ejstubbs
-
Posts
2,163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by ejstubbs
-
-
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:
My subjective impression, without empirical evidence but based on experience, is that mazak is less prone to deterioration if the model is taken out of the box and exposed to the air.
Unless the box is vacuum sealed (which they aren't) the model is going to be "exposed to the air" inside its box anyway.
-
18 hours ago, 96701 said:
Some people seem to be incapable of letting the days go by.
My wife says I stopped making sense a long time ago.
-
5
-
-
On 24/06/2022 at 12:59, Enterprisingwestern said:
Bear in mind also that slush boxes these days have variations built in, I have a sport option and manual selection by moving the stick to left.
Sounds similar to the auto box in my car, which is a DSG (in simple* terms: an automated, computer controlled manual gearbox & clutch) rather than a "slushmatic", so there's no torque converter involved.
* I'm aware that this is a bit of an over-simplification. There's a more detailed explanation here for those that wish it..
-
2
-
-
On 17/06/2022 at 20:25, boxbrownie said:
it is normally stated in the manuals about not using cruise control in wet or slippery (cold) conditions.
I read something along these lines somewhere a while back and, just to make sure I hadn't missed anything, I checked in the manual for my car (and yes, it does have cruise control!) That confirmed my recollection that there is no mention of not using the CC in low-traction conditions. However, I also know from experience that the CC will disengage itself if the car detects anything approaching a loss of grip - I suspect based on whether the electronic stability control system is about to intervene. Even just driving over an usually bumpy bit of road can cause the CC to disengage. So maybe they decided that the warning wasn't necessary.
-
2
-
-
On 25/06/2022 at 10:07, Invicta Informant said:
One thing that has been a good watch over the past few days on YouTube is the Goodwood Festival of Speed.
Was also "live" (with a bit too much unnecessary chatter IMO, but there you go) on ITV over Saturday and Sunday. I've just been watching it on catch-up. The electric fan car that broke the hillclimb record is a bl00dy missile:
According to the chat on the ITV coverage, they had the fans set on maximum downforce - all two tonnes of it! What that YouTube clip doesn't show very well is the car sat at the start line with the fans spooling up before it set off like a scalded cat.
-
4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:
An interesting problem for someone. The house has been shored up but in doing so the van is trapped so how are you going to remove the van? My guess is that they will have to remove the van in pieces by cutting it up.
Reminds me a bit of this one not far from me a little over a year ago:
although I believe they did manage to extract the car in more or less one piece. There were certainly acrow props all over the place the next day when I passed it by. Making good the property took a wee bit longer - IIRC the owners were only able to move back in at the start of this year, and the remedial work was finally completed almost exactly a year after the incident.
Ignore what that tweet says about the location, by the way - it was actually here. The car was travelling SE along Oxgangs Road, which is uphill at that point, and had gone straight on, completely missing the gentle bend to the left that can be seen in that Google satellite image (where the road passes the pub) which took it on to the wrong side of the road, and it then continued on the same trajectory over the mini roundabout without stopping - fairly obviously so, since it then demolished a garden wall and ploughed on into the front hall of a house. Note that I say "the car" in this case, rather than suggesting that the driver did anything that contributed to the crash, because it's pretty clear from the path the vehicle took and the force of the impact that the person behind the wheel was exerting next to no control whatsoever over its speed or direction. (I believe it was reported at the time that said driver was being charged with dangerous driving but I've not seen anything since as to how that eventually panned out.)
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 27/06/2022 at 23:21, andyman7 said:
Almost certainly customs related I suspect
On 28/06/2022 at 08:49, Enterprisingwestern said:Although it gives me no pleasure, welcome to the post brexit world of buying from the UK.
I sent a package to Austria in January 2020 using Royal Mail. It got to Vienna pretty quickly, then sat there in customs for several weeks with no communication to the recipient by Austrian Post, before slowly wending its way back to me.
That was just a few days after Br finally exited and you'd hope that the companies providing international carriage would have sorted their systems out by now - especially since there already were and still are over 150 countries around the world which don't have customs-free arrangements for moving goods in and out of the EU. But it seems that may not always be the case.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, melmerby said:
If you are doing as the manufacturer specifies and only using manufacturer approved parts, surely that could be called doing a manufacturer approved service?
Sophistry.
"Approved installer" were your original words: that clearly refers to the person doing the work, not the work being done.
Words have meanings. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty (or a certain kind of politician) you can't change their meaning willy-nilly to suit your argument.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Phil Parker said:On 27/06/2022 at 09:52, Nearholmer said:
I would certainly look to demonstrate that a reasonable life expectancy for an adult market is measured in decades, and that such a lifespan is achievable with reasonable levels of care around quality control.
The word "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The manufacturers would likely argue that they are already are emplying "reasonable" levels of QC. You can apply the sames levels of mazak testing that defence and medical contractors apply, but that's going to push the price right up, and we know how the UK modeller loves low prices.
The decisions on "reasonable" would need to be settled in court with lots of long and expensive arguments. Probably enough to either bankrupt the manufacturer, or at least persaude them that the model railway business isn't worth the effort - which solves all the problems of course as we get no more new models. AND, you may well find a judge who looks at the stuff and says it's toy trains, so how much do they really matter? After all, a faulty OO gauge Class 31 kills no-one.
Sounds to me like the argument over whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status
IIRC the final judgement was based on the proposition that a cake is something that goes hard (i.e. stale) when left out of the packet, whereas a biscuit goes soft. If only someone could come up with a straightforward criterion like that for deciding whether a model locomotive is a toy or an "adult collectible"*, how much simpler life might be.
* Which sounds to me more like the kind of dodgy magazine that you can find for sale in the darker recesses of eBay** - but maybe that says more about me than it does about the phrase itself.
** Er, so I'm told. I'm not speaking from personal experience, obviously.
-
1 hour ago, melmerby said:4 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:
But only if you have it serviced every year by an approved installer.
Normally the case with items like boilers and cars etc.
Not so with cars, AIUI, so long as it can be demonstrated that the person/garage performing the regular servicing did so at the recommended intervals and carried out the work as specified by the manufacturer at each service interval.
From https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/service-repair/faqs:
QuoteDo I have to get my car serviced by a main dealer?
You are not obliged (since October 2003) to get the car serviced by a franchise dealer during the warranty period.
You must though get it serviced according to the manufacturer's recommended schedule and criteria using only manufacturer approved parts.
The legislation only applies to the part of the warranty offered by the manufacturer, i.e. insurance-backed extended warranties offered by dealers are not covered and may stipulate different conditions.
If you do get the car serviced outside the dealer network, you must make sure it's done to the maker's recommended schedule and criteria using approved parts. You must also keep records so you can demonstrate to the manufacturer that servicing was undertaken to their requirements.
You should still get warranty work undertaken by the franchised dealer as it is easier for them to deal directly with the manufacturer. -
43 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:
Don't forget that such a sentence is only applied after due process of law.
Precisely. This is why we have a court system: to examine the facts of each case and, as far as possible, hand down judgements & impose punishments appropriate to those facts.
As johnofwessex pointed out, at present it is not really possible for the courts to impose sentences for the most egregious offences committed with a motor vehicle commensurate with those available for offences involving other potentially deadly objects such as guns and knives - or even just hands, fists and feet.
-
2
-
-
From the article:
QuoteDuring his driving career, he publicly questioned Ayrton Senna's sexuality and called his rival "the Sao Paulo taxi driver".
He also made offensive comments about Nigel Mansell and the Briton's wife when they were team-mates at Williams.
I find that interesting, because it was my understanding (from the specialist motorsports press at the time) that Ayrton himself was known to have made some pretty unsavoury comments about some of his F1 rivals - including IIRC Nigel Mansell. It was one of the reasons why, despite his brilliance behind the wheel, I never really warmed to Senna. But we didn't have podcasts, Twitter and their like back then, so his remarks probably didn't get anything like the same publicity as Nelson opening his mouth and putting his driving boot right in it in 2022.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, EddieB said:
I haven't watched (and don't intend to), but if that is true it strikes me as very poor judgement by the production team. Those killed in racing accidents should not be seen as fair game by cheap TV dramas.
For clarity, it was a perfectly innocuous photo of Jochen sitting in the car in front of what looked like some spectators on raked seating behind a barrier carrying an advertisement for whisky. He's clearly not racing - he's not wearing his helmet, for a start - and I suspect that it was actually some kind of publicity shot (I have tried to locate the original with the help of Google's image search but to no avail).
There was nothing gory or exploitative about the image used. It had been photoshopped to (a) replace the Gold Leaf Team Lotus branding with the name of a fictional racing team mentioned in the programme*, and (b) to include the wording of a motto which had been mentioned earlier in the programme around the cockpit.
I suspect that 99% or more of viewers wouldn't even have known who the driver in the photo was. It's even possible that someone in the production team chose the photo precisely because they were a fan of Jochen Rindt**, and they thought they could slip it in as a quiet personal tribute to their hero without anyone much noticing. (Maybe even Kelvin Fletcher, who had an acting role as something like the team's chief engineer in the episode?)
I could post a screenshot of the photo from the programme but it seems that it might offend the sensibilities of some other forumites.
* Although the red, gold and white Gold Leaf Team Lotus livery was still clearly visible, even though it was a rather low-contrast B&W photo.
** Though that would either make them at least 60 years old if, like me, they remembered Jochen RIndt from their early childhood interest in F1 - or else someone with a fairly deep interest in F1 history.
-
2
-
-
Well, I didn't think it was that bad - at least in the context of the series, which is generally a bit hokey - though it certainly wasn't one of the better episodes. Mind you, the murder weapon was bonkers - almost Midsomer Murders material. There was a not-very-oblique-at-all contemporary reference, with a superstar british driver who just happened to be a person of colour with interesting hair braids, and who was having an unexpectedly poor season. And Paul McGann's appearance was marked with a sneaky blink-and-you'll-miss-it Dr Who reference.
Nice use of the Red Room at the Haynes Motor Museum.
Anyone recognise the cars used at Castle Combe?
I suppose the biggest actual howler could be argued to have been the use of the photo of Jochen Rindt in his Lotus 72 as the driver who supposedly died in the US Grand Prix East in 1979 - Rindt having sadly died at Monza in 1970.
I'm sure there were more gaffes which a fan of modern-day F1 would have found easier to spot than an old fogey like me...
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:
The law doesn’t limit to safety related items, it’s couched in terms of fitness for purpose, so if a thing fails in a way that makes it impossible to use it for its purpose, without fixed time limit, subject to it having been properly used, but bounded by reasonable expectation of lifespan, then the customer should be able to obtain redress from the retailer, although the customer might have to employ an expert to investigate and report, which can cost a significant sum.
My car suffered a catastrophic failure of the clutch recently, rendering it unusable, and first response was “it’s out of warranty; sorry, but you’ll have to pay”. I gently pointed out the foregoing, and they began to think harder, then I suggested that I might employ an expert, and suddenly it was all fixed at no cost to me, with the fix warranted for a further two years.
All well and good, and I'm glad you got your faulty car repaired, but spamcan61 was responding to cypherman's assertion about manufacturer recalls for inherent faults, not one-off failures occurring outside of the warranty period.
Actually, I think cypherman was half right: manufacturers do operate service programs whereby, when an inherent but non-safety-critical becomes apparent, dealers are instructed to carry out the remedial work FoC the next time a vehicle is brought in for a service - often without the owner even being aware of it*. But that isn't the same as as safety-related recall, which involves the manufacturer contacting the registered owner of every vehicle affected, and requesting that they bring their vehicle in for remedial action ASAP.
* Although it is usually listed on the service job sheet - typically because the computer adds it to the job sheet automatically for vehicles that require it. But then I suspect the majority of car owners only give the job sheet a fairly cursory skim anyway. To be fair, my local dealer's service manager is very good at taking me through the job sheet point by point each time my car goes in to have work done.
-
I've conceived a need for a few of the Dapol unpainted wagon bodies* (OO scale) but they seem to be out of stock absolutely everywhere. The Hattons web site suggests that they're due to come in to stock sometime this summer but that's about it. Unfortunately the usual alternative source such as the Bay of e have so far failed to come up with the particular ones I need.
Anyone know if these products are ever likely to be available again?
* Not the complete unpainted wagons, just the bodies - the product codes for the unpainted bodies start with a "B" whereas for the complete wagons they start with an "A".
-
Looks fine to me using Edge, Firefox and Chrome on Windows 10, and Safari, Chrome and Firefox under MacOS Mojave.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, rocor said:
This would be a modern development of the tricks used during the late 1970s/early 1980s ground effect era.
Ahem:
🙂
-
2
-
-
On 18/06/2022 at 09:00, SR71 said:
If bouncing is caused by the car touching the ground, but being as close as possible to the ground makes for the fastest lap, then teams will of course have to run close to the ground. If they don't their competitors will.
I was under the impression that the cars still have the "plank" fitted to the underside of the chassis, and the rules about how much of it should be left at the end of the race still apply. I may be mistaken about that, but I'm pretty sure that I read it in one of the articles linked by Andrew P recently (and a quick Google seems to confirm it). It's intended to ensure that the cars conform to the ride height regulations. I suspect that it might have become somewhat superfluous during the non-ground effect era when ride heights seemed fairly sensible, but if the feeling is that low ride heights are contributing to/exacerbating porpoising then the mechanism already exists to police an increase in the minimum ride height. In fact. the FIA's statement seems to hint that they intend to do exactly that.*
Could it in fact also be the case that the new ground effect cars were not intended to ride as low as they do (or at least, as low as some teams seem able to run them), so as to provide some kind of cap on the aerodynamic grip that ground effect can provide, and thus provide better racing? But what if the FIA forgot to amend the existing minimum ride height regulation, or their calculations as to what would be a reasonable one to impose in the new ground effect era were faulty? The observation that some have made, based on Montreal, that DRS has become largely ineffective might seem to support that...
* Though the words "closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear" might be interpreted by a cynical person as suggesting that they'd more or less given up monitoring compliance with that particular part of the rules because it effectively became a non-issue when ground effect was for all intents and purposes ruled out.
-
2
-
3
-
-
On 17/06/2022 at 09:18, goldfish said:
Doesn't work for me.
This any good?
"The following diagrams show the structure dimensions with the table indicating the appropriate measurements in various scales as devised by the British Railway Modeling Standards Bureau (BRMSB)."
It's not the BRMSB web site as mentioned by Les Bird - but then I'm not sure that such a thing exists, given that the BRMSB itself seems to have ceased to operate 60 years ago or more, before the world-wide web was even a twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee's eye.
There's another thread about the BRMSB standards here.
-
1
-
-
The Dalmunzie Railway is shown on the current OS 1:50,000 map, including the zig-zag that was used to gain height before the crossing of the burn which is shown between the words "dismantled" and "railway":
For some reason the 1:25,000 map just shows it as a path.
I went up that glen one winter a few years ago with some pals to refresh our winter hillwalking skills (navigation, ice axe arrest, snow bollards, that sort of thing). I can't remember exactly what state the railway was in, and I don't seem to have taken any photos of the outing, unfortunately. My recollection is that there was a remnant of some kind of buffer stop at the eastern end of the upper zig-zag, so there was probably some evidence of rails in place as well. ISTR that the line of the railway faded away as you got closer to the farm, and was basically no longer visible at the point where it crossed a field/paddock between the farm and the "big house". However - again a vague recollection - I think there was a shed with some rather neglected-looking rolling stock round the back of the hotel.
It's possible to trace most of the route on Google Maps satellite view: start at the Dalmunzie Castle Hotel and work westwards.
EDIT: I had an inkling that this had been discussed here before, and found this in the "abandoned rails in the road..." thread:
which includes a link to a Railscot page about the railway complete with photos, and this Press and Journal article about it (which itself includes the video linked above, and a reference to Rod Dingwall's book about the line, which is still listed on Amazon).
-
4
-
-
19 hours ago, Reorte said:
Does it have to be proven to that level of proof? IANAL so may have gotten this completely wrong but whilst criminal cases need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt civil cases might only require on the balance of probability. Quite what offences such as this are I don't know (I don't really know the difference between civil and criminal cases).
In a criminal lawsuit, the conflict is generally between the government authority and a person or persons. In civil cases, the conflict is generally between two or more private parties. The trial process and punishment are different between criminal and civil law. In a criminal case you are found guilty or not guilty. In a civil case one party wins and the other loses, and typically the loser has to pay some form of restitution to the winner. You can't be fined, sent to jail or suffer any other statutory punishment for losing a civil case (though you can, up to and including being jailed, if you lose a civil case and fail to provide the restitution ordered by the civil court e.g. paying damages to the other party - but that's because failure to comply with the direction of the court is a criminal offence).
Driving without due care and attention (I think more properly referred to these days as "careless driving") is a criminal offence. However, leaving a gap of 1.5m when passing a cyclist* is not enshrined in law, but it is given as guidance in Highway Code Rule 163. As The Highway Code itself states in its introduction:
The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability.
So failure to follow the guidance in the Highway Code can be argued to constitute driving without due care and attention, which is defined in law as:
1. Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
2. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.
In simple terms, the Highway Code defines the "standard expected of a competent driver", so failure to comply with even the rules which do not have a specific legal underpinning (i.e. the ones which do not use the MUST/MUST NOT wording) can be construed as careless driving. (I'd also suggest that scaring the bejeesus out of someone not cocooned in a steel shell by passing them unreasonably close and/or fast probably fails the second criterion as well, pretty much regardless of what else the Highway Code says.)
Given that the passing distance given in Highway Code Rule 163 is guidance rather than an absolute specification, there is scope for variation in the precise interpretation by the court. Exacerbating factors (such as failing the 'attitude test') may also affect the final judgement.
* At speeds of up to 30mph - it says you should leave more room at higher speeds.
-
3
-
3
-
-
12 minutes ago, Nick C said:
The cyclist looks to be about the right distance from the kerb, and the other two cars seen give them more distance. Nothing seen going the other way, so no reason for him to not move further over.
And the cyclist actually tucks closer in to the verge as the offender's vehicle passes, presumably because it was so close.
Based on that footage, I think the defence's assertion of 4ft clearance is generous at best - possibly it was that much after the cyclist had taken avoiding action. And as you say, there was nothing coming the other way so no reason not to have allowed more room.
48 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:It would seem that unless you are on a dual carriageway/motorway/sumptuously wide road you ain't never gonna pass a horse/cyclist/pedestrian
As someone who regularly passes cyclists safely* on suburban roads, I'm happy to call that out as exaggerated nonsense in the case of cyclists. Likewise passing pedestrians and horse riders on country roads without footways (I don't believe that the 2m rule applies to pedestrians on a separate footway, in the same way that the 1.5m rule doesn't apply to cyclists in physically segregated cycle lanes).
I do agree that a degree of consideration from non motor vehicle users is helpful. I don't think there can be much doubt that Highway Code Rule 169 applies to all road users - it's in the "Using the road" section of the code which is not specific to any particular category of road user (unlike the preceding "Rules for..." sections). The actual wording of rule 169 is:
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
Note the use of the word "especially": the rule is about not holding up a queue of traffic, and it applies to all road users, not just drivers of large or slow-moving vehicles (which is open to interpretation anyway). You could be doing 50mph on a derestricted single carriageway but if there is a queue of people behind you who want to go faster - as they are legally entitled to do, road conditions etc permitting - then you're supposed to let them pass.
However, the idea expressed elsewhere on this thread that the police are mustard at dealing with slow-moving motor vehicles I find somewhat laughable, having been stuck in queues behind agricultural vehicles and HGVs on rural roads with laybys and other usable passing places more times than I can remember, and with nary a police officer in sight. It's a rare breath of fresh air when one does pull in to let the queue disperse a bit. (Some of the worst offenders seem to be the tractors that are permitted to do 40mph, since the drivers seem to regard that as being fast enough not to count as being obstructive. Maybe they work on the basis that they're no slower than an HGV but, as is clear in rule 169, it's not how slow you're actually going, it's whether there's a queue of people being held up behind you that matters.)
And just in case anyone thinks that I somehow believe that cyclists can do no wrong: I completely agree that random "peletons" of leisure riders can be problematic, and that they should in general be more considerate of other road users both in choice of routes and in complying with Highway Code Rule 169. That they all too frequently aren't is IMO partly due to the widespread use of modern tools like Strava which make it easy for people to chase their "personal best" and compare their times against other riders - which always struck me as being contrary to at least the spirit of the laws against informal time-trialling on public roads, if not the letter. But what do I know...
* As someone who regularly gets on a bike myself, I believe I'm adequately qualified to make that judgement.
-
2
-
-
Thanks for confirming what I thought I'd seen. However, as I don't "do" Facebook on a regular basis, I'm quite sure that wasn't where I read it!
Who should be responsible for the cost of mazak rot.
in Modelling Questions, Help and Tips
Posted · Edited by ejstubbs
While I don't necessarily disagree with your fundamental point, unfortunately I don't think you've chosen the best analogy. Although TV features (HD, Full HD, 4K, varying degrees of smartness etc) and screen size have expanded over time, prices haven't really gone up that much, if at all. A couple of examples:
It's the same basic story with a lot of modern "high tech" products: the standard levels of specifications and capabilities have increased, but prices are much the same or lower - even more so if you take inflation into account (and very substantially so in the case of my 1980s B&W CRT TV).
The main differences cf model trains are:
(a) TVs are definitely a mass market product based on rapidly evolving technology, rather than comparatively short run products for a significantly more limited market and based to a large degree on old and not particularly quickly evolving technology, and
(b) the rapid evolution of modern technology means that manufacturers can't make a cheaper, no-frills product and make a profit on it, because the no-frills components either aren't available at all, or aren't available at a price that would make the product cheaper than the one built using the current industry 'standard' componentry that's churned out for pennies in the tens of thousands or more, and comes with the latest baseline level bells and whistles effectively included for free.
TLDR: model trains don't follow Moore's Law, whereas products like TVs whose functionality is largely delivered by electronics still more or less do.