Hobby
-
Posts
2,442 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Hobby
-
-
OK! Top of the Brocken in April 2001, the only time I've been over to Germany when it was snowing!
-
7
-
-
20/21 71 matches
21/22 62
22/23 65
Looks like 55 this season. Only played 41 in 2002/3, no cup runs!! ;)
https://www.worldfootball.net/teams/manchester-city/21/
https://www.worldfootball.net/teams/sheffield-united/21/
I suppose it depends on how far a team gets in the various cups and how many "extra" tournaments there are.
It's also worth bearing in mind the number of international matches there are as well, as mentioned by someone else, for a top team those matches will affect them more than the lower teams as a larger percentage of the squad will be called up for international duty. When the managers of the top teams complain it isn't just about the matches their teams are playing but all the extras, isn't there some more extra matches planned for international tournaments this year as well? To be fair I think they've got a valid point, the players are played large sums by their club to play for the club and are expected to risk injury and health in an international that is often pointless but puts at risk the domestic campaign.
It's all about money, though, those extra matches fetch in money for the governing bodies but not necessarily for the club and certainly the opposite for the fan. Just like F1!
-
3
-
-
52 minutes ago, MJI said:
There is also the experience of works previous bosses car, an audi, one boss hated it, the other eventually disliked it.
47 minutes ago, MJI said:Also i have been spoilt by owning 3 cars with GM autos from pre Peugeot days.
When GM designed and made their own cars.
I have a similar lament to monkeysarefun.
Fine, I didn't like the three speed autos in my P6 and Maestro, that didn't make them a poor gearbox, it was just personal preference, just because they are "bosses" doesn't make their views any more valid than mine! I can understand your personal preference and longing for what's gone, but I try not to let that colour my views on anything new (or not so new, they've been around 20 years now), if it works and makes things easier then I'll try it.
It's interesting reading your's and Katy's responses as it seems neither of you have driven a car with a VAG DSG but are taking secondhand experiences to form a view of them. That's all well and good if the "sample" is large enough but not fair otherwise. I've driven them for 9 years now, around 120k miles so know them quite well. They have their foibles, as does every gearbox and I've experienced what Katy described in her last post, though I've had that issue with other auto gearboxes and even more so when I've made a mess of a gear change in a manual! However other than that odd time they've been just fine. Perhaps the old adage, "don't criticise something until you've tried it" springs to mind!
One key thing is what you want from your driving experience, personally these days I'm more relaxed when driving so an auto suits me just fine, if I wanted to have a race and get more "involved" then perhaps a manual may be better!
-
3
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, alastairq said:
Enlighten me please, O! Owners of motorcars made this century....what is a DSG gearbox?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-shift_gearbox
As you don't like anything else modern when it comes to cars, Alastair, I'd say "No!", you wouldn't like it!! ;)
Thanks, for the clarification, MJI, so for 99.9% of owners there wouldn't be an issue! Re towing with them this thread on a caravan forum is quite useful as there's more than one version and it seems only one is to be avoided:
https://www.caravantalk.co.uk/community/topic/134123-vw-dsg-auto-and-towing/
-
3
-
-
I thought that there's a limit to squad size no matter how "big" they are?
-
2
-
-
I think most of us could kill any gearbox in 5 mins if we wanted to, but what's the point. In normal use they are as reliable as any other, I have known taxi ones that were still going after 250k so not sure what point you are trying to make.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, MJI said:
What is the mpg of a DSG?
I dont think Katy has had any of the latest ones for any decent time but I've had three. Golf estates: 1.6tdi 55mpg, 2.0tdi 52mpg and now an Octavia 1.0Tsi 50mpg. All measured using Fuelly over 3 years/40k and not guesswork brim to brim like most people think is accurate. Previously a 1.9tdi Roomster manual, 55mpg. As I said pretty much no difference. I could get much more, when driving in Germany this year the Octavia was doing 60+, but much of my local work is town which brings down the average.
-
4
-
-
I'd rather it just disappeared without a trace...
But I'd also like to see Liberty disappear from Formula One as well, but can't see either happening!
-
2
-
-
No chance of that over here! Lucky to get 50 miles without some sort of obstacle.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Which makes little difference, 30kg against a total weight of near 2000kg, 1.5%.
Other modern non VAG gearboxes give similar results and they're a damn sight more relaxing in everyday driving conditions!
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Kickstart said:
For fuel economy, often not. For a manual the gear change points, etc, for the fuel consumption tests, etc, are specified. On an auto they are up to the car. Hence for an auto it is easy to tweak the gear changes to minimise fuel consumption on the tests. In the real world the auto is unlikely to be better, and often worse as it has a significant amount of extra weight to carry around.
For modern gearboxes such as the VAG dsg gearboxes there is very little difference between manual and auto mpg in real world driving. Check out the real mpg websites to see. My old car was a Golf estate with the 7 speed dsg, according to the Honest John website the difference was only 1mpg.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, alastairq said:
had gearing modifications which meant their [relatively small, compared to USA] engines revved higher at a given speed,
Many drivers I have observed, criticise a manual gear change on a particular vehicle as being 'rubbish', etc.....When in actual fact, it is their lack of understanding of, and the proper handling of the gear lever which is at fault, not the vehicle!
It's interesting regarding gearing, the last few classics I've owned i got hold of the brochures for them and back in those days you got lots of useful information not seen now, one of which was the gearing ratios. I did notice that the gearing ratio for both the auto and manual (4 or 5 speed) in top was pretty much the same, so they'd obviously geared the auto for cruising economy regardless on the number of gears it had.
Re gear boxes and their foibles, I leaned to drive in a Maxi with a cable operated gear change, after that I feared nothing!! 🤣
-
3
-
-
The chances are that it's still picking up on that wheel anyhow, on a curve, for instance, the flange will be in contact with the rail and there's also the metal rim outside the tyre.
-
1
-
-
Ah, the old auto vs manual debate, nothing like it!
In the old days of 3 speed autos vs 4 and 5 speed manuals there was really only one sensible choice, the manual, but now? A modern 7 speed auto is as economical as a manual version of the same car and is often quicker on acceleration, so those two arguments are out of the window. When it's combined with adaptive cruise control and a modern, very busy, motorways it beats a manual hands down.
For the average driver.
And there's the key, enthusiasts can shout all they want about manual gearboxes being the "true" way to drive and will defend them to the ends of the earth, but for most of the drivers out there convenience is the key and only modern auto gearboxes have that key... Personally, as a lifetime manual gearbox driver who had to convert to autos due to family reasons I only wish I'd done it earlier!
It's like debating soft top motoring vs the rest, enthusiasts will give lots of reasons they think it's the tops, but it's only their opinion, most people may like it as a novelty but that novelty soon wears off when it's all the time and not on the odd occasion!
16 hours ago, Northmoor said:Of course the focus on achieving high MPG figures with family cars is all about marketing; anyone who actually calculates all their car's running costs (or just drives an old car that isn't depreciating), knows that fuel makes up a small proportion of running costs. It has always amazed me how much people are prepared to spend to save a much smaller amount; borrowing £200/month for a new, more efficient car, to save less than £20/month seems to make financial logic to many, but not me.
It's an interesting point about fuel consumption vs changing for a newer, possibly more efficient, car. There's lots of reasons people change cars, it might be they have to as part of their job or a lease agreement, or it could just be something as simple as wanting a new(er) car, or change of circumstance, such as smaller or larger needs. I'd suggest, though, that fuel costs on a modern car with long service intervals will come second only to the finance costs, there could even be a small saving on the service costs depending on the cars being compared. My Octavia has clocked up over £3600 in fuel costs in the 32 months we've had it and has had one service and two new tyres in that time, the costs of which are a lot less than a quarter of the fuel costs. If you are already paying £400pm on finance then switching at the end of the finance package to a new car at similar costs may well be a better way forward than keeping the car, which would probably involve having to finance the final lump sum and losing any benefit from warranties, etc.
Perhaps not such a simple equation?
-
3
-
2
-
-
Back on topic, Romania yesterday:
https://www.sursazilei.ro/video-accident-la-suceava-mocanita-aruncata-de-pe-sine/
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, 4630 said:
He's terrorising our two year old cockapoo.
Anything called that deserves it! ;)
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, RedgateModels said:
Sounds like Mansfield ......
and what's wrong with Mansfield, they held a motor race in Birmingham!!
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, craneman said:
You may not think the legislation is being used correctly and you may disagree with the courts
That i do need to reply to as I'm sure I never said that, simply pointed to others' interpretation of the law, from the Police, Law Firms and other motoring sources which all agree that it is legal to put them in the bottom-right as long as they don't obscure viision.The laws you quote do not prevent their use unless they obscure the forward vision of the driver, there is no precedent that I'm aware of, just individuals (police) interpretation of them. In fact if there is a precedent it is that Twitter post by the GMP.
As I said I'll agree to differ, even if you wont, there is plenty of evidence to support the sources I have quoted (NOT my views), prosecutions have taken place, but where the phone or satnav was obstruction line of vision.
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, stewartingram said:
The rule also applies to furry dice hanging on the mirror. But try to find specifically that in print, though people have been charged for it./
I've no doubt it does, Stewart, but it has to be proved that it obscures the drivers line of vision for the driver to be prosecuted, which the dice would do but a properly mounted satnav/phone like the one in that video won't, I'd refer you back to the GMP Twitter/X link. Also the case to which you refer to (includes air fresheners as well!):
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/cabbie-fined-for-hanging-furry-dice-961482
-
1
-
1
-
-
Probably those air fresheners as well!
-
2
-
-
-
3
-
14
-
-
11 hours ago, craneman said:
Regulation 30 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078 as amended), Regulation 100 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078 as amended), and Section 40a of The Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991)Part II, Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.
OK, just looked both of them up and they do not prohibit the use of a windscreen mounted satnav or mobile phone. What it does say is:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—
(a)the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment,
....
is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”
Which I assume is the section you are referring to, in this case mounting a satnav/phone directly in your line of sight and therefore blocking your view of the road would qualify. But that isn't what he's done, he has mounted it well below the level of his eyesight and therefore the provision of that act does not apply, in fact if mounting a satnav on a windscreen was illegal then the police would spend all of their time prosecuting people judging by the numbers i see, not to mention the prosecution of people who sell the mountings.
I will go back to the advice given online by numerous websites which cover such things and, I feel, they would not give such advice if it contravened either that act or it's amendment, the key point is that it does not interfere with your field of vision. This is from Honest John's website:
Greater Manchester Police Twitter/X post:
I'm not sure of where we can go with this other than I'll have to "agree to differ" with Stewart and Craneman!
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, stewartingram said:
It is the position that matters, not its use. To put it simply, nothing should block your vision within the arc of the windscreen wipers.
In which case any satnav mounted along the bottom of the windscreen in any place, middle or either edge, would fall foul of that. If you do a search it says that the rule is simply that it doesn't block the driver's view, nothing more.
I made my comment based on that it was a body cam that he was using and therefore below neck level. If you look at the section where he gets into the van before crossing, the cam is just about level with the top of the phone in it's holder, that would mean it's well below his eye level and therefore legal.
Personally I prefer one that mounts to the vents which makes it lower, I don't like windscreen mounted ones, but that's just personal preference, I don't see anything illegal in that video unless one of you can link me to the law which prohibits it?
-
2
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, stewartingram said:
Seems to be a good "how-to" there, but he still has his phone illegally placed on the windscreen!
Why? It's clear from his body cam that it's not blocking his view forward and bottom right is one of the recommended places to put it.
-
2
-
Hornby announce TT:120
in Hornby
Posted
Whilst they may be non Hornby (I don't know?) I suspect they only print what they are told and don't make stuff up, perhaps they were told something and it went to "print" and timescales have lapsed in the meantime, though with a digital only I'd have thought that deadlines could be quite tight.
Mine were ok Steve.