H05TYL

I detail cars for a living and this thread makes me cringe!  Explains why so many cars look like someone has taken to them with sandpaper though.

Gonna have to disagree with you both, thought it was better than the first.  The studio bit is easily the weakest link, but worked well to break up the "tactical silliness" bit at just the right moment.

p.s. Aston is Gorgeous (and I have a degree in artsy crap to back up my opinion ) 

Might be hard to defend/plead not guilty when his mate said there was a 25m skid left outside his house?

OJ got off so anything is possible...

Trouble with pleading not guilty is if you do lose, they tend to fuck you a lot harder. Legal system doesn't like people who refuse to take their medicine, especially when it's "bang to rights guv". 

It's a bullshit conviction really. Surely they have better things to binge taxpayer money on than someone lighting up the donuts.

Loss of licence for skidding rubber? Fuck that. DUI, sure. Excessive speeding, yeah OK. Hooking it out of an intersection at a tops of 40kph? Fuck off mate. Unless you're in a Mustang, fuck off M8.

Someone I work with lost control of a brand new range rover whilst doing a U-turn (in the dry), side swiped two parked cars, mounted the kerb and ended up on the wrong side of the median strip - got charged with careless driving and ended up with a $300 fine and no loss of licence. 

Basically it's fine to drive like a spastic as long as there is no intent. It's fucked. 

Everything nowadays has that massive wheel arch to bonnet distance because there's some rule mandating a specific distance between the bonnet skin and the hard bits underneath for when you go all carmageddon on pedestrians.

Edit: Almost everything, spendy cars like Jags F-Type have explosive charges (similar to those that deploy airbags) to push the bonnet up and away from the engine in the event of clobbering some twat who's wandered into the road infront of you because they were too busy looking for pokemon or some shit.

What would be a non-genuine reason for sale? 'Genuine reason for sale' makes no sense to me, regardless of the reason.

"Car is a heap of shit and I need to get rid of it before it steals what little sanity I have left" would be a genuine reason for sure.

Kind of ironic that Evan's last review (the Abingdon MGB thingy) was easily the best he'd done all series. 

The road trip thing was weird, they bought cheap cars, made a point of mentioning everything worked in them and then... nothing. It's like they didn't realise that shit cars falling apart is part of what makes those segments interesting. Chef's cooking in the cars had potential to be funny, but it really wasn't - the old new topgear would've had the trio modify the cars to include a kitchen first. 

It's like they went to copy the old format, then suddenly decided halfway through they better not. It just fell kinda flat. 

The Vulcan bit was great, like one of Chris Harris' own video's. 

The studio stuff was pretty cringe worthy, and Chris Evans voice is grating.
The rest of it was pretty much business as usual. It wasn't as good as the best of Old New Top Gear, but it wasn't s bad as I expected. Will keep watching, it's bound to get better.

So they'll only agree to unlock it if they can revert all the compensation tables back to default? 

I say get it done and take the car to a tuner who isn't such a diddle. 

People try it on all the time. 

I sold a set of injectors on a forum and they guy messaged me saying the cap had broken off one of them due to poor packaging.
I offered a partial refund if he sent me a pic of the damaged injector - never heard from him again...

Basically as others have said, unless he can prove (or you admit) that you knew it was fucked when you sold it, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Similar thing when my old daily EG civic got stolen, was just some cunt who was too lazy to walk home from the pub. 

Hopefully it turns up with not too much damage done to it.

Sounds like the issue wasn't so much him doing a skid, but trying anything he could to get out of it (and failing the attitude test big time by the sounds of it) instead of just admitting it was a fair cop and taking his punishment like a man.

Cockwomble

E36 will have the screen glued in, which makes it a bitch to do without cracking the screen - most glaziers won't guarantee to get it out without damage.

If the cars being wrecked anyway, get the whole windscreen frame cut out of the car and then cut through the glue at your leisure.

Very good points raised above! 

Given the potential carnage (to both car and ones self) if the flywheel lets go I'd be wary of going with the lowest bidder.

Spoiler alert.

Female driver joke writes itself

I laughed at the time.  Then I saw the tears in her eyes when she got out of the car and I felt like a bit of a dick. 

cant remember 100% but 225/40/14 probably isnt on the LVV spec sheet, so manufacturers spec is fine.

 

even if it is on there, manufacturers spec trumps LVV spec sheet

So a print out of the spec chart from the manufacturers website should be sufficient proof the tyres are suitable for a particular fitment?

I'd imagine a lot of them, i know of far too many people that got their certs on skinnier wheels and raised height to get inside camber limits then as soon as the plate went on swapped back to wider wheels and lowered it again

I wasn't thinking "dodgy get around the rules stuff", more along the lines of further development.

eg: flatmates car has had bigger brakes, more adjustable arms and rear drop knuckles fitted since it was originally certed - also I'm not sure if any of the 8 sets of wheels we have between us match what is on the cert plate.

 

interesting that nearly 30% of people doing the survey have not had a car certified in the last 5 years...

 

probably get a similar result from a survey of people going to the dentist or getting a prostate exam

I think that's a result of the cert process being designed around the idea of completing the vehicle and then getting it road legal, there's a lot of people (especially younger guys) who do things bit by bit as they can afford to, and keep using the car in the meantime.

In my mind that's the biggest drawback with the current system.

I wonder how many certified cars are out there that have been modified further and require re-certing?

its not logical , and placing all the responsibilities on the manufactures is a cop out considering we are paying for certification of a modified vehicle meaning that its not a standard vehicle , being it for performance driving or scratch built it makes no difference. standard tire fitment rules go out the window same as minimum height rules go out the window , and allot of other standard WOF rules also go out the window because we a have got a modified vehicle 

 

what i am saying is it needs to change because its not reasonable, i want to drive around legally, and i am paying for this inspection and paying to be on the roads, what is the point in paying for the modifications to be made legal if i get stuck with "standard" tire fitment rules. the rest of the car isn't standard so why do these standard rules apply ?  

 

 

i have filled out the questionnaire, i don't know if others feel the same about the tire issues ,but i added what i could in the survey 

It may not be standard, but the modified parts have to be fit for purpose, ie: safe. You can't use bicycle wheels on the front of a t-bucket, you can't use two 3-point belts on one seat as a budget harness, and you can't use tyres on rims wider or narrower than they were designed for.

As for the difference in width tyres allowed on the same width wheel in different diameter - if you look closely it correlates with the tyre profile -  a 225/55/16 can go on an 8" rim, whilst a 225/45/16 can go on a 9" rim, and the trend is the same across all tyre sizes, lower profile = wider rim allowed. 

I'd guess the stiffer sidewalls of a lower profile tyre is designed/able to handle the loads imposed on it by being mounted on a wider rim better.

I agree with roman, whilst I like the fact there is rules, the way they are applied to every "modified" vehicle is not reasonable. I feel its a little out dated and perhaps needs to be more in touch with what the vehicle is being used for.

 

whilst I don't want it to be like the uk or Australia there does need to be some change to allow for the different styles of cars that are modified.

 

the tire issue for me is something that is a huge problem , the way that just by changing the diameter of the rim some how magically makes the width of the tire safe is beyond my comprehension . its something that isn't going to go away. I just don't see the rules as being far and it doesn't follow any logical formula. they need a shake up

The tyre rules are based on the most common fitment guidelines from tyre manufacturers. 

http://www.yokohamatire.com/tires_101/customizing/rim_wheel_width/

Basically the tyre manufacturer decides what is an appropriate range of rim widths for a given tyre size.  

Lets say you had a 4wd Isuzu gemini and you blew the transfercase launching it and couldn't get hold of another one, what would be the only logical solution?

Put a rotor in it of course.  

Stu lawton's original 20B323

Stu Lawton's other bf 323 sedan - fwd this time. 

LMGTFY

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57855597/89-93-4G63-Engine-Manual#scribd