dublet

19 minutes ago, Lex_utor said:

"All that being said, the IS250 does drive like a Japanese car rather than a german despite being "luxurious"."

When you are hungry and point the satnav to the nearest restaurant, the IS will take you to a sushi place. A German car on the other hand would take you to either a sausage or cheese shop. This is called the Wurst-Kase scenario.

16 hours ago, LenT said:

I take it Philip, that you – or rather The Guardian – is referring to the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies TR-595 (Rats) and TR-596 (Mice) Exposed to Whole-Body RF Radiation that are actually dated November 2018.

I wonder if you’ve actually read these Reports, or even the Abstracts? To simply claim that “there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer” strikes me as ‘data mining’.

Funny thing is that in scientific research quite a few different cancers have been curable in mice. Sadly much of that research has not born any fruit in terms of treatment of humans, largely for the reason that, in the eyes of the scientific community at least, mice are, in fact, mostly not human.

19 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

 If you are in America then your cars have a much higher chance of carbon build up coz your fuel is naff compared to what we have in the UK

Well, maybe but the US uses a different octane rating, PON instead of RON: https://aircooledbug.co.uk/usa-versus-uk-fuel-octane/ 95 RON is 91 PON. Fuel isn't quite as bad as just comparing the numbers would indicate.

I think you'd need something like this: https://www.tayna.co.uk/motorcycle-batteries/types/068-agm/

Cheapest option is £120 for a Lucas brand Battery, which is fine but not even premium. Where are you getting one for £40? Was the replacement AGM type?

1 in 2 people will get some kind of cancer at one stage in their life, so I don't think it can be emphasised enough, @Barry14UK. Early diagnosis and treatment is essential.

14 hours ago, ChillDrive2 said:

Is this the right car for me or should I be looking at something else?

Only you can answer that. Just test drive one. 🤷‍♂️

A car is only as good as the people who looked after it. I had a Toyota Celica GT-Four with 190k miles on it, which is much higher performance and still performed impeccably. 

Go for condition, not mileage.

I am enjoying that the recovery trucks seem to be operated by "Richford". I don't suppose they have a sneaky hosepipe into the ford, to ensure it keeps bringing them riches.

5 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Science doesn`t accept that there are significant clusters of cancer incidences amongst populations living in or around areas local to Nuclear Power Plants, but local populations beg to differ.

Ask the first group of BT Engineers which wore Mobile Phones close to their person for their views on radio frequency induced radiation.

All I am saying is that Official views are not always or necessarily correct Spacenase.

"Science" isn't "a thing" that accepts something. It's more a process. If you have data for these "significant clusters" from nuclear power plants, then that would be very interesting. However, radiation around nuclear power plants is heavily monitored. If "science doesn't accept", then it means that "there is no data to indicate" that, which means it's just an opinion.

Radon is a much more likely cause of cancer incidences. Some of the plants, like Sellafield, are in Radon areas: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/sellafield-radiation-alarm-radon-gas-nuclear-reprocessing

If you have any evidence of your hypotheses, then I'm sure Public Health England would love to know!

A side note is that mobile phone RF has gone through quite a few iterations, and different frequencies and as pointed out, there is simply not an observed link between mobile phone RF and cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

Quote

Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA (genes) inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) rays. Ionizing radiation can break the chemical bonds in DNA, which might lead to cancer.

That's not to say that there couldn't be a link but rather that if there is one, it's unknown what it is. Perhaps it could be that the plastic in mobiles is a cause of cancer.

As someone who works for a company closely partnered to BT, I won't offer my opinion on their engineers 🙊

23 minutes ago, Ian Mckay said:

Lexus refuse to provide a simple matrix

You're like:

Lexus is like:

@ChillDrive2 Did you actually try to drive one with 18"? My RC same with stock 19" and I'm finding the ride to be nicely compliant and comfortable, more than I would have thought. Perhaps after trying it, you will feel different.

11 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Now to why are our cars not suitable for E10. Well I've asked my dealer to no avail. Whilst there I asked one of the techs, he said all he could think of was the rubber fuel lines being of a different compound.

From: https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/maintenance-and-gear/everything-you-need-to-know-about-using-e10-fuel-with-your-classic-car/

Quote

Although many cars run on E5 without significant problems, doubling the amount of ethanol in the fuel can cause a variety of issues in olders cars. Ethanol is hygroscopic, which means that it absorbs water from the atmosphere. And that water, in turn, finds its way into your car. It can lead to condensation in fuel tanks, fuel lines and carburettors and cause corrosion in brass, copper, lead, tin and zinc components.

As ethanol is also a solvent it can eat through rubber, plastic and fibreglass, so hoses and seals are likely to perish more quickly because of the higher concentration of ethanol in E10. In Department for Transport tests, problems identified included degradation to fuel hoses and seals, blocked fuel filters, damaged fuel pumps, corroded carbs, blocked injectors and corrosion in fuel tanks. Rubber is particularly affected.

21 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

I think we are overlooking the fact that nor Blair, Bush or Chirac owned a Lexus.  Albert The Second, Price of Monaco does. So, What does this tell us?

Yet the Japanese Emperor drives (is driven in) a Toyota. Curious. 🤔

7 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Are these figures from the OBC?

Yes, same as what OP is quoting. I haven't done an actual calculation as I don't care too much. Like you my previous car was doing 20mpg, so it's all upside.

Several cars before I had an Avensis D-4D which the on board computer reported 60mpg, but in reality it was low 50s. I'm quite familiar with the ECU misreporting.

Quote

These self-charging hybrids are just stop/start cars on steroids

I mean, they're a bit more than that. They do capture some otherwise lost energy and the extra deployment by the electric engine really helps.

Always get a professional look at your AC. The gases are odourless and will cut your life significantly short.

35 minutes ago, JRowe said:

this first half tank driving in eco and fuel efficiently and im returning 47mpg. Granted its been hot and air cons been on (via eco mode) but was hoping to hit the 50's

I'm currently getting 52 in "normal" mode, up to 58mpg when cruising down the motorway. Tried Eco mode and actually found it lowered my mpg by a few.

1 hour ago, Pielight said:

I've been going around on circles!! 😆

Turn on traction control and ease off the throttle.

I cannot fault your taste. Apart from perhaps the detail that it looks better in white 😉

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

I have no idea how you interpret your chart but for healthy lives, 10, read healthy outcomes 🤔. I saw this chart (from the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund 2011) on the Insurance world. Com site it then goes on to analyse The Best Healthcare System in Europe ; [..]

At 18th I wouldn't consider amongst the best, would you? 

Okay, but that chart is basically from the Commonwealth Fund data.  I'm a skeptical person so I prefer to go to the source data. With lovely interactive charts here: https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/ In Exhibit 2, you can drill into the reasons for the UK being 10 for "healthy lives". FWIW I do believe in particular there are some areas in cancer care where the UK lags behind some other countries.

And Exhibit 5:

That chart is lacking in some concrete numbers, but shows the UK has the best "performance" and low spending.

The ranking you quote is not based on the data from the Commonwealth Fund, and instead is a WHO ranking: https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf This ranking is about overall effiency and gives a range for each country with an uncertainty interval. As different kind of treatments can have very different outcomes. If you actually look at the source, you will see a bit of a different picture, in that the top 25 is very close:

In pure numbers 18th place isn't the greatest but the margins in that particular table are so small that it seems worse. Then a nice little nugget in the report, which is from approx 2000, is that it is based on 1993-1997 data. Which is approximately *checks watch* 30 years ago, and notably before a massive investment in improving outcomes by the political party in charge at the time. That investment was highlighted as improving outcomes signifinatly in the Commonwealth Fund study.

There are many things that could be improved with the NHS but it's pretty darn good.

You merely have to be rich to have one, not smart. 😉

I always prefer to use the higher octane or VPower if I get it. VPower supposedly has some cleaning stuff in it too, so may be better for overall engine state.

59 minutes ago, LenT said:

So either Blair was lying when he said it

Oh no, a politician not being entirely truthful? Luckily that doesn't happen these days any more, and we can trust whatever they put on the side of a bus.

2 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

Can't do this in a regular car 🙂

I do believe that model has a beep going on when those doors are open.

1 hour ago, Malc said:

oh come on !!! it's so easy peasy ............  as soon as the cash cows ( fuel duty take ) start to dry up the next will be the BEV cash cow .......  suitable road tax and " purchase " tax to make up for the lost fuel duty etc

 

The UK doesn't have road tax, which is a bit strange. VED is purely emissions based, which is a bit weird.

Some other countries have a system of taxing cars for road usage based on their weight (plus emissions layer), which makes more sense as the heavier your car, the more damage you do to roads - which do require maintenance.

On 8/5/2021 at 12:48 PM, Phil xxkr said:

As to insurance costing more am I correct in thing the French system has better outcomes and costs less than UK NI

You are not correct.

The NHS is one of the worlds best systems, not just in outcomes but also in terms of cost efficiency. Sadly, a lot of newer medical treatments are more expensive than ever, even if they lead to better outcomes. This coupled with the NHS as a health care provider also being tasked with providing social care due to the underfunding of the social care system, as well as an ever growing population, does indeed mean that it is underfunded, even if paradoxically it gets more money.

Really happy for you @PCM with the positive outcome. These fancy machines really do help. My mother is currently undergoing treatment for cancer too. It's the uncertainty that gets you.