Words fail me.



Gawnsoft posted ...

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:40:59 +0000, Martin Family <[email protected]> wrote (more
> or less):
>
>> b) trying to go uphill in poor conditions. (Not normally a problem here but then again with the
>> **** tyres people drive on in poor conditions it accurs more frequently than it need to).
>
> Err, poor conditions like snow? FWD is much better for going up hills in that sort of poor
> condition than RWD.

That might be true for berks who can't drive anyway .. but RWD and a competent driver can get up
more easily using a combination of throttle and brake/handbrake usage, making the rear end work like
it has an LSD (Limited Slip Differential). This mostly isn't possible on FWD cars, unless their
handbrake operates the front wheels too.

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. ;)
 
On 21/2/04 10:08 pm, in article
[email protected], "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Martin Family wrote:
>>
>> For the interested, the back end stepped out on exiting the roundabout. My friend corrected and
>> the car span the other way. We ended up sliding sideways into the central reservation facing the
>> wrong way and shredded fibreglass all over the place.
>>
>
> If your friend is going to drive a car like that close to its limits perhaps he should take a skid
> pan course. Sounds like a simple case of inexperienced overcorrecting for the initial slide. A
> common mistake

He wasn't attempting to drive it near it's limits, just going from A to B. I don't think he realised
just how low the limits were with a very light car (it was a kit car built on an old 1600 cortina,
but very lightweight.

Now far more cautious (as am I) in any kind of adverse conditions.

..d
 
On 22/2/04 3:51 am, in article [email protected],
"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:40:59 +0000, Martin Family <[email protected]> wrote (more
> or less):
>
>> b) trying to go uphill in poor conditions. (Not normally a problem here but then again with the
>> **** tyres people drive on in poor conditions it accurs more frequently than it need to).
>
> Err, poor conditions like snow? FWD is much better for going up hills in that sort of poor
> condition than RWD.

Not in my experience. The weight distribution is wrong so the car just spins rather than gets up and
goes. Normally in situations where the RWD can and the FWD can't, the FWD can if it reverses up (but
is then in effect RWD).

Lots of hills, lots of snow (of various types and grades).

It's even more fun when you just cycle past them of course.

..d
 
On 22/2/04 9:39 am, in article [email protected],

> Martin Family posted ...
>
>> For the interested, the back end stepped out on exiting the roundabout. My friend corrected and
>> the car span the other way. We ended up sliding
>
> er .. he OVER corrected ... and didn't have the experience to realise what the road conditions
> entailed and was therefore driving very, very badly.

More of a combination of road and car. He wouldn't normally take the kit car out in the rain.
Inexperience, yes. Bad luck, yes. very very bad driving, not IMHO.

>
>> sideways into the central reservation facing the wrong way and shredded fibreglass all over
>> the place.
>
> He sounds like a poor driver who really shouldn't drive such a car on public roads.

One bad incident from which he learnt a lot. There is nothing like having to rebuild, rub down and
respray the body of a car to give you time to ponder on the error of ones ways.

..d
 
Martin Family wrote:
>
> He wasn't attempting to drive it near it's limits, just going from A to B.

He was. In fact he drove it past its limits. He just didn't know it and what the limits were but
that is no excuse - he exceeded them on a public road and that is very bad driving IMHO

Tony
 
Martin Family wrote:
>
> More of a combination of road and car. He wouldn't normally take the kit car out in the rain.
> Inexperience, yes. Bad luck, yes. very very bad driving, not IMHO.
>

Ah so it was the fault of the road and the car. Silly me I should have known. The driver is just
a passenger being let down by the behaviour of his car. Read just the other day of something
similar with a BMW that killed a child. It was the wet road and the confusing control pedals at
fault and not the driver in that case too. He was just unlucky too but not as unlucky as the
child and her friend,

Tony
 
On 22/2/04 9:24 pm, in article [email protected],
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Martin Family wrote:
>>
>> More of a combination of road and car. He wouldn't normally take the kit car out in the rain.
>> Inexperience, yes. Bad luck, yes. very very bad driving, not IMHO.
>>
>
> Ah so it was the fault of the road and the car.

Fault of the driver. I have always said that. It was the particular combination of road and car that
led to conditions with which he was not experienced and which were unlike others he had encountered,
ie not expecting the car to handle so poorly in the rain (indeed, I myself was extremely surprised
that the car slid under the conditions we were in).

Sometimes things are down to bad luck. It is still however the responsibility of the driver. No one
can behave in an entirely safe manner. Everything is a percentage game, even cycling. I take
calculated risks every time I get on my bike. I risk sudden diesel spills on bends, the car behind
me being driven by a f***wit who isn't looking where they are going, and so on. There is an element
of luck. Like being hit by a falling tree is bad luck (I have been hit by a falling conker twice
while cycling. I have had a conker thrown up by a bus tyre fly through the frame of the bicycle at
great speed as well.) I wouldn't consider his driving at that point to be 'very bad' (as someone who
was there at the time). Not perfect, obviously, but within the normal range.

On another occasion recently I was driving along the local ring road. As I came up to the roundabout
I eased off to gently brake and stop behind the cars waiting. I am quite laid back and do not have a
heavy right foot so was just braking gently and the car slid, perchance it was a diesel spill on the
road. Most frightening but because I am somewhat cautious, especially in the wet, I avoided a
collision by a few tens of centimetres. had I been driving 'normally' (by taking the norm of those
driving around me) I'd have hit the guy in front. Sometimes things occur which are well outside the
normal spectrum and not what could reasonably be expected. I expect roads to be a bit slippery in a
shower which is why I approached the roundabout cautiously (though I am now even more cautious). It
was however much slippier than one would reasonably expect for a shower.

> Silly me I should have known. The driver is just a passenger being let down by the behaviour of
> his car. Read just the other day of something similar with a BMW that killed a child.

Not at all similar except that it was on a roundabout. In the case of my friends crash, a roundabout
that we had driven round under many different conditions before.

> It was the wet road and the confusing control pedals at fault and not the driver in that case too.
> He was just unlucky too but not as unlucky as the child and her friend,

There is a difference you know. One was a prat showing off in a high powered BMW that left the road.

The majority of accidents could be avoided by small modifications to driving behaviour. There are a
very small proportion that are down to 'bad luck' with circumstances that are not reasonably
forseeable. e.g. sudden emergence of wildlife, other random acts of nature, idiots coming the other
way and crossing the centre line without warning.

having driven in slippery conditions for many years, I am well aware of how much technology goes
into making a tyre stick. I am also aware of how easy they are to unstick.

..d
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Martin Family wrote:
>>
>> He wasn't attempting to drive it near it's limits, just going from A to B.
>
> He was. In fact he drove it past its limits. He just didn't know it and what the limits were but
> that is no excuse

Surely to "attempt" is to *consciously* try something. It seems clear in this case, from what
has been written, that there was no conscious decision on the driver's part. That does not in
any way excuse the standard of driving though as the limits were passed through ignorance rather
than design.

Graeme
 
A colleague where I used to work in West Lothian used to drive around in winter with a couple of
bags of cement in his boot to give added traction. He lived at the top of a hill that would often be
impassable for most vehicles, but his trick gave him just that little extra to get him home.

Graeme
 
> This mostly isn't possible on FWD cars, unless their handbrake operates the front wheels too.

This seems to be fairly common on French cars - my Citroen and a friend's Renault both had this.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> If your friend is going to drive a car like that close to its limits perhaps he should take a skid
> pan course.

You don't have to be trying very hard to get /some/ vehicles to do this. An unladen RWD Transit van
will go sideways with very little provocation, as I discovered the first time I rented one with a
diesel engine rather than the weedy petrol jobs which were commonplace in the 80's.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
On 23/2/04 11:36 am, in article
[email protected], "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> If your friend is going to drive a car like that close to its limits perhaps he should take a
>> skid pan course.
>
> You don't have to be trying very hard to get /some/ vehicles to do this. An unladen RWD Transit
> van will go sideways with very little provocation, as I discovered the first time I rented one
> with a diesel engine rather than the weedy petrol jobs which were commonplace in the 80's.

Ny toyota hiace combi was very bad for this too. In winter we had about a third of a ton of gravel
in the back to keep the wheels on the deck.. (yes, that was ten rubble sacks full. and there was
still space to fit the mountain bike and trailer in the back.)

..d
 
Dave Larrington posted ...

>
>> This mostly isn't possible on FWD cars, unless their handbrake operates the front wheels too.
>
> This seems to be fairly common on French cars - my Citroen and a friend's Renault both had this.

MIne did too .. hence my 'get out clause' .. ;)

None of my other vehicles have/had it though, and one I drive now the handbrake doesn't brake any
wheels at all .. ;)

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. ;)
 
>Despite witnesses at the trial stating the driver was driving like a bat out of hell, and showing
>off with lots of engine revving etc., etc.. it seems the chap killed a 12-year old girl
>unintentionally as he was suffering from...
>
>"unintentional accelerator syndrome"
>
>Words fail me (which is unusual)
>

He's got off with it.

See

< http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/news/newsStory.asp?Brand=EDPONLINE&Category
=NEWS&ItemId=NOED24+Feb+2004+19%3A01%3A23%3A690 >

or

http://tinyurl.com/ysv5r

"Driver cleared over Kristine's death

February 24, 2004 19:00

A Norfolk man who was accused of causing the death of a 12-year-old girl by driving dangerously has
been found not guilty by a jury.

Shaun Moyse, 24, from Great Yarmouth was cleared of the charge at Norwich Crown Court on Tuesday.

However, he was convicted of a lesser charge of careless driving after Kristine Errington, also from
Great Yarmouth, was hit by his car.

He was fined £1,500 and disqualified from driving for 15 months.

Kristine had been walking with friends on Acle New Road in Great Yarmouth on 6 June 2003 when she
was hit by Moyse's red BMW 325i. She suffered serious head injuries and died later in hospital.

Moyse denied he had been driving aggressively or showing off and told the court he had not been
in a rush."

So that's it, £1500 and a 15 month ban. Even though witnesses reported him driving like a "bat out
of hell" which is the exact quote as reported in local news recently.

I despair, I really do :-(

helen s --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on
fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
 
[email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> So that's it, £1500 and a 15 month ban. Even though witnesses reported him driving like a "bat out
> of hell" which is the exact quote as reported in local news recently.
>
> I despair, I really do :-(

That's depressing. He'll be having a good laugh about that with his mates. It's open season on
pedestrians, folks.

--
Dave...
 
In message <[email protected]>
Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:40:59 +0000, Martin Family <[email protected]> wrote (more
> or less):
>
> >b) trying to go uphill in poor conditions. (Not normally a problem here but then again with the
> > **** tyres people drive on in poor conditions it accurs more frequently than it need to).
>
> Err, poor conditions like snow? FWD is much better for going up hills in that sort of poor
> condition than RWD.

Ever driven a Hillman Imp or a Beetle?

G

> Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
> Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

--
Gwyn
 
In message <[email protected]>
Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>

Sorry for th elate reply but

> Amazing that RWD is still loved so much by hairy-chested "motoring journalists" and BMW. It's OK
> for 150bhp+ cars and on bone-dry tarmac, but in any other conditions it's a liability.
>
> Try driving a RWD car on snow - besides the fact that the power doesn't go in the same direction
> as you're steering, so cornering is terrible - it rapidly becomes evident that the rear wheels
> are constantly trying to overtake the front ones.

This may be so with front engine rwd but when you have REAR engine rwd as in the HILLMAN IMP
traction can be superb. Locking the front wheels when braking can be a problem... if you use the
front brakes...

Still last week 4wd with *centre and rear* diffs locked in Audi could not get started up an icy
hill - bugger

G

>
> If it's so much better to push than pull, as BMW would have it, why do trains virtually always
> have the locomotive at the front (or at both ends)? Oh, and there are greater coastdown losses
> (hence lower efficiency) because of the drive changing direction through the rear diff.
>
> FWD isn't just about flatter floors and integrated transaxles, you know.

nor is rear engine...

>
> Oops...my bike is RWD - please ignore above post ;-)
>

--
Gwyn
 
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:39:54 GMT, Gwyn Oakley <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>In message <[email protected]> Gawnsoft
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:40:59 +0000, Martin Family <[email protected]> wrote (more
>> or less):
>>
>> >b) trying to go uphill in poor conditions. (Not normally a problem here but then again with the
>> > **** tyres people drive on in poor conditions it accurs more frequently than it need to).
>>
>> Err, poor conditions like snow? FWD is much better for going up hills in that sort of poor
>> condition than RWD.
>
>Ever driven a Hillman Imp or a Beetle?

Neither (been driven /in/ both).

But I did used to drive a rwd Skoda. (Enormously 'fun' on wet roads)

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
Originally posted by Dirtylitterboxo
He's got off with it.

So that's it, £1500 and a 15 month ban. Even though witnesses reported him driving like a "bat out of hell" which is the exact quote as reported in local news recently.

I despair, I really do :-(

Obviously this pillock's attempt to bolster his ego by driving his big red **** extension fast has had some horrific consequences. However, why on earth would you buy performance cars for "their looks"? If looks is all you are interested in then you buy kit cars!

Anyway, someone as shallow as this preening little *** obviously is will have forgotten about this tragedy in about 4 months and be planning to purchase his next car, all the while bragging about how "cool" he was in Court.

As for the debate about FWD vs. AWD vs. RWD - who gives a turd? Too many "hairy chested motor journalist wannabes" raised and responded to this pointless observation for my liking.

STICK TO CYCLING PEOPLE :D
 
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:02:17 GMT, McBain_v1
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):
> why on earth would you buy performance cars for "their looks"? If looks is all you are interested
> in then you buy kit cars!

Only if you like the look of big piles of bits lying about your garage / loft / spare room...

:)
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk