Bluemarlin

If it's any consolation Linas, I don't have many roads with speed humps where I live, despite it being very residential. The council even gives you a free card that gives you 30 minutes free parking in pay and display spaces. Oh, and the nearby bus lane only operate during peak hours too. They're not all out to get you 😉

That's true Phil. You could also try taking the council to task if the humps are exccessive: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6202675/One-five-motorists-suffered-car-damage-speed-bumps.html

I find that speed humps have minimal impact if you take them at an angle. 45 degrees is perfect if you have the room.

Or someone who decided it wasn't worth it after seeing it.

So what's the general feeling on prices now? Do the current drops sugggest a genuine downward trend in pricing, or are they simply competitive cuts in previous profiteering? Anyone predicting sub £1.60, or even £1.50 in the near future?

Warren Buffet and the stock market, apparently 🙂 😉

No need for the tin foil hat Linas, I think there's some truth in what you're saying, in that authorities are trying to reduce car usage in favour of public transport. In London I don't have much of a problem with it as, public transport is pretty good, 20 mph doesn't really affect journey times as either you're lucky to be doing 20 mph anyway or it's just stop/start at anything higher, and (to be honest) there are probably too many cars on the road to make driving efficient or enjoyable. However, in other places, especially the more rural ones, there's often little option but to drive, and so more consideration should be given to those motorists. Whilst it's true that some smaller roads can have stretches that could be dangerous at their existing speed limits of up to 60 mph, these could be better managed by more specific areas of 20 mph, rather than a blanket limit along the entire road. That said, I have heard that in many of these new 20 mph zones cameras aren't being installed (there's a few near me), and that police aren't going to go out of their way to enforce them. We shall see.

Same. I haven't noticed it at all in my RX.

Most people don't fix cars, at least not to the extent that EV's will make much difference. Yes, hundreds of millions may change the oil, a wiper blade, fill the tyres or washer bottle. But hundreds of millions aren't stripping engines and rebuilding them. Sure, less people will probably work on EV's, mostly because they wont have to, because the mechanical parts of a combustion engine that fail won't exist. Your other points are largely a distraction, as they assume that the current technology is mature, and won't evolve beyond where it is today, which is patently untrue. Take speed and journey length, are you saying that things won't improve over over the next 10, 20, 30 years. What about when battery/fuel technology brings about cars with a 1000 mile range? 500 miles is almost there now, so who knows what the future will bring. Sure, there are many combustion engine cars that will outperform EV's of today by most known metrics, but 19th century technolgy has much less of a chance to provide continual improvements in range, speed and reliability than 21st century EV tech. As I said before, I'm not that concerned or convinced by the environmental arguments. That said, manufacturing vs tailpipe emissions is relevant. Manufacturing, although not clean, can be carried out in areas of least impact, as opposed to tailpipes which are spewing fumes into densely populated cities. You can't always fix the macro problem, but you can mitigate the micro one. Fuel is another issue you're seeing in a narrow way. Sure, generating electricity with fossil fuels is less than ideal. However, wind, nuclear, solar, etc are all alternatives that may one day be viable. Combustion engine cars have no alternative, and so are wedded to fossil fuels, every bit as much as you are to your ageing Subaru. The drive towards electric cars is therefore not about saying that they're better than ICE cars today, and is instead about recognising that EV's have the greater potential to provide better, faster, cleaner, more reliable, more efficient and more fuel flexible vehicles in the future. In the meantime, no one is going to force you to give up your combustion engined car any day soon, and they will likely still be on the roads after you and I are gone.

It depends how you phrase the question Eric. If you asked "Would you swear under oath that all the information you provided about Covid was true/accurate?" Then I agree with you, that the answer would probably be no. However, if you asked "Did you believe you provided accurate/honest data, based on the information you were given at the time?" Then I would think the answer would be yes. There is a difference between getting something wrong and lying. Evidence of the former is not proof of the latter. As for your blanket distrust of the mainstream or, more accurately described, regulated media, then what about the anti vaccine, climate sceptic, anti science, unregulated media? The darling of these conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones, has just been found guilty of spreading false conspiracy theories. This is a guy who, at his peak, made around $800k a day from his conspiracy peddling. Do you think him, and others like him, are evangelical truth seekers, or are they perhaps driven to make money by generating traffic from articles which deliberately ignore context, retrofit narrratives with the benefit of hindsight, misrepresent data, and twist interpretations, in order to tell people what they want to hear? Eric, for the last hundred years, the great western economies of the world, along with with motor manufacturers and oil companies, told us that fossil fuel driven combustion engines were the best and only game in town, despite electric vehicles existing (an interesting aside, which I didn't know until today, was that the first ever Porsche was electric). Are the people who believed the governments and corporate interests about combustion engines gullible sheep too? Or have governments and big business only become dishonest since they started promoting electric cars? If you feel that people who largely believe governments, the mainstream media, and scientific consensus are indoctrinated sheep then, by logical extension, so are those who believe unregulated, non peer reviewed, conspiracy theorists. The only difference is who they trust most, and their source of reference material.

All other things being equal, I'd go with one that was closest to the spec I was looking for, was the colour and trim I wanted and/or looked in the best overall condition.

Happy to be corrected, but if your battery is fully charged and in good condition, left in daylight with a reasonable amount of sunshine, there's no unusual drain, and it's only for two weeks, then the AA 12v 4.8w EOBD solar charger will be fine.

In all seriousness you're right Len, the benefits outweigh the disruption. I tend to leave mine on, and then choose whether to answer or not too. That causes its own problems though, as I now get "you're phone was on, why didn't you answer?". Instead of just a message asking me to call back. 🙂 Can't win I guess.

I put a bottle of Techron in once a year or so. Not sure if it makes any difference though.

Don't know if I misunderstood, but when I put my details in the link it seems to show service schedule based purely on mileage, whereas dealers service based on number of years, regardless of mileage. eg I was quoted for a 100k service, which was done 2 years ago at 10 years old.

That's what you want, a 12v one. They come with a range of wattages though. I'm not sure if there's a 50w one with an OBD lead though.

I know, it was awesome. You could go off for a few meetings and enjoy the peace of the journey. Now people expect to reach you anytime they want. I have to keep reminding friends and family that my mobile phone is for my convenience, not theirs 🙂

Haha, and oddly enough, aound the same time, a mobile manufacurer said they'd never get any smaller, due to battery technology. It's surprising what can be achieved with time, money, and the will to achieve it.

It depends what you call evidence Eric. There's "evidence" for ghosts, miracles, alien abductions, and bigfoot. None of it means these things are true. Evidence on its own is meaningless, until it's examined and proven to show that it confirms the claims being made from its use. In other words, none of what you say is necessarily untrue, but then nor is it true either, until it can be proven. Until then it's simply guessing and leaping to conclusions.

Because of course it's a piece of cake to get through to someone like you 😉 I'm aware of the relatively smalll contribution automobiles make to global pollution, but believe that the benefits of EV's go beyond environmental concerns. Not least being that they're not tied to a single source of fuel. I don't watch the BBC and my views aren't environmentally based. The majority of people don't fix their cars, as most don't want to. Most barely even check oil, tyres and coolant levels. You'll still be able to fix things like brakes, lights etc, but won't be able to change oil, or fix things like starter motors or alternators, because there won't be any to break. Beyond that, the number of people who tear engines apart is even smaller and, with the increasing reliance on sensors and ECUs, even ICE cars are getting harder and harder to DIY. Nor do I buy the affordability argument, at least not in the long term, when ubiquity and economies of scale kick in. I remember in the early 1990's the finance director of a major multinational told me that, due to the high cost, he could never see a time in the company's future that they'd use mobile phones. Now even homeless people have them. I will concede that the timescales may be too short, and even that governments have been disingenuous in pushing the envoronmental angle, simply because it's an easier sell, as it's more in line with public sentiment. That said, it's my belief that EV's are the logical evolutionary next step in automobile manufacture, with the ability to provide faster, cleaner, more reliable, and more fuel efficient cars. Of course that's just a personal opinion, coming from a generation that believed the oil companies and car manufacturers historically suppresesed the development of electric cars, and kept us shackled to old style combustion engines, when newer technology was available and just needed investment. So, to answer your original question. I don't know if it will make sense for us all to be driving EV's in 2030. Luckily most of us won't have to though. I do think though that it will likely make sense by 2050, if not sooner. That has nothing to do with what I'm told, and is just my personal opinion.

As far as I'm aware their agenda is made public. The news media don't give it much coverage because people seem more interested in civil cases between celebrities and footballers wives. I take your point though Eric, but do you not think it equally sheepish to believe conspiracy theories without proof, many of which can be debunked with a cursory Google search? Questioning is fine, but drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence to support them, not so much, and is little more than a matter of belief or personal preference. It may surprise you to know that I agree that some politicians are corrrupt, and that I do question things. I just try to be careful that I don't allow my own feelings/preferences to override the need for some proof.

Very true Malcolm. More often than not it's about incompetence more than it is cunning plan. I believe so (although I think the EU target is 2035), along with a handful of other EU countries who are seeking to delay it. Good plan, although I don't know what the position on imports would be post Brexit. Maybe doable but expensive.

I see. So if they say something that can be misrepresented, or taken out of context, and spun into an evil agenda, then it's gospel. But if they say something good, they're lying. I guess then if you apply that kind of thinking to everything, then everything's a conspiracy theory 🙂

Yes, new combustion engines will be banned from 2030. That wasn't the point though. You stated that governments had convinced manufacturers to ditch combustion engines in favour of EV's, and I merely pointed out that they clearly haven't convinced one the largest manufacturers with regards to petrol hybrids. That said, if it's government policy to switch from combustion engines to EV's then of course they'd meet with the manufacturers to discuss the logistics. It would be pretty stupid not to.

It seems like more scare mongering to me. The WEF, quite rightly, have pointed out that privately owned cars sit idle for 96% of the time, and so perhaps there might be better, alternative transport solutions for some/many people. They're a think tank FFS, and so it's their job to look at trends, realites, situations, and think of ways of improving them. Doesn't mean they're planning to take away everyone's cars, ignoring the fact that they have no power to do so. They make a valid (if uncomfortable) point, that's worthy of discussion. That doesn't stop the perpetually paranoid from thinking they want to take everything away from us. Conspiracy theorists are expert at cherry picking, and taking things out of context, and so it's no surprise that they don't quote one of the WEF's actual stated aims, which is: “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.” That doesn't sound very scary though, and almost sounds as if they're trying to look out for most people. Those evil bastards.