GW8IZR

:-) cool.. where is the news posted please?

Or any other political dust that might be happening ........

So coincidentally my AM replied yesterday confirming that both of my 'letters' had been received and passed on appropriately, to quote part of the reply ' I will ensure that my team pass on any relevant information to you following our enquiries to Welsh Government & my Westminster colleagues.' As its not devolved legislation I can't ask for more than that and it does confirm that the process of representation works. Now whether there is any influence on the outcome remains to be seen, where departments wave the 'environmental' flag it always feels a bit like peeing into a gale.

I'd never bother with glands for that job as they are too restricting, if your fitting grommets a handy tip is stick them in a cup of warm water ( OK I often stick them in my tea mug.. but that's not recommended for many reasons) but the close to boiling water makes them capable of stretching enough to get lots of connectors through. HTH

The volts drop is almost entirely in the cell, however the running current is not the peak starting current. Until the motor runs up to its normal speed the current is much greater and hence the i2r losses are greater. The back emf that limits the running current is zero when the motor is stalled or stopped awaiting start.The potential for damage to the motor is greater when the motor is beginning to turn or stalled. I don't think changing the cable from a 'normal' battery cable to the quoted 35mm cable would cause much difference in terms of long term damage but an already worn out starter turning a cold worn out engine will be allowed to work harder further accelerating wear. The potential damage to the motor is the energy x the time exposed to it, the big batteries and thick cables do mean when it goes wrong more damage can happen. I think I use 35mm flexible welding cable on the starting circuit on my 90 as its what I had.

I use this stuff, been using it on cables , even under water for years and its never let me down. http://solutions.3m.co.uk/wps/portal/3M/en_GB/ElectricalMkts/ElectricalSupplies/products/electrical-tapes/mastic-tape/scotchfil-putty-insulation-tape/

absolutely - the hard physical work is done, you can refine the job yourself. Its not rocket science.. To be honest the place doing it shouldn't be struggling, hope they never have to re shell something precise ....

I think I'd be giving it a very close inspection when you get it back, have a good look to see the various mounts and brackets havent been forced into place - its all adjustable and really it all needs a bit of adjusting 'properly' so you don't get bits cracking where bolts have been forced into place.

a locked door only stops an honest person.

Many years ago I built a regulated 13.8v power supply that could deliver 300A, this was quite a beast and had remote sensing to ensure the load always saw 13.8v. When completed I tested it using lift motor brakes and had them glowing bright orange at 300A. I tested it by starting a car, I almost _ _ _ _ myself as the engine twisted round the engine bay stretching the mounts to the limit. Never again .. and yes, there does need to be a bit of volts drop to the starter.

This was part of the reply I sent clarifying my two biggest concerns, not sure if its clear enough as part of the problem is 'we' kind of understand the impact so we try to explain it from our narrow mind set. (quote) If the changes from the consultation are implemented two groups of enthusiasts will be caught out unfairly. Existing projects coming to fruition this year: Those that started a project that has taken several years to complete will have designed the vehicle based on current rules. At this stage significant financial investment and build hours will have been spent. The choice of engine is critical to the design. Typically an engine is chosen based on fit, power and economy. The engine very often comes from an older car which is recycled. If the project comes to fruition later this year that older engine will no longer meet the new requirements and as such is lost. Remember even VW fail to meet the current requirements without being very creative and they have far greater resources available to them than a home 'kit builder' Existing cars that meet the requirements today but may need future modification: A car which is perfectly legal today as it meets the DVSA 'points' system to retain its identity. Any future modification however small may mean the vehicle loses its identity which means it should go for an IVA test. If that test changes as per the implementation of the consultation the vehicle would need to meet the current emissions standard. Even with the standard engine that the manufacturer previously fitted that would be impossible. Its easiest to give an example, take a Land Rover which was made in 1985 fitted with a diesel (or petrol) engine - the owner gets a little older and decides to make changes to make his older car easer to use and keep on the road. Maybe fitting power steering or an automatic gearbox. Due to previous changes and alterations the changes push it over the edge of losing its identity and forces IVA. Thats fine those are the rules. As the modified car is built to the same condition and specification of a vehicle that LR themselves made and sold so it should pass easily - apart now from engine emissions which is impossible to achieve. That car becomes scrap yet an unmodified vehicle which hasn't been restored can continue to be used ad infinitum. Existing IVA is a challenge to pass and ensures the vehicle submitted is in perfect condition, it ensures that emissions are as reasonable as possible given the state of the art when the vehicle was built - those of us that modify and alter cars respect that and accept those rules. The proposed rule changes make it impossible to comply. An unrestored vehicle is far less likely to be kept as well maintained and in as safe a condition as for example my LR which does 600 miles a year and is kept inside in case it rains!

Exactly this! I'm right on the edge with my 90, one more change and the many thousands of pounds spent and hundreds of hours rebuilding will be gone. (caveat) Unless there was an amnesty for existing vehicles that meet the criteria today ( not going to happen ) or a suitable engine found and conversion developed to allow an IVA pass. Even if a suitable engine was identified I wonder if I have the heart to 'start again' only to be caught with some other new rule further down the line - on a car that pollutes the environment for circa 600 miles a year.

So I have now received a reply from my AM and an explanation of why he didn't react to my first mail, Its quite a thoughtful and interesting response and I need to read it a few times and reply to him before commenting here. A fair bit of it revolves around appropriate representation for none devolved issues which are outwith the scope of this discussion. He has passed on my concerns to the relevant people within the Welsh assy and has asked if anyone else has raised the issue. In particular did the Assy have input to the consultation or are we just to take the fallout! A question he asked is along the lines of 'have the representing body of the kit car and vehicle modifiers formally responded and if so what was the response. First - I don't know if there is a recognised representing body? Second - If there was such a response, does anyone know if it was in the public domain? Finally - the more I think about it, I'm not sure the kit car manufacturers are on the same wavelength as those of us that individually build and modify cars to our own design, after all what would they gain from users wanting too much variety from the norm? far better if everyone just builds Caterham spec 1, 2 or 3 and pays accordingly.Especially if they offer to supply an engine that meets the emission requirements . In my letter I did add a couple of points one targetting rural (farm vehicles) where the changes might suddenly make what is a 'reuse recycled' approach unviable and also the point that most modified and kit cars are not daily drivers with limited use and as such their impact on the environment is negligible compared to a business vehicle. So thats where I'm up to.

That is a fair response - I'll advise if my AM answers my latest 'prod'

has anyone had any response from their elected member? I wrote to my AM two weeks ago and have not even had a response. The bad weather has probably taken priority but that hasn't changed the end date. Paul

the MOT wording for spark engines has always been clear, the age of the engine or vehicle whichever is earliest ( easier) to pass. For compression engines its not as clear.

I'm trying to help you here, you don't need access to the terminals and the twig does not need to conduct. No idea why you need to be smart! You snap a twig off at about the right diameter to be a tight fit and shove it in the hole! the friction is enough to hold the contacts closed and the security aspect of the switch is defeated. I've done it dozens of times on plant and tractors when the key is somewhere else - its often more reliable than the proper key once they are a bit worn. As I said, they are fine for an additional safety isolator. Be careful putting metal enclosures round the contacts as they easily break off their mounting in an accident or even when kicked and then you have a big fire, if you must box it in make sure the enclosure is lined with substantial insulation.

Just be aware that you can bypass the 'normal' red handled isolator keys with nothing more complex than a twig cut from a nearby hedge. They are an excellent safety device and are worth fitting just for that reason .. but security... nah!

There is a house on an estate close to my mothers place, the insurance insisted on a drive post at the end of the drive. The lawn is circa 35 feet wide and perfectly flat to the level of the drive...

I think I might have started along the lines of, are you ok, do you need anything? If it were someone I knew well enough and I knew it would be taken in jest I would have asked if the 'Jap carp' was broke again but that wouldn't have been my opening gambit with someone I didn't know ;-)

There for when your bent over parting with 13K...

Hmm.. and hope that one fuse doesn't pop when your going round a busy roundabout or a corner on an unlit country lane. On the original wiring all of the filaments are individually fused for a reason.

No but I've got one of these on my Dads i20 and it works very well. https://www.intamicro.co.uk/ctek-comfort-indicator-eyelet?utm_source=google_shopping&m=simple&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6t-QsefI1wIVpRbTCh1dTAPGEAQYAyABEgISufD_BwE

For sure, I'm asking where it is located to determine whether it could be bi-passed, none of the after market designs appear to use the eol detection or current limiting properties of that resistor.. its just an inconvenience to anyone doing a simple alert.

There is no such series resistor in the Bearmach cap that I purchased a couple of years ago and it switches a relay with no problem. It is of course N/C when the coolant is present and as such it requires the condition inverting to sound an alarm. Where is the 680R resistor in the original cap (if it exists) ?