Linas.P

I would like to focus here on what was response from all the car makers... they all started crying! Just think about it - what does it tell use? Car makers disappointed that people will not be thrown out of their cars and FORCED to buy shaity BEVs. If anything that proves for me BEVs are scam and captive market to sell cars for guaranteed profit. Because all the ULEZ etc just prematurely makes perfectly decent cars worthless and forces upgrade. So this Climate scam works very well for manufacturers. As for why he did it - the reality is that ecomentalists are tiny minority, that they glue themselves to the road does not mean many people support them. So very simple answer here - people in power felt like there may be brewing grassroots support to reverse this nonsense, BUT I would not keep my hopes too high, for them it is political game, they virtue signal a little bit, kick it down the road to for couple of years to get some votes, but they are not genuinely interested in making it right. So that is just cheap-shot at average family saying "vote for me, AMA GOOOOD BOY, save ya £15,000". As well it is genuine threat for Labour, as they (damn fools) by trying to best the Tories in their stupid game have outsmarted themselves and are boasting about even harsher restrictions, Khan's plan didn't go very well in London, another useful idiot in Wales is screwing-up, and now it was just perfect opportunity to backstab Labour with their own policy when it seems it is becoming unpopular, despite Tories actually promoting that police for last 10 years. "yeah vote for us - you don't want to vote for those damn socialist who will take your cars away and make you each pay £15,000 more for everything". When they thought there may be climate votes to be picked-up by being thought on pollution and climate change they done that, now when they think some votes could be gain for letting the loop around the neck slip a little bit they will do that. Politicians will be politicians - you can't trust them more than you can throw them (I know I have stolen this saying from somebody). As well this is very similar with the vote of brexshaite... they keep blaming all the issues on climate change... bushes burn - climate change, streets floods - climate change, air quality is bad - climate change... then people reasonably say "so if everything is climate change then why don't you do something about it?!".. and then they capitalise on issue they created from nowhere. How about tidying-up and cutting down the bush, so that small spark does not cause the large spreading fire, it is not climate that is causing fire, but rather overgrown everything? how about planning city better and building sufficient drainage, or maintaining the drains - it is not torrential rain that is causing floods, just poor planning and poor maintenance of the drains. And same for air quality - if you have stand still traffic for 16 our of 24 hours per day, then sure there will be accumulation of exhaust gasses, if the road would be properly upgraded to address the need and free flowing there would not be as much of an issue. But our politicians always blames somebody... it is never their fault, it is never corruption, inefficiency, wasting money and not delivering what is needed - no no no... it is always Brussel, Climate Change or somebody else's fault. So despite loving the change in tone I still recognise that it is liars who are saying it and I am not trusting them on making it right. But it is slight step in right direction.

No - do all of them. As well if I correctly understand how it work, then I don't believe you could do single cylinder.

I do appreciate the technology, and I do get what you are saying, but at the same time I can't shake off the feeling of driving the glorified golf cart when using any of electric cars... It is amazingly efficient, but something always feels wrong to me in the electric drivetrain. Maybe it is wrong in "good way", but still wrong! It is wrong in same way as vegan sausage is wrong, or alcohol free beer is wrong - just does not give the feeling you looking for.

I don't think I am missing the point... if you look at my previous post again I have already specifically mentioned the pros. and cons. and trade-offs. And most important point you missing - THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY! So we are being asked to make a sacrifice to slightly delay the inevitable change, because again most of people are missing the point that it is inevitable and secondly that it is not necessary for worse. Yes some areas will become warmer, as well raising see level will make Sahara desert into shallow sea - there is loads of potential there, arctic will become tropical as well. So environment change will make some areas better for living and some areas worse... so overall it is not going to become worse or less comfortable to live on the planet, just the areas of comfortable life will change. But against that is natural and continuous process. Another rarely appreciated fact - raising sea level will make overall area of land smaller, but looking topographically the coastline will become longer. Meaning the amount of land available to prime real estate will actually increase. This is joke - but we can take London for example, potentially it will be much better, because instead of being next to the stinky Thames it will surround a shallow sea lagoon. Again - talking about missing the point... the problem is that we are incorrectly told and made to believe that "climate change is something negative", that there are absolutelly no upsides etc. Whereas it is more of just different. You made a lot of other good points which I would like to address, but I think our posts are becoming too long to read (I am very much at fault here)... so how about addressing them one by one. You said - That is good argument, but the point is - we trying to prevent the climate CHANGE which could be a catalyst for innovation. Basically we trying to force unnecessary invocation, to prevent change, to prevent ourselves from innovating... It could be argued this is "preventative" innovation, okey... but then we need to recognise the alternative, we can burn all the fossil fuel until it inevitably runs out, benefit as much as we can from affordable energy, develop our society as much as we can and then be forced to innovate the alternative fuel type, when we actually need it. So alternative view is that we prematurely limiting ourselves and not using opportunity cost we have... perhaps we can instead colonise other planets around us whilst we can instead of wasting time and resources preventing inevitable climate change? This is just opportunity cost in the end of the day. I am not saying slowing down climate change is necessary bad and colonising other planets is necessary good, they are just different alternatives. However, ecomentalists wants us to believe that there is no alternative but to prevent climate change (despite it being inevitable with our current technological limitations). So I am just suggesting open-minded discussion, do we really have to do anything with climate, or maybe we can do something else?

LBX!

You can as well check the remaining battery capacity of Techstream on newer models, not sure if 2014 IS300h already has that, so that may answer for sure whenever you need TPMS or not.

So... who has reported it? would be nice to read about police raid, pretending to be buyer etc... exciting! And good deed!

It may be just general acceleration, because even without the Ludicrous mode it is still low 4s. That said I believe it degrades battery, not only tyres and you can't repeat it very often as batteries needs time to cool down. It is kind of funny to think that I am saying such speed is unnecessary in the car (the same guy who said IS300h is dangerously slow and unacceptable), but I truly think that - even back then I said 5-6s is all I need from the car for enjoyable driving, but when acceleration get's to sub-4s, sub-3s I just don't really see the utility of it. Same as I can't see the utility of more than 150-160MPH on road car. I have gone faster myself, but that is once in lifetime event and you not going to be doing it daily, certainly not something useful. Sure show off once or twice, but otherwise it just results in your passengers shaiting their pants and spilling their drinks on your fake white vegetable leather interior... and things flying around in the car. As well I guess I get it in sleek sport coupe, but in 7 seat SUV?! Or maybe I am just getting old, soon I will be defending IS300h acceleration in other subsection of the forum 😄

As I mentioned - the long lasting expectation that things will get better from generation to the next, runs the perspective. And that is true for my generation. As such it is wrong to say things "didn't get better", but it is true that it got worse in this particular instance, so if I compare it with my parents generation, then my generation is worse off, but if I compare it with my grand parents generations then probably we are better off. Any by the way - that exageration actually holds true for my grandmother, expect of both ways mountain. She as well mentioned something along the lines of keeping feet worm in the morning by stepping into pile of cow poo. But she lived in ruzzian occupation so that kind of explains it. Irony of most ecomentalist being strongly socialist if not borderline communist should not be lost here.

I think you right to say that when I will be 70 years old I will laugh at my young self today - that is correct and will definitely happen. But that is not because I am wrong today, but because by the time I get to 70 my perception and opinion will fundamentally change. So me now and me at 70 years old are effectively two completely different people. Isn't your description of the past you lived in a distortion as well, could you say that everyone had to do those things, scrape ice from inside, cut peat for open fire that was the only sort of heat, damp blankets? I know some people certainly lived in exactly such conditions, one of them may be you, but did all people lived in those conditions? Was it actually "generational" thing or it was the reality of the certain person in certain time? We need to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise we are risking becoming chicle grandmother who had "to walk to the school barefooted in the snow, for 5 miles uphill... BOTH WAYS!". As well, I am not complaining about myself personally, because that again would not be "generational" thing, myself as individual I may have failed at school, may have failed to get employment, I may be homeless living between two sheets of cardboard on the street, but that wouldn't be the general experience of my generation, right? Therefore when I am talking about this "intergenerational" difference I am trying to adjust for that and compared what would have been reasonable quality of life for the person with certain achievements, certain education, position, career now and then. Could I adjust for everything - no, do I have to generalise and oversimplify - yes, have I made mistakes - I am sure I did in some cases, if you think that I got something wrong in particular I am happy to discuss it and retract my statement if needed. The quality of life certainly fluctuated throughout the history, but the data suggest it was steadily improving since the industrial revolution, which exception of war here and there, yet the same data suggest that for a first time in long time quality of life is becoming worse, particularly for last few generations. It is often quoted as "millennials being short changed" and quality of life of millennials is compared to that of so called "quiet generation" i.e. the one that lived in interwar period in and during the WW2. Just let that sink in - statistically millennials has it as bad as the generation which literally lived trough WW2, despite there being no major global war for most of the generation (which expectation of last few years where one seems to be starting). And generations had it "different", I am not denying it - I am saying that my generation has to battle the Co2 linked scam quality of life regression. But it is for my generation battle with, because it impact the people who are building the life and who are building the capital the most, those who have lived their life, who have already built and who have capital to put on inheritance.. they are much less impacted. And and as well it needs to be narrowed down to particular discussion we having with Bill, where the question is "what luxuries don't you have"... and I have a list of thing which I can't do at the moment. So yes that is the difference and that is what I am having "different". I still agree that I am living better than people in 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and probably 60s, but I am having about the same as people in 70s and statistically speaking worse than people in 80s, 90s and 00s, of my age status, wealth etc. As well, most of stereotypes and values currently are built on premise that each generation quality of life improves, but it is now widely accepted fact that this is no longer true for millennials in particular, for first time they specifically had it worse then their parents. Now in my particular case that isn't true, because my parents lived in little disaster called soviet union, but I don't live neither in soviet union, nor in countries that used to be soviet union, so I am expecting quality of life as my peers in the west, but even my peers in the west are statistically worse of than they parents were at the same age. >>>>>>> All this was just very long ways of saying - statistically my generation is worse off than generation before us and that is as well statistically unusual, because the trend for last 100 years was that each generation had their life quality improved compared to previous generation.

You correct - it was rhetorical. I just wanted to express my frustration with them in my opinion not doing enough. And maybe a little bit of conspiracy, then perhaps they don't want to do too much, because there is certain benefit for the government to let these protesters make certain points. Think about it - if one day without any prior warning government comes and bans all the cars then there would be riot by everyone. Yet when we have to deal with eco terrorists gluing themselves to things and throwing paint, then suddenly some restriction becomes almost acceptable. It is sad that intergenerational stuff spoiled it for you. I specifically said - I don't blame previous generations for enjoying their lives, they have all the rights and they should have done it, so I am not the "how dare you" type. However it is undeniable that living throughout different periods different generations have different appreciation of certain things. As well just general place in your lifetime make a difference, what is important for young professional, is not important for pensioner, or for somebody at the end of their career. Things like housing - seems very important for young family is not really important for retired couple who have long paid back mortgage and probably are even detached the news and knowledge of the situation as it is today. Same with driving - I am sure when you were young you took liberties with speed (maybe I am wrong) and the car was very important part of social life or at very least very useful tool to get around and go to work etc. but probably by now you had all sorts of cars, been there did that and frankly maybe you not fussed anymore... so when there are draconical enforcement of not a single mile above the limit it probably isn't as much of the problem for older generation as it is for younger one now. I mean just look at possibility of having license at 17 years old... what a ffffing farce - sure you can have one, but you won't insure until you at least 25, unless you live in the sticks somewhere or parents pay for your insurance. So again intergenerational stuff is just reality, I am not saying one generation is better than other, I certainly don't blame pervious or future generations, I am just saying that environmentalism is an issue of today which impacts all of us today, but due to being at certain point in their life this hurts the say 20-40 year olds the most. Doesn't mean it does not hurt older people or younger people, but it does not have as much of impact in my opinion. And as well I may be wrong, so I am certainly oversimplifying and overgeneralising, which is by the way intentional. I guess to simplify my point was that certain restrictions hurts different groups of people differently, depending at what stage in their live it is.

Michelin definitely the best, but as well the most expensive - Goodyear offers 99% (or maybe 97% or whatever) of the performance for sometimes up-to 20% less. So Goodyer are better value. Likewise some of mid-rangers are even better value as they still offer say 90% of quality for 30% less. From Michelin, Continental and Goodyear - I don't think you can go wrong with either. From time to time there are outliers, like I remember Uniroyal Rainsport 3 (made by Michelin) were once upon the time best tyre for the wet and sold at reasonable ~£70, or Dunlop Sportmaxx RT2 (made by Goodyear) was once very good UHP tyre comparable to the best in class and sold for £68. Well I guess today Goodyear is little bit of outlier, because it is priced not far from mid-range and it is really good tyre, although nowadays there are simply not much saving to be had in mid-range tyres anyway. Say 10 years ago Michelin was £120 and tyres like Toyo and Yokohama were £55, now it is more like £140 vs. £110. So it may actually make sense just to go for Michelin when difference is so small (obviously prices are size dependent).

No - this is perfectly fine and intact. As mentioned, just tape around it to protect the bumper, pull the washer out and find something to suspend it and just press the clip firmly inside the washer.

I disagree with you first point - I believe that now we have better chance to survive and be comfortable in any climate than we have ever been before. We are literally able to live in space and under water, something that was not possible even 100 years ago. Most importantly we can live anywhere on the planet in any climate COMFORTABLY. That is exactly what our ancestors could not do, hence they chosen warmer climate and settlements close to water source. This is not longer a requirement, we can genuinely live comfortably at 60C in desert and at -60C in arctic. So climate change is not only NOT risk for our survival, but it is not risk to our comfort either. Further - what is undesirable for our comfort is cooling down of the planet, not warming-up. It is believed that humans made biggest progress exactly at the interglacial periods (e.g. becoming bipedal, starting to use tools) and then were forced to migrate and migrated in glacial periods. So again - I just can't see logic in your argument here. Animals going extinct is not "one way street" either, I mean we can all decry death of Woolly Mammoth or Sabretooth, but instead we now have 100s of feline species and despite being endangered we have dozens of species of elephants... note one more thing - majority of species thrive in warmer climates. So if one day arctic becomes tropic it may be possible to increase the habitat for those species. Now sure elephants are endangered because of overhunting and that is what I call "hygiene" factor and what I believe we could deal with and should deal with. We don't need them for food, so it is entirely possible to protect those species. And as well how many species of elephants we really want? It is a fact that many species exists because of different adaptations, but some of them will inevitably going to go extinct because they chose wrong "path", but that is just natural, that is how natural selection and evolution works, variety of subspecies exists for the weakest to go extinct and for best adapted to carry out the gene forward. Human species have gone extinct as well, it is normal... as long as we don't literally and directly annihilate the species by overhunting it. This animal protection sound like "have a cake and eat it too argument" - you just can't keep all the species all the time. And bees going extinct that was debunked 1000 times, they are very useful little critters but they are not the only ones that pollinate, not only that there are again many species of bees and only some of them are at risk of extinction due to heat... so bee extinction caused hunger is myth. That is why I given the analogy of people arriving at different times, it just seems you didn't understand my analogy or I perhaps had not explained it correctly... it seems that it is my generation which has to protect "the future generations", when previous generations have had comparably good time. So... no... we are not in this "together" if that is what you believe it is. At least not from this particular case of punishing people for driving person vehicles or eating meat perspective. This is literally the new thing for last 20-30 years and it is current generation that is suffering, not everyone together. Your generation been on the planet longer, you have experienced both improvement in life quality and now regression, therefore for you it may seem like one the balance of the things life got better. My generation only seen regression of quality of life. Again I am not blaming you for enjoying your life in 70s and 80s, I honestly happy that people were able to live freely and maybe a little carelessly, but my generation never had that opportunity. So that is my "gripe". Now sure - I know many people will say "we had our own issues", and that is both true and irrelevant. Why I am saying irrelevant - it is irrelevant for this topic where at least I am focusing on arbitrary goals that restrict people freedom on the basis of Co2 emissions. I am sure people been in the wars and were living in poverty in the past and as well there were periods of "plenty", but from perspective on restricting freedoms on Co2 emissions that was never the case as it is today. And I can't enjoy luxury, because nowadays I am either priced out from most of it, or outright prohibited. Again I am honestly happy if you can enjoy luxury of your choice, but I can't enjoy luxury of my choice.

This is complex topic as there is no single "best tyre", they are all compromises in some way. I would recommend Goodyear Eagle Asymmetric 5 or 6, however Michelin Pilot Sport 5, or Continental Sport Contact 6 (maybe they even have 7 now) are good option as well, as is Premium Contact 6. I would happily put any of these on my car provided I can get them at reasonable cost. I probably would exclude Pirelli and Bridgestone as in my experience they simply do not offer good value for money, not that their tyres are bad, but you could get better for same price or less. In mid-range there are Falken FK520, Yokohama GT AE51, Uniroyal Rainsport 5, few Hankooks, Toyos etc. They are all safe to use tyres and again kind of depends on the price and the budget. And finally there is no shortage of outright dangerous tyres... So I think the answer - decide on your budget and either target the premium group or target the mid-range group. Within each group the tyres will be more or less similar, some offering more comfort, some offering sharper handling, some better thread-life. Highly advisable and best time to do with every set of new tyres, at very least check the alignment, because it is most beneficial to do it when you have fresh and "true" tyres. Once they already unevenly worn it is too late to do alignment.

I never said I want to know what they are doing, I am just questioning is they are working in the interest of "people" or against of it. I don't think it is controversial to suggest they should always worn in interest of people/citizens/country etc., yet times and times again security services across the world have been proven to have different goals and motivations. Not accusing anyone in particular, just saying I am not necessarily trusting of security interest having best interest all the time. As well it seems to me that they could have already dealt with stop oil, extinction rebellion and other ecomentalists groups. That they haven't dealt with them yet, in itself suggest that something isn't right. And I don't even mean security services secretly infiltrating such groups, even things which are public and transparent are not done e.g. police fails to do anything meaningful about them. They do have power to arrest and charge every single on of the protesters with various crimes, loitering, public disorder, criminal damage etc. but they continuously fails to do it. So again I don't think it is controversial to question of "why not?"

I don't believe I have seen videos of it being done. My advise would be to tape the bumper around the hole to protect it then pull the washer out and support it with something (like plyers, or anything that can hold it on both sides). Then it is solid and you can clip the cover in. That is assuming your washer het is not broken where the cap should clip in, mine was broken on one side, so it simply would not hold. In that case I drilled 1mm hole and used some metal wire and epoxy glue to secure it in place.

Depends on what it is... if it is strictly on Lexus then they may cover reasonable expenses e.g. they would put 1/4 of tank for recalls in the past. Some people say it was only for fuel pressure sensor gasket as they needed at least 1/4 tank to test the repair, but I as well got it when they did airbag. Second example was - when they sold me RC without brakes and another dealership 100miles away diagnosed it, we reached following agreement: I deliver other dealership courtesy car back to them, they drive their courtesy car to another dealership, we meet there and we swap the courtesy cars, then they take my RC and drive it back to the dealership at their own risk and expense (it had no MOT, no brakes), then when they fix it they deliver RC back to my home and pick-up their courtesy car. They delivered the RC back to me with full tank of fuel, but to be fair it had like 90% of tank when they picked it up, still they did like 300 miles total so they must have put nearly full tank in it. So covering reasonable expenses on something that is their fault is not unusual. That said I would not expect them to cover your time out of work or any other possible expenses not directly linked to getting to the dealership. And all that is assuming that issues you are facing are strictly speaking their issue, in my case that was recall and later miss-selling.

The main cats are on the downpipes before the flange, the cats on middle section are secondary and strictly speaking not needed, there are no sensors after them either. So whatever is causing your issues would be upstream. Not that it helps you at all as the manifolds probably are not much cheaper than middle section.

Mate I don't need to ask that to be done... majority of pension funds underwrite insurance on what is known as variable interest debt financing. This allows insurance underwriters to always declare almost no profit despite making 100s of millions and sometimes billions in profit. So - I rather have my pension fund responsibly invested somewhere else, I rather see insurance fairly priced and I rather see them paying tax on all the profits they actually made. But that will not happen anytime soon. I am generally honest, but I am not stupid - so I draw the line between reasonable honesty and outright self-harm.

You are most likely right... the question is what those security services are doing. Are they really there to interrupt their grand plan, or are they there to get those useful idiots to go further... because there are some common goal they share.

As I have said, I am not judging, but that is luck...

Not sure what is the point here. Moral virtue, being Christian in our approach? Sort of when smacked to the left cheek, turn the right one? Basically, saying that you have to be honest with insurance company is the same as saying you have to be honest with the robber, so if they ask "do you have any more money on you, answer honestly or I will stab you", you have to answer honestly, because you are honest person and now you basically have verbal contract with the robber to be honest with them. I do agree honesty is generally a good thing, but the problem is that insurance companies are inherently dishonest, because they are allowed to be dishonest. The contract between drivers and insurance companies are fundamentally not made in good faith because drivers are forced to have insurance. There cannot be good faith in relationship by force, nor the insurance contracts are inherently fair - clearly insurance companies have undue control over them. So it becomes the matter of what you can get away with... And sure - you can be as honest as you like, but I will be as honest as I have to be. "Economical with truth" comes to mind, generally bad thing, but not when you being literally robbed in daylight.

Correct and unprovable. So down to you honestly and morale I guess... It is like asking "do you believe in aliens"... the answer to which is irrelevant.

Same for both of you... True to some degree, but because points are themselves somewhat arbitrary, then it simply can't be counted as risk factor. It is basically miscarriage of justice. And fairness in judgement and punishment is more important than some stupid private company profits. As well we need to appreciate practical implications of this... young person who already pays £2500 for insurance just because they are young (expensive, but not impossible to pay ~£300 month), misses that variable speed limit on 70MPH motorway changes for 60MPh to 50MPh for 1 section, minor and honest mistake. Would you argue it is fair to give them 3 Points and £100? I would say it is already harsh, but reasonable... I guess it would be better to do it like in other countries where first penalty in 12 month period is discount by 50%, so let's say warning and £50 fine perhaps would be fairer. But whatever we live in the country that hates motorists and we are in literal war against motoring, so the £100 and 3 points it is. Now would you say banning the driver from driving for 3 years is suitable punishment?! Probably not? But that is exactly what happens, because if young drivers get's points then their insurance will triple and now they are effectively banned for 3 years and life is pretty much ruined for 3 years. To contrast that - drunk river who already has 6 points, crashes the car without insurance, no death no injuries, but they get 12 months driving ban... at least that is what we as society deem appropriate 12 month no driving... So young person get's 3 years ban for nothing and older person gets 1 year ban for multiple and repeated offences. Or we saying punishment is variable based on who can afford it... some rock star could happily pay £20,000 insurance with 9 points on license and they are still danger to the society when driving. So is that your solution? Those who can pay can ignore the law?! Look - sure... life is not fair. But this is completely in government control. They can keep 12 points system and bans, they can make whatever they like in fines, but simple solution is not to publish it. Keep the point to themselves and for intended purpose i.e. where repeated offenders are banned from driving. I think that is good idea, just don't share it with private companies to pray on people after they been punished already. Same as they do with driving awareness courses, there is no public record of it, insurance companies can ask if you been on one, but they will never know, end of story. Obviously better solution is to say - this is sensitive private information which is out of your reach, not allowed to know.