dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

If the steering is low enough geared. Most wouldn't like that on a car.

I don't think many people have driven a car where the PS has stopped
working..
sure they are very heavy when stationary, that's because you are trying
to move a couple of patches of tyre in contact with the ground..
once it is moving, even slowly, it is much easier to turn as you are no
longer having to overcome all the tyre friction.

Happened on my XJS and lost the power brakes as well.

It was drivable yes, but it was almost unstoppable and almost undrivable
due to the heavy steering - a jag has a quick rack and BIG wheels.

Even at speed, which I didnt dare use due to the fact I physically could
not stamp on the brakes hard enough to stop it.

On 08/10/2011 13:45, NT wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:46 am,

I always understood it was 30.

It's not.
I looked it up, youre right


Reference?

Andy

On Oct 8, 4:10*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
* *NT wrote:

Yes, they've dropped to the point of being useless to stop a car.
Someone somewhere must have naively believed the idea that dual
circuits brakes dont fail if one circuit leaks. I can assure you they
do.

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails.

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works. Dual
circuits are no more reliable than single. The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.


Of course if one has already failed...


NT

On Oct 8, 4:21*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article om,
* *dennis@home wrote:

How many cars in the fifties had handbrakes that operated on the front
wheels? If they only operate on the rear wheels they will never be
enough to reach the 0.5g required for car brakes.

2 wheel braking on rear only is always going to be limited, but it was
enough for normal driving, barring emergency stops. It surpsised me
how fast the old drum brakes lost effect going down a gradient.

2 wheel braking on the front only gives a good 80% as much braking as
4 wheels, and is found on some very old cars. It works pretty well.


NT

On Oct 8, 6:18*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:40:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways..

No, there fecking isn't and never has been.
It's a desireable thing in many ways, as it would get the doddering
auld fcers aff the roads.

Tell you what why don't you go and potter down the M6 at 30 mph and see
how far you get before they pull you over.

i've done it down the M1...uphill with one car on the trucks back
towing another on a trailer. 27mph flat out.

Lucky man. I did 19 flat out on an mway once. I think people were
slowing down to stare. History has its downsides.

Deeply embarrassing.

Got overtaken by a tank..(ok, on a tank transporter).

ARWadsworth wrote:

But Dave Plowman has already made the main point. It's no good trying to tow
unless both of the drivers know what they are doing. If they do then you can
cover a good distance with a tow rope and without a problem.

Also check the handbook for recommendations on maximum speeds and
distances to be towed.

dennis@home wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:40:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways..

No, there fecking isn't and never has been.
It's a desireable thing in many ways, as it would get the doddering
auld fcers aff the roads.

Tell you what why don't you go and potter down the M6 at 30 mph and
see how far you get before they pull you over.

Before the "doddering auld fcers" pull him over?

--
Adam

Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

But Dave Plowman has already made the main point. It's no good
trying to tow unless both of the drivers know what they are doing.
If they do then you can cover a good distance with a tow rope and
without a problem.

Also check the handbook for recommendations on maximum speeds and
distances to be towed.

I leave that bit to my brother:-)

He is the mechanic.

--
Adam

In article d7b61ca8-a52e-43d9-9815-9cb4bc3189b7
@z12g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 9:28*am, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:



It's quite common on vehicles over here for there to be no handbrake;
instead they have a ratcheting foot-pedal to operate the parking brake
mechanism, with a handle (typically on the dash just above the pedal)
that then has to be pulled to disengage again. My elderly Ford has
one, so the design's been around for over 40 years.

I'm not sure how unique to the US that setup is, or - more importantly
- what the logic is for it vs. a normal handbrake between the front
seats*, but I've never risked trying to operate it whilst moving. I
suspect it'd all get ugly pretty easily :-)

* except that the Ford has a bench seat, so there's no "between";
perhaps it's just left over from days when such seats in vehicles were
common, but handbrakes became common on vehicles elsewhere in the
world?

cheers

Jules
In the UK, handbrakes have always had to be indepenednt which would
preclude such things.

Foot pedal operated parking brakes are legal in the UK. Some M-B use them.
And 'independant' is a large variable. Most share parts with the footbrake
- drums or discs and pads and shoes - and many older a great deal more.
The Austin 7 for example had the handbrake operate on the actual footbrake
mechanism.

IIRC, the requirements for a handbrake efficiency have changed since most
cars now have dual circuit brakes, so it is now only a parking brake
rather than that plus an emergency one.

Yes, they've dropped to the point of being useless to stop a car.

Oh I don't know. When I was teaching my grand-daughter to drive in her
Ka last year - she started to pull out in front of an approaching
motorcycle and I wrenched the handbrake on. The car stopped quick
enough!


--
Kev

Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

If the steering is low enough geared. Most wouldn't like that on a car.

I don't think many people have driven a car where the PS has stopped
working..
sure they are very heavy when stationary, that's because you are trying
to move a couple of patches of tyre in contact with the ground..
once it is moving, even slowly, it is much easier to turn as you are no
longer having to overcome all the tyre friction.

Parking is a pain if you can't control the clutch and creep slowly.
My wife currently as a 3 week old car (Jap of course) with dead power
steering motor (electric). It's quite easy to drive. Just feels a bit
heavy.
--
hugh

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:07:15 +0100, harry wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:46 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 02:58:00 -0700 (PDT), NT
wrote:
Power steering on cars is only in any sense necessary at parking
speeds. Even small trucks can be driven with no PS.
You've never tried it then.
The fuel pump solenoid failed on my old Mk4 Tranny and the engine died
at 50mph on a twisty back road. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttt.
By ****, it took some effort to steer that ******* to a halt and it's
not something I would have undertaken at normal towing speeds.

A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance
fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

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

Only by design. There were plenty of big cars with no power steering
and no problem to drive.
Even trucks and buses.

It doesn't really matter why. It is the case.

Even tiny cars, ones that only warrant electric PS, can be total dogs when
that fails.

--
Rod

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
My KERR (and my hi-lift) is kept with a padlock between the ends to
stop you using it
I wasn't planning on using it so your precautions are a bit OTT
--
hugh

On 08/10/2011 16:27, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:12 pm, wrote:
The CX was a pain to adjust and only worked for a bit afterwards. The BX
was actually rather good. The Xantia seems similarly effective.

That's one car which you can't tow with a rope or bar (at least if
there's no engine). Not because of the brakes, but because no-one is
strong enough to steer without the hydraulics

Try an XM - you can't even recover those on a beavertail if the
hydraulics have sat and squatted, they're too low at the front. Only
way is to pull them up backwards.

If you have one that sinks tail first (not unusual if it has been used
as a furniture van), then you can't even do this. You have to wait
until the front hydraulics squat and it goes level again, then pull it
up backwards.

If you're impatient and damage the plastic nosecone by dragging it on
board, its something like £800 for a new one. A massive thing, no
repair possible, and it goes from the lowest extremity of the airdam
right up to the bonnet lid.

I think my Citroen days are over. I had a couple of petrol CX 8 seaters
in the late 80's / early 90's when I had a big family to ferry around.
The fuel consumption doesn't bear thinking about at current prices. I
worked in a research lab in those days and a couple of technicians had
all the kit for recharging the spheres, and they were pretty good at
sorting the hydraulics in general. Lovely cars to drive, though.

Mind, I can't even drive my ordinary boring astra estate up on normal
ramps these days for much the same reason: I have to use a pair of sand
ladders to get the angle down.

In message , Jules Richardson
writes
I almost bought a car (I think it was a Peugeot) in NZ which had been
converted back from CNG to petrol* - I gather CNG was quite popular as a
fuel there once, but had been gradually going out of fashion for some
reason?
Sure it wasn't LPG? CNG is expensive to install and is generally only
used on trucks and buses.
--
hugh

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:46:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the assistance
fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.

Exactly so. Different (and heavier) steering geometry in a lot of PS
designs, as well as the obvious rack or worm gearing differences -
although some had the same geometries from non-PS to PS versions.

In message
,
harry writes
On Oct 7, 9:01*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writesOn 07/10/2011 18:48, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I don't think it is legal now, nor was it then.

AFAIK you can only tow a bike from another bike.

Interestingly the highway code now merely says "In the event of a
breakdown, be aware that towing a vehicle on a tow rope is potentially
dangerous. You should consider professional recovery." *And nothing
else at all.

Andy

Crossing the road is also potentially dangerous.
--
hugh

A real danger is if a pedestrian steps over the rope as you set off at
a road junction. (not realising towing is in progress).
That's why you are required to attach a warning flag in the middle of
the rope. (Don't ask me to quote chapter and verse)
--
hugh

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
"Nightjar" wrote in message
om...
On 07/10/2011 11:27, Jim S wrote:
I asked this question in another group and no-one came up with a
definitive
current answer. The most recent legal(ish) answer was dated 2008

" I was informed last evening that it is illegal to tow a broken down
vehicle with a rope and it has to be a solid tow-bar. Is this true?"


Towing is covered by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986, which, in Regulation 85 (1), states:

'Where a trailer is attached to the vehicle immediately in front of
it solely by means of a rope or chain, the distance between the
trailer and that vehicle shall not in any case exceed 4.5 m, and
shall not exceed 1.5 m unless the rope or chain is made clearly
visible to any other person using the road within a reasonable
distance from either side.'

I have read that rigid tow bars are, however, a requirement when
towing on a motorway, but have not found the relevant legislation.

Colin Bignell

IIRC you can tow off a motorway with a rope, but not tow onto one. A
rigid bar can be used to tow on and off. That is however from some
time ago.

I think you are allowed to tow off a motorway but not onto one even
with a rigid bar.
those specially designed towing devices that steer the car or jack up
the front wheels are OK AFAIK.
I think you are correct.
You can only tow a car onto a motorway if in effect you have converted
it to a (braked) trailer, which is what owners of large motor homes do.
--
hugh

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:32:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Sure if you have 100 turns lock to lock you can drive a 3 tonner without
power steering, but how safe is that when you need to get round a corner
in a hurry..you need to spin the wheel with one hand to get the lock on
and off.

Which is presumably why some buses and trucks had a knob on the
steering wheel so you could crank the steering round at a sensible
speed compared to pulling/pushing the rim.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:10:55 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

But you should get a brake failure warning light if one circuit has
gone. Of course that bulb could have blown... but the POST should
alert you to that. You won't have full braking capabilty with a
failed circuit either but how much less probably depends on how
"failed" the failed circuit is.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:29:33 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works. Dual
circuits are no more reliable than single. The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.

That sounds more like brake effort distribution rather than dual
circuit. I thought the latter had one diagonal front/rear wheel on
each of the two circuits.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:10:55 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

But you should get a brake failure warning light if one circuit has
gone. Of course that bulb could have blown... but the POST should
alert you to that. You won't have full braking capabilty with a
failed circuit either but how much less probably depends on how
"failed" the failed circuit is.

Earlier this year, I had a "brake failure" light come up - not all the time
which was a bit confusing. Eventually traced to two blown bulbs in the
'stop' lights.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Oct 8, 7:40*pm, hugh ] wrote:

Andy Dingley writesMy KERR (and my hi-lift) is kept with a padlock between the ends to
stop you using it

I wasn't planning on using it so your precautions are a bit OTT

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of you in particular! I do keep it padlocked
though - you can do a hell of a lot of damage with one of those, even
without it being an "accident".

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:29:33 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works. Dual
circuits are no more reliable than single. The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.

That sounds more like brake effort distribution rather than dual
circuit. I thought the latter had one diagonal front/rear wheel on
each of the two circuits.

thats correct..and generally two master cylinders mechanically connected.

On Oct 8, 6:29*pm, NT wrote:
Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works. Dual
circuits are no more reliable than single. The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.

Not since the 1980s! Those early dual circuits were there for
controlling brake balance to the rear, but they had no real
aspirations to reliablility as a safety measure. The first ones (my
1968 Fiat 124 AC) even had a rear brake proportioning valve, but only
a single circuit master.

A modern dual circuit, intended for robust fallback after a failure,
is diagonally split. If pressure to the rear-end is reduced according
to suspension travel is required (getting more rare with ubiquitous
ABS), then this is done by reducing the pressure in the rear portion
of both circuits. A heavier vehicle will also have duplicated front
circuits, where a caliper with multiple pistons has half of each
caliper supplied by each diagonal circuit separately.

On 8 Oct,
NT wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:54*am, Harry Bloomfield
Modern cars still have hand brakes, or were you referring to some other
aspect?

but they're rather ineffective now. Go back to the 50s and you can
drive with them.

But they're very much more effective than the footbrake without the servo.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

In article
,
harry wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


Only by design.

Not design. There is lots more friction in a PS rack than a non PS one.
Which the assistance overcomes.

There were plenty of big cars with no power steering

And they were all heavy to steer and even more so to park. I've owned
many.

and no problem to drive.
Even trucks and buses.

With very low geared steering and large steering wheels. But still hard
work.

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

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

In article
,
NT wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails.

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works.

Does on mine.

Dual circuits are no more reliable than single.

On mine, you'd have to have failure of the brake pedal since the master
cylinder is in two parts. Each part feeding an independant brake circuit.


The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.

Some may, some may not. Not all are split front to back. Some diagonal. On
my SD1, one circuit feeds four pistons on the front calipers, the other
the other four plus the rear brakes.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
NT wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails.

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works.

Does on mine.

Dual circuits are no more reliable than single.

On mine, you'd have to have failure of the brake pedal since the master
cylinder is in two parts. Each part feeding an independant brake circuit.

It depends on what reliability means..
The computers in telephone exchanges have faults more often than a normal
computer, however they still work unlike the normal computer.
The same applies to the brakes, more components means more faults but the
brakes should still work.
However you have to get them fixed as a second fault may well cause total
failure.

Its high availability, with reduced reliability as a consequence.

In article ,
wrote:
On 8 Oct,
NT wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:54 am, Harry Bloomfield
Modern cars still have hand brakes, or were you referring to some
other aspect?

but they're rather ineffective now. Go back to the 50s and you can
drive with them.

But they're very much more effective than the footbrake without the
servo.

Not so, unless you've an incredibly weak leg. You can apply the handbrake
on my BMW - drums inside discs - while on the move and it does virtually
nothing. But does hold the car ok on a hill.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

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

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On mine, you'd have to have failure of the brake pedal since the
master cylinder is in two parts. Each part feeding an independant
brake circuit.

It depends on what reliability means.. The computers in telephone
exchanges have faults more often than a normal computer, however they
still work unlike the normal computer. The same applies to the brakes,
more components means more faults but the brakes should still work.
However you have to get them fixed as a second fault may well cause
total failure.

The failure of one circuit is pretty obvious to a driver with any
mechanical sympathy. Although I'm sure there are plenty who would continue
driving a car with obviously reduced brake efficiency until total failure.
Possibly like you?

--
*Born free - taxed to death *

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

On Oct 8, 9:12*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:29:33 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:
Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works. Dual
circuits are no more reliable than single. The advantage is the
ability to vary the relative pressures to some extent as the back end
rises up.

That sounds more like brake effort distribution rather than dual
circuit. I thought the latter had one diagonal front/rear wheel on
each of the two circuits.

Dual circuit brakes have 2 master cylinders built into one, with 2
separate circuits coming out to the wheels. On some cars the circuits
are split front/rear, on some theyre diagonal split. What most people
dont seem to realise is that due to the design of the master cylinder,
a leak anywhere on the entire system still results in total failure.


NT

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:28:21 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
NT wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the
other fails.

Lots of people assume so. But its not how it actually works.

Does on mine.

Dual circuits are no more reliable than single.

On mine, you'd have to have failure of the brake pedal since the master
cylinder is in two parts. Each part feeding an independant brake
circuit.

I always assumed they were all (for dual-circuit systems) like that -
I've seen several where the resevoir looks upon first glance like a
single tank, but it's actually split just below the fluid line, and feeds
two separate cylinders (albeit a common bore, but with seals between the
two sections).

I remember in the Stag world the connector for the pressure-loss warning
light was pretty crappy, so there was never any guarantee that a circuit
failure would trip the dash light. I also recally buying a restoration-
project car and driving it a couple of hundred miles home with only the
rear brakes working, which was a little interesting.

cheers

Jules

On 08/10/2011 01:04, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:59 pm, ] wrote:

One reason I chose nylon when I made up a tow rope for my first car.

You could always use an off-road kinetic rope (carefully!!).

My KERR (and my hi-lift) is kept with a padlock between the ends to
stop you using it. There are only a few people I'd trust to use it,
and several of them are ex REME.

For similar reasons I don't tow on a nylon rope. My recovery rope is
nylon, but for towing I switch to polyester.

Is it the material or the construction of the rope which differs? I know
dynamic rope for climbing looks very similar to static rope for caving,
but they're rather different to bounce on.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I have towed and have been towed by rope, I prefer to be the tug.
When being towed you are *very* close to the tug and really have to
concentrate looking past the tug so you can anticipate the tug
slowing and keep the rope taught. The tug just (ha!) has to remember
that the rope might be slack and pull off very gently until they feel
the weight come on or can see that the towed vehicle is moving.

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear


--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 02:58:00 -0700 (PDT), NT
wrote:

Power steering on cars is only in any sense necessary at parking
speeds. Even small trucks can be driven with no PS.

You've never tried it then.
The fuel pump solenoid failed on my old Mk4 Tranny and the engine died
at 50mph on a twisty back road. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttt.
By ****, it took some effort to steer that ******* to a halt and it's
not something I would have undertaken at normal towing speeds.


A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the assistance
fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock


--
geoff

In message , Clive
George writes
On 07/10/2011 17:09, Alan Braggins wrote:
In articleH86dna7FUoe5vBLTnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, Clive
George wrote:
I've been towed on a rope and on a rigid bar. The former experience was
much better - partly because it all took place a lot slower, partly
because there was a bigger gap and I could actually see what was going
on. The longer the rope, the better.

Why was it happening much slower? (I've done both and found that not having
to worry about slack with the bar more than made up for it not being
as long.)

Because the bar tow was from an AA man who'd done it a lot before and
had other stuff to do, but the rope was from a friend who'd not done it
nearly as much (if at all) but could afford to take his time about it.

I think the lack of visibility was the main difference - all I could
see was the back of a yellow van with flashing lights.

Or rather ...

one had plenty of experience, the other hadn't



--
geoff

On 10/10/2011 00:37, geoff wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 07/10/2011 17:09, Alan Braggins wrote:
In articleH86dna7FUoe5vBLTnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, Clive
George wrote:
I've been towed on a rope and on a rigid bar. The former experience was
much better - partly because it all took place a lot slower, partly
because there was a bigger gap and I could actually see what was going
on. The longer the rope, the better.

Why was it happening much slower? (I've done both and found that not
having
to worry about slack with the bar more than made up for it not being
as long.)

Because the bar tow was from an AA man who'd done it a lot before and
had other stuff to do, but the rope was from a friend who'd not done
it nearly as much (if at all) but could afford to take his time about it.

I think the lack of visibility was the main difference - all I could
see was the back of a yellow van with flashing lights.

Or rather ...

one had plenty of experience, the other hadn't

And the guy without the experience worried me less.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I have towed and have been towed by rope, I prefer to be the tug.
When being towed you are *very* close to the tug and really have to
concentrate looking past the tug so you can anticipate the tug
slowing and keep the rope taught. The tug just (ha!) has to remember
that the rope might be slack and pull off very gently until they feel
the weight come on or can see that the towed vehicle is moving.

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

They are starting to realise how stupid you and a few of the others are.
Next you will be saying its OK to ram others while towing if they aren't
doing 90 mph.

On 7 Oct, 21:40, "dennis@home" wrote:

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways..

No there isn't.

Cheers
Richard

In article ,
geoff wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

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

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