Treewolf

Matt, I though that the Ox Drove currently had a Voluntary Restraint agreement in operation on it for its entire length (at least it had signs to this effect last time I was up that way, a few months back). Has this now been lifted? To be honest the ground everywhere is so wet at the moment that I would hold off the green laning for a while, it won't do the 4x4 reputation any good to damage surfaces to the extent which could easily happen. Play in the floods instead!

...advertise them as "Replicas"! 18 INCH PETROL CHAINSAW, BRAND NEW STIHL REPLICA, 2 STROKE | eBay To be fair, at least he's not claiming it is a Stihl.

I have never before seen so many people getting obviously very excited about something they are completely incapable of explaining to a layman! OK, so they've found Higgs Boson: what exactly is the significanceof this?

I have all my numbers (home, work, mobiles) registered with TPS and it helps but does not stop the problem. Only UK-based companies are bound by the TPS code of practice, so any calls originating overseas will continue. On my home number I have a device a called Truecall ( link ) which is great and really helps. Since I still have a caller display unit connected to the line, I get to see how many calls the Truecall blocks, and despite being registered with TPS it's running at about 5 a day at the moment). I think the only way to stop it altogether is to give up all phones (and email, and seal the letterbox) and become a hermit (actually this is a prospect I am finding increasingly attractive)! All I need to do now is to find something that works as well for junk mail. I am registered with the MPS (mail preference service) and have a notice by the letterbox saying "No unaddressed or Junk Mail PLEASE" and still it floods in. Worst offenders are Lidl with their crummy flyers and those charity clothes bags (two in a day is not unusual), but worst of all is b****y Virgin Media. If anyone knows a way to stop Virgin Media from junk mailing me please tell me what it is! I was getting about one (addressed) mailshot a week from them, so I 'phoned them up to ask them to stop; now I get two or three a week addressed to "occupier". So they have taken me of their list but not my address. They are also members of the Direct Mail Association and therefore bound to abide by MPS rules, but told me with great delight that they are allowed to go on sending junk mail.

To be honest I doubt that this could actually happen (and the testing on Mythbusters also tends to suggest it is unlikely). In effect hitting a body with a wire rope is going to be much the same as hitting a body with a steel bar of the same diameter with the same energy. I reckon that however hard you hit a body with a bar, you are unlikely to cut the body in half. You could undoubtedly inflict massive and fatal injuries, but the diameter of the bar or wire rope would be simply too big to cut the body. A thick bar or heavy wire rope is more likely to send the body flying, possibly with fatal impact trauma, but I would think is very unlikely to cut it. A much thinner wire could cut (like a cheesewire) but wouldn't have the same energy when it breaks. I would actually expect a very thin wire breaking under tension to be more likely to inflict serious cuts (or even sever a limb) than a thick wire, but I would expect a thick wire to be more likely to inflict severe possibly fatal trauma. Returning to the original poster's question, "does anyone know of any injuries from wire ropes snapping", I think the answer is a definite "yes", a wire rope under tension has the capability to inflict massive and sometimes fatal injuries. If the question had been the Mythbusters' question "can a wire rope snapping cut a body in half" then I have to say that I think the answer is that it is very unlikely to except under freak conditions. However best advice is to treat all ropes under tension with respect and as though they do want to kill you.

My dad served a fleet carrier not long after the war and told me that he once saw a seaman decapitated by an arrester wire breaking during landing operations. I suspect that this was actually not so much a clean cut, as the wire whipping round the unfortunate seaman's neck and ripping his head off. The Mythbusters episode was convincing and suggests that it is very unlikely that a breaking wire rope would be thin/sharp enough to cut a person in half or result in any major transection. If there is enough stretch in the rope and it wrappped round you, it could easily rip bits off you. It is also very possible that the impact injuries will kill you even if it doesn't cut you in pieces. If there is a shackle (or a NATO hook) on the end of the whipping rope it will definitely kill you. I have seen people at rallies standing inches away from steam ploughing sets at work. These people have no clue about the risk they are taking! I don't understand how the rally organisers can allow this now, crazy. One year at the Dorset Steam Fare I actually saw a member of the public step over the hauling cable of a ploughing set! Evolution I suppose. Remember that any rope of cable which can stretch is dangerous under tension, because it is the stretch releasing which causes the whip. Rope used of SRT, ropes for capstan winches, etc are low stretch and won't whip. Ropes for fall arrest, KERR (lethal - the army only allows KERR to be used on armoured vehicles), any nylon rope, and most wire ropes need to be treated with respect. In 99 cases out of 100 it is bad rigging which causes a rope to fail, or the anchor point fails not the rope.

Interesting thread, controversial! As one who works with both the MOD and rail industry, random drug and alcohol testing is a fact of life, and to be honest I have no problem with it. As an employer, if I fail to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety of my employees, members of the public, and others, I am committing an offence. Whatever industry I am in, if I have reason to believe that employees are tunring up under the influence and I fail to take action to stop it, I am guilty of an offence and may end up in prison. I wonder how many people know that if you are working anywhere where the Transport & Works Act applies and doing a safety critical job (cutting trees by a railway, for example) then the legal maximum limit for blood alchohol is 30mg which is far lower than the legal drink-drive linit of 80mg. For an average sized male, 1.1/2 pints will put you over the T&WA limit.

There seems to be a spate of these at the moment, I have recently had ones purporting to be from just about every bank (except interestingly the one I actually bank with!), plus Paypal plus Hotmail. I suspect that there is a class of 5 year olds somewhere that has been told about "phishing" and has decided to have a go! They are generally very sloppily done and to most folk not convincing. Sadly there must be enough gullible people to make it worth while. If you are in any doubt whatsoever, simply delete the email. Do not under any circumstances click on any links, download or open any attachments, or do anything else the email may tell you to do. In the unlkely event that it is genuine, your bank etc will aloways use other means to contact you before anything bad happens.

What size are you after? I have an unused 245/75x16 as a spare on my Disco2 (which is actually running on 265/75x16s). The tyre is a few years old but has always had a cover on it and has never even touched the road. Since I will fairly soon be needing a new set for the road the spare will be available if it's any use (I also have two 3/4 worn but usable 245/75x16 available). Re. mileage, my Disco2 did 100k miles on the first set of (original pattern) 245/75 Mud T/As, and is fast approaching that again on the second set of 265/75s. My Defender is running on 285/75x17 KM2 Muds and has now done about 30k miles with no obvious treadwear yet. The KM2s are a little better on the road, just as good off the road, but do tend to pick up more stones etc than the original pattern Muds, and I have had one puncture in the Defender (never ever had a punture in the original pattern Muds). There is no doubt in my mind that firstly the original Mud T/A and now the KM2 are the best general purpose all round tyres money can buy; there is nothing that comes close.

I expect also that even if you do want to risk removing the DPF it is going to get a lot harder to do. For example, removing the EGR valve from the TD5 was dead easy with no side effects, but removing the EGR valve from the 2.4 TDCi (Puma) can only be done in conjuction with a reprogrammed ECU or else the engine malfuction light will come one permanently. A lot more hassle. De-catting either TD5 or 2.4 TDCi is easy and legal at the moment. Not sure what would be involved in removing the DPF, but since it is electronically managed it will almost certainly not be straightforward. Won't be long at this rate before the horse and cart makes a comeback!

Not had the chance to try a 2.2 Puma yet, but I love my 2.4 (2007). I'm not sure the DPF is a good idea on the 2.2

'02 plate Td5 Disco - 200k miles - still on all original UJs (including the front propshaft which has the double joint that can't be lubed) '07 plate Tdci Defender - 100k miles - all original UJs. They should last a long time. I would never let anything that came in a packet with the word "Britpart" on it anywhere near either vehicle now. I have bought a few such parts over the years, and sad to say I have never bought a Britpart part that has not had some kind of a problem.

I did my HGV 1 years ago (back in the days when you could go straight to HGV 1 from a car licence without doing all the intermediate levels). I did a week's intensive training with the test at the end, and I know exactly what you're feeling. Day 1 was exhilerating but very hard work concentrating so hard for so long. By Day 3 I was totally shattered and convinced that I was never, ever going to be up to standard to pass the test. It had got to the point where I was making silly mistakes (forgetting indicators, missing gears etc) simply because I was nearly brain dead from concentrating so hard for so long. By Day 5 I was beginning to feel that there was a chance, since driving was becoming more instinctive and I was able to relax a little. Day 6, test day, was the first bright sunny day all week, and got off to a good start. The reversing exercise went well, I relaxed, and the drive also went spot on. In the end I passed with 1 "minor" (the examiner reckoned I missed a mirror check; I reckon he just didn't notice me do it, but I wasn't going to argue). I was on cloud 9 for weeks afterwards. My advice - go for it. It won't be easy (if it was everyone would do it), but put in the effort and make it happen. You won't regret it.

Link to the One Show on iPlayer. 23 mins 22 seconds in (if you want to skip the rubbish).

Pictures - Mercedes-Benz Zetros 2733 A 6x6 AWD Expedition Vehicle - National RVing | Examiner.com"]This takes some beating in my opinion. More info here

Model boilers, perhaps. Not real ones! Canal Navvy is right, if you want the crack repaired, metal stitching is the only effective way to go.

So sorry to hear of your problems, and I hope that you can find some sort of resolution. Remember good health is more valuable than almost anything else. I passed my class 1 back in the days when you could go straight from car to HGV1. I have never driven HGVs as a main job, but it's always been nice to know it's there as a back-up just in case. When I got to 45 my family questioned why I bothered with the hassle and cost of renewing, and again at 50 asked the same thing. I told them that my view was that although it isn't the end of the world surrendering the entitlement, for the cost of the medical and a bit of paperwork I do at least get a regular medical checkup (the only times I've been to the doctor in the last 30 years have been for HGV meds), plus the photo on my photocard licence never expires! The other thing I pointed out is that it is relatively little hassle to keep the entitlement, but a huge hassle and expense now to get it back if I give it up.

No, the 2012 2.2 Defender engine is a development of the 2.4 "Puma" (Duratorq/Transit engine) and is NOT a Freelander engine. There is actually very little difference indeed between the 2.4 and 2.2 Defender engines; the power and torque is (on paper at least) exactly the same. Main differences is that 2.2 is a "Euro 5" compliant engine whilst the 2.4 was only "Euro 4" for emissions, hence would now be illegal to sell new. The most significant difference is that the 2.2 has a diesel particulate filter on the exhaust, which everyone is predicting will cause untold trouble (like it seems to on many other EU5 engines). Initial reports on the 2.2 Defender are generally favourable, though there seem to be more turbo/intercooler hose problems than with the 2.4 (possibly the boost pressure is higher). There has never been an engine that is used in both Freelander and Defender. The 2.4 and 2.2 Defender engines are totally difference to the equivalent Freelander engines.

That's what I thought. The cab looks Douglas to me (which makes it even more desirable) but I thought that most/all Dougies had the chassis shortened. Maybe some Mats had that style cab. I might post it to the HMVF forum where there's bound to be a guru. Just need the winning lottery ticket now!

First saw I bought was also a Husky 136, and (15 or so years later) I still have it and still use it regularly. It is clearly aimed at the non-pro user and is built to a price, but it has been (and still is) a very good saw. It has also done some surprisingly big jobs over the years. Treat it with respect and it will not let you down.

Just found this on Ebay; very nice! But is it a Mat or a Douglas? The seller says Matador, but that cab looks more like a Douglas rebuild to me. AEC MATADOR - Timber Tractor | eBay Either way I wish I hade the time/space/money to take it on as a project!

I am glad I am not the only person who couldn't figure out how one of them is meant to work! In the end I too decided mine was faulty and (I think) binned it!

It rather depends on the requirement for a "rigid roof". I do not know whether the regs require the roof to be the full length of the vehicle or if a partial roof is adequate (ie is a 2WD-only pickup eligible as a DPV). This may have been established by the courts, and if you are serious about this scheme I strongly suggest finding out. I *think* that the roof must be full length, since I seem to recall reading that a 4WD Navara Crew Cab is legally a DPV, but a 2WD Navara Crew Cab is not. So, you could either fit all-wheel-drive (when a crew cab would not be necessary but would definately be OK if you wanted one), OR you would have to fit a body meeting the "rigid roof" requirement with at least a second row of seats a minimum of 1/3rd the way back from the steering wheel to the rear of the vehicle. You also need to establish whether a demountable body is considered payload or part of the vehicle. I would have thought that it is likely to be part of the vehicle and therefore included in the unladen weight, since (a) the vehicle is fundamentally useless without it, and (b) it is an integral part of the carrying structure that enables the vehicle to function. The approach you are following is certainly interesting, even though I feel it is unlikely to succeed. I would strongly recommend that you find someone well-versed in vehicle construction law to provide advice before investing too much of you hard-earned cash in this project, though.

Rechecked the regs since posting the above. My preceding post is misleading, sorry! The situation is as follows:- Regulation 3(2) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & use) Regulations 1986 [C&U(1986)] defines inter alia a “dual purpose vehicle” as follows:- dual-purpose vehicle a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either— (i) is so constructed or adapted that the driving power of the engine is, or by the appropriate use of the controls of the vehicle can be, transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or (ii) satisfies the following conditions as to construction, namely— (a) the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel; (b) the area of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's seat must— (i) be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for two or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests, attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and (ii) be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1850 square centimetres on each side and not less than 770 square centimetres at the rear; and © the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in head (i) of sub-paragraph (b) (or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row) must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the rearmost part of the floor of the vehicle. See The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 So, to use your curtainsider as a DPV, you would firstly have to reduce the unladen weight to 2040kg or less, and then either fit it with full or part time all-wheel-drive or permantly fit it with all the following: - a full length "rigid" roof with or without a sliding panel - a second row of seats - rear side windows in the cab - a rear window (all windows to meet the minimum size requirements above) and also make sure that the distance from the steering wheel to the rear of the rearmost row of seats is at least one third of the distance from the steering wheel to the rear of the floor of the vehicle. You will note that to meet the requirements of a DPV the vehicle must conform either to (i) or the whole of (ii) in the regs. So, you are right, there is no MAM restriction for a DPV and it is indeed possible that you migh be able to make this vehicle legal, however I do not believe that it will be either useful or practical!

Doesn't have full or part time all-wheel drive, so cannot be a DPV irrespective of weight.