 (or £100 per week over the period of ownership).

Why on earth would anyone buy something - anything - which depreciates at that rate?

 

[rustychisel]

Well done Lindford, your ability to go off-topic about anything and witter about motor vehicles is duly noted.

 

[LLB]

Well done Lindford, your ability to go off-topic about anything and witter about motor vehicles is duly noted.

how typical is it that you have jumped in and blamed me for sidetracking the thread I was responding to 'User1314s' rant against large car usage post. Try taking a look at the previous posts before drawing your conclusions on mine

 

[LLB]

So they wouldn't want to sell the damn thing? Like your friend?

Make your mind up!

No, he bought it as a runaround for his (new) missus but she not working as a mother of 2 young children couldn't afford to put fuel in it (don't ask me to explain the dynamics of his relationship with her)

He was looking to cut his losses as he doesn't need to commute with it and she wasn't driving it during the day.

All large car values are being hit hard by fuel prices and high VED.

I was surprised at his choice, but then he is a hairdresser , and the vehicle would never be a good choice as a utility vehicle being an X5 (never be one of mine).

 

[LLB]

Why on earth would anyone buy something - anything - which depreciates at that rate?

It beggars belief doesn't it, but you consider how much a Ferrari or Lambo loses everytime the owner turns the key and it is small fry by comparison.

The worst car for depreciation is a Daewoo Nubira which lost 90% of its value in the first 3 years. http://pistonheads.co.uk/news/default.asp?storyId=13987

 

[rustychisel]

how typical is it that you have jumped in and blamed me for sidetracking the thread I was responding to 'User1314s' rant against large car usage post. Try taking a look at the previous posts before drawing your conclusions on mine

In what way might that be considered 'typical'.

Your point against COG had been noted, and duly considered, but your ability to return again and again to the same self-serving and defensive arguments denote a staggering ability not shared by many.

Thank goodness.

 

[srw]

Depreciation is enormously relevant - you are showing your ignorance on this subject as obviously you have never had to deal with the day to day reality of running a thirsty vehicle or one with a steep depreciation curve.

My car is a Fiat Coupe - 2.0 litre engine, turbocharged. Is that thirsty enough for you?

Depreciation is only irrelevant if the car has not already depreciated. My car is now fully depreciated, so it is irrelevant.

Source of damage to the road if you will as well as the amount of road space one takes ?

Damage to the road - well known (do a google search) to be proportional to the weight of the vehicle to some positive power. That's why (as I believe you pointed out on a different thread) juggernauts kill roads more than 4x4s.

Road space - trivial and obvious. Bigger cars take up more tarmac at rest. The faster the traffic the lighter the density, because more stopping space is needed.

At least if you're going to moan, moan about something important, not your selfish desire to own the road in a penis extension.

 

[srw]

It beggars belief doesn't it, but you consider how much a Ferrari or Lambo loses everytime the owner turns the key and it is small fry by comparison.

The worst car for depreciation is a Daewoo Nubira which lost 90% of its value in the first 3 years. http://pistonheads.co.uk/news/default.asp?storyId=13987

That's because it's shoot and undesirable and made by a company which has gone bust. In absolute terms, the Nubira loses £10,000 over three years. An Aston Martin loses £10,000 as soon as it's driven off the garage forecourt. In wealth terms, absolute amounts are more important than relative amounts.

 

[srw]

source ?

http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/rubrik/9/9126.elections_results.htm

European green parties regularly achieve much better results than British.

 

[LLB]

My car is a Fiat Coupe - 2.0 litre engine, turbocharged. Is that thirsty enough for you?

Depreciation is only irrelevant if the car has not already depreciated. My car is now fully depreciated, so it is irrelevant.



Damage to the road - well known (do a google search) to be proportional to the weight of the vehicle to some positive power. That's why (as I believe you pointed out on a different thread) juggernauts kill roads more than 4x4s.

Road space - trivial and obvious. Bigger cars take up more tarmac at rest. The faster the traffic the lighter the density, because more stopping space is needed.

At least if you're going to moan, moan about something important, not your selfish desire to own the road in a penis extension.

Woa there - massive chip on shoulder alert

You have got a lot of neck dictating about car choice after buying and running a Fiat - 1 forward gear and 5 reverse

Who else do you post as on here ?

 

[spindrift]

yet another thread ruined

 

[John the Monkey]

No, he bought it as a runaround for his (new) missus but she not working as a mother of 2 young children couldn't afford to put fuel in it (don't ask me to explain the dynamics of his relationship with her)

Is this the X5 you were talking about earlier?

One of those for the usage you've described here seems a bit on the wasteful side to me (fair enough, it's their choice etc, but I'm finding it hard to sympathise with their "plight").

 

[LLB]

That's because it's shoot and undesirable and made by a company which has gone bust. In absolute terms, the Nubira loses £10,000 over three years. An Aston Martin loses £10,000 as soon as it's driven off the garage forecourt. In wealth terms, absolute amounts are more important than relative amounts.

As opposed to your Fiat which lost 90% or £18k of its value as soon as it left the forecourt

Didn't Clarkson destroy one on TG a few weeks ago