For those interested in old cars.

[Hobby]

They were more expensive than the LR as well. 

[alastairq]

 re - the Austin Gypsey?

Did it not start out as a Home Office contract?

 

[Welchester]

Until a helicopter capable of lifting a Landrover was developed, the Royal Navy used the Citroën 2CV

[MrWolf]

32 minutes ago, Welchester said:

Until a helicopter capable of lifting a Landrover was developed, the Royal Navy used the Citroën 2CV

 

Isn't the military version what eventually became the the Citroen Mehari, in a similar vein to the VW Kubelwagen becoming the Trekker / VW Thing! ?

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

It wasn't practical to make an "air portable" Champ as simply as Landover could, that's for sure. The Champ was a much more powerful vehicle and the gearbox with its all gears in reverse arrangements is something that LR should have adopted.

But Sir.....the British Army does not need all those gears in reverse.......what are you implying Sir? 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Welchester said:

Until a helicopter capable of lifting a Landrover was developed, the Royal Navy used the Citroën 2CV

Never seen or heard of that before.....or the fact there was a pick-up 2CV.....the Mehari was a completely different body on the 2CV Chassis...it even spawned a four wheel drive version with an engine at each end!!!

[MrWolf]

1 minute ago, boxbrownie said:

But Sir.....the British Army does not need all those gears in reverse.......what are you implying Sir? 

 

Better to retreat and fight another day than to die and lose the war.

 

Plus getting stuck somewhere you can't back out of also limits your ability to advance and take the fight to the enemy.

[alastairq]

Didn't de Dingo have gears, and forwards & reverse, and even a drivers seat {and steering wheel} that could be turned round 180 degrees?

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by alastairq

[boxbrownie]

8 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

Better to retreat and fight another day than to die and lose the war.

 

Plus getting stuck somewhere you can't back out of also limits your ability to advance and take the fight to the enemy.

Better to have the bigger stick and not have to retreat.........unfortunately over the past few years our big stick has been whittled down somewhat.

[MrWolf]

I think it did. A good number of larger German armoured cars were at least designed for driving from either end. 

The oddest I have any experience of is the old Been carrier,a lightweight fully tracked vehicle with a vertical steering wheel. A little turn 'warps' a track and speeds the other, a bigger turn drops the clutch and a full turn locks the track on the inside.

This means that you can spin on the spot at 40mph until you either throw up or lose coordination, fly off at a tangent and crash, whichever gets the biggest laugh...

[boxbrownie]

7 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Didn't de Dingo have gears, and forwards & reverse, and even a drivers seat {and steering wheel} that could be turned round 180 degrees?

 

 

Never heard of that......but the Fiesta automatic (CVT) during development had no limiter on the reverse gear, which meant with the CVT it would go as fast in reverse as forward, some of our test drivers had an unofficial league of who could go fastest in reverse.......not easy and it soon got the CVT mech blocked.

[MrWolf]

4 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Better to have the bigger stick and not have to retreat.........unfortunately over the past few years our big stick has been whittled down somewhat.

 

Is "having the bigger stick" code for "Dragging the Americans into some sh## we started"? 

[PhilJ W]

16 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Didn't de Dingo have gears, and forwards & reverse, and even a drivers seat {and steering wheel} that could be turned round 180 degrees?

 

 

The Dingo had a five speed gearbox with a reverse gear in the transfer box. The gearbox was of the pre-selector Wilson type. The drivers seat and controls were at an angle of 45 degrees.

8 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

I think it did. A good number of larger German armoured cars were at least designed for driving from either end. 

The oddest I have any experience of is the old Been carrier,a lightweight fully tracked vehicle with a vertical steering wheel. A little turn 'warps' a track and speeds the other, a bigger turn drops the clutch and a full turn locks the track on the inside.

This means that you can spin on the spot at 40mph until you either throw up or lose coordination, fly off at a tangent and crash, whichever gets the biggest laugh...

When my dad was driving one in Yorkshire c. 1940 one of the tracks came off. The carrier spun around and demolished a dry stone wall.

6 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Never heard of that......but the Fiesta automatic (CVT) during development had no limiter on the reverse gear, which meant with the CVT it would go as fast in reverse as forward, some of our test drivers had an unofficial league of who could go fastest in reverse.......not easy and it soon got the CVT mech blocked.

Wasn't the CVT gearbox developed from the DAF gearbox? or at least operate on the same principle. The DAF's were noted for carrying on accelerating when you lifted your foot of the throttle.

[PhilJ W]

The DAF could also go as fast backwards as forwards.

 

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Wasn't the CVT gearbox developed from the DAF gearbox? or at least operate on the same principle. The DAF's were noted for carrying on accelerating when you lifted your foot of the throttle.

Same principles but unrelated.  DAF's CVT uses a pulled rubber band, Ford's (and Fiat's) CVT uses a pushed flexible metal belt.  Judged by accounts from the time, the Ford/Fiat system worked very well but took some getting used to, as the engine revs stayed relatively constant (around peak torque) the driver thought they'd stopped accelerating (then got a shock looking at the speedo).

The "surging" stories around the DAF system were carried over into the Volvo 300-series cars which also used it.  I'm not sure any fault was ever proved; so many owners were elderly and whose driving abilities were pretty questionable anyway.

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Wasn't the CVT gearbox developed from the DAF gearbox? or at least operate on the same principle. The DAF's were noted for carrying on accelerating when you lifted your foot of the throttle.

Indeed yes, we had to buy a license to develop a similar system, but ours used metal belts in oil rather than the “rubber band” of the early DAF, I think we developed it so far it didn’t need licensing to go into production.

 

Most of the CVT work was done in Germany as I recall.......so don’t blame the Brits 

[PhilJ W]

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it :-

https://www.seenit.co.uk/new-yesterday-series-goes-behind-the-scenes-of-brooklands-museum/

Starts 8pm tomorrow (Tuesday).

[alastairq]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I'm not sure any fault was ever proved; so many owners were elderly and whose driving abilities were pretty questionable anyway.

 It seems, those questionable abilities are becoming more prevalent, as the 40 and 50 year olds [who have already honed their questionable driving abilities on modern cars] become the 60 or 70 year olds, today, and in the near future?

 

It's going to get worse too [Wait till I get out there on the roads? Not a lot of plastic on my old Daihatsu 4rtak!]!

 

According to recent press reports, the Government are looking at restricting when those over 70 can actually drive.

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/over-70-driving-curfew-under-new-licence-plans-150535145.html

 

Seems the headline is, over-70's only allowed out driving in daylight hours, and then only a small distance from their homes?

 

However, drilling down into the meat of the report, this refers only to those who report [or, have reported for them?] medical issues, to DVLA.

 

Seems that the idea is to keep old gits mobile for longer?

 

So, whereas nowadays a stroke or senile dementia can result in completely losing ones licence [as well as the plot?]....the Govt. are looking at such folk being able to retain their driving licences, but on a restricted basis. This will be a blessing for many who have recovered from mild strokes [and have medication, etc to help?] yet cannot reclaim their licences because of the rules?

 

This also has an upside in relieving the strain on the need for more effective public transport in less urban areas?  Costs the State less? Not forgetting the resultant tax revenues from fuel, VED, etc [VED will come back for those moderns who currently have zero VED...mark my words...leccy cars will soon be paying tax again!!]

 

The RAC [bless 'em, gits!]...want every old fart who has a bump on the roads to undergo a fitness-to-drive assessment  [Cannot be a 'test', ]

 

Who pays for all this???

[PhilJ W]

5 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 It seems, those questionable abilities are becoming more prevalent, as the 40 and 50 year olds [who have already honed their questionable driving abilities on modern cars] become the 60 or 70 year olds, today, and in the near future?

 

It's going to get worse too [Wait till I get out there on the roads? Not a lot of plastic on my old Daihatsu 4rtak!]!

 

According to recent press reports, the Government are looking at restricting when those over 70 can actually drive.

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/over-70-driving-curfew-under-new-licence-plans-150535145.html

 

Seems the headline is, over-70's only allowed out driving in daylight hours, and then only a small distance from their homes?

 

However, drilling down into the meat of the report, this refers only to those who report [or, have reported for them?] medical issues, to DVLA.

 

Seems that the idea is to keep old gits mobile for longer?

 

So, whereas nowadays a stroke or senile dementia can result in completely losing ones licence [as well as the plot?]....the Govt. are looking at such folk being able to retain their driving licences, but on a restricted basis. This will be a blessing for many who have recovered from mild strokes [and have medication, etc to help?] yet cannot reclaim their licences because of the rules?

 

This also has an upside in relieving the strain on the need for more effective public transport in less urban areas?  Costs the State less? Not forgetting the resultant tax revenues from fuel, VED, etc [VED will come back for those moderns who currently have zero VED...mark my words...leccy cars will soon be paying tax again!!]

 

The RAC [bless 'em, gits!]...want every old fart who has a bump on the roads to undergo a fitness-to-drive assessment  [Cannot be a 'test', ]

 

Who pays for all this???

I am 72 and I dread the possibility of losing my licence as although I live in a large town what there is with regard to public transport is not that great, even doing my shopping will be difficult without the car. I live on my own so there is no one else to drive me around. My brother has lost his licence due to a stroke (loss of peripheral vision) but he lives in Greater London where public transport is pretty good. 

[MrWolf]

A friend of mine had a stroke at 38 but has recovered sufficiently to be able to drive again (though, not to his annoyance allowed to ride a motorcycle) he has found that a left-hand drive automatic is ideally suited, which given his passion for vintage American cars has worked out well.

I had taught him to weld years ago and I am flattered that he told me to it was his determination to get back out in the garage battling with rust that aided a quick recovery.

[alastairq]

I should also add, the RAC is advocating that more responsibility be placed upon medical professionals to inform DVLA of someone's medical issues, with regards to suspending their licence.

 

Come on, RAC, this has been NHS policy for some time now!

But Doctors have a reluctance to drop patients 'in it', which is understandable.

Unless you get a doctor who is anti-motoring, anti car?

[Northmoor]

Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

The privilege of driving should be permitted to those who show the ability, the number of years you've been alive is irrelevant.  My 76y.o. father has some bad driving habits but nothing health-related (concentrate on the road Dad, not the view).  A doctor should easily pass him as fit to drive.  The problem for medical professionals is that other than saying the person is registered blind, there aren't a properly defined series of tests for the elderly to demonstrate fitness to drive.  Only retaking your driving test can do that.

[alastairq]

7 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Only retaking your driving test can do that.

 Actually, at one time [and I believe it still stands?] only a Court can order an existing licence holder [regardless of whether the licence is suspended or not] to be ''re-tested.'

 

A 'test' isn't the same thing as an assessment.

 

The above came to my attention when investigating the suspension of Cat C entitlements by Area Traffic Commissioners.

ATCs could suspend someone's Cat C entitlement [pending investigations into reported events].....but that individual could still retain their Driving Licence. 

[Outcome being, they could not earn a living driving LGVs , but could still drive a car, etc]

 

The issue with the 70's licence ,etc , concerns those who have had their licence suspended on health grounds. There is a legal duty on the part of the licence holder, to inform DVLA of certain listed health issues. 

The NHS recognised some time ago that folk were simply not telling DVLA following suspected stokes, etc.

Hence the NHS advisory to doctors that they also inform DVLA if a patient has suffered a [suspected] stroke, etc.

 

This then places the onus on the DVLA's Medical Revue system to assess whether, at some point, the licence holder can have their entitlement returned.

 

The problem with this system is , it is already overloaded, and the requirement for input from specialists, doctors, etc is quite burdensome on those health professionals.

 

This results in considerable time passing before an outcome is achieved.  

In the meantime............???????

 

The restricted  licence proposal seems to me a good idea, as it eliminates the 'black or white' decision.  It enables more folk, whose condition is controlled, to recover their lost mobility.

In many ways, it also reduces the cost of enforcement of the system as it stands now.

 

This proposal actually has nothing whatsoever to do with driving abilties or standards.

 

That is something the RAC wanted to throw into the mix.

 

[Kickstart]

On 28/03/2021 at 20:07, MrWolf said:

 

Better to retreat and fight another day than to die and lose the war.

 

Plus getting stuck somewhere you can't back out of also limits your ability to advance and take the fight to the enemy.

Gives more options when you need to mount a 17pdr on a Valentine chassis!

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

Out yesterday in the Dellow, doing a bit of shopping.

 

I mainly use the back roads round here [as do most locals]...mainly because they  cut the distance, etc. [Also not full of  traffic]  We're talking around 12 foot wide at best, but with decent grass verges.

 

I use the Dellow quite often, summer & winter.   Prefer it to driving summat made this century.

 

Anyhow, came up on another, fatter, made-this-century small panzervaagen...plodding along. Who came upon a lycralite cyclist .

This cyclist was making around 15 mph, and adopted a road position which patently prevented the panzerwagen from overtaking, and leaving a decent space between .Without taking to the grass verge, that is.

Patience ws the driver's virtue, but when the cyclist [fully aware of the car, having glanced over his shoulder] decided to ''exercise his [presumed?] rights''  ]  totally ignored one, then two then three decent field gateholes, all long enough that he wouldn't have had to slacken pace, and as firm as the decrepit tarmac he was riding on.... car driver was obviously getting a bit tetchy!   I mean, since when had these back lanes around here become private playgrounds and exercise areas?  [What's wrong with the cyclist using the main roads for his exercise, after all?        ]

 

Anyway, car driver decided to put two wheels firmly on his offside grass verge...just to give a little bit more consideration to the vulnerable cyclist [who had obviously forgotten how vulnerable he was?}... rather than sticking to the road surface, and twatting the cyclist up the backside with his near side door mirror.

 

Then proceeded to carefully overtake the cyclist. Who, by the way, had a good 2 or 3 foot of tarmac nearer to the grass verge he could have used....Once safely past, having given the cyclist a good couple of metes room in doing so....the cyclist then proceeded to proffer a lot of loud swearing and gesticulations at the receding motorist.  I heard all this because I drive a thoroughly open car!

 

Anyway, the Dellow is a proper car's width, barely 4 foot,   [ 3 foot 10 inch track, plus a bit for my elbows?] 

To give a graphic idea of how wide it is, I can reach over and touch the outside of the left rear wheelarch without shifting from the drivers seat....

 

Cyclist knew I was behind him, he could hear me, such is the Dellow's exhaust. 

 

Now, getting around the slow moving cyclist was my problem.  Still making no real effort to accommodate other road users, the cyclist continued.....but I could see I had enough room to pass him, and stay within the tarmac surface of the road.....and give cyclist a couple of feet clearance.

What I also knew, and what the cyclist was soon to find out was, Dellow's exhaust exited just in front of the near side rear wheel, sideways.

Anyway, I started to creep past the 15 mph cyclist [lycralite], keeping as far to the right as was possible without going off the road.....then the cyclsit made a mistake!

He was a younger person, and as I crept past, he shouted an obscenity at me [he was but a few feet away]....for no reason at all. I was, like the previous driver, taking every reasonable precaution when passing the cyclist, showing all reasonable consideration, given the width of the carriageway.

 

Anyway, at that moment, I shed all sense of reasonableness towards the cyclist. I didn't have to shout & swear at him. Neither did I do anything that would have been construed as compromising his safety.  [Cos I'm like that!]

What I did do was floor the throttle  in 2nd gear, as I was along side of  him......the exhaust pipe barked, and the sidevalve Ford engine spewed hot exhaust gases out at  quite a rate [together probably with a bit of burnt oil?],   straight towards the cyclist's bare legs!

 

Now, if he'd stayed silent, I would have trickled past him and made my way quietly. 

 

But, as it was, as I receded into the distance, my left hand was raised with two fingers!

 

I'm a considerate chap really. I understand cyclists'' problems . As a driver, regardless of what I'm driving, I treat them as I treat all vulnerable road users, with consideration.

But some don't seem to be able to recognise 'consideration & respect' when it bites them on the berm.

 

About a half our later, same cyclist came panting past my garden gate.   [ I live in a rural village, often plagued by hordes of lycralites]

 

I happened to be out chatting to my neighbour [exchanging veggies too]....when I suddenly leapt into a voluble tirade of swearing at the , now hapless, passing cyclist. Who carried on riding with an expression of bewilderment on his face....wondering what he had done to upset one of the locals?

 

Neighbour was taken aback too, she'd never seen me display such voluble emotion.....but I explained what had happened.

 

CAme away clutching a warm apple pie...