Treewolf

This is slightly more complex to answer than at first may appear. If you compared a 4x2 single cab pickup with a 4x2 double cab pickup, then there is a very significant likelihood that the double cab would fall into the Dual Purpose Vehicle definition but the single cab wouldn't, in which case the double cab would legally be allowed to travel at higher speeds than the single cab where National Speed Limits apply. It would however depend on a few other factors so is not a "given". If you were to compare single-cab and double-cab pickups both of which have full-time or part-time all-wheel drive (note that the requirement is all wheel drive, not four wheel drive) then provided that the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 2040kg and the gross laden weight does not exceed 3500kg then both are Dual Purpose Vehicles by virtue of the all-wheel-drive capability and both can travel at normal "car" maxima where National Speed Limits apply. Some people are caught out by the unladen weight limit since (a) 2040Kg is quite a low limit (vehicles such as a Disco3 commercial are much heavier than this and therefore cannot be Dual Purpose Vehicles, and I think that several other current popular pick-ups are similarly over this weight), and (b) it can be very difficult to ascertain the legally-defined unladen weight of a vehicle since it is not something that manufacturers are required to provide, and most do not. Manufacturers are required to declare the Kerb Weight of a vehicle, and the kerb weight is always greater than the unladen weight. If a declared kerb weight is less than 2040Kg it always follows that the unladen weight is also less than 2040Kg, however if the kerb weight is slightly over the situation can be complex. Defender 110 vehicles (dependent upon configuration) and Defender 130 double cab pick-ups, for example, have kerb weights over 2040Kg but the unladen weight is under, since JLR includes a 90% full tank of fuel, a 70Kg driver, plus items such as spare wheel, jack, and tools in the KW figure which are not included in the legal definition of ULW. Deduct these, and the ULW drops under the 2040Kg threshold. Knowing the speed limits is easy. Determining what is, and what is not, a Dual Purpose Vehicle is sometimes not so easy.

Provided that the unladen weight is less than 2040kg and the gross weight does not exceed 3500kg, then the fact that it has full- or part-time all-wheel-drive means that it is without any doubt whatsoever and Dual Purpose Vehicle and can travel at car speeds. There is no argument or ambiguity about this at all.

That is exactly what I was getting at, I am glad that I am not the only one! Looking at the bumph on the various "Invision" bulletin boards it looks as though there may be a fix for this now. Hopefully Steve "the Magician" will be able to sort it in due course. Fingers crossed!

A quick and hopefully simple question about the new (well, not so new now) interface, please. With the old interface the view I used most was the one which listed all the topics which had had new posts since my last visit, and which allowed me to go to the first unread post in each topic which interested me. It listed the title once and had the "got o first unread post" button by the topic. I can't find an equivalent in the new interface, is there one? I know that there is the "view unread posts" button, which I use, but I find it tiresome since it lists every new post, rather than just listing each topic once, so if, for example, there have bee 50 new posts in one particular topic that topic appears 50 times in the list. I find this so inconvenient that I have hardly visited Arbtalk since the change! I cannot believe that there isn't a way to get the equivalent of the old view, but I certainly can't find a way. Help, please!

This is a popular theory but doubtful for several reasons. A Defender (subject to certain exceptions) can legally travel at 'car' speeds by virtue of the fact that it is classified in law as a Dual Purpose Vehicle, however this is not recorded on any central database. So if all vehicles were being scanned it is likely that we Defender owners would be inundated in incorrect speeding tickets, and we're not. It is quite possible that the more recent mobile, ANPR-based, speed trap systems do a PNC check, but the earlier types such s as GATSO, Truvelo, etc, certainly do not. For speed limits, the only light goods vehicles which are not subject to the reduced speed limits are those which fit into the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations' definitions of a Car-Derived Van or a Dual Purpose Vehicle. Vehicles in either of these categories can travel at 'car' limits, but the definitions are precise and quite restrictive (for example not all vans which are derived from cars are actually legally Car-Derived Vans, and vehicles such as a Disco 3 Commercial is too heavy to be a Dual Purpose Vehicle and is therefore subject to lower speed limits than a non-commercial Disco 3). It is a minefield!

I think he's just built a mobile crane, so testing, certification, and LOLER may be an issue. The winch has also probably become lifting equipment.

I'm really not sure, I thought they were but roughly equal numbers of people I've spoken to think they are or are not. Anyone here know for sure? Anyone here know an effective way to evict the little b*****s? They are really persistent.

Another vote for Milwaukee M18, I've not yet found an M18 tool that doesn't impress (the cordless mag drill is also very good).

In some regions it could be Glisglis not rats. Just as destructive, and just as hard if not harder to get rid of. Very common in the Chilterns.

What is its unladen weight, and does it have all-wheel-drive, either full- or part-time?

If you're referring to my post, it is not wrong. I said that it is not possible for a speed camera or other enforcement device to identify a DPV automatically. I did not say it was not possible for one to identify other categories of vehicle automatically. Any ANPR-based enforcement device will be able to tell you all that is known about the target vehicle including its EWVA type approval classification and taxation class, however it will not be able to tell you whether it is a DPV for the reasons stated earlier. As a result it would be an impractical method of speed enforcement since every DPV that passed a device at a its maximum legal speed would receive an illegal ticket. I have not yet encountered a single authenticated case of a DPV being issued with an incorrect ticket resulting from an assumption that it is not a DPV. Rumours abound, but I am unaware of any hard evidence it has happened.

No. Take a Disco 4 that has been EWVA type-approved as a category M passenger vehicle and it has car speed limits. Blank its windows and it still has car speed limits. Take a Disco 4 commercial that has been EWVA type approved as a category N light goods vehicle and it has light goods speed limits. Cut windows into the back and it still has light goods speed limits. Neither vehicle is a Dual Purpose Vehicle, and the windows are not relevant.

I remember the start of this thread well, back then it was quite informative. After a long near-absence due to having trouble getting used to the new forum interface (I'm afraid that I was still happier with the old, but accept the need for change) I find that the thread has (a) been revived, and (b) filled with misinformation and twaddle! The bottom line is that (1) the definition of a DPV is very clear and unambiguous, (2) the "car derived van" classification has nothing whatsoever to do with the types of vehicles we use, and (3) no-one in the history of civilisation appears (yet) to have been incorrectly charged with exceeding the N1 speed limits in a DPV, despite the fact that everyone knows someone whose auntie's landlord's cousin was definitely done for it, also (4) windows, whether absent or present have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and finally (5) discussing it ad nauseam doesn't alter the facts that are well established and have been for a long time, it just makes me wonder why I have stirred a can of worms again!

There is no way that a camera can reliably check the speed limit applicable to a particular vehicle that may or may not be a DPV at present because there is no record on any UK/EU database of the unladen weight of vehicle, and manufacturers are not even required to provide this information (the kerb weight, which is calculated differently and is always greater than the unladen weight, is however in many cases but not all, recorded). It is, of course, feasible for non-DPVs, so cars, HGVs etc could be checked. Since the definition of a Dual Purpose Vehicle is critically dependent upon the unladen weight, which is not recorded, it is impossible for any check to be made whether a vehicle which may possibly be a DPV in fact is, or is not. No automated system can at present therefore do this. Furthermore, if you took a vehicle such as a Defeder 130, perhaps fitted a winch, rollcage, chip box and tipping mechanism, you stand a very good change of taking the unladen weight over the maximum for DPV status but any check based on the VRN will be unchanged. I exchanged extensive correspondence with DVSA recently on this subject, in particular the question of MOT testing for DPVs, after if became evident that many MOT Test Stations were incorrectly insisting the Defenders were subject to Class 7 MOTs, when of course they are not. DVSA confirmed that there is simply no way at present of determining the ULW of a vehicle and that this weight is not recorded. It is not even feasible to do as a roadside check on a weighbridge due to the need to drain fluids, etc. for an accurate weight.

That's a massive price for a second-hand Defender, potentially up to 6 years old, even if it has been reworked by JLR ! I imagine that all 150 will sell very quickly though. I wonder if they'll have to have "Q" plates!

I guess you only find out if the A frame is unecessary when you find that the tree goes up rather than down when start work. By the time you found out it was going down it would probably be too late. Since putting it in is the safe option I think I would probably have done the same. I imagine that the it would have a beneficial psychological effect on the homeowner too.

To the best of my knowledge (based on information I was given about 40 years ago) you can legally remove an obstruction such as a fallen tree from a public right of way sufficient to pass but you (a) mustn't remove any arisings (which would be theft) and (b) you mustn't set out intending to remove the obstruction. This latter has implications since if you are equipped with a chainsaw it suggests that you had intent, unless you just happen routinely to carry one. I beleive that you can also deviate from a ROW to the minimum extent necessary to pass an obstruction. The correct procedure (for a footpath, bridleway, or unsurfaced vehiclular ROW) is to report the obstruction to the LA who then should instruct the landowner (who generally is the responsible party) to clear the ROW. The problem comes when the landowner does nothing, or as noted earlier in the thread cuts the tree so that walkers can pass but not 4x4s; if the ROW has vehicular rights this would be a reasonably serious offence of obstruction (an arrestable offence, I believe). As I say this is based on info I was given back in the late 1970s when I used to do a lot of what is now called greenlaning, but long before it became fashionable and antisocial, and all the greenlanes were turned into "restricted byways" as a result. It is interesting, as a side note, to see lanes that i used to drive and which were clear of vegetation, become completely impassable even to walkers now that 4x4s have been banned. There can't have been too much of a conlict of use on some of them if the volume of foot traffic is so low that they are now impassable.

I've just come across this video which I hadn't previously seen and which I thought was interesting. Not an easy job. Not having seen it mentioned on the forum, I thought I'd post a link.

An update to this long-dormant thread on Trewhella winches.... I was rather sorry to learn yesterday that Trewhella Brothers of Birmingham went into liquidation in early May of this year, 2017. So no longer will spares for the Monkey Winch, the Wallaby Winch, and the various other tools they excelled in (such as wire strainers, etc) be available. Although in today's economy this doesn't surprise me, I find it sad that another great British engineering company, and one that has been around for decades, has gone, like so many before and no doubt so many to follow. Valete, Trewhella.

Harebrained scheme, which will never happen.

The DB NATO pintle is now type approved. When towing any type of trailer using a NATO pintle and lunette, whjether on or off the road, either the lunette or the pintle but not both must be able to rotate. Early trailers had rotateing lunettes and requred a locked pintle, more recent (widetrack) trailers have a fixed lunette and require a rotating pintle. The basic reason why one must rotate is to allow articulation between the trailer and the towing vehicle. The reason however why trailers now have fixed (non-rotating) lunettes is a little more complex to understand (and very difficult to explain in words without pictures) but is as follows. If a trailer with a rotating lunette is at a sharp angle to the towing vehicle, ie jacknifed or approaching jacknifed, the lunette will drop down the pintle so that instead of the lunette being horizontal, it is vertical. The noseweight of the trailer makes this inevitable. AS the towing vehicle then pulls forward, the lunette will not revert back to the horizontal since there is nothing to lift the dropped side of the ring back up. The result is that either the shaft of the lunette will bend, or the rear cross-member of the towing vehicle will bend, or the pintle willbe ripped clean off the towing vehicle. This is the reason that many early Sankey trailers were cast with severly bent lunette shafts. The later trailes have fixed, non-rotating lunettes, so that if turned thrugh the same (jacknife) angle the lunette remains horizontal. As a result, when the towing vehicle pulls forward, there is absolutely no problem and nothing gets bent. Whenever a NATO pintle is used it is essential that a locking pin is used to keep the pintle jaw locked shut, the hitch is insecure without one. With a locking pin, the jaw will tow completely safelt upside-down, although this is clearly not the correct way to use it.

Provided the weight criteria are met, the seats, windows, etc are only relevant on 2wd vehicles. If the vehicle has full-time or part-time all-wheel-drive, seats and windows are not a factor.

The only ones I know of are the Stock-ade ST400 pneumatic and the ST400i cordless, both of which are top class tools at top class tool prices. If you have a compressor the ST400 will be cheaper to run since the gas is expensive for the cordless tool I believe (I have recently bought an ST400 with the Stock-ade compressor). These tools can save a massive amount of time on a big fencing job.

Thank you! This is an enormous help, I hadn't spotted it way off to the top right of the screen, and it makes all the difference!

Is there a way to get a listing of topics equivalent to the old "view new posts" or "view todays posts", whatever it was called, the one that listed all the topics regardless of which forum they were in, and had the doohickey you could click to view the first unread post? The nearest equivalent I can find (the "Today's Posts" thing) is nothing like, since it lists the actual posts rather than the topics, and only shows a few per screen. I am sorry to say that I am really struggling with this new look, although I freely admit that I don't like it when things I have more or less got the hang of change beyond recognition. I recognise the effort that has gone into its development, and I am in awe of the technical skills it must have taken, but it just seems to me to be really, really difficult to make it work in a way that even vaguely resembles the old version. If someone can help with the question above (and it may be really simple and obvious if you know) then I'll be a lot happier and grateful.