waveydavey

Bloody hell that's tiny. :) Cheers Dave.

That's the stuff i've been using for about 4 years now and it works a treat. Never gone more than something like 20% at the very most and on the odd occasion it has frozen up, (Basically only this last two winters), It's started working again after about 5 or 10 mins of the engine running. Out of interest anyone know what size the washer bottle is on the IS??? And is it a different size on IS's with headlight washers than on the one's without??? I know on the Fabia vRS, which i had, the cars with factory fit xenons had an 8 litre washer tank compared to the normal 5 litre tank because of the extra water used by the headlight washers. Cheers Dave.

In all fairness you're not exactly going to see the damage i'm talking about in a picture like that are you?!?!?! As you say we'll beg to differ i just wanted to point out i'm not alone in thinking it'll more than likely cause damage to paintwork as per the AA and as i mentioned numerous other motoring and detailing sites / forums. I didn't want someone who didn't know any better trying something similar and then coming on here ranting at you cos it's damaged their car. :winky: Cheers Dave.

From the AA's website..... "Windscreen washer fluid should be topped up and treated with a proprietary additive to reduce the chance of freezing in frosty weather. Don't use ordinary engine antifreeze as it will damage paintwork." In response to your comment about it running off the car without going on the paintwork.... I think you'll find it would only do that when stood and if then aloud to stand for quite a while. When using your washers whilst driving the fluid will run the full length of your roof and onto your boot etc.... Why not do a google search for "anti freeze damage paintwork" and you'll find pages of info in various motoring and detailing forums saying how it damages the paintwork not initially but will leave dull marks where it has streaked along the roof etc... As you say it's your personal choice but not something i'd reccomend to others especially when it comes to resale value of your car if you find you have dull streaks all over the roof of your car.... And the bonnet around the jets where fluid normally dribbles out of the jets. Cheers Dave.

They aren't Irish. They are Northern Irish so are still UK plates issued by the DVLA which still have to be the same font and white / yellow as on the mainland. :winky: Cheers Dave.

FIL...... Just checked and your plate is a UK plate just not the mainland system..... It's from the Fermanagh area of Northern Ireland... Area code is xIL xxxx So it's 100% a letter I and not a number 1. :winky: Possibly worth swapping that plate with a 1 in it in case you pass any ANPR sites on your travels. I did read somewhere recently that the DVLA are considering bringing NI into line with the rest of the UK.... Not sure which letter they were going to assign as the area identifier.... Possibly U but not sure. Cheers Dave.

cheers dave1. just out of interest have you seen how tinted is legal??. i not joking either. legal tint is slightly less tinted than the standard tint in the back of a IS sport. So 1 shade darker than legal is about the same as a standard tint. I doubt any copper would even notice. very dark and one way tints i can see them pulling you for but seriously doubt they would even question my tints. A legal tint is like cling film its hardly even worth bothering with. Number plates now oyu mention them are very interesting. There was al sorts of stuff about them brought into the mot test,,,,,,,,,,, and then took straight out again. Again as above theres ways round stuff that police wont even notice. A customer of mine has a 81 bently t2. Hes been driving it around for 10 year with illegal black and silver non reflective pressed steelnumberplates on. Hes never even been stopped not once. Like i said before theres alot worse crimes out there, I know this is probably real bad thing to say but go catch a proper criminal. Sure you get my drift. Doing 33 in a 30 zone, slightly darker than allowed windows,2 minutes late back to your parking meter, 3/4 mm wrong space on your number plate, all wrong but not really a major crime doing anyone any harm are they. The Police have stopped me abotu my number plate,just otu of interest. THey cant decide what its ment to be. FIL 4362 is what its ment to be but they insist "i" isnt an issued letter in the uk and therefore my number plate has to be F1L 4362. THe problem with that is my number plate isnt an uk plate and isnt a 1. I now have FIL4362 on the front and F1L 4362 on the back or the other way round i cant remember now. Basicly now i have been stopped by every copper in the area they now leave me alone about the number plate. Not just the Lexus either i have had the number plate many years and had it on many cars. Yeah i was aware of the tint limit being very slightly darker than a normal car window. As for the plate if yours is a NI plate it is an I if not i'm not sure as you say could be either. :) Cheers Dave.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: lol Sorry, i couldn't resist. :winky: Cheers Dave.

FIL.... Don't come driving round South Yorkshire then. :winky: The boys in blue around here do test the tints with a bit of kit.... Light level meter??? and a mate fell foul 2 weeks ago. He's had to have them removed and had a fine as well. He's the third i know of in this area that's been stopped and has had the tints fail after testing by the coppers. Right who's for a discussion on number plate fonts??? :D Cheers Dave.

Fair play to yer..... I've also added something extra to my previous post regarding your second post.... Maybe we agree on something at least..... But that's all for another topic/thread maybe. :) Cheers Dave.

Who are you replying to??? Hasn't everything that's been copy and pasted above come from the "Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989"??? i.e. RVLR regs 25&27 The highway code is just quoting the RVLR 1989..... I've been quoting the RVLR 1989 itself everytime and not once the highway code. ***EDIT*** In response to your further post relating to police starting to fine people etc..... Sooner the better..... Along with illegal front tints (Even if they're 1-step over the legal limit) :winky:, Aftermarket HID kits in unchanged Halogen reflectors, Loud exhausts etc... Maybe then we may actually get the balls to start really punishing the more major traffic crimes of driving with no insurance or MOT etc.... Rather than the current couple of hundred quid fine or a short ban. (Hmmmm Let me think i can't afford my £1500 premium so shall i not bother with the car or shall i just wing it and maybe pay a couple of hundred quid fine.... Decisions decisions) Cheers Dave.

Sorry, but since when has the highway code been law???. guidelines now law. And 100 mtres is considered low vis???? you dont have to see that far to pass your test. So 100 metres is low vis if you cant see that far. Read a numberplate its about 25 metres away thats what i had to do on my test,so 100 metres is very very low vis !!!. The highway code may well give a definition of low vis but now explian to me how you measure that,acuratly and fairly. One man can see better than another. Unless you have some sort of machine for measuring it then the highway codes standard discription of when to use lights wont count anyway. Those are the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989.... Is that the highway code? Anyhow as per my link previously, From the sounds of it you haven't looked at it yet, which doesn't mention the highway code at all but, it would appear, was what The Transporter got his info from. This is how the info starts out. Doesn't look too much like the highway code to me.... STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1989 No. 1796 ROAD TRAFFIC The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 Made28th September 1989 Laid before Parliament11th October 1989 Coming into force1st November 1989 The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred by– (a)section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 1988(1), in so far as these Regulations revoke enactments having effect as if they had been made under that section; (b)section 41 as read with section 43 of that Act as regards all other provisions of these Regulations, and all other enabling powers, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 195 of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations:– Cheers Dave.

I can answer that question. Over the last few years, safety of people inside cars has been improved hugely, in the main because the publication of NCAP tests has meant that increased safety has become a good selling point. This is why pretty much all new cars now come with a 5-star rating - it's well worth the maker's time and money investing in getting this right. However, as a side-effect of this, the proportion of pedestrians being seriously injured or killed, as a proportion of all road-accident victims, has increased sharply. The EU therefore decided 'something must be done' and presented two options to the manufacturers - either make your cars less likely to injure pedestrians (soft bonnets, exterior airbags, no protruding bits etc) or make pedestrians better able to see you. For obvoius reasons, the manufacturers chose the latter option and as a result, DRL are becoming mandatory. On a personal note, I am deeply unhappy about this. I ride a motorcycle, for which DRL was made compulsory about 5 or 6 years ago, and so you cannot turn off the main headlight on any new motorcycle sold in the EU. For bikes, this is fine, as they are small and harder to spot, and also they are generally the only vehicles on the road with lights on during the day which makes them stand out. However now that every vehicle will have their lights on, bikes will become invisible. In every country where DRL are the norm (not just the Nordics, Hungary has been like this for many years) motorcycle accidents are much more common. Unfortunately, it seems that the government (and EU) is essentially completely at ease with literally sacrificing the lives of motorcyclists in order to save a few careless pedestrians. Further, I have no doubt whatsoever that the increase in deaths will be used to justify a later ban on bikes on the grounds of safety. :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: Yeah i've heard of that situation too in other motoring forums. What i would want to know is have the countries with similar rules already in place had cars with the new style DRL's or have they just been the normal dipbeam lights on at all times setup? I only ask as yes i agree that if all cars had their dipbeam on all the time a motorcycle would be harder to spot. In my personal opinion a motorcycle with its dipbeam headlight on would still stick out more if it was surrounded by cars with DRL's as long as the cars DRL's weren't their own dipbeam. At the moment i'm aware of only one manufacturer who use this method for the DRL's on some of their cars. (Volvo) All the other manufacturer's DRL's are just LED's or mainbeam lights at a vastly reduced voltage and so are in the middle ground between no lights and normal headlights. So if the existing countries cars have all been driving around with their normal headlights on all the time then it's not an equal/fair comparison to the NEW style DRL rulings. Boy this thread has changed again. :) Cheers Dave.

Anti-Freeze!!!!!!! :o I'm pretty certain it'd damage the paintwork and would never ever put it in the washer bottle..... Are you sure you don't mean the really concentrated screenwash???? Unless you're going for the McLaren bare metal bodywork look. :winky: Cheers Dave.

I also just found this regarding what the law says about the use of fog lights (front and rear) Just to muddy the waters a little more. :winky: The Law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 provide "Reg 27. No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type specified in an item in column 2 of the Table below is used in a manner specified in that item in column 3: Front fog lamp ( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road. ( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility. ( c ) Used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked. Rear fog lamp ( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to the driver of a following vehicle. ( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility. ( c ) Save in the case of an emergency vehicle, used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked." Cheers Dave.

Hmmm but then as per my last post the other end of the spectrum would then see old mrs Ena Sharples having to pay for four MOT tests each year as she keeps getting told her tyres are close to, but not yet, worn out and keeps getting a 3 month MOT...... Yeah she could fork out for a new set of tyres but why should she when with the use of that vehicle they could have over a years use left in them without becoming illegal. I see the point of view for the boy racer but there'll be too many other people needlessly affected too to stop it coming in as far as i'm concerned. Lets face it if they can't even sort out the issue of the prats on the road with no insurance and the like who hike up our insurance premiums each year then i don't think they'll manage an MOT that deals with the same chavs and their dodgy motors etc.... Cheers Dave.

But that does have it's flaws too.... You test a vehicle that has tyres with tread as you say how do you decide what length of time you give that vehicle before testing again?? You say three months in your example... One assumes that it would be an average but you'll still always get the prat who wears them out in a week at one end of the spectrum but then the old dear who only drives 5 or 10 miles a week max at 20 or 30mph and who would easily eek another year or so out of those tyres. Let's face it unless you have a crystal ball there's no way of saying how long a specific item on any car will last. You're only going to use an average and still not be able to safely say it will last that long as each situation is totally unique and can be affected by how the vehicle is used as well as individual manufacturing factors of the part/item itself. It is a good idea but obviously still doesn't sort anything out definitively. I do love how topics can morph from one subject to another..... And more often back again. Cheers Dave.

Yes the car comes with front foglights and they are the one's lit in the picture and used as DRL's. They are SMD/LED (4 units per light) and from the two i've seen personally on the roads are the normal foglight brightness unlike the Ford S-Max for example that has the halogen foglights lit but at around 20-30% brightness. That's the reason for the thread i mentioned above in the Skoda forum as it's the first VAG car to use this method for it's LED DRL's. Sorry for my geekyness on this subject but as i mentioned in the DRL thread on here i've come from 8 years of VAG ownership, (In fact our other car still is), where the DRL's have been commonplace for longer than other marques. :) Cheers Dave.

Just for reference regarding Foglights and DRL's being seperate things..... Attached below is the current Fabia vRS.... 4xSMD/LED's per foglight/DRL. :winky: I'm a member on the Skoda owners site Briskoda and there's already a thread asking if owners of the new vRS have been stopped by the coppers for having what looks like their front fogs on all the time. Also with regard the DRL's being the strips of LED's.... Not necessarily the case as per THIS POST of mine in a thread on here about DRL's. :winky: Cheers Dave.

I assume you've never driven at night in dense fog then.... By dense fog i mean visibility of around 5-10 yards or so and not the kind of stuff we've had this last week. Anyway i have done and have actually had to use them as designed... sidelights and foglights only... and wasn't the only person on those occasions to be doing so either. Mind you we were all doing about 30mph max on the M18 at around midnight so that probably tells you how foggy it was. :winky: Still doing 30 mph in the fog !! doesnt seem that foggy to me if you can do 30 mph. A road i am sure you know The snake pass?. i have been over the snake pass when its been so foggy i could see one cats eye infront of me and that was it. In the odd place were the cats eye was missing, it was guess work which way to go. I was driving about 10 mph So yes i have driven in the fog. That was about 3 years ago. I have only owned my Lexus 18 months or so. Before that i had an old c class merc the fog lights were in the head lights and were useless in that fog. I litrally had my head lights on and followed the cats eyes i could see through the fog and i drove down the middle of the road as i didnt fancy going over the edge when the odd cats eye was missing . Cheers Dave. As my post stated it was 30mph tops on the M18 motorway in fact an approx 5 mile long dead straight section, nothing to do with the Snake or Woodhead for that matter. :winky: The light from the xenons i had on that car was being reflected back reducing the already 10 yards max visibility down to nearer 5 yards as soon as i went to sidelights and fogs visibilty was back up to around 10 yards. Cheers Dave.

I assume you've never driven at night in dense fog then.... By dense fog i mean visibility of around 5-10 yards or so and not the kind of stuff we've had this last week. Anyway i have done and have actually had to use them as designed... sidelights and foglights only... and wasn't the only person on those occasions to be doing so either. Mind you we were all doing about 30mph max on the M18 at around midnight so that probably tells you how foggy it was. :winky: Cheers Dave.

Not if you own a Volvo V70 without xenons there isn't. My dad has a 59 plate one and the only difference between the normal all on volvo style lights and the DRL's on his car is that the tail lights don't light up when set as DRL's. The DRL's on the V70 are actually the normal dipbeam headlights. :winky: Cheers Dave.

Unfortunately converted foglights cannot qualify as DRLs because their height above the ground defines them as lights to only be used in conditions of reduced visibility due to fog. Running with either front or rear foglights in clear conditions is illegal - and worse than that lumps you in with those the police would love to persecute and other drivere recognise as nobs. hmmmm Manufacturers use the foglight position as DRL's though..... Ford S-Max and New Skoda Fabia vRS come to mind. Cheers Dave.

What annoys me is when you see a car with the foglights on and it's a car that you know it's impossible to just switch your lights on and the fogs still be on from last time. For instance in the IS it is possible to leave your front fogs on from the last time you used the car so could possibly be a mistake etc.... But if you see a VAG car (VW, Audi, Seat & Skoda) with it's front or rear fogs on then it can't be a mistake as if you turn front OR rear fogs on in these cars they automatically turn off when you turn the lights off and you then have to turn them back on again when you turn the headlights back on again. In instances like this as far as i'm concerned the police should be able to give an on-the-spot fine if it's a case that it can be proved the fogs have been turned on intentionally etc.... I think the LED argument is going to be outdated soon too seeing as LED headlights and foglights are now being adopted by manufacturers (Skoda with LED foglights and Toyota / Audi with LED headlights). Cheers Dave.

And TomTom holder. :winky: Cheers Dave.