Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt, for Donating to support the site

Tax by weight?

Passion, instruction, buying, care, maintenance and more, any form of vehicle discussion is welcome here
DrFfybes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Tax by weight?

#608553

Postby DrFfybes » August 12th, 2023, 9:37 am

I was reading this from the BBC..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66481761
Fuel duty should be increased to fund pothole repairs, the group representing councils in England and Wales has said.


...and pondering that BEVs tend to be 30% heavier than the equivalent ICE and that the heavier vehicles do the damage. Coupled with the fact that 16% of new cars sold last month were BEVs, then it seems to me the ones being charged are less and less responsible for the damage (excluding HGV/PSV which have their own VED regime).

Which made me wonder whether the whole VED thing could have a simple makeover. Get rid of the caveats, the new car supplement, the expensive car supplement, and tax them simply on weight. It would even be trivial to backdate it to 1983 :)

Heavier vehicles use more resources to make, tend to cost more anyway (yes, I know there are exceptions, and cause more wear to the roads. Potentially their weight reduces efficiency (not weight per se as regen will recover much of the additional energy required to accelerate, but more that the heavier cars tend to be large cubes with bigger frontal area and more drag).

It would be simple to administer, no clever tricks to spoof any tests, no PHEVs with 15 mile range to sneak into 'hybrid' category, buy a heavier car, cause more damage, pay more to use the road. You could have a surcharge if the vehicle also had a ICE of some sort, just to please the green lobby, but other than that is appears wuite simple.

Now sure there will things I've overlooked over my morning muesli (don't worry, it is bacon butties for lunch) so come along folks, have a think, see what pros and cons there are with this.

Paul

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8231
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2919 times
Been thanked: 4025 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608563

Postby bungeejumper » August 12th, 2023, 10:08 am

DrFfybes wrote:...and pondering that BEVs tend to be 30% heavier than the equivalent ICE and that the heavier vehicles do the damage. Coupled with the fact that 16% of new cars sold last month were BEVs, then it seems to me the ones being charged are less and less responsible for the damage (excluding HGV/PSV which have their own VED regime).

The Telegraph recently tried to put some hard figures to this theory, and it didn't take them very long. If you've got a subscription (or know a workaround), it's at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... to%20roads. Alternatively, there's a summary at https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/06/ ... y-reveals/ .

Pedant warning: dodgy/lazy mathematical terminology. When the Telegraph says that "the average electric car puts 2.24 times more stress on roads than its petrol equivalent, and 1.95 more than diesel", it means 1.24 and 0.95 times more. But if a car that's 30% heavier causes 124% more wear on the roads than an average ICE, we can be sure we're onto some kind of an exponential curve. I wonder what the new EV Hummer (4.5 tonnes, 0-60 in three seconds) would cost to run if the road fund licence were properly costed?

And that's before we ask how all this impacts on tyres? No great surprise to find that EVs have twice the tyre failure rate because of wear. Still, I suppose it'll all work out OK once the economy's back in shape and we can re-lay all those roads and rebuild all those weak bridges in readiness for the new wave?

BJ
Last edited by bungeejumper on August 12th, 2023, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2609 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608568

Postby XFool » August 12th, 2023, 10:12 am

...Perhaps similar thinking could solve the "obesity crisis"?

Tedx
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2079
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 10:59 am
Has thanked: 1853 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608569

Postby Tedx » August 12th, 2023, 10:15 am

DrFfybes wrote:I was reading this from the BBC..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66481761
Fuel duty should be increased to fund pothole repairs, the group representing councils in England and Wales has said.


...and pondering that BEVs tend to be 30% heavier than the equivalent ICE and that the heavier vehicles do the damage. Coupled with the fact that 16% of new cars sold last month were BEVs, then it seems to me the ones being charged are less and less responsible for the damage (excluding HGV/PSV which have their own VED regime).

Which made me wonder whether the whole VED thing could have a simple makeover. Get rid of the caveats, the new car supplement, the expensive car supplement, and tax them simply on weight. It would even be trivial to backdate it to 1983 :)

Heavier vehicles use more resources to make, tend to cost more anyway (yes, I know there are exceptions, and cause more wear to the roads. Potentially their weight reduces efficiency (not weight per se as regen will recover much of the additional energy required to accelerate, but more that the heavier cars tend to be large cubes with bigger frontal area and more drag).

It would be simple to administer, no clever tricks to spoof any tests, no PHEVs with 15 mile range to sneak into 'hybrid' category, buy a heavier car, cause more damage, pay more to use the road. You could have a surcharge if the vehicle also had a ICE of some sort, just to please the green lobby, but other than that is appears wuite simple.

Now sure there will things I've overlooked over my morning muesli (don't worry, it is bacon butties for lunch) so come along folks, have a think, see what pros and cons there are with this.

Paul


A 2 stroke engine in a lightweight carbon fibre chassis....?

Now yer talkin'...

Incidentally, a YouTube channel called Fortnine recently covered why 2 strokes were killed off by the bike industry.

They said it was emissions.....but really it was to reap the eye wateringly expensive serving costs of yer typical 16 valve, multi cylinder miniaturized motor.

Urbandreamer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3241
Joined: December 7th, 2016, 9:09 pm
Has thanked: 365 times
Been thanked: 1070 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608580

Postby Urbandreamer » August 12th, 2023, 10:49 am

Tedx wrote:A 2 stroke engine in a lightweight carbon fibre chassis....?

Now yer talkin'...

Incidentally, a YouTube channel called Fortnine recently covered why 2 strokes were killed off by the bike industry.

They said it was emissions.....but really it was to reap the eye wateringly expensive serving costs of yer typical 16 valve, multi cylinder miniaturized motor.


I'd be very careful about what you believe from the internet. Always apply some logic.

Lightweight two strokes rely upon crank case compression. This means that lubricating oil from the crank will pass through the engine and likely not be burnt.

Here is an animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLE8G3pC0k

Hence any regulation reducing allowed hydrocarbon emissions may make it difficult to fit such engines.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/a ... torcycles/
This is mainly because 2T engine design allows some of the unburnt fuel/oil mixture to pass direct into the exhaust, producing high HC and PM emissions.


Now as I said, this is a direct result of using the crank case to provide air compression. So does anyone build two strokes that don't work that way. Well yes they do. Here is a video of one, the air cycle being shown from 4:27.

They are, and can not be, simple or lightweight.
Last edited by Urbandreamer on August 12th, 2023, 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5902
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4252 times
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608581

Postby 88V8 » August 12th, 2023, 10:50 am

DrFfybes wrote:I was reading this from the BBC.....tax them simply on weight.

Yes, or better still a combination of weight and footprint given that modern cars are not only too heavy but also too large.

XFool wrote:...Perhaps similar thinking could solve the "obesity crisis"?

As this is the Transport board I'll wheel out my pet scheme for weighing in air passengers along with their luggage and applying a hefty surcharge to anyone with a BMI exceeding, say, 25.
Or should that be Hefties surcharge... :)

V8

JohnB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2516
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 703 times
Been thanked: 1013 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608587

Postby JohnB » August 12th, 2023, 11:19 am

One claim is that road wear is proportional to the 4th power of the axle loading, but that's clearly not the whole story as pothole erosion is related to the number of times the side of the pothole is struck. But with such a steep exponential, wear depends a lot on how many passengers or luggage is carried. You can go too far in apportioning blame!

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8231
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2919 times
Been thanked: 4025 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608598

Postby bungeejumper » August 12th, 2023, 12:15 pm

88V8 wrote:As this is the Transport board I'll wheel out my pet scheme for weighing in air passengers along with their luggage and applying a hefty surcharge to anyone with a BMI exceeding, say, 25.
Or should that be Hefties surcharge... :)

As it's a quiet Saturday I'll take gentle issue with that idea. As we know, BMI is a cross-calculation between body weight and height. And neither the roads nor the airlines could give a stuff about how tall their users are - it's the weight, and only the weight, that matters.

And another thing. If we used BMI, we'd be allowing six foot sixers to be much heavier than five foot sixers, which would be a pointless sort of discrimination from a passenger-transport point of view. Admittedly, things might be different on RyanAir, where the shorter customers could be packed into the overhead lockers, just as long as the higher-level weight distribution in the fuselage didn't tip the plane over. ;)

Nurse, is it time for my medication?

BJ

Gerry557
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2129
Joined: September 2nd, 2019, 10:23 am
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608625

Postby Gerry557 » August 12th, 2023, 2:13 pm

Maybe if they built cars that fit insidr an average uk garage.........

Opps they are called bicycles :D

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 8014
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 3666 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608632

Postby swill453 » August 12th, 2023, 2:48 pm

88V8 wrote:
DrFfybes wrote:I was reading this from the BBC.....tax them simply on weight.

Yes, or better still a combination of weight and footprint given that modern cars are not only too heavy but also too large.

Yes, someone on Twitter posted a picture of an old Jaguar, which in its day was a "big" car, next to a Tesla.

Image
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1689166281528729600

Scott.

Tedx
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2079
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 10:59 am
Has thanked: 1853 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608647

Postby Tedx » August 12th, 2023, 4:18 pm

swill453 wrote:
88V8 wrote:Yes, or better still a combination of weight and footprint given that modern cars are not only too heavy but also too large.

Yes, someone on Twitter posted a picture of an old Jaguar, which in its day was a "big" car, next to a Tesla.

Image
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1689166281528729600

Scott.


'Green' option my ass eh?

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4891
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 620 times
Been thanked: 2725 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608652

Postby scrumpyjack » August 12th, 2023, 4:56 pm

But electric cars have much wider tyres to distribute the weight.

Presumably the weight of the ICE engine should be that when the tank is full? A BEV car weighs the same fully charged and empty!

mark88man
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 236
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 11:58 am
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608653

Postby mark88man » August 12th, 2023, 5:06 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:But electric cars have much wider tyres to distribute the weight.

Presumably the weight of the ICE engine should be that when the tank is full? A BEV car weighs the same fully charged and empty!


My emphasis in quote - but not quite true - E=mc^2 therefore an empty battery is E/(c^2) lighter at rest.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10535
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3677 times
Been thanked: 5323 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608657

Postby Arborbridge » August 12th, 2023, 5:14 pm

Tangential comment: why can't they just mend the potholes properly?
It seems that they shove some tarmac in without properly preparing the ground or finishing off the job, for around our way the same potholes reappear within weeks and need mending again. They are not even flat when they've finished filling them, so the erosion just starts all over again. In the spring, fair enough they were running to catch up, but now with months of good weather, there is no excuse.

Expediency reigns! If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well - an adage our highways people seem to have forgotten.

As regards tax and EVs - IO thought the idea was to encourage people to buy them as they were a less pollutive option, so why would any government trying to do that do the opposite of encouraging them?

Interestingly, my VED charge on an EV come 2025 will be higher than any ICE I have owned in the past 20 years. On my diesel, I'm paying £20 pa yet it is more highly polluting, so they say.


Arb.

DrFfybes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608658

Postby DrFfybes » August 12th, 2023, 5:49 pm

Tedx wrote:Incidentally, a YouTube channel called Fortnine recently covered why 2 strokes were killed off by the bike industry.

They said it was emissions.....but really it was to reap the eye wateringly expensive serving costs of yer typical 16 valve, multi cylinder miniaturized motor.


They're talking rubbish.

Firstly, the manufacturers don't really care about the service side of their business, they're in it to shift units. Secondly 2 strokes were still available in other markets long after we lost them. And thirdly, as someone who has owned a reasonable number of 2 and 4 stroke bikes, I can tell you that the 4 strokes need a LOT less maintenance over the 60k+ I put on most of them than any of the 2 strokes. Sure you need to spend a few hours checking valve clearances every 30,000 miles, but that is no worse than a complete rebuild most 2 strokes seemed to need by then.

Paul

Tedx
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2079
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 10:59 am
Has thanked: 1853 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608665

Postby Tedx » August 12th, 2023, 6:17 pm

Whatever. I still mourn the passing of the 2 stroke motorcycle. :(

DrFfybes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608667

Postby DrFfybes » August 12th, 2023, 6:30 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:But electric cars have much wider tyres to distribute the weight.

Presumably the weight of the ICE engine should be that when the tank is full? A BEV car weighs the same fully charged and empty!


Tyre width doesn't reduce the wear on the road, and even a full tank is only circa 60kg for most large sedan cars, less than a passenger, and a lot less than a battery. Volts do weigh something, just not very much :)

Tedx wrote:Whatever. I still mourn the passing of the 2 stroke motorcycle. :(


I do miss the smell, especially at a racetrack, although I probably wouldn't feel the same had I grown up in Delhi :).

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 8014
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 3666 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608668

Postby swill453 » August 12th, 2023, 6:31 pm

Tedx wrote:Whatever. I still mourn the passing of the 2 stroke motorcycle. :(

Yeah, the Yamaha FS1E was much cooler than the Honda SS50.

Scott.

DrFfybes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608669

Postby DrFfybes » August 12th, 2023, 6:34 pm

swill453 wrote:
88V8 wrote:Yes, someone on Twitter posted a picture of an old Jaguar, which in its day was a "big" car, next to a Tesla.

Image

Scott.


That's a Daimler Double six :)

Tedx
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2079
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 10:59 am
Has thanked: 1853 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: Tax by weight?

#608673

Postby Tedx » August 12th, 2023, 6:50 pm

swill453 wrote:
Tedx wrote:Whatever. I still mourn the passing of the 2 stroke motorcycle. :(

Yeah, the Yamaha FS1E was much cooler than the Honda SS50.

Scott.


Similarly, Yamaha RD250LC v Honda Superdream <shudder>.

and I owned both. The Dream was reliable though....


Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Moosehoosenew and 5 guests