This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Pat
51
« on: 28 August 2013, 09:29:19 pm »
I had to lug a couple of 2.5l tins of Farrow & Ball paint over to France in my panniers for the GF last month, cost me £30 a tin to buy it here in the UK, costs €80 a tin over there!  Out of interest, what difference does using a trailer make to your insurance?
52
« on: 20 August 2013, 10:33:58 pm »
Your insurance as stated is likely to be limited to only so many days a year. If memory serves me right Carole Nash will do longer cover but pretty sure it is not more than 90 days at one stretch.
How would they find out that it is not in the uk? Maybe if it was stolen from where it was stored it might get a bit sticky.
In the event of an accident &/or claim they will ask for evidence of ferry/chunnel bookings.
53
« on: 20 August 2013, 10:22:57 pm »
Don't notice any difference in performance, but my gen one does seem to get a constant 10% better MPG using super rather than normal unleaded. So, as it's only ~5% more expensive I figure it makes sense to use it.
Seems to make no difference at all using it in my 1200 Bandit though, so that gets whatever's cheapest!
54
« on: 13 August 2013, 04:51:26 pm »
Certainly shares some DNA with it's bigger siblings.
55
« on: 08 August 2013, 01:08:48 am »
On watching it again I am now thinking should I be daft enough to go there myself use the hard shoulder.
So this chap could have headed for the hard shoulder to increase braking space.
Don't think that's a hard shoulder, looks more like a footpath with a raised kerb.
56
« on: 03 August 2013, 03:03:56 pm »
Given your forum name, I can't see that being much of a problem.... 
57
« on: 03 August 2013, 03:01:24 pm »
Do you have a set of old downpipes with the clamps still on hanging around? If so you could try this bodge, it has held together OK for the last 4000 miles (also had to do the same to number 3 a couple of weeks after that).
Might be worth having a word with mobile mouse though... he bought 8 new clamps to effect the same repair on all 4 of his and I don't know how he got on.
Nice bit of lateral thinking & good metalworking skills there! Wouldn't call it a bodge though, it's the standard mounting method on some Kawasakis, certainly was on my GPZ900R.
58
« on: 01 August 2013, 10:40:45 am »
2 part worn condoms and 1/2 a packet of doritos
Only part worn? Does that mean you've not needed to unroll them much when using them? 
59
« on: 31 July 2013, 09:29:57 pm »
Nothing has ever been better than my Datona's!
+1 on this, bought my GTX Roadstars with my redundancy money at the NEC show in 1995. I got made redundant again last October, but no need to spend any of the new payoff on boots this time as the old ones are still working fine! It's not just because they are super comfy & they don't leak that I love them, but it's also the sheer level of craftsmanship that have gone into them that even 18 years later still gives me a feelgood moment every time I slip them on.
60
« on: 30 July 2013, 07:42:38 pm »
The reason?? I get battered to f@ck by the wind - and that, along with the resultant noise comparable to sticking my head out of a car window at 100mph means I get no pleasure from motorway riding and try to avoid if I can.
It seems that the laws of physics and mathematics has resulted in my 6'3" frame and double bubble screen creating a perfect collision area of wind blast direct to me at face level.  [size=78%] [/size]
If I lean forward, it eases slightly, but I cannot ride like that permanently.[size=78%]
I'd welcome the views and advice of similarly tall riders who have a set-up that is more comfortable than mine. I currently have a powerbronze double-bubble.
Many thanks. Ride safe.
[/size] [size=78%] The problem is that the air that the screen is displacing has to flow somewhere, at 6'3" you're going to need a pretty tall screen to try & deflect it over your head, so you would probably be better off going in the other direction & opting for a smaller screen in order to take it on your chest as that would be less of a discomfort than your present set up.[/size]
61
« on: 29 July 2013, 12:41:03 am »
Isn't the Valencia F1 race run on a street circuit?
62
« on: 21 July 2013, 11:00:05 am »
We have recently had a load of the new Oxford waterproof trousers returned apparently due to leaking. When checked and tested, they were found not to be leaking at all, just the material gave a very cool feel when wet on the outside! My waterproofs I use for hill walking have this effect, but I'm actually dry underneath them. Breathable materials such as Goretex or equivalent can help to keep you a bit cooler = more expense tho.
If returned, and going cheap/free, could I beg some XLs? My genetalia and future children will thank you, when it rains, I end up sitting in a puddle of cold water. The water being inside my trousers. 
But keeping ones testicles cool is one of the keys to increased fertility. Admittedly freezing them off maybe somewhat counter-productive, or in this example should that be counter-reproductive?
63
« on: 11 July 2013, 02:42:40 pm »
On my 357vt2 it was the 2 pins next to the ones shown in the pic that I had to bridge, i.e. if you are looking at the connector with the latch on the top, mine were 2&4 counting from the left.
64
« on: 11 July 2013, 12:36:15 pm »
My understanding of this is that TFL have applied for the breaching of ASLs in London to be decriminalised hence allowing them or other London local authorities to fine offenders. However, they don't have the authority to dish out penalty points, only the police have the legal authority to dish out points (in reality an offer of the option of a fixed penalty notice (currently 3 points & £60) in lieu of going to court to be tried for the offence).
This already happens in London with box-junctions & illegal turn offences having been decriminalised a few years ago, they are now monitored by local council & TFL CCTV & transgressors are sent £60 penalty fines with no points.
So if you are nabbed by plod in a cycle box you can get points & a fine but not if caught by CCTV.
Also, when I did Bikesafe with the Met a month ago, the coppers there made a point of explaining that it was perfectly legal to filter using chevroned bits of road if enclosed by broken white lines & actively encouraged their use by bikers as it's often the safest way to do it.
65
« on: 05 July 2013, 04:11:32 pm »
66
« on: 05 July 2013, 04:09:28 pm »
It was fitted from new, so around 10 years!
Spoke to Bazil, reckons it just needs the main unit replacing. Gonna cost me £200 as rest of wiring and installation is in place and should be good.
Will be an expensive month. Puncture in back tyre earlier this week, MOT and major service due next week and now £200 for alarm.  And I'm still waiting for insurance claim due to knob taking me out and causing me to drop the bike, may well cat-d the bike. In which case, I'm beginning to think stuff getting the alarm replaced, bin it and do without. It only saves me £25 a year on on insurance.
£200?!? You can buy a replacement here for £135: http://abacuscaralarms.co.uk/alarmshop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=85&ccSID08d9c7843f5fd94eef9876bc9b24ddb5=eea381a3d72ddcc4e4223e152d372426Bloke is a nice guy & very helpful too.
67
« on: 27 June 2013, 12:17:55 am »
Most popular would have to be replacing the standard can? Most desirable on gen 1 thou - Ivanising, I would think.
I think we have a winner!
68
« on: 26 June 2013, 06:05:17 pm »
Ive got a couple - One snap on, and one halfords "pro" one. quality is not miles apart as you might have thought, but price was way different. I got the halfords one on a deal for about 150 quid (one like this: http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_10001_catalogId_10151_productId_745203_langId_-1_categoryId_255214)
My snap on one is much older, but is a similar size, and i seem to remember it being 3-4 times that price when i got it. quality wise though, for someone who wont be working out of it, the halfords one is MORE than adequate IMO.
I've also got one of the Halford cabinets in the link above. I bought it approx 10 years ago for half what it costs now & the quality is fine for non-professional use, the draws open & close smoothly & he paint is still solid. It sits atop a Machine-Mart roll cab with deeper drawers for bigger stuff to live in, I've had that for a similar period & it's also going strong, but I'd say the Halfords Professional stuff is slightly better quality though.
69
« on: 25 June 2013, 10:37:07 pm »
70
« on: 22 June 2013, 11:47:37 pm »
Removing an alarm is pretty straightforward if you've got a copy of the bike's wiring diagram & can work logically to reconnect the cut wires. Alternatively, you could just bypass it by following the following instructions in this thread: http://foc-u.co.uk/index.php/topic,4493.msg38000.html#msg38000
72
« on: 21 June 2013, 12:19:35 am »
73
« on: 19 June 2013, 01:43:43 am »
I think you'll find that's obstructing the police which whilst still a criminal offence, is a much less serious one.
I think you'll find that's written by some lefty tosser of a lawyer who writes for a blog. It was infact a one off case, and the original 'offence' is still perverting the course of justice, especially where the speed vans are manned by non police staff. This case was possibly a 'police' speed trap.
He was probably charged with obstruct police due to as the blog says "were not sure what was said during the conversation between him and the police officer". It speaks books to me. A lawyer skimping on detail only means one thing..... Lies/hiding the truth!
Don't take one side of a story, especially where media is involved.
If that was a one off then how come I can't find a single instance of a driver being done for perverting the course of justice for warning other drivers about the presence of a speed trap? To be honest, with a halfway decent lawyer he should never have been convicted for obstruction either, as the court of appeal has already established that in order for it to be an offence the prosecution would need to prove that a driver being flashed at was already breaking the speed limit or would be likely to do so, which unless the police had a 'forward monitoring post' recording the speed of approaching vehicles would be pretty much impossible. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html
75
« on: 18 June 2013, 01:50:12 pm »
As comical an idea that is it's not recommend it in the slightest, covering the plate when you know you've been spotted speeding is classed as perverting the course of justice which is jail time minimum!
Same offence as flashing other drivers and making them aware of the speed camera van.
I think you'll find that's obstructing the police which whilst still a criminal offence, is a much less serious one. eg: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed
|
Show Posts
