In article ,
Huge wrote:
Well, the City certainly doesn't seem to be shrinking. Any theories why
not?

Greed. Being close together makes it easy for the bigwigs/traders/etc.
to swap employers at the drop of a hat. If the banks were spread all
over the country, it would be much harder. And since what the traders
say, goes, they cluster together.

Like it. ;-)

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Toyota have eliminated stepped gears and pullies in the transmission.

You poor deluded fool. The latest incarnation of the hybrid - the Lexus -
has a CVT transmission.

How big a hole can you dig yourself?

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
includes a CVT automatic transmission?

I don't think it does, as it has the Toyota transmission.

Then you've thought wrong.

snip senile garbage

You left the senile part in.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" babbled in ina senile manner in
message ...
In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

The latest Prius is an amazing success. It doesn't have a gearbox,
just one plaetary gear assembly.

Whereas a gearbox is what?

Oi. Watch the attributions. People will think I can't spell. ;-)

You can't think that is clear.

"Dave Plowman (News)" incorrectly wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Whereas a gearbox is what?

Shifting ratios between cogs.

You're making up things again.

He now wants to play patti-cake.

"Dave Plowman (News)" made things up in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:

Toyota have eliminated stepped gears and pullies in the transmission.

snip misinformation

He still makes things up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" makes thing up in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
includes a CVT automatic transmission?

I don't think it does, as it has the Toyota transmission.

Then

snip made up things

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Have you actually read the article? He was trying as hard as possible
to get the very best MPG.

58mpg so far removed from your invented 23mpg.

Ask one of the volunteer visitors to buy you a copy of Autocar. Then ask
your nurse - politely - to read and explain it to you.

Think you can manage that?

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

And you said associated kit ...

More load space...


Than what? Than an estate?

Depends on the cars in question I guess. It seems to be the extra height
that makes the off roaders attractive (from a driving and loading kids
POV). The space is a bonus.

I suspect that's pushed as an 'attraction' by the salesmen. It's not always
true for everyone, as you say, it depends on the vehicle and on the demands
of the owner. I wouldn't have one on space grounds, there's more usable
space in our Estate.


Yup, ours load and unload themselves - can't manage the seat belts /
harnesses though.


Oh dear, a bit backward are they?

;-)

Thanks ;-)

With their genes they couldn't possibly be!

Once they get to that size, I doubt it matters much... they seem pretty
keen of climbing anything anywhere ISTM ;-)


But it would be EASIER to get into a lower vehicle.

For them yes... we are talking easy for the parents though.

I find it easier to get into a conventional car than into the higher-up one.
When I drove a Transit I accepted the reason for a higher position - and
enjoyed driving from up there. I suspect that the latter might be an
attraction for some drivers :-)

It wasn't an advantage when we had children and a Thames. We had to lift
the small ones in. The bigger ones used the step. Of course, we didn't
have

That was Ford's small van before they introduced the transit IIUC?


Ours was the mini-bus version. Ten seats.

Didn't realise they were that big - always thought there were quite a bit
smaller than a transit?

Yes, the swb Transit version was 12 or 14 seats.

(then again - not sure I have ever seen one in real life). They did have a
bit about them on TopGear the other night when they were celebrating 40
years of the Transit though.

They weren't as popular as the Transit, they had a Big Drawback for some
drivers - they had lever gear changes which sometimes tangled. We, and some
other owners we knew, enjoyed the theatre of getting underneath and
wriggling the rods to be able to move while building up a backlog at lights
.... :-) But some couldn't cope with a) the mechanics or b) what they saw as
the embarrassment!


child seats in those days (works of the devil) but in any case it was
easy

Having child seats or not having them?


sigh Since you've snipped I don't know the reference.

I was referring to you "works of the devil" claim. I was not sure if you
meant that child seats were said work, or the lack of child seats in the
"good old days" was?

The current child seats are. Like very many other products they keep being
changed to include more gee gaws. We have a friend who designs them. It's
marketing.

You'll have gathered that I'm not a fan of marketing.


No, but women's lack of spatial awareness was mentioned.

One of the sillier male misapprehensions.

One however that is a well documented scientific fact. ;-)

No it isn't. What's more, in my experience women are far better at loading a
dishwasher economically. That's an example of spatial awareness.

It is not that women lack spacial ability completely - more that they
don't (generally) have a dedicated area of the brain for the task.

What utter nonsense.

Note also that this does this apply equally to all women since it relates
to the brain "sex" rather than genetic sex. (brain sex is controlled by
hormone levels in the uterus during a six week window early in pregnancy -
it is not set by X or Y chromosomes directly. It is also not an "absolute"
male/female thing in the way genetic sex is - it is more of a sliding
scale).

Oh come on! You won't sell me that no matter how you try.

It is partly - in the sense you need to be aware of any special factors
about the vehicle that will affect how it behaves should something
unexpected happen.


That applies to whatever vehicle you're driving. A scooter is very
different from a tractor, that doesn't mean that you can't driver either
efficiently.

I agree...

I was also suggesting that it helps if you know what happens when you go
beyond the limit of your vehicles handling.

Which you shouldn't.

i.e. Does it over or under steer, and do you know how to deal with what it
does without loosing control.

A good driver would never get into that position.

But are you suggesting that all men drivers never lose control?

I've seen lots of men drivers skidding on ice, I never have skidded on ice.

That only means what I said, it doesn't prove anything about men or about
women.

Mary

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Surely, on uk.d-i-y you don't buy a porch, you build it.

Yup, steam powered with twin combis and a long gas pipe ;-)

Where do you put the letterbox?

Mary

In message ws.net,
Doctor Evil writes

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined from
a hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

Very few cars will be used only for out of town journeys, most cars
will be urban/combined.

Yup. Autocar have a test route designed to simulate this and put every
car
they test over it. The Prius still did badly - considering its claims.

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

IMO you've spent so much time replying to DIMM you've started thinking
exactly the same way...

Do you mean he sends emails to Dim Lin, the Oriental enchantress? The
filthy *******!! Maxie! Get this sorted!!!

What are you babbling on about ****forbrains ?

--
geoff

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:03:03 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing
= pollution).

And cost some 2000 quid.

My (very low tech) 8 x 6V Crompton semi-traction monoblocks were £800
20 years ago! ;-(

Lexus in the new RX400 use Nickel-metalhydride batteries with a 5 year
warranty and 2000 quid replacement cost.

Would that be against failure or loss of capacity? They could be at 5%
starting capacity and still not 'faulty'?

All the best ..

T i m

"Dave Plowman (News)" made up things in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Have you actually read the article? He was trying as hard as possible
to get the very best MPG.

58mpg so far removed from your invented 23mpg.

Ask
....my rear end. You made it up.

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

IMO you've spent so much time replying to DIMM you've started thinking
exactly the same way...

Sigh. You really need to read Autocar to understand their philosophy.
They're not sensational journalists like 'honest john'. They're one of the
last remaining car magazines who try to be fair and objective.

However, here goes again. On each *full* road test they give the
government urban and combined figures. They also give their actual figure
for their *entire* test.

Then a figure for their standard test route which is a mixture of suburban
type high streets with moderate traffic and suburban dual carriageways
with a speed limit of 40 or so. They're based in Teddington, so it doesn't
involve central London traffic jams.

The Prius managed 44 mpg over this test route. Which is nothing
exceptional. As I said earlier, the very much faster BMW 330D diesel did
just 1 mpg less on the same test.

They do this because it gives a reasonable comparison between all cars as
submitted for testing. Cars submitted for government testing might well be
fiddled to improve their economy at the expense of performance. Since
Autocar also check the performance, and many will buy on this, it would be
a stupid maker who would try this trick on them.

Their *overall* test figure may well be on the low side against what most
drivers will get, because it includes testing for top speed and timed
acceleration runs. And the Prius was truly poor at 23 mpg. As it is when
driving at 70 mph on a long motorway journey - it's much worse than a
equivalent performance diesel.

Had it been designed for real economy, it would have used a diesel rather
than petrol engine. But it was designed for certain parts of the US market
where petrol is cheap and diesel not popular. And near zero pollution at
the point of use in city centres.

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how many do you see on the roads?
If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

Oh - it also has rather high depreciation. It's quoted as only retaining
50% of its cost after 3 years. Something like a VW Golf is 60%.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:11:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the
software etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests*
Otherwise, how do you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar
test? No other car I can find is so far away from the 'official'
figures.

Web reference?

Buy a copy. All their test results are summarised at the back and
explanations of how they're arrived at.

I'm not buying it, pity they didn't see fit to reproduce it one their
website.

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined from a
hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

No - this figure of 23 mpg was for the duration of the Autocar test.

Any other tests that have returned 23mpg or thereabouts?

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

Have you actually read the article?

Yes...

He was trying as hard as possible to
get the very best MPG.

Why not quote the article than interpret it, I didn't read what you
just said.

And under those conditions many would manage more
with a small diesel.

What diesel gives the same official combined fuel economy? Also bear
in mind diesel is more expensive than petrol.

Read the subsequent parts about motorway consumption.

It's a town/city car for economical driving in stop start traffic and
low emissions, not a touring car.

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:11:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And
given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the
software etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests*
Otherwise, how do you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an
Autocar
test? No other car I can find is so far away from the 'official'
figures.

Web reference?

Buy a copy. All their test results are summarised at the back and
explanations of how they're arrived at.

I'm not buying it, pity they didn't see fit to reproduce it one their
website.

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined from
a
hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

No - this figure of 23 mpg was for the duration of the Autocar test.

Any other tests that have returned 23mpg or thereabouts?

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

Have you actually read the article?

Yes...

He was trying as hard as possible to
get the very best MPG.

Why not quote the article than interpret it, I didn't read what you
just said.

And under those conditions many would manage more
with a small diesel.

What diesel gives the same official combined fuel economy? Also bear
in mind diesel is more expensive than petrol.

And make noise and smells and to get those figures had the performance of a
tractor.

Read the subsequent parts about motorway consumption.

It's a town/city car for economical driving in stop start traffic and
low emissions, not a touring car.

Even on a mortorway they retuirn about 45mpg as the it is mainly on the
engiens withy electric assist on overtaking.

You have to take into account that the man is man.

"Dave Plowman (News)" insanely wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

snip illinforned babble indluved by an advertorial

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how
many do you see on the roads?
If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

There is a waiting list for them. They can't make enough of them. They are
made in Japan and now are going to be made in Cghina and the US to cope with
demand.

Look at this you fool. Yiou were given the URL but never looked, or more
likely couldn't undertstand it. BTW, Mine is returning 56mpg.
http://tinyurl.com/cwj4p

London is screaming for them, as no congestion charge and free parking, and
over 60mpg average in London. Payback is swift when in the centre. Do some
calcs, which you are incapable of course, only going on old wives tales.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:03:03 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need
changing
= pollution).

And cost some 2000 quid.

My (very low tech) 8 x 6V Crompton semi-traction monoblocks were £800
20 years ago! ;-(

Lexus in the new RX400 use Nickel-metalhydride batteries with a 5 year
warranty and 2000 quid replacement cost.

Would that be against failure or loss of capacity? They could be at 5%
starting capacity and still not 'faulty'?

Failure and loss of capacity. In the US the guarantee is 10 years, for the
batteries, transmission, electric motor and inverter; 8 years for the Prius.
Our senile one probably got the 5 years wrong as usual. After all he thinks
the Prius does 23mpg, when mine doe 55mpg, and all others more or less the
same, if not more.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:57:30 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

IMO you've spent so much time replying to DIMM you've started thinking
exactly the same way...

Sigh. You really need to read Autocar to understand their philosophy.
They're not sensational journalists like 'honest john'.

LOL!

They're one of the
last remaining car magazines who try to be fair and objective.

However, here goes again. On each *full* road test they give the
government urban and combined figures. They also give their actual figure
for their *entire* test.

Then a figure for their standard test route which is a mixture of suburban
type high streets with moderate traffic and suburban dual carriageways
with a speed limit of 40 or so. They're based in Teddington, so it doesn't
involve central London traffic jams.

Right, so it's not stop start town/city driving then. In that case
their testing isn't much use to people who drive in those conditions.

They do this because it gives a reasonable comparison between all cars as
submitted for testing. Cars submitted for government testing might well be
fiddled to improve their economy at the expense of performance. Since
Autocar also check the performance, and many will buy on this, it would be
a stupid maker who would try this trick on them.

Their *overall* test figure may well be on the low side against what most
drivers will get, because it includes testing for top speed and timed
acceleration runs. And the Prius was truly poor at 23 mpg.

At long last! Some context! Those whose driving includes top speed and
timed acceleration may want to look elsewhere then.

As it is when
driving at 70 mph on a long motorway journey - it's much worse than a
equivalent performance diesel.

Of course, it's a town/city car not a touring car.

Had it been designed for real economy, it would have used a diesel rather
than petrol engine. But it was designed for certain parts of the US market
where petrol is cheap and diesel not popular. And near zero pollution at
the point of use in city centres.

Don't forget the Japanese market, where they have big problems with
pollution in cities. I think diesel hybrids will appear when the
hybrid bit gets cheaper.

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how many do you see on the roads?
If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

There are waiting lists because they are in short supply.

Oh - it also has rather high depreciation. It's quoted as only retaining
50% of its cost after 3 years. Something like a VW Golf is 60%.

Rather high? Parkers say it has slower than average depreciation:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/carreviews/review.aspx?model_id=1173&page=3

Also depreciation is only part of the whole picture.

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:57:30 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
babbled away :

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

IMO you've spent so much time replying to DIMM you've started thinking
exactly the same way...

Sigh. You really need to read Autocar to understand their philosophy.
They're not sensational journalists like 'honest john'.

LOL!

They're one of the
last remaining car magazines who try to be fair and objective.

LOL! Full of advertorials.

However, here goes again. On each *full* road test they give the
government urban and combined figures. They also give their actual figure
for their *entire* test.

Then a figure for their standard test route which is a mixture of
suburban
type high streets with moderate traffic and suburban dual carriageways
with a speed limit of 40 or so. They're based in Teddington, so it
doesn't
involve central London traffic jams.

Right, so it's not stop start town/city driving then. In that case
their testing isn't much use to people who drive in those conditions.

They do this because it gives a reasonable comparison between all cars as
submitted for testing. Cars submitted for government testing might well
be
fiddled to improve their economy at the expense of performance. Since
Autocar also check the performance, and many will buy on this, it would
be
a stupid maker who would try this trick on them.

Their *overall* test figure may well be on the low side against what most
drivers will get, because it includes testing for top speed and timed
acceleration runs. And the Prius was truly poor at 23 mpg.

At long last! Some context! Those whose driving includes top speed and
timed acceleration may want to look elsewhere then.

LOL, yep.

As it is when
driving at 70 mph on a long motorway journey - it's much worse than a
equivalent performance diesel.

Of course, it's a town/city car not a touring car.

It tours very well and very economically and doesn't pollute like mad and is
very quiet.

Had it been designed for real economy, it would have used a diesel rather
than petrol engine. But it was designed for certain parts of the US
market
where petrol is cheap and diesel not popular. And near zero pollution at
the point of use in city centres.

Don't forget the Japanese market, where they have big problems with
pollution in cities. I think diesel hybrids will appear when the
hybrid bit gets cheaper.

GM are bringing out an Astra version this year.

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how many do you see on the roads?
If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

There are waiting lists because they are in short supply.

Oh - it also has rather high depreciation. It's quoted as only retaining
50% of its cost after 3 years. Something like a VW Golf is 60%.

Rather high? Parkers say it has slower than average depreciation:

Yep. He made that up.


http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/ca...l_id=1173&page
=3

Also depreciation is only part of the whole picture.

Saving a fortune on petrol, congestion charges and parking adds up quick.

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Buy a copy. All their test results are summarised at the back and
explanations of how they're arrived at.

I'm not buying it, pity they didn't see fit to reproduce it one their
website.

Why should they give this sort of thing for free? They're not a charity.

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined
from a hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

No - this figure of 23 mpg was for the duration of the Autocar test.

Any other tests that have returned 23mpg or thereabouts?

I dunno. But if it was a one off caused by a faulty example, Toyota would
have been up in arms, and demanded a re-test. They didn't comment.

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

Have you actually read the article?

Yes...

He was trying as hard as possible to get the very best MPG.

Why not quote the article than interpret it, I didn't read what you just
said.

Can't be bothered. He made mention of special driving techniques to keep
it on batteries, etc. And being gentle with any car improves the fuel
economy.

And under those conditions many would manage more with a small diesel.

What diesel gives the same official combined fuel economy? Also bear in
mind diesel is more expensive than petrol.

You've not been paying attention. ;-) The official figures are too easily
manipulated as they don't also take into account power output etc. So you
could restrict this to achieve better economy. But if you then did the
same with a vehicle sent to a magazine for test, they'd comment on the
poor acceleration, etc.

Read the subsequent parts about motorway consumption.

It's a town/city car for economical driving in stop start traffic and
low emissions, not a touring car.

Very few people indeed can afford that sort of money for a town only car.
Is it advertised as such? And do they state the economy is poor when
touring? Not that I've seen.

--
*Be more or less specific *

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Even on a mortorway they retuirn about 45mpg as the it is mainly on the
engiens withy electric assist on overtaking.


Which is poor. Now do you understand?

Seems strange one who advocates public transport in towns claims to own a
car which is only suitable for town use and gives poor economy on the open
road.

Seems you've shot yourself in the foot again.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
London is screaming for them, as no congestion charge and free parking,
and over 60mpg average in London

Your a fool. The last thing London needs is more cars of any sort. And
that's precisely what you're suggesting.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Look at this you fool.

http://tinyurl.com/cwj4p

Yes I've looked. Was it the bit about it having a CVT gearbox you wanted
to draw to my attention?

Of the bit about them not having taken it out of town yet?

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
They're one of the
last remaining car magazines who try to be fair and objective.

LOL! Full of advertorials.

Should suit you down to the ground, then.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Then a figure for their standard test route which is a mixture of suburban
type high streets with moderate traffic and suburban dual carriageways
with a speed limit of 40 or so. They're based in Teddington, so it doesn't
involve central London traffic jams.

Right, so it's not stop start town/city driving then. In that case
their testing isn't much use to people who drive in those conditions.

No test can ever be exactly the same as your driving conditions. And
surely you've noticed your economy varies according to how heavy the
traffic is?

They do this because it gives a reasonable comparison between all cars
as submitted for testing. Cars submitted for government testing might
well be fiddled to improve their economy at the expense of performance.
Since Autocar also check the performance, and many will buy on this, it
would be a stupid maker who would try this trick on them.

Their *overall* test figure may well be on the low side against what
most drivers will get, because it includes testing for top speed and
timed acceleration runs. And the Prius was truly poor at 23 mpg.

At long last! Some context! Those whose driving includes top speed and
timed acceleration may want to look elsewhere then.

They do this with every car since it gives a comparison.

If it was sold as a city only car, why does it have a top speed of 100 mph?

As it is when
driving at 70 mph on a long motorway journey - it's much worse than a
equivalent performance diesel.

Of course, it's a town/city car not a touring car.

They don't advertise it as that.

Had it been designed for real economy, it would have used a diesel
rather than petrol engine. But it was designed for certain parts of the
US market where petrol is cheap and diesel not popular. And near zero
pollution at the point of use in city centres.

Don't forget the Japanese market, where they have big problems with
pollution in cities. I think diesel hybrids will appear when the
hybrid bit gets cheaper.

They will. Then we'll see real economy.

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how many do you see on the
roads? If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

There are waiting lists because they are in short supply.

They're not appearing just secondhand at a premium as happens with cars
which are in demand.

Oh - it also has rather high depreciation. It's quoted as only retaining
50% of its cost after 3 years. Something like a VW Golf is 60%.

Rather high? Parkers say it has slower than average depreciation:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/carreviews/review.aspx?model_id=1173&page=3

Might be slower than average, but not the best in class for this sort of
car. Strange if it's that much in demand.

Also depreciation is only part of the whole picture.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

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

Mary Fisher wrote:

I find it easier to get into a conventional car than into the higher-up one.
When I drove a Transit I accepted the reason for a higher position - and
enjoyed driving from up there. I suspect that the latter might be an
attraction for some drivers :-)

Very much so...

I was referring to you "works of the devil" claim. I was not sure if you
meant that child seats were said work, or the lack of child seats in the
"good old days" was?


The current child seats are. Like very many other products they keep being
changed to include more gee gaws. We have a friend who designs them. It's
marketing.

True. So long as they still perform the basic requirement of preventing
their contents becoming a projectile in the event of a crash, they seem
like a worthwhile idea (even if you can't buy one without cup holders!)

(needed to buy a new one recently - I got a ten quid discount form the
man in Halfords (offered - not asked for) on the grounds that the one I
wanted was in "last years colours" and hence was end of line. Just how
shallow are some people?)

You'll have gathered that I'm not a fan of marketing.

Nope, me neither really.

No, but women's lack of spatial awareness was mentioned.

One of the sillier male misapprehensions.

One however that is a well documented scientific fact. ;-)


No it isn't.

Promise you it is. I don't have all the books I need to hand to give you
a decent list of references, but I can find you a few:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...al_tests.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4202199.stm
http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/sex.htm

For a very readable and entertaining book on the subject (that includes
links to many peer reviewed research papers) I would recommend this one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...ternodeltdcomp

What's more, in my experience women are far better at loading a
dishwasher economically. That's an example of spatial awareness.

Also comes down to experience - perhaps women tend to load dishwashers
more often than their menfolk?

It is not that women lack spacial ability completely - more that they
don't (generally) have a dedicated area of the brain for the task.


What utter nonsense.

Easy to demonstrate with an EEG. It is one of the reasons that women
tend to recover from stokes better than men. Their brains tend to have
heavier cross linking and less compartmentalisation. So when a section
of brain tissue is damaged there is far less chance of it wiping out a
single capability (like speech).

Note also that this does this apply equally to all women since it relates
to the brain "sex" rather than genetic sex. (brain sex is controlled by
hormone levels in the uterus during a six week window early in pregnancy -
it is not set by X or Y chromosomes directly. It is also not an "absolute"
male/female thing in the way genetic sex is - it is more of a sliding
scale).


Oh come on! You won't sell me that no matter how you try.

Suit yourself... ;-)

I was also suggesting that it helps if you know what happens when you go
beyond the limit of your vehicles handling.


Which you shouldn't.


i.e. Does it over or under steer, and do you know how to deal with what it
does without loosing control.


A good driver would never get into that position.

That does not hold true from experience I would say. There can be any
number of reasons why you may need to swerve sharply to avoid an
obstacle in the road. Even at low speeds a patch of oil on a road or
black ice can result in you car loosing grip at one end or the other. As
can a tyre unexpectedly deflating.

Why do you think advanced drivers are expected to pass a course on skid
pan driving? As are many professional drivers like bus/coach drivers?

But are you suggesting that all men drivers never lose control?

Nope. They are probably more likely to, since they tend to drive faster
and cover greater mileages.

I've seen lots of men drivers skidding on ice, I never have skidded on ice.

Your point being what exactly? I think you are reading too much into my
comments on driving and coping with the unexpected. They were made
without any intended connection to my other comments on male/female
cognitive skills differences.

I was suggesting that all drivers (i.e. both sexes) should at least
understand the basics of controlling car dynamics when something goes
wrong.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mary Fisher wrote:

Where do you put the letterbox?

You have a mailbox on a pole - its a fuel economy drive ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Plowman (News)" Incoherently wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Then a figure for their standard test route which is a mixture of
suburban
type high streets with moderate traffic and suburban dual carriageways
with a speed limit of 40 or so. They're based in Teddington, so it
doesn't
involve central London traffic jams.

Right, so it's not stop start town/city driving then. In that case
their testing isn't much use to people who drive in those conditions.

No test can ever be exactly the same as your driving conditions. And
surely you've noticed your economy varies according to how heavy the
traffic is?

They do this because it gives a reasonable comparison between all cars
as submitted for testing. Cars submitted for government testing might
well be fiddled to improve their economy at the expense of performance.
Since Autocar also check the performance, and many will buy on this, it
would be a stupid maker who would try this trick on them.

Their *overall* test figure may well be on the low side against what
most drivers will get, because it includes testing for top speed and
timed acceleration runs. And the Prius was truly poor at 23 mpg.

At long last! Some context! Those whose driving includes top speed and
timed acceleration may want to look elsewhere then.

They do this with every car since it gives a comparison.

A comparison of what? Dragsters? Who the f**k does 0-60 all day? Only
idiots. The test is crap, totally unrepresentative of the driving conditions
of which it will meet. The test is total crap. Mine does over 55mpg - and
glides.

If it was sold as a city only car, why does it have a top speed of 100
mph?

I can't believe anyone half sane would day that. It is aimed at city
driving, but needs to be capable of moving on motorways. It is not tram.
Duh!

As it is when
driving at 70 mph on a long motorway journey - it's much worse than a
equivalent performance diesel.

Of course, it's a town/city car not a touring car.

They don't advertise it as that.

They don't advertise it as dragster either,. but Autocar use it as one.

Had it been designed for real economy, it would have used a diesel
rather than petrol engine. But it was designed for certain parts of the
US market where petrol is cheap and diesel not popular. And near zero
pollution at the point of use in city centres.

Diesel emit particulates(soot), so are dirty and they are noisy (noise
pollution). Diesels are made by Satan.

Don't forget the Japanese market, where they have big problems with
pollution in cities. I think diesel hybrids will appear when the
hybrid bit gets cheaper.

They will. Then we'll see real economy.

60mpg plus is real economy enough, in car only slightly smaller inside than
a Camry.

It's merely a curiosity in the UK. Just how many do you see on the
roads? If it was so wonderful, there'd be many thousands.

There are waiting lists because they are in short supply.

They're not appearing just secondhand at a premium as happens with cars
which are in demand.

He said "There are waiting lists because they are in short supply".

Oh - it also has rather high depreciation. It's quoted as only
retaining
50% of its cost after 3 years. Something like a VW Golf is 60%.

Rather high? Parkers say it has slower than average depreciation:


http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/ca...l_id=1173&page
=3

Might be slower than average, but not the best in class for this sort of
car. Strange if it's that much in demand.

He said "There are waiting lists because they are in short supply". Also
there is ignorance toward this car, as you overtly demonstrate. Once
ignorance has dissolved, the residuals will be brill.

Also depreciation is only part of the whole picture.

Yep. In central London the running cost are miniscule.

"Dave Plowman (News)" dribbled in message
...
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Buy a copy. All their test results are summarised at the back and
explanations of how they're arrived at.

I'm not buying it, pity they didn't see fit to reproduce it one their
website.

Why should they give this sort of thing for free? They're not a charity.

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined
from a hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

No - this figure of 23 mpg was for the duration of the Autocar test.

Any other tests that have returned 23mpg or thereabouts?

I dunno. But if it was a one off caused by a faulty example, Toyota would
have been up in arms, and demanded a re-test. They didn't comment.

I don't blame them. Anyone with brains can see the test is crap, so would
take no notice and go on real world experience and tests.

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

Have you actually read the article?

Yes...

He was trying as hard as possible to get the very best MPG.

Why not quote the article than interpret it, I didn't read what you just
said.

Can't be bothered. He made mention of special driving techniques to keep
it on batteries, etc. And being gentle with any car improves the fuel
economy.

And under those conditions many would manage more with a small diesel.

What diesel gives the same official combined fuel economy? Also bear in
mind diesel is more expensive than petrol.

You've not been paying attention. ;-)

He has.

The official figures are too easily
manipulated as they don't also take
into account power output etc.

That's why it's best to go on real world tets. Mine does over 55mpg.

Read the subsequent parts about motorway consumption.

It's a town/city car for economical driving in stop start traffic and
low emissions, not a touring car.

Very few people indeed can afford
that sort of money for a town only car.
Is it advertised as such? And do they
state the economy is poor when
touring? Not that I've seen.

It is not poor at all, about 45mpg, for a Camry sized car. The emissions
are about 90% less than other new cars, something goons like you omit. You
wreck is the equivalent of 100 Prius'. I would have your car scrapped ASAP,
and I'm sure Ken would like too.

You really are a confused man, or whatever - he calls me pet.

"Dave Plowman (News)" stupidly wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:

London is screaming for them, as no congestion charge and free parking,
and over 60mpg average in London

Your a fool. The last thing London needs
is more cars of any sort. And
that's precisely what you're suggesting.

I am suggesting, and so does Ken, people buy clean cars to save our lungs,
not diesel 4x4s or V8 crap. Also it is superb to drive.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
He said "There are waiting lists because they are in short supply". Also
there is ignorance toward this car, as you overtly demonstrate. Once
ignorance has dissolved, the residuals will be brill.

It has been so heavily revised the old models will drop even faster.

Strange the way you know so little about a car you claim to own.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" stupidly wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
They're one of the
last remaining car magazines who try to be fair and objective.

LOL! Full of advertorials.

Should suit you down to the ground, then.

You are a sucker!!

"Dave Plowman (News)" stupidly wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:

Even on a mortorway they return
about 45mpg as the it is mainly on the
engine with electric assist on overtaking.

Which is poor. Now do you understand?

45mpg on motorway on Camry sized car? You are clearly mad. The overall mpg
is what it is about, not snippets.

Seems strange one who advocates
public transport in towns claims to own a
car which is only suitable for town use

It can go anywhere and keep up with all traffic. Next crap....

and gives poor economy on the open
road.

It does not, and overall 55mpg.

Seems you've shot yourself in the foot again.

No. Bought the best car in the world. And by far the cheapest to run in
London - super cheap. So much so there is a waiting list. I waited a month
or two.

Boy are you dumb.

"Dave Plowman (News)" stupidly wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Look at this you fool.

http://tinyurl.com/cwj4p

Yes I've looked. Was it the bit about it having a CVT gearbox you wanted
to draw to my attention?

It doesn't have a CVT. Ignorance on behalf of even car journos.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
It is not poor at all, about 45mpg, for a Camry sized car. The emissions
are about 90% less than other new cars, something goons like you omit.

The emissions are 90% lower than other new cars while doing its 45mpg on a
motorway?

You're telling porkies again...

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

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

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Yes I've looked. Was it the bit about it having a CVT gearbox you
wanted to draw to my attention?

It doesn't have a CVT. Ignorance on behalf of even car journos.

Strange for one who claims to have one. The original didn't, although it
still had a gearbox. The heavily revised new one does - as does the Lexus.

I suspect it's to improve the fuel consumption at speed. We'll see when
Autocar tests it.

Of course since they heavily revised the design, the old model will be
worth even less.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:37:38 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


They had extreme versions. Taking a version that did work to get illiterate
poverty stricken people on their feet, and say all doesn't work is
ridiculous.

It certainly was ridiculous. Did you see what East Berlin was like
during this farce vs. now?

Exteme collectivism worked for them.

No it didn't and they weren't allowed to disagree.





People like Ken L are trying to give
cities back to people, and clean them
up.

So what's his next ploy? Communal bathrooms?

If you are that way inclined apply to Ken.

I think I'll pass thanks.....



And he is right. Ken L wants Londoners to benefit, not people in
Surrey who use London as a doormat and regard it as a place to make money
from.

The way to do that would be to encourage
people not to go into central London at all
for business purposes which was my original point.

The public transport into the centre is superb. USE THAT!!!! It is fools
like you driving in, in diesel 4WDs that **** Londoners off. Otherwise STAY
OUT!!!


Did I say that I drive a diesel 4x4 into central London?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:26:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.

Hmm. Despite modern systems making communication from any distance easy,
personal contact is still an important thing in business of the type where
trust may be involved.

I completely agree. Face to face contact is very important, but it
doesn't need to be daily in many cases. I am sure that a lot of
businesses could encourage home working and save people a ton of
semi-productive time and expense.


Thinking of City of London type things.

I have difficulty in using the word "trust" in that environment, but
that's another subject.

The real
problem was forcing those workers to have to commute vast distances due to
the lack of suitable attractive housing closer by.

... or not wishing to live in city centres?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 15 Jul 2005 11:06:56 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.

Hmm. Despite modern systems making communication from any distance easy,
personal contact is still an important thing in business of the type where
trust may be involved. Thinking of City of London type things.

I fear your thinking is somewhat out of date. Since electronic trading became
the norm, investment banks could literally be anywhere.


Yes, but then they wouldn't be able to show off their latest braces or
snort coke communally.... :-)



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl