Treewolf

Wow, has it really been a year? Time flies. Glad he's doing ok.

You have rats that can build a hospital ?!

There is actually a very sound reason for this. By law a speedo is not allowed to under-read, but can over-read by up to 10%. It would be very expensive to make a speedo which was exactly accurate (some Police cars have calibrated speedos), but it is realtively simple and cheap to make a speedo which is +/-5%. If you made one which was spot on but +/-5% it would fail Type Approval, since it might under-read by 5% (illegal). However if you design it to over-read by 5% to start with, and then it is accurate to +/-5%, it will actually be +10%/-0% on true speed, which is legal. With modern manufacturing, the majority of speedos will be more accurate that the guaranteed tolerances, so most will over-read.

I have heard of a Police motorcyclist whose licence came back ... with the motorcycle entitlement removed! Apparently he had one hell of a job getting it back! I was lucky enough to be able to take my full car test well before it became complicated, and then go straight to HGV Class 1. It was so much simpler then. I don't really understand why it is that as the tests and licences have become so much more complicated, the standard of driving seems to have become so much worse! Surely the whole idea is that the standard should go up. On a different note, how do all these holidaymakers now get away towing small cars on "A" frames behind huge motorhomes? My understanding is that an "A" frame is legal only for recovering a broken-down vehicle to the nearest place of safety, and not for anything else. These cars all have a MAM in excess of 750kg so need fully performing autoreverse brakes on all wheels, and then there's the small problem that you can't reverse a vehicle on an "A" frame because the steering goes doolally. Yet they seem to get away with it in large numbers! Thanks to JustMe for starting this thread and for handling so many questions is such a helpful and patient way! This has become a very useful thread, despite the extreme wierdness in the early stages.

^^ That's right. As each block falls the first time is ends up resting *just* on the corner of the next one down the line. The last block falls a little further, so it is lying flat, which means that the last but one block then falls flat. When that happens, the one before falls off its edge, so that is it lying flat, so the one before that then falls, and so on. Much harder to describe in words than to do, and a very near trick. The key to making the system work is getting exactly the right spacing between the blocks. It is a very neat trick in deed, and the second run, where they fall flat, looks like witchcraft till you figure it out!

I'd try contacting tractel, details below:- Contact | TRACTEL® | United Kingdom

2" towballs used to be normal in the UK as well, but a long time ago (like back in the '60s and before). The first car I ever bought had one, a '66 Triumph 200 Estate. If I recall correctly, when the move to the standard metric 50mm coupling started to happen, the metric balls had to have a flat on the top with "50mm" stamped on it. I think even to this day that a metric 50mm towball has a flat on the top. If you have a ball with a round top, it probably isn't 50mm. Mismatching 2" and 50mm couplings can be deadly.

Not a tuning box, but a proper remap (from Bell Auto Services) made a massive difference to the drivability and general pleasure of driving. Totally transformed the vehicle. A-road hills that used to require 3rd now only need 5th. Stunning improvement.

It's more likely to be because they want to check that you still have a licence, since you could potentially have had it taken away in the intervening year. If a little bit of hassle helps prevent even more exorbitant insurance cost increases, I will settle for the inconvenience of provided details at renewal time!

I like that, very nice!

Yes, I really am really sure! In fact I am more sure even than that, I am completely certain.

It's more complex than "hire or reward", it affects you if you're carrying any load (with a very few exceptions) in connection with a trade or business, even if it's not your own trade or business. So even if you're not being paid or rewarded you may need a tacho. If you're towing a caravan which you're delivering for your mate who sells them, you need a tacho if over 3500kg GTW. It's a nightmare trying to stay legal nowadays!

We seem to have come full circle and arrived back where we started. There are in essence three broad types of vehicle recognised in UK law, these being "motor cars", "goods vehicles", and "dual purpose vehicles". These categories are defined by the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended). [Within some of these categories there are sub-categories, such as "heavy motor car" etc. Anything not in one of these categories can only be driven on the road by virtue of Special Types regulations.] If you drive a Landrover Defender, then irrespective of what it is used for, who owns it, how it is taxed, you are NOT driving a light goods vehicle, you are driving a Dual Purpose Vehicle. It may be taxed in a VED category called "N1 Light Goods" but it is not a light goods vehicle. Any vehicle which is a Dual Purpose Vehicle as defined in C&U(86) must be MOT tested as Class 4 and is subject to normal car-type speed limits. That is the law, to do anything else is illegal. It is true that a Class 7 MOT tests the same things but to a more rigourous standard tha Class 4, but if you lose income because your vehicle has failed a incorrectly-administered Class 7 test when it should have passed a Class 4 test, I imagine you could now sue the test station. Similarly if you have presented the vehicle for test and the test station has carried out and charged you for a Class 7 test when it should have been Class 4, they have overcharged you (or mis-sold you the test). You can argue the absurdity of the situation, but you cannot argue the facts of the situation. That was, IIRC, the intention at the time. The message given out to the trade was that we would be changing to the Euro style M1/N1 passenger / goods classification and DPV would be completely removed making it 'easier' to determine goods vehicle as based clearly on GVW/DGW. Unfortunately your selective quoting of my post is exactly the sort of thing which is propogating the myths on this subject, since it suggests that there was an intention to remove the DPV vehicle type definition from the C&U(86) regs. This has NEVER been the stated case, and DVSA and/or the DfT cannot do this - only an Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument can alter the C&U Regs. What DVSA proposed was a change to the MoT Test Regulations, which would have removed the provision that states that DPVs are tested as a seperate defined category. It would only have affected MOTs, it would not have affected speed limits, tachographs, drivers' hours, weight limits, type approval, or any of the other areas where DPVs are/were/may be treated differently and specifically.

That special notice has caused massive confusion at every level, and was one of the issues for which I sought specific clarification from DVSA (see my post much earlier in this thread). At present there is a potential probelm which testers face with DPVs, in that they have to know the unladen weight of the vehicle in order to determine if it is a DPV or not (for example two near identical 4x4 pickups, one has an unlande weight of 2030KG and therefore is a DPV and hence class 4 test, one has an unladen weight of 2045KG and therefore isn't a DPV and hence class 7 test). The problem that the tester faces is that the unladen weight is not recorded on any official database, so he cannot with certainty make the correct decision about test class. The current sitaution is that there is a specific permission from DVSA for him to test a vehicle which appears, based on his judgement, to be a DPV as though it legally definitely is a DPV. The special notice mentioned above was issued several years ago and announced that DVSA was soon to remove this specific permission, with the result that the tester could no longer rely upon his judgement alone and err in favour of the vehicle being a DPV. The reason given for the removal of this permission was an intention to remove the DPV classification from the MOT test regulations only, so that all DPVs would be tested as Class 7 Light Goods. Note, and this is very important, that this proposed change to the MOT regulations does not remove the DPV vehicle type definition, does not affect speed limits, or anything like that, it simply says that a DPV no longer gets tested as Class 4, it now gets tested as Class 7. The fact is however that the MOT test regulations have not yet been changed to remove the DPV Class 4 provision, and as a result the tester still has the authority of DVSA to test a vehicle which appears to be a DPV as a DPV, ie as Class 4. Bottom line, if your vehicle genuinely is a DPV, it should be tested as class 4. If your vehicle appears to be a DPV but could possibly be slightly over the unladen weight limit, the tester can still opt to test as class 4.

Nothing will happen, since (a) you were not committing and offence, and (b) DVSA/PNC does not hold records of unladen weights and hence cannot discriminate between a DPV and something which looks like a DPV but is too heavy to be one. Are you sure it was a speed check not a VED check?

I've re-ended Tirfor (and other griphoist) cables using the methods above on several occasions. Whip the rope tightly with wire about 2" on the good side of the last bit of damage, then cut the damaged end off with a cutting disk in an angle grinder (or a wire rope shear if you happen to have one lying around). Then weld the newly cut end into a blob, and shape with the grinder so that it has a fairly well pronounced chamfer on it. If need be reweld as you grind to ensure that all the strands are securely held in the weld. Finally remove the whipping. It isn't hard but can take a little practice. It is handy to have a new rope as an example of what you're aiming for when you do the first one. Remember that Tirfors and all other griphoist winches use special ropes, you can't just use any old wire rope with them.

Re the MOT, a goods vehicle with a design gross weight or GVW not exceeding 3000kg is Class 4, but one with a GVW over 3000kg but not exceeding 3500kg is Class 7. A DPV is not a goods vehicle at all in the eyes of the law (since DPV is a distinct category in its own right) and is Class 4 (but remember it must weigh less than 2040kg unladen and not exceed 3500kg laden). The problem is that it is not easy for the tester to determine whether a vehicle is a DPV or a GV in many cases since it depends on the unladen weight, which is not recorded anywhere. VOSA/DVSA at present allow MOT testers to test vehicles which appear to be DPVs as though they were known to be DPVs, ie the tester has an element of freedon of choice. This whole subject of MOT classes for DPVs is very widely misunderstood, and as a result I had a long correspondence with VOSA last year trying to get to the bottom of it. It turned out to be a long correspondence since I was asking questions to which VOSA simply did not know the answers, and they were having to refer to various specilaised "policy units" for answers! My questions specifically related to Defenders, but they are equally applicable for any DPV. The points on which I sought clarification included these, which are relevant to the earlier posts: 1) If a vehicle which is by law a Class 4 vehicle is tested improperly for whatever reason as a Class 7 vehicle, then, assuming that the vehicle passes the (improper) test, is it roadworthy and does it have a "valid MOT Test Certificate" as required by law? It is not inconceivable that a vehicle could pass a Class 4 test and yet fail a Class 7, for example, although I don't think that the reverse is true since the pass criteria for the Class 7 are more stringent. 2) When a vehicle is presented for test, whose responsibility is it that the correct Class of test is undertaken? It is very evident that most Defender owners don't actually know which MOT class should be applied (they accept what the test centre tells them) and equally no test centres actually know that the law says a LWB Defender is a DPV and therefore should be Class 4, they do what VOSA via the computer tells them. Yet there is no provision on the VOSA system to present the ULW and therefore VOSA cannot say whether a Defender is a DPV or not. This point is more important than it may at face value appear, since many other legalities depend on DPV status (such a speed limits) and yet the UK National registration authority simply has no idea whether most DPVs are legally DPVs or not. 3) How does the tester know which Class of test should be applied? 4) What weight information about a vehicle is recorded on DVSA/VOSA/other official systems? DVSA's eventual (written) reply included the following:- 1) Validity of test certificate. Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended states; 'A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence'. Only a court of law can give a legal definition of this. However, where we have identified vehicles which have been issued a certificate of the wrong class in the past we have only advised the owner/user to obtain the correct certificate. In your case the Class 7 test is more onerous than that of Class 4 so it has been tested to a higher standard than required. 2) Responsibility to identify the class of Vehicle. The responsibility lies with the tester based on the vehicle presented to him and any supporting evidence that is supplied and referring to test documentation i.e. testguide/manual. The reason it is down to the tester is that vehicles can be converted/modified which will have an effect on the unladen weight. 3) How does the tester know what class the vehicle is to be tested to. By using their experience and judgement based on the answer to question 2 above. If a tester believes that the test class that had previously been entered on the DVSA computer system is incorrect, the tester can enter a different class for the test he is about to complete. 4) What information about the vehicles weight is recorded on the DVSA database. The only weight that is recorded on the database is the weight used for the brake test calculation if it is required. This could be presented weight, design gross weight or the brake test weight on the vehicle specific information database currently supplied under a 3rd party contract depending on the class of vehicle and equipment used. That I think is as good a reply as you could hope for.

Remember that change only affected heavy goods vehicles, not light goods vehicles (and didn't apply to Scotland). Currently national max speed limits for single carriageways, dual carriageways, and motorways are as follows: - Cars and DPVs: 60/70/70 mph - Light goods: 50/60/70 mph - Heavy goods 50/60/60 mph A vehicle which is a DPV should always be tested as Class 4 for the MOT, not Class 7. When I asked my MOT tester why he had insisted on testing it as Class 7 despite it being a DPV, his response was "what's a dual purpose vehicle?" !! A short educational experience then followed, and he only charged me for a Class 4! Although generally it makes little difference, it is worth remembering that a Dual Purpose Vehicle is not legally a Goods Vehicle. They are separate and distinct things defined in the C&U regs. A DPV will generally now be Type Approved as N1, and taxed as N1, as will light goods vehicles, but the TA class and Tax class have no bearing on the actual vehicle type classification and speed limits. (For example, a 1949 Land-Rover is legally just as much a Dual Purpose Vehicle as a 2015 Defender, but its tax class will be Historic Vehicle. Until recently the predominent tax class was "Private/Light Goods", which included cars, DPVs, and goods vehicles under 3.5 tons GVW.) There's nothing like cutting red tape, and this is nothing like cutting red tape!

Does this look too good to be true? ELIET SUPER PROF MOBILE CHIPPER SHREDDER SELF DRIVE A very new-looking £10k+ shredder listed with a low starting bid, listed by someone with no feedback at all as a seller. Who chooses £543 as the starting price anyway? It smells to me like a scam.

If the Hilux has an unladen weight not exceeding 2040kg and has full-time or part-time all-wheel-drive, then it is a Dual Purpose vehcile and is subject to normal car spped limits. Check the unladen weight figure though, since trucks and 4x4s have been getting heavier of late. A quick Google suggests that the heaviest 2016 Hilux 4x4 double cab has a kerb weight of 2080kg. Since the kerb weight usually includes a driver (70kg usually) and a full tank of fuel, then the unladen weight must be under 2040kg, thus meaning that it is still a DPV. Be careful bolting too many goodies on though, since if they are bolted on they may be considered to increase the unladen weight (since they are not readily removable).

The situation is actually very simple: if your vehicle genuinely IS a Dual Purpose Vehicle as defined in the Road Vehciles (Construction and Use) Regulations (1986) (as amended) then it is subject to DPV speed limits, which are the same as a 'normal' car. If your vehicle is a goods vehicle, heavy or light, the it is subject to the appropriate reduced speed limits. There is much confusion on this subject, and I have heard first hand evidence that many speed awareness course "instructors" do not know the legal situation re. DPVs and consequently give misinformation. The definition of a Dual Purpose Vehicle is reasonably complex and very specific. To stand any chance of being a DPV the vehicle in question must have an unladen weight (note, unladen, not kerb weight or "Mass In Service" etc) which does not exceed 2040kg. Note also that DPV status and hence speed limits are not affected at all, and have no effect upon, vehicle taxation classes (the people who tell you that because your Defender is in the N1 tax class it is therefore subject to a reduced speed limit are talking complete rubbish).

Preheating the rod help a lot, I find. Also ensures that it is dry.

That's what I keep telling myself, the trouble is I can no longer remember what they are.

My radio of choice is the Entel HT series transceiver, which is available in a range of versions for Private Licenced radio frequencies as well as a version for PMR446 licence-free. They are expensive at around £200 per transceiver, but are very robust. They are also fully submersible, so not only does rain or the occasional dunking not matter, but you can wash them if they have got covered in crud. There are thousands of reasonable cheap PMR446 transceivers available now, varying from kiddy play quality to top-of-the-range units like the Entel HT446.

Anyone have a view on the Eliet Neo electric shredders? How do they compare to the Bosch etc?