A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J     K     L     M     N     O     P     Q     R     S     T     U     V     W     X     Y     Z


  F7     F9




High-roofers for non-commercial use

If you take a look at cities like e.g., New York, You can well imagine that building upwards does make sense. Should there be any property available at all, then only for exorbitant square-meter prices. In Japan at the moment, they are calculating even smaller plots.

With prices starting at €5000 for a square meter of living space, building upwards would also be imaginable on posh islands like Sylt. However there, high-rise buildings are not welcome at all because they would ruin the landscape. Thatched roof cottages are mostly in demand there.

Now, what about high-roofers in the field of motor cars? Certainly, the haulage-trade exploits the 4-meter limit sensibly. Indeed, what about the smaller vans? No, not for commercial users, how much sense do these vehicles make for private people? We would like to examine this a little closer.

Our definition is a little controverse as it is, it states that a vehicle is not built higher so that the seating arrangement can be higher. This means that there is not more space as far as the length is concerned, there is only more loading space over our heads, although this may be a bit difficult to imagine.

Who wants to sit right back on the rear axle anyway?

We're not talking about the unusual cases of private people, who move house just about every week, they would certainly consider a high-roof station-wagon to be very useful. Although, a washing machine can also be transported turned on it's side, because it would be wiser to drain off all the water beforehand anyway.

Odds and ends above the windscreen can easily become a danger.

Who needs a vehicle like this? Have you ever tried, assuming you've had access to such a vehicle in the first place, to load it up to the roof?, with placing all the numbered pieces of luggage behind the car and using a foor-plan? Have you thought about and considered the securing of the load against it shifting forwards? Actually, quite impossible, or are we missing something?

Apart from the upward shifting of the center of gravity, it is questionable whether, under these conditions, the ESP can usefully intervene or whether it has to intervene constantly. Perhaps it would be wiser, to rather make a second trip, indeed then, with a lower vehicle from the word go. What is the overhead space really good for?, for the stowage of objects above the windscreen?, I for one doubt it.

Diesel would be more economical, but it's seldom worth the higher price.

On top of all that, these things are ugly. No designer in the world could could create any sort of attractive shape for them because their shape is predetermined, short and high, even in the beginning, with the Smart, it was a nightmare, at least there they could could argue a certain amount of sensible legitimacy. In addition, the designer must also pay attention to the company-identity aspect. The gigantic car must have exactly the same appearance as the smaller models.

To cap the irony, there is also a railing on the roof for the purpose of attaching a roof-box. How does one get up there, without an additional lift? Even skyscrapers only have an aerial on the roof. Where would we be if we had to have a trailer with additional roof-boxes as well?

On top of all these disadvantages, the first of these vehicles were fitted with super dynamic 1,2 liter engines, of course without turbo-charging. It was thought that whoever transported so much volume using so little cubic capacity, must really be saving fuel. They thought wrongly, because on the contrary, the little engines had to force at least a half a square meter more through the wind by running at higher revs.

One could then determine, just how much a tiny engine could consume. In the meantime, one must praise the constructors for the way they've managed to reduce the consumption of these giants. Naturally their efforts were not sufficient to compare the consumption with that of the economical compact- or estate car class.

The higher the roof is, the further out the tail-gate swings outwards.

So, before one binds oneself for a longer period, one should consider the facts very carefully because the resale value, as opposed to the loading volume, is rather limited. Does one really need that much head- room? Has one perhaps allowed oneself to be blinded by the fashionable expression 'family friendly'? Remember this: A good sales person will very seldom sell you only as much as you really need. 08/12