Treewolf

If I recall correctly that is the safety catch for the rope release lever and does only stick out on one side, it's flush on the other. You'd press that in in order to be able to move the release lever backwards (towards the anchor point) to release the rope and allow it to be pulled through towards the load. It should pop out again when you push the rope release forward to re-engage the jaws and grip the rope. It should stick out on one side only, but be flush on the other. When pressed (against an internal spring) it will stick out on the normally flush side. if you look at the video in the link on page 4 of this thread, especially at around the 5m24s mark, you can see clearly what is inside the box at this point. It does look as though there is something amiss with yours, I'm afraid. That does look to be a fairly old machine, I think,

Big difference on VED, for a Defender it's the difference between £270 and £580 pa at present. If you don't 'fess up to the change then it's not tax avoidance (which is legal), it's tax evasion, which is illegal. If you get caught, expect uncomfortable penalties from HMRC. Remember also that your insurance will look for any excuse not to pay out, and undeclared modifications are way up their list of exciting discoveries. That also probably means you're legally uninsured. Then of course there are the type approval aspects, which require that any seats fitted are of a type which has been type approved and fitted in a type approved way, otherwise you'll require SVA. It really isn't a good idea even to think about it nowadays. Those days are over.

That puts it into perspective very well. It's also around £3k for every UK taxpayer.

Remember though that the max gross weight you can tow on a ball (or for that matter with over-run brakes) is 3.5 tonnes, so a ball & pin hitch with a 4 tonne rating can still only tow 3.5 tonnes gross on the ball, but can tow 4 tonnes gross on the pin with coupled brakes.

Yes, this is normal on a Puma (and 2008 will be a 2.4 Puma). It is a feature known as "idle jack" which has the effect of raising the tickover speed of the engine when (a) the t-box is in low range, (b) the clutch is in, and (c) there is no throttle input from the pedal. The reason it was implemented is because it was found during testing that first gear low range was so low that engine braking on steep loose descents was sufficient to break traction and cause a loss of control. The "solution" was to raise the idle speed and hence reduce the amount of engine braking. It can be a minor inconvenience under certain circumstances (such as precision manoeuvring of a trailer) but generally is just one of those things you get used to after a while. Landrover forums are full of people asking how to turn it off, but there is no practical way to do so. The engine ECU doesn't use the high/low switch to determine the transfer gear, it does this based on matching engine and road speed, so really the only way to stop it is to do an ECU hack. Then of course you'd have the "problem" that idle jack was intended to overcome. You will also find that, as in all post-TD5 Defenders and Discos, the mapping of throttle pedal deflection to fuel delivery changes in low range, so a greater movement of the pedal is needed for the same rev increase compared to high range. You do get used to it after a while, but it is odd when you first drive a Puma after an earlier Defender.

It's hard to understand how they ever thought that that would work! The bloke with the saw looks completely unconcerned afterwards when he walks out into the road, I'm not convinced he was even aware that a cyclist had had such a near miss. Unbelievable!

I said it in the very first reply! It doesn't matter what the pated weight of the trailer is, provided that the actual weight doesn't exceed the maximum allowable towed weight for the vehicle. Nearly 7 pages of red herrings and piffle later we still have the same conclusion. "Justme" - thank you for also talking sense!

It is not an offence provided that the gross weight of trailer and load does not exceed 1800kg, and the overall gross train weight does not exceed the gross train weight allowed for the vehicle.

This may be a question that everyone else knows the answer to, but I don't.... If you are a freelance self employed climber, is the provision of appropriate rescue arrangements down to you (as you are your own employer) or the outfit you are contracted to?

Under the circumstances described I'd be inclined to rig a pair of single or double sheave becketted blocks for a two or four part pull and use a long rope pulled manually. Pulling up a near vertical slope there shouldn't be too much to snag, and since the cut parts are to be wheelbarrowed away they can't be too heavy. Looking on eBay you can buy a brand new double-sheave block (ship's style) for around £20, and I would have thought, bearing in mind the proximity to the coast and fishing boats, second hand blocks wouldn't be hard to find. It's not a commercial operation and no-one is underneath the pull, so LOLER etc isn't an issue. I have to say that I greatly admire the OP's determination and effort, and I only hope that when I retire I am as fit as he clearly is! Repeatedly pulling logs up a 30m slope with a Tirfor - the thought alone makes me hurt! I'd consider it for a single log if it was worth it, but repeatedly, no way!

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!