On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>>
>>
>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>
>> Which of those is wrong?
>
> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal car instead
> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
> boarding ferries.
>

I agree.

I think those with vehicles like those above are going to be paying
hefty penalties for using them in future years.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:18:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t2964q$srh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:10 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> My Freelander has roof bars, and finding a published height with them
>>>>> fitted is quite a challenge. Although I suppose one could measure them,
>>>>> and add it to the basic height.
>>>>>
>>>>> They change the look of the vehicle a lot, making it much more
>>>>> "Land-Rovery" rather than estate car. And I've actually used them a
>>>>> couple of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2015-11/29/f
>>>>> ull/1448802784-3245.jpg?im=Resize,width=640>
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen the new Defender yet? It really is enormous, and very high.
>>>
>>> Someone who must live in the vicinity has one (the first I saw, and I've
>>> seen one other). They are big, but also a bit too "jelly mould" for my
>>> liking. I see they are 1.974 high (just get into a 2m car park then).
>>>
>>> About the same length, but narrower, than a Freelander 2.
>>
>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>
> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>
> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>
> Which of those is wrong?

Defender lengths, without/with spare wheel:
90: 4,323/4,583 mm
110: 4,758/5,018 mm

Widths:
2,008 mm (mirrors out 2,105mm)

Height:
1,974 mm (Coil suspension)
1,969 mm (Air suspension)

FL2:
Length 4,501 mm
Width 1,910 mm
Height 1,740 mm

So the Freelander 2 is much narrower, much lower, and much shorter than the
110 (let alone the not-yet-released 130). But it is longer than a 3-door
Defender minus its spare wheel.

In message <11y47GeRtGSiFAW6@perry.uk>, at 16:27:13 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:18:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t2964q$srh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:10 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> My Freelander has roof bars, and finding a published height with them
>>>>> fitted is quite a challenge. Although I suppose one could measure them,
>>>>> and add it to the basic height.
>>>>>
>>>>> They change the look of the vehicle a lot, making it much more
>>>>> "Land-Rovery" rather than estate car. And I've actually used them a
>>>>> couple of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2015-11/29/f
>>>>> ull/1448802784-3245.jpg?im=Resize,width=640>
>>>>
>>>>Have you seen the new Defender yet? It really is enormous, and very high.
>>>
>>>Someone who must live in the vicinity has one (the first I saw, and I've
>>>seen one other). They are big, but also a bit too "jelly mould" for my
>>>liking. I see they are 1.974 high (just get into a 2m car park then).
>>>
>>>About the same length, but narrower, than a Freelander 2.
>>
>>It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>
>Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>
>Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>
>Which of those is wrong?
>
>Well, it could be Parkers, everyone else[1] {I can find quickly}
>appears to have the Freelander at 1910. Three and a half inches
>narrower, and one and half inches shorter than the average of the
>Defenders.
>
>[1] Apart from Land Rover themselves, who say 2005 mirrors folded, 2195
> mirrors out. Heigh ho, I suppose someone needs to find the Land
> Rover figures for the Defender now. OK, I'll do it:
>
> Width with mirrors folded 2008 <-- almost a dead heat
> Width with mirrors out 2105 <-- Freelander three inches wider
>
> And while we are on that page, add 260 for the Defender's spare
> tyre.

ps. Just measured the Freelander, and the widest parts of the bodywork
are the door handles and wheel arches, pretty much identical. Within
experimental accuracy 50mm each side slimmer than the folded
mirrors. And 2005 - 100 = 1905, I think we have solved it, for the
"everyone else", Watson, they are quoting the car without mirrors.

Although it's odd that Parkers is still minus 15mm if they think
they are quoting the mirrors-out number. They think the Defender is
2105, which is spot on LR's mirrors-out figure.

Just to confuse things further, Wikipedia quotes the Defender at
2008, the mirrors-in number.

Now we just need to find a Defender to measure, and see how far the
mirrors stick out sideways, if what we think we are interested in is
the body without any mirrors.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t29qte$1brm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:38 on Sat, 2 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>significantly longer.
>>
>>
>>Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>>Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>
>>Which of those is wrong?
>
>All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal car instead
>of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
>boarding ferries.

The thing about a Freelander 2 is it's pretty close to a normal largish
estate car (inside and to drive) but just happens to be really good on
rough/slippery roads, plus if you need to traverse the odd muddy field,
or bump up the odd kerb, it takes it completely in its stride.

I think things like the Evoque (soccer mum's car) and recent Range
Rovers (too precious to go farming and off-roading in) are the real
poncemobiles.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t29s2l$m8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:29 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>>significantly longer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>>
>>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>>
>>> Which of those is wrong?

>> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal
>>car instead of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about
>>lengths or heights when boarding ferries.
>
>I agree.
>
>I think those with vehicles like those above are going to be paying
>hefty penalties for using them in future years.

If they'd fix the roads (both potholes and sink holes, and crumbling
edges) I'd swap it for something less thirsty. But you've still got the
Queen Adelaide level-crossings, where I sail over at 30mph[1] like it
wasn't there, whereas 20mph in a regular car feels like it's going to
fall apart.

Anyway, 13yrs old and 78k miles, isn't exactly burning the roads up.
I've got a more economical car for that, even if it averages a pothole
puncture a year on the local roads.

[1] I could do 40, but there's a speed limit!
--
Roland Perry

In message <t29sas$11v$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:06:52 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:18:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t2964q$srh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:10 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> My Freelander has roof bars, and finding a published height with them
>>>>>> fitted is quite a challenge. Although I suppose one could measure them,
>>>>>> and add it to the basic height.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They change the look of the vehicle a lot, making it much more
>>>>>> "Land-Rovery" rather than estate car. And I've actually used them a
>>>>>> couple of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2015-11/29/f
>>>>>> ull/1448802784-3245.jpg?im=Resize,width=640>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the new Defender yet? It really is enormous, and very high.
>>>>
>>>> Someone who must live in the vicinity has one (the first I saw, and I've
>>>> seen one other). They are big, but also a bit too "jelly mould" for my
>>>> liking. I see they are 1.974 high (just get into a 2m car park then).
>>>>
>>>> About the same length, but narrower, than a Freelander 2.
>>>
>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>significantly longer.
>>
>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>
>> Which of those is wrong?
>
>Defender lengths, without/with spare wheel:
> 90: 4,323/4,583 mm
> 110: 4,758/5,018 mm
>
>Widths:
> 2,008 mm (mirrors out 2,105mm)
>
>Height:
> 1,974 mm (Coil suspension)
> 1,969 mm (Air suspension)
>
>FL2:
> Length 4,501 mm
> Width 1,910 mm
> Height 1,740 mm
>
>So the Freelander 2 is much narrower, much lower, and much shorter than the
>110 (let alone the not-yet-released 130). But it is longer than a 3-door
>Defender minus its spare wheel.

Where did you get the Freelander figures from, they are different to
Land Rover's own. See my recent posting; the 1910 is apparently the
Freelander with no mirrors.

Ground Clearance for the Defender:

Ride height (mm) 225 (Coil suspension) | 216 (Air suspension)
Approach Angle 31.0° (Coil suspension) | 30.1° (Air suspension)
Departure Angle 37.9° (Coil suspension) | 37.6° (Air suspension)
Ramp Angle 25.0° (Coil suspension) | 24.2° (Air suspension)

Freelander:

Height 210
Approach angle 31
Departure angle 34
Ramp Angle 23

So in the same ballpark, but with a slightly protruding rear end. Most
people would think driving up and down 30 degree slopes was a bit insane
anyway. It's not what I would typically encounter.
--
Roland Perry

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>>
>>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>>
>>> Which of those is wrong?
>>
>> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal car instead
>> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
>> boarding ferries.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> I think those with vehicles like those above are going to be paying
> hefty penalties for using them in future years.
>

"Those with vehicles like that" probably have them on leases or PCP
arrangements, and probably won't have that particular vehicle for very many
'future years'.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>>
>>
>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>
>> Which of those is wrong?
>
> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal car instead
> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
> boarding ferries.
>

My builder and next door's builder both have Discoveries, presumably to
save having both a van and a car suitable for use outside of work time.

Two friends who have Discoveries both have 2/3 kids and a dog (the extra
seats come in useful when I visit them with my partner, saves taking a
second car for days out/Sunday lunch etc), plus they both tow car trailers
several times a year. Yes I'm sure there's an estate car of some kind which
could do all that, but I'm not sure the disco-hate is always justified.

Plus they're all shorter than my very normal estate car, and all but the
110 are shorter or the same as my very normal hatchback.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is significantly longer.
>>
>>
>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>
>> Which of those is wrong?
>
> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal car instead
> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
> boarding ferries.
>

See
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tyre-extinguishers-manchester-didsbury-4x4s-23476934

Same in other parts of the country.

--
Colin

On 02/04/2022 17:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <11y47GeRtGSiFAW6@perry.uk>, at 16:27:13 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00
>> on Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:18:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t2964q$srh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:10 on Sat, 2 Apr
>>>> 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> My Freelander has roof bars, and finding a published height with them
>>>>>> fitted is quite a challenge. Although I suppose one could measure
>>>>>> them,
>>>>>> and add it to the basic height.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They change the look of the vehicle a lot, making it much more
>>>>>> "Land-Rovery" rather than estate car. And I've actually used them a
>>>>>> couple of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  <http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2015-11/29/f
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ull/1448802784-3245.jpg?im=Resize,width=640>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the new Defender yet?  It really is enormous, and
>>>>> very high.
>>>>
>>>> Someone who must live in the vicinity has one (the first I saw, and
>>>> I've
>>>> seen one other). They are big, but also a bit too "jelly mould" for my
>>>> liking.  I see they are 1.974 high (just get into a 2m car park then).
>>>>
>>>> About the same length, but narrower, than a Freelander 2.
>>>
>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>> significantly longer.
>>
>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>
>> Defender  90   4323 x 1996.
>> Defender 110   4758 x 1996.
>> Freelander 2   4500 x 2180.
>>
>> Which of those is wrong?
>>
> >Well, it could be Parkers, everyone else[1] {I can find quickly}
> >appears to have the Freelander at 1910. Three and a half inches
> >narrower, and one and half inches shorter than the average of the
> >Defenders.
>>
>> [1] Apart from Land Rover themselves, who say 2005 mirrors folded, 2195
>>     mirrors out. Heigh ho, I suppose someone needs to find the Land
>>     Rover figures for the Defender now. OK, I'll do it:
>>
>>     Width with mirrors folded 2008   <-- almost a dead heat
>>     Width with mirrors out    2105   <-- Freelander three inches wider
>>
>>     And while we are on that page, add 260 for the Defender's spare
>>     tyre.
>
> ps. Just measured the Freelander, and the widest parts of the bodywork
>     are the door handles and wheel arches, pretty much identical. Within
>     experimental accuracy 50mm each side slimmer than the folded
>     mirrors. And 2005 - 100 = 1905, I think we have solved it, for the
>     "everyone else", Watson, they are quoting the car without mirrors.
>
>     Although it's odd that Parkers is still minus 15mm if they think
>     they are quoting the mirrors-out number. They think the Defender is
>     2105, which is spot on LR's mirrors-out figure.
>
>     Just to confuse things further, Wikipedia quotes the Defender at
>     2008, the mirrors-in number.
>
>     Now we just need to find a Defender to measure, and see how far the
>     mirrors stick out sideways, if what we think we are interested in is
>     the body without any mirrors.

I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a view
to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the sunroof if we
can slot in an extra car - and it did happen! In those days door mirrors
were very rare. Things have changed over the years....

--
Colin

In message <t2a1ia$8pv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:36:10 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>>>significantly longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>>>
>>>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>>>
>>>> Which of those is wrong?
>>>
>>> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal
>>>car instead
>>> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
>>> boarding ferries.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> I think those with vehicles like those above are going to be paying
>> hefty penalties for using them in future years.
>
>"Those with vehicles like that" probably have them on leases or PCP
>arrangements, and probably won't have that particular vehicle for very many
>'future years'.

Erm, what do you think happens at the end of the lease?

They aren't scrapped! Typically they are sold to people like me at 3yrs
old, either direct from the auction (although I read recently the one I
used to go to, no longer deals with members of the public) or via a
second hand car dealer (it's where they get most of their stock from).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2a1ia$8pv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:36:10 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>>significantly longer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>>
>>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>>
>>> Which of those is wrong?
>>
>> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal
>>car instead
>> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
>> boarding ferries.
>
>My builder and next door's builder both have Discoveries, presumably to
>save having both a van and a car suitable for use outside of work time.
>
>Two friends who have Discoveries both have 2/3 kids and a dog (the extra
>seats come in useful when I visit them with my partner, saves taking a
>second car for days out/Sunday lunch etc), plus they both tow car trailers
>several times a year. Yes I'm sure there's an estate car of some kind which
>could do all that, but I'm not sure the disco-hate is always justified.

While I drove a Mk1 Disco for a while (I was house-sitting it for an
acquaintance), the more recent ones are noticeably bigger and clumsier
than my Freelander, so I didn't even consider getting one.

>Plus they're all shorter than my very normal estate car, and all but the
>110 are shorter or the same as my very normal hatchback.

Whatever you do, don't tell recliner that the Mk1 Disco was badged as
the Honda Crossroad. Anyway, the LR version I had, looked a lot like
this, and to some extent my Freelander with roof bars echoes it:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/1994_Honda_C
rossroad_%288627437970%29.jpg/1280px-1994_Honda_Crossroad_%288627437970%
29.jpg>

<http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2015-11/29/
full/1448802784-3245.jpg?im=Resize,width=640>>
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2aa7r$mj8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:04:19 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 02/04/2022 16:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:27:13 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ekgg4h15b5o0demkhpck8p5g3jdd675juh@4ax.com>, at 13:35:00 on
>>> Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It's much wider than the Freelander 2, and the 5-door is
>>>>significantly longer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's try that again, then, from the sources mentioned so far:
>>>
>>> Defender 90 4323 x 1996.
>>> Defender 110 4758 x 1996.
>>> Freelander 2 4500 x 2180.
>>>
>>> Which of those is wrong?
>> All of them unless you're a farmer or mountain rescue. Buy a normal
>>car instead
>> of a poncemobile then you won't have to worry about lengths or heights when
>> boarding ferries.
>>
>
>See https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
>news/tyre-extinguishers-manchester-didsbury-4x4s-23476934
>
>Same in other parts of the country.

"The Tyre Extinguishers group says it is leading a new movement
across the country encouraging people to take action against SUV
vehicles in built-up areas."

That's OK then, I have mine to use on poorly maintained country roads
(just like my earlier Disco and Range Rover, both when I was living in
rural areas).

Those were also invaluable in snow when all the other vehicles were
stranded. Including once on the A10 just south of Royston, when I was
going home from the station after a trip to London. All those hot
hatches with wide tyres, going absolutely nowhere.

In other news, and long ago, my Series 2:

<http://perry.co.uk/images/Snow_near_Wolsingham.jpg>

Late 70's and that's the friend I was staying with. We'd earlier gone up
one of the Fells until the front axle/differential turned into a snow
plough, and we ground to a halt. We'd taken a shovel with us.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2aal6$v8c$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:11:25 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

>>     Now we just need to find a Defender to measure, and see how far
>>     the mirrors stick out sideways, if what we think we are
>> interested in is the body without any mirrors.
>
>I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a
>view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the sunroof
>if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!

Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG Midget,
you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).

>In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed over the
>years....

See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors very
definitely after-market.

I've had cars that would only go into my garage with the mirrors folded.
Nowadays that probably wouldn't help much, because the thicker doors
mean you probably wouldn't be able to get out.
--
Roland Perry

In message <rLSf0OqTxVSiFAny@perry.uk>, at 09:35:31 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <t2aal6$v8c$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:11:25 on Sat, 2 Apr
>2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>     Now we just need to find a Defender to measure, and see how far
>>>     the mirrors stick out sideways, if what we think we are
>>> interested in is the body without any mirrors.
>>
>>I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a
>>view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the
>>sunroof if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!
>
>Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG Midget,
>you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).
>
>>In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed over
>>the years....
>
>See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors very
>definitely after-market.

Having looked at several photos of that model (FFR), I'm now of the
opinion the door mirrors (you can see the passenger one in my photo) are
original equipment, at least an option. Oh, and it's a 2a, not a 2.

<https://www.landrovercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/P1340784.jpg>

That one for sale at £12k, I paid the equivalent of about £4k for mine,
in original condition, not restored.
--
Roland Perry

In message <d5$yoJukGWSiFAza@perry.uk>, at 09:58:12 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a
>>>view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the
>>>sunroof if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!
>>
>>Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG
>>Midget, you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).
>>
>>>In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed over
>>>the years....
>>
>>See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors very
>>definitely after-market.
>
>Having looked at several photos of that model (FFR), I'm now of the
>opinion the door mirrors (you can see the passenger one in my photo)
>are original equipment, at least an option. Oh, and it's a 2a, not a 2.
>
> <https://www.landrovercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/P1340784.jpg>

And it now occurs to me why they'd be fitted with door mirrors - the
vehicles were mainly deployed as escorts for convoys (and the radios
fitted - but stripped out before retired - for communicating between
them). So you need a good view of the vehicles behind, and the canvas
hood blocked the rear view. The plastic (so it could be rolled up) rear
"window" wasn't terribly transparent either.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/04/2022 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <d5$yoJukGWSiFAza@perry.uk>, at 09:58:12 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a
>>>> view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the
>>>> sunroof if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!
>>>
>>> Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG
>>> Midget, you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).
>>>
>>>> In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed over
>>>> the years....
>>>
>>> See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors
>>> very definitely after-market.
>>
>> Having looked at several photos of that model (FFR), I'm now of the
>> opinion the door mirrors (you can see the passenger one in my photo)
>> are original equipment, at least an option. Oh, and it's a 2a, not a 2.
>>
>> <https://www.landrovercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/P1340784.jpg>
>
> And it now occurs to me why they'd be fitted with door mirrors - the
> vehicles were mainly deployed as escorts for convoys (and the radios
> fitted - but stripped out before retired - for communicating between
> them). So you need a good view of the vehicles behind, and the canvas
> hood blocked the rear view. The plastic (so it could be rolled up) rear
> "window" wasn't terribly transparent either.

Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
wing mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather
than factory fitted as nowadays.

--
Colin

On 03/04/2022 10:42, ColinR wrote:

And, is this the longest ever uk.railway thread????

--
Colin

On 03/04/2022 10:42, ColinR wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <d5$yoJukGWSiFAza@perry.uk>, at 09:58:12 on Sun, 3 Apr
>> 2022, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with a
>>>>> view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the
>>>>> sunroof if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!
>>>>
>>>> Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG
>>>> Midget, you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).
>>>>
>>>>> In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed over
>>>>> the years....
>>>>
>>>> See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors
>>>> very definitely after-market.
>>>
>>> Having looked at several photos of that model (FFR), I'm now of the
>>> opinion the door mirrors (you can see the passenger one in my photo)
>>> are original equipment, at least an option. Oh, and it's a 2a, not a 2.
>>>
>>> <https://www.landrovercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/P1340784.jpg>
>>
>> And it now occurs to me why they'd be fitted with door mirrors - the
>> vehicles were mainly deployed as escorts for convoys (and the radios
>> fitted - but stripped out before retired - for communicating between
>> them). So you need a good view of the vehicles behind, and the canvas
>> hood blocked the rear view. The plastic (so it could be rolled up)
>> rear "window" wasn't terribly transparent either.
>
> Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
> door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
> wing mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather
> than factory fitted as nowadays.
>

Not just sports cars, my 1966 Mini traveller had a wing mirror, just the
one, as standard. Don't think they were standard on the saloon version.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t2bq4v$a12$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:00 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 03/04/2022 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <d5$yoJukGWSiFAza@perry.uk>, at 09:58:12 on Sun, 3 Apr
>>2022, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> I recall, many, many years ago that we always looked at cars with
>>>>>a view to where best to put them. Drivers can always exit via the
>>>>>sunroof if we can slot in an extra car - and it did happen!
>>>>
>>>> Also, climbing out of the 5th door. Of course, when I had an MG
>>>>Midget, you just vaulted over the door (if the roof was down).
>>>>
>>>>> In those days door mirrors were very rare. Things have changed
>>>>>over the years....
>>>>
>>>> See the photo I just posted of my Series 2, even the wing mirrors
>>>>very definitely after-market.
>>>
>>> Having looked at several photos of that model (FFR), I'm now of the
>>>opinion the door mirrors (you can see the passenger one in my photo)
>>>are original equipment, at least an option. Oh, and it's a 2a, not a 2.
>>>
>>> <https://www.landrovercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/P1340784.jpg>
>> And it now occurs to me why they'd be fitted with door mirrors - the
>>vehicles were mainly deployed as escorts for convoys (and the radios
>>fitted - but stripped out before retired - for communicating between
>>them). So you need a good view of the vehicles behind, and the canvas
>>hood blocked the rear view. The plastic (so it could be rolled up)
>>rear "window" wasn't terribly transparent either.
>
>Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
>door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
>wing mirrors.

Many Europas had door mirrors (because the interior mirror for the
letter-box rear window was really just for show). By the look of it
(Google images) these were an option, not an aftermarket thing.

>I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather than factory
>fitted as nowadays.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t2bqks$gps$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:20 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst door mirrors
>>were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have wing
>>mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather than
>>factory fitted as nowadays.
>
>Not just sports cars, my 1966 Mini traveller had a wing mirror, just
>the one, as standard. Don't think they were standard on the saloon
>version.

I fitted wing mirrors to my mum's Austin 1100 in perhaps 1979. Electric
drill through the metal. Rust? Well, there plenty of that already.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2bq6i$a12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:51 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 03/04/2022 10:42, ColinR wrote:
>
>And, is this the longest ever uk.railway thread????

It's only just over a couple of recent 400-ers, and I think we've had
1000-ers in the past.
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
>> door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
>> wing mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather
>> than factory fitted as nowadays.
>>
>
> Not just sports cars, my 1966 Mini traveller had a wing mirror, just the
> one, as standard. Don't think they were standard on the saloon version.
>

Wing mirrors were quite common on the cars I saw in the 1960s and 70’s or
the ones I had dating from those decades though they were often an option
item on some models, as you note a frequent arrangement was just having one
often on the nearside to aid reversing into a parking spot.
They weren’t pedestrian friendly in the event of a collision with one even
though later ones were sprung so they would move and that saw their demise.
There were arguments at the time that moving such external mirrors from the
wing where they could almost certainly be viewed by a driver looking ahead
to a position where they had however momentarily to alter their field of
view was a retrograde step.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
>>> door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
>>> wing mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather
>>> than factory fitted as nowadays.
>>>
>>
>> Not just sports cars, my 1966 Mini traveller had a wing mirror, just the
>> one, as standard. Don't think they were standard on the saloon version.
>>
>
> Wing mirrors were quite common on the cars I saw in the 1960s and 70’s or
> the ones I had dating from those decades though they were often an option
> item on some models, as you note a frequent arrangement was just having one
> often on the nearside to aid reversing into a parking spot.
> They weren’t pedestrian friendly in the event of a collision with one even
> though later ones were sprung so they would move and that saw their demise.
> There were arguments at the time that moving such external mirrors from the
> wing where they could almost certainly be viewed by a driver looking ahead
> to a position where they had however momentarily to alter their field of
> view was a retrograde step.
>

The Japanese kept wing mirrors much longer than we did here. Of course,
they were power adjusted, so much more convenient than the old ones that
had to be adjusted with a spanner.

On 03/04/2022 11:59, Marland wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems logical. I do recall back in the day (very early 70s) that whilst
>>> door mirrors were very rare (just Landies?) some sports cars did have
>>> wing mirrors. I first used door mirrors as an add-on accessory rather
>>> than factory fitted as nowadays.
>>>
>>
>> Not just sports cars, my 1966 Mini traveller had a wing mirror, just the
>> one, as standard. Don't think they were standard on the saloon version.
>>
>
> Wing mirrors were quite common on the cars I saw in the 1960s and 70’s or
> the ones I had dating from those decades though they were often an option
> item on some models, as you note a frequent arrangement was just having one
> often on the nearside to aid reversing into a parking spot.

Mine was on the offside which is where I remember most of them being, as
an aid when pulling out.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.