What vehicle for bushcraft?

[Martyn]

Not only do they have no moral high ground in fact but they are living far less environmentally sound lives than those they criticise - physician - heal thyself

Nah, that doesnt work. They may be guilty of putting more CO2 into the evironment from family holidays than you are, because you dont take any, but that doesnt mean they loose the moral high ground. Because your position is based on a "they are worse than I am" statement, rather than a "they are fundamentally wrong" statement. What if you drive a 4x4 with regular diesel and fly once a year? I'm not campaigning against 4x4's, but I would like those who really dont have any use for them beyond a poseur vehicle (which is probably most of em), to use something else.

If I had 2 options of flying to the maldives and one of those options contributed far less CO2 than the other, then I would take the option with the lighter CO2 footprint.

That's the situation 4x4 owners are in. They have options.

 

[pumbaa]

The best Bushcraft vehicle has to be LPCs , for those of you that havent done military service , it stands for Leather Personel Carriers . Otherwise known as Boots !!!
Pumbaa

 

[Martyn]

Perhaps we should all have personal, lifetime CO2 allocations?

 

[British Red]

I'm not campaigning against 4x4's, but I would like those who really dont have any use for them beyond a poseur vehicle (which is probably most of em), to use something else.

Sorry Martyn that doesn't seem to stack up. If your problem is CO2 emissions, then surely the argument should be "ALL drivers should offset their CO2 emissions". Why particularly 4x4 drivers? Why not TVR drivers? Motorcaravan drivers? Both put out more CO2 than most 4x4s. What about a 4x4 driver who lives close to work and walks in Monday to Friday and drives his 4x4 at weekends? He pollutes less than someone who lives 30 miles from work and drives in each day in a normal car.

My driving (in a 4x4) does not in anyway contribute to net CO2. If you were to say there should be a tax equivalent to CO2 emissions sufficient to offset the pollution (not payable on biodiesel of course which is net non polluting) I'd be with you 100% - I already pay such a tax voluntarily through the carbon neutral scheme and I would hope that all people interested in the environment do too.

If I had 2 options of flying to the maldives and one of those options contributed far less CO2 than the other, then I would take the option with the lighter CO2 footprint.

That's the situation 4x4 owners are in. They have options.

I'm delighted to present an option - don't go. Have a holiday locally, or travel to the lake district or Devon or Wales by public transport. A family of 4 flying abroad on a package holiday does far more environmental damage than one 4x4 and there are plenty of less damaging options.

I do like your idea of a lifetime environment allowance - far fairer

Good debate BTW - I will continue to take the contrary position though because there must be consistency if we are really to tackle global warming. Sure 4x4s put out some CO2 but they are nowehere near as damaging as many other things - if the problem is CO2, lets tackle CO2 - which is just as damaging if caused by the massive amounts output by aircraft, supermarket lorries because people don't buy local produce etc. If someone offsets their CO2 there is no problem with a 4x4 and ALL vehicle drivers should do this if genuinely concerned for the environment

Regards - Red

 

[EdS]

Horses for course really - I have a Land Rover 90 and an Astra Estate.

The Land Rover is the smaller sized of the 2, is already 2x the age of most cars (it takes more energy to make a car than they normal use in their life), it is 80-90% recyclable (very little plastic) and it does more MPG than a new "mini" Cooper or any of the big executive saloons.

Plus I run both of a 50:50 mix of quality diesel and recycled cooking oil.

Best of bushcraft? Probably the Astra, more space, better on the road and been a straight turbo dieselit has torque so it will pull you out of most fields.

You really need to ask how often do you actually "off road" when bushying? Not ever really. But when I do off road it has to be Landy.

 

[Martyn]

Sorry Martyn that doesn't seem to stack up. If your problem is CO2 emissions, then surely the argument should be "ALL drivers should offset their CO2 emissions". Why particularly 4x4 drivers? Why not TVR drivers? Motorcaravan drivers? Both put out more CO2 than most 4x4s. What about a 4x4 driver who lives close to work and walks in Monday to Friday and drives his 4x4 at weekends? He pollutes less than someone who lives 30 miles from work and drives in each day in a normal car.

My driving (in a 4x4) does not in anyway contribute to net CO2. If you were to say there should be a tax equivalent to CO2 emissions sufficient to offset the pollution (not payable on biodiesel of course which is net non polluting) I'd be with you 100% - I already pay such a tax voluntarily through the carbon neutral scheme and I would hope that all people interested in the environment do too.



I'm delighted to present an option - don't go. Have a holiday locally, or travel to the lake district or Devon or Wales by public transport. A family of 4 flying abroad on a package holiday does far more environmental damage than one 4x4 and there are plenty of less damaging options.

I do like your idea of a lifetime environment allowance - far fairer

Good debate BTW - I will continue to take the contrary position though because there must be consistency if we are really to tackle global warming. Sure 4x4s put out some CO2 but they are nowehere near as damaging as many other things - if the problem is CO2, lets tackle CO2 - which is just as damaging if caused by the massive amounts output by aircraft, supermarket lorries because people don't buy local produce etc. If someone offsets their CO2 there is no problem with a 4x4 and ALL vehicle drivers should do this if genuinely concerned for the environment

Regards - Red

As I said Red, your argument doesnt stack up because it's based on a "my damage isnt as much as his damage" position.

Like I said, what about those people who own a 4x4 but still use aeroplanes? They are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you could tell them to choose between a series landrover, or flying abroad, but surely not both?

Realistically, all you can do is minimise the impact. I do travel by air because it's the only realistic way for me to reach my chosen destination. I dont drive a 4x4 because I have no need to and other options that allow me to do exactly what I want to do with lesser impact.

It's not realistic to suggest we should all live as environmental saints, people work hard and like to travel on thier time off. Flying, although it has a huge environmental impact, is the only realistic way for most people to travel abroad.

In addition, we are also talking about series landrovers. All 4x4's are not equal in terms of damage and pollution, but normally fuelld, series landrovers are, for the most part, horrendous. I did say earlier, that I would happily buy a freelander, lower CO2 than most family saloons and 34mpg. No issue with that.

But I do have issue with series landrover owners, using them as a shopping trolley and a runabout, who dont need them.

Going back to the origins of this thread, it was about a chap asking for advice in choosing a vehicle. At no point did he indicate a need for a 4x4, but he got many recommendations to buy a series landrover. Do you think that is good "bushcraft" advice?

I'm not anti 4x4, I'm anti needless use of 4x4's by poseurs. But if your 4x4 runs efficiently and on biofuel, fair enough, crack on. Not many can honestly claim that though, can they?

The reality is, that most 4x4 owners dont use biodiesel, also shop at sainsbury's and fly abroad on holidays. If this is you, what can you do to help? Give up your holidays - possible, but not likely. Start using local produce, a good idea, but you'll still probably use sainsbury's for imported goods and stuff that is otherwise hard to find locally. Start using biodiesel? Good idea, if you have the room to store it and make it. Can be tricky if you live in a flat. Stop needlessly driving a series landrover (or, indeed, a high octane sports car)? Now that's something you can do without changing any aspect of your life (unless you have a genuine need for a 4x4, which most people dont).

 

[bogflogger]

If I could interject an element of reason into this extremely interesting debate ...........................ALL Four wheeled vehicles are simply mobile chicanes for my Motorcycle!

The fundamental problem is that ANY car contains a huge amount of unnesscary steel, injection moulded plastics, vast amounts of consumer appeasing electric toys, mug holders and reclining/rotating seats..................all of which the engine has to drag around all the time, regardless of the human cargo and their luggage!

The ideal bushcraft vehicle?

A BMW GS850rs Motorbike!

(or a Citroen 2cv/ Fiat Panda.)

 

[bogflogger]

Here's another alternative:

http://www.oldwoodies.com/feature-africar.htm

Check out the Africar.

 

[British Red]

Bogflogger,

Good point - sorry for the Off Topic. My reason for responding to Martyns post (in a civilised way I hope), was to point out that IMHO the 4x4 debate is an out of context issue. You are absolutely right that all cars pollute - not just by CO2 emissions but also by the manufacture and recycling overhead - which exactly as pointed out are often higher than running emissions.

My (final) point on this is that we all make choices.

As Martyn correctly points out, the only way to practically go abroad to many destinations is to fly. Howver most of the time we don't need to go there - we choose to to satisfy a want, not a need. As a consequence of fulfilling our desires we pollute.

Some people want to drive big cars. They dont need to. They satisfy that desire and they pollute

Some people want to eat kiwi fruit. To get here fresh a kiwi fruit burns it own weight in aviation fuel . To satisfy that desire they pollute.

Some people seek to minimise their impact on their environment - they use biodiesel for example. (Actually, we don't at present - instead we use the carbon neutral scheme which involves the creation of enough woodland to absorb the CO2 emissions of the cars - actually we pay for more than we need because we like woods ).

I don't have a particular difficulty with complaining about unnecessary CO2 emissions (although many other vehicles pollute as much and more than 4x4s). My point is, there is no point in giving up your 4x4 and then spending the money on an airfare. If we are bothered about CO2 we must control all emissions. If we aren't that bothered about air travel, road haulage, plastics, fossil fuel power stations etc. then leave the 4x4s alone - they are one of hundreds of choices that are part of the problem (and you can offset their emissions as I say)

Good debate

Red

 

[Spacemonkey]

First of all, can we keep this thread open as it's an interesting debate, and as it is an old post, I'm sure that no one is bothered about it being hijacked- more of an evolution into a related topic.

I really hate this anti 4x4 campaign that revolves around their gas guzzling stats. Ok, so townies who buy them as status symbols may be prats but it's a free country, supposedly. Nobody would be complaining too much if they ran around in big mercs etc that use far more fuel would they? Apart from Chairman Ken as it fits in well with his 5 minute hate. And why do people always victimise 4x4s with a blanket generalisation? Does this include Toddys aspirations of an Ignis? Great car, very economical, but god forbid-it's the devil incarnate as it's engine drives all 4 wheels!! As do various Audis (which nobody attacks), certain Fiat Pandas, Scooby-Doos etc etc...
Another thing. The new Range Rover Sport is an evil, borgoise, gas guzzling 4x4 if ever there was one. yet the most popular one here-the TDV6 does 28mpg average. That's more than my old 1.6 Sierra would have done and yet nobody would dream of attacking me for owning an old Sierra (which thankfully i don't..)! As technology improves, so is the mpg. Most modern 4x4s give similar economy and thus emmissions to older family cars.
And another thing, one thing that contibutes far more ot the so called greenhouse effect is... cows. Yes, their 'emmissions' of methane contribute more to world greenhouse gas emmissions than the eveil motorist. So lets all turn veggie and stop breeding cows...
And another thing. People might think that driving a big 4x4 is anti bushcraft as it harms the environment and is thus contradictory to our ethos. Well how harmful to the environment is that nice little computer you are all reading this with? However much we might love the old way of life, we are all hypocrites as we still crave some trappings of modern life, and why not? I'm sure that if Iron Age man had a choice of living in a cold wet mud hut or sitting in a London flat surfing the internet, he'd certainly choose the latter for a while! But as all reading this know, modern life is not all it's cracked up to be and we escape it whenever we can. As we are more in tune with the natural world, we all do our bit I'm sure, but there's no escaping the fact that modern life harms our natural environment one way or another. Industry and airtravel (and those pesky bovines) are the biggest polluters and there is no doubt that we ARE harming our environment at an alarming rate with our consumerism and global travel.
And finally. Global warming is not a new thing. It has happened many times in the earth's history yet we have only had evil motor vehicles for the last 100 years. You may know that this planet is in the outer spiral arm of a galaxy we call the Milky Way (quote Eric Idol...), but not every one knows that we travel through the 'disc' of star matter in a sine wave. Thus for about 12,500 years (or it could be 25,00 year cycles. My memory is a bit swiss cheesed at times.) we travel away from the star centre and then for another 12,500 years we travel back then pass through the star belt, then travel to the other side of the star belt and back again, if you get my drift (sorry, awful pun..) One theory is that as we move away from the congestion of stars we lose their energy effect (heat) and sit out in space relatively on our own, and this is when we get lovely ice ages. As we return we warm up again, and also experience more asteroid/comet strikes. Presently we are rejoining the centre line of the star arm and thus experiencing greater warming. And the double whammy for doom mongers is that we are also more exposed to asteroid strikes, and we are overdue the' big one' going by previous frequencies of major strikes.

ps, I love landies and would love a 110 or Disco 300 TDI set up as an overlander to replace my VW camper (a gas guzzler of the first order! Oh, for an LPG conversion..) as a very occasional vehicle for long distance go anywhere travel. You know, Sahara and all that. Took the MX5 last time, and it got a bit dusty in there, and sleeping was a bit uncomfy. Still got Saharan dust in it though..

 

[Spacemonkey]

If I could interject an element of reason into this extremely interesting debate ...........................ALL Four wheeled vehicles are simply mobile chicanes for my Motorcycle!

The fundamental problem is that ANY car contains a huge amount of unnesscary steel, injection moulded plastics, vast amounts of consumer appeasing electric toys, mug holders and reclining/rotating seats..................all of which the engine has to drag around all the time, regardless of the human cargo and their luggage!

The ideal bushcraft vehicle?

A BMW GS850rs Motorbike!

(or a Citroen 2cv/ Fiat Panda.)

Hee, hee, but my Ducati uses as much petrol as my MX5 when ridden 'properly'...!

2CV? I'd rather die thanks....

 

[mark a.]

I don't begrudge bushcrafters for getting a 4x4 if it's useful for them. If they want to check out some woods that are down a rutted country lane or forest track, then by all means a Land Rover would be the way to go. I'd even be happy if they chose the Landie over, say, a Panda 4x4 because the Landie is bigger, stronger, easier to repair, doesn't mind getting muddy, has more ground clearance, etc etc etc.

What I don't like is the huge 4x4s on the shopping or school run. Most of the arguments that people point out in favour of them (fit the kids, safe etc) can be easily answered by smaller cars. A Volvo estate would fit the same number of people in the same comfort and probably in more safety in a cheaper, faster, more manoeverable, more economical car.

So yes, I agree with Martin in that most 4x4s are a waste. But don't forget that 4x4s have their uses, and people have many valid reasons for having them, so we'll let them off!

 

[Martyn]

My point is, there is no point in giving up your 4x4 and then spending the money on an airfare...

My point is, there is every point if you are going to spend your money on airfare regardless of what you drive.

It's not a mutually exclusive tradeoff. Just because we take a decision to pollute knowingly in some areas, doesnt let us off the hook in others. It's not an all or nothing situation. You may take the decision to visit a country and taking the plane may be your only option, so you make the decision to pollute. That doesnt mean all your other decisions must follow suit.

 

[Gibbsy]

Here is a link and a couple of pics of the best 4x4 money can buy i might be a bit bias though as it is mine.

http://www.toyotasurf.mysite.orange.co.uk

All the room you need and just as good on road as it is off !!

 

[British Red]

Just because we take a decision to pollute knowingly in some areas, doesnt let us off the hook in others.

I agree. The man who chooses to fly for his holidays is no worse (and no better) than a person who drives a 4x4 through choice. Both are choices. Both pollute. A gram of CO2 is a gram of CO2. The atmosphere doesn't distinguish.

<extends hand for a shake and an "agree to disagree" position>

 

[Doc]

Thanks for stimulating my interest on this.

I looked up the CO2 emissions for a return flight to Malaga (seems fairly typical holiday destination) for a family of 4. This generates 1.5 tonnes of CO2.

A petrol 4x4 giving, say 25mpg and driven 12000 miles a year generates 5 tonnes of CO2.

So flights are certainly polluting, but for the average family, I suspect the car is worse.

As Red said, biodiesel should be carbon neutral. Availability can be a problem though.

Back to the car question; most of us probably spend to much on motoring and the depreciation on a new car (maybe 25% a year) is like tearing up fivers. I have to admit that I have a 4wd car, although in my defence I am a rural GP with a 400 square mile practice area, half of which is highland. Even so, I only use 4wd in anger for work maybe 3 or 4 days a year, plus a further 6 or 7 days to get to my coastal wildfowling area.

I used to have an old type Subaru Justy 1.3 and as ilovemybed says, they are fantastic - utterly reliable (hey, they're Japanese), good mpg, and enough ground clearance for most things but not serious off road use. I've now got a Suzuki Jimny which although lacking street cred is VERY capable off road and I get 36mpg on road from the 1.3 litre engine. If only it was diesel it would be perfect.
If you don't need 4wd and want to minimise costs I would definitely go for something Japanese and diesel.

[/IMG]

 

[Dougster]

I'm not sure all of the suggestions so far are realistic. I have a volvo estate TD 55/gallon and for work and just me a fiat cinquecento .85 (60 /gallon). Both these figures are for the open road, but just how often do we get there? I am almost always in traffic, and I live in Wiltshire.

The good thing about the fiat as far as Bushcraft is concerned is that it is so small, you can leave it in areas where farmers and landowners are not going to be affected by it. It's far less obtrusive if left on a verge or tucked into the edge of a large gateway when walking into an area. Someone actually said to me - 'That little thing won't take up much room in my yard - go on.'

But I always take my kids out in the Volvo - if you've ever been in a cinque in traffic and realise that the windows are at the same height as the bumper for a Land Cruiser or Warrior (both are my most hated vehicles) - anyone EVER seen one with mud? If I am hit hard by one of these japanese monsters with V6 3000 on the side we're dead, that's one of the reasons mummies buy them - they will probably all live through it. I live green, but the price of my kids is too deer for me to be THAT green.

My friend has a 90 - he gets fire wood in it, moves furniture for friends, gets more recycling for friends to the tip rather than out in the bin etc. He doesn't drive all that far. But when he does all the kids, their friends, the dogs etc are all tucked into it - negating the nead to take two cars as so often happens.

Another friend has a freelander - 8 years old, it's had a new head gasket, gear box and innumerable other smaller works. What happens to all the old bits? I'd love to know. He also has a dirty great roof box on the top as the boot is so small for his 3 kids. Extra fuel consumption there.

We are all going to leave an environmental footprint, I think we need to make it as small as possible, visit

http://www.carbonneutral.com/shop/index.asp i

f you can't do all that much. But change a little each day, getting there in the end is better than trying to compare yourself to someone who manages to live the 'good life'. How much difference would it be after a year if we all improved 1% per day? I try to live a cleaner greener life, but I don't think it's possible to have no effect on the earth.

Get a car that's safe, is comfortable and has enough room - an estate if you have a dog. Drive it evenly, accelerating and braking have a huge effect on your mpg. Driving like the idiots who 'soup' up their cars has the biggest effect on the environment and other people.

Any car is perfect for bushcraft if it does what you want, but just remember if you are in Bath or Wiltshire and someone in a little red fiat looks grumpy and refuses to let you out - it will be me, all high and mighty because your car has V6, warrior, landcruiser, RSI, GTI or a number bigger than 2.5 on the back. It may make you look big (in my rear view mirror), but it certainly won't make you look clever.

 

[Dougster]

Clean forgot - I drove up the M5 from the SW last w/e and there have to be about 6 or 700 warriors sitting in Avonmouth docks awaiting delivery. Can't wait to see them on the roads!!!!! How long before they build a plane to speed up the delivery of them to the end customer?

 

[JonnyP]

Well I think everyone should get a 4x4. I think they should stop maintaining the roads so a 4x4 would be necessary. That way everyone would be forced to drive slow, saving many lives, and what they save on the maintenance, they could put back into public transport, closed off bus lanes, trams and trains. Public footpaths could also be kept maintained and well fenced off and if you still want to drive a car, good luck to you.
I know its a silly idea, but I often think about it.............

 

[Dougster]

Well I think everyone should get a 4x4. I think they should stop maintaining the roads so a 4x4 would be necessary. That way everyone would be forced to drive slow, saving many lives, and what they save on the maintenance, they could put back into public transport, closed off bus lanes, trams and trains. Public footpaths could also be kept maintained and well fenced off and if you still want to drive a car, good luck to you.
I know its a silly idea, but I often think about it.............

Sounds like utopia to me, but that would involve a politician with guts raising taxes and spending it on public transport. Not sure we have anyone who will say they'll raise taxes any more.