Morris Minor Owners Club

The MMOC and other car clubs have a discount scheme with the RAC. I would like to request/propose that the MMOC dissociate with the RAC as I feel it is no longer appropriate based on this:

http://www.racfoundation.org/index.php? ... &Itemid=35

I suspect getting old cars off the road is more to help the RACs profit margins and the motor manufacturers rather than the interests of the motorist.

The carbon emissions quoted in the article (taken from a Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders report) do not take into account whole life emissions. I.e. emissions created in manufacturing and moving all the components to the car factory and showroom. Nor the life of the vehicle. That's how the Jeep is more environmentally friendly than the Prius. The manufacture of a simpler Jeep does less environmental harm and the Jeep needs replacing less often than the Prius.

There aren't that many clapped out 18 year old cars - they are either cherished classics or workhorses - either way looked after.

I could go on but anyway, how do I propose this to the committee?

You could request that this be discussed at the AGM, by writing to the committee.

It's a disgrace! Let's just keep changing our car every few years and turn the country into one big landfill site!

If people don't start buying cars soon, my industry will self destruct!
Never mind.

To make a reduction in your carbon footprint, try housesharing rather than car sharing - household energy and heating is responsible for far more carbon emmisions than cars...

As for scrapping old cars - where is the logic to scrap an old fuel efficient British car when Americans are still buying redneck trucks?

rayofleamington wrote: As for scrapping old cars - where is the logic to scrap an old fuel efficient British car when Americans are still buying redneck trucks?

Some of us are buying minors instead

The 'green' movement in Portland is huge, and the streets are clogged with new hybrids of one sort or another. Most owners of the new 'environmentally friendly' cars have a really hard time believing that my little 40 year old car much kinder to the environment than their brand new Prius.

All depends whether people believe what they read. The majority do what they want to do anyway (which is why there are still plenty of 4x4's around), to me most only buy classics because that's what they want, they love them and are prepared to get their hands dirty to keep them on the road. I don't know many that buy them for financial reasons and their green credentials alone..

I agree though... ditch the RAC if they no longer support the classic market!

I have now spoken to the RAC Foundation, and have been assured that any such scheme, if implemented, would be on a totally voluntary basis.

I have also been assured that if this has not been made clear, they will ensure that it is.

I hope that this will allay some of your concern.

Spot on Zack ... not only has the minor already more than covered the 'cost' of it's creation, but every single component on there is designed to be repaired a few times before it is replaced ... you can bet that every single part on the prius is designed to work for a max of 5 years, and then be thrown away (along with a bunch of non-broken ancillaries) and replaced with a completely new assembly.

In honesty it was the curves and the road tax that got me into minors, but now I've been maintaining one for a few years the recyleability of the whole machine delights me every time I refil my dampers, adjust the ride height etc.. even changing my oil filter (paper type) gives me the warm eco-fuzzies

There was not one mention of classic cars in the article. I think a major organisation such as the RAC should be more aware of what it is commiting to print. It is no good issueing apologies after the statement has been read by the masses.

Raise it at the AGM Mike

Ye it's always with the excuse of fuel economy!!! I still can't find many modern cars that can do better mpg than a Minor! they are more or less the same!!

Tell RAC to shut the %^&& up!

I agree, this is an idiotic article by the RAC which totally ignores the huge environmental & energy costs involved in making new cars.

I have draughted a resolution regarding this subject. If anyone is attending the AGM and would care to support the motion I will email them a copy. The resolution has to be submitted 28 days before the AGM so you have a few days to let me know.

i have a grand vitara, fiat panda multijet, and a MORRIS 1000, AND I DONT INTEND to get rid of any of them i do use the morris and fiat the most, as they are the most eco .as i understand it the herd of 200 milking cows very near me do more harm than cars , acording to local radio farming program they are trying to device away to get cows to break wind less, good look to them,,grandad

the discussion about cow's gas is amusing for the media folk but doesn't help any scientific debate. In theory the only carbon emmited by a cow is that captured by the grass it eats. This makes it carbon neutral - rather like burning wood for heating (as per Germany where they grow the wood, pelletise it and sell it for heating systems).

Cows only become a carbon contributor thanks to modern farming practises. If kept in heated barns 12 months of the year to increase milk production the energy is a contibuting factor. If/when they are given synthetic feed that's got mineral oil as a raw material, again they are adding additional carbon to the atmosphere.
Add to that the modern supermarket practises of transporting food and goods all round the world to save pennies, and things get worse.

So in short, anything that uses up fossil fuel is going to add to the carbon in the atmosphere - (and the biggest contributor is household heating and energy, not cars)
Anything that doesn't use fssil fuel (like a cow left outside most of the year eating grass, is carbon neutral)

As for the RAC asking the government to pay people to scrap old cars (including Morris Minors ) with a badly thought out arguement full of holes, they should stick to their day job ( breakdown recovery).
The sad thing is that top EU policy makers think the same way! Similar things have been suggested over the last year by the EU transport minister
Not one of these stupid suggestions has made any mention of fuel efficient old cars, but at least they have started to notice the massive trend towards fuel inefficient modern cars.
"public awareness" made no difference - so government tax hikes hit people in their pockets instead. Land Rover sales have crashed by 50% this year and may never recover. I like Land Rovers compared to some of the other disgusting Mum-V jeeps, but at least the Chelsea Tractor fashion parade blocking all the roads near the schools has become un-fashionable. Soon all the roads will be blocked with fuel efficient cars on the school run instead.

rayofleamington wrote:the discussion about cow's gas is amusing for the media folk but doesn't help any scientific debate. In theory the only carbon emmited by a cow is that captured by the grass it eats. This makes it carbon neutral - rather like burning wood for heating (as per Germany where they grow the wood, pelletise it and sell it for heating systems).

Cows only become a carbon contributor thanks to modern farming practises. If kept in heated barns to increase milk production the energy is a contibuting factor. If/when they are given synthetic feed that's got mineral oil as a raw material, again they are adding additional carbon to the atmosphere.
Add to that the modern supermarket practises of transporting food and goods all round the world to save pennies, and things get worse.

So in short, anything that uses up fossil fuel is going to add to the carbon in the atmosphere - (and the biggest contributor is household heating and energy, not cars)
Anything that doesn't use fssil fuel (like a cow left outside most of the year eating grass, is carbon neutral)

well they have just emptyd a very large slury tank and flooded several grass feilds must be an awfull lot of gas gone somewhere,,grandad

mike.perry wrote:There was not one mention of classic cars in the article. I think a major organisation such as the RAC should be more aware of what it is commiting to print. It is no good issueing apologies after the statement has been read by the masses.

One person's banger is another person's classic. There's also probably a fair number of vehicles over 18 years old just being used as intended. My daily driver which gets quite a harsh life is 17 years old 210000 miles and still going strong.

One could interpret the RAC's simplistic and biased philosophy like this:

Anyone that hasn't cared for and properly maintained their car such that it is no longer viable after 18 years can be rewarded for such environmental neglect with some money provided by the taxpayer.

mike.perry wrote: I have draughted a resolution regarding this subject. If anyone is attending the AGM and would care to support the motion I will email them a copy. The resolution has to be submitted 28 days before the AGM so you have a few days to let me know.

I'd like to read your proposal with a view to supporting it. I may not be able to make the AGM but could do so in writing if that's allowed

A sponsor who is attending the AGM has stepped forward. Thanks very much for your offer.

rayofleamington wrote:In theory the only carbon emmited by a cow is that captured by the grass it eats. This makes it carbon neutral

The problem with cattle is they give off large quantities of methane, which is is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Afterburners?