Changes at DVLA - tell them what you think

You make it sound all smoke and mirrors, but the 'man in the street' doesn't care as long as they get a higher 0 - 60 and a higher MPG figure together with lower pollutants emitted for the exhaust, all of which they do in comparison to the same class of vehicles from 20 or more years ago. Or are you saying that everyone is lying ?...

In article , Ian Johnston writes

Ben Mack ( snipped-for-privacy@ben.watchfront.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Hydraulic loom diagram, from a mid-50s Citroen technical publication :-

: In article , Ian Johnston : writes : : >Just count your blessings. If Citroen were still Citroen, it would : >probably all be hydraulic... : : 80 metres of hydraulic pipe in a DS, apparently ;-)

They told me 70, which seems close. Just off to change my rear spheres now ...

Ian

It's important to distinguish between two different types of pollutants: those that cause environmental damage in towns and cities (NOx, CO, unburnt hydrocarbons, particulates, lead) and those that cause ecological damage like global warming (CO2, CFCs). Some of the first group may cause wider damage for example by producing acid rain.

When they work catalytic converters reduce environental pollution but increase global pollution. When they're not working they increase everything. Hydrogen could produce no pollution at the point of use but plenty generating the electrical energy necessary to produce it.

Ian Johnston ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Is yours a semi-auto?

: Ian Johnston ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, : sounding much like they were saying : : : >: 80 metres of hydraulic pipe in a DS, apparently ;-) : : > They told me 70, which seems close. : : Is yours a semi-auto?

Nope. Sane. Five speed manual DS23 Pallas.

And by golly the new spheres have improved things!

Ian

Ian Johnston ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

There's your other 10m of pipework, then.

In article , Adrian writes

I was reading about the SM this morning - on the headlights, both the self levelling mechanisms and the turning-the-corner mechanisms are hydraulic!

Ben Mack ( snipped-for-privacy@ben.watchfront.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I suspect you read wrong (or the writer wrote wrong). AIUI, they're cable, same as the D.

The message from "Autolycus" contains these words:

OK, I take your point.

Jerry would have been considerably more accurate if he had said a few rather than some when referring to both modern SUVs and small practical historic cars.

So there is but you could have hardly chosen a better way of obscuring what you meant. As written the examples could equally well apply to the eg, which is how I read it.

So no, I know FA

ISTR them as genuine 6 seaters at least by the standards of the day. They were certainly not small and it is no excuse to deem them such just because Vauxhall didn't make a small car at the time.

And their roots pre-war.

Irony is wasted on Usenet.

How accurate do you think the claims for 30-32 mpg for 2.5l diesel Disco and RR were. FWIW Parkers Guide gives 25-34 for the Disco and 26-38 for the RR. The lower figure being typical urban and the higher "better than average cruising consumption at a steady 50-60 mph". (Bit odd RR giving better figures than a Disco? And a bit obscure what they actually mean for the higher figure.)

Classic Car did a comparison between a number of "family cars of the early 60s" back in 1990. As the description implies none of them were particularly small with engine capacities ranging from 1390 (57 Hillman Minx to 1507 (59 Vauxhall Victor). The Hillmans overall petrol consumption was given as 29.5 mpg and the Vauxhalls as 26.3 mpg. The Hillman at least is on a par with the diesel Disco and I suspect that any genuinely small cars from the 50s and 60s (say 1000cc and below) would do better than the diesels at issue even if most might have trouble trying to match a Rav-4.

Your mocking what, in most cases, does have considerably scientific backing makes me doubt your judgement in other matters.

In article , Adrian writes

John Reynolds - Daring to be Different, Haynes

Aah, boring!

...considerable amount of unscientific, unproven scaremongering gibberish for the most part.

The fact that a few loud-mouthed politico-so-called-scientists shoot their mouths off regularly in the media does not justify the statement of yours: "considerably scientific backing". The evidence put forward so far does not stand up to scrutiny - you just believe whatever you want to believe, but don't let any facts get in the way of your beliefs, eh?

Allan Bennett Not a fan of poor judgement

The message from Allan Bennett contains these words:

Oh yes? Easy enough to slag off if you don't get specific but I don't for a moment think that you are up to the task of justifying your claim.

Where would you like to start? The untold dangers of hydrogen or lpg as fuel. Or the lack of particulate dangers of diesel as a fuel. Do you think it isn't a certainty that diesel produces, when burnt, considerably more CO2 than the same volume of petrol, or that it is debateable whether poisons such as NOx, lead, or benzine can have a beneficial effect on human health?

What science is in doubt with either nuclear waste or Wind Farms? Current arguments seem driven by economic, environmental and practical grounds.

And then there is CO2 and global warming. The one area it seems to me that there is some considerable scientific disagreement. But, representatives of the US oil industry apart, even that is a matter of degree rather than total opposition.

Here we go...

Not only do you quote popularly-held scaremongering gibberish stuff, you also resort to personal attacks based upon nothing but bluster.

So, go on, then: come up with some evidence for all your scaremongering beliefs.

Quote the real science behind so-called global warming.

Tell us about the 'untold dangers' (obviously, if they're untold, none of us are yet aware of them).

Quote the rise in atmospheric CO2, link that, if you must, with exhaust emissions and, if you must, ignore the real facts about natural fluctuations; ignore the real facts that natural phenomena contribute more - by factors most people cannot comprehend; ignore the facts of natural selection; ignore Darwinian evolution if all of that is necessary for your arguments to hold any sway.

Tell us that there is a hole in the ozone layer because I left the gas ring on or should have used the bus. Then fail to tell us that the ozone layer has magically healed itself despite all of us and maybe we are witnessing natural changes over which we could never exert any influence whatsoever.

Quote nonsense about retaining the status quo when, even if all fossil fuels were burnt, the earth would simply be returned to a previous state - and why should anyone accept your *opinion* (that's all it is) that things are better now than they might be or were in the past?

Allan Bennett Not a fan of bluster

The message from Allan Bennett contains these words:

snip original argument.

Not really. You ignore most points, just as you did with your rude and ignorant response to my previous post.

That's rich coming from someone who has so far done nothing but act in that manner. Given you childish jibes I think I have been so far reasonably restrained in replying.

Which particular scaremongering beliefs would those be. Diesel particulates, ingested lead, whatever? Oh you mean global warming. What makes you think I even accept that CO2 generated by human activity has very much bearing on global warming? I did after all qualify my original remarks to Kevin.

Quote the real science behind so-called global warming.

Global warming is a fact. Glaciers are receding, polar ice is melting and weather is getting more violent. Winters are getting warmer faster than Summers which could be an indication that the greenhouse effect might be a contributary factor rather than just a result of more heat from the Sun.

It was Kevin Poole who suggested that Hydrogen and lpg fuels were on tomorrows hit list for scare stories, not me, and as you appear to be siding with him it is up to you to make them up.

I can't recall offhand what the rise in atmospheric CO2 has been over the last century but ISTR that human activity only amounts to 3% of global output although whether that figure includes deliberate largescale destruction of forests is not clear. I wouldn't have thought any physicist would have disputed the basic notion of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 or, for that matter, that of the more efficient methane. There is however some pretty effective negative feedback in place to moderate changes, at least until something catastrophic happens (say total loss of snow and ice cover in the high latitudes).

As far as I am aware the hole in the ozone layer is still there and was caused not by your conspicuous consumption of fossil fuels but by careless liberation of CFCs.

I don't know how you managed to connect me with the above paragraph or even whether the rubbish about the Earth returning to its previous state is your delusion or a delusion you attribute to me.

- and why

I don't think I have ever expressed an opinion on that subject but don't let that get in the way of your tortured imagination.

Just an arch exponent of it.

words:

(My earlier guff...)

hydrogen's.

scientific

Oh. Shame about that. Perhaps, as with the earlier business about whether Victors have side-valve engines, a more careful reading would have helped. "in most cases" and "considerable scientific opinion" fall, to me, some way short of consensus.

believe, but

Stronger than I would have expressed it, but I won't argue with it.

Perhaps Roger knows Allan better than I do: he struck me as offering a mature and balanced view.

I reckon we're getting into a bit of sarcasm now:

I can think of a few dangers - but as Roger says, they're untold, so I'll keep quiet.

and he accused me of difficult sentence construction... It's perhaps the _importance_ of the amount of CO2 produced that's up for debate, leaving aside for a moment the fact that, partly since we've crippled our petrol engines in the name of "emissions", diesels usually get through a lesser volume of fuel.

Quite a leap from "poisons" to "beneficial effect" isn't it? But that sort of emotive stuff is all too common, alas. Don't even some poisons have a threshhold dosage below which they are often thought to cause no harm? And don't some sober-minded folk consider the "lead in children" research to have been seriously flawed? I'm a little concerned at Roger's credentials when he refers to "benzine" - most people whose school chemistry got beyond the bunsen flame know that it is not the same as benzene, which is, I gather, one of the aromatic hydrocarbons that is present in much greater quantities in modern petrol than in diesel and is, with its chemical brethren, now regarded as carcinogenic.

I suppose it depends how narrowly you define science: isn't there still some debate about safe levels of exposure to radiation? Or whether large metal structures, transported, with their foundation materials, by road to remote areas, might possibly cause as much pollution by their construction, maintenance, and eventual scrapping, as they save in their output of electricity, conveyed by miles of bell-wire or whatever to somewhere the energy is needed? Don't let's dismiss the economics either - the same money could be spent on other ways of improving the totality of human happiness.

So perhaps that stuff about amounts of CO2 per litre of fuel doesn't matter too much after all.

Somehow, bringing in ogres weakens even genuine arguments.

I think there was some on-topic stuff about how many midgets in a victor (or vice-versa), and whether anyone gets 30mpg in a Rangey, but it's not turned up on f2s's news server yet, and I cba to google it again to respond.

The message from "Autolycus" contains these words:

snip early stuff

You will never get complete consensus on any topic. At one end you get even scientists who are more influenced by who pays for the research that the actual results (viz tobacco/cancer) and at the other end the luny tunes ranging from the flat earthers to those who would believe anything just so long it is in support of their pet cause.

If you believe the rant above is either remotely mature or balanced I will have to downgrade my opinion of you even further.

:-)

The form of words was chosen to make my meaning clear, unlike your wording which first led to us crossing swords. AFAIK diesels have always had the edge in terms of fuel efficiency. It is just that the advantage is by no means as great when the CO2 output is considered and the particulate problem has been ignored by those in authority until relatively recently.

It all goes back to your ill considered remarks that started this argument. AFAIK there is no real disagreement on the deleterious effects of NOx, lead and benzene but both you and Alan would appear to differ.

I think you could well argue that almost any poison could have a single dose that would do no detectable harm but the is a significant difference between that and implying some beneficial effect. Even though there are some poisons that do have a beneficial effect in small doses (digitalis?) I don't think the 3 above do.

In what way would you consider the 'lead in children' research seriously flawed? That the investigators had a financial interest in the outcome of the research (enough to brand modern research flawed), that the source of lead in children was misdiagnosed, or the amounts detected just plain wrong?

What a difference a letter makes. The pronunciation is the same in either case and they are both hydrocarbons. It could of course just have been a spelling mistake rather than mixing up aliphatic and aromatic.

Yes indeed, but the consensus is that nuclear waste is dangerous. The experts cannot agree precisely how dangerous.

Such elements are readily quantified. There should be no controversy over the amounts. Just whether they are worth it, ie an economic argument or possibly an environmental one.

Only if you could find a free source of energy. Any large natural source of energy (wind, wave, tidal, hydro) is likely to be some considerable distance from the end user and all generating plant is heavy if it is to produce significant quantities of electricity. FWIW my own view is that windpower is too erratic to be worth it even with pump storage schemes to cover for the times the wind refuses to do the right thing. Tidal energy would be 100% reliable and with only a few sites provide round the clock cover. Unfortunately tidal energy reduces the size of tidal mudflats which is a red rag to the considerable body of twitchers who put bird welfare above human comfort.

It has some effect.

Incidentally the presence of some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is essential for human comfort.

They need to be mentioned. They do, after all claim to base their argument on science, not profit.

That was some time ago. I have long since forgotten what I wrote.

In some ways it *was* misdiagnosed, due to the expense it would have cause to acknowledge the significant amount of lead pipe-work still in existence in the 'inner city areas' were the research was done [1] - in saying this I'm not trying undermine the lead in children problem, just that one of the many causes was misplaced as it was cheaper to blame the motor car, which was then seized on by the anti car lobby. There still remains a problem with lead pipe-work in and around homes....