Linas.P

I totally see why this suggestion would make sense with one exception - the only cars to use similar layout are BMW i8, McLaren P1 and Ferrari LaFerrari, however they are Rear/Mid engine-rear wheel drive. Lexus is Front engined car, closer comparable with BMW 330/530e layout and what you will find in these - they have relatively small electric engines in the front. In summary I don't think there is enough space in LC to have both V8 and 2x100hp electric motors. The only other option is to go for TT V6 and 2, 3 or even 4 electric motors. Apart of obviously tight space upfront.. I cannot really come-up with much downsides... it could be argued that steering feel could suffer, but that is not really the case as all supercars above they all have excellent steering feel (from what I could gather) and LC500 "doesn't" ~in comparison by picky journalists. That said it would be logical step - it would improve acceleration in straight line, allow for further torque vectoring at the front and compensate for lack of torque on N/A motor down low. With 2x100hp electric motors would realistically be ~1200Nm (~300-400x2+500NM)

Thermostat maybe or temp sensor, generally it should rev higher when cold, then drop when it warms-up. However, if either sensor or thermostat is faulty is might take longer or forever. Secondly, I assume you have considered it is still pretty cold outside and any engine will take longer to warm-up compared to the summer?

Do you mean in addition to V8?

I know it is just a test mule, but those wheels looks just sooooo much better than wheels on LC... Lexus really put some ugly wheels on LC500... hopefully that will get fixed on LC-F. It would be great if the go for V10, but I know it is my mad dreams... surely it will be same V8 just with turbo...

That is something I have already pointed out, however in the video there are 2 major mistakes: 1. Nobody can force you to provide your data recorder data (that is unless its streamed in real time, or they have possession of your vehicle in which case they can "help themselves"). Currently, in UK there is no law which would force this, nor it is in the regulation itself. I am not saying it won't become the case, but based on fact this can be considered as scaremongering at the moment. 2. Cars already records a lot of data, including GPS data. In fact most of the new cars as of today can record and send such data, the only difference is that currently it is not legal requirement for new cars across Europe, but data recorder are there already and in some cases are already being used again drivers in the court. And I am not talking about Tesla here - some Seat from 1995 will have enough data in ECU to get you prosecuted e.g. speed at the time airbag has deployed. As I have previously mentioned, the issue is not with data recording (every Lexus woudl have that already), but with who can access it, when and why. I remember watching some UK police "reality show" and there was a deadly crash involving 2003 Renault Megane RS, in that case driver has died after crashing into back of the lorry, but the amount of the data police was able to retrieve from the car was staggering. In that case they only proven that car was doing 83MPH when airbags sensor was triggered, as well as data in milliseconds when brake has been pressed and when ABS has been triggered, even though actual airbags and ABS have been removed. In case driver would have survived and somebody would have been injured in the car in front, same data would have been used against the driver. I think for this particular example it is probably good police had access to the data, but in cases where data would be shared without us knowing and "big brother" would be watching and issuing automatic fines every-time you go 1 mile over the limit would be annoying.

Rare opportunity and price is not too bad: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223469708412?ul_noapp=true

I found Audi name ironic - Audi A5 Black Edition aka you see only this from behind: On the other hand as much as diesels are bashed here is the practical reason why Lexus already lost the battle before even starting: Price: £45,800 > £41,755 Power/torque: 220bhp* (in practice ~175)/N/A > 187bhp/400Nm 0-60mph: 8.2 seconds > 7.4 seconds Top speed: 118mph > 150mph CO2/tax: 114g/km/£440 > 118g/km/£450 Reality is that as much as goverment barks, they only care about VED income and give no **** about the pollution, then blames motorists... £10 difference for road tax between "dirty" diesel and hybrid - you serious? So not only Audi is £4000 cheaper, more powerful, faster but as well it costs same to tax.

Yes and then some smart-*** going to explain that this is not a "ROAD TAX", this is NFTART or whatever and one paying it still has no say of how it is spent on the roads or otherwise. This is plainly stupid - we pay for a service, it is no different as paying for internet or water. You pay the bill and if service is junk, say internet doesn't work or water is not running you claim refund. We pay for the road, but when they are littered with pot holes, not fit for purpose and infested with hell knows what - we being told that " we do not pay for the roads so should not get upset about it"... outrageous. I hope one day British going to start acting like French... there is not other way but riots.. maybe then this nonsense going to end.

if you look closely, you can literally see that interior materials are generally the same in Toyota Avalon as is in Lexus ES:

nooooo... the intelligent speed limiter, which would have prevented them going over 70MPH... that would have helped a lot. Because, I am sure everyone were doing 128MPH on that snow.. hence carnage!

Same here, when I started attending primary school we had what would roughly translate into "safety on the streets" class... bear in mind we were allowed to commute to the schools on our own... being supervised by parents after 1st week was considered shameful. I remember kids literally being bullied for it i.e. "you cry baby, your parents still walks you to the school". I think we had safety class as very first thing when we started the school and then it was once a month for the first year and it would be various activity related to the topic, but adapted to kids, like watching a film explaining dangers on the road and how to act properly, or we would have police officer to come and talk with us, or visit "road safety museum" or finally filling some kids test on road safety. Simple things overall, like graphically showing the injuries to catch kids attention, or explaining to look around when crossing the street, do not run over pedestrian crossings, stop for a second before stepping onto pedestrian crossing to see if cars are slowing down for you (especially true in the dark and unlit roads), wear reflective accessories, dismount from the bicycle when crossing pedestrian crossing etc. etc. Literally, I don't think that here people realise they have any responsibilities when it comes to road safety - everything is drivers fault and pedestrians/cyclists have no responsibilities to stay safe themselves. Later we had safety training for cycling, because I believe there used to be a law that you are only allowed to cycle on the road if you 18 and have secondary education or if you are 14 and have safety training... it was mandatory. I know in UK you can still have "cycling proficiency" training, but it is optional. When it comes to drivers licenses - yes training it is not enough, but on the other hand if there any place to put the blame - drivers seems to be the only ones who have mandatory training at all. How anyone expects this to work when half of the road users have no formal training at all?! I feel that early training and basically "indoctrination" of the sense that "road is not a playground" later reflects on the driving culture as well i.e. culture is set, getting driving license only gives you technical knowledge of what signs means etc.

Indeed there is a difference in likelihood of causing damage on bicycle compared with a car. However, at least in my opinion when damage is caused the responsibility for the accident should be the same. As said before causing death is causing death regardless how you caused it... maybe more relevant example would be simple scrape across the side of the other car?! If I scrape the side a car and cause £300 damage to the door (say, there is scratch and door needs to be painted), then there is no difference if I scraped it in another car, on the motorbike, on the bicycle or in 12ton truck? Right? When it comes to lumping cyclist into the same pot - how it is different from lumping motorists into one pot? However, if you observe busy intersection I am sure you will find that there will be 1 car per hour jumping red lights and perhaps 3 cyclists every second. Obviously, the numbers are just an example, but cyclist jumping lights are so common... it doesn't seems to be considered an offence anymore, certainly it is not enforced in anyway. And yes not every cyclist jumps every light, but most cyclists jumps most lights... maybe that is just in London... I haven't observed lights anywhere else. "Cycling is a transport of choice across the social spectrum." - well that spectrum represents 1% of population and is often referred to as "Lycra warriors" and before somebody claims any offence points - "Lycra warriors" are official cycling team name and the name used by cyclists themselves. Other one is "Mamil"... Anyhow - average cyclist in London is very different from say ones in Copenhagen. It is often more about "making a point" and not just commuting... I think that is because the laws are partial and when you are almost untouchable by the law I understand there is temptation to take a **** from everyone else. That is why I think the law and the rules should be made equal - in many ways that would help cycling culture as well. One other point... and probably more related to the topic - extra training for drivers is needed as well. And it is hard one, because it is not "technical" training which is lacking... is is kind of culture which currently very poor in UK compared to most other European countries. It is very hard to judge, but for me it feels British drivers are generally too relaxed and ignorant. Is not that people don't know the rules, but somehow many are not bother to really follow them. Even simple things like indicating, changing the lanes where appropriate, making sure other driver is letting you in when changing lanes or pulling in. Maybe a way is to have more police on the roads, pulling people over for minor infractions and giving warnings... I don't know maybe that is the way? Because now people are basically driving from "camera to camera" i.e. when it comes passing speed camera they temporarily behave themselves and then continue driving as they pleased.. That.. I think it would be more useful then implementing "smart" speed limiters...

But as a matter of fact they are... why law should "differentiate the difference" - are you saying promoting cyclist is good enough reason to allow cyclists to act in the way which would be punishable offence for anyone else? What happened with notion that everyone should be treated equally by the law? Or you simply acknowledging fact that the law discriminates motorists?... in which case I agree. As for speeding... probably not a single one, because most are simply not capable to reach posted speed, never mind exceed it. That is part of the problem perhaps why... How many were done for jumping red lights vs. how many actually jumped red lights?

That article specifically quoted "killed by cyclists", that implies fault of cyclists. Rather than "died as result of being hit by cyclists", which would imply it could have been fault of pedestrians themselves. How many death on roads were suicides? Why don't you want to answer simple question - why cyclist has to be treated differently for causing death?

Not all deaths on tracks were suicides and by the way that is not even my point - the death occurring due to accidents on the road i.e. 1792 are not all drivers fault. Yet you still cannot provide any reason why cyclist has to be treated any differently for causing death?

Yes - falls killed more people than all road casualties... period. when we are planning to ban ladders?

Not sure what is your problem with me asking for cyclists to be treated same as motorists when it comes to rules and laws? Secondly, as per your previous post - "onus on the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle" is not the same as driver of such vehicle being at fault. For example, there were 337 fatalities on the railways, but how many train drivers were at fault of that? https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/39103/rail-safety-statistics-2017-18.pdf

No - it is you who compares "someone sat in the seat of a 2000kg steel cage with someone sat on a 10Kg bicycle" i.e. the "tool". What I am comparing is death with death i.e. the result.

And you comparing apples with oranges... + do not adjust for usage. 1792, that is total number killed including those 3 killed by cyclists and doesn't even mean it was fault of driver. These will include people jumping of the bridges onto motorway, drivers dying from heart attacks etc. The statistics for actual numbers of death caused by drivers at fault is very hard to come by, obviously everyone like to quote the total number because that helps the narrative (regardless of how tiny it is compared to other causes). For example I have found that in Scotland there were 31 death caused by dangerous or careless driving in 2016, during the same period total road deaths were 175. I cannot find same statistics for UK, but I just want you to understand that 1792 is not people killed by drivers. Anyway - do you agree that one should receive same prison sentence for killing the person, regardless of what they used to kill?

Doesn't matter - death is death. The question - is the law equal and fair here? And the answer is - NO! 1700 road death is not equal 1700 people killed by motorist - this is just the number of people who died, some of them due to their own fault. Furthermore, this is not even comparable because cars covers 78% of distance travelled, whereas bicycles covers only 1%. Putting this in perceptive 3 pedestrians killed by cyclist on average would be comparable to 234 death caused by cars and the number has double in last 10 years: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestrians-fatally-seriously-injured-cyclists-has-doubled/ This just proves cycling offences is not currently treated same as driving offences and that is wrong: "Given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences and that is why we are carrying out a review to improve all elements of cycle safety, including looking at the case for a new offence, equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving." What I am NOT saying is that cycling is as dangerous as driving, however that does not justify applying double standards. Obviously, if cyclist would have to have insurance it would not cost £700 like for the driver, it may be £45 or something like that i.e. relative to the risk they pose, but nevertheless they should be treated the same. I do agree as well, in theory the speed cameras can reduce the deaths on the roads, but I haven't seen speed camera near the school for a long time, most of them are on motorways - specifically the safest roads there are. Either they fail miserably, or they never mean to make traffic moving. Kind of logical - same road with 70MPH limit will have higher capacity than with 40MPH limit. Take for example same M1 I used previously - look at junctions where "smart" motorway starts and you will see that during rush hours they are always marked as yellow/red compared with the junctions without "smart" motorway. The only time "non-smart" junctions are marked as yellow/red is when there is an accident or closure. Secondly, going back to my quote of "fit for volume and purpose" - "smart" motorway is kind of way to play this around i.e. "this is road with variable speed"... NO! It is 70MPH motorway which doesn't meet the "volume and capacity" criteria, hence you have to limit the speed on motorway leading towards it to 40MPH to keep it moving. Again 33 extra billions would be enough to clear all the bottlenecks for years to come.

I said not that legality can be argued, but legitimacy... if you don't know the difference between the two then what can I say... Technically legal or legal is the same thing. I use the term "technically legal" when the action is not in "spirit of law" i.e. speeding fine cannot be enforced because penalty charge notice has not been issued in time. Or that cyclist can still cycle on the road even in cases where there is dedicated and segregated cycling path on the side... Or that cyclist cannot be prosecuted for causing death due to dangerous and careless driving, because dangerous and careless driving only applies for motorised vehicles. Instead cyclist has to be prosecuted based on some archaic law meant for horse and carriage. Other part of rule of law is that law should apply equally... As judge in the case pointed out: “This case has clearly and evidently demonstrated there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end, tells us there is a gap.” ... driver in comparable case for "causing death by dangerous driving" would have received immediate sentence of ~4-6 years and there are now proposals to make it life sentences ,not 18 months. That doesn't sound equal for me... death is death in the end, doesn't matter you killed person whilst cycling or driving. The reason I am not ashamed posting burning speed cameras which is "technically criminal damage" is because I do not see their use as legitimate - they are just legal. Legitimacy of of them has been argued on the basis of making roads safer and reducing deaths, but the statistics has shown that there are no links between introduction of speed cameras and reduction of deaths, neither on the particular road, nor overall. This can be easily explained by camera placements - they are never installed in the places where roads are narrow and dangerous, because drivers do not speed on these roads, instead they are placed on the wide, straight roads where speed limits are set unreasonably low thus guaranteeing "good returns on investment". Obviously, this not reduces death or accidents - because it never meant to do it, it has only ever meant to generate revenue. Nowadays we have enough evidence to prove speed cameras does not work, but goverment keeps installing them - that for me is definition of "illegitimate" use. The online article title where I have taken the picture from reads - "Public Applauds Speed Camera Burning"... well I guess I am not the only one doubting their legitimacy.

Because it is good source of money, "dumb" smart motorways just makes traffic worse, but what they generate instead is massive income. It is a fact that average free-flowing traffic speed now is 82MPH on motorway (or was in 2016 anyway, ONS). 82 is generally fine where limits are 70, but when those limits suddenly changes to 40MPH without any valid reason.. that makes a massive fine! When M1 was "upgraded" to be dumb... I mean "smart" the number of fines increased 6 fold. Before they installed the new cameras there were 1700 fines issues a month, after installation 8300, 91% of which were for speeds between 40-70MPH. Obviously, when you read news articles they fail to note that before introduction of such cameras 7500 of those fined would have been driving below national limit. What they quote instead? The single instance where the guy was prosecuted for doing 128MPH.. and then they claim cameras are there "not to generate revenue"... yeah sure. 1:19 in the video is the most ridiculous example. The green car is hogging the outside lane in 4 lane motorway doing 120km/h, which is offence in itself - clearly driving in wrong lane. The yellow car have to brake to avoid collision, but it is instead done for tailgating, and the grey SUV doing legal 130km/h is done for illegal overtaking. What they suppose to do in this situation - all stick in the outside lane at 120km/h, or make a wall of car moving at 120km/h... ?! I think soon the only solution not to feed the vultures is going to be this: or this:

That is quite big claim to make, but on the other hand when it come to very crude basic parts like brake discs or pads which require no high-end technology to make I would not be surprised. Like what is the actual difference between Brembo disc and no name one?! Brembo has the part code laser engraved on the back... well guess what - laser engraver is like $100 in China. Boxes for such "generic" items are often low quality even on original parts so it takes nothing to fake them as well. We know for a fact there are loads of fake Bosch and Denso spark plugs, so why not pads and discs? Maybe the only reservation I have - whenever that is ECP at the corporate level or is it rather some disgruntled employee in warehouse receiving minimum wage on 0 hour contract and swapping some parts with fakes ( ora shift supervisor with couple of employees). I reckon it is latter, because ECP would be shut for good if corporations like Brembo, Denso or Bosch would find out.

I would never ever buy anything from ECP for their list price. They list price is literally 30% on to of anything else, but when you get 50% of from 130% price, that is still quite reasonable discount of 35% in the end. Secondly, I am not getting overly excited bout their prices and even with discounts only buying in case I really need something. And if I need something, but I am not desperate, then as you said ECP will have 50-60% discount at least once a month.

Yes Tesla is odd one... It is "techy" car but not really "luxury", the only thing which makes people call it luxury is the price i.e. based on price it goes directly against MB/BMW/Lexus high-end models, like M5 or AMG. Obviously, you as well get performance bonus, but Tesla is not actually "luxury" car, nothing about it is luxury. It used to be maybe exclusive, but even that is fading with the days - Model 3 best selling car in US period. As well to note, it is not only Tesla interior which is extremely poorly built and I don't just mean not as good as Lexus... or not as good as BMW... it is worse than a Dacia... this is one rare times I am not even over-saturating. I literally got scared every-time I close Tesla doors from inside, they literally feel like they going to fall a part right now. And even things like body panels aliment are terrible - on the car on the showroom floor one side of the bonnet 12mm gap, other 4mm gap, rear doors drooping by 10mm, literally by the width of chrome trim highlighting the window line. Paint full of dust, orange peel like from the spray can and the bottom of the door even had ~not like run, but sort of extra tick paint on the edge where it solidified. Again, you would not find such shoddy finish on Dacia - yes cars nothing fancy, but they do not have literally defects out of factory. The only cars I know new to have such poor quality are those Chinese knock-offs and even those are getting better nowadays. Don't want to be totally negative as there are parts of Tesla which really are bleeding edge advanced, bet that same drive-train with crazy acceleration or first mainstream car with autopilot... but the build quality is not their strength.