Jump to content

jetA1

Approved Member
  • Content Count

    1,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jetA1


  1. Me, around 14k per year, her around 4k per year; I'm semi retired my wife is a full time carer.  

     

    Both our mileages have increased  since moving to a semi rural location, there is no shopping or any service within walking distance, everything requires a car. Even then local shopping is poor and better shopping is 12 to 15 miles away where previously it was all on the doorstep. Public transport is virtually none existent so use of a car is essential.  


  2. On 22/11/2019 at 08:12, David 38 said:

    Sorry not understanding that. 

    Surely a fail is a fail and you might well be illegal to drive away.

    You can get a pass with comments like your got.

     

    In the very worst event if it had been put to the test a vehicle examiner would have got involved and would have found that the pads on the car were completely legal. I was stitched up. 


  3. 8 hours ago, hawkaye said:

     

    ..... Michelin tyres 4 years old, tread 4mm but got an advisory on tyre damage. "Next year will be a fail - shall I order some tyres for you?"....

     

     

    I've suffered the next worse step, a fail because "the brake pads won't make it another 12 months" . In the latest MOT regs there is a limit of 1.5mm on brake pad thickness, below this threshold it is a "do not drive failure". I had this on my wife's car but it was a matter of 'opinion' by the tester.

     

    The reality is that it is almost impossible to measure the brake pad thickness to a 0.5mm accuracy in the course of an MOT test. A failure was issued with the comment "they wont make it another 12 months". The reality was that when measured the minimum pad thickness was 3.2mm on any of the 4 pads. This was a blatant error by the tester, when I picked the car up they were most surprised that I did not immediately ask them to replace the pads; I can only presume they were trying to create work for themselves. 

     

    As I have a part time job at a motor factors I was able to obtain new pads and presented the car for retest within 24 hours, which it  passed. This was blatant job creation by the garage, an MOT test is all about condition of the car "at the time of test", failure on what 'may' happen in the future is just wrong. 

    • Like 2

  4. 2 hours ago, 664DaveS said:

     

     ... I saw an article in paper about a guy complaining his BMW I3 electric car has the same  high tax!

    With extras it was over £40k, well tough he didn't have to buy it!

    Might be electric but still uses the road! ... 

     

    I think I saw the same article, the owner failed to make the necessary inquiries before purchase,  the supplying garage was remiss in not fully explaining the impact of exceeding the £40k threshold, the car was an i3-Range Extender, so not a pure EV therefore does not benefit from the EV tax benefits, the journalism was dreadful because they quoted the situation with motor-homes completely ignoring the fact that VED rules have changed for motor-homes.

     

    I'm sure it is not the first time this mistake has been made and it won't be the last,  while the responsibility ultimately lies with the owner the supplying dealers could behave better,  but of course they're probably thinking about commission on sales and don't want to risk their deal.  

     

    I'm sure its a problem many people would like to be in a position to experience.  


  5. 2 hours ago, Squash said:

    Just as a light aside!

     ... Perhaps this is punishment for the Motorhome owners who stay well away from camp sites and park for free in ordinary car parks, on normal residential roads, on promenades, on beaches and the rest!...

     

     

    Now living on the south coast I recognize the idea of motorhomes   parking on car parks, promenades and nearby roads, but it is nothing to do with people holidaying, this is how some people live as an alternative to renting/buying bricks and mortar properties. 


  6. 1 hour ago, AJGalaxy2012 said:

    I have looked at the cost of base vehicles, I run 3 vans in my IT business all LWB High Roof Transits. I have seen converted transits on sale at around £50k, the base vehicle is around £20k so how on earth do they justify 30K to convert? Bailey can manufacture a much caravan than a converted transit for less than £25k go figure!

     

    Do they have  to justify it?  What the supplier has to do is produce a product which is perceived as desirable by the customer, it is the customer who has to justify the cost, after all they are spending the money. Isn't that the way it works with this type of niche low volume product? Actually isn't that the way it works with any product or service? 

     

    Within my scale of values there is no way I could value this level of spend, but if others want to indulge who am I to comment. Value is a function of the person spending, we all have different values, to each his own. 


  7. 1 hour ago, Black Grouse said:

     

    100 ml of Millers every 1,000 miles costs a fraction of the price differentioal for premium fuel

     

    A few years ago while I was gainfully employed and driving a company car (funded by BP :lol:) I did a long term comparison between supermarket, vs BP Ultimate vs supermarket plus Millers. I drove over 5k miles on each option. 

     

    There was no doubt that BP Ultimate gave a better mpg than a supermarket fuel., however the improved mpg did not cover the additional cost of buying the premium fuel. Supermarket fuel plus 'Millers' came in between supermarket and premium fuel,  Supermarket fuel never caused a problem but mpg was slightly lower than either premium or fuel with additive.  

     

    Having worked in the fuel distribution industry for 30 years my own results were exactly as I expected. 

     

    Because of the funding mechanism of my company car I spent many years on the road in the employment of an major oil company but buying all my fuel from supermarket filling stations, the company did not offer an incentive to but their own products. My fuel buying choice was entirely driven by cost and the major oil co (my employer) lost out on my fuel purchase and didn't give a monkeys.....  


  8. 15 hours ago, Black Grouse said:

     

     ......  The same applies to the big brands - in any one locality, all regular fuel come from the same storage tanks at the local distribution depot with brand-specific additives added at point of delivery to the filling station....

     

     

     

    I think you'll find that the only example of 'doping' at the point of delivery at the filling station is Costco.

     

    Other than that the distribution system up to and including the last point of bulk storage does indeed contain 'un-doped' fuel. The doping takes place as the fuel is loaded on to the tanker vehicle at the distribution depot. The equipment used to dope fuel allows for extremely precise control of the additives (as you would hope and expect) and records the activity providing trace-ability for ever vehicle compartment that is loaded.

     

     

     


  9. 10 hours ago, TedNewman said:

    I used WBAC - filled in their on-line form ''honestly'' and got an offer which they honoured when taking the car (KIA Sorento) to their depot and best bit was money in bank in a couple of days plus it was higher than the trade-in offered by the dealer for a brand new  Discovery 4.

     

    Sorry but if I was dealing with them I want the money then and there. I sold my caravan to a caravan equivalent of WBAC, (which I have posted about previously)  once the valuation had been agreed in person by the assessor who came to  tow the van away, the money transfer was made then and there, by virtue of online banking via my smartphone I saw the money was in my bank BEFORE the van was towed away. with today's technology I would not expect anything less, no need for "trust" let the facts speak for themselves. 


  10. 54 minutes ago, Suejh35 said:

    We have a 2007 Avondale dart. We have found that the walls are wet inside. Does anyone approx how much this would cost to repair. Not sure if it is worth being done with the age of the caravan 

    thanks 

     

    I would suggest that "wet on the inside" is not in itself a problem. Wet on the inside is surely what you would expect, what is important is what happens behind that layer ...

    • +1 1

  11. 6 hours ago, CommanderDave said:

    I have a rechargable PIR Led light that just hang off the bathroom door catch  knob which was purchased on eBay .

     

     

    Dave

     

    Sorry with the earlier mention of double entendre I could help but laugh ... :lol:


  12. Surely the physical security of plates is a minor detail, if someone wants clone your car then all they have to do is make a note of the number and get new plates made, which despite government efforts is a piece of cake to do and will be completely untraceable.  

     

    Certainly if your plates are actually stolen then you know immediately  what is going on and can report the matter straight away, but in reality your number can be stolen without you even knowing. 

     

    Regrettably any well informed 'crim' will know this and do it this way because it'll take longer for the number to be reported as stolen so there is more time to act with the stolen number.  

     

    Security of the physical plate is hardly the issue. 

    • +1 5

  13. 4 minutes ago, Black Grouse said:

     

    I learnt long ago that sitting in all circumstances was much tidier!

     

    OK ... I'll go much further .... the design of our 'en-suite' accommodates a roof purlin which is difficult to avoid when in the 'standing' position, for that reason I always adopt the 'sitting' position. as you say ... it is soooo much tidier :lol::lol:  


  14. 3 hours ago, bessacarr425 said:

    Too much information chaps ! :(

     

    Truth is this really is a conversations we need to have ... this IS life in the real world. I think that "realistic" contributions to this thread are most valuable. Time for the British "stiff upper lip" to be consigned to the bin ... this really is stuff we should Talk about.

     

    I'm happy to admit to being a sitter in minimal light situations. :lol:

     

     

    • +1 2

  15. 38 minutes ago, ancell said:

     

    Difference being that was in the 80s and now we have phones that weigh a few grams.

    Whereas in that time EVs that can match fuel range are as far away as they were when I was 10 that was 1957😂😂

     

    Come on now ... you know that simply is not true, EV range may not yet be comparable to equivalent ICE but to say that it has not improved is simply wrong. If you want to make a point then please use facts not outdated opinions. Energy density in EV batteries is certainly no match for fossil fuels, but to say that it hasn't improved since 1957 is simply untrue.  

    • Like 1

  16. 2 hours ago, Gordon said:

    If that is the case then I probably will never again drive in London. My family hail from Fulham and it's already a nightmare trying to avoid the congestion zone but this is going to push vehicles even further out of the capital and make the alternatives even more unusable than they are now! The days of the private motorcar I fear are numbered!

     

    The current state of affairs is that the ULEZ mirrors the congestion charge zone, move inside the zone with a none ULEZ compliant vehicle and it will cost £12.50 per day on top of the congestion charge. Where the congestion charge is applied at certain times the ULEZ charge is 24/7/365 with no exceptions.  

     

    Just to correct something I stated earlier the extension of the ULEZ will take place in October 2021 and not October 2020 as I mentioned earlier. However my comments about the number of people likely to be affected by this still stand, someone who has to commute into the extended ULEZ in a non compliant vehicle will have to pay £62.50 for a typical 5 day working week. The value of non compliant vehicles in the south east will take a real hit.  


  17. 4 hours ago, barrychas said:

    Avery good friend of mine ,who has been on the forefront of electric vehicle development , told me the other day that you could have a car that will do 500 miles easy between charges tomorrow , but it would cost 50 grand for a small city car and would be so heavy that the wheels would need to made of steel. He said that until battery tech makes s miraculous changes ...you can forget about the all electric future.

     

    Then search using the term 'solid state battery', this technology could well provide the answer to most of the current perceived problems. There is a bit of a standoff regarding investment at the moment but it is the most likely direction of travel. Looks like Toyota may be making a move in this direction.   


  18. 5 hours ago, Stevan said:

    Affordability, with or without grants, is an integral part of any real world comparison. 

     

    Grants in terms of Tesla pricing are a complete irrelevance, they are so expensive that grants are hardly even a drop in the ocean, we all know that, which precisely why I went on to mention the MG. The MG is in no way a tow car, but it is a car that starts to address the affordability issue, a small step in the right direction. As for an affordable pure EV tow car, then I think we'll be waiting a long time. 


  19. 1 hour ago, Stevan said:

    Clearly it did well because it was perceived by some as the technology of the future and the way to go!

    Maybe, after a few more years development,  a hybrid will come close to a straight IC powered car in a real world comparison. I will however, refrain from holding my breath

     

    No need for hybrid the pure EV Tesla Model X can tow 2.250kg and is available now  ... it will however cost a huge amount of money, over £100k  with the larger battery. I suspect we'll be waiting a long time for the economies of scale to reduce the price to anything that is vaguely affordable.  

     

    However, EV technology is improving and costs are reducing to the point where MG are offering a pure EV (ZS small SUV style) for £21,995 (after grants) which may start to turn a few more heads. I'm not for a minute suggesting it will be suitable for towing. But it is a practical pure EV at a more modest price than many more EV offerings. 

     

    Down here in the south east we have the introduction of the extended ULEZ to (not) look forward to in October next year. It will encompass the area bounded by the North & South Circular roads, that is going to effect a huge number of people, if I've got it right then, for diesels, only Euro6 will escape the charge. I've no doubt some people  maybe  be tempted to look at EV's as way avoid the new charge and try to future proof against further moves against ICE's 

    • Like 1

  20. On 22/09/2019 at 09:17, Black Grouse said:

     

    Road builders can't be expected to second-guess future increases in vehicle weight or vehicles reducing the number of tyres - politicians won't future proof major investments like road infrastructure because the taxpayer can't afford the extra at the time.

     

    Vehicle weights have not changed in a long time and vehicle/trailer wheel and tyre configurations may have changed but only to reduce the reduce the loading on the road. Most full weight trailers now run with a tri-axle set up on what are known as 'super wide singles' and tractor units have an additional 'third' axle ( which can be raised/lowered) to further reduce axle loading when running at maximum weight.  


  21. 1 hour ago, WispMan said:

    Bear in mind this thread is over 10 years old and posters may not see the replies now.

     

    That's a good point there are so many easily accessible databases these days where all the vehicle details can be found including full MOT history. However what has not changed is that vehicle owner/keeper details are not a matter of public record. 


  22. Car rather than caravan related, the rear tyres on Mrs JetA1's car (3k miles a year shopping trolley!) have been passing MOT's for years with no problem even though they were dated 2004  :o

     

    The car is 15 years old with 47k miles and these were original tyres (on the rear) I replaced them a few weeks ago.

     

    By the by still on original battery :o

     

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...