Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Overhang in car parking bay
1,311 views
Skip to first unread message
andy stone
Apr 14, 2013, 2:08:43 PM4/14/13
to
Our local council are red hot making money from parking fines. A lot of the
latest parking bays are very cleverly 'mean' in length. So if the first car
parking there does not park with a bit of 'overhang', the second car will
easily have a lot of 'overhang'.
There seems some difference in opinions on what constitutes not being parked
properly within the bay boundary.
Is it that any part of the tyre must not be beyond the white line, or is it
that the *centre* of the wheel must not be beyond the white line?
latest parking bays are very cleverly 'mean' in length. So if the first car
parking there does not park with a bit of 'overhang', the second car will
easily have a lot of 'overhang'.
There seems some difference in opinions on what constitutes not being parked
properly within the bay boundary.
Is it that any part of the tyre must not be beyond the white line, or is it
that the *centre* of the wheel must not be beyond the white line?
Gary K
Apr 14, 2013, 2:21:12 PM4/14/13
to
the white line?
andy stone
Apr 14, 2013, 2:34:01 PM4/14/13
to
"Gary K" <gposer...@orange.net> wrote in message
news:516af398$0$11997$7120d902@karibu...
Not side by side, but end to end in the roadway.
Gareth Magennis
Apr 14, 2013, 3:13:56 PM4/14/13
to
"andy stone" wrote in message news:kkerlt$3i1$1...@dont-email.me...
Campervan overnight on a public road/car park etc.
I learnt that the various "rules" tend to be Council specific.
Many stated that if your vehicle's extremities extend into a second parking
bay, you need to purchase 2 parking tickets, or be liable to a fine.
(This is perfectly understandable if, say, you have a car and trailer
occupying 2 spaces)
Anyway, I soon learnt that there is no National legislation, it is pretty
much down to each individual Council to dictate what is and isn't permitted,
and what fines may or may not be levied.
Gareth.
AlanG
Apr 15, 2013, 2:32:39 AM4/15/13
to
that disregard those guidelines tend to lose out when the matter
finally comes to court.
DJC
Apr 15, 2013, 7:50:08 AM4/15/13
to
On 15/04/13 07:32, AlanG wrote:
> There are national guidelines on the size of parking bays. Councils
> that disregard those guidelines tend to lose out when the matter
> finally comes to court.
Most on-street parking bays I see these days do not break the area up
> There are national guidelines on the size of parking bays. Councils
> that disregard those guidelines tend to lose out when the matter
> finally comes to court.
into separate bays: with pay-and-display rather than one meter per bay
it is usually possible to pack more in.
David L. Martel
Apr 15, 2013, 8:03:00 AM4/15/13
to
andy,
If you are parking "end to end" along the street then the car's bumpers
should not be outside of the white lines. If your tires are touching the
white line you are using 2 spaces.
In general, the white lines are not there to delimit your tires but to
delimit your car. When you say the parking bays are "mean" do you mean that
only a very small car will fit?
Good luck,
Dave M.
"andy stone" <548...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkeslp$avm$1...@dont-email.me...
If you are parking "end to end" along the street then the car's bumpers
should not be outside of the white lines. If your tires are touching the
white line you are using 2 spaces.
In general, the white lines are not there to delimit your tires but to
delimit your car. When you say the parking bays are "mean" do you mean that
only a very small car will fit?
Good luck,
Dave M.
"andy stone" <548...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkeslp$avm$1...@dont-email.me...
Gareth Magennis
Apr 15, 2013, 4:04:43 PM4/15/13
to
"AlanG" wrote in message news:ul7nm854ajt2r6mb3...@4ax.com...
http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/lon.htm
Although it is concerned with parking Campervans in London, it can be seen
quite clearly that parking "rules" vary considerably from Borough to
Borough, and seem to be somewhat "Wooly".
I think they just make it up as they go along.
Gareth
AlanG
Apr 16, 2013, 4:21:06 AM4/16/13
to
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:04:43 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
Parking rules do vary but the minimum size of bays should conform to
government guidelines.
government guidelines.
Nick Finnigan
Apr 17, 2013, 5:41:17 PM4/17/13
to
On 14/04/2013 19:08, andy stone wrote:
are seen to be parked outside of the markings of a parking bay/space.
Which I'd read as neither of the above - no point of contact should be
outside the bay.
wayneh...@hotmail.co.uk
Jan 10, 2018, 9:46:58 AM1/10/18
to
Wheels with in white lines boot overhaging white line
MrCheerful
Jan 10, 2018, 11:31:28 AM1/10/18
to
On 10/01/2018 14:46, wayneh...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Wheels with in white lines boot overhaging white line
>
Not another sleeper cell code. Have to watch the papers in the next few
> Wheels with in white lines boot overhaging white line
>
days.
Gareth Magennis
Jan 10, 2018, 2:53:18 PM1/10/18
to
wrote in message
news:f04f7d5c-57ac-4a76...@googlegroups.com...
Wheels with in white lines boot overhaging white line
Far too many unnecessarily large vehicles about these days.
This never used to happen when car parks were full of Ford Anglias and
Triumph Heralds.
Cuh.
Roger Mills
Jan 10, 2018, 2:58:55 PM1/10/18
to
On 10/01/2018 14:46, wayneh...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Wheels with in white lines boot overhaging white line
What about it? Are you being done for not parking within the box? Where
was the front to of the car? Is the overall length of the car greater
than the box length?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.
newshound
Jan 10, 2018, 3:11:46 PM1/10/18
to
carrier, all black with blacked out windows like a drug dealer's
vehicle. Essentially the same size as a LWB Transit or Master, the tyres
were *just* inside the white lines. No room to open doors if parked next
to something similar.
Steve Walker
Jan 10, 2018, 3:59:27 PM1/10/18
to
crumple-zones front and rear, curvier fronts extending further forward
and lower down for pedestrian safety and thicker doors for side impact
safety. All ignored by the legislation and reality - the minimum size
for an on-street parking space is way too narrow for a Mondeo (may also
be too short) and many off-street parking has its size based upon the
requirements for on-street parking.
If new models of Anglias and Heralds had continued to be made, they
would be equally as large now, as they'd have to meet the same safety
test requirements.
SteveW
Gareth Magennis
Jan 10, 2018, 4:30:05 PM1/10/18
to
If new models of Anglias and Heralds had continued to be made, they
would be equally as large now, as they'd have to meet the same safety
test requirements.
SteveW
One of the problems now is that the occupants would no longer fit inside the
Anglia or Herald.
Big people need bigger cars.
(In the old days, there might be one Fat Kid (who suffered unrelentless
abuse) in the whole school)
Graham T
Jan 10, 2018, 4:47:40 PM1/10/18
to
On 10/01/2018 21:30, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> If new models of Anglias and Heralds had continued to be made, they
> would be equally as large now, as they'd have to meet the same safety
> test requirements.
>
>
> If new models of Anglias and Heralds had continued to be made, they
> would be equally as large now, as they'd have to meet the same safety
> test requirements.
> One of the problems now is that the occupants would no longer fit inside
> the Anglia or Herald.
> Big people need bigger cars.
>
My grandad would only ever have a car with a straight 8 in it. His
> the Anglia or Herald.
> Big people need bigger cars.
>
theory was that if anything hit his car it would have to go through the
block before it got to him. Of course the cars with straight 8's were
always huge Yanky ones.
He died of emphysema.
Gareth Magennis
Jan 10, 2018, 5:44:11 PM1/10/18
to
"Graham T" wrote in message news:p361lq$576$1...@dont-email.me...
I wouldn't fancy a straight 8 coming through the passenger cabin during a
shunt into something proper solid.
johannes
Jan 28, 2018, 12:24:00 AM1/28/18
to
medium salon car, about the size of A3 salon or a VW jetta. Nice plush
car as such, but the sad thing which gets me was the seats, it hurts
over long distances; too short and somehow not supporting my back
enough. Clearly not made for my size, but maybe ok in the East...
johannes
Jan 28, 2018, 12:29:55 AM1/28/18
to
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 28, 2018, 7:24:36 AM1/28/18
to
In article <p4jn4h$13ia$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
johannes <jo...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
And MG beat that with a 1 1/4 litre 4. ;-)
> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Brian Reay
Jan 28, 2018, 7:58:22 AM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/18 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p4jn4h$13ia$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> johannes <jo...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
>
> And MG beat that with a 1 1/4 litre 4. ;-)
>
That is a 'special' I assume?
> In article <p4jn4h$13ia$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> johannes <jo...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
>
> And MG beat that with a 1 1/4 litre 4. ;-)
>
I don't pretend to be a 'boy racer' or even a 'petrol head', I just like
cars, but 140 mph from an ordinary MG seems 'generous'.
Brian Reay
Jan 28, 2018, 8:25:17 AM1/28/18
to
3.912m. A Ford Focus, I would say the modern equivalent, is between
4.358 and 4.563m long. Even a decent sized 4x4 is only 4.695m long, and
it doesn't overhang a normal parking space.
Even if you compare widths, the 4x4 to a Smart Car, the difference is
far less than you would think- I did it recently in another group.
You can't really compare 'old' cars to modern ones- things like
transverse engines, changes in positions of engines/gearbox (or
transmissions), better design techniques etc. have changed hugely over
the years.
I remember the 'rounded' Anglia and the sloping window one, my father
had the former and my elder brother the latter. My father also had a
Ford Popular- similar to the 'sit up' Anglia. All 'every day' man's cars
of their time- at least for those who had a car, like the Morris Minor.
The Herald was a bit more 'sporty' or 'rakish' perhaps, especially the
convertible. My father kept his car in a garage in a community block and
the man in the next garage had a Herald. It was a lovely car.
My father replaced the Anglia with a Mk1 Cortina, it seemed much larger
but, on checking, I see it was 4.274m long, so about 400mm longer than
the last Anglia, say 16".
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 28, 2018, 9:00:05 AM1/28/18
to
In article <p4kivr$egr$1...@dont-email.me>,
requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the passenger
area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the same interior
(or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin 1800 - which
wasn't that large a car overall.
--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> You can't really compare 'old' cars to modern ones- things like
> transverse engines, changes in positions of engines/gearbox (or
> transmissions), better design techniques etc. have changed hugely over
> the years.
IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> You can't really compare 'old' cars to modern ones- things like
> transverse engines, changes in positions of engines/gearbox (or
> transmissions), better design techniques etc. have changed hugely over
> the years.
requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the passenger
area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the same interior
(or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin 1800 - which
wasn't that large a car overall.
--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 28, 2018, 9:00:05 AM1/28/18
to
In article <p4khdc$egq$1...@dont-email.me>,
I'd be most surprised if a road Deusenberg had a top speed of 140 mph in
1935.
The MG was a special designed for record breaking. But did use a heavily
modified production engine. As used by other MGs.
--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *
1935.
The MG was a special designed for record breaking. But did use a heavily
modified production engine. As used by other MGs.
--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *
Cursitor Doom
Jan 28, 2018, 10:12:49 AM1/28/18
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:59:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
> passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
> same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin
> 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
Is that the one known 'affectionately' as the "Land Crab" by any chance?
> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
> passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
> same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin
> 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
johannes
Jan 28, 2018, 1:14:01 PM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/2018 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p4khdc$egq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> On 28/01/18 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <p4jn4h$13ia$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> johannes <jo...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>>>> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
>>>
>>> And MG beat that with a 1 1/4 litre 4. ;-)
>>>
>
>> That is a 'special' I assume?
>
>> I don't pretend to be a 'boy racer' or even a 'petrol head', I just like
>> cars, but 140 mph from an ordinary MG seems 'generous'.
>
> I'd be most surprised if a road Deusenberg had a top speed of 140 mph in
> 1935.
>
> The MG was a special designed for record breaking. But did use a heavily
> modified production engine. As used by other MGs.
>
That one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3iOcI-GFQ
> In article <p4khdc$egq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> On 28/01/18 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <p4jn4h$13ia$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> johannes <jo...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>>>> Duesenbergs had straight 8, could do 140mph, and that was in 1935 !
>>>
>>> And MG beat that with a 1 1/4 litre 4. ;-)
>>>
>
>> That is a 'special' I assume?
>
>> I don't pretend to be a 'boy racer' or even a 'petrol head', I just like
>> cars, but 140 mph from an ordinary MG seems 'generous'.
>
> I'd be most surprised if a road Deusenberg had a top speed of 140 mph in
> 1935.
>
> The MG was a special designed for record breaking. But did use a heavily
> modified production engine. As used by other MGs.
>
Duesenbergs were the fastest road cars at the time, straingh 8 overhead
cam, 260 bhp but over 300 bhp with optional supercharger. Luvely car if
you can afford one...
Steve Walker
Jan 28, 2018, 2:54:22 PM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/2018 15:12, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:59:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
>> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
>> passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
>> same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin
>> 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
>
> Is that the one known 'affectionately' as the "Land Crab" by any chance?
My parents had one of those. I remember it breaking down in a torrential
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:59:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
>> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
>> passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
>> same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin
>> 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
>
> Is that the one known 'affectionately' as the "Land Crab" by any chance?
downpour (distributor and leads were at the front of the trnsverse
engine and exposed to the weather). Eventually written off by an elderly
neighbour (who shouldn't have been driving, as he was an unaccompanied
learner) and as my dad then had a company car and the second car was mo
longer needed for towing, it was replaced with a Fiat 126!
SteveW
Brian Reay
Jan 28, 2018, 3:24:37 PM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/2018 13:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p4kivr$egr$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> You can't really compare 'old' cars to modern ones- things like
>> transverse engines, changes in positions of engines/gearbox (or
>> transmissions), better design techniques etc. have changed hugely over
>> the years.
>
> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the passenger
> area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the same interior
> (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin 1800 - which
> wasn't that large a car overall.
>
They fit those zones into very small cars- look at all of the cars like
> In article <p4kivr$egr$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> You can't really compare 'old' cars to modern ones- things like
>> transverse engines, changes in positions of engines/gearbox (or
>> transmissions), better design techniques etc. have changed hugely over
>> the years.
>
> IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the passenger
> area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the same interior
> (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an Austin 1800 - which
> wasn't that large a car overall.
>
Picantos and even Smart Cars.
I'm not suggesting the old cars were designed to meet current standards
but size wouldn't be a show stopper to build a modern version of an old
car- same size and similar in other ways. External features which would
'show' would be things that would, for example, harm pedestrians.
As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
having seen a few.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!
https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Cursitor Doom
Jan 28, 2018, 3:29:10 PM1/28/18
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:13:59 +0000, johannes wrote:
> That one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3iOcI-GFQ Duesenbergs were
> the fastest road cars at the time, straingh 8 overhead cam, 260 bhp but
> over 300 bhp with optional supercharger. Luvely car if you can afford
> one...
Naw... You want one of these instead:
> That one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3iOcI-GFQ Duesenbergs were
> the fastest road cars at the time, straingh 8 overhead cam, 260 bhp but
> over 300 bhp with optional supercharger. Luvely car if you can afford
> one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aX3jhFTTUo
;-)
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 28, 2018, 7:14:28 PM1/28/18
to
In article <p4kp9g$oqu$8...@dont-email.me>,
several years running fully loaded and never complained.
Bit of an ugly duckling, though.
--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*
Cursitor Doom <cu...@notformail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:59:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> > requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
> > passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
> > same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an
> > Austin 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
> Is that the one known 'affectionately' as the "Land Crab" by any chance?
Yes - that's the one. Great car. Got thrashed round Europe on holidays for
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:59:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > IIRC, the main difference is being able to pass a crash test. Which
> > requires bodywork to crumple and absorb the impact, without the
> > passenger area deforming. Meaning basically much bigger cars for the
> > same interior (or less) space. Biggest interior I ever had was an
> > Austin 1800 - which wasn't that large a car overall.
> Is that the one known 'affectionately' as the "Land Crab" by any chance?
several years running fully loaded and never complained.
Bit of an ugly duckling, though.
--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 28, 2018, 7:21:44 PM1/28/18
to
In article <p4lbi2$li4$1...@dont-email.me>,
does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
RWD of those days.
--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
> having seen a few.
Can't say I remember seeing that one and would be rather surprised as he
> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
> having seen a few.
does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
RWD of those days.
--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *
johannes
Jan 28, 2018, 7:48:31 PM1/28/18
to
On 29/01/2018 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p4lbi2$li4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
>> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
>> having seen a few.
>
> Can't say I remember seeing that one and would be rather surprised as he
> does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
> As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
> certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
> It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
> RWD of those days.
>
Friends of us had an Opel Kapitan about 1958, those days all cars had
> In article <p4lbi2$li4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
>> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
>> having seen a few.
>
> Can't say I remember seeing that one and would be rather surprised as he
> does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
> As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
> certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
> It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
> RWD of those days.
>
different sounds and as a boy I could tell which car would come around
the corner. We were sometimes invited to the beach, but to acomodate
everybody, one of us had to go into the boot. Imagine how this must have
been felt for a 50 miles ride?
Brian Reay
Jan 29, 2018, 12:54:24 PM1/29/18
to
On 29/01/2018 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p4lbi2$li4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
>> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
>> having seen a few.
>
> Can't say I remember seeing that one and would be rather surprised as he
> does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
> As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
> certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
> It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
> RWD of those days.
>
He does tend to be the 'more balanced' of the Top Gear Three, although
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to shreds
>> on one of his 'Peoples Cars' series. I don't know it myself- beyond
>> having seen a few.
>
> Can't say I remember seeing that one and would be rather surprised as he
> does tend to see the better bits of a car rather than just its 0-60 time.
> As I said, it had more interior space than even a Silver Shadow Rolls -
> certainly in terms of rear leg room. Despite it being of average length.
> It was also a very stable high speed cruiser. Far better than the common
> RWD of those days.
>
it was his own program. If it is the car I'm thinking of, it was
'adopted' by the Government for 'lower level' Ministers etc and this was
one of the things he mentioned.
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 29, 2018, 7:25:15 PM1/29/18
to
In article <p4nn4e$805$1...@dont-email.me>,
Don't remember seeing it used as a government vehicle. Not to say it
wasn't.
Austin also produced a real oddball. The basic 1800 body adapted to RWD
with a real boat anchor of an engine - the C series 3 litre. Which
although quite refined had very little better performance due to the vast
extra weight. And less interior space due to the transmission tunnel.
Might have been interesting with the Rover V8, though.
My brother had a couple of those and loved them for towing.
--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*
wasn't.
Austin also produced a real oddball. The basic 1800 body adapted to RWD
with a real boat anchor of an engine - the C series 3 litre. Which
although quite refined had very little better performance due to the vast
extra weight. And less interior space due to the transmission tunnel.
Might have been interesting with the Rover V8, though.
My brother had a couple of those and loved them for towing.
--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*
Chris Bartram
Jan 30, 2018, 8:06:33 AM1/30/18
to
On 30/01/2018 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> Austin also produced a real oddball. The basic 1800 body adapted to RWD
> with a real boat anchor of an engine - the C series 3 litre. Which
> although quite refined had very little better performance due to the vast
> extra weight. And less interior space due to the transmission tunnel.
> Might have been interesting with the Rover V8, though.
>
> My brother had a couple of those and loved them for towing.
>
My aunt had one in the 70s. Big, and thirsty from what I remember. Very
>
> Austin also produced a real oddball. The basic 1800 body adapted to RWD
> with a real boat anchor of an engine - the C series 3 litre. Which
> although quite refined had very little better performance due to the vast
> extra weight. And less interior space due to the transmission tunnel.
> Might have been interesting with the Rover V8, though.
>
> My brother had a couple of those and loved them for towing.
>
thin on the ground now. It must have been a dog, because she only had it
a matter of weeks, and my dad was summoned to help fix it...
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 30, 2018, 9:26:48 AM1/30/18
to
In article <p4pqkn$3d0$1...@dont-email.me>,
They were pretty rare even when current. Suppose Austin did need a big car
to replace the old Westminster.
But then the twin carb 1800S had about the same performance but much
better economy. They might have sold the 3 litre if it had a very posh
interior - Van Den Plas or whatever, but it was pretty basic for a car of
that price.
The MGC was similar. Stick a great boat anchor of an engine in - with a
very poor power output - and wonder why it flops.
--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.
to replace the old Westminster.
But then the twin carb 1800S had about the same performance but much
better economy. They might have sold the 3 litre if it had a very posh
interior - Van Den Plas or whatever, but it was pretty basic for a car of
that price.
The MGC was similar. Stick a great boat anchor of an engine in - with a
very poor power output - and wonder why it flops.
--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.
Mark
Jan 30, 2018, 12:39:36 PM1/30/18
to
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:56c23e0...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> >> As for the Austin A1800, I think that was a car James May tore to
>> >> shreds
>>>
>> >> shreds
>>>
>> 'adopted' by the Government for 'lower level' Ministers etc and this was
>> one of the things he mentioned.
>
> Don't remember seeing it used as a government vehicle. Not to say it
> wasn't.
>
London Fire Brigade had both the 1800 and 2200 autos in the early 70s
>> one of the things he mentioned.
>
> Don't remember seeing it used as a government vehicle. Not to say it
> wasn't.
>
for div officers use.
2200 was actually quite a nice car to drive with auto gearbox
-
MrCheerful
Jan 30, 2018, 1:11:43 PM1/30/18
to
version, fast, comfortable and roomy.
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 30, 2018, 7:45:10 PM1/30/18
to
In article <xz2cC.1450203$OX.10...@fx47.am4>,
Bit of trivia for you. The 6 cylinder engine was rather special to make it
short enough to fit sideways. Long stroke and siamesed bores.
And for some reason, BL South Africa fitted it to the locally assembled
Rover SD1 - rather than the Triumph based 6 in the UK 2300 and 2600.
--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?
short enough to fit sideways. Long stroke and siamesed bores.
And for some reason, BL South Africa fitted it to the locally assembled
Rover SD1 - rather than the Triumph based 6 in the UK 2300 and 2600.
--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?
0 new messages