On 18 Aug 2005 17:01:25 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



But hey .. one man's meat ... ;-)

Precisely. I thought you were being rather more prescriptive than that. If
you aren't, then I apologise.

(not sure what that means but ..) Not needed Hugh .. we are all mates
here aren't we (but thank's anyway) ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:36:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


How often do you need 4x4 on a road (other than for taking children
200 yds to school)?


every time it snows.or freezes..and every time you need to drive over a
roundabout to escape the traffic queues :-)

I would say more often than that ;-) How about every time it rains or
every time you need to pull out of a side road into traffic.

Well, that little 'surprise' was waiting for me the first time I drove
a FWD car! I had been used (for the last 22 years / 97,000 miles) a
Sierra Estate that used to just 'go'? Got in the (slow / heavy /
diesel ) Rover and found myself wheelspinning (in the wet)
everywhere! A set of Avons in place of the 'Happy Shopper' tyres I
inhereted made all the difference! ;-)

(and by 4x4 I mean just that - four wheel drive, not any of the other
baggage that the term implies)

Indeed .. like the Scooby or Forrester etc .. of course of you only
have sub 100 hp on tap 'traction' isn't generally an issue ;-)

Alll the best ..

T i m

Still don't like FWD though .. ;-(

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:09:19 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

T i m wrote:

But taking second hand cooking oil, processing it yourself and using
it as a biofuel, then to be taxed on the 'eco re-cycling' I think is
rather unfair?

So is taxing fuel, at all. But while fuel is taxed then those runnign
their vehicles on chip fat can damn well pay the duty like everyone
else.

As you (and I) mention elsewhere there is currently no exta 'duty' on
electricity when used as a fuel and that could be partly down to the
low numbers of EV / Hybrids currently on the road (not worth the
effort) and possibly an enducement to encourage the further
developement of said (like with the £0 road tax).

Whatabout if you were enterprising enough to turn some of your own
waste material into a fuel, would you (should one) voluteer some
'tax' money / mile?

My thoughts were that if you used a fuel destined for another lower
taxed use (like agriculural oil) on the road then that would be wrong
(as it was sold as a fuel in the first place). But if you recycled
something into a fuel then that's your gain?

After all, I thought the road tax paid for the use of the roads and
the tax on fuel was to just earn money / manage it's use (to a lesser
degree).

All the best ..

T i m

In article ,
vortex2 wrote:
Also, the figures quoted for the Prius are "fiddled" to the extent that
they always reflect the mpg over a short(ish) run for a vehicle that
starts the run with fully charged batteries. The energy cost of a
recharge is *not* figured in the mpg. When the run is more "real world"
requiring the engine to recharge the battery pack, the mpg of the Prius
falls to about 46, at which point it's falling behind a typical large
modern saloon car such as a Pug 407 diesel.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Where do you get your facts from Steve?

My wife and I have driven a Prius now for 15k miles. Mostly urban.

I do believe Toyota's claims [(urban) 56.5 (extra urban) 67.3mpg
(combined) 65.7mpg] are a little optimistic.

They're not optimistic since they have to be checked - it's just that the
tests aren't of sufficient duration to allow for the 'free' energy from
the battery under certain conditions. As they're designed as a comparison
for IC engined vehicles, with no added energy store. To be accurate in the
same context, you'd have to measure battery state at the start of the test
and return it to the identical state at the end of it. This would them
measure the *actual* amount of fuel used.

I really do not take much notice but my experience is typical urban:
55mpg; cruise control at 70: 60mpg. and whilst I suppose it must be
possible you'd have to drive like a complete idiot to get below 50mpg.

Well, Autocar - possibly the most respected motoring mag in the world -
got nothing like your figures when driving it round suburban London. They
use the same test route for every car they test, so it's a meaningful
comparison. The Prius managed near enough the same figure as a BMW 330d
which is a very fast diesel. And the most economical 3 Series, the 320d,
was far better, while also having better performance.


BTW, when you say you get 60mpg at 70 mph, over what distance? If you set
out to drive, say, from London to Aberdeen, with the cruise set to 70 what
would you expect? Because a journey of some 600 miles would rule out any
stored energy from the battery at the start fiddling the result.

It would be interesting to try this - filling the tank to the brim, then
doing so at the end of the journey and work out the mpg by using the
actual distance travelled.

BTW car was purchased after weighing up many alternatives and we are
very happy. I have found this whole thread hysterical (in both senses
of the word).

Trouble is that few have any accurate idea just how much fuel their car
uses. MPG on this or that trip means nothing. You'd need to log every
litre of petrol (and the mileage) over a long time to get a real average
figure.

Oh - it's also likely that anyone buying this sort of car drives it
particularly gently. And any car under these circumstances gives better
mpg than the average.

FWIW, Autocar - who are likely to drive all cars hard - and their tests
include performance testing - maximum speed runs, and checking the maximum
acceleration - got 23 mpg over a 1000 mile test. Which is rather poor for
a vehicle of this size and performance.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

John Rumm wrote:

Matt wrote:


There isn't *any* duty or tax on chip fat

There is if you stick in in a car!

Not if it stays out of the fuel tank ;-)


--

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
roger wrote:
where is he btw .. back in rehab?

Too much to hope that he has been sectioned?

Don't you care about the poor doctor?


He gets paid - we suffer for free!

Where do you get your facts from Steve?

My wife and I have driven a Prius now for 15k miles. Mostly urban.

I do believe Toyota's claims [(urban) 56.5 (extra urban) 67.3mpg
(combined) 65.7mpg] are a little optimistic.

They're not optimistic since they have to be checked - it's just that the
tests aren't of sufficient duration to allow for the 'free' energy from
the battery under certain conditions. As they're designed as a comparison
for IC engined vehicles, with no added energy store. To be accurate in the
same context, you'd have to measure battery state at the start of the test
and return it to the identical state at the end of it. This would them
measure the *actual* amount of fuel used.

FYI the battery on a Prius is small. In fact very small. I doubt you
could drive more than 1 mile before system shutdown. For battery longevity
preservation deep discharge is impossible, actually the battery "normally"
lives at about 80% charge. Proposition that battery charge is used to
fiddle figures just does not stand up to scrutiny.


I really do not take much notice but my experience is typical urban:
55mpg; cruise control at 70: 60mpg. and whilst I suppose it must be
possible you'd have to drive like a complete idiot to get below 50mpg.

Well, Autocar - possibly the most respected motoring mag in the world -
got nothing like your figures when driving it round suburban London. They
use the same test route for every car they test, so it's a meaningful
comparison. The Prius managed near enough the same figure as a BMW 330d
which is a very fast diesel. And the most economical 3 Series, the 320d,
was far better, while also having better performance.


I doff my cap in deference.


BTW, when you say you get 60mpg at 70 mph, over what distance? If you set
out to drive, say, from London to Aberdeen, with the cruise set to 70 what
would you expect? Because a journey of some 600 miles would rule out any
stored energy from the battery at the start fiddling the result.

Filled up yesterday morning. 149 miles travelled, about 50% town, 50%
motorway. 60.3 mpg.


It would be interesting to try this - filling the tank to the brim, then
doing so at the end of the journey and work out the mpg by using the
actual distance travelled.

Done this several times. Instrumentation within 0.5mpg of measured reality.


BTW car was purchased after weighing up many alternatives and we are
very happy. I have found this whole thread hysterical (in both senses
of the word).

Trouble is that few have any accurate idea just how much fuel their car
uses. MPG on this or that trip means nothing. You'd need to log every
litre of petrol (and the mileage) over a long time to get a real average
figure.

Oh - it's also likely that anyone buying this sort of car drives it
particularly gently. And any car under these circumstances gives better
mpg than the average.


We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.


FWIW, Autocar - who are likely to drive all cars hard - and their tests
include performance testing - maximum speed runs, and checking the maximum
acceleration - got 23 mpg over a 1000 mile test. Which is rather poor for
a vehicle of this size and performance.


IMO probably horse****, but in any event irrelevant - especially coming from
probably the most respected motoring mag in the world.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the "perceived" fuel economy figures
of the Prius and reality. It's actually quite an interesting marketing
problem for Toyota.

D

"Vortex" wrote:


FYI the battery on a Prius is small. In fact very small. I doubt you
could drive more than 1 mile before system shutdown. For battery longevity
preservation deep discharge is impossible, actually the battery "normally"
lives at about 80% charge. Proposition that battery charge is used to
fiddle figures just does not stand up to scrutiny.

The seemingly insignificant 1 mile range you quoted would make a
*very* significant difference to both tests due to their very short
duration (4km for the urban tests and 7km for the extra urban tests)
This fiddle is undoubtedly exploited by Toyota (and who can blame
them)

The crucial difference in the thermodynamic performance of the Prius
engine is the use of a very limited engine speed range and express
optimisation for those speeds to the detriment of all others, if you
combine this with lower transmission losses, a low rolling resistance
and low drag bodywork you do end up with a relatively fuel efficient
vehicle. In overall design though the Prius engine itself is nothing
special, but forget using MPG, the only figure that matters in any
meaningful comparison is the brake specific fuel consumption in
kg/kWh. A common rail diesel engine, even one on a mass production
car, is significantly ahead of *any* petrol fired unit that has left
the confines of a research laboratory.

If the Prius had a diesel it could probably justify being something
better than the competition, as it is its a kludge needing lots more
work. As its Japanese it works and if it doesn't the owners wouldn't
complain as that would admit losing face ;-)


--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Matt wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

In article , Bioboffin
writes


In

a few years time the batteries will be larger, and cheaper, and hold
more energy too, giving about 60 to 100 miles battery range with
option of grid charging

Of course, Drivel ignores
the unpalatable fact that grid charging simply
moves the source of pollution from the
vehicle to the power station...

Which has surplus overnight power.


In the 60's and 70's that was a perfectly valid statement but in more
recent times that is totally incorrect. With the exception of nuclear
stations which have problems with rapid power level changes (reactor
core poisoning) there is no reason for many power stations to stay
generating 24 hours a day.


Yep. Thise coal fired ones leap to life at the touch of a button these
days don't they?


Prat. Go do teh research in how long it takes to bring ANY power station
up from COLD, and from STANDBY and then re post the real answers.

It's not from cold, two or three shift operation is a reality for some
500 and 660 coal fired units in the UK depending on their position on
the system. It was actually forced on them when gas generators
deliberately underbid (in some circumstances down to zero pence)
because there was more profit in being paid the spot market marginal
price and staying generating than coming off load because they had
committed to a specified gas burn in their long term contracts (utter
madness and one of the reasons the gas reserves were exhausted so
quickly) However if someone inadvertently gets their sums wrong and
the marginal price drops to zero everyone effectively gets paid zero
and generators without direct contracts get screwed (its happened many
times)

So despite the gas generator being touted as flexible in many cases it
was the coal generation that came onto the system in the 60's and 70's
that provided the flexibility. In some Coal fired 500's and 660's
shutdown around 11pm with first firing around 4:30am, synchronising
around 6am, with 50% load at 6:30 and full load at 7am is (was) not
unusual.

A 500MW coal fired unit might typically come on at 7am for full load,
running at around the 300MW level from 10am - 4pm and come back to
full load for the evening peak and then go into a warm standby state
until the same time next day.

Economy 7 was a solution to the inflexibility of large 500MW +
generators and the lack of knowledge in high temperature/pressure
boiler operation metallurgy. The problems were largely engineered out
in the mid to late 80's with advances in materials and in more
accurate control schemes.

Every bit of significant generation added since around 1990 is capable
of rapid load changes and two/three shift operation with little
adverse effect on the plant.

Possibly, but at what efficiency?

Once you have the boilers up to temp they are still losing heat even if
not spinning the turbines.


Only gas turbine sets come up in minutes from zero. All the rest take
hours, if not days in the case of some types.

Efficiency in reality hardly enters the equation, if you can burn fuel
and make money any sense of realism goes out the window. The days
where each generating unit was priced and loaded onto the system in
strict cost order derived by the same methods with due regards to
system stability requirements disappeared in 1990 and with it the last
semblance of an energy policy.

No one ever mentioned minutes, hot standby, or warm and the times
reduce to low single digit hours. Some of the combined cycle gas
fired generation (with a low pressure steam turbine downstream) can go
from a warm state (their classification usually less than 4 hours off
load) to full load in less than an hour.


--

In article ,
Vortex wrote:
They're not optimistic since they have to be checked - it's just that
the tests aren't of sufficient duration to allow for the 'free' energy
from the battery under certain conditions. As they're designed as a
comparison for IC engined vehicles, with no added energy store. To be
accurate in the same context, you'd have to measure battery state at
the start of the test and return it to the identical state at the end
of it. This would them measure the *actual* amount of fuel used.

FYI the battery on a Prius is small. In fact very small. I doubt you
could drive more than 1 mile before system shutdown.

It depends on how you drive it. It's said to have rather more range than
that purely on batteries in town running.

For battery longevity preservation deep discharge is impossible,
actually the battery "normally" lives at about 80% charge. Proposition
that battery charge is used to fiddle figures just does not stand up to
scrutiny.

So you think that the energy from the battery isn't used in the official
urban mpg? If so, why is it so much worse in real conditions than the
official figures?


I really do not take much notice but my experience is typical urban:
55mpg; cruise control at 70: 60mpg. and whilst I suppose it must
be possible you'd have to drive like a complete idiot to get below
50mpg.

Well, Autocar - possibly the most respected motoring mag in the world
- got nothing like your figures when driving it round suburban London.
They use the same test route for every car they test, so it's a
meaningful comparison. The Prius managed near enough the same figure
as a BMW 330d which is a very fast diesel. And the most economical 3
Series, the 320d, was far better, while also having better performance.


I doff my cap in deference.

I'm only quoting real world results. Not some computer generated figures.


BTW, when you say you get 60mpg at 70 mph, over what distance? If you
set out to drive, say, from London to Aberdeen, with the cruise set to
70 what would you expect? Because a journey of some 600 miles would
rule out any stored energy from the battery at the start fiddling the
result.

Filled up yesterday morning. 149 miles travelled, about 50% town, 50%
motorway. 60.3 mpg.

It only did 149 miles on a full tank? Or are you simply relying on the mpg
readout? But then 60 mpg is nothing special for a diesel under the same
conditions.


It would be interesting to try this - filling the tank to the brim,
then doing so at the end of the journey and work out the mpg by using
the actual distance travelled.

Done this several times. Instrumentation within 0.5mpg of measured
reality.

Ok.


BTW car was purchased after weighing up many alternatives and we are
very happy. I have found this whole thread hysterical (in both
senses of the word).

Trouble is that few have any accurate idea just how much fuel their
car uses. MPG on this or that trip means nothing. You'd need to log
every litre of petrol (and the mileage) over a long time to get a real
average figure.

Oh - it's also likely that anyone buying this sort of car drives it
particularly gently. And any car under these circumstances gives
better mpg than the average.


We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.


FWIW, Autocar - who are likely to drive all cars hard - and their
tests include performance testing - maximum speed runs, and checking
the maximum acceleration - got 23 mpg over a 1000 mile test. Which is
rather poor for a vehicle of this size and performance.


IMO probably horse****, but in any event irrelevant - especially coming
from probably the most respected motoring mag in the world.

You may call it horse****, but then why would they lie about one car and
not another?

The facts are simple. Drive a Prius hard, and it's *way* less economical
than near any other 'similar' car - ie one with the same sort of carrying
capacity and performance. Drive it gently, and under some conditions it
does well. But then the same applies to any car.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the "perceived" fuel economy
figures of the Prius and reality. It's actually quite an interesting
marketing problem for Toyota.

Not perceived, but the methods used to arrive at the official figures.
Which are designed to give a comparison between different cars of the same
basic design - not an absolute of what you might expect in practice. And
with a short journey in town the Prius may use no petrol at all. So could
be said to do any figure you want as mpg.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:15:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not to mention Stanley Streamers..no gearbox at all IIRC.

Yes, but they're steam - loads of torque from stationary. You very
rarely see a geared steam engine. About the only common type were
"traction engines", and they produced a huge drawbar pull from a very
small engine.


Just don't ask if they're internal or external combustion...

Matt wrote:

There isn't *any* duty or tax on chip fat

There is if you stick in in a car!


Not if it stays out of the fuel tank ;-)

In which case remeind me not to accept a lift in your motor! (End up
smelling like cod and chips for a fortnight)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

vortex2 wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

From 50-70 it will outperform my milk float I admit. It is however
only 2/3 as fast as a Ford Focus, slower than a Rav4 and much slower
than Skoda Octavia. In fact not much else is slower on the flat and
nothing (other than my milk float) is slower on a hill.


you can get 60mpg by driving any small diesel to the execrable
performance levels of a Prius..

As posted earlier, by driving a Land Cruiser to the performance levels
of a Prius, you can get 60mpg. During the last fuel strike I was getting
32 to 34 mpg from a 4 litre supercharged Jaguar. Mostly because the
roads were empty and all I had to do was to set the cruise control and
sit back and enjoy the ride.

Also, the figures quoted for the Prius are "fiddled" to the extent that
they always reflect the mpg over a short(ish) run for a vehicle that
starts the run with fully charged batteries. The energy cost of a
recharge is *not* figured in the mpg. When the run is more "real world"
requiring the engine to recharge the battery pack, the mpg of the Prius
falls to about 46, at which point it's falling behind a typical large
modern saloon car such as a Pug 407 diesel.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Where do you get your facts from Steve?

My wife and I have driven a Prius now for 15k miles. Mostly urban.

I do believe Toyota's claims [(urban) 56.5 (extra urban) 67.3mpg (combined)
65.7mpg] are a little optimistic.

I really do not take much notice but my experience is typical urban: 55mpg;
cruise control at 70: 60mpg. and whilst I suppose it must be possible
you'd have to drive like a complete idiot to get below 50mpg.

BTW car was purchased after weighing up many alternatives and we are very
happy. I have found this whole thread hysterical (in both senses of the
word).

D

Hysterical it is. You must be aware that you are communicating with a
number of the not very bright posters on ukdiy. One says you can get 60
mpg from a Land Cruiser, when a neighbour pours money into his tank,
one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?) and one just went on about
something I couldn't be bothered with and all of them make out you
are a liar because they know more about your car than what you do,
despite not ever seeing one.

After a time you will see who the nutters are. Others have fun with
them and wind them up. It is best to killfile them. The problem is that
they start messing up serious threads, which are very useful to many
people.

It is nice to read the views of another Prius owner. Now if they made a
hybrid white van I might be interested.

wrote:

one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?)

You were missing his point obviously. If you are conducting a test over
a short distance urban test route (i.e. under ten miles) and the vehicle
in question is capable of doing a couple of miles (in the right
circumstances) on stored electric power only, then you need to know that
the state of charge of the battery at the start and end of the test is
the same. Otherwise you may get misleading results - effectively
including energy depleted from the battery that was gained from petrol
that you were not metering.

After a time you will see who the nutters are. Others have fun with
them and wind them up. It is best to killfile them. The problem is that
they start messing up serious threads, which are very useful to many
people.

The nutter count in this thread seems to have dropped recently. Nice huh!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

T i m wrote:

Valid point .. but it's the mindset / concept of taking what is
fundementally 'transport' and turning it into a hobby that I don't buy
into.

Fair enough... and in fact neither do I. However there is a middle
ground that you are perhaps ignoring: those of us who actually enjoy
driving in some circumstances.

Give me a twisty country B road with light or no traffic, and a car that
rewards spirited and accurate driving and I can enjoy the process - it
is more than just getting from A to B. That does not mean I want to
equip it with blue under body cold cathode lights or an audio system
that will pop the windscreen out if you crank up the volume too much. ;-)

True, but yer average 400hp truck is bundeling along at 56 mph and the

Not an expert on HGV, but I have a feeling that many are *way* over
400bhp these days!

cars around it should be doing 70mph. The difference is only 14 mph

The reality is often the truck doing 80 and the cars round it doing 75 - 95

and I believe it's that 'difference' that catches many people out
(leaving pulling out behind a slower moving vehicle too late and
causing a knock on for someone 'safely' doing 90 mph in the outside
lane)?

The main difference in performance on a truck that is likely to catch
people out is the difference in braking performance. An artic will need
a "highway code esq" stopping distance, compared to a mundane family car
that will stop much sooner, and a performance car (and in that I include
all the slightly warmed over GTIs etc), that will do 70 to rest in 160ft).

Also note that the fastest roads in the country (i.e. motorways and dual
carriage ways) account for the least of the accidents. Most accidents
happen at low speed in towns. Many include pedestrians.


The same "element" will no doubt come to the same conclusion without any
help from TG. I would tend to go along with the viewpoint the TG is an
entertainment show with cars as a theame. The days of William Wollard
talking engine specs with his foot on the front bumper (and viewing
figures of a couple of million anoraks) are long gone!.


And for me a shame ;-( You see I don't know or care what 'va va
voom' is .. not care if I haven't got any 'street cred' or what people
'think' if I turn up in an old Rover. If I am buying something I want
to know real facts about it, not what some marketing Co *thinks* it
might do for my image?

Some folks are into image - in all things, not just cars. Personally I
want a car for how it drives, and how well it suits my needs. If it can
be discrete and not draw attention to itself all to the better ;-)

True, however I would suggest most cars you could buy today would get
most folk from A to B with little issue (ignoring long high speed
trips and smaller engines etc). Mum and Dad recently bought one of

That is undoubtedly true. Modern cars are also far more refined than
they were - even at the low end.

may buy a car as a round town runnabout, but I doubt many people are
actually going to go rent something more suitable when they have need of
a couple of days of long trips.


*I* don't know anyone that rents an altternative car other than a van?

Oddly I know of one chap who bought a Merc C180, and then hired an
Escort class car to drive (the longish) commute to work each day on the
grounds of not wanting to rack up miles on his nice car.

Personally I think that is about as sensible as buying a nice leather
armchair and then keeping the plastic cover on it so that it stays
looking nice!

I once asked an AA man who were the biggest burden to them .. 'reps'
he said, 'won't even change a wheel ..'

;-)

Sounds like a mate of mine - walks out into the car park at a client
site he was working at, to find he had a flat tyre. What did he do? What
would you do?

What he did was, drive slowly out of the car park, straight over the
road into a "Formula 1" tyre and exhaust garage, find a spare chap and
say "any chance you could change that for me". To which the chap
promptly obliged, and turned down the offer of payment for the service!

I was not sure whether to tease him for his lack of mechanical nous
(worth noting that this guy is a well qualified engineer), of simply
admire the shear brass neck!

And need? Even if I could afford to buy a performance car, even if I

Need simply comes down to if you want one, and can afford it.


For now they can afford it yes ... Some folk feel they 'need' to
smoke .. till it becomes too expensive and then all of a sudden the
need goes? As you say, when petrol is £10 / gallon less willl afford
it and the need wiill go away ;-)

Different sort of need. I expect that you could find a way round the
need to smoke. Its harder to find a way round the need to go out and
earn a living... (ignoring those that *choose* to lay back and let the
tax payer do all the work)

Therein I think is the most significant detail... ;-)

Indeed put's hand up for being 'different' ;-)

The thing is I don't believe I am that different in this case. I
*think* some more vocal discussion on this subject comes from those
defending their corner (why they *need* 200 hp or whatever).

Not me! ;-)

I don't actually need the 200hp, but I really really *like* it! That is
my justification - so there! It is also a very practical, safe and
dependable car.

(In reality, the car costs not much more to run and insure than the
previous one I had that had half the power but other than that was
basically the same car).

The many
thousand more that are basically content to just get from A to B as
efficiently as they can remain the silent majority?

I have no difficulty with that.

True I don't have 200hp money but then unlike many of my BMW
motorcycle owning mates 'enjoy' a GPS .. they spennd ~£12,000 on a
motorbike then baulk at 400 quid for something that could save them
time / money / make their lives easier ..?

Yup, in fact one of them was on my shopping list! (the GPS, not the
motorbike.... then again if motorist persecution gets much worse, I can
see the attraction of two wheels for fair weather).

And if you do put yer 200hp to good safe use overtaking something you
will probably only be up behind something else within seconds .. and

True - only worth it in lightish traffic. (or when you are stuck behind
some "vehicle" sucking on their diesel particulate emissions!) ;-))

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Dave,


I'm only quoting real world results. Not some computer generated figures.

Frankly I fully trust the real world results as measured by me. I still
contend the conspiracy theory proposition of Japanese engineers charging up
batteries with croc clips to tweak the figures is absurd.

We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

I accept reality does seem to fall short of claims, but not by much and I
don't lose sleep on this one.

I do not accept that you can buy a 5 seat, automatic (or CVT) diesel with 5
star Euro NCAP that would come close for less than £15k. Certainly none
impressed me.

This is an important point. After driving a Prius, driving any kind of
manual diesel vehicle feels like stepping onto a Fordson tractor. Having
said that, if you spend your life driving at 80 on motorways a manual diesel
is probably the way ahead....a Prius in these circumstances would **** you
off.


The facts are simple. Drive a Prius hard, and it's *way* less economical
than near any other 'similar' car - ie one with the same sort of carrying
capacity and performance. Drive it gently, and under some conditions it
does well. But then the same applies to any car.

Is it that simple? I'm sure there are plenty of similar cars (petrol and
diesel) I could make to 23mpg given the motivation.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the "perceived" fuel economy
figures of the Prius and reality. It's actually quite an interesting
marketing problem for Toyota.

Not perceived, but the methods used to arrive at the official figures.
Which are designed to give a comparison between different cars of the same
basic design - not an absolute of what you might expect in practice. And
with a short journey in town the Prius may use no petrol at all. So could
be said to do any figure you want as mpg.

What I mean by "perceived" economy relates to the irrational and dismissive
prejudice that has permeated this entire thread....I suspect most
correspondents have never even sat in a Prius - let alone driven one - so
are not qualified to adopt such a judgemental position.. As a Prius owner,
I have merely trying to communicate that the reality is somewhat different
to this perception.

"Don't knock it til you've tried it" is the message I suppose.


D

What I mean by "perceived" economy relates to the irrational and
dismissive
prejudice that has permeated this entire thread....I suspect most
correspondents have never even sat in a Prius - let alone driven one - so
are not qualified to adopt such a judgemental position.. As a Prius
owner, I have merely trying to communicate that the reality is somewhat
different to this perception.

"Don't knock it til you've tried it" is the message I suppose.


D

By the way I was in the States a few months ago.

Curiosity (and time to kill) took me to a Hummer showroom.

http://www.hernibles.com/hummers.jpg

EXCELLENT!

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:09:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Fair enough... and in fact neither do I. However there is a middle
ground that you are perhaps ignoring: those of us who actually enjoy
driving in some circumstances.

Not ignoring as such John but my thoughts were a generalisation.

When I was old enough I started going to school on my cycle. I liked
the freedom, the not having to wait at bus stops etc. When I was 16 I
was on my moped and 'enjoyed' that because you didn't have to pedal
g. Various bikes car followed but I can't remember just 'going out
for a ride / drive with any of them *except*, if I felt the need to
clear my head etc. Generally I would 'enjoy' a trip if I did the
journey with the least fuss / aggro. When I have had access to
somthing 'sporty' I actually feel my driving style change to suit but
that 'novelty' wears off after a few days (then I'm annoyed by the
sporty exhaust, firmer suspension etc). On the flip side when I drive
an auto my pulse rate drops down a few notches and get to my
destination feeling quite relaxed! ;-)

Give me a twisty country B road with light or no traffic, and a car that
rewards spirited and accurate driving and I can enjoy the process - it
is more than just getting from A to B.

I understand .. and admit that given the chance (no other traffic /
cameras / good conditions) will probably drive any vehicle (not
motorbike) 'spiritedly'. I don't think that's because I like speed
(rarely go over ~70 these days) but can't see the point of going
slowly and like to use the vehicles momentum etc? My Mum had the
chance of a ride with Penti Arikkala (works 2.3 rallly Chevette) round
Knebworth House. After he came to a halt from speed in a big cloud of
dust she took off the helmet and thanked him for a nice ride. He asked
her if she had done this sort of thing before and she said "no, but my
son drives like that all the time! I don't think that was quite true
but it may of seemed like that to her compared with my Dad's driving
at the time ;-) Yes, I like to make 'good progress' but only in my
'transport' ;-)

That does not mean I want to
equip it with blue under body cold cathode lights or an audio system
that will pop the windscreen out if you crank up the volume too much. ;-)

Understood .. me neither. And in fact nothing hanging from the rear
view mirror (visual distraction) nor stickers, baby on board etc.

Not an expert on HGV, but I have a feeling that many are *way* over
400bhp these days!

You are probably right.

The reality is often the truck doing 80 and the cars round it doing 75 - 95

I thought most trucks were regulated (to 56 mph) these days?

The main difference in performance on a truck that is likely to catch
people out is the difference in braking performance. An artic will need
a "highway code esq" stopping distance, compared to a mundane family car
that will stop much sooner, and a performance car (and in that I include
all the slightly warmed over GTIs etc), that will do 70 to rest in 160ft).

I dare say you are right re the brakes (especially on a fully laden
vehicle) but I can't think of a time when *I* have *ever* had a lorry
have difficulty stopping behind me? I try to drive smoothly,
predictably and maintain good road positioning, reading the road ahead
(and behind) as much as possible. I was on the M25 the other day, saw
the traficc slowing a way ahead, started backing off. A Punto when
flying past me, 'realised' what was going on far to late and locked
all 4 wheels up and came to a halt sideways (in a huge cloud of smoke)
about 2' behind the last (now stationary) car in the middle lane. I
gently pulled up beside him a min later ...

Also note that the fastest roads in the country (i.e. motorways and dual
carriage ways) account for the least of the accidents. Most accidents
happen at low speed in towns. Many include pedestrians.

Probably true, however when they do hapen (and they do on the M25 at
least twice a day for example) the consequences (to those directly
involved and the thousands of road users behind them) can be pretty
bad. I was going past the M11 on the M25 clockwise the other day and
the two lanes were pretty busy. A prat in a Golf GTI went off down the
slip at speed onto the M11 and cut back onto the M25 at the last min.
I said to myself if I see that he was part of an RTA further round the
M25, if he wasn't already dead at the scene he would be after I had
stopped to 'help' evil grin.


Some folks are into image - in all things, not just cars.

There are some like that round here ... stone cladding on the house,
X5 parked on the drive and plenty of 'bling' .. not a pot to p*ss in
though! ;-)

Personally I
want a car for how it drives, and how well it suits my needs. If it can
be discrete and not draw attention to itself all to the better ;-)

Same here .. and you don't need anything 'flash' anymore to get it
keyed or the mirror kicked off. My mate runs a local garage .. big
Merc has a mirror kicked off .. I think the replacement was about £500
all in .. for a mirror ... p l e a s e ... !

True, however I would suggest most cars you could buy today would get
most folk from A to B with little issue (ignoring long high speed
trips and smaller engines etc). Mum and Dad recently bought one of

That is undoubtedly true. Modern cars are also far more refined than
they were - even at the low end.

Yep ;-)

*I* don't know anyone that rents an altternative car other than a van?

Oddly I know of one chap who bought a Merc C180, and then hired an
Escort class car to drive (the longish) commute to work each day on the
grounds of not wanting to rack up miles on his nice car.

Personally I think that is about as sensible as buying a nice leather
armchair and then keeping the plastic cover on it so that it stays
looking nice!

Indeed!

I once asked an AA man who were the biggest burden to them .. 'reps'
he said, 'won't even change a wheel ..'

;-)

Sounds like a mate of mine - walks out into the car park at a client
site he was working at, to find he had a flat tyre. What did he do? What
would you do?
snip
I was not sure whether to tease him for his lack of mechanical nous
(worth noting that this guy is a well qualified engineer), of simply
admire the shear brass neck!

Both!

For now they can afford it yes ... Some folk feel they 'need' to
smoke .. till it becomes too expensive and then all of a sudden the
need goes? As you say, when petrol is £10 / gallon less willl afford
it and the need wiill go away ;-)

Different sort of need. I expect that you could find a way round the
need to smoke.

One mate just spent £250 on a hypnotist .. lit up as soon as he got
outside ;-(

Its harder to find a way round the need to go out and
earn a living...

Yes, but I really don't think you need anything other than 'transport'
to earn a living?

(ignoring those that *choose* to lay back and let the
tax payer do all the work)

Well, indeed.

The thing is I don't believe I am that different in this case. I
*think* some more vocal discussion on this subject comes from those
defending their corner (why they *need* 200 hp or whatever).

Not me! ;-)

Of course not, and even if you were it would be fully understandable.
It's what we do .. ;-)

I don't actually need the 200hp, but I really really *like* it! That is
my justification - so there! It is also a very practical, safe and
dependable car.

Indeed ... and my mates bigish BMW car returns ~40 mpg when driven
gently .. and that's fine .. ok, more money (even second hand) than
*I* would want to spend (or park in the road) but he now uses the
motorbike to commute (70 mpg) to save money (not even time
particularly)?

(In reality, the car costs not much more to run and insure than the
previous one I had that had half the power but other than that was
basically the same car).

Indeed .. and I respect your 'like' .. it just doesn't do anything
for me? Like the BMW motorcycle club .. there was talk that the vast
majority of the 'members' didn't attend rallies or other events and
maybe they should be forced to? Had they pushed that through the
membership would have been desimated. I have a BMW, I pay my subs and
do go to the odd rally etc but I also do MANY other things. Some of
the stawarts in the club simply do nothing else, that is their thing,
they ride their bikes everywhere whenever possible and that's fine ...
for them. To me it's ok when everything is right (suitabiliity of the
journey, weather etc) outside of that it can be a pain and easier (and
as ecoonomical) to jump in the Rover ;-)

True I don't have 200hp money but then unlike many of my BMW
motorcycle owning mates 'enjoy' a GPS .. they spennd ~£12,000 on a
motorbike then baulk at 400 quid for something that could save them
time / money / make their lives easier ..?

Yup, in fact one of them was on my shopping list! (the GPS, not the
motorbike.... then again if motorist persecution gets much worse, I can
see the attraction of two wheels for fair weather).

;-) I have the (now obsolete) Garmin GPS V, now replaced by the
Quest. I don't have any spare cash but if I lost my GPS I would find
the money to buy another ASAP! Best bit of kit ever ;-)

And if you do put yer 200hp to good safe use overtaking something you
will probably only be up behind something else within seconds .. and

True - only worth it in lightish traffic.

So maybe we are back to the 'need' (or desirability) being a function
of your location?

When we go on our motorcycle touring trips we notice a MARKED change
in attitude of other drivers as soon as you get out of (specifically)
London. Away from London drivers WILL pull over to let us by easily
(not do the opposite let alone just hold their line) and we have even
had a car stop on a roundabout and let us (me bike+trailer and her on
her own 750) onto the roundabout in front of them?! ;-)

(or when you are stuck behind
some "vehicle" sucking on their diesel particulate emissions!) ;-))

Ehem .. driving too close maybe? weg

All the best John ..

T i m

In article .com,
wrote:
Hysterical it is. You must be aware that you are communicating with a
number of the not very bright posters on ukdiy. One says you can get 60
mpg from a Land Cruiser, when a neighbour pours money into his tank,
one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?) and one just went on about
something I couldn't be bothered with and all of them make out you
are a liar because they know more about your car than what you do,
despite not ever seeing one.


I know you're not the brightest card in the pack, but if a petrol
consumption figure is taken over a short journey - as is the official town
figure - then it makes a deal of difference to the figure if the battery
starts out full and ends up exhausted. As it's simply replacing the energy
needed to move the vehicle with electricity rather than petrol *at that
point in time* And since the petrol engine will eventually have to
re-charge those batteries, only a fool would believe such figures are real.
And if you read serious road test rather than a newspaper's 'impressions'
you'll find out that the town consumption is nowhere near the claims. Nor
is the combined.

After a time you will see who the nutters are. Others have fun with
them and wind them up. It is best to killfile them. The problem is that
they start messing up serious threads, which are very useful to many
people.

And just what have you added, since you obviously no nothing about the
Prius?

It is nice to read the views of another Prius owner. Now if they made a
hybrid white van I might be interested.

Well, if it were such a marvellous system it would pay back for a town
delivery van much more quickly than for most cars. But like all such
systems, there are issues with load carrying, since you don't get owt for
nowt.
Which is why all such vehicles are diesels. They are cheaper to run, as
well as cheaper to buy.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:43:46 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

Having a snoop around Toyota / Prius groups would suggest that the
real world mpg is about 54 mpg (UK) 45 mpg (US)?

Still not 'brillliant' but these are still (ironically after 100 years
of the moror car and electric motor) "early days" ..?

Alll the best ..

T i m

wrote:


Hysterical it is. You must be aware that you are communicating with a
number of the not very bright posters on ukdiy. One says you can get 60
mpg from a Land Cruiser, when a neighbour pours money into his tank,
one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?) and one just went on about
something I couldn't be bothered with and all of them make out you
are a liar because they know more about your car than what you do,
despite not ever seeing one.

After a time you will see who the nutters are. Others have fun with
them and wind them up. It is best to killfile them. The problem is that
they start messing up serious threads, which are very useful to many
people.

It is nice to read the views of another Prius owner. Now if they made a
hybrid white van I might be interested.

Welcome back Dribble, some of us thought you were dead. Now get back
to that counter and sell some more copper tanks, sell a dozen before
lunch and you can spend 30 minutes reading leaflets this afternoon.

--

In article ,
Vortex wrote:
I'm only quoting real world results. Not some computer generated
figures.

Frankly I fully trust the real world results as measured by me. I still
contend the conspiracy theory proposition of Japanese engineers
charging up batteries with croc clips to tweak the figures is absurd.

Where did you read that one? The official town consumption figure would
appear to have been arrived at through starting with a fully charged
battery and ending up with a depleted one - no need to to clandestinely
re-charge it.

We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

I accept reality does seem to fall short of claims, but not by much and
I don't lose sleep on this one.

Well, the Autocar conducts its own touring route test over exactly the
same route in every car it tests. A mixture of urban and suburban roads,
both high streets and urban highways. And they got 44 mpg. The distance
travelled is such that the battery state before and afterwards would have
little influence on this figure.


I do not accept that you can buy a 5 seat, automatic (or CVT) diesel
with 5 star Euro NCAP that would come close for less than £15k.

Certainly none impressed me.

That's a different matter. ;-)

This thread turned into the usual 'oh no it's not' after Drivel made his
usual extravagant claims and exhibited his lack of understanding on how
the thing actually works.

This is an important point. After driving a Prius, driving any kind of
manual diesel vehicle feels like stepping onto a Fordson tractor.

I'd not deny they are very refined at low speeds.

Having said that, if you spend your life driving at 80 on motorways a
manual diesel is probably the way ahead....a Prius in these
circumstances would **** you off.

Indeed. And very few people can afford a 20k car for pure town use -
especially since it's too big for easy parking. Also running the AC
continuously as you'll often need to do in town in the summer is likely to
have a worse percentage effect on the fuel consumption than on other cars.


The facts are simple. Drive a Prius hard, and it's *way* less
economical than near any other 'similar' car - ie one with the same
sort of carrying capacity and performance. Drive it gently, and under
some conditions it does well. But then the same applies to any car.

Is it that simple? I'm sure there are plenty of similar cars (petrol
and diesel) I could make to 23mpg given the motivation.

Well, just get a copy of Autocar and read the summary at the back. You'll
find it's a poor figure for a vehicle of this performance.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the "perceived" fuel economy
figures of the Prius and reality. It's actually quite an interesting
marketing problem for Toyota.

Not perceived, but the methods used to arrive at the official figures.
Which are designed to give a comparison between different cars of the
same basic design - not an absolute of what you might expect in
practice. And with a short journey in town the Prius may use no petrol
at all. So could be said to do any figure you want as mpg.

What I mean by "perceived" economy relates to the irrational and
dismissive prejudice that has permeated this entire thread....I suspect
most correspondents have never even sat in a Prius - let alone driven
one - so are not qualified to adopt such a judgemental position.. As a
Prius owner, I have merely trying to communicate that the reality is
somewhat different to this perception.

It's certainly nice to read posts from an actual owner. Had you posted
earlier on, you might have counteracted Drivels fantasies with some
reality.

"Don't knock it til you've tried it" is the message I suppose.

It's not the sort of vehicle that appeals to me, I'm afraid. On the open
road I want reasonable performance and handling. And it's just so damn
ugly. ;-)

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

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

It's not the sort of vehicle that appeals to me, I'm afraid. On the open
road I want reasonable performance and handling. And it's just so damn
ugly. ;-)

--

That's why we have a nice fast, safe and very uneconomical [ugly] Volvo as
well.!

D

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

Having a snoop around Toyota / Prius groups would suggest that the
real world mpg is about 54 mpg (UK) 45 mpg (US)?

My father got an average of 53 mpg over 3 years with a Morris Minor in the
early '50s. ;-)

Still not 'brillliant' but these are still (ironically after 100 years
of the moror car and electric motor) "early days" ..?

Yes. The latest incarnation, the Lexus RX400H, is far more class
competitive mpg wise - indeed possibly the leader. But they chose to enter
the 'Chelsea Tractor' class where it's easy to produce a more fuel
efficient vehicle by removing its off road and towing capabilities.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

In article ,
Matt wrote:
It is nice to read the views of another Prius owner. Now if they made a
hybrid white van I might be interested.

Welcome back Dribble,

Can't be Dribble. Too well written.

some of us thought you were dead.

Probably being treated in a sanatorium where internet access is banned.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

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

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:43:46 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

Having a snoop around Toyota / Prius groups would suggest that the
real world mpg is about 54 mpg (UK) 45 mpg (US)?

Still not 'brillliant' but these are still (ironically after 100 years
of the moror car and electric motor) "early days" ..?

Alll the best ..

T i m

Take a look at http://john1701a.com/

This guy has owned prii (if that's the word) for years and kep meticulous
records and weblogs, to the point where I wonder if he has a dangerous
obsession. He's certainly a fanatical evangelist.

Makes interesting reading!

And remember multiply US mpg by 1.2 for comparison.

D

In article , John
Rumm writes

The nutter count in this thread seems to have dropped recently. Nice huh!

Yes, but you're replying to one of his sockpuppets, you know.

vortex2 wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:43:46 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


We don't do 20k miles/year driving to the bowls club at 10mph.

Ok. But the figures I've seen from respected sources say that you just
don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. And that it's not as good as a
similar sized and performance diesel. Costing half that of the Prius.

Having a snoop around Toyota / Prius groups would suggest that the
real world mpg is about 54 mpg (UK) 45 mpg (US)?

Still not 'brillliant' but these are still (ironically after 100 years
of the moror car and electric motor) "early days" ..?

Alll the best ..

T i m

Take a look at http://john1701a.com/

This guy has owned prii (if that's the word) for years and kep meticulous
records and weblogs, to the point where I wonder if he has a dangerous
obsession. He's certainly a fanatical evangelist.

Makes interesting reading!

And remember multiply US mpg by 1.2 for comparison.

D

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , John
Rumm writes

The nutter count in this thread seems to have dropped recently. Nice huh!

Yes, but you're replying to one of his sockpuppets, you know.


I'd thought I'd sussed that straight away but Dave Plowman reckons
timegoesby is far too literate to be a drivel clone.

Interesting too that Geoff goes on holiday and so does (did?) Dribble


--

In article ,
Matt wrote:
I'd thought I'd sussed that straight away but Dave Plowman reckons
timegoesby is far too literate to be a drivel clone.

Not that's much of a compliment. Drivel would fail an 11+ in English.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:28:38 +0100, Matt
wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , John
Rumm writes

The nutter count in this thread seems to have dropped recently. Nice huh!

Yes, but you're replying to one of his sockpuppets, you know.


I'd thought I'd sussed that straight away but Dave Plowman reckons
timegoesby is far too literate to be a drivel clone.

Interesting too that Geoff goes on holiday and so does (did?) Dribble

Geoff would have to be a very good actor to manage a Dribble act of
such complexity over such a long period of time.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Vortex wrote:

What I mean by "perceived" economy relates to the irrational and dismissive
prejudice that has permeated this entire thread....I suspect most
correspondents have never even sat in a Prius - let alone driven one - so
are not qualified to adopt such a judgemental position.. As a Prius owner,
I have merely trying to communicate that the reality is somewhat different
to this perception.

"Don't knock it til you've tried it" is the message I suppose.

To an extent you are probably right. The car is obviously "good enough"
to satisfy a good proportion of its owners.

The main reason you will find people being dismissive in this thread is
that all sorts "it can walk on water" claims were being made by someone
who has a reputation in this group for making bogus claims, and being
suckered by advertising hype without ever seeming to apply any rational
thought to the implications of what he claims. He claims to own a prius
(and yet seems to know little that you would anticipate an owner of the
vehicle would know). He also makes a vast collection of other rather
doubtful claims which does not add to his credibility.

So far we have been told that the performance of a prius "****es all
over a BMW 5 series", and that it has better "top gear" acceleration. We
are told that its aesthetic design is tantamount to perfection, when
many of us seem to find it a bit of an acquired taste. We are told it
does not have a gearbox or any gears, and there is no element of
variable ratio in its drive train linkage between engine and wheels. And
so it goes on, day it night.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
My father got an average of 53 mpg over 3 years with a Morris Minor in the
early '50s. ;-)

But in the 1950's if your father had lived where I live he could probably
have driven to my Tesco (had it existed) with barely a stop. Now there are
something like 11 sets of traffic lights (over about 1.5 miles)

--
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]

T i m wrote:

I thought most trucks were regulated (to 56 mph) these days?

Some are restricted - but there seems to be a good number that aren't.

I dare say you are right re the brakes (especially on a fully laden
vehicle) but I can't think of a time when *I* have *ever* had a lorry
have difficulty stopping behind me? I try to drive smoothly,

In fact, as I think Clarkson has said in the past, even though people
bang on about not liking driving on the same roads as HGVs, it is
exceedingly rare for their drivers to ever cause any concern regarding
the way they drive - as a class they tend to be very professional. They
may not be able to stop as quickly, but at least they have a good
vantage point to see well ahead.

Yes, but I really don't think you need anything other than 'transport'
to earn a living?

Probably not. In spite of what many people say, it is rare to find
someone who buys a car just out of need (yourself excepted perhaps) -
there is normally a strong element of desire in there as well.

Yup, in fact one of them was on my shopping list! (the GPS, not the
motorbike.... then again if motorist persecution gets much worse, I can
see the attraction of two wheels for fair weather).


;-) I have the (now obsolete) Garmin GPS V, now replaced by the
Quest. I don't have any spare cash but if I lost my GPS I would find
the money to buy another ASAP! Best bit of kit ever ;-)

I quite fancy one of the "tomtom go" go beasties - especially as they
accept a whole bunch of downloads for special points of interest as well.

And if you do put yer 200hp to good safe use overtaking something you
will probably only be up behind something else within seconds .. and

True - only worth it in lightish traffic.


So maybe we are back to the 'need' (or desirability) being a function
of your location?

or time of day you travel... or how much you need to pose!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:00:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I thought most trucks were regulated (to 56 mph) these days?

Some are restricted - but there seems to be a good number that aren't.

You can tell those that are .. they are the ones that take up the
middle lane for 5 miles overtaking each other?

In fact, as I think Clarkson has said in the past, even though people
bang on about not liking driving on the same roads as HGVs, it is
exceedingly rare for their drivers to ever cause any concern regarding
the way they drive - as a class they tend to be very professional.

In general I would agree .. especially the shout "Eddie Stobart" g
and the likes of Sainsbury etc? Nut I'm not sure about some coach
drivers or skip lorries .. ?

They
may not be able to stop as quickly, but at least they have a good
vantage point to see well ahead.

Well that's true .. and good job we can stop quickly because we don't
have such a good view (and that includes following vans, coaches,
trucks and 'off roaders') ...

Yes, but I really don't think you need anything other than 'transport'
to earn a living?

Probably not. In spite of what many people say, it is rare to find
someone who buys a car just out of need (yourself excepted perhaps) -
there is normally a strong element of desire in there as well.

I'm not sure about that .. I would have to say (straw poll) that
*most* of the folk *I* know have bought something practical (for
them)? Mum and Dad for the seat height, my niece because my Mum and
Dad were selling cheap, my missus because my niece was selling cheap
g. My neighbour is leasing a base Focus because his 'company' 205
was getting too expensive to own, another neighbour has a 'mobility'
Focus to carry the dog in the back. My BIL has the 2.5 Disco to tow
the big caravan and another mate (who sold me the 218SD) just sold his
Astra Estate and bought a nearly new small diesel Rover because his
job involves diving quite a bit (50+_ mpg). They have also just bought
a second hand Scenic as they now have a baby?. In fact *I* can only
think of one person who has bought anything for 'style' and that was
an old Merc convertable (either that or the point was wasted on me if
they have bought for style!).

Maybe if you are a consultant surgeon you may move in different
circles to me John! ;-)


I quite fancy one of the "tomtom go" go beasties - especially as they
accept a whole bunch of downloads for special points of interest as well.

The Garmin Quest would be my next choice (from the V) as it's also
compact, waterproof and battery powered (for hand held / cycling /
motorbike use).


So maybe we are back to the 'need' (or desirability) being a function
of your location?

or time of day you travel... or how much you need to pose!

True as well ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:

Probably not. In spite of what many people say, it is rare to find
someone who buys a car just out of need (yourself excepted perhaps) -
there is normally a strong element of desire in there as well.


I'm not sure about that .. I would have to say (straw poll) that
*most* of the folk *I* know have bought something practical (for

I was intending to suggest the many will buy an impractical car just
because it looks good (although I did have a conversation with someone
who wanted to buy a Frontera for just that reason!).

I was more getting at the fact that the decision to get a new car is
often an emotional one, and the "logic" follows on as justification.
i.e. I quite like the idea of a new car... now lets think - this one is
getting on a bit it might start costing a bit to maintain etc.

Hence why car adverts don't often try to sell you on technical details
or features, because it is usually only the anoraks who will respond to
those things.

them)? Mum and Dad for the seat height, my niece because my Mum and

Well, I presume the previous one worked - they just desired something
that was easier to get in and out of.

Dad were selling cheap, my missus because my niece was selling cheap

Did SWMBO want a new car before she new there was a bargain to be had?;-)

Maybe if you are a consultant surgeon you may move in different
circles to me John! ;-)

Surgeon, nope! Although I am willing to learn... all I need now is a
willing vic^h^h^h patient ;^



--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

Oops - sort of said that backwards!

I was intending to suggest the many will buy an impractical car just

^
not



--
Cheers,

John.

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

AJH wrote:

There's more than one issue here, the first is the prius combines the
electric motor output with the ic output for maximum performance, so
the electrical bits are a lot less powerful than the total power, so
charge under regeneration is limited.

Indeed.

I don't know the charge characteristic of the prius battery but I
thought lead acid batteries can discharge faster than they can be

IIUC is uses NiMH batteries not lead acid.

charged. Also the charge curve is not a straight line, so charging is
split into different bands, the most charge is limited to the "bulk"
part of the charge, as the battery fills up it can not accept a high
charge rate.

You could offset that a little by dumping regen energy into a capacitor
first I suppose.

Regenarative braking is ALWAYS worth doing at any state of battery charge.


Only if you have enough capacity to accept the charge at the rate the
deceleration throws at it.

Which you ought to have since the control computer will aim to maintain
the battery at an average 80% charge...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Hysterical it is. You must be aware that you are communicating with a
number of the not very bright posters on ukdiy. One says you can get 60
mpg from a Land Cruiser, when a neighbour pours money into his tank,
one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?) and one just went on about
something I couldn't be bothered with and all of them make out you
are a liar because they know more about your car than what you do,
despite not ever seeing one.


I know you're not the brightest card in the pack,

I regard you as a nutter, who is leader of the ukdiy nutter band. You
contribute nothing useful in threads, yet are in virtually every one of
them.

John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

one thinks that you have to measure the battery charge as well to get
the real mpg on your car, when the car is not charged from a socket
with only petrol propelling the car (how else do you measure mpg,
except by measuring the petrol poured in?)

You were missing his point obviously. If you are conducting a test over
a short distance urban test route (i.e. under ten miles) and the vehicle
in question is capable of doing a couple of miles (in the right
circumstances) on stored electric power only, then you need to know that
the state of charge of the battery at the start and end of the test is
the same. Otherwise you may get misleading results - effectively
including energy depleted from the battery that was gained from petrol
that you were not metering.

After a time you will see who the nutters are. Others have fun with
them and wind them up. It is best to killfile them. The problem is that
they start messing up serious threads, which are very useful to many
people.

The nutter count in this thread seems to have dropped recently. Nice huh!

I don't see any change.


Cheers,

John.

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