Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

Lance Dopestrong wrote:Do you actually get that out of your C Max, or is that what the display tells you?

Nope,it's checking full to empty and doing the the calcs.
It's fair to say we do very little stop start driving,ours being mainly motorways at 70/75mph and I'm light on the right foot.
Before the present Cmax we had a 1.8l petrol(passed on to no 2 daughter) which returned 37mpg and around 22mpg towing but it didn't have anywhere near the deisel's torque.

Boney's correct it's the 140psi engine,the car is a gem,drives very well and is cavernous inside,a great feature is any one or all three rear seats can be removed turning it effectively intova van,great for carrying bikes even tandems.It's also cheap as chips to service with part being very cheap as it's a tall Focus estate
Highly recommended!

Aye indeed, our old C Max returned good economy for its day, but the OBC figures were a sublime work of fiction.

horizon wrote:

Mick F wrote: This day and age, it should all be automatically operated.

This day and age everything should be accessible on our phones, cars should waft along the road, things should function at the flick of a switch (or pass of an infrared beam) and life should be unutterably pleasant. The downside of this philosophy is a continent (North America) that is mired in absurd and juvenile expectations about life and their effect on the planet.

As I once suggested on a thread long ago, Christians shouldn't drive cars. To suffer is to know perhaps. That change of gear using a clutch is an extraordinary feat of invention and engineering saving a long and arduous walk: only a society on the verge of insanity would grumble that it is too irksome and that something easier should replace it.

What is your view of the bicycle's place in that theatre of absurdity?

Lance Dopestrong wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Lance Dopestrong wrote:Do you actually get that out of your C Max, or is that what the display tells you?

Nope,it's checking full to empty and doing the the calcs.
It's fair to say we do very little stop start driving,ours being mainly motorways at 70/75mph and I'm light on the right foot.
Before the present Cmax we had a 1.8l petrol(passed on to no 2 daughter) which returned 37mpg and around 22mpg towing but it didn't have anywhere near the deisel's torque.

Boney's correct it's the 140psi engine,the car is a gem,drives very well and is cavernous inside,a great feature is any one or all three rear seats can be removed turning it effectively intova van,great for carrying bikes even tandems.It's also cheap as chips to service with part being very cheap as it's a tall Focus estate
Highly recommended!

Aye indeed, our old C Max returned good economy for its day, but the OBC figures were a sublime work of fiction.

Try 2005 Volvo D5s - they are the lyingest little rascals known to man - notoriously so!

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Volvo XC 90 t8 I have seen one of those when I pulled into the car park one day.
That's a bit of a tank,
Someone thinks they're going to tow a lot of horseboxes?
Its the price of these things I find a Little alarming.

Its's a family gift from my Dad. He's fairly well off, and has decided he want's to distribute some of it before he pops off. Fair enough, if done correctly it can be tax efficient, and he's got more than he's ever likely to spend on himself.

I'm an odd size - 6'4" isn't mega tall, but my height is in my legs. I'm also quite broad, 53" chest and an ex powerlifter shoulders, so a lot of cars don't fit me very well. My Smart is actually great, so long as I don't have a passenger beside me, yet a Mondeo is near impossible. Mrs D's current 2 year old Kia Sportage is absolutely tortuous for me, I hate driving it.

Being a serial Volvo owner himself (he has an XC90 of his own, a C70 convertible, and a P1800ES) he suggested the XC90 to me - I can fit in it ok, when she's well enough Mrs D can manage it nicely, it accommodates Mrs D's wheelchair and a Labrador with ease. It's not my ideal car (I'm looking for an electric Smart for myself), but a gift horse and all that - I've looked at the list price and nearly fainted!

I must be goldenballs, because he's bought my Sister a Hynpundai i20

Bonefishblues wrote:

horizon wrote:

Mick F wrote: This day and age, it should all be automatically operated.

This day and age everything should be accessible on our phones, cars should waft along the road, things should function at the flick of a switch (or pass of an infrared beam) and life should be unutterably pleasant. The downside of this philosophy is a continent (North America) that is mired in absurd and juvenile expectations about life and their effect on the planet.

As I once suggested on a thread long ago, Christians shouldn't drive cars. To suffer is to know perhaps. That change of gear using a clutch is an extraordinary feat of invention and engineering saving a long and arduous walk: only a society on the verge of insanity would grumble that it is too irksome and that something easier should replace it.

What is your view of the bicycle's place in that theatre of absurdity?

That we have to be a bit careful.

Bonefishblues wrote:What is your view of the bicycle's place in that theatre of absurdity?

Especially the one's with all those gears so the rider needn't walk or grunt and groan up every hill

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:What is your view of the bicycle's place in that theatre of absurdity?

Especially the one's with all those gears so the rider needn't walk or grunt and groan up every hill

Exactly - it's a fine line.

I'd be a bit stuffed if I needed my phone to operate or summon a car, cos I'm a dumb phone owner. I see that advert for (Enterprise?) the car hire firm where the nice lady condescendingly tells Gerard Butler that he can open the car with his phone. Well, that's nothing new for me - since I acquired my CAT builders phone in 2011 I've been able to open any car I want by using my phone...to smash a window!

horizon wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:What is your view of the bicycle's place in that theatre of absurdity?

Especially the one's with all those gears so the rider needn't walk or grunt and groan up every hill

Exactly - it's a fine line.

You'll have to explain to me how better efficiency isn't better.

Bonefishblues wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:This is an ill-informed post, I'd suggest. An automatic gearbox dumbs-down driving? It lowers the capability of drivers? Exactly how, pray?

Those who buy premium sportscars/supercars don't now have a choice of manual gearboxes any more. Why? Because nobody ordered them, so they stopped being made.

Fellows who like revving as they fiercely grip the gear lever are often deluded as to the meaning of "better driver". The best criterion I know of "better driver" is: how much does he or she scare the passengers?

I know many, many who are scary. A good portion of them are gearstick-gripping revvers who are under the illusion that all roads, including the ones with 20 or 30mph signs, are racetracks.

Cugel

Am agree.

Not on the road, but one of the most impressive pieces of driving I've ever encountered was whilst being a passenger in a silly-quick racing Caterham driven by a professional driver around Goodwood. I was expecting rorty, racy, shouty, extreme angles of slip a la Clarkson. Instead I got ridiculously smooth, incredibly fast progress with a driver totally in control.

Good drivers make progress without anyone being aware of them, so well do they 'blend' with the traffic.

Quite so.
There's no "gripping the stick" but a refined and dare I say, elegant selection of the correct gear at the correct time(if it's a manual).

Alertness and interpretation of road conditions are the key.
In the hands of such a driver, manual or automatic, I feel safe, no matter how quickly they progress.

Mick F wrote:….Why haven't gearboxes evolved?...

Nothing could be further from the truth. Today, there is a bigger variety of different transmissions on various different cars than even before.

cheers

reohn2 wrote:

horizon wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Especially the one's with all those gears so the rider needn't walk or grunt and groan up every hill

Exactly - it's a fine line.

You'll have to explain to me how better efficiency isn't better.

It isn't not better. The problem arises that we become dissatisfied to the point that we have lost sight of what that efficiency represents. That's a philosophical/moral question - how we find happiness. On a more practical level, greater efficiency can create its own problems such as electronic waste, the inability of the user to repair the item, the Boeing 737 Max issue etc. These are more arguable. But the OP began with an expression of dissatisfaction which, in the wider context, is simply absurd.

As it happens, leaving aside the various types of hybrid integration, transmissions themselves haven't changed greatly. It's more a case of electronic controls that act as an interface between the driver and the transmission have changed the driving experience, but the fundamental basis of a manual box or a fluid controlled auto haven't changes much at all. Even the somewhat irrelevant dual clutch systems aren't really anything new.

A tiptronic or MMT system is usually pretty much a manual gearbox, but with electronic servo control to do the gear changing. Indeed, many manufacturers use exactly the same gearbox between their "automatic" and manual cars, with only the presence or absence of the motorised control system to denote the difference. Fundamentally not much as changed with the boxes themselves.

Lance Dopestrong wrote:As it happens, leaving aside the various types of hybrid integration, transmissions themselves haven't changed greatly. It's more a case of electronic controls that act as an interface between the driver and the transmission have changed the driving experience, but the fundamental basis of a manual box or a fluid controlled auto haven't changes much at all. Even the somewhat irrelevant dual clutch systems aren't really anything new.

A tiptronic or MMT system is usually pretty much a manual gearbox, but with electronic servo control to do the gear changing. Indeed, many manufacturers use exactly the same gearbox between their "automatic" and manual cars, with only the presence or absence of the motorised control system to denote the difference. Fundamentally not much as changed with the boxes themselves.

Quite so and as others have pointed out all those servos and "gizmos" are just something else that could fail, especially on an older or high milage vehicle.
And there are probably additional manufacturing costs involved.
Personally speaking, let make that quite clear, reliability and economy are what I most require of a vehicle.
The biggest problem with my older, but splendid, vehicle is the excessive cost of the "Road Fund" Tax.
And this is where I came in!!!

But there are compensations!

A man after my own heart. Economy is good, and is is closely linked to pollution levels, so that's win-win. The free car tax is another reason I've not yet found it in my heart to replace my venerable old Smart. Chuck in some reasonable reliability, the ability to park in spaces everyone else has to pass on by, and its talking my language.