On 26/07/2011 00:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

engines never properly cooled and tend to be of the 50k mile variety as
a result.

OTOH almost anyone can fix one.

I had a lodger in the 70s who had a Beetle which I suppose must have
been a 1300 or possibly even a 1500 by then. (I never drove it). ISTR
that his model had problems with cracked cylinder heads which perhaps
points to the 1500.

One day, after said lodger had been away for a week or more, his
girlfriend turned up without him but with his car, a pair of new
exhausts and a request for me to fit them. Not particularly easy despite
the apparent simplicity.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950.

You sure about that. Up thread there is a reference to cable braked
Beetles and the article I cited certainly states that Beetles didn't
have hydraulic brakes until 1964 before muddying the waters with that
reference to 'standard models' without explaining the distinction.

There are load of Beetle clubs out there which give the history of the
development.

April 1950 saw the introduction of hydraulic brakes on all export models.

http://www.historicvws.org.uk/ and go to technical.

I moved into a shared flat in 1964 and one of my flatmates had a Beetle.
All I can remember from then is that it was very tail happy in the wet.
It couldn't have been completely gutless as he towed a glider trailer
with it.

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so. But decent modern tyres make a big difference to both. In '64, it was
very likely running crossplies.

i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again
and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had
available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no speed
limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.

Since the Beetles of that era couldn't reach 70 mph the lack of a
national speed limit is irrelevant.

Please quote the source of this information. It's wrong.

What were you driving in the early 60s ?

From 1962 - 1939 Rover 12 (IIRC that cost me £14)
1963 - 1955 Vauxhall Cresta
1964 - 1952 Riley 2.5

All would (and regularly did) exceed 70 mph.

I'd be interested in the figures for the Rover 12. With the top speed
accurately measured as an average of a both ways run. To compare to those
quoted for modern cars.

I'd hope both the Cresta and Riley could exceed 70, given they have
engines twice the size of a Beetle.

You criticise the Beetle's handling but drove a Cresta? ;-) The Beetle
would leave it for dead on any road which wasn't straight.

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark wrote:
That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950. i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that
time again and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that
i had available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no
speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?

Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see the
appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

You have to remember that the beetle is the only car VW ever produced with
above average reliability.
This was due to its simple nature and a very under stressed air cooled
engine.
There was less to go wrong.

I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever owning one,
I think they are poor by any standard.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Nick Leverton wrote:

PeterC wrote:

The electric toothbrush bought a month ago was half-price at £23

I pay a fiver every few months for 5 or 10 moulded blades

You *shave* your teeth? :-P

Only when they get really furry !

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second hand)
.. It was fine.

But if that came from Which? it is likely to be rubbish. You cant believe a
word Which? writes anymore. Middle class tripe for middle class old hippies
and new fangled greenies.

I have been a subscriber to this beast since the mid 1970's ( still get it
because OH likes it - but its trash. Illl informed trash) Thats off topic I
know.

On 26 July, 09:32, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in ...









In article ,
* Mark wrote:
That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950. i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that
time again and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that
i had available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no
speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?

Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see the
appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

You have to remember that the beetle is the only car VW ever produced with
above average reliability.
This was due to its simple nature and a very under stressed air cooled
engine.
There was less to go wrong.

I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever owning one,
I think they are poor by any standard.

ISTR They were expensive in their day compared to similar sized
models,

They sold on their legendary reliability. They were noisy and slow.
Didn't matter they always started on the button. In those days Lucas
starters and dynamos only lasted about 30,000 miles I.M.E.

Their best trick was their air tight cabin, Couldn't close the door
without cracking open a window.

If you didn't service them they broke down as I found out to my cost.

Engine was easily pulled out for repair. Jack up the tail, loosen all
the bolts on the bell housing, place spare wheel under engine and pull
hard on the exhaust pipes.

Paul Mc Cann

On 26/07/2011 09:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950.

You sure about that. Up thread there is a reference to cable braked
Beetles and the article I cited certainly states that Beetles didn't
have hydraulic brakes until 1964 before muddying the waters with that
reference to 'standard models' without explaining the distinction.

There are load of Beetle clubs out there which give the history of the
development.

April 1950 saw the introduction of hydraulic brakes on all export models.

http://www.historicvws.org.uk/ and go to technical.

I am a bit busy at the moment so don't have much time to research but
Classic Car magazine is just a room away. :-)

I moved into a shared flat in 1964 and one of my flatmates had a Beetle.
All I can remember from then is that it was very tail happy in the wet.
It couldn't have been completely gutless as he towed a glider trailer
with it.

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so. But decent modern tyres make a big difference to both. In '64, it was
very likely running crossplies.

There was a world of difference between the handling of the MM and the
Beetle. Perhaps not so much between the Herald and the Beetle but didn't
that also have swing rear axles (even if that effect wasn't made worse
by the weight distribution).

i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again
and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had
available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no speed
limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.

Since the Beetles of that era couldn't reach 70 mph the lack of a
national speed limit is irrelevant.

Please quote the source of this information. It's wrong.

My memory is wrong?

In the days when Classic Car used to quote top speeds in its price guide
it gave 69 mph for the 53-57 Beetle and 72 for the later 1200.

What were you driving in the early 60s ?

From 1962 - 1939 Rover 12 (IIRC that cost me £14)
1963 - 1955 Vauxhall Cresta
1964 - 1952 Riley 2.5

All would (and regularly did) exceed 70 mph.

I'd be interested in the figures for the Rover 12. With the top speed
accurately measured as an average of a both ways run. To compare to those
quoted for modern cars.

IIRC the Rovers top speed was in the order of 75 mph, the Cresta 83 mph
and the Riley mid 90s (or 100 if you wanted to believe the speedo).

I'd hope both the Cresta and Riley could exceed 70, given they have
engines twice the size of a Beetle.

Size, as they say, isn't everything. Both cars were bigger than the
Beetle as well as faster. ISTR that the 2.5 Riley had a rated output of
100bhp. That compares very favourably the 1200 Beetle at 34bhp. (Donald
Healey used an uprated version (110bhp) of that engine in one of his cars).

At the other end of the spectrum the Mini with an engine two thirds the
size had the same power output as the Beetle.

You criticise the Beetle's handling but drove a Cresta? ;-) The Beetle
would leave it for dead on any road which wasn't straight.

Absolute nonsense. Whatever it was that attracted Beetle buyers handling
wasn't part of it.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2011 09:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

..

Absolute nonsense. Whatever it was that attracted Beetle buyers handling
wasn't part of it.

It was cheap? Most of the friends I know who had this little car bought it
for being cheap. They were mainly teen and twenties boys ( usually
students). The car was noisy, uncomfortable ( and that was just as a
passenger in the seats, nothing else) and it was horrid to drive.
Reliable? Most of them sat on drives or lanes most weekends being "fixed" by
their owners. because they had something or other wrong. Thats what I
remember.
--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:54:59 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

There was a world of difference between the handling of the MM and the
Beetle. Perhaps not so much between the Herald and the Beetle but didn't
that also have swing rear axles (even if that effect wasn't made worse
by the weight distribution).

The Herald and several other Triumphs were infamous for the rear axle
design which lead to "jacking up" and "tucking under".
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see
the appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

You have to remember that the beetle is the only car VW ever produced
with above average reliability. This was due to its simple nature and a
very under stressed air cooled engine. There was less to go wrong.

Apart from not having a water based cooling system, what else about the
car was 'simple' by the standards of the day?

I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever owning
one, I think they are poor by any standard.

Were you in a position to buy and drive a car at the time mentioned which
started this discussion? ie roughly 1960?

Only those with an interest in classic cars would dream of owning a Beetle
these days.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

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

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

Sigh. I passed my test on one. And have driven virtually every version.
Any car with better front suspension than rear can be tail happy in the
wet. And the Minor had quite decent independent front suspension - a very
basic rigid rear axle. Of course that's not to say a crude independent
rear suspension setup could be worse. The Herald proved that.

But if that came from Which? it is likely to be rubbish. You cant
believe a word Which? writes anymore. Middle class tripe for middle
class old hippies and new fangled greenies.

Make up your mind if you're discussing Which now or 40 odd years ago.

I have been a subscriber to this beast since the mid 1970's ( still get
it because OH likes it - but its trash. Illl informed trash) Thats off
topic I know.

It's actually on topic. But would be more to the point if you gave reasons.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

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

In article
,
fred wrote:
I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever
owning one, I think they are poor by any standard.

ISTR They were expensive in their day compared to similar sized
models,

Obviously, being an import. No Common Market then.

They sold on their legendary reliability. They were noisy and slow.
Didn't matter they always started on the button. In those days Lucas
starters and dynamos only lasted about 30,000 miles I.M.E.

Noisy? They left the noise behind when on the move...

Their best trick was their air tight cabin, Couldn't close the door
without cracking open a window.

If you didn't service them they broke down as I found out to my cost.

And this was different from others cars in what way?

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

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

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
http://www.historicvws.org.uk/ and go to technical.

I am a bit busy at the moment so don't have much time to research but
Classic Car magazine is just a room away. :-)

Classic Car magazines are full of inaccuracies.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:53:35 +0100, sweetheart wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

I had two Morris Minors (the first one being a convertible!)

Both of them were definitely tail happy in the wet...and even in the dry
if pushed. Cart spring rear suspension and the 'interesting' torsion bars
at the front.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

Sigh. I passed my test on one. And have driven virtually every version.
Any car with better front suspension than rear can be tail happy in the
wet. And the Minor had quite decent independent front suspension - a very
basic rigid rear axle. Of course that's not to say a crude independent
rear suspension setup could be worse. The Herald proved that.

I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.
Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.
I had one, but not by choice.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see
the appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

You have to remember that the beetle is the only car VW ever produced
with above average reliability. This was due to its simple nature and a
very under stressed air cooled engine. There was less to go wrong.

Apart from not having a water based cooling system, what else about the
car was 'simple' by the standards of the day?

I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever owning
one, I think they are poor by any standard.

Were you in a position to buy and drive a car at the time mentioned which
started this discussion? ie roughly 1960?

I think I had a couple of Corgi cars to play with.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:53:35 +0100, sweetheart wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

I had two Morris Minors (the first one being a convertible!)

Both of them were definitely tail happy in the wet...and even in the dry
if pushed. Cart spring rear suspension and the 'interesting' torsion bars
at the front.


Was that more a case of the car or the driver?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:

It's actually on topic. But would be more to the point if you gave
reasons.


Well when I was young and daft and I first got this magazine I believed
everything it said. before buying anything we would chekc. OH still tells me
to do this. But my experience was they were wrong. The things suggested
were always expensive and often no more reliable than those of cheaper
makes.

Their car advice is out of date and often based on small samples. The
samples are skewed and about as useful as Jeremy Clarkeson on anything that
isnt an expensive and fast car.

Their information in last months mag about the mail service was I would bet
biased because the system broke down and I know because I was taking part in
it. So how many of those who reported have been included and how many like
me ( because of their system failure) were disregarded?

They are also selective in what they say anyway. That I know from experience
too.

More recenly I have read the magazine and bugun to realise it has a series
of political agenda's its playing out. One is the green issues thing.

Its financial profduct advice is so poor and unconsistent as to be useless.
It contradicts itself monthly ( probaly always has but its noticeable to me
now)

The biggest sod I have had with it is the recommendation of a site which OH
fell in love with. He of the penny pinching about heating etc. has bought
two worthless things off this site just because Which? recommended it!

What else do you want me to say?
--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:43:30 +0100, sweetheart wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:53:35 +0100, sweetheart wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even
more so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

I had two Morris Minors (the first one being a convertible!)

Both of them were definitely tail happy in the wet...and even in the
dry if pushed. Cart spring rear suspension and the 'interesting'
torsion bars at the front.


Was that more a case of the car or the driver?

Oh, the driver played a part. But I didn't get that problem driving other
cars...ergo the car had a problem.

Even my wallowing Humber Hawk wasn't as bad. And the Land Rover was much
better...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 26/07/2011 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.historicvws.org.uk/ and go to technical.

I am a bit busy at the moment so don't have much time to research but
Classic Car magazine is just a room away. :-)

Classic Car magazines are full of inaccuracies.

In which case you won't have any problem detailing a few dozen of the
vast number you have discovered over the years.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.

The suspension allowed too much camber change in an adverse way.

I had one, but not by choice.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:53:35 +0100, sweetheart wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even
more so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

I had two Morris Minors (the first one being a convertible!)

Both of them were definitely tail happy in the wet...and even in the
dry if pushed. Cart spring rear suspension and the 'interesting'
torsion bars at the front.


Was that more a case of the car or the driver?

Every car handles perfectly safely - if driven within its limits. It's
those limits that vary between designs. And, of course, the ability of the
driver to keep it under control if it does loose adhesion.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

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

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
It's actually on topic. But would be more to the point if you gave
reasons.


Well when I was young and daft and I first got this magazine I believed
everything it said. before buying anything we would chekc. OH still
tells me to do this. But my experience was they were wrong. The things
suggested were always expensive and often no more reliable than those
of cheaper makes.

My experience is quite the reverse. I've bought a number of consumer items
based on their recommendations, and been perfectly happy. The only way I'd
be certain they were wrong would have been to buy another make at the same
time and subject it to the same sort of use. Which is a nonsense, so I
left that bit to them.

Their car advice is out of date and often based on small samples. The
samples are skewed and about as useful as Jeremy Clarkeson on anything
that isnt an expensive and fast car.

Do you actually read the full article carefully and any follow up data?
What you wish of a car may well be different to the average - and their
views are meant for the average.

Their information in last months mag about the mail service was I would
bet biased because the system broke down and I know because I was
taking part in it. So how many of those who reported have been included
and how many like me ( because of their system failure) were
disregarded?

That's a bit like saying the Bloggs Supreme is a wonderful car in every
way - when in fact if broke down during the test, and not mentioning it.
Or did you expect them to falsify data?

They are also selective in what they say anyway. That I know from
experience too.

Perhaps you'd give an example of a material fact being left out?

More recenly I have read the magazine and bugun to realise it has a
series of political agenda's its playing out. One is the green issues
thing.

Do they tell lies about these issues? Or merely give views you don't like?


Its financial profduct advice is so poor and unconsistent as to be
useless. It contradicts itself monthly ( probaly always has but its
noticeable to me now)

Or the said products change?

The biggest sod I have had with it is the recommendation of a site which
OH fell in love with. He of the penny pinching about heating etc. has
bought two worthless things off this site just because Which?
recommended it!

That seems more of an issue with 'OH' than Which.

What else do you want me to say?

--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?

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

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
Classic Car magazines are full of inaccuracies.

In which case you won't have any problem detailing a few dozen of the
vast number you have discovered over the years.

How long have you got? Every single copy of Practical Classics (the only
one I read regularly) has schoolboy howlers in every episode. Others are
equally as bad.

If you're really interested in the history of a car like the Beetle, go to
the suitable car club - they'll have all the data, and in some cases more
accurate than the original maker could supply. Very much the case with BL
who didn't keep accurate records.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:

Do you actually read the full article carefully and any follow up data?
What you wish of a car may well be different to the average - and their
views are meant for the average.

Oh absolutely. They are still making claims about my present car - a
Mazda - in the current articles . Since this will be my third Mazda (
punctuated by a series of Clio's), and since I am driving the car I know
they are wrong. The car is excellent and has a good track record. But as I
said the sameple is made up of members ( dim wits like me) who write in and
tell them about cars. If the members dont pick a car, it doesnt get
feedback.



That's a bit like saying the Bloggs Supreme is a wonderful car in every
way - when in fact if broke down during the test, and not mentioning it.
Or did you expect them to falsify data?

I was signed in to take part in the survey. I kept my diary. I logged in but
the log in failed. I reported it. I was told a number of people had similar
problems. It was not fixed and by the time we are able to access the log in
the survey was closed. I wonder how many of the small samples were locked
out?

Also it is often the case that those with complaints will sing twice as
loudly as those with bouquests. ( actually I think its about 7 times
acording to the research) Add that to a skewed middle class sample of
subscribers and what do you really have in terms of bias?




More recenly I have read the magazine and bugun to realise it has a
series of political agenda's its playing out. One is the green issues
thing.

Do they tell lies about these issues? Or merely give views you don't like?

I certainly think they do not present the full facts.


Its financial profduct advice is so poor and unconsistent as to be
useless. It contradicts itself monthly ( probaly always has but its
noticeable to me now)

Or the said products change?

No, but their views do often.

The biggest sod I have had with it is the recommendation of a site which
OH fell in love with. He of the penny pinching about heating etc. has
bought two worthless things off this site just because Which?
recommended it!

That seems more of an issue with 'OH' than Which.

Indeed it may but had Which? not recommended it he would not have gone
there. I dont think they were appropriate in suggesting it in the first
place really.

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
Do you actually read the full article carefully and any follow up data?
What you wish of a car may well be different to the average - and their
views are meant for the average.

Oh absolutely. They are still making claims about my present car - a
Mazda - in the current articles . Since this will be my third Mazda (
punctuated by a series of Clio's), and since I am driving the car I know
they are wrong. The car is excellent and has a good track record. But
as I said the sameple is made up of members ( dim wits like me) who
write in and tell them about cars. If the members dont pick a car, it
doesnt get feedback.

I'm not quite sure how you expect them to do a feature on member's cars if
those members either don't have that particular car, or choose not to
report on it? Or am I missing something? Or are you saying they ignored
the data you sent to them when it was requested?

As regards reliability issues, you'll find examples of even the most
unreliable car which lives its life fault free. And with cars becoming
even more reliable, that percentage gets higher. What is more telling is
if a member would recommend their car to a friend.


That's a bit like saying the Bloggs Supreme is a wonderful car in
every way - when in fact if broke down during the test, and not
mentioning it. Or did you expect them to falsify data?

I was signed in to take part in the survey. I kept my diary. I logged in
but the log in failed. I reported it. I was told a number of people
had similar problems. It was not fixed and by the time we are able to
access the log in the survey was closed. I wonder how many of the small
samples were locked out?

You're suggesting some form of conspiracy?

Also it is often the case that those with complaints will sing twice as
loudly as those with bouquests. ( actually I think its about 7 times
acording to the research) Add that to a skewed middle class sample of
subscribers and what do you really have in terms of bias?




More recenly I have read the magazine and bugun to realise it has a
series of political agenda's its playing out. One is the green issues
thing.

Do they tell lies about these issues? Or merely give views you don't
like?

I certainly think they do not present the full facts.

But do you know the full facts? As regards 'green' issues I doubt anyone
does. So all you're really saying is you disagree with them. Which is fair
enough. But then you aren't forced to by it. It's rather like buying the
Mail and then complaining the editorials are too right wing.

Its financial profduct advice is so poor and unconsistent as to be
useless. It contradicts itself monthly ( probaly always has but its
noticeable to me now)

Or the said products change?

No, but their views do often.

I'd expect them to if the product changes which happens often with
financial ones. The Bloggs SuperSaver offers the best interest rate one
month, but not the next. So the recommendation changes.

The biggest sod I have had with it is the recommendation of a site
which OH fell in love with. He of the penny pinching about heating
etc. has bought two worthless things off this site just because
Which? recommended it!

That seems more of an issue with 'OH' than Which.

Indeed it may but had Which? not recommended it he would not have gone
there. I dont think they were appropriate in suggesting it in the first
place really.

FFS, it's a subscription only publication. Not the law of the land.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

I had one!

It was essentially a cart spring across the top of the axle bolted to the
top of the diff.
The only other bits were the trailing arms bolted to the cross chassis IIRC.
The actual axles pivoted next to the diff on rubber doughnuts.

You could change the spring to one from a spitfire and get a bit better road
holding.


Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.

The suspension allowed too much camber change in an adverse way.

The spring forced the inside wheel to actually lift off the ground.
Hard to do on a car with independent suspension.


I had one, but not by choice.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

sweetheart wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.


I don't suppose you ever pushed it.

A sports car body and an extra carb on a morris minor was the Austin
healey sprite.

Definitely tail happy. Bu that was the fun of it.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even
more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.

Sigh. I passed my test on one. And have driven virtually every version.
Any car with better front suspension than rear can be tail happy in the
wet. And the Minor had quite decent independent front suspension - a very
basic rigid rear axle. Of course that's not to say a crude independent
rear suspension setup could be worse. The Herald proved that.

I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.
Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.
I had one, but not by choice.


Ah, but a judicious anti-roll bar could tame all that..my spitfire -
which I still have, had one added..controllable 4 wheel drifts..

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.

The suspension allowed too much camber change in an adverse way.


As do McPhersons struts on the front of - say - a contemporaneous Ford.


I had one, but not by choice.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

I had one!

It was essentially a cart spring across the top of the axle bolted to
the top of the diff.
The only other bits were the trailing arms bolted to the cross chassis
IIRC.
The actual axles pivoted next to the diff on rubber doughnuts.


Exactly. That is independent suspension.

You could change the spring to one from a spitfire and get a bit better
road holding.


Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.

The suspension allowed too much camber change in an adverse way.

The spring forced the inside wheel to actually lift off the ground.
Hard to do on a car with independent suspension.


You could do that in any car: I have done that on a Jagaur XKR. that is
not the problem. The problem was that as you loaded up the outer wheel
it actually moved OUTWARDS this increasing the loading, that made the
onset of a rear wheel skid very likely. Balancing that out in a real
life situation took a lot of practice. Best to induce the skid
deliberately with a hard yank on the wheel, then balance it on the
steering and throttle.

Done correctly it could ouut corner a fixed rear axle,. but the result
was always snappy and harder to drive fast.

Beetles had very similar rear suspension. But better weight
distribution. Especially with the mandatory tool box or sackk of cement
in the front boot.

Just as the Triumph had the Spitfire, the Morris had MG and Austin Healy
sports versions,. the beetle had the Porsche. A triumph of development
over bad design, since the modern porsche is still basically a hugely
modified beetle in drag.






I had one, but not by choice.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

I had one!

Makes no difference - you're still wrong. A De Dion system is classified
as independent too. Non independent means a rigid rear axle.

It was essentially a cart spring across the top of the axle bolted to
the top of the diff. The only other bits were the trailing arms bolted
to the cross chassis IIRC. The actual axles pivoted next to the diff on
rubber doughnuts.

You could change the spring to one from a spitfire and get a bit better
road holding.


Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.

The suspension allowed too much camber change in an adverse way.

The spring forced the inside wheel to actually lift off the ground.
Hard to do on a car with independent suspension.

How would you define a system which was truly independent in your view to
which an anti-roll bar was added? Which of course means most?

I had one, but not by choice.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.
Which is why they were such cr@p in corners.
I had one, but not by choice.


Ah, but a judicious anti-roll bar could tame all that..my spitfire -
which I still have, had one added..controllable 4 wheel drifts..

The Spitfire had negative camber. The Herald positive at least when
unladen - and body roll caused the loaded wheel to tuck under, as it were.

The snag was anything more sophisticated required an extra joint in the
driveshafts. So more cost. Which of course they did in later models of the
same basic design.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't think you could call the swing axels on a Herald independent.
They were connected by a cart spring across the top.

Then you're wrong.

I had one!

It was essentially a cart spring across the top of the axle bolted to
the top of the diff.

Yes, the important thing was that the diff was bolted to the chassis.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:


I'm not quite sure how you expect them to do a feature on member's cars if
those members either don't have that particular car, or choose not to
report on it? Or am I missing something? Or are you saying they ignored
the data you sent to them when it was requested?

I am saying they dont ask. They choose who they ask which means the answers
they get are not representitive. I have never been asked. I have been asked
to register several times but never get selected to fill in the
questionnaires. So, yes, I feel I get ignored.


As regards reliability issues, you'll find examples of even the most
unreliable car which lives its life fault free. And with cars becoming
even more reliable, that percentage gets higher. What is more telling is
if a member would recommend their car to a friend.




I was signed in to take part in the survey. I kept my diary. I logged in
but the log in failed. I reported it. I was told a number of people
had similar problems. It was not fixed and by the time we are able to
access the log in the survey was closed. I wonder how many of the small
samples were locked out?

You're suggesting some form of conspiracy?

No I am suggesting the results are from small samples, unrepresentitve
samples and therefore the results are quite likely to be invalid and
unreliable.



But do you know the full facts? As regards 'green' issues I doubt anyone
does.

I am pretty sure they present a received agenda. I know facts they wont
present because its not in line with what they want to present.



FFS, it's a subscription only publication. Not the law of the land.

Exactly and it draws its samples and information from those subscribers who
are unlikely to be representitive and so the data is unlikely to be
representitive.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
sweetheart wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more
so.

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second
hand) . It was fine.


I don't suppose you ever pushed it.

Actually I did. It was very heavy. My OH was steering at the time and he
told me to get out and push ( maybe I should have ditched him then before we
were married?)

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not quite sure how you expect them to do a feature on member's
cars if those members either don't have that particular car, or choose
not to report on it? Or am I missing something? Or are you saying they
ignored the data you sent to them when it was requested?

I am saying they dont ask. They choose who they ask which means the
answers they get are not representitive. I have never been asked. I
have been asked to register several times but never get selected to
fill in the questionnaires. So, yes, I feel I get ignored.

Things must have changed. I remember filling in several forms about car
ownership over a period of years. I can't see why they'd want to ignore
any member given the more data they have on any one model, the more
accurate it becomes.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

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

Roger Chapman wrote:


just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950.

You sure about that.

yes


I moved into a shared flat in 1964 and one of my flatmates had a Beetle.
All I can remember from then is that it was very tail happy in the wet.

Yes it was very very tall happy in the wet with cross-ply tyres
but great fun, the experience gained at such low speed and young age has
been an asset,
It was actually quite good on dry road, the rear started to squeal long
before it let go.
and it would go round corners MUCH quicker then two of the cars you had at
the time.


i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again and
buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had available
it would be another Beetle.
unmercifully threshed (no speed limit on the M1 for another two years)
but totally reliable.

Since the Beetles of that era couldn't reach 70 mph the lack of a
national speed limit is irrelevant.


Yes but i used to travel up the M1 and back every weekend from Watford to
Newport Pagnell absolutely flat out with the speedo needle past the oil
warning light, this would be frowned upon along Clapham High st was the
point of "unmercifully threshed" irrespective of the max speed of the Beetle
or later Mway limit.


What were you driving in the early 60s ?

From 1962 - 1939 Rover 12 (IIRC that cost me £14)
1963 - 1955 Vauxhall Cresta
1964 - 1952 Riley 2.5

All would (and regularly did) exceed 70 mph.


Ha Not in a Rover 12
But i have always like Riley's
And no i would not have another Beetle now if you paid me but the early ones
were far better then you give them credit for.


-

On 26/07/2011 13:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Classic Car magazines are full of inaccuracies.

In which case you won't have any problem detailing a few dozen of the
vast number you have discovered over the years.

How long have you got? Every single copy of Practical Classics (the only
one I read regularly) has schoolboy howlers in every episode. Others are
equally as bad.

Ah I did wonder about that snide use of the plural. I was refering to a
particular magazine, Classic Cars (known as Thoroughbred and Classic
Cars for part of its history) which you are happy to damn with
absolutely no evidence to support your prejudices.


--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
How long have you got? Every single copy of Practical Classics (the
only one I read regularly) has schoolboy howlers in every episode.
Others are equally as bad.

Ah I did wonder about that snide use of the plural. I was refering to a
particular magazine, Classic Cars (known as Thoroughbred and Classic
Cars for part of its history) which you are happy to damn with
absolutely no evidence to support your prejudices.

I may not read it myself, but have read comments on the mistakes it makes
from others.

However, given it seems to be the source of your knowledge, QED.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

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