Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

The Hummer of Charnwood. Images of Canberra

By johnboy 29 April 2011 32

Charnwood Hummer

Owen has sent this in with the following note:

Photograph taken at the back of the Charnwood shops, and on the back of the vehicle are the words, “3.9 tonnes of pure muscle”

Google tells me ( while looking for the price of the beast ) they went out of production last year. This fellow is in first class condition.

Got an image of Canberra you want to share with the world? Email it to images@the-riotact.com .

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
The Hummer of Charnwood. Images of Canberra
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Innovation 7:26 pm 02 May 11

Breda and KB1971

I’m sorry but for some unknown reason I regularly lose my RiotACT posts into the ether. Hence I type my comments elsewhere and cut and paste until I can see that they are awaiting moderation. Unfortunately, this time, I forgot on the last attempt to check for subsequent posts and missed KB1971’s #27 post.

I agree that my comment that Hummer’s should be taxed off the road was flippant but no more so than a suggestion that I support everyone driving a soviet era unsafe, inefficient and environmentally unfriendly Trabant. I do support existing and possibly future financial incentives and regulation (positive or negative) for increasingly environmentally friendly vehicles and to use existing vehicles more efficiently and safely.

Actually, I appreciate the mechanics and appearance of vehicles such as Ferraris and Hummers and I LOVE big bore thumping but inefficient motorbikes. However, I may never own one as I, personally, see little point in owning a vehicle that can do more than 110km/h, get to the next set of traffic lights a few seconds quicker or is only used for four wheel driving or towing a handful of times a year. Obviously semis etc are used for what they were designed (and hopefully cover the real economic on road costs) otherwise business owners would look for cheaper options.

My comment about shared ownership of purpose built and/or environmentally efficient vehicles is not a socialist view or borne out of guilt. It’s an alternative idea for people who want the best of both worlds but possibly can’t afford or financially justify it (for example, some apartment complexes overseas own vehicles for communal use). Another less likely option some people might support is a rego system based on distance travelled and, more proportionately, weight, which might even suit sole owners of multiple vehicles or some car enthusiasts. For example, I’m sure there are many people who go four wheel driving every weekend but yet would love to have a cost effective option to drive a more efficient weekday car.

I’m not sure how my views are invasive. Is it just because they differ from yours? Perhaps you are objecting to existing and continually increasing fuel taxes and rego and insurance disincentives based on power and weight and you are just looking for somewhere to vent. Alternatively, perhaps you actually have an environmental conscience and feel a, albeit guilty, need to justify your personal choices.

eily 8:22 am 02 May 11

Tooks said :

Deref said :

Tooks said :

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

How about the B and D words?

Yeah, them too 🙂

Each to their own, but they are the ultimate ‘look at me’ vehicles.

Yeah, bit like a trophy wife. Lovely to look at; wouldn’t want to own one.

Deref 6:57 am 02 May 11

Tooks said :

Deref said :

Tooks said :

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

How about the B and D words?

Yeah, them too 🙂

Each to their own, but they are the ultimate ‘look at me’ vehicles.

It works! Whenever I see one I look at it and think “what a dickhead”.

breda 11:27 pm 01 May 11

Innovation, you have completely missed the point. As a PP said, the same comments could be made about high end sports or luxury cars – do you think people should be financially penalised (more than they already are) for owning them as well? Why is it that everyone should conform to some external, puritanical standard about what they ‘need’ and how they choose to spend their own money?

Personally, I think that Hummers are rubbish and would never buy one. But, there are some mighty ‘inappropriate’ (by your standards) luxury cars that are very appealing to me, including both large, heavy and thirsty limousines and fantastically extravagant sports cars. Thank goodness we still live in a free country, where people with your intrusive and authoritarian views on personal consumption can only fulminate on the sidelines. Honestly, it sounds as if you’d have us all in Trabants if you had your wish.

And, what is it with the shared ownership thing? Is it a form of socialism, or just guilt about prosperity? Almost no-one who can afford to own something in their own right chooses to share ownership with someone else – other than with a spouse or family member. Human nature and the practicalities of life ensure that this is not going to change in the forseeable future.

Innovation 1:44 pm 01 May 11

Because of the comments on this thread I looked up some stats for the hummer H2. I’m happy to be corrected but basic stats seem to be about 2.9 tonnes weight, 3.6 tonnes towing capacity (impressive and maybe the origins for the claimed 3.9 tonnes of pure muscle claim), up to 8 seats, 10 square meter footprint, a claimed but untested 22 litres per 100km (although there were several sites that suggested fuel consumption was considerably more) and cost about 140k.

#18 Breda – I don’t care how people spend their money except when it adversely affects others. If the vehicle is regularly used to its limits and more efficient vehicles won’t suffice then good luck to them. It’s a bit sad though when they are used for four wheel driving or tow a significant weight once or twice a year and are more regularly used for commuting or grocery shopping. My suggestions such as for shared ownership of these vehicles and/or a second fuel efficient vehicle are just options to better use these vehicles for what they are designed. For example people already share ownership of prop planes and boats etc, why not cars. Also, when I need a four wheel drive, towing vehicle or people mover a few times a year I either hire them or borrow a friend’s and reimburse them, generously, for costs.

Sometimes financial incentives or regulation are necessary to encourage efficient use (eg despite increasing costs of energy would people still build energy hungry homes if there was no EER scheme?). Also, isn’t the fuel tax a federal tax? How much do us road users see of that. And I’m not sure whether the marginal increased rego levy in the ACT covers the true cost on the road of wider lanes, carparks, more damage to the road from increased weight, increased congestion (ie a 10 metre footprint is a lot more than that of a small car) and (although they are four wheel drive and possibly generally safer than some cars) the likely increased risk/cost of injury to third party persons compared to a smaller lighter car.

Maybe you haven’t noticed but these types of cars are being regulated/taxed off the roads but it is taking time. Changes to emissions standards, smaller car parks and higher rego costs and taxes are all being gradually introduced and increased.

#22 dvaey – I agree that Hummers are probably a very safe vehicle assuming that all other things are equal (eg, the driver’s ability and ego are equivalent to that of a driver in a small car), however once things cut loose I suspect that the weight of the Hummer can do a lot more damage to other people/property than, for example, a WRX. I was suggesting a slower speed limit though as, I may be wrong, but I thought that such a heavy vehicle would damage the road less at slower speeds. It would also discourage people from driving them purely for ego.

KB1971 12:15 pm 01 May 11

Innovation said :

kb1971 – so the rego is even less (ie somewhere between $900 and a grand).

I didn’t write that they should be “outlawed”. I wrote that they should be “taxed off the road”. For example, if the States and Territories could get their act together, vehicles could be better proportionately taxed based on a weight/fuel consumption vs distance travelled basis, meaning these things would be driven only as needed. It would also create other cost effective incentives such as sharing car ownership, owning second fuel efficient (cheaply taxed) vehicles, increased public transport useage, a more competitve market for hiring out larger vehicles etc. Of course some concessions might be required for some businesses and farmers etc that have a genuine need for “approved” large but fuel efficient vehicles and for rural communities who might get by with a small car but travel large distances.

Also, just brainstorming but, if these larger and/or inefficient vehicles had a marginally lower speed limit (to partly offset the higher fuel consumption compared to a smaller car) this might discourage people from driving them other than when needed or purely for ego purposes.

I don’t know about the fuel efficiency of the hummer, but I suspect that it has the aerodynamics of a house brick and that there are more efficient vehicles that suit whatever purpose many owners want them for (unless it is just owned for ego).

Last, I agree that electric vehicles are not very practical or cost effective for most people – yet. But there are plenty of cost effective small fuel efficient cars that suit the majority of most car trips for most people.

Outlawed – Taxed out of existence, is there much difference? You are basically saying the same thing.

Also this whole 4WD’s are inefficent thing is a fallacy to a certain dagree. The Hummer has a petrol powered 6lt enging in a that weighs over two tonnes, so does the Toyota Landcruiser (4.5lt though) & yes these two vehicle use more fuel than say a Honda Jazz but I have Nissan Pathfinder diesel that uses less fuel than my Holden Commodore V6.

The Commodore is no slouch in the economy department only using 11l/100 around town, the Pathy is currently using 9-10 depending on how its driven.

As far as safety is concerned, it has 6 airbags, traction control, AWD & ESC. Ok, I hit a smaller car it will be worse off but if a Kenworth hits me I’m toast too, thats just a fact of life on our roads.

Also the Hummer H2 is not the evil demon you are making it out to be, there are really only a handful in the country (probably about 100, 1millione vehicles were sold in OZ last year) as the purchase cost of them plus the running costs places them in the enthusiast category of vehicle. No different to things such as Ferrari’s, Lambo’s, Corvettes & such. Should they be taxed out of existence too?

He has a choice to own such a vehicle & good on him if he can afford it.

BTW, the everage Kenworth with two trailers on it cruising down the Hume is only getting 2km/litre, think about that.

KB1971 11:59 am 01 May 11

Tooks said :

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

Wonderful?

Tooks 11:55 am 01 May 11

Deref said :

Tooks said :

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

How about the B and D words?

Yeah, them too 🙂

Each to their own, but they are the ultimate ‘look at me’ vehicles.

Deref 11:46 am 01 May 11

Tooks said :

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

How about the B and D words?

Tooks 11:34 am 01 May 11

One word comes to mind whenever I see a Hummer driving around. It starts with ‘W’.

dvaey 10:12 am 01 May 11

Innovation said :

Also, just brainstorming but, if these larger and/or inefficient vehicles had a marginally lower speed limit (to partly offset the higher fuel consumption compared to a smaller car) this might discourage people from driving them other than when needed or purely for ego purposes.

Actually, if you get a wide/long-wheel base vehicle, with power transmitted to all 4 wheels, youre generally able to handle existing speeds safer than most 2 wheel drive vehicles. Just ask any WRX driver if they think the AWD makes a difference.

georgesgenitals said :

Personally I’ve nvere understood the 4WD/SUV thing. They’re slow, handle like crap and use too much fuel. Unless you actually have a need for regular offroad use, they’re a wank.

If you live in the city and always drive in asphalt roads, I agree theyre a complete waste. Personally, I have a caravan that often comes off-road with me, and while I wouldnt be buying a hummer, you wouldnt catch me in anything less than a large/stable 4WD/SUV. (BTW, Im fairly sure SUV is the USA term). Having said that, I also have a little hatchback for the ‘living in the city and driving on asphalt roads’.. Theres nothing inherently wrong with a large 4WD car, the same way you might look at a big rigid truck and say thats a slow/wasteful way to travel, but horses for courses.

Postalgeek 9:12 am 01 May 11

The highest classification of wankerism is reserved for owners of 4WD/SUVs with low profile tyres, and it looks like we might have a candidate.

But you’ve got to laugh – I suspect the driver is as unlikely to mount a curb as a chick using that vehicle. A mechanic’s creeper has more ground clearance.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site