"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 6:12 pm, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message

...

A responsible trade union leadership

A responsible electorate would want full political PR then the Tories
would
be blown into oblivion.

It has been demonstrated that they don't want PR.


Not in the form presented. Also the electorate was not responsible.

"harry" wrote in message
...

Poor = idle.

You are an idiot.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Some are getting 200-300 mile range

By using their other car?

No. A petrol generator.

--
Adam

"harry" wrote in message
...

Only the "in favour" ones are likely to turn up at a meeting.

You are an idiot.

On Dec 30, 10:43*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

I have never borrowed money for any reason so keep my name out of it!

Perhaps you should to get out of that rented property?

The unions thought they could topple the government and geta labour
gov.in.

*Did they now. So you are against any form of action by anyone which might
effect an election?

They were wrong.
Labour govs. have always f****d up the economy.
It is a failed concept.

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

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

I have never lived in a rented building.

The constantly rising standard of living was at the expense of the
future.
The money used;
(a) Never existed at all,
(b) Was borrowed.

Now we will all have to pay for the half wits that governed us called
"New Labour". It will take decades to get back to where we were. Even
supposing it's possible.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-12-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Funded entirely by debt, leading to ...

That is tripe spouted by brainwashed Tory voting fool.

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty well
the strongest economy in the Western world.

Stuff and nonsense. In 1997, inflation was at 2.5% and had been for at
least three years. Unemployment was falling fast. Source for both of
these? The Economist.

The economy was still a basket case.

YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1991 -8,142 Con
1992 -29,259 Con
1993 -40,576 Con
1994 -36,268 Con
1995 -28,232 Con
1996 -22,749 Con
1997 -11,246 Lab
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

So your figures stop on 2001. Any particular reason for that - like huge
deficits building up from 2002 perhaps?

Nope. Small and controlled to get economic creating infrastructure
reinstated after 17 years of Tory neglect. The post CLEARLY states that.

Find out how this country works and who are he greatest benefactors - not
you for sure.

On Dec 30, 11:01*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article
,
* *harry wrote:
I have never borrowed money for any reason so keep my name out of it!

Perhaps you should to get out of that rented property?

The unions thought they could topple the government and geta labour
gov.in.

*Did they now. So you are against any form of action by anyone which might
effect an election?

If anyone wants to affect an election they can campaign like anyone
else. There are too many entities in this country that get above
themselves and try to interfere in things that are none of their damn
business. This includes unions interfering in elections, but also the
likes of the National Trust and the RSPCA.

They were wrong.
Labour govs. have always f****d up the economy.
It is a failed concept.

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

"No more boom and bust!", eh?

Don't forget" Prudence" from Brown the clown.



You'll be telling us next that the economy was on the rocks in 1997 and
that NuLaba rescued it.


Heh Heh. That's exactly what he'll be saying.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.
The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

And where do the pensions tax credit grab, 3G licence auction and oil
windfall tax fit in?

Apart from the "prudence period" during their first term, the deficit was
a runaway train.

You area pure idiot! I gave the deficit figures. Get your mind sorted.

On Dec 30, 11:51*am, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message

o.uk...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty well
the strongest economy in the Western world.
YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

You appear to have missed a few ...

Brainwashed one you never read did you!

2002 -6,978 Lab
2003 -18,944 Lab 2004 -19,817 Lab
2005 -17,405 Lab
2006 -6,964 Lab

Do you have to be so idiotic. That was small and was spending to reinstate
the neglected infrastructure.

2007 -7,776 Lab

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.

2008 -20,469 Lab
2009 -77,098 Lab

The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

Read my post again and UNDERSTAND it!

Stop trying to be clever. *You are not.

And don't forget the dockers and shipbuilders fiascos.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Funded entirely by debt, leading to ...

... the dire position the country is now in.


Because Labour borrowed when there was no need to borrow - at a time of
rising tax revenue. They also sold off British assets, such as gold
reserves, when the value of those assets was at an all time low. It's
financial mismanagement showing staggering incompetence.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The unions I've been involved in (broadcast) grab all new technology
gladly. Then once it is established negotiate on the implications.

Meaning what? You mean as in, gosh, we have to use this new technology
now, so we deserve more money?

And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more complication.
So greater skills needed to operate it.

Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for any
scraps thrown to him by his master.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And an NHS that's still a basket case.

I've has a lot to do with it recently - a pal died of cancer, so has been
in and out of hospital over the past year or so. And he received superb
treatment, in as pleasant an environment as any hospital.

Just give it a few years of Tory cuts to find out what a basket case
really is. They've made a start already. Closing a local unit used for
treatment of those with addiction problems which isn't being replaced.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Because Labour borrowed when there was no need to borrow - at a time of
rising tax revenue. They also sold off British assets, such as gold
reserves, when the value of those assets was at an all time low. It's
financial mismanagement showing staggering incompetence.

'Selling off the family silver'

Perhaps you could remind me of who said that about whom?

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more
complication. So greater skills needed to operate it.

Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for
any scraps thrown to him by his master.

I've learnt new stuff all my working life. In the software and
networking business that's expected to be the norm.

Every day is a learning experience in broadcast, as no two progs are ever
the same.

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

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

In message ,
lid writes

"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

Let us assume

Do not assume. Find out.

Right - I did - The Mitsubishi has a 66BHP engine = 49KW. Battery is only
16KWh - so at full power you get about 20 minutes motoring. And if
you go
for the 10 minute charge option (being developed) you will need a 150A
supply.

Actually worse than my assumed figures.

That 150A supply will be at a station. You can charge it slower at
home.
"More slowly" - some people are thick.
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-septembe
r.org...

Thios man is totally mad.
Greek is he?
--
hugh

In article , Doctor Drivel
says...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty well
the strongest economy in the Western world.
YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

You appear to have missed a few ...

Brainwashed one you never read did you!

2002 -6,978 Lab
2003 -18,944 Lab 2004 -19,817 Lab
2005 -17,405 Lab
2006 -6,964 Lab

Do you have to be so idiotic. That was small and was spending to reinstate
the neglected infrastructure.

2007 -7,776 Lab

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.

2008 -20,469 Lab
2009 -77,098 Lab

The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.


Strange, then, that only sterling was affected ...

http://db.tt/3CeXaaZN

If the Euro is as deep in the **** as we are told, how far down in the
cess pit do you have to go to find sterling?

Read my post again and UNDERSTAND it!

It defies comprehension, it is so deliberately twisted to suit your
demented beliefs.

Stop trying to be clever. You are not.

Pot, black, kettle ...

--

Terry

In article -
september.org, says...

Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Funded entirely by debt, leading to ...

... the dire position the country is now in.


Because Labour borrowed when there was no need to borrow - at a time of
rising tax revenue. They also sold off British assets, such as gold
reserves, when the value of those assets was at an all time low. It's
financial mismanagement showing staggering incompetence.

+1

--

Terry

On 30/12/2011 08:59, charles wrote:
In , Doctor Drivel wrote:

Dork, you have range extender if you constant.go long distances. Once
the charging infrastructure is in then no probs.

What is a "range extender"? Another battery? Where do you put it? On the
back seat?

It's a fossil fuelled engine driving a generator that you use to replace
the power you draw from the battery. A.K.A. a hybrid drive train.

You could, of course, replace the whole drive train with an engine and
gearbox directly driving the wheels, but that's not "green", even when
it used less energy overall than the hybrid.

Maybe it could be fixed using a supercapacitor.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/12/2011 08:16, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news
On 29/12/2011 18:25, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...

And the Ampera won't be as much fun.

Try the Tesla then. Or the new Jag with microturbine range extender.

We've covered the Tesla's limited range

200 miles. More with then latest batteries.

The Tesla website claims 200 kilometres, but what does 33% matter. Oh,
yes, two sixteen hour recharging stops instead of one on a run from
London to Edinburgh. You could, of course, put the Tesla onto a train
(If the service still ran, that is) and sleep all the way.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/12/2011 10:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The point was not the quality of manufacture, it was the performance.

FFS. Both batteries failed.

The better batteries are now available which they did not use.

Why would Tesla loan cars to be tested by Top Gear with faulty batteries?

My guess would be that the batteries tested good under normal conditions
before the show, but failed under the extreme stress of Top Gear's road
test. Normal road use and testing doesn't put anywhere near as much
stress on cars as TG do, and I've heard of other cars which failed in
similar circumstances, at least one of which was due to go for test
immediately afterwards by a motoring magazine. I believe the phrase
"Stuffed into the tyre wall" was used.

What they didn't show on the programme was the Tesla support team
hovering round all day, just in case, just as all the other
manufacturers' support teams do.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message ,
lid writes

"harry" wrote in message
...

Only the "in favour" ones are likely to turn up at a meeting.

You are an idiot.
Your posts seem to consist mainly of "thick" 2idiot" "brainwashed" and
other such intellectual analysis.
Then you post very long texts of political philosophy, obviously not
your own work so will you in future please give credit to the author
whose work you are plagiarising.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

We are talking about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies
and voting was by show of hands.

Just watch the newsreels of the day. You don't see many hands down, and
none against.

But how many of those eligible to vote were at that meeting?

Never actually counted them but in those days the meetings were
generally held in the open air just off site during lunch breaks so I
guess the turn out would be pretty high.
--
hugh

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Because Labour borrowed when there was no need to borrow - at a time of
rising tax revenue. They also sold off British assets, such as gold
reserves, when the value of those assets was at an all time low. It's
financial mismanagement showing staggering incompetence.

'Selling off the family silver'

Perhaps you could remind me of who said that about whom?

I suspect you think that Harold Macmillan said it about Thatcher. You are
wrong. Macmillan did not say it at all, he made a longer speech about those
of his class trying to solve their financial crisis by selling off
heirlooms:

"First of all the Georgian silver goes. And then all that nice furniture
that used to be in the salon. Then the Canalettos go."

Not quite the quote that you had in mind, I suspect.

In the Lords Macmillan made it clear that he had been misunderstood:

"When I ventured the other day to criticise the system I was, I am afraid,
misunderstood. As a Conservative, I am naturally in favour of returning
into private ownership and private management all those means of production
and distribution which are now controlled by state capitalism. I am sure
they will be more efficient. What I ventured to question was the using of
these huge sums as if they were income."

I'm sure you had a point, I can't quite see what it was intended to be,
another "tu quoque" based on a mistaken belief that I'm a Tory?

In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies and voting was
by show of hands.

Which was better than the first past the post system we have for
Westminster. All that does is ensure the unrepresentative Tories get
into power.
Funny, I seem to remember a few Labour governments over the last 70
years.
The electorate had the opportunity to change the system recently and the
result was a resounding no. I suppose you will insist they are all
idiots but that's universal suffrage for you.
--
hugh

On 30/12/2011 13:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Good grief. Which planet was this?

Your standard of living actually fell during this period? What were you
doing - resting?

Mine did, to a point where a lot of stuff that was originally regular
and easy to afford became irregular and "as and when I can afford it".
Nothing else changed, I was working the same hours in the same job, and
living in the same flat.

My wages didn't keep up with inflation. I get ahead when the Tories are
in power, and lose it again when Labour get in. This is a regular
happening with about a three year lag, noticed over every government
change in the last thirty-five years.

I don't for a moment believe that it is universal, but it works for me.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

We are talking about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies
and voting was by show of hands.

Right - so the majority of those there.
But don't you realise such things have been changed to a postal ballot
now? With no difference to the end result?

Yes of course I do but we are talking about the facts in a particular
period in Britain's industrial past.

The current question is why is it that such a low percentage of union
members in the public sector actually bothered to register a vote either
way on a matter claimed by their representatives to be of such major
importance to their long-term well-being.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
harry wrote:
I have never borrowed money for any reason so keep my name out of it!

Perhaps you should to get out of that rented property?

The unions thought they could topple the government and geta labour
gov.in.

Did they now. So you are against any form of action by anyone which might
effect an election?

They were wrong.
Labour govs. have always f****d up the economy.
It is a failed concept.

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

"There's no money left"
You cannot run a service economy and yo cannot sustain an economy by
inflating GDP with public sector borrowing and public sector jobs
indefinitely.
--
hugh

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1991 -8,142 Con
1992 -29,259 Con
1993 -40,576 Con
1994 -36,268 Con
1995 -28,232 Con
1996 -22,749 Con
1997 -11,246 Lab
1998 6,903 Lab

Oh look the improving economy under the conservatives continued to get
better before NuLabore cocked it up.

1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab

And now the cockup takes hold and its all down hill.

2001 19,646 Lab

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The unions I've been involved in (broadcast) grab all new technology
gladly. Then once it is established negotiate on the implications.

Meaning what? You mean as in, gosh, we have to use this new technology
now, so we deserve more money?

And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more complication.
So greater skills needed to operate it.


Complete rubbish, they seldom make stuff more complicated, just different.

Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for any
scraps thrown to him by his master.

Workers should be grateful that employers invest their money to make the
employee's job easier.
Not like the FBU for instance that insisted that high pressure hoses meant
more skill and cash.
Totally ignoring the fact that high pressure hoses are lighter and easier to
handle than the stuff the army had to use on the green goddesses when they
strike.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more
complication. So greater skills needed to operate it.

Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for
any scraps thrown to him by his master.

I've learnt new stuff all my working life. In the software and
networking business that's expected to be the norm.

Every day is a learning experience in broadcast, as no two progs are ever
the same.

I think you are missing some irony tags there. The vast majority of UK
broadcasting is "the same". If one channel does X, another will slavishly
copy it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
That would result in a strike as the employer would not be paying the
union rate.

No such thing. Do try an keep up with current practice.

Who is talking about current practice? That is how things were and its
why some unions were trouble for everyone.

So you're suggesting it's common practice to have a whole variety of pay
rates within a firm for the same job? Excepting things like age or service
time related ones - which of course applied even in the 'union rate' days?

Funny, that's almost the exact opposite of what I said.

And almost exactly what you said.

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The unions I've been involved in (broadcast) grab all new
technology gladly. Then once it is established negotiate on the
implications.

Meaning what? You mean as in, gosh, we have to use this new
technology now, so we deserve more money?

And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more
complication. So greater skills needed to operate it.


Complete rubbish, they seldom make stuff more complicated, just
different.
Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for
any scraps thrown to him by his master.

Workers should be grateful that employers invest their money to make
the employee's job easier.
Not like the FBU for instance that insisted that high pressure hoses
meant more skill and cash.
Totally ignoring the fact that high pressure hoses are lighter and
easier to handle than the stuff the army had to use on the green
goddesses when they strike.

**** me. You are now an expert on putting out fires.

--
Adam

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article
,
harry wrote:
I have never borrowed money for any reason so keep my name out of it!

Perhaps you should to get out of that rented property?

The unions thought they could topple the government and geta labour
gov.in.

Did they now. So you are against any form of action by anyone which might
effect an election?

They were wrong.
Labour govs. have always f****d up the economy.
It is a failed concept.

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.


Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?


Yeabut other bits of Europe aren't in that good a condition are they
Dave?..

--
Tony Sayer

On 30/12/2011 07:58, harry wrote:
On Dec 29, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?


Stupid boy. You don't get anything for nothing.
But storing kinetic energy is far more efficient than charging/
discharging batteries.

Kinetic energy stored as vehicle momentum is of no use for accelerating
the vehicle. At the time you need it it isn't there.

It's also of no use for climbing hills - the extra weight exactly
cancels out the extra KE.

In fact I can't think of a use for extra mass at all. Except in a road
roller.

Andy

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:37:03 +0000, charles wrote:
How many is a few minutes? What's that in watts? And how much power
needs to be delivered to the charging station to do half a dozen cars
at once?

Overnight storage using supercaps.

How do you charge the supercaps?

More supercaps.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:49:12 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:
So, in the time it takes me to put enough liquid fuel into my fuel
tank to drive a few hundred miles, I can put enough electricity into
the battery to drive a few dozen.

Dope, you can drive a few hundred miles. Some people are so thick!

Using liquid fuel, yes I can do up to 500 miles on a single fill, using
batteries, nowhere near that.

Some are getting 200-300 mile range.

By driving to the nearest dealership and trading it in for something with
an IC engine?

On 30/12/2011 08:25, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 29/12/2011 09:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 23/12/2011 14:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
You are missing the whole point. It is not a plug in hybrid in the
previous sense.
The engine is not mechanically connected to the drive train. It's
like an electric car but you carry round a petrol generator to charge
the battery when required. Engine runs at constant speed.

Using a highly taxed fuel to generate electricity? Very logical.

I've wondered about this. If you have an electric vehicle and charge
it at home using a generator, then you can use untaxed fuel.

Charging from the mains is cheaper.

But not much use if you want to travel longer distances.

Dork, you have range extender if you constant.go long distances. Once
the charging infrastructure is in then no probs.

Pillock. I used charging with a generator as an example of a possible
anomaly in taxation rules. You came back and commented that mains is
cheaper (totally meaningless in the context - which you have removed by
snipping the following lines) and I commented that charging from the
mains is little use for longer journeys. You have then taken that as me
not understanding the idea of using a separate engine for long
journeys/recharging. I suggest that you go back and re-read this section
of the thread before hurling abuse at people.

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
On 30/12/2011 08:25, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in
message ...
On 29/12/2011 09:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in
message ...
On 23/12/2011 14:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
You are missing the whole point. It is not a plug in hybrid in
the previous sense.
The engine is not mechanically connected to the drive train.
It's like an electric car but you carry round a petrol
generator to charge the battery when required. Engine runs at
constant speed.

Using a highly taxed fuel to generate electricity? Very logical.

I've wondered about this. If you have an electric vehicle and
charge it at home using a generator, then you can use untaxed
fuel.

Charging from the mains is cheaper.

But not much use if you want to travel longer distances.

Dork, you have range extender if you constant.go long distances. Once
the charging infrastructure is in then no probs.

Pillock. I used charging with a generator as an example of a possible
anomaly in taxation rules. You came back and commented that mains is
cheaper (totally meaningless in the context - which you have removed
by snipping the following lines) and I commented that charging from
the mains is little use for longer journeys. You have then taken that
as me not understanding the idea of using a separate engine for long
journeys/recharging.


I suggest that you go back and re-read this
section of the thread before hurling abuse at people.

There is more chance of finding a couple of fairies at the bottom of the
garden than there is of Drivel reading and understanding anything.

--
Adam

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
My guess would be that the batteries tested good under normal conditions
before the show, but failed under the extreme stress of Top Gear's road
test.

It was a track test. However, the track is short with lots of corners, and
you can't achieve speeds much above road legal ones for long periods. It
puts no more stress on a car than spirited driving over a hilly and twisty
quiet country road. Such as you can easily find in parts of Wales and
Scotland.

Normal road use and testing doesn't put anywhere near as much
stress on cars as TG do,

Not much point in advertising a sports car which has to be treated gently.

However, it's worth remembering the original Autocar road test of the
Prius. Over 600 miles of testing on all sorts of normal roads, its average
mpg was in the low 20s. Toyota weren't happy.

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

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