 |
| Two-tonne monsters roam the streets |
In 30 years my children will go to dinner-parties in their lightweight, aluminium-bodied, fuel cell-powered paragons of environmental good citizenship and recall with incredulity the two-tonne monsters that used to roam the city streets. And they will regard those who drove them as every bit as irresponsible as we do now those from our parents' generation who drove home after a good party.
But it's not so clear for us, forced as we are to live in an era of automotive confusion. The traditional car classes are collapsing and spaces between them being are being filled with an ever increasing array of crossover product. We have MPVs that don't carry any more people than hatchbacks and estates that are useless at carrying loads. We have supercars that are never driven fast and convertibles that are at their best with the roof up. It's hardly a wonder we have no problem accepting as normal the concept of an off-roader that can't be used off-road.
What is perhaps surprising is that we so readily accept all the other limitations that are the unavoidable consequences of large SUV ownership.
Take two cars: one a typical large five-seat SUV like any mentioned above; the other a conventional upmarket estate costing the same and carrying the same number of people. The biggest difference between them is that the SUV will be a lot higher off the ground and weigh rather more. This burdens the SUV with three specific problems: weight, a high centre of gravity and compromised aerodynamics. What I am about to say is not opinion, it is incontrovertible, mathematical fact.
 |
| A higher driving position means a higher centre of gravity |
Compared to our conventional estate, the SUV will use more fuel yet offer less performance. It will emit more CO2 and therefore hit company car drivers harder. It will have less grip, be less agile and require more braking effort to stop. In addition to this, it is also highly likely that it will be less refined and have a less comfortable ride.
|
