On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:34:38 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

IIRC they usually only want data on newish cars. Mine have always
been too old to qualify ;-)
--
(\__/) 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.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:36:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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 an interesting point. I only did a quick flick through of the
latest Which car report supplement and, IIRC, the league table of
owner satisfaction was very different from the league table of
reliability.
--
(\__/) 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.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:02:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.
--
(\__/) 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.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:34:38 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

IIRC they usually only want data on newish cars. Mine have always
been too old to qualify ;-)

Mine is brand new as of the beginning of March - but they still don't want
to know!

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:02:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.
-- ---------------
I have owned all the Minors - saloon, van, and two travellers. One traveller
I put in a 1275 sprite engine and gearbox and Riley 1.5 front brakes. Non of
these were tail happy, possibly because they were on radials.The souped up
traveller had wide wheels as well.
The van was ex GPO and once I got offered the mail from our local post
office!

Robbie
(

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

IIRC they usually only want data on newish cars. Mine have always
been too old to qualify ;-)

Same here. Which is why I've only ever filled in a couple of them.

I did at one time keep all the old copies. It made interesting reading
going back to the reviews of the car you now own. The reader survey part -
what went wrong, what they liked and disliked, etc, proved pretty
accurate. But then I've never owned a car they slated. ;-)

--
*El nino made me do it

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

In article ,
Mark wrote:
That's an interesting point. I only did a quick flick through of the
latest Which car report supplement and, IIRC, the league table of
owner satisfaction was very different from the league table of
reliability.

Yes. A few years ago Jaguar were up in arms about the members survey
moving them down the list for reliability. But that same survey gave those
members being very happy with their Jag and would recommend it to a
friend. So as I keep on saying, you need to read the whole thing
carefully, and not just the 'headline' bits.

--
*Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons.

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

In article ,
Roberts wrote:
I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.
-- ---------------
I have owned all the Minors - saloon, van, and two travellers. One
traveller I put in a 1275 sprite engine and gearbox and Riley 1.5 front
brakes. Non of these were tail happy, possibly because they were on
radials.The souped up traveller had wide wheels as well. The van was ex
GPO and once I got offered the mail from our local post office!

A mate with a Minor pickup used to carry a spare engine block in the back
as ballast - all the time.

I used to drive a van as a job in the school holidays. I can assure you it
was all too easy to loose the tail in the wet. That was before the days of
radials - or at least them being the norm.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:31:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

IIRC they usually only want data on newish cars. Mine have always
been too old to qualify ;-)

Same here. Which is why I've only ever filled in a couple of them.

I did at one time keep all the old copies. It made interesting reading
going back to the reviews of the car you now own. The reader survey part -
what went wrong, what they liked and disliked, etc, proved pretty
accurate. But then I've never owned a car they slated. ;-)

I have (A Vauxhall Cavalier). And they were right.
--
(\__/) 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.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:02:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.

Indeed. Which is why it is essential for unskilled drivers. And also
explains why all the best handling cars are not FWD.

Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

Understeer and oversteer describe the handling balance of a car. Not
necessarily what happens when they loose grip totally. Many of the older
cars described here with RWD but crude rear suspension exhibit understeer
initially, but quickly change to terminal oversteer.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:04:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:02:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I definitely prefer a little oversteer rather than understeer. Shame
that most cars I've owned recently have been front wheel drive.

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

It's the other way around.
--
(\__/) 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.

On 27/07/2011 14:48, Mark wrote:

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

It's the other way around.

boggle

Understeer, let off the throttle (but not sharply enough to provoke
lift-off oversteer), weight on the front wheels, steer a little harder
in a very obvious manner.

'course when you run out of lock, you're in trouble. But lots can be
caught before then.

(my worst experience with this was in a heavily laden luton transit.
Come to the corner, steer, nothing happened. Braked a little, weight
shifted forwards, steering started to work and we made it round the corner.)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:54 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 14:48, Mark wrote:

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

It's the other way around.

boggle

Understeer, let off the throttle (but not sharply enough to provoke
lift-off oversteer), weight on the front wheels, steer a little harder
in a very obvious manner.

Maybe it's the FWD cars I have driven. They can suddenly lose grip
totally at the front and then it's too late.

OTOH with RWD a little opposite lock sorted things out.
--
(\__/) 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.

On 27/07/2011 16:08, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:54 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 14:48, Mark wrote:

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

It's the other way around.

boggle

Understeer, let off the throttle (but not sharply enough to provoke
lift-off oversteer), weight on the front wheels, steer a little harder
in a very obvious manner.

Maybe it's the FWD cars I have driven. They can suddenly lose grip
totally at the front and then it's too late.

OTOH with RWD a little opposite lock sorted things out.

My wife's MX5 is very easy to control when the back steps out.

When younger I managed to spin a Triumph Spitfire and a half race
Hillman Imp a couple of times.

An 1100 refused to take a corner at all once

Surprisingly without lifting a Ford Focus stepped out quite violently at
the back. 4 up and a long bend tightened unexpectedly.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:54 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 14:48, Mark wrote:

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.
It's the other way around.
boggle

Understeer, let off the throttle (but not sharply enough to provoke
lift-off oversteer), weight on the front wheels, steer a little harder
in a very obvious manner.

Maybe it's the FWD cars I have driven. They can suddenly lose grip
totally at the front and then it's too late.


Thats usually only so in aquaplaning or ice conditions.


OTOH with RWD a little opposite lock sorted things out.

Unless you also lose the front..

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.

It's the other way around.

It's pretty well accepted understeer is safer. Which is why all mundane
cars do to a greater or lesser extent. At worst you plough straight on, so
just lifting off the power will scrub the speed down and regain the line.
With ultimate oversteer, you can end up spinning.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:

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.


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.



Perhaps they have a Killfile for the likes of Drivel,Dennis,Swe......

;(

-

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:04:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:54 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 14:48, Mark wrote:

Understeer on front wheel drive cars is easy to control.
Oversteer takes more skill and practice and tends to end in a bad way.
It's the other way around.
boggle

Understeer, let off the throttle (but not sharply enough to provoke
lift-off oversteer), weight on the front wheels, steer a little harder
in a very obvious manner.

Maybe it's the FWD cars I have driven. They can suddenly lose grip
totally at the front and then it's too late.

Thats usually only so in aquaplaning or ice conditions.

IIRC it was probably things mud and diesel. I wouldn't have been
pushing so hard in icy or very wet conditions

OTOH with RWD a little opposite lock sorted things out.

Unless you also lose the front..

Maybe I was just lucky ;-)

--
(\__/) 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.