ejstubbs

From the link posted by Andrew P above: ...the squadron, which uses Hawk T1 training jets, has been cleared to continue flying by F1, which doesn’t class the Red Arrows as military aviation. and It is not known whether other national aerobatic display teams using training aircraft, including the Patrouille de France and Spanish Patrulla Águila, will also be able to continue flying at grands prix. I would also direct readers' attention to my remark about desperate times calling for desperate measures.

I'm not sure that military aerobatic display teams use combat aircraft very much. Certainly the Red Arrows, and I'm pretty sure the Freccie Tricolori and the Patrouille de France, use fast jet trainer aircraft that would never be deployed into combat (for a given value of "never" - desperate times calling for desperate measures and all that). Not sure about other countries. I know that the RAF has its single-ship Typhoon display team but that tends to focus on air shows rather than being entertainment in otherwise non-aeronautically related events I believe. I know that in the US NFL games often have flypasts by USAAF/national guard combat aircraft, but not aerobatic displays I believe. Personally, I quite like air displays, and if I were still a regular attendee at GPs I would rather prefer one to a parade of classic cars (most of which can be seen up close elsewhere around the venue when they're not being paraded, anyway).

My understanding, from the days when it was commonplace, was that no racing was allowed on the track within a certain period (couple of hours at least IIRC) before the scheduled start of the GP. This was to avoid the risk of incidents in the support races delaying the GP by requiring significant clearing up operations, making barriers safe etc. The air displays were provided to fill the gap in the on-track entertainment. (I can remember another GP at Brands Hatch which featured the Lords vs Commons race in the racing school's XR3is, run with a rolling start behind the Super Transit. But that was shortly after the F1 morning warm-up session, and several hours before the GP was due to start.) Which is exactly the kind of thing they were trying to avoid. Nothing allowed on-track that could possibly put the GP at risk.

Something like that it would seem. From the article: It is understood the sport also wishes to distance itself from potential geopolitical statements or posturing that could be interpreted through such displays. I've not been to a GP since Silverstone in 1987. My recollection is that the traditional display by the Red Arrows was no longer allowed by then - something to do with displays over a crowd distributed around a circuit, as opposed to being spread out along a 'display line', no longer being allowed. Might have been just a UK rule, though? I can remember one earlier GP at Brands Hatch we had the Reds, a Harrier hovering over the start-finish straight and turning to 'bow' to the crowd in the main stands, an A-10, and Concorde doing three or four passes before turning and disappearing into the distance with full reheat on. Those were the days...

Guagemaster do the GM500 relay for precisely this kind of function. It may not be as cheap as buying 'bare' components (but then Farnell are far from cheap anyway IME) but they are purpose-designed for the job in question. (They are also available in slightly more economical three-packs). This wiring diagram for the GM500 shows the second set of contacts on the relay being used to illuminate a two aspect colour light signal, which could equally well be indicator LEDs on a control panel. (Note that the diagram also shows the first set of contacts on the relay behind used for frog polarity switching. Given the well-known poor reliability of the SPDT switch built in to the SEEP PM1, this is probably a good idea.)

What makes you think they don't do that already? Bloomin' argumentative fluffy white things

Humanity truly is in terminal decline if the fundamental skill of doing DIY while listening to Test Match Special is disappearing!

F1 has shown the teams data that proves the sprint events increased audience figures and sponsorship income. Which is obviously what matters - not, for example, having a homogeneous, easy to understand race series that doesn't require "explainer" pieces in the media every time a new wrinkle is introduced in order to try to snare the passing interest of the terminally attention-deficient. F1 was originally created as the premier sprint* formula, way back in the mists of time. Modern tyre rules make it implicitly a one-driver endurance formula - and then they bolt on separate, shorter "sprint" races to try to get round the fact that a good proportion of the potential audience have very little interest in pit stop strategies etc - they just want to watch cars being driven competitively and as fast as possible. But even that doesn't really work, because most competitors seem to prefer simply to preserve their grid position for the main race, rather than risk it by indulging in any genuine racing. So the only real benefit of the sprint race is that it's quite short... <Wanders off grumbling under his breath to go and shout at clouds.> * i.e. race from flag to flag without stopping, to the extent that that is practically possible within the vagaries of a high-speed motor race - i.e. allowing for problems arising with the machinery. As opposed to endurance racing in which in-race pit stops were always part of the game.

If I might add a little further context to this: people have an inherent right to use bicycles on the road (strictly speaking, on the carriageway - and bicycles are classed as "carriages" which is why it's illegal to 'drive' them on the footway, same as any other "carriage"). Drivers of motor vehicles, in contrast, are permitted to drive their motorised carriage on the carriageway provided that they are able to pass a one-time test to demonstrate that they are sufficiently competent to be allowed to be in charge of such a potentially lethal piece of machinery in a public place, and that they continue to abide by the regulations and guidance set down by the government for such use (including such nanny-like requirements as driving with respect and consideration for other road users). Fail your test: no licence. Break the rules too often or too egregiously: licence suspended. Unlike pedestrianising or cycling, which require no permission, only possession of a valid licence allows the use of a motor vehicle in public places. (Certainly the payment of "road tax", properly called Vehicle Excise Duty, has nothing whatsoever to do with it - it is a non-hypothecated tax on motor vehicles, not a ticket giving privileged access to tarmac). And that permission can be withdrawn if abused. (In that sense, the US term "driver's permit" is arguably both more accurate than and/or preferable to the UK's "driving licence".) The fact that the guidance and regulations on the use of motor vehicles are so weakly enforced these days is not the fault of cyclists or pedestrians, although they do seem far too often to be the ultimate victims of it. The provision of dedicated cycling infrastructure can with some reason be regarded as a reflection of the inability of too many motor vehicle users to police themselves, and the failure of the authorities to fill that gap, rather than any kind of indication that cyclists "shouldn't be on the roads". The need to provide such infrastructure is arguably a mute admission that the regulation of motor vehicle use has for many practical purposes failed, allowing inconsiderate, antisocial and plain dangerous behaviour behind the wheel (pavement parking, speeding, handheld mobile phone use etc etc) to somehow become normalised and almost accepted (and in some cases even expected), when deep down everyone knows it shouldn't be happening.

That's correct (current HC rule 170 - honoured more often in the beach than the observance IME). However, from my (brief) scan of the draft of the new version of the HC I believe that the wording will be amended to give right of way also to pedestrians waiting to cross. In other words, in future you will need to take into account what's happening on the footway as well as what's immediately in front of you on the carriageway. It's all part of the "Hierarchy of Road Users" which is introduced in the new version, which "places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy." As to how that will work out in practice, well, taking into account the sort of behaviour which regularly gets reported and discussed in this thread, and which is already Inn beach of the existing version of the HC, I'm sorry to say that I'm not totally optimistic...

On one of our outings during our holiday in Northumberland last summer, Google Maps actually directed me to turn on to a road with a C prefix to its number. Given that the signs at the junction did not admit to any knowledge of a C-road, it wasn't entirely helpful!

I got one of these yesterday. Is the button on the top end of the pin vice supposed to rotate? The one on mine doesn't (vs the one on the pin vice I already had, which does - but I like the chuck on the Lidl one, much less faff than swapping between different sized collets).

There's nothing to stop you asking such questions of the seller directly - there's a "Contact seller" link on every listing for just this sort of purpose. Sellers who don't respond to queries don't tend to get my business. Nothing in an eBay listing can affect a purchaser's statutory rights, in particular the right for a refund or replacement if the item supplied is faulty (unless it was described as such and offered as "spare or repair") or has been mis-described. Both of these options are listed as valid return reasons if you initiate the return process through eBay, and eBay is generally good at enforcing such return requests. All that "No returns accepted" on a listing means is that the seller won't accept returns if the buyer simply changes their mind - though I believe that commercial sellers have to follow the consumer contracts regulations for remote selling in all cases, which means that buyers have 14 days to change their minds (but they can be required to pay the return postage). AFAIK (and I'm willing to be corrected) those regulations don't apply to private sellers. Basically, my approach to eBay is very similar to @HonestTom's, and I can't recall ever having had a disappointing transaction that didn't get resolved in a satisfactory way.

I recall my materials lecturer at uni describing - IIRC - how useful early data about fatigue cracking was collected by a crew member on board a ship who had noticed a crack in a bulkhead, and kept a record of its growth up until the point when it failed catastrophically and the ship sank!

Very much so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagani_Zonda#760LH (Reading that Zonda Wiki page, I couldn't help noticing how many examples of a car produced in relatively small numbers were described as having been damaged in accidents.)

The geometry of the Peco and Hornby Setrack curved points is identical for all practical purposes. This diagram (originally from Antics web site IIRC) shows how both manufacturer's products can be to make a crossover between and R2 curve and an R3 curve: Note that the combination of track sections to make a curved turnout is the same in both cases. It may be worth bearing in mind that the outer track, although nominally R3, is made up of a combination of R2 curves and short straight sections - this would likely be an issue for any rolling stock that doesn't like R2 curves. The Streamline curved points are probably a significantly better bet for reliable running, but they require a lot more room to construct a crossover on a curve - I reckon more than double the overall curve radius cf the nominal "R3" using Setrack, which for the space-constrained may not be feasible. You'd basically be using up 18" or more of extra baseboard in each direction. While using ordinary (i.e. 'straight') Streamline points with Setrack is reasonably straightforward, incorporating Streamline curved points in to an otherwise Setrack-based design is another level of complication IMO.

I believe the IAM still teach not to indicate if there's "no need" or "no-one to see it", and doing so counts against you in their tests. Certainly an IAM-trained driver I know insists that that is the correct procedure, and will accept no arguments to the contrary such as the one you cogently outline above. It seems that it's more important to be able to pass the IAM tests than it is to actually be a considerate, actively aware and erring-on-the-side-of-caution driver. That's one of the reasons why I have no interest in the IAM. <Stands back to wait for a slew of IAM drivers to defend their organisation...>

This might be the product you're thinking of: https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/gaugemaster-gm619.html. The identical item can also be found under other brand names (including on Amazon, as you mentioned).

That joke was old in the 1990s, when management kept going on about "doing more with less" - it was pointed out that if you just do nothing i.e. expend zero effort, you become infinitely efficient. See also: "don't work harder, work smarter," to which the response was "Hey, if I was that ****** smart, I wouldn't have to work for you": https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-14

He's not a "Right Honourable" - that's reserved for members of Privy Council, peers below the rank of marquess, and certain lord mayors (provosts in Scotland) and the Lord Lyon King of Arms. Since he never actually made it in to the House of Commons he was never in a position to insist on being referred to as plain "honourable" (and anyway, in the case of MPs in the House the use of that term is solely a convention of address, not an actual title). I think the best description of him these days, given his affiliations on the other side of the Atlantic, would be "the member for Trumpton".

"February fill-grave" Norman Nicholson called it.

@Derekl Thanks for that. It does make me wonder whether a "brake van or vehicle with a brake compartment at the leading or trailing end" would include a luggage & parcels van (GUV in BR parlance) which wouldn't seem to meet the 'brake' criteria but would surely provide equivalent protection? I found a report on an incident at Crewe in 1939 which involved a luggage & parcels van and a corridor third being involved in a collision while being shunted by the train engine - another example of the van being marshalled behind the loco. @bécasse Thanks also. Might the 'convenience' aspect potentially include being able to drop off the van from the rear of the train at an intermediate station, if it was not going to be required for the remainder of the trip?

Thank you, I shall listen to that shortly.

@Jim MartinI think you managed to find the member for nowhere at all's marginally less inflammatory version. His Facebook post (go there if you dare) was notably nastier, accusing the RNLI of becoming a "taxi service for illegal immigrants". Or perhaps, as a past supporter of the RNLI, he actually did it as a sneaky way to help raise funds for the organisation - because that's the effect it seems to have had: Donations to RNLI rise 3,000% after Farage’s migrant criticism Note: this is not a political post, it is a purely personal response to a particular instance of the revolting bile that the individual in question apparently chooses to share with the human race from time to time.

It's an excellent and very moving film (pity the aspect ratio is messed up on YouTube, though). It's scheduled to be broadcast on BBC Four on 11th January coming at 23:00: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00794gz. I can understand why they might choose to show it other than on the actual 40th anniversary. Mousehole has its own remembrance ceremony each year: at 8pm on 19th December most of the village's Christmas lights (which in 1981 had been turned on by Solomon Browne crew member Charles Greenhaugh just two days previously) are turned off, leaving just a cross and a pair of angels shining across the village and out to sea. Apparently the government of the day attempted to tax the £3M+ raised for the relief of the people of Mousehole following the disaster. Nice. I think that to suggest that "they were only doing a job" may be a rather unfortunate - though no doubt accidental - misrepresentation. As LCDR Russell Smith USN says in the film: " These people don't do it for money. They do it for the giving, the volunteer work: they give life to other people." No-one made them do it, or paid them to do it. They set out in those horrendous conditions* of their own free will because they believed it was the right thing to do: to go to the help of strangers in mortal peril rather than do nothing and leave them to die. * In a 46ft 9in wooden-hulled boat capable of 9kt, against hurricane force winds. The current Penlee Lifeboat, now based at Newlyn, is a Severn class 56ft 9in vessel with a fibre reinforced composite hull and capable of 25kt. This, as well as more modest but no less essential stuff all the way down to the iconic RNLI yellow wellies, is the kind of kit that the RNLI is able to equip its crews with these days, funded solely by voluntary donations from people who care, and funds raised by hard-working volunteers onshore..