Pay by mile to replace fuel duty?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Sandtree said:

Emmia said:
Personally I think this is the best way - smaller, lighter vehicles pay less, larger heavier vehicles pay more...

You'd need to factor in battery weights for the EVs though vs equivalent ICE vehicles.

So highly polluting but light sports cars pay less than the efficient average family car? 

If you accept that you need to raise £Xbn and so the question is really just what behaviour you are trying to drive by how you divide up that amount amongst car owners... not really sure why you'd want to drive people to lighter vehicles? If you are trying to do some form of efficiency on EVs then surely doing a comparison of battery capacity and range is much more realistic than weight which penalises cheaper cars to sports cars with the same battery weight. 

I don't know why you're making 'sports cars' out to be environmental villains.  The reality is that small, light, aerodynamic cars can be highly efficient as less energy is required to accelerate, change direction and maintain top speed.  A Lotus Elise used as personal transport is kinder all round than a 4x4 serving the same purpose.  

Sandtree

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Sandtree said:

Emmia said:
Personally I think this is the best way - smaller, lighter vehicles pay less, larger heavier vehicles pay more...

You'd need to factor in battery weights for the EVs though vs equivalent ICE vehicles.

So highly polluting but light sports cars pay less than the efficient average family car? 

If you accept that you need to raise £Xbn and so the question is really just what behaviour you are trying to drive by how you divide up that amount amongst car owners... not really sure why you'd want to drive people to lighter vehicles? If you are trying to do some form of efficiency on EVs then surely doing a comparison of battery capacity and range is much more realistic than weight which penalises cheaper cars to sports cars with the same battery weight. 

I don't know why you're making 'sports cars' out to be environmental villains.  The reality is that small, light, aerodynamic cars can be highly efficient as less energy is required to accelerate, change direction and maintain top speed.  A Lotus Elise used as personal transport is kinder all round than a 4x4 serving the same purpose.  

Who said anything about small? or 4x4?

An Elise is what 30mpg and 230co2? 
Ford Focus Ecoboost pure petrol 50mpg and 121co2?

An Elise however is lighter and so under the proposal would pay less tax

4x4 would be worse, though no one mentioned them, but given the current driver of taxation is towards greener vehicles by using weight as a replacement metric you'd get an anomaly that cars like the Elise are taxed less than greener cars. 

Herzlos

Sandtree said:

  

Who said anything about small? or 4x4?

An Elise is what 30mpg and 230co2? 
Ford Focus Ecoboost pure petrol 50mpg and 121co2?

An Elise however is lighter and so under the proposal would pay less tax

4x4 would be worse, though no one mentioned them, but given the current driver of taxation is towards greener vehicles by using weight as a replacement metric you'd get an anomaly that cars like the Elise are taxed less than greener cars. 

The Elise is worse on test, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a much smaller difference in the real world.

Honest John real mpg puts the Ford Focus ecoboost at about 34 and 44mpg, and the Elise at 37-42mpg, so the Elise may actually use less fuel in some cases. That's also comparing a 2001 car with a 2018.

Anyway, most of us have cars far bigger than we need most of the time. My commute is full of largish cars with a single occupant.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Sandtree said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Sandtree said:

Emmia said:
Personally I think this is the best way - smaller, lighter vehicles pay less, larger heavier vehicles pay more...

You'd need to factor in battery weights for the EVs though vs equivalent ICE vehicles.

So highly polluting but light sports cars pay less than the efficient average family car? 

If you accept that you need to raise £Xbn and so the question is really just what behaviour you are trying to drive by how you divide up that amount amongst car owners... not really sure why you'd want to drive people to lighter vehicles? If you are trying to do some form of efficiency on EVs then surely doing a comparison of battery capacity and range is much more realistic than weight which penalises cheaper cars to sports cars with the same battery weight. 

I don't know why you're making 'sports cars' out to be environmental villains.  The reality is that small, light, aerodynamic cars can be highly efficient as less energy is required to accelerate, change direction and maintain top speed.  A Lotus Elise used as personal transport is kinder all round than a 4x4 serving the same purpose.  

Who said anything about small? or 4x4?

An Elise is what 30mpg and 230co2? 
Ford Focus Ecoboost pure petrol 50mpg and 121co2?

An Elise however is lighter and so under the proposal would pay less tax

4x4 would be worse, though no one mentioned them, but given the current driver of taxation is towards greener vehicles by using weight as a replacement metric you'd get an anomaly that cars like the Elise are taxed less than greener cars. 

@Herzlos has already made the point about real world mpg figures, however there is another point to consider.  The Lotus Elise gets fairly good fuel economy from a not particularly economical engine.  What if one were to take the 1.0 Ecoboost engine you mentioned and put it in an Elise chassis?  Better economy than the Focus and fewer emissions.  

My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with encouraging the development of small sporting cars powered by little engines.  They are no worse for the environment than the equivalent hatchback and can be rather better.

Grumpy_chap

Herzlos said:

Anyway, most of us have cars far bigger than we need most of the time. My commute is full of largish cars with a single occupant.

That is, in part, down to comfort.  Doing a long, regular motorway commute in a Mondeo is far more relaxing than a Ka.  A short, urban commute may well be easier and less stressful in a smaller vehicle.

There is also the factor that drivers require a car that meets every need all wrapped up in one package. 
I guess the ideal car would be a 2.5 m long Smart-car-esque for commuting with just one seat that is absolutely driver focused and supportive comfort comparable to an S-Class, which can morph Transformer-like into a comfortable mid-sized family hatchback for weekend trips to the supermarket, football club etc., then into a sporty-yet-comfortable convertible for nights out with a partner and finally into a full-sized AWD monster for the two week camping trip loaded up to the gunnels with everything including the kitchen sink once very August.
Until that true super-car comes along, we'll all be driving an inconvenient compromise for the most of the time....

Sandtree

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Sandtree said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Sandtree said:

Emmia said:
Personally I think this is the best way - smaller, lighter vehicles pay less, larger heavier vehicles pay more...

You'd need to factor in battery weights for the EVs though vs equivalent ICE vehicles.

So highly polluting but light sports cars pay less than the efficient average family car? 

If you accept that you need to raise £Xbn and so the question is really just what behaviour you are trying to drive by how you divide up that amount amongst car owners... not really sure why you'd want to drive people to lighter vehicles? If you are trying to do some form of efficiency on EVs then surely doing a comparison of battery capacity and range is much more realistic than weight which penalises cheaper cars to sports cars with the same battery weight. 

I don't know why you're making 'sports cars' out to be environmental villains.  The reality is that small, light, aerodynamic cars can be highly efficient as less energy is required to accelerate, change direction and maintain top speed.  A Lotus Elise used as personal transport is kinder all round than a 4x4 serving the same purpose.  

Who said anything about small? or 4x4?

An Elise is what 30mpg and 230co2? 
Ford Focus Ecoboost pure petrol 50mpg and 121co2?

An Elise however is lighter and so under the proposal would pay less tax

4x4 would be worse, though no one mentioned them, but given the current driver of taxation is towards greener vehicles by using weight as a replacement metric you'd get an anomaly that cars like the Elise are taxed less than greener cars. 

@Herzlos has already made the point about real world mpg figures, however there is another point to consider.  The Lotus Elise gets fairly good fuel economy from a not particularly economical engine.  What if one were to take the 1.0 Ecoboost engine you mentioned and put it in an Elise chassis?  Better economy than the Focus and fewer emissions.  

My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with encouraging the development of small sporting cars powered by little engines.  They are no worse for the environment than the equivalent hatchback and can be rather better.

Not sure the fixation on small, when mentioning light sports cars I was more considering larger vehicles where the manufacturer has spent a lot stripping out weight but still we can focus on small.

I personally think choice is a great thing and so if someone wants to develop small engined sports cars then let them do so... all I said was that weight was a poor mechanism for deciding the distribution of tax burden if the intention of the distribution was to encourage greener cars. To me the existing emissions tests for ICE cars seems appropriate and if you wanted something similar for EVs when we start charging them then a range to battery capacity ratio seems a reasonable mechanism to measure their efficiency. 

Grey_Critic

Back in the early 1980s my MD called me in and said he wanted to set up a car/van/truck hire operation. He was very excited at the idea and gave me the job of setting it up.

I then attended a course and the person delivering it suggested the way forward was for people not to buy big cars but small ones. OK for taking kids to school and commuting but they would take up less space and be more economic.

You would hire the big car for long journeys or family holidays and such.

The idea whilst good never took off. I do however wonder if it would not be worth revisiting the idea. A small SMART car or similar whilst hiring for long/family trips. Even small cars have a level of luxury light years ahead of the Fiesta 950 pop.

Do you need a Mondeo size EV for the commute? Certainly for the daily commute you don’treally need a car with a 400 mile range

Sandtree

Grey_Critic said:
The idea whilst good never took off. I do however wonder if it would not be worth revisiting the idea. A small SMART car or similar whilst hiring for long/family trips. 

But what is your idea as a business? 

As a lifestyle it makes sense... we did something very vaguely similar in that we had a 2 seater car that we used for day to day but hired a 5/7 seater when the need arrives.

The question is how you package it so that as a compete concept it works and people take both their daily and occasional hire car from you without there being a loophole that allows them to abuse the larger vehicle hire.