Why do pedestrians

On 17/07/2016 00:35, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 23:27:06 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

Nothing you wrote previously implied that you had price linkage in mind.

Big cars usually cost more.

In any case, it's a mostly a marketing issue considering that engine
capacity doesn't cost anything.

Really? Why do cars with bigger engines cost more then? Could it be
they also need uprated brakes, wheels, tyres, suspension, steering,
gearbox, etc, etc?

The price the customer pays for a car has very little connection to
factory cost. In volume manufacturing many major parts are common across
models ranges; they don't buy 5000 type 1 parts and 5000 type 2 parts if
10000 type 1 parts would be cheaper. A manufacter's main profit is from
the mark up they can put on cosmetic features.

On 17/07/16 00:20, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:10:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/07/16 18:26, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:06:38 +0100, TMS320
On 14/07/16 20:27, James Wilkinson wrote:


Even my first car, an Austin Maestro 1.3 5 door hatchback,
was 750kg.

67bhp pulling 750kg? Very wishful thinking. Actually it was
900kg.

It was my car, I know what it weighed.

How did you weigh it?

By reading a plate under the bonnet.

It's not the figure in the brochure. Are you relying on memory or
looking at a photo of it? Even a mk 1 Escort weighed more than your figure.

Modern cars approaching each other don't miss by a cat's whisker.
If they both move over a bit, there's room for a bicycle.

It depends on road width, doesn't it? Lots of roads don't have a centre
line. Even some roads with a centre line are a tight fit for two lardy
cars, even before a bicycle comes into view.

Imagine two lorries approaching each other, they can pass on most
roads without using the verge. Modern cars aren't as wide as
lorries.

With "most" being a reducing number as cars have got wider.

And why do you say modern car? There have always been wide cars
available,

The Volvo 240 was narrower than a current Focus.

Today I was cycling along a single track road. An old Bentley (from the
Rolls Royce era) came towards me. A big car in its day but looked
remarkably small by today's standards.

in fact I'd say the current fad is to make little economical cars you
can't fit anything inside except two dwarfs, and if they have kids
older than 3 in the back, the suspension can't handle it.

"Little" economical cars used to be smaller and had less weight carrying
capacity.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:15:07 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/07/16 00:20, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:10:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/07/16 18:26, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:06:38 +0100, TMS320
On 14/07/16 20:27, James Wilkinson wrote:


Even my first car, an Austin Maestro 1.3 5 door hatchback,
was 750kg.

67bhp pulling 750kg? Very wishful thinking. Actually it was
900kg.

It was my car, I know what it weighed.

How did you weigh it?

By reading a plate under the bonnet.

It's not the figure in the brochure. Are you relying on memory or
looking at a photo of it? Even a mk 1 Escort weighed more than your figure.

Memory, I wrote it off in 2002 ish. I can't believe a car that small has to weigh an entire tonne.

Modern cars approaching each other don't miss by a cat's whisker.
If they both move over a bit, there's room for a bicycle.

It depends on road width, doesn't it? Lots of roads don't have a centre
line. Even some roads with a centre line are a tight fit for two lardy
cars, even before a bicycle comes into view.

All roads I've ever seen with a centre line can easily have two buses pass each other. Two large cars can pass leaving room for a bicycle.

Imagine two lorries approaching each other, they can pass on most
roads without using the verge. Modern cars aren't as wide as
lorries.

With "most" being a reducing number as cars have got wider.

Cars are defined by law, you can't just make wider and wider cars.

And why do you say modern car? There have always been wide cars
available,

The Volvo 240 was narrower than a current Focus.

The Volvo 240 was not supposed to be wide, it was supposed to be long.

Today I was cycling along a single track road. An old Bentley (from the
Rolls Royce era) came towards me. A big car in its day but looked
remarkably small by today's standards.

Big is not specific. It could be long, or larger inside because it doesn't have all the side impact safety **** we have nowadays.

in fact I'd say the current fad is to make little economical cars you
can't fit anything inside except two dwarfs, and if they have kids
older than 3 in the back, the suspension can't handle it.

"Little" economical cars used to be smaller and had less weight carrying
capacity.

How long ago is "used to be"? Because old small cars we see now (around 10 years old) certainly can't carry much weight. In fact 5 adults bottoms them out. I've often seen a car with 5 teens/20s blokes in it sunk right down.

--
It's always funny, until someone gets hurt...
then it's just hilarious.

On 21/07/16 16:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:15:07 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/07/16 00:20, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:10:57 +0100, TMS320
wrote:
On 15/07/16 18:26, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:06:38 +0100, TMS320

On 14/07/16 20:27, James Wilkinson wrote:


Even my first car, an Austin Maestro 1.3 5 door
hatchback, was 750kg.

67bhp pulling 750kg? Very wishful thinking. Actually it was
900kg.

It was my car, I know what it weighed.

How did you weigh it?

By reading a plate under the bonnet.

It's not the figure in the brochure. Are you relying on memory or
looking at a photo of it? Even a mk 1 Escort weighed more than your
figure.

Memory, I wrote it off in 2002 ish. I can't believe a car that small
has to weigh an entire tonne.

Not a lot to go on. I shall continue to use documented values.

Modern cars approaching each other don't miss by a cat's whisker.
If they both move over a bit, there's room for a bicycle.

It depends on road width, doesn't it? Lots of roads don't have a
centre line. Even some roads with a centre line are a tight fit
for two lardy cars, even before a bicycle comes into view.

All roads I've ever seen with a centre line can easily have two buses
pass each other. Two large cars can pass leaving room for a bicycle.

Either your travels cover a very restricted set of roads or
you're very unobservant. Just a Corsa van here.
https://goo.gl/maps/hSTQGTZ1UMK2

Cars are defined by law, you can't just make wider and wider cars.

Cars used to be less than the law allowed and have grown towards what is
allowed.

And why do you say modern car? There have always been wide cars
available,

The Volvo 240 was narrower than a current Focus.

The Volvo 240 was not supposed to be wide, it was supposed to be
long.

It is very unlikely that "let's make it narrow" appeared in any design
discussions. And it is no longer possible to buy a car with those
proportions.

Today I was cycling along a single track road. An old Bentley
(from the Rolls Royce era) came towards me. A big car in its day
but looked remarkably small by today's standards.

Big is not specific. It could be long, or larger inside because it
doesn't have all the side impact safety **** we have nowadays.

Something that can be easily measured is very specific.

in fact I'd say the current fad is to make little economical
cars you can't fit anything inside except two dwarfs, and if they
have kids older than 3 in the back, the suspension can't handle
it.

"Little" economical cars used to be smaller and had less weight
carrying capacity.

How long ago is "used to be"?

The lard picked up about 15 years ago.

Because old small cars we see now (around 10 years old) certainly
can't carry much weight. In fact 5 adults bottoms them out. I've
often seen a car with 5 teens/20s blokes in it sunk right down.

5 people each weighing 80kg plus fuel will overload many cars. It
doesn't mean the cars are deficient or that capability has reduced.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:20:59 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/07/16 16:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:15:07 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/07/16 00:20, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:10:57 +0100, TMS320
wrote:
On 15/07/16 18:26, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:06:38 +0100, TMS320

On 14/07/16 20:27, James Wilkinson wrote:


Even my first car, an Austin Maestro 1.3 5 door
hatchback, was 750kg.

67bhp pulling 750kg? Very wishful thinking. Actually it was
900kg.

It was my car, I know what it weighed.

How did you weigh it?

By reading a plate under the bonnet.

It's not the figure in the brochure. Are you relying on memory or
looking at a photo of it? Even a mk 1 Escort weighed more than your
figure.

Memory, I wrote it off in 2002 ish. I can't believe a car that small
has to weigh an entire tonne.

Not a lot to go on. I shall continue to use documented values.

I can't be absolutely sure about the car (95%), but I am about the weight. I did see "750kg" on a VIN plate under the bonnet of one car I had.

Modern cars approaching each other don't miss by a cat's whisker.
If they both move over a bit, there's room for a bicycle.

It depends on road width, doesn't it? Lots of roads don't have a
centre line. Even some roads with a centre line are a tight fit
for two lardy cars, even before a bicycle comes into view.

All roads I've ever seen with a centre line can easily have two buses
pass each other. Two large cars can pass leaving room for a bicycle.

Either your travels cover a very restricted set of roads or
you're very unobservant. Just a Corsa van here.
https://goo.gl/maps/hSTQGTZ1UMK2

So you found a tiny little B road without much traffic. Anyway, two of those vans, shove them over a bit, a cyclist can fit also.

Cars are defined by law, you can't just make wider and wider cars.

Cars used to be less than the law allowed and have grown towards what is
allowed.

AFAIK a lot of American cars cannot get registered here, and never could have.

And why do you say modern car? There have always been wide cars
available,

The Volvo 240 was narrower than a current Focus.

The Volvo 240 was not supposed to be wide, it was supposed to be
long.

It is very unlikely that "let's make it narrow" appeared in any design
discussions.

Why not? Easier to get into parking spaces.

And it is no longer possible to buy a car with those
proportions.

Because of all the side impact ****e.

Today I was cycling along a single track road. An old Bentley
(from the Rolls Royce era) came towards me. A big car in its day
but looked remarkably small by today's standards.

Big is not specific. It could be long, or larger inside because it
doesn't have all the side impact safety **** we have nowadays.

Something that can be easily measured is very specific.

If you measured it, you would have given me a dimension. Big could be any of several.

in fact I'd say the current fad is to make little economical
cars you can't fit anything inside except two dwarfs, and if they
have kids older than 3 in the back, the suspension can't handle
it.

"Little" economical cars used to be smaller and had less weight
carrying capacity.

How long ago is "used to be"?

The lard picked up about 15 years ago.

So you're referring to cars made before 2001. Ok, I was referring to a 2000 Corsa 3 door hatch.

Because old small cars we see now (around 10 years old) certainly
can't carry much weight. In fact 5 adults bottoms them out. I've
often seen a car with 5 teens/20s blokes in it sunk right down.

5 people each weighing 80kg plus fuel will overload many cars. It
doesn't mean the cars are deficient or that capability has reduced.

It means that someone could be driving the car unsafely without any luggage. Therefore the car should not have been type approved, or had some seats taken out.

--
If you feel tired, pull off at the motorway services -- Highway Code, UK.
How's that going to help?!?