In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Roger, you are wrong as usual. Sad but true. FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint,
further refined by FIAT around 1971. The Mini went around corners like
it was on rails. Most copied the design in varying forms.

So therefore all FWD cars go round corners like they're on rails?

And, of course, that's why all F1 cars are FWD because of the superior
roadholding. Jaguar, Aston Martin, Ferrari, etc too. It's so nice to get
the benefit of your extensive knowledge.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

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

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:50:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
through a haze of senile flatulence wrote:

In article ,
Matt aka Lord Hall wrote:

With one exception (and even that - the M5 it's marginal) their entire
range is anything but a "drivers car" The rear wheel drive thing is
just a throwback and pure misinformation so they can sell old
powertrains on "new" models.

I'd love to know what's old about BMW engines. The fact is they major on
in line sixes - perhaps the best engine layout ever - which just plain
ain't suitable for FWD.

Nothing wrong with the engines - fantastic engineering. But the gripe
is why does a car designed to move 4/5 people end up being so wasteful
of space to accommodate the powertrain just to gain (at best) marginal
handling advantages (witness the continual Bavarian drivel about 50/50
weight distribution)

Lord Hall all will be outdated as electric and hybrids take over. The new
all electric Mitsubishis will have motor in hub wheels.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is not. The flat 4 is, as the centre of gravity is low, which
promotes better handling.

That will be why it's so popular, then?

Richard, the same reason the superior Stirling/electric hybrid is superior
and that is not used either.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:36:38 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Matt contains these words:

With one exception (and even that - the M5 it's marginal) their entire
range is anything but a "drivers car" The rear wheel drive thing is
just a throwback and pure misinformation so they can sell old
powertrains on "new" models.

I see that you are young enough to have been brainwashed into believing
that front wheel drive is the bees knees when in reality it was
introduced purely as a cost saving exercise and a great deal of
development time and money has since been wasted curing the inherent
problems. Just like Porsche and their outboard motor. The current state
is unremarkable but where would they be now if the initial layout had
been better?

I'm not brainwashed by front wheel drive at all. It probably
comprises 20% of my road miles a year at the most. 70%+ of my miles
are in RWD cars, virtually none of them are in BMW's or Mercs!



--

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Sad but true. FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint,
further refined by FIAT around 1971. The Mini went around corners like
it was on rails. Most copied the design in varying forms.

So therefore all FWD cars go round corners like they're on rails?

And, of course, that's why all F1 cars are FWD because of the superior
roadholding.

Richard, they have the engines in the centre.

** snip senility **

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:55:34 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint.

No, the Mini was just a minor step. Perfection in front wheel drive
arrived about 30 years after that.


--

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:18:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Lord Hall, you are right for a change. Front wheel drive has always
been
better to drive.

There speaks someone who has never driven a powerful car.

His front wheel drive DB6 is absolutely unique :-)

Lord Hall, It would be, if it was.

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:55:34 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint.

No, the Mini was just a minor step. Perfection in front wheel drive
arrived about 30 years after that.

Lord Hall, no. The Mini pefected it as before they had to arrange the
steering so the wheels slanted on turning - Citroen. Handling was poor.
All after the Mini refined it.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Sad but true. FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint,
further refined by FIAT around 1971. The Mini went around corners like it
was on rails. Most copied the design in varying forms.

I am well aware of the prewar antecedents of the Citroen Light 15 and I
am sure that with a little bit of research I could probably find an even
earlier example.

The Mini didn't roll much when it cornered but that was due to the
transverse layout of the engine. It didn't actually get round corners
faster in the hands of Joe Public, it just seemed that way to the
driver.

ISTR that the prototype Minis had their engines facing the opposite
direction so unless the direction of rotation was also reversed they
must have been real dogs to drive.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I see that you are young enough to have been brainwashed into believing
that front wheel drive is the bees knees when in reality it was
introduced purely as a cost saving exercise and a great deal of
development time and money has since been wasted curing the inherent
problems.

It is, however, a space saving package for small cars.

Agreed, saving space saves money, as does fitting small wheels.

--
Roger Chapman

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Utter crap Dribble, the c of g might be lower but the engine will
always be a complete nail compared to an inline 6.

Lord Hall, you lack knowledge me son. The in-line 6 is perfect for balance.
On a flat you put in extra crank balancers. A far better car when a flat is
in it.

I don't go along with Dave about the flat 4 being particularly poor. It
is after all (along with 6 in line engines) one of those configerations
that balance at both primary and secondary level. Dribble of course gets
it wrong. Contra rotating out of balance shafts (which is what I assume
he means by crank balancers) is what is used to cancel out the secondary
vibrations in engines that don't dynamically balance.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Sad but true. FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint,
further refined by FIAT around 1971. The Mini went around corners like
it
was on rails. Most copied the design in varying forms.

I am well aware of the prewar antecedents of the Citroen Light 15 and I
am sure that with a little bit of research I could probably find an even
earlier example.

The Mini didn't roll much when it cornered but that was due to the
transverse layout of the engine. It didn't actually get round corners
faster in the hands of Joe Public, it just seemed that way to the
driver.

Roger, alas you are wrong again. Sad but true.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Utter crap Dribble, the c of g might be lower but the engine will
always be a complete nail compared to an inline 6.

Lord Hall, you lack knowledge me son. The in-line 6 is perfect for
balance.
On a flat you put in extra crank balancers. A far better car when a
flat is
in it.

I don't go along with Dave about the flat 4 being particularly poor. It
is after all (along with 6 in line engines) one of those configerations
that balance at both primary and secondary level. Dribble of course gets
it wrong.

Roger, that was very good, as you got some of it right. Good try.

The message
from Matt contains these words:

With one exception (and even that - the M5 it's marginal) their entire
range is anything but a "drivers car" The rear wheel drive thing is
just a throwback and pure misinformation so they can sell old
powertrains on "new" models.

I see that you are young enough to have been brainwashed into believing
that front wheel drive is the bees knees when in reality it was
introduced purely as a cost saving exercise and a great deal of
development time and money has since been wasted curing the inherent
problems. Just like Porsche and their outboard motor. The current state
is unremarkable but where would they be now if the initial layout had
been better?

I'm not brainwashed by front wheel drive at all.

You certainly gave that impression.

It probably
comprises 20% of my road miles a year at the most. 70%+ of my miles
are in RWD cars, virtually none of them are in BMW's or Mercs!

So what do you actually drive?

FWIW I spent almost all of the last 25 years driving 4WD cars (3 of them
over the period) and would still be doing so if I could have found
another to my liking.

--
Roger Chapman

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint.

No, the Mini was just a minor step. Perfection in front wheel drive
arrived about 30 years after that.

Perfection in FWD is an oxymoron. All you can do is minimise the torque
steering and tyre wear and hope the poor weight distribution and weight
transfer aft on acceleration don't cause too many handling problems.
(Incidentally Colin Chapman {no relation} was very keen on 50/50 weight
distribution and AFAIK he was not Bavarian).

Lord Hall, no. The Mini pefected it as before they had to arrange the
steering so the wheels slanted on turning - Citroen. Handling was poor.
All after the Mini refined it.

I have no idea what you mean by "wheels slanted".The Citroen used
universal joints which introduced a slight variation in otherwise
constant motion but when I ran a SWB Landrover for a bit without a rear
propshaft in the 60s it wasn't noticeable.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Lord Hall, you lack knowledge me son. The in-line 6 is perfect for
balance. On a flat you put in extra crank balancers. A far better car
when a flat is in it.

So you're now suggesting a flat six needs balance shafts?

Any more pearls of wisdom today?

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

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

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It is not. The flat 4 is, as the centre of gravity is low, which
promotes better handling.

That will be why it's so popular, then?

Richard, the same reason the superior Stirling/electric hybrid is
superior and that is not used either.

So the 'superior' Stirling/electric hybrid was around when the flat four
was popular as in the Beetle?

Wonder why Toyota have dropped the Stirling engine...

--
*Modulation in all things *

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

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
And, of course, that's why all F1 cars are FWD because of the superior
roadholding.

Richard, they have the engines in the centre.

So has a BMW. And virtually all cars. A Vespa doesn't.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

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

In article ,
Roger wrote:
ISTR that the prototype Minis had their engines facing the opposite
direction so unless the direction of rotation was also reversed they
must have been real dogs to drive.

They swapped it round because of carb icing - hence the idler gears.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

In article , Roger wrote:
I find it curious that Skoda does so much better than the rest of the
VAG range all of which are listed below BMW. They are all VWs under the
skin and assembly is only a small part of the process. Badge shouldn't
make such a big difference unless (as others have suggested) Skoda
drivers really are more easily satisfied.

I would have thought that assembly was pretty significant. IIRC Skodas
are built in almost brand new plants. And there may be issues of
industrial relations - think of the BL plant managers who had to let any
old rubbish go lest they provoke another strike.

I had two Skodas. I bought my 1995 Felicia for £6800 new (list, no
discounts to be had) and sold it back to another Skoda dealer for £4000
cash three years later. Less than £1000p.a. in depreciation. Entire
warranty work one wiper blade (snapped rivet). But then it became
socially acceptable to own a Skoda so I bought a Suzuki Wagon instead g

--
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]

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haxe of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Lord Hall, you lack knowledge me son. The in-line 6 is perfect for
balance. On a flat you put in extra crank balancers. A far better car
when a flat is in it.

So you're now suggesting a flat six needs balance shafts?

Any

** snip senility **

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,

Doctor Drivel wrote:
It is not. The flat 4 is, as the centre of gravity is low, which
promotes better handling.

That will be why it's so popular, then?

Richard, the same reason the superior Stirling/electric hybrid is
superior and that is not used either.

So the 'superior' Stirling/electric hybrid was around when the flat four
was popular as in the Beetle?

Boy, this one is senile

** snip more senility **

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,

Doctor Drivel wrote:
And, of course, that's why all F1 cars are FWD because of the superior
roadholding.

Richard, they have the engines in the centre.

So has a BMW.

What an idiot.

** snip senility **

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

FWD was introduced in the
1930s. It was perfecetd by the Mini with the constant velocity joint.

No, the Mini was just a minor step. Perfection in front wheel drive
arrived about 30 years after that.

Perfection in FWD is an oxymoron.

** snip senile Roger ramblings **

Lord Hall, no. The Mini perfected it as before they had to arrange the
steering so the wheels slanted on turning - Citroen. Handling was poor.
All after the Mini refined it.

I have no idea what you mean by "wheels slanted".

Roger the wheels kicked to one side when turned. It was obvious just by
looking at the them.

** snip more senile Roger ramblings **

He does try though.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

FWIW I spent almost all of the last 25 years driving 4WD cars

Roger, you are a disgusting, polluting, unsociable, disgusting, person for
doing that. Shame on you.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:57:12 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:04:46 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Prat Clarkson said that becasue it is not a Ferrari. Note: all the
stars
have them, inc me.

The only star you resemble is the one my cat shows when she walks out
of
the room.

LOL

That's a keyboard, a tea bag and a slurp of milk you owe me!

Lord Hall, please keep your mind on Makitas. This does you no good.

Even you have to admit that that was a pretty good response to your
delusion of grandeur......

Matt, it was not. I am a class act.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:57:12 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:04:46 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Prat Clarkson said that becasue it is not a Ferrari. Note: all the
stars
have them, inc me.

The only star you resemble is the one my cat shows when she walks out
of
the room.

LOL

That's a keyboard, a tea bag and a slurp of milk you owe me!

Lord Hall, please keep your mind on Makitas. This does you no good.

Even you have to admit that that was a pretty good response to your
delusion of grandeur......

Matt, it was not. I am a class act.

That almost a spoonerism of cats arse which is what was said earlier...
--
David

"andy hall" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have visited the Axminster Power Tools show for several years, both
when it was at Shepton Mallett and now at Westpoint near Exeter.

Andy good innovative hand tools around?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:34:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"andy hall" wrote in message
roups.com...
I have visited the Axminster Power Tools show for several years, both
when it was at Shepton Mallett and now at Westpoint near Exeter.

Andy good innovative hand tools around?

Certainly some good ones.


I like to use hand planes for certain work and have a number made by
Lie-Nielsen. http://www.lie-nielsen.com/

There were some interesting specialised ones such as scraping planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=85
and I might put one of these on my Christmas list.

There was also on Lie-Nielsen's stand a set of DVDs by David
Charlesworth covering sharpening and use of planes for standard and
shooting operations. Recommended for anybody interested in hand plane
care and use.


I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:34:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"andy hall" aka Matt wrote in message
roups.com...
I have visited the Axminster Power Tools show for several years, both
when it was at Shepton Mallett and now at Westpoint near Exeter.

Andy good innovative hand tools around?

Certainly some good ones.

I like to use hand planes for certain work and have a number made by
Lie-Nielsen. http://www.lie-nielsen.com/

There were some interesting specialised ones such as scraping planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=85
and I might put one of these on my Christmas list.

There was also on Lie-Nielsen's stand a set of DVDs by David
Charlesworth covering sharpening and use of planes for standard and
shooting operations. Recommended for anybody interested in hand plane
care and use.

I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

Matt, you have a thing about planes.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

$185 !!!!!!!!!

For a cleaning up plane?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:34:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"andy hall" wrote in message
roups.com...
I have visited the Axminster Power Tools show for several years, both
when it was at Shepton Mallett and now at Westpoint near Exeter.

Andy good innovative hand tools around?

Certainly some good ones.

I like to use hand planes for certain work and have a number made by
Lie-Nielsen. http://www.lie-nielsen.com/

There were some interesting specialised ones such as scraping planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=85
and I might put one of these on my Christmas list.

There was also on Lie-Nielsen's stand a set of DVDs by David
Charlesworth covering sharpening and use of planes for standard and
shooting operations. Recommended for anybody interested in hand plane
care and use.

I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

Wickes are now selling the Draper ratchet pipe cutter for £15. This is very
useful indeed and well worth having.

Item 12 he
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...227305-1533236

And as mentioned on another thread, the Monument 15 and 22mm olive puller at
around £20. This is very new on the market.
http://www.monument-tools.com/whatsnewv2.htm

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall aka Matt wrote:
I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

$185 !!!!!!!!!

For a cleaning up plane?

Matt goes on price only...and if you can get parts. Cheaper products can do
the same, and if they fail replace them, and still save a ton of money.
Take a £90 Makita drill. After two years if it requires a £50 repair, and
no drill for a week or so, is it worth it? You have to balance it all up.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:18:24 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:34:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"andy hall" aka Matt wrote in message
roups.com...
I have visited the Axminster Power Tools show for several years, both
when it was at Shepton Mallett and now at Westpoint near Exeter.

Andy good innovative hand tools around?

Certainly some good ones.

I like to use hand planes for certain work and have a number made by
Lie-Nielsen. http://www.lie-nielsen.com/

There were some interesting specialised ones such as scraping planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=85
and I might put one of these on my Christmas list.

There was also on Lie-Nielsen's stand a set of DVDs by David
Charlesworth covering sharpening and use of planes for standard and
shooting operations. Recommended for anybody interested in hand plane
care and use.

I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

Matt, you have a thing about planes.

You had better ask Matt about that.


I quite like them and appreciate the feel and use of a good one.


--

..andy

In article ,
Roger wrote:
Lord Hall, you lack knowledge me son. The in-line 6 is perfect for
balance. On a flat you put in extra crank balancers. A far better car
when a flat is in it.

I don't go along with Dave about the flat 4 being particularly poor.

I never said that. Or even implied it. I once owned a Jowett Javelin and
even when it broke its crankshaft I still loved it.;-) I was just, as
usual, correcting Dribble's misinformation.
It's an expensive way to make an engine of a given power output and has
packaging disadvantages. IIRC, the only major maker to make a water cooled
unit is Subaru. If it were so wonderful as dribble implies many more
would. Even Porsche who make wonderful flat 6 engines used an inline 4 for
their attempt at a cheaper model.

It is after all (along with 6 in line engines) one of those
configerations that balance at both primary and secondary level.

Indeed.

Dribble of course gets it wrong.

Nothing new there since he has little or no *practical* knowledge of
anything. If a website gets it wrong or more likely he misreads it then it
becomes a 'fact' for him.

Contra rotating out of balance shafts (which is what I assume he means
by crank balancers) is what is used to cancel out the secondary
vibrations in engines that don't dynamically balance.

Yup. Most 4 and 6 cylinder 'V' designs. Many better 4 cylinder ones too -
including BMW.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:27:07 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

$185 !!!!!!!!!

For a cleaning up plane?

I was describing interesting and innovative things, not suggesting
that I would buy one of these. THe price of this one is probably
related to the (likely) small volume.

However, their No. 4 Smooth Plane and No. 5 Jack Plane ($300) are a
pleasure to use. I think they are worth every penny.

There are certainly more expensive planes around. There were a
couple of vendors making individual ones to order. Those are in the
£1k to £3k range.






--

..andy

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:51:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall aka Matt wrote:
I can't say that I saw anything that I would describe as innovative,
although I suppose that chisel planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

$185 !!!!!!!!!

For a cleaning up plane?

Matt goes on price only.

You had better ask Matt about that.


...and if you can get parts. Cheaper products can do
the same, and if they fail replace them, and still save a ton of money.
Take a £90 Makita drill. After two years if it requires a £50 repair, and
no drill for a week or so, is it worth it? You have to balance it all up.

You certainly do. If you take a llok at what I wrote on the subject,
money, other than total cost of ownership, was not mentioned, and then
at the end.

OTOH, it seems that you always lead with this issue, as though
purchase price is the most important factor. Perhaps it is for you.
However, to then attempt to justify that something that you buy at the
cheapest price does the same as something chosen based on what it does
and how well it does so is clearly ridiculous.



--

..andy

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:46:58 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Wickes are now selling the Draper ratchet pipe cutter for £15. This is very
useful indeed and well worth having.

Item 12 he
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...227305-1533236

Presumably because it can be fitted around a pipe in a corner? I can
see some value in that.

I like to use a little Rothenburger miniature cutter that I've had for
a while to do these kind of jobs


And as mentioned on another thread, the Monument 15 and 22mm olive puller at
around £20. This is very new on the market.
http://www.monument-tools.com/whatsnewv2.htm


Interesting. I've had a Monument pipe cutter for donkey's years.
Solid and simple and I like being able to get spare cutters easily.

Their product code 2645T on the same page is quite good as well...


--

..andy

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:51:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=975
were unusual.

$185 !!!!!!!!!

For a cleaning up plane?

Matt goes on price only...and if you can get parts. Cheaper products can do
the same, and if they fail replace them, and still save a ton of money.

Do B&Q sell chisel planes then ?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:15:22 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

However, their No. 4 Smooth Plane and No. 5 Jack Plane ($300) are a
pleasure to use. I think they are worth every penny.

I don't. Bronze is a problem for corrosion and dark stains on wood, if
you have a damp climate and workshop. Also there are a large nunber of
good options for a #4 for much less money (Veritas, old Stanley - my
"users" are all Sweethearts).

I'll buy a Lie-Nielsen if it's the only option available (a #140
perhaps), but I wouldn't go overboard on something where there are other
makers around. They are good though.

The #112 is an excellent plane. I usually use a L-N here because my
original Stanley one is a real dog. The handle arrangeent makes it much
more useful than a #12.