alastairq

I was referring to the 'social leanings' of the EU establishment , rather than the political leanings of parties within constituent EU members. As such, many stalwarts of the UK labour party [and movement, including one J Corbin, when younger]....back in the1970's and 1980's, were politically against sidling up to the EU, due to the Obvious political stance of the EU establishment [nothing to do with individual member's politics]..The EU most definitely had an anti-socialist stance. Personally, I think De Gaulle had it spot pon all those years when he blocked any attempts by the UK government to join his little club. Perhaps history was being learnt-from, back then, in that, for France, it was 'better' to have an independant GB upon which to rely, should elsewhere in Europe get above themselves?

I believe [kills pain?] there used to be a spray that one could, erm, spray{?} onto one's appropriate tyres to enhance grip in snow? I recall many years ago attending a race meeting at Donnington. A chum was racing his single seat Pre-wawer MG...[or rather, his wife was]....and he had fitted proper racing tyres [which weren't wide like modern stuffs]....They tyres had received some treatment [and heat, no doubt].... and when ready to use, placing my hand on the tread, I could feel the stickiness trying to pull my skin orff... Now, ice, is something else entirely. I prefer to ride on snow! The biggest boon when considering snow [or indeed, off-road at all] isn't how many, or which, wheels are driven.....but, [as has been said above], ground clearance. Once one runs out of ground clearance [even a Land Rover doesn't actually have all that much......one can bring a land rover to a halt with a small hole. Crossing a rutted track, incorrectly, for example?], once the suspension, or axle, of whatever, digs in, progress ceases. Cars of old [Ford Pops, for example or pre-wawer motors...or SAAB 96s]...with their spindly wheels, were competent on non-tarmac surfaces simply because they had decent ground clearance. I found the biggest help when confronted with snow drifts was, not forgetting to put one's big shovel in the boot!

I suspect much of that wasn't down to the ''actions'' of government, but the appropriate [or otherwise, as it might turn out] actions of individuals who were ''in command'' , on site, so to speak? Given the length of time it took to communicate back in those days, micro management by government wasn't easy....Much reliance was placed on the abilities of those in command, locally. Nowadays, if a lowly military person is confronted with a decision to be made, they can refer back to the highest authority in an instant. I believe today, management [whether military or otherwise] has descended into a policy of mediocrity. Actually not being risk-averse is seen as a 'bad thing'. Not that I blame management, which has been pushed towards that situation . I mean, why bother taking a risk, when lying low is rewarded? We all clamour for 'decisions', but in reality, we don't want decisions at all. In case they prove to be unsuitable. I must admit, when I first heard we were going to have a Referendum, my immediate reaction was....''AT LAST'' My next immediate fear was, were we not going to be asked the pertinent questions? [Which is why I dislike surveys! I know what my answers will be, but I don't get asked the right questions that enable me to give those answers. I dislike multi-choice assessments either...simply because, none of the answers I have to choose from are, in my opinion, the right answers...just someone else's idea of what might be 'right!']

Relative....to what?

Well, perhaps an 'indeed' is needed there? Not much in the preceding 36 years has convinced me my initial vote was wrong,either. Markets and trade are one thing. Political interference is something else entirely. What really does amuse me [it would amaze others, but merely amuses me!]....is the stance taken by Her Majesty's Opposition? Given how the EU, as an institution, was so completely in opposition to the basic views of the Labour party? But then I have long suspected the Labour party has become only slightly to the left of the staunch conservatives....only slightly....... As for political promises? To me, they are like marriage! In other words, very rare that they work out as intended!

I'm not sure either, how a percentage of ethanol in the fuel will ''damage'' a car's engine, either? I can accept ethanol may hasten failure of gaskets and materials in peripherals...but the engine itself? Only if one uses a fuel with an octane rating too low for the engine's compression ratio. I suspect manufacturers who have tried to save a few beans in production costs by using sub-optimal materials in the fuel system are covering their corporate rear-ends here?

At last, I have achieved success in my long & miserable life! I am [according to popular opinion] now a ''complete'' idiot! I think my one saving grace over the past half decade must have been, refusing to listen to any of the arguments...none of which got past my front door! Or convinced me, my long-held views needed modifying!

Got fed up with waiting, so went back home!

Cannot comment [hooray?] as I haven't been on a train for more than 15 years now.

Ethanol content? Fuel companies have to pay the Govt. a penalty fee {RTFO}, if they fail to add ethanol to the required percentage, pre-set percentages. It follows then that any petrol which is ethanol-free is likely to cost more than the same brand, with E5. Since the extra penalties for failing to include the required percentage ethanol are likely to be passed on to the customer, perhaps?

Thinking back to when I started driving.....the good old SAAB 96, even though FWD, managed snowy roads quite easily. The difference was [compared to today's puddin's], not using 'low profile' tyres [80 aspect ratio was normal then] and not using incredibly wide footprint tyres. Plus, 15 inch wheels with the attendant ground clearance they provided [that and a smooooothe underside?] What don't we have today?? We don't have narrow, skinny wheels or full 80% aspect ratio tyres. We don't have decent ground clearance, on basic , standard cars. We don't have low power outputs [because UK drivers are up themselves with gadgets and bhp figures].... Neither do we have, generally speaking, enough snow & ice to allow drivers to 'learn' better skills. LAnd rovers are definitely not the be-all-&-end-all of winter driving. The old ones definitely didn't have enough bhp to get into trouble, but any 4wd on ice will suffer from 4 wheel spin. [They were part of my last job for 20 years...but only part!] As for FWD versus RWD? In snow or ice? The issues arise because we have all forgotten how to drive, at a very basic level. Especially when compared to those who drove [at a very basic level] prior to the 1960's! RWD can be no worse in snow or ice than FWD.....Otherwise Volvo, a notable SWEDISH car company, wouldn't have stuck with their RWD for so long. I happen to have a 1967, 6 cylinder, 3 speed automatic, Ford Mustang. I also have the appropriate owners handbook. In that handbook a whole section is devoted to instructing the owner how to drive in snow. Apparently, snow was a common, and long lived occurrence in Ford USA's major market. I doubt Ford owners were confined to using the bus for 5 months out of the year in the USA? So, what has changed, 50 years on?? Cannot find Dunlop Weathermaster tyres any more....

Yes it does....

Most of the ''superfuels'' of whatever brand are E5 or less. Locally to me, with 95 octane [now E10} around £1.34 a litre, superstuff is roughly 6 pence a litre more...[less than £1.40 a litre] With my side valve engines, the smoother running at traffic speeds I gain from using super fuel will likely now be equalled by using E10. Over 3200 rpm my engines hit what I see as a 'sweet spot', which is where the cyclic variation that prevails with the old design engines, gets overcome somewhat. At those revs my speed is roughly just under 55 mph in top , which means all those moderns out there promptly get in my way....so I have to slow down, and return to burping & farting... [I only have 3 gears.....Mr Ford decreed the world didn't need any more than that!}

Unconvinced or not, the shelf life of modern petrol is a scientific fact. Some engines will start on stale petrol, others may struggle. A hefty percentage of the fuel will have evaporated off whilst stored.....the temperatures at which this happens are quite low....Your engine started on what was left! Also, petrol sold during wintertime is different to petrol sold in the summer. There are even differences between spring & autumn. Modern petrol, when left, also produces a sludge as components of the petrol break down. Hence the common issues with lawn mowers left over winter with fuel in their tanks. Poorer performance may not be noticeable at first, either.

You have about as much choice as any owner of a n old vehicle. None of which were designed at the outset to run on today's petrol....Or indeed, any petrol being sold generally over the past 15-20 years or more. The problems manifest themselves regardless of whether one drives a pre-war MG, a Bugatti, or a humble sidevalve-engined Ford. Problems such as hot-starting issues, fuel evaporation, the detrimental effect that the additives in modern fuels have on gasket materials intended for 1950's petrol? The worsening of cyclic variation at normal traffic speeds & conditions...the list goes on. Neither can the owners of old machinery obtain the usual consumables made to the same quality standards as was commonplace back in the day. Brake linings, as an example, back in the day when Fords had [very very effective] mechanical brakes? they stopped very well indeed, back in the 1950's...but, back then, brake linings were made of materials which helped braking...like, asbestos! Nowadays, nothing generally available in modern materials has the same characteristic...unless one specifically seeks out the occasional brake lining supplier who actually knows what is needed in terms of material characteristics? As time passes, and each substance becomes banned, so we old farty drivers and owners have to make adaptations, have to 'change' things, in order to indulge ourselves. Leaded to unleaded fuel? The loss of generally available 100 octane petrol? The changes in what constitutes 'petrol' these days? Changes in the makeup of lubricating oils? [ZInc reduction for example, affects many old designs of engine...hammerblow on camshafts, for example?] Changes in how antifreeze is made up? Changes in rubber, for example. Has anyone seen the prices of what were once the cheapest of cross ply tyres??? I have one standard fitment [on Ford -derived sports cars] crossply tyre by Firestone....one if the cheaper options back in the 1950's....priced now over £250 a tyre!!! Now ethanol, another 5% ! I think we ought to be thankful it isn't 85%, as the cheapest fuel in the USA is? SO if one's bikes are unable to cope with ethanol [from a storage viewpoint] why not buy in some Sunoco fuel? Like tyres and brake linings, its a cost choice we all have to make?

How many hundreds of thousands of owners of these bikes are there? How come the manufacturers were so totally capable of producing equipment that in no way can be compatible with modern petrol? never mind a small percentage of ethanol? I guess it'll be a case of, that in order to keep running these machines, you'll be getting in touch with the local Sunoco distributors, for a supply of fuel which is guaranteed ethanol-free? Are they happy enough running on E5?

Won't be much worse than leaving E5 in the tank really. That's the problem with all modern petrols freely available. They have a very short shelf life.

I once owned briefly, a mini cooper with the 1071 cc engine......just to add some flavour to the discussion...

..................until we end up as in the USA, with E85. Also [I think I linked and mentioned this?] your quote from Anglian mentions something that might be subjective in view..but isn't backed up by the Manchester University tests I mentioned...and that was, whilst old designs of engine performed better on some of today's ''super'' petrols[E5 or less]....due to their reducing the effect on running, of cyclic variation [basically, the hopping about that goes on, relative to the position of the pistons, by the actual explosion, or burn, of the fuel, made worse by modern petrol, known about for over a hundred years by engineers, sorted these days by ECUs].....which is sadly mostly apparent at the revs most drivers commonly use, IE below 3000 revs, for traffic reasons. In addition [and ranked 3rd or so in the Test rankings of fuels] E10 also had the same effect on running at lower revs, as the premium fuels! {They went to France and purchased several gallons of E10 form a forecourt, since none was generally, publicly, available in the Uk at the time of the tests.} Indeed, an old trick for old [designs of] engine was to mix a percentage of paraffin in with the petrol, to reduce the cyclic variation.....this was shown to have a marginal effect only, in the Tests..... I noted one report from a ''classic'' car owner, when filling with E10, that the engine started burping and farting afterwards? My first thoughts were, aside from dirt in the fuel system, that the fuel mixture was now too lean!! Ethanol is known to have that effect on fuel mixtures...so if the mixture was set at stock, ex-factory [running on the fuel available at the time, to boot!!], then it will be 'out' when using today's fuel...and certainly 'out' when adding more ethanol. Quite why folk don't think they ought to need to fiddle with fuel mixtures just because the poor souls elsewhere need to reduce the effects of global warming, I don't know! If using an SU carb [or similar] then adjusting the mixture is straightforwardly simple. If running fixed jets carbs, not so easy...unless one has a selection of model railway small drill bits, to slowly enlarge jet & emulsion sizes until the engine runs properly on E10.....? I'd be looking for an old-school rolling road operator, who has the requisite knowledge [and various jet sizes]....available, to run up a mixture & timing check, for E10 fuel. Even if I was running a 1950's Ford Pop! Factory settings from the 1940's simply won't do any more. Folk started spending money [unwarranted for the most part, in my view] like water on hardened valve seats once we lost unleaded fuel.....[and risked them dropping out too??} Now we'll see the panic stricken old car owners flocking for the anti-ethanol magic potions galore.....instead of doing their research, and studying a bit more about what it is they own & drive?? Ethanol is here to stay. So we need to stop pissflittering around and cope with it.

This was mine well over a decade or so ago, with last EX,whose face says it all, passengering...it would be on a Kyrle Trial, [Ross-on-Wye] Followed by the upgraded version with Marina engine, and windscreen, on a later Edinburgh Trial. Reg number plate moved by then, to a stick on DIY jobbie on the bonnet, like an E-type jag..only invisible if looking up from below ground level!! The one above kept getting knocked off by rocks and flies... Immediately prior to registration mot...1996.. My first trials Skoda Estelle behind it..... The bonnet bulge is a badly made used bus ticket holder, re-cycled. Above is how the Cannon arrived at my gaff....a freebie from an old friend....a bit or a wreck really, but, with a good battery and a pint of fresh fuel it started and drove....Tiniest turning circle I've ever seen too, and fiddle brakes. Could almost turn round in its own length. The trailer is what Mike Cannon would have supplied with this car originally...he provided almost a turnkey trials car service....rock up, hook up, and ready to trial. Driver's eye view originally. BDC might mean ''Bedford Drivers Club'..I think? Lots of ancient spares sitting in footwell...very strong stink of the aromatic stale petrol too...

No, not mine, that is an active trials car...patination? That's just trials dirt! But, it's supposed to be running a 1172cc sidevalve Ford engine still..although judging by what appears to be the top of a large Su carburettor on the off side, I also suspect someone hasn't yet got around to telling the nobzinswansea about the 2 litre Ford engine [or is it an Fiat engine?] The front axle isn;t original either [Mine is..Ford Y type beam, Morris Minor [pre-WW2] hubs, gawdnoze what steering box & drag link..probably Standard, it's on its side anyway..] Not built for speed [which is an accidental by-product in a trials-orientated car]...As can be seen, not much depth to the car at all...so occupants well exposed....bit like riding a motorcycle, without the falling-off bit? Notice how huge the windscreen is? When one quite short wiper blade covers the lot??? Much like fitting an Avon fairing? Probably running out of volunteer passengers until the owner fitted it? I know I did! Mine is made from part of an old bus timetable!

Or Renault's Ventoux motors? [As the Germans would say, von-too-von-too-von-too]

MArina 1275 blocks slightly different to Sprite 1275 blocks [for example], regarding oil filter position, etc. Cylinder heads varied over the decades as well. To convert Marina engine for inline A -series gearbox meant completely stripping, changing the engine end plates over, oil pump, etc etc...not to mention starters etc. [Marina used Triumph-sourced inline gearboxes, a very heavy lump of a boat anchor if ever I saw one! The A-series [ribbed] gearbox was a tiny lightweight thing in comparison....nice box, poor 1st gear strength however] Let's face it, all the engines mentioned received various upgrades as times past... HAs anyone mentioned Citroen's old 4 banger motor yet? Started off pre-the-wawer [don't mention the wawer!], ended up...oooo...DS, etc? H-van?

My local garage changed last week, displaying E10..but I suspect they may still be getting rid of the 'old' E5 in the tank still? [The wording of the labelling is..''up to E whatever '', which doesn't necessarily mean the fuel actually has that high percentage of ethanol.} I usually only put around 20 pension-quids worth in anyway...[with modern petrol's ability to flash off at less than 30-odd degrees of temperature...losing between 15 & 20 % of volume due to low temp volatility of head end components.....I reckon, the less I pay for, to suit my immediate needs, the better? Anyway, has anybody noticed whether the cheapo E10 petrol actually smells different to the old E5? Or did I have something stuck up my nose, last time I filled up?

Aside from block, crank, etc etc