On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:04:31 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t2f0er$6qn$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:47:55 on Mon, 4 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:46:35 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t2eagc$14qj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:33:16 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>>>And happens to be much higher and also more prone to rolling over.
>>>
>>>I know Prince Philip's one rolled over, but that wasn't because he went
>>>round a bend too fast.
>>
>>Plenty of SUVs roll in accidents. Go have a look on youtube. To get a normal
>>car to roll usually involves hitting an obstruction, with an SUV it can simply
>
>>be a skid.
>
>Don't believe you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkdAmyTR8TU

4:10

>>>You think bumping up kerbs in a family car with low profile tyres is a
>>>sensible thing to do?
>>
>>Who said anything about low profile tyres?
>
>I did, it's what most family cars have.

No they don't. Unless you have a wierd definition of low profile.

>>Plus plenty of SUV owners fit them too.
>
>If they do (and I've seen them on a Freelander) then they'll know to be

They do. You need to get out more from your tithe village a bit more often and
look at some of the blinged up rubbish driving around cities.

>>And if you need to pull something heavy buy a pickup, they're usually
>>rated with a higher max towing weight anyway.
>
>So now I need a family car, *plus* a pickup?

If you cared about a decent car for the family you wouldn't buy an SUV so
clearly what interests you is size and 4x4. So get a pickup. They all have 4
seats.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 21:04:19 +0100
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tyre-extin
>
>>> guishers-manchester-didsbury-4x4s-23476934
>>>
>>> Same in other parts of the country.
>>
>> Some of those pricks deflated tyres on some electric cars. You can't educate
>> stupid.
>>
>
>An electric SUV is still an SUV, which according to another of your replies
>are too tall/wide/heavy etc.

I remember reading a Hyundai Ioniq had been done. Which is not an SUV , though
admittedly it isn't small.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 03:12:58 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:50:50 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t2ean5$181m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:36:53 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> And much higher.
>>>
>>> Why does that matter?
>>
>> Multi story car parks, ferries, eurotunnel, roll over.
>>
>>
>
>Wait but you just suggested getting a Transit as an alternative. Which is
>surely even higher?

I wouldn't buy either but since he doesn't seem to care...

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:33:10 +0100
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>On 05/04/2022 04:12, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:50:50 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t2ean5$181m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:36:53 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> And much higher.
>>>>
>>>> Why does that matter?
>>>
>>> Multi story car parks, ferries, eurotunnel, roll over.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wait but you just suggested getting a Transit as an alternative. Which is
>> surely even higher?
>
>Not only that but they're notorious for bashing bridges. Can you

How many bridges are there that a standard transit can't fit under?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:59:01 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t2f0gj$7so$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:51 on Mon, 4 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:47:04 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Why not just buy a Humvee and be done with it? Or get an HGV license and
>>>>a 3rd hand scania with 1M miles for 10K?
>>>
>>>Now you are just being silly.
>>
>>And you weren't when justifying owning an SUV so you can go over a level
>>crossing at speed without feeling the bumps?
>
>That's just one of the big bumps I'd go over on a typical journey. I
>don't think you realise how bad the roads are here.

I've driven on some bad roads. None of them made me think "yes, I wish I'd
bought an ungainly, slow, ugly SUV with a cramped interior".

In message <jb0l5bFlqa5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:36:59 on Mon, 4 Apr
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:56:43 +0100
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2022 09:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> And happens to be much higher and also more prone to rolling over.
>>>
>>> There was a lot of fuss about 4WD vehicles rolling over, I remember a
>>> newspaper reporter went out with a police traffic driver, he drove round
>>> and around a roundabout without rolling over.
>>
>> Well he wouldn't. The manufacturers would make sure going around a
>>corner in a controlled manner won't induce a roll. Its when a sudden
>>skid or change of direction that upsets the suspension which starts
>>to bounce, oscillate, hit its stops or all of the above that things
>>start to go pear shaped.
>
>Well, there are lots of vehicles such as tall vans that if driven by a prat
>will be unstable in some circumstances.

>A case with some 4x4 drivers is the misguided perception that in snow and
>Ice they are bombproof

Different cars have different performances (in virtually every respect).

Just having a 4WD badge doesn't mean it's invulnerable. And any vehicle
with any transmission will eventually spin off if you go too fast. And
will go round more securely if you actually turn the Terrain Control
(where fitted) on. Or back in the old days, more securely if
differentials are locked; and that's before we start discussing Winter
Tyres.

In any event, I suspect many such vehicles are actually All Wheel Drive,
a poor man's 4WD that I get the impression is more about loss of
traction in a straight line, than using the engine to steer all four
wheels in a slide. A big part of the difference (on top of the fairly
weedy extra power sometimes available) is that AWD doesn't have to kick
in instantaneously, whereas the Freelander's transmission kicks in
within 15 degrees rotation for wheel spin, and 150ms for front/rear
power distribution.

>an understanding that gets cut short when they discover that while
>their vehicle is better than most in getting and staying moving their
>brakes are not a lot better than those fitted to most reasonably modern
>cars

The brakes are usually appropriate for the size and weight of the
vehicle. However, when on slippery surfaces it's not the size of the
discs which makes a difference, but whether the transmission is capable
of feathering the wheels independently.

>, a situation exacerbated by their superior traction and roadholding
>means they are often travelling faster than ordinary 2 wheel drive
>vehicles would be.

In terms of losing kinetic energy, it doesn't matter how long it took
you to get up to cruising speed, it's how quickly you can stop hat
matters.

On a dry road, I don't believe modern 4x4 are worse than family cars.
Having said that my now-would-be 60yr old Series 2A Landrover only had
drums all round, and they would be regarded as a bit below-par today. On
the other hand, most cars of that era only had drums, too.

Up-market Jaguar only offered discs, as an option, on their Mk1
(Inspector Morse) from 1957.

>Twice I have seen a 4x4 skid out of control upon braking in snow ,one
>went into a deep ditch from which it needed assistance to get out from as
>the nearside wheels were hanging in air,

Could be driver error, as well as lack of sophistication in the
drive-train.

>the other was one of those small Suzuki things

Their latest models have a "new improved" drive-train, which is
tantamount to an admission the old one wasn't perfect. Also with a "Snow
mode" that needs manually selecting. But even then it's just a 50/50
fixed torque split between front and rear, rather than dynamically
adjusted.

Depending on the model (how long ago was that?) the drive-train was
probably pretty crude, and still needed manual selection of two
different modes, one of which was a limited-slip centre differential. It
no doubt takes some practice to know what the optimum setting is on
different road surfaces.

>we helped a young woman emerge from after she slide sideways
>into a kerb and it rolled onto its side. One of the other persons said “
>you were travelling too fast ” to which she countered “but its got 4 wheel
>drive and should have coped”. Clueless.

Reminds me a bit of those people who allegedly put their camper-van into
cruise control, then climbed in the back to make a cup of tea.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:29:02 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In any event, I suspect many such vehicles are actually All Wheel Drive,
>a poor man's 4WD that I get the impression is more about loss of

There's no practical difference between 4x4/4WD/AWD in road cars, its just
different marketing terminology. Some have locking diffs, some don't. Some
have a centre lock, some don't.

>The brakes are usually appropriate for the size and weight of the
>vehicle. However, when on slippery surfaces it's not the size of the
>discs which makes a difference, but whether the transmission is capable
>of feathering the wheels independently.

I doubt many transmission diffs could operate fast enough to "feather" the
wheels in the sense you mean. Thats the province of the ABS system.

>On a dry road, I don't believe modern 4x4 are worse than family cars.

They will be if they're on off road tyres.

>Reminds me a bit of those people who allegedly put their camper-van into
>cruise control, then climbed in the back to make a cup of tea.

Sounds apocryphal. Tesla drivers OTOH...

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:29:02 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In any event, I suspect many such vehicles are actually All Wheel Drive,
>> a poor man's 4WD that I get the impression is more about loss of
>
> There's no practical difference between 4x4/4WD/AWD in road cars, its just
> different marketing terminology. Some have locking diffs, some don't. Some
> have a centre lock, some don't.
>
>> The brakes are usually appropriate for the size and weight of the
>> vehicle. However, when on slippery surfaces it's not the size of the
>> discs which makes a difference, but whether the transmission is capable
>> of feathering the wheels independently.
>
> I doubt many transmission diffs could operate fast enough to "feather" the
> wheels in the sense you mean. Thats the province of the ABS system.
>
>> On a dry road, I don't believe modern 4x4 are worse than family cars.
>
> They will be if they're on off road tyres.
>
>> Reminds me a bit of those people who allegedly put their camper-van into
>> cruise control, then climbed in the back to make a cup of tea.
>
> Sounds apocryphal. Tesla drivers OTOH...

Of course it’s apocryphal:
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t2hnr5$cle$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:39:17 on Tue, 5 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:59:01 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t2f0gj$7so$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:51 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:47:04 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not just buy a Humvee and be done with it? Or get an HGV license and
>>>>>a 3rd hand scania with 1M miles for 10K?
>>>>
>>>>Now you are just being silly.
>>>
>>>And you weren't when justifying owning an SUV so you can go over a level
>>>crossing at speed without feeling the bumps?
>>
>>That's just one of the big bumps I'd go over on a typical journey. I
>>don't think you realise how bad the roads are here.
>
>I've driven on some bad roads. None of them made me think "yes, I wish I'd
>bought an ungainly, slow, ugly SUV with a cramped interior".

That's OK, because I haven't either. But I do get a bit frustrated
sometimes when on a road I could easily do 60mph, and a car is crawling
along at 40mph because that's all which feels safe to them (and unless
you race from bump to bump and brake, that's very understandable).
--
Roland Perry

In message <hkfo4hlkb8cign8r7mf3eu8igu124fi515@4ax.com>, at 14:06:27 on
Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:50:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <cbao4hh1bcftqb654vofin2vptnolr62vi@4ax.com>, at 12:35:56 on
>>Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 19:41:40 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 04/04/2022 14:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the Freelander 1 didn't get very good off-road reviews. I doubt a
>>>>> CRV would have been any better.
>>>>
>>>>The thing I missed most was the lack of low ratio. I have gone down a
>>>>steep track, covered in sheet ice, with ditch one side and ground
>>>>sloping away on the other by using the Discovery Low Ratio Bottom Gear.
>>>>Would not even consider it in the Freelander.
>>>
>>>The software Hill Descent Control was supposed to be the poor man's
>>>substitute for Low Ratio.
>>
>>It won awards! But that car was never supposed to be the ultimate
>>off-roader. Perhaps they drew the compromise too close to road-comfort,
>>than competitive hill climbing, for your taste. But the market
>>disagreed.
>
>I was responding to MB's comment, and he did need serious off-road
>ability. It's no surprise that the Freelander and similar cars weren't
>capable of meeting his needs.

It's no secret the Freelander 1 wasn't an ultimate off-roader (it's for
people who want a mainly road-going car, that can take modest
off-roading like fields, green lanes and farm tracks in its stride).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2hkg3$7r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:11 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 05/04/2022 14:06, Recliner wrote:
>> I was responding to MB's comment, and he did need serious off-road
>>ability. It's no surprise that the Freelander and
>> similar cars weren't capable of meeting his needs.
>
>We used to get quite a number of 4x4's sent up to try out. My initial
>test was to stop on the hill down from my house. Put it in lowest gear
>and take my feet off the pedals, most just run away with no engine
>breaking. Range Rover and Discovery will stall and stop if you do not
>touch the accelerator.

How did the Freelander 1's HDC cope?
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2jgkj$1m2e$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:48:36 on Wed, 6 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:29:02 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In any event, I suspect many such vehicles are actually All Wheel Drive,
>>a poor man's 4WD that I get the impression is more about loss of
>
>There's no practical difference between 4x4/4WD/AWD in road cars, its just
>different marketing terminology. Some have locking diffs, some don't. Some
>have a centre lock, some don't.

We know from your postings so far you don't have a clue about this
stuff.

>>The brakes are usually appropriate for the size and weight of the
>>vehicle. However, when on slippery surfaces it's not the size of the
>>discs which makes a difference, but whether the transmission is capable
>>of feathering the wheels independently.
>
>I doubt many transmission diffs could operate fast enough to "feather" the
>wheels in the sense you mean. Thats the province of the ABS system.

The Freelander 2 feathers every 15 degrees of wheel turn. I thought I'd
already mentioned that.

>>On a dry road, I don't believe modern 4x4 are worse than family cars.
>
>They will be if they're on off road tyres.

Disagree. I've never even had the ABS kick in on my Freelander. It just
stops.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:27:59 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t2jgkj$1m2e$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:48:36 on Wed, 6 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:29:02 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In any event, I suspect many such vehicles are actually All Wheel Drive,
>>>a poor man's 4WD that I get the impression is more about loss of
>>
>>There's no practical difference between 4x4/4WD/AWD in road cars, its just
>>different marketing terminology. Some have locking diffs, some don't. Some
>>have a centre lock, some don't.
>
>We know from your postings so far you don't have a clue about this
>stuff.

And you don't seem to understand that marketing depts don't care about your
pedantic definition of the terminology and given almost all 4x4s have
some kind of wheel slip control and power transfer the distinctions are pretty
much redundant anyway.

>>I doubt many transmission diffs could operate fast enough to "feather" the
>>wheels in the sense you mean. Thats the province of the ABS system.
>
>The Freelander 2 feathers every 15 degrees of wheel turn. I thought I'd
>already mentioned that.

Up to what speed? 100mph for rallying?

>>>On a dry road, I don't believe modern 4x4 are worse than family cars.
>>
>>They will be if they're on off road tyres.
>
>Disagree. I've never even had the ABS kick in on my Freelander. It just
>stops.

Disagree all you want. Why do you think circuit racing cars use slicks?

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:17:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <hkfo4hlkb8cign8r7mf3eu8igu124fi515@4ax.com>, at 14:06:27 on
>Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:50:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <cbao4hh1bcftqb654vofin2vptnolr62vi@4ax.com>, at 12:35:56 on
>>>Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 19:41:40 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 04/04/2022 14:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, the Freelander 1 didn't get very good off-road reviews. I doubt a
>>>>>> CRV would have been any better.
>>>>>
>>>>>The thing I missed most was the lack of low ratio. I have gone down a
>>>>>steep track, covered in sheet ice, with ditch one side and ground
>>>>>sloping away on the other by using the Discovery Low Ratio Bottom Gear.
>>>>>Would not even consider it in the Freelander.
>>>>
>>>>The software Hill Descent Control was supposed to be the poor man's
>>>>substitute for Low Ratio.
>>>
>>>It won awards! But that car was never supposed to be the ultimate
>>>off-roader. Perhaps they drew the compromise too close to road-comfort,
>>>than competitive hill climbing, for your taste. But the market
>>>disagreed.
>>
>>I was responding to MB's comment, and he did need serious off-road
>>ability. It's no surprise that the Freelander and similar cars weren't
>>capable of meeting his needs.
>
>It's no secret the Freelander 1 wasn't an ultimate off-roader (it's for
>people who want a mainly road-going car, that can take modest
>off-roading like fields, green lanes and farm tracks in its stride).

Yes, agreed.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2hnr5$cle$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:39:17 on Tue, 5 Apr
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:59:01 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t2f0gj$7so$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:51 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:47:04 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just buy a Humvee and be done with it? Or get an HGV license and
>>>>>> a 3rd hand scania with 1M miles for 10K?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you are just being silly.
>>>>
>>>> And you weren't when justifying owning an SUV so you can go over a level
>>>> crossing at speed without feeling the bumps?
>>>
>>> That's just one of the big bumps I'd go over on a typical journey. I
>>> don't think you realise how bad the roads are here.
>>
>> I've driven on some bad roads. None of them made me think "yes, I wish I'd
>> bought an ungainly, slow, ugly SUV with a cramped interior".
>
> That's OK, because I haven't either. But I do get a bit frustrated
> sometimes when on a road I could easily do 60mph, and a car is crawling
> along at 40mph because that's all which feels safe to them (and unless
> you race from bump to bump and brake, that's very understandable).

And considering that in your area the bumps are rarely signed, that seems
very sensible.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 04:12, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:50:50 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t2ean5$181m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:36:53 on Mon, 4 Apr
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> And much higher.
>>>>
>>>> Why does that matter?
>>>
>>> Multi story car parks, ferries, eurotunnel, roll over.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wait but you just suggested getting a Transit as an alternative. Which is
>> surely even higher?
>
> Not only that but they're notorious for bashing bridges. Can you
> imagine Chelsea Tractor drivers driving a Transit under a bridge
> worrying about fitting under bridges? They're more interesting in
> getting their children to school nine seconds earlier.
>

I think we're talking Transit Tourneo
<https://www.ford.co.uk/cars/tourneo-custom> rather than Roland's favourite
Luton-bodies.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 06/04/2022 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
> It's no secret the Freelander 1 wasn't an ultimate off-roader (it's for
> people who want a mainly road-going car, that can take modest
> off-roading like fields, green lanes and farm tracks in its stride).

And that is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

My own Renault 4x4 was great for what I needed, I could get out of my
drive in snow without having to get a spade out and better than a two
wheel drive in the snow we often get but would not have tried it up a
real rough track though it had much better ground clearance than the
Freelander.

On 06/04/2022 14:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> How did the Freelander 1's HDC cope?

I think I only used HDC a couple of times and would not even try it on
ice unless there was plenty of room so not likely to hit anything.

On 04/04/2022 09:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 17:14:59 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t29qte$1brm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:38 on Sat, 2 Apr
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> 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,
>
> And happens to be much higher and also more prone to rolling over.
>
>> or bump up the odd kerb, it takes it completely in its stride.
>
> Oh come off it.
>
>> 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.
>
> At least they have on-road facilities. The worst people are those who drive
> around in knackered Defenders trying to give off the roughty toughty working
> man imagine when all they use them for is to go Waitrose to pick up their
> mung beans. Defenders are bloody awful vehicles except in their one specific
> area of off roading where they excel. For any other use case they're a joke.
>

I've never seen mung beans in Waitrose…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/04/2022 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t2edf3$3an$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:23:47 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:t2chds$gg8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> I got my first company car in 1978, a Cavalier. As standard, it
>>>>>>> came with
>>>>>>> an offside door mirror, but the company had a policy of
>>>>>>> purchasing the
>>>>>>> optional nearside door mirror for cars that didn't come with it as
>>>>>>> standard, so it already had both mirrors fitted when it was
>>>>>>> delivered to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to have to reverse a car between narrow
>>>>>> gateposts/walls or
>>>>>> to parallel-park against a kerb unless I had a good view of the
>>>>>> gateposts/walls/kerb relative to the extremities of the car with
>>>>>> my door
>>>>>> mirrors. Parking against a left-hand kerb is particularly
>>>>>> difficult without
>>>>>> a passenger door mirror that is angled down so you can see how far
>>>>>> your rear
>>>>>> wheel is from the kerb, so you know when to start to tuck the
>>>>>> front wing in
>>>>>> to straighten up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until I got a car with a passenger door mirror that I could
>>>>>> remotely point
>>>>>> downwards, I found parallel parking on the left very difficult and
>>>>>> tended if
>>>>>> possible to parallel park on the right so I could see the kerb
>>>>>> directly or
>>>>>> via the driver's door mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some vehicles - the Fiat Multipla is one - have a separate mirror
>>>>> segment
>>>>> angled down so you can see the kerb.  It’s really useful and I’ve
>>>>> missed it
>>>>> ever since our Multipla went its way.
>>>>
>>>> Most large, commercial vehicles have multi-segment mirrors, but it's
>>>> uncommon with family cars. More commonly, the nearside mirror
>>>> automatically
>>>> dips when you select reverse gear.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, door mirrors are now on the way out, and they'll one day
>>>> be seen
>>>> as as antiquated as wing mirrors do now.
>>>
>>> Like the Honda (CR-V?) we were driving behind in the dark the other day
>>> whose rear view mirror was clearly a video screen?
>>
>> Yes. Cameras are much smaller, and can be fitted at the ends of slender
>> stalks or on the boot lid or roof. The stalk-mounted ones produce much
>> less
>> wind resistance than door mirrors, and a stalk can contain more than one
>> camera. You might, for example want to see a different view when
>> reversing
>> than in your rear view 'mirror' when driving forwards. You might also
>> want
>> the view on a different screen.
>
> Loads more stuff to go wrong. I bet the dealers are rubbing their hands
> gleefully already.
>

How often does the camera in your mobile phone fail?

Oh sorry, I forgot you don't have such a modern piece of technology.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/04/2022 12:56, MB wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 09:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> And happens to be much higher and also more prone to rolling over.
>>
>
> There was a lot of fuss about 4WD vehicles rolling over, I remember a
> newspaper reporter went out with a police traffic driver, he drove round
> and around a roundabout without rolling over.

There was a Suzuki (?) off-road wannabee that was very narrow and
suffered a coupe of fatal roll-overs back in the 80s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/04/2022 15:36, ColinR wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 10:23, Recliner wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:t2chds$gg8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> I got my first company car in 1978, a Cavalier. As standard, it
>>>>>>> came with
>>>>>>> an offside door mirror, but the company had a policy of
>>>>>>> purchasing the
>>>>>>> optional nearside door mirror for cars that didn't come with it as
>>>>>>> standard, so it already had both mirrors fitted when it was
>>>>>>> delivered to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to have to reverse a car between narrow
>>>>>> gateposts/walls or
>>>>>> to parallel-park against a kerb unless I had a good view of the
>>>>>> gateposts/walls/kerb relative to the extremities of the car with
>>>>>> my door
>>>>>> mirrors. Parking against a left-hand kerb is particularly
>>>>>> difficult without
>>>>>> a passenger door mirror that is angled down so you can see how far
>>>>>> your rear
>>>>>> wheel is from the kerb, so you know when to start to tuck the
>>>>>> front wing in
>>>>>> to straighten up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until I got a car with a passenger door mirror that I could
>>>>>> remotely point
>>>>>> downwards, I found parallel parking on the left very difficult and
>>>>>> tended if
>>>>>> possible to parallel park on the right so I could see the kerb
>>>>>> directly or
>>>>>> via the driver's door mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some vehicles - the Fiat Multipla is one - have a separate mirror
>>>>> segment
>>>>> angled down so you can see the kerb.  It’s really useful and I’ve
>>>>> missed it
>>>>> ever since our Multipla went its way.
>>>>
>>>> Most large, commercial vehicles have multi-segment mirrors, but it's
>>>> uncommon with family cars. More commonly, the nearside mirror
>>>> automatically
>>>> dips when you select reverse gear.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, door mirrors are now on the way out, and they'll one day
>>>> be seen
>>>> as as antiquated as wing mirrors do now.
>>>
>>> Like the Honda (CR-V?) we were driving behind in the dark the other day
>>> whose rear view mirror was clearly a video screen?
>>
>> Yes. Cameras are much smaller, and can be fitted at the ends of slender
>> stalks or on the boot lid or roof. The stalk-mounted ones produce much
>> less
>> wind resistance than door mirrors, and a stalk can contain more than one
>> camera. You might, for example want to see a different view when
>> reversing
>> than in your rear view 'mirror' when driving forwards. You might also
>> want
>> the view on a different screen.
>>
>>
>>
>
> My last car had multiple cameras and, when reversing, the screen showed
> both the rear view and also, as they called it, a 360 degree view which
> showed the car as if you were some 10 feet above the car, showing the
> car park lines / pavement etc - was very useful. But no idea how long it
> will before repairs etc come to the fore...
>

I had that, most useful feature on the car, made parking a doddle in
just about any situation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 05/04/2022 14:09, NY wrote:
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q6fo4hp891j6cppkg692k0ngl0kesrjukt@4ax.com...
>
>> If there are problems, they're much more likely to be due to problems
>> in bright sunlight (OK, not in Edinburgh!) that
>> could cause glare in the image. Bright headlights might have a similar
>> effect. And, as already discussed, dirt on the
>> small lens will greatly degrade the image.
>
> The lens on our Honda's reversing camera gets covered in dirt within a
> few minutes of cleaning it, and that's not necessarily on a wet day when
> there will be a lot of spray. They could have done with linking it to
> the headlamp washer system (and a mini-wiper) so you can clean the
> camera to see where you are reversing. Is there something about the
> shape of modern cars which makes the back end attract dirt in a way that
> older (eg pre-2000) cars never did to the same extent? More aerodynamic,
> but more dirt deposited on the back window/boot/numberplate/reversing
> camera.
>

Basically yes, you get a vortex behind the vehicle that curls up from
the road and then rotates round against the back of the car depositing
crud as it goes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t2edf3$3an$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:23:47 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:t2chds$gg8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> I got my first company car in 1978, a Cavalier. As standard, it
>>>>>>>> came with
>>>>>>>> an offside door mirror, but the company had a policy of
>>>>>>>> purchasing the
>>>>>>>> optional nearside door mirror for cars that didn't come with it as
>>>>>>>> standard, so it already had both mirrors fitted when it was
>>>>>>>> delivered to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't want to have to reverse a car between narrow
>>>>>>> gateposts/walls or
>>>>>>> to parallel-park against a kerb unless I had a good view of the
>>>>>>> gateposts/walls/kerb relative to the extremities of the car with
>>>>>>> my door
>>>>>>> mirrors. Parking against a left-hand kerb is particularly
>>>>>>> difficult without
>>>>>>> a passenger door mirror that is angled down so you can see how far
>>>>>>> your rear
>>>>>>> wheel is from the kerb, so you know when to start to tuck the
>>>>>>> front wing in
>>>>>>> to straighten up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until I got a car with a passenger door mirror that I could
>>>>>>> remotely point
>>>>>>> downwards, I found parallel parking on the left very difficult and
>>>>>>> tended if
>>>>>>> possible to parallel park on the right so I could see the kerb
>>>>>>> directly or
>>>>>>> via the driver's door mirror.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some vehicles - the Fiat Multipla is one - have a separate mirror
>>>>>> segment
>>>>>> angled down so you can see the kerb.  It’s really useful and I’ve
>>>>>> missed it
>>>>>> ever since our Multipla went its way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most large, commercial vehicles have multi-segment mirrors, but it's
>>>>> uncommon with family cars. More commonly, the nearside mirror
>>>>> automatically
>>>>> dips when you select reverse gear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, door mirrors are now on the way out, and they'll one day
>>>>> be seen
>>>>> as as antiquated as wing mirrors do now.
>>>>
>>>> Like the Honda (CR-V?) we were driving behind in the dark the other day
>>>> whose rear view mirror was clearly a video screen?
>>>
>>> Yes. Cameras are much smaller, and can be fitted at the ends of slender
>>> stalks or on the boot lid or roof. The stalk-mounted ones produce much
>>> less
>>> wind resistance than door mirrors, and a stalk can contain more than one
>>> camera. You might, for example want to see a different view when
>>> reversing
>>> than in your rear view 'mirror' when driving forwards. You might also
>>> want
>>> the view on a different screen.
>>
>> Loads more stuff to go wrong. I bet the dealers are rubbing their hands
>> gleefully already.
>>
>
> How often does the camera in your mobile phone fail?
>
> Oh sorry, I forgot you don't have such a modern piece of technology.
>

My 7 year old car has a reversing camera, a forward camera (with
differently selectable viewing angles) another camera to read the speed
limit signs, forward facing radar for the adaptive cruise control,
backwards facing radars for blind spot warning and umpteen ultrasonic
detectors. None have failed. Meanwhile I spent an awful lot getting a fuel
pump with a leaking seal replaced. It’s not the electronics that are
unreliable.

On 08/04/2022 10:52, Tweed wrote:
> My 7 year old car has a reversing camera, a forward camera (with
> differently selectable viewing angles) another camera to read the speed
> limit signs, forward facing radar for the adaptive cruise control,
> backwards facing radars for blind spot warning and umpteen ultrasonic
> detectors. None have failed. Meanwhile I spent an awful lot getting a fuel
> pump with a leaking seal replaced. It’s not the electronics that are
> unreliable.

Sounds to me that there are safety issues with one person trying to
control and use that number of systems.

All I tend to use on my VW is the speed limiter but it is so poorly
designed that it is a major distraction trying to set it whilst driving.

Typical of their designers, the handbook tells you to enable(?) the
"main switch" but the "main switch" is not defined anywhere.