A lot of people quote this book as really useful. I use this groups
archive together with a copy of the On-Site Guide and get on just fine.

However I would like a copy of this and Amazon reviews back up its good
standing. If it's so good why is it out of print?

Anyone have any insider info? Is it just being updated for the
harmonised wiring schemes?

Cheers.

"EC" wrote:
A lot of people quote this book as really useful. I use this groups
archive together with a copy of the On-Site Guide and get on just fine.

However I would like a copy of this and Amazon reviews back up its good
standing. If it's so good why is it out of print?

Anyone have any insider info? Is it just being updated for the
harmonised wiring schemes?

Cheers.


It's always been quite hard to get - I gave Which Books a ring
and they found some lying around. You could see if there are
any second-hand copies on amazon/ebay/abebooks maybe?

Al

I could do but I really like that crisp, new,
first-to-get-me-hands-on-it feel that a new book has.

Im guessing they must be updating it, why take a good seller of the
shelves?

EC wrote:
A lot of people quote this book as really useful. I use this groups
archive together with a copy of the On-Site Guide and get on just
fine.

I bought a copy through their website just two/three weeks ago. I'm
wiring a new kitchen and the level of detail, for me, was just about
right. I'd thoroughly recommend it.

There's a insert at the front which I think is about Part P and I can't
recall what it said about the harmonised wiring colours. I guess it
could be getting reprinted.

Or a more sinister/tongue in cheek note, perhaps they feel that with
Part P in force they can't give out some of the advice to DIYers that
they did prevoiusly and are quietly withdrawing it, or only selling it
to those of us lucky enough to live north of the border.

Order it and see what happens, dunno if it's dearer than on Amazon but
at least all the profits are going to the publishers (Which)

https://shop.which.net/shop/home/wiring.shtml

OK, cheers will give it a shot.

Excellent, just ordered a copy .

All the other online bookshops and high streets can't get it?

In message .com, EC
writes
Excellent, just ordered a copy .

All the other online bookshops and high streets can't get it?

According to Bookbrain http://www.bookbrain.co.uk it's listed as being
reprinted. seeing as the cable colours are changing and the introduction
of Part P it'd be surprise if they didn't

I guess the Which shop has just got the remaining stock.
--
Chris French, Leeds

"urchaidh" wrote in message
oups.com...


Order it and see what happens, dunno if it's dearer than on Amazon but
at least all the profits are going to the publishers (Which)

https://shop.which.net/shop/home/wiring.shtml


I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of the
bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know what they said
on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I suspect they encouraged it.

James

Huge wrote:

"James" writes:
I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of the
bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know what they
said
on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I suspect they encouraged
it.

They would have said whatever they were paid to. As they always do.

Paid by whom?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Huge wrote:

I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of the
bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know what they
said
on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I suspect they encouraged
it.

They would have said whatever they were paid to. As they always do.

Paid by whom?

Good Lord. You don't actually *trust* "Which", do you?

I've no reason to suppose Which reports are fraudulent.
Do you?


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of
the bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know
what they said on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I
suspect they encouraged it.

They would have said whatever they were paid to. As they always do.

Paid by whom?

Good Lord. You don't actually *trust* "Which", do you?

More so than mags which take advertising. And in general, for things I
don't much care about, like domestic appliances, etc. They're aimed at the
middle ground - not the enthusiast. Hence enthusiasts always disagree with
them if their favourite camera etc isn't chosen as a best buy. But then
enthusiasts will disagree among themselves about this too.

I can't remember them having a view on Part P, though. But they've
certainly campaigned for and succeeded in getting some worthwhile consumer
protection legislation.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Huge wrote:

I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of the
bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know what they
said
on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I suspect they encouraged
it.

They would have said whatever they were paid to. As they always do.

Paid by whom?

Good Lord. You don't actually *trust* "Which", do you?

I've no reason to suppose Which reports are fraudulent.
Do you?

That's not the issue. It's more that, for products that I do know
something about, the advice in 'Which?' often looks superficial, dubious
or downright misleading. This doesn't inspire confidence in their advice
about things I *don't* know much about.

Another example was the recent review of cordless drills, which the
'Best Buy' selection failed to make the obvious distinctions between the
different levels of performance you might need, and the price you should
therefore expect to pay.


--
Ian White

In article ,
Ian White wrote:
Another example was the recent review of cordless drills, which the
'Best Buy' selection failed to make the obvious distinctions between the
different levels of performance you might need, and the price you should
therefore expect to pay.

But were they miles out in their recommendations? Thing is it's unlikely
you've tested them all personally, so go by make only. And this isn't such
a good idea, - apart at perhaps the very top end.

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I stopped reading it over 20 years ago, when they said that the Mini
Metro gearbox was weak because when they engaged first gear at maximum
revs without depressing the clutch, it broke.

Think you may have embroidered this somewhat?

The A Series BL gearbox wasn't a strong unit as it originated from the
'40s Austin A30 with 28 BHP. As of course did the engine - but there's
more room to strengthen that than a gearbox. They used the Triumph
equivalent where they could easily - like the RWD Marina etc.
Re-engineering for a gearbox in sump unit like the early Metro - basically
the same as the Mini - would have been very costly. And they simply didn't
have the money. Later Metros with the K Series engine used bought in
5-speed gearboxes, and not in the sump. Racing Minis used special boxes
where the gear clusters were replaced with straight cut gears - noisy but
more robust.

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ian White wrote:

I believe the Consumers Association (who publish Which) were one of
the
bodies consulted about Part P. I would be interested to know what
they said
on behalf of "Which" subscribers like myself. I suspect they
encouraged it.

They would have said whatever they were paid to. As they always do.

Paid by whom?

Good Lord. You don't actually *trust* "Which", do you?

I've no reason to suppose Which reports are fraudulent.
Do you?

That's not the issue.

Well, it was the issue I was raising.
The poster claimed that Which produced fraudulent reports
in return for payment.

That is completely different from saying that
you do not agree with some, or even all, of their reports.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Think you may have embroidered this somewhat?

Not unless my mind is going, Dave. I can't feel it.

Perhaps you can post a copy or reference to the article then? I've been a
member of Which for many years - including when the Metro was introduced -
and can't remember this one at all. Or are you merely quoting a press
report?

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
You're welcome to split as many hairs as you like on your own time.
'Which' is demonstrably ****e. They are widely rumoured to be corrupt as
well.

I'd love some proof, Huge.

Of course big business hate them - because they can't be influenced by the
big bucks of advertising. And I do have a pal on their 'board' who is one
of the most honest people I know. Any firm evidence of any corruption
would wind him up and get results.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I stopped reading it over 20 years ago, when they said that the Mini
Metro gearbox was weak because when they engaged first gear at maximum
revs without depressing the clutch, it broke.

Think you may have embroidered this somewhat?

The A Series BL gearbox wasn't a strong unit as it originated from the
'40s Austin A30 with 28 BHP. As of course did the engine - but there's
more room to strengthen that than a gearbox. They used the Triumph
equivalent where they could easily - like the RWD Marina etc.
Re-engineering for a gearbox in sump unit like the early Metro - basically
the same as the Mini - would have been very costly. And they simply didn't
have the money. Later Metros with the K Series engine used bought in
5-speed gearboxes, and not in the sump. Racing Minis used special boxes
where the gear clusters were replaced with straight cut gears - noisy but
more robust.


The fact is the Mini boxes from the 60's were actually better than the
80's Metro boxes from a strength point of view- Two things happened
when the A+ engine was introduced for the Metro and Mini, the helix
angle of the gears was changed to reduce noise and a critical bearing
that was always expensive was replaced by a substandard one.

The result in the early 80's was excessive bearing and thrust washer
loads eventually resulting in gearbox failure, particularly in the
1.3's, the MG and the MG Turbo.

In a similar way tosspot Quentin Willson declared the Mini was a
better buy than the Mini because it was "more reliable" and would
always start in the morning. Effectively they were the same car,
built on the same production line, just with a different body. Just
as he got that wrong he also managed a few years ago to sell a few
cars that had time traveled hence reducing their mileage - yet he
calls himself the motorists friend.

Which is and always has been crap though.


--

In article ,
Nev wrote:
The A Series BL gearbox wasn't a strong unit as it originated from the
'40s Austin A30 with 28 BHP. As of course did the engine - but there's
more room to strengthen that than a gearbox. They used the Triumph
equivalent where they could easily - like the RWD Marina etc.
Re-engineering for a gearbox in sump unit like the early Metro -
basically the same as the Mini - would have been very costly. And they
simply didn't have the money. Later Metros with the K Series engine
used bought in 5-speed gearboxes, and not in the sump. Racing Minis
used special boxes where the gear clusters were replaced with straight
cut gears - noisy but more robust.


The fact is the Mini boxes from the 60's were actually better than the
80's Metro boxes from a strength point of view- Two things happened
when the A+ engine was introduced for the Metro and Mini, the helix
angle of the gears was changed to reduce noise and a critical bearing
that was always expensive was replaced by a substandard one.

Right. Nice to have inside information.

The result in the early 80's was excessive bearing and thrust washer
loads eventually resulting in gearbox failure, particularly in the
1.3's, the MG and the MG Turbo.

In a similar way tosspot Quentin Willson declared the Mini was a
better buy than the Mini because it was "more reliable" and would
always start in the morning.

I had very early Minis in the NE of Scotland and never had starting
problems in the coldest of days. Same as any other car with SU carbs -
unless something was wrong.

Effectively they were the same car,
built on the same production line, just with a different body. Just
as he got that wrong he also managed a few years ago to sell a few
cars that had time traveled hence reducing their mileage - yet he
calls himself the motorists friend.

Which is and always has been crap though.

So saying the Metro gearbox was crap was crap?

IMHO, most simply read the press synopsis of Which reports. Which are
about as accurate as most press synopsis of *anything*. And I'd rather
they didn't allow them - or charge dearly for their use - and have
editorial control of the contents - and a right to reply. To get the
benefit of those tests, you have to read the results completely and
carefully - it's mostly all there. Then you'll understand that they really
do rather a good job. Glance through them and you'll just get what they
are designed to do - to give a rough guide to those who really aren't much
interested in the product but want something which is adequate and good
value for Mr or Ms average.

But anyway, you're not forced to buy Which or pay for it through taxation
or advertising. It is paid for *purely* by subscription. Which begs the
question why so many seem to hate it. I'd say it's because it can't be
'bought' by big business, and that scares many.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
IMHO, most simply read the press synopsis of Which reports.
Which are about as accurate as most press synopsis of
*anything*. And I'd rather they didn't allow them - or charge
dearly for their use - and have editorial control of the
contents - and a right to reply.

I guess it comes under 'fair use' and no doubt Which would
(privately) reckon that all publicity is good publicity. What
you say is also true of political stories: what the Institute of
Fiscal Studies actually said in their recent report on incomes
is very different to the Michael Howard/Daily Mail version of
same.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

We interrupt this programme...

Hi

Remember me? Im the original OP asking why I could not get the book in
the shops.

Anyway my copy from Which? turned up yesterday, thanks urchaidh, with
the part-p and harmonised wiring additions.

Im happy!

OK, carry on people.