Parisians vote to penalise SUVs

[DrFfybes]

Well, not SUVs per se, although that seems to be the gist of the referendum.

Amongst various things just voted on in Paris was the option to charge more for parking for large vehicles.

In fact the wording is that the charge applies to vehicles over 1.6t, or electric vehicles over 2t, but It was promoted as targetting the wealthy who are cluttering and polluting Paris, but I think it will rumble on, as it means stuff like the Renault Captur fall foul of it, and ironically it includes some models of the Mini

In fact, there ain't much out there these days that falls under 1.6t, so I suspect this is only the start of it.

Paul

[Lootman]

Well, not SUVs per se, although that seems to be the gist of the referendum.

Amongst various things just voted on in Paris was the option to charge more for parking for large vehicles.

In fact the wording is that the charge applies to vehicles over 1.6t, or electric vehicles over 2t, but It was promoted as targetting the wealthy who are cluttering and polluting Paris, but I think it will rumble on, as it means stuff like the Renault Captur fall foul of it, and ironically it includes some models of the Mini

In fact, there ain't much out there these days that falls under 1.6t, so I suspect this is only the start of it.

I recall reading somewhere that the reason that the Italians are so good at producing highly tuned and powerful small engines is because car tax in Italy is based on engine cc.

Back when nations taxed buildings based on the number of windows, people started removing their windows.

Set an arbitrary target and folks will find 1,001 ways of getting around it,

That said London has the punitive ULEZ charges which are just another way that governments punish vehicular freedom.

[88V8]

Well, not SUVs per se, although that seems to be the gist of the referendum.
Amongst various things just voted on in Paris was the option to charge more for parking for large vehicles.
In fact the wording is that the charge applies to vehicles over 1.6t, or electric vehicles over 2t, but It was promoted as targetting the wealthy who are cluttering and polluting Paris, but I think it will rumble on, as it means stuff like the Renault Captur fall foul of it, and ironically it includes some models of the Mini
In fact, there ain't much out there these days that falls under 1.6t, so I suspect this is only the start of it.

My 5.4 litre Rambler weighs less than that. There is no reason for modern cars to be so big and fat. I wish they were taxed on size and weight, as Lootie said that would soon put a stop to this bloat.

V8

[bluedonkey]

Many cars have got ridiculously heavy. Look at the Range Rover, pretty much getting heavier and heavier with each new model. Got to draw the line somewhere.

[9873210]

Many cars have got ridiculously heavy. Look at the Range Rover, pretty much getting heavier and heavier with each new model. Got to draw the line somewhere.

Well, there's a 3500kg limit on most young fogie's licenses so it can't get too much heavier before that becomes a problem.

By the by, AIUI some of the excess mass is driven by US tax laws, which allow extra tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 lb on the dubious grounds that these are clearly commercial vehicles as no one would be silly enough to drive such a behemoth for personal transportation. So of course Range Rover makes sure that some models qualify even though it needs warning placards on the sun visor that say "this is not a car, it is not intended for personal transportation, do not drive for personal transportation"

[Mike4]

I have a diesel Audi classed as a "small SUV" weighing an astounding 2.6 tonnes, yet comfily returning 35-40mpg, driven around smartly.

25 years ago I was driving a "sports hatchback" which was slower, returned worse fuel consumption, and had a kerb weight of less than a tonne. I can't help wondering what fuel consumption such a sports-hatch would return using the fuel economy technology my hefty Audi clearly employs.

So I just had a google and found the Audi S3 "sportsback", weighing about half my "small SUV" at 1.37 tonnes. Yet this relative lightweight returns much the same fuel economy of "31-40 mpg" (according to google) as my 2.6 tonne whopper. Odd. This suggests weight is not actually the main determinant for fuel economy and the Paris articles asserting heavy cars are gas guzzlers are not necessarily correct.

[JohnB]

It surprised me it passed with such a low turnout, 7%ish. You'd have thought it if affected many people they'd have a strong incentive to turn out to vote it down. The London Borough of Lewisham has variable tarrifs by vehicle tax band. The multiplier is a lot less, and the vast (17?) number of charging bands seems daft, and i say this as someone with a tiny car.

[bluedonkey]

Weight also affects the wear on the road.

[Moosehoosenew]

Weight certainly affects road wear but I assume it is the 40 ton lorries moving earth and gravel around that do most of the pothole damage not the 2 ton cars?

[U962]

Well, there's a 3500kg limit on most young fogie's licenses so it can't get too much heavier before that becomes a problem.

Which is where VW have run into problems (allegedly - and obviously heavily denied) on their proposed electric camper van
Too heavy to be driven by those with European type licences!

[JohnB]

Axle weight^4, so very heavy bias towards commercial vehicles

[terminal7]

It surprised me it passed with such a low turnout, 7%ish. You'd have thought it if affected many people they'd have a strong incentive to turn out to vote it down. The London Borough of Lewisham has variable tarrifs by vehicle tax band. The multiplier is a lot less, and the vast (17?) number of charging bands seems daft, and i say this as someone with a tiny car.

Slightly more people voted last year in Paris to ban electric scooters in Paris.

T7

[terminal7]

Well, not SUVs per se, although that seems to be the gist of the referendum.

Amongst various things just voted on in Paris was the option to charge more for parking for large vehicles.

In fact the wording is that the charge applies to vehicles over 1.6t, or electric vehicles over 2t, but It was promoted as targetting the wealthy who are cluttering and polluting Paris, but I think it will rumble on, as it means stuff like the Renault Captur fall foul of it, and ironically it includes some models of the Mini

In fact, there ain't much out there these days that falls under 1.6t, so I suspect this is only the start of it.

I recall reading somewhere that the reason that the Italians are so good at producing highly tuned and powerful small engines is because car tax in Italy is based on engine cc.

Back when nations taxed buildings based on the number of windows, people started removing their windows.

Set an arbitrary target and folks will find 1,001 ways of getting around it,

That said London has the punitive ULEZ charges which are just another way that governments punish vehicular freedom.

Your 'vehicular freedom' has been a major factor in my son's asthma during his youth and the continuing large number of sufferers (particularly children) in the capital.

T7

[BigB]

I have a diesel Audi classed as a "small SUV" weighing an astounding 2.6 tonnes, yet comfily returning 35-40mpg, driven around smartly.

25 years ago I was driving a "sports hatchback" which was slower, returned worse fuel consumption, and had a kerb weight of less than a tonne. I can't help wondering what fuel consumption such a sports-hatch would return using the fuel economy technology my hefty Audi clearly employs.

So I just had a google and found the Audi S3 "sportsback", weighing about half my "small SUV" at 1.37 tonnes. Yet this relative lightweight returns much the same fuel economy of "31-40 mpg" (according to google) as my 2.6 tonne whopper. Odd. This suggests weight is not actually the main determinant for fuel economy and the Paris articles asserting heavy cars are gas guzzlers are not necessarily correct.

It'd be interesting to see what the same drivetrain as yours would do in a 1.37t A3, driven in similar fashion. Weight has to be a factor, you'd think it'd do maybe 50mpg ish?

[JohnB]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ope-report

SUVs drive trend for new cars to grow 1cm wider in UK and EU every two years, says report
Bigger cars more likely to kill people, release more toxic gas and are outgrowing design of cities

Being the wrong size for streetside parking could be the bigger issue. SUV drivers are certainly a problem in UK car parks

[DrFfybes]

So I just had a google and found the Audi S3 "sportsback", weighing about half my "small SUV" at 1.37 tonnes. Yet this relative lightweight returns much the same fuel economy of "31-40 mpg" (according to google) as my 2.6 tonne whopper. Odd. This suggests weight is not actually the main determinant for fuel economy and the Paris articles asserting heavy cars are gas guzzlers are not necessarily correct.

An S3 Sportsback has over 300 Hp, so there is a tradeoff. That was Porsche and Ferrari power back then

A friend works for Ford in Engine design and manafement systems, I don't really understand exactly what he does, but he said a while back the main aim is to make the engine produce best power characteristics in all conditions whilst still meeting emissions requirements. Fuel economy was merely a byproduct.

I gather there are systems out there that will burn more fuel in order to get a cleaner burn and reduce emissions. Our 1990 Toyota weighs just over 1t, will do 45mpg on a run, but your eyes water if you stand behind it on cold tickover. The Avensis diesel is similar on fuel, but a lot cleaner at the back.

Paul

[DrFfybes]

It surprised me it passed with such a low turnout, 7%ish. You'd have thought it if affected many people they'd have a strong incentive to turn out to vote it down. .

It only applies to visitors, residents are exempt, and only residents could vote.

It does seem the only French people interested in Democracy are farmers

I have a diesel Audi classed as a "small SUV" weighing an astounding 2.6 tonnes, yet comfily returning 35-40mpg, driven around smartly.

It'd be interesting to see what the same drivetrain as yours would do in a 1.37t A3, driven in similar fashion. Weight has to be a factor, you'd think it'd do maybe 50mpg ish?

Depends on the age and which diesel, but manufacturer claims of 60+, real world reports of 50+. The 2013-2020 1.6D reurned over 60mpg in average(!) use, next door had one and said he'd regularly get 70+ on a run. Until I just looked it up i thought he was exaggerating somewhat. I think the newer one has more stringent emissions hence lower economy.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/au ... tback-2013
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/au ... tback-2020

Paul

[Mike4]

An S3 Sportsback has over 300 Hp, so there is a tradeoff. That was Porsche and Ferrari power back then

Paul

I think I need a test drive of one!

[swill453]

A friend works for Ford in Engine design and manafement systems, I don't really understand exactly what he does, but he said a while back the main aim is to make the engine produce best power characteristics in all conditions whilst still meeting emissions requirements. Fuel economy was merely a byproduct.

Except when they're programming it to recognise when it's performing a fuel economy test...

Scott.

[Lootman]

Many cars have got ridiculously heavy. Look at the Range Rover, pretty much getting heavier and heavier with each new model. Got to draw the line somewhere.

You stated that as if you think that everyone agrees with that assumption.

But why does a line have to be drawn? Says who and why?

Well, there's a 3500kg limit on most young fogie's licenses so it can't get too much heavier before that becomes a problem.

In the UK. A standard American driving license lets you drive vehicles up to 26,000 pounds, which is a little shy of 12,000 kg.

As for fuel economy, weight is only a factor whilst accelerating. Once you reach cruising speed fuel burn is mostly a matter of overcoming friction and air resistance, not weight.