Any Advice?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Good points both, Alan. Perhaps things have changed more dramatically than I had realised; sufficient to make my view obsolete. I still think bikes (power and pedal) encourage defensive driving and an anticipation of potential hazards that you simply do not get in the insulated cocoon of a motor-car, though.

Regards, John.

You are right of course John: bikes do teach many good lessons, particularly about awareness of the road and the environment. How I balance that with reducing the risk for Dan so he reaches adulthood in good shape is my quandary (as for Chris).

Like many dads - I worry too much about my boy :-)

Stay alert,

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The Mk3 Cortina that i used for the first few months after passing my test (after my dad sold the Skyline out from under me - long, bitter story!) would disagree about trees being soft! Only car i've owned where i had to get in and out Dukes of Hazzard style after it's arborocultural expedition!

Another Cortina owned by someone i went to school with would argue the same point - the driver is no longer with us and his passenger wasn't too healthy after! Sliced the car in two lengthways but he reportedly hit the tree at 95mph!

Trees can still hurt someone if they come off two-wheeled transport and hit it at any sort of speed but then so can speed limit signs when you hit them with your head hard enough to dent and bend them and tarmac hurts too when you bounce along it.

Not saying you're wrong, just recounting some of my experiences.

How right you are Dave.

My thinking about off road riding is that one is never doing 95MPH, almost every time I fall off (and if one doesn't fall off at least once during an outing one isn't trying hard enough) the impact (with a tree/bush/ground) speed is well under 5MPH once ameliorated with the brakes/MX boots etc :-)

I wasn't implying hitting a tree on a bike is safe, just that the speeds are much lower off road (and so the 1/2mv^2 is much lower, that is the important bit). The impact speed is often much higher on the road because the objects (cars, vans, lorries etc) are moving as well, so the closing speeds are far higher. Whilst important in a Volvo 244 weighing 1500KG, it is far more important on a bike weighing 150KG attached to a very flimsy rider.

Dan thinks I'm a bit of a hypocrite discouraging him from road bikes whilst having 4 bikes myself - and I agree with him. Ho hum.

Stay alert.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

The subtle difference between being a hypocrite and not is that you have about 4 decades of experience of the way roads etc have changed, not to mention the present attitude of most drivers who all seem to be visually impaired and/or suffer a neck disability as they can't turn their heads to look around to see what's happening before turning or whatever.

I assume you've indoctrinated Dan with the benefits of "the lifesaver" - the over-the-shoulder look to verify what the mirrors are telling you just to be on the safe side?

The biggest unseen hazard these days that i've experienced is diesel spills - can't see them but you can certainly feel them! On two wheeled transport, it would have you off and sliding down the road, in a car the back or front may twitch a bit but usually you get away with it.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The subtle difference between being a hypocrite and not is that you have about 4 decades of experience of the way roads etc have changed, not to mention the present attitude of most drivers who all seem to be visually impaired and/or suffer a neck disability as they can't turn their heads to look around to see what's happening before turning or whatever.

I assume you've indoctrinated Dan with the benefits of "the lifesaver" - the over-the-shoulder look to verify what the mirrors are telling you just to be on the safe side?

The biggest unseen hazard these days that i've experienced is diesel spills - can't see them but you can certainly feel them! On two wheeled transport, it would have you off and sliding down the road, in a car the back or front may twitch a bit but usually you get away with it.

You are being generous Dave - my only aim is looking after my boy :-)

You are right though, remembering to do things like look over one’s right shoulder, and looking ahead for problems only come with experience and (sadly) a few close shaves.

Diesel spills are great problem for bikers - particularly on roundabouts. They are a big thing on a machine with two tyre contact patches the size of a fingernail - the coefficient of friction tending towards zero with no notice is a harrowing experience.

When Dan and I are driving around I always point out things that would be big issues on a bike - drivers pulling out without looking, drivers changing lanes without looking or indicating, drivers muscling into spaces where there there really isn’t enough room, tailgating, potholes on roundabouts, oil spills,,, unfortunately they happen all too often. I think Dan is convinced, which just means it will cost me a lot to buy him cars :-)

Stay alert,

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

When Dan and I are driving around I always point out things that would be big issues on a bike - drivers pulling out without looking, drivers changing lanes without looking or indicating, drivers muscling into spaces where there there really isn’t enough room, tailgating, potholes on roundabouts, oil spills,,, unfortunately they happen all too often. I think Dan is convinced, which just means it will cost me a lot to buy him cars :-)

Stay alert,

Alan

Generous or not Alan it's a fact, you and i and others have survived this long by experience and because we had the benefit of learning on roads nowhere near as crowded and with cars that weren't so fast. Granted 40 years ago give or take as the case may be, yes there were cars around that would do 0-60 in 8 seconds and 140mph top speed but they were the exception rather than the rule as they are today.

Took the 760 out for a spin today to get petrol (interim top up to check on the consumption) and some shopping. I'd been stuck behind two cars doing about 35-40mph in a 60 limit on a road where not only is it safe to do that, it's safer to do that than 30!
It's one of those roads where you need to ease out to have a look, even while maintaining a safe distance behind the car you're about to overtake because there are lots of areas of dead ground and some double bends in the distance. However being a fast road, those double bends actually need to be considered much closer.

As i've eased out to have a look, my left eye catches the rear view mirror in the corner of my eye. Some muppet in a white van that was tailgating me had decided he was going to overtake as well - no signals though.
A bit of split-second thinking on my part, indicator on, moved completely out and floored it about 35-40mph which kicked it down into 2nd so may have been 45-50mph in actual fact.
Meanwhile Numb-Nuts behind still hadn't indicated but had moved out and floored it.
As he was driving a Pugrot van, no prizes for guessing i left him standing but i didn't ease off the loud pedal until after it had gone into 3rd at about 90mph then eased the power back gradually for the bends.

That little half-mile burst probably put a dent in the economy figures i got - 23mpg over the past couple of weeks, if i hadn't done that i would have probably been a lot nearer 26mpg but either way, a vast improvement over 16mpg!
Also i've sorted the ABS problem i had and it rolls easier now. That might also improve my economy.

On this occasion, for me, the right course of action was to do what i did. Another time it might have been wiser to pull back in and bide my time.

It's one of the things only experience can teach you and while being on two wheels does teach experience, the learning curve can be very painful! Much safer in a car!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Generous or not Alan it's a fact, you and i and others have survived this long by experience and because we had the benefit of learning on roads nowhere near as crowded and with cars that weren't so fast. Granted 40 years ago give or take as the case may be, yes there were cars around that would do 0-60 in 8 seconds and 140mph top speed but they were the exception rather than the rule as they are today.

Took the 760 out for a spin today to get petrol (interim top up to check on the consumption) and some shopping. I'd been stuck behind two cars doing about 35-40mph in a 60 limit on a road where not only is it safe to do that, it's safer to do that than 30!
It's one of those roads where you need to ease out to have a look, even while maintaining a safe distance behind the car you're about to overtake because there are lots of areas of dead ground and some double bends in the distance. However being a fast road, those double bends actually need to be considered much closer.

As i've eased out to have a look, my left eye catches the rear view mirror in the corner of my eye. Some muppet in a white van that was tailgating me had decided he was going to overtake as well - no signals though.
A bit of split-second thinking on my part, indicator on, moved completely out and floored it about 35-40mph which kicked it down into 2nd so may have been 45-50mph in actual fact.
Meanwhile Numb-Nuts behind still hadn't indicated but had moved out and floored it.
As he was driving a Pugrot van, no prizes for guessing i left him standing but i didn't ease off the loud pedal until after it had gone into 3rd at about 90mph then eased the power back gradually for the bends.

That little half-mile burst probably put a dent in the economy figures i got - 23mpg over the past couple of weeks, if i hadn't done that i would have probably been a lot nearer 26mpg but either way, a vast improvement over 16mpg!
Also i've sorted the ABS problem i had and it rolls easier now. That might also improve my economy.

On this occasion, for me, the right course of action was to do what i did. Another time it might have been wiser to pull back in and bide my time.

It's one of the things only experience can teach you and while being on two wheels does teach experience, the learning curve can be very painful! Much safer in a car!

Good example Dave. The problem with experience is that it takes a few near misses to build up that good judgement - sometimes back off, sometimes floor it - which to do when, that only comes with practice. 17 year olds have had little practice, and so lack judgement, that is why 50% of them have an accident in the first year of driving.

The issue is exacerbated on a bike - if one makes a mistake then the outcome is more likely to be catastrophic than in a car. Indeed if someone else makes a mistake over which the rider has no control (cars pulling out etc) then the result can be equally poor. I love riding bikes, and in 42 years of riding have not had an accident on the road - but hundreds if not thousands of near misses, some avoided by judgement and quick thinking - others just be good fortune.

The roads have become so busy, and vehicles so much faster over the last 40 years that the risks are much higher now. Bike brakes and tyres have improved enormously, but at the same time the bikes have become so much faster (0-60 times under 3 seconds are entirely possible on sports bikes).

I suspect Dan will gravitate towards bikes at some point - mainly because I ride them. If I can restrict him to to slow but interesting bikes for a while I'm hoping that will satisfy his curiosity enough. I'm thinking of this 45 year old Suzuki Bloop that he learned to ride around the field in Norfolk when he was about 12:



We still have the bike (and it is still on the road, tax and MoT exempt but a nice reliable bike that looks like someone stepped off it in 1986) - sort of cool in its own way.

It is good news about your fuel consumption - notwithstanding your van incident, and the ABS as well.

Stay alert.

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Took the 760 out for a spin today to get petrol (interim top up to check on the consumption) and some shopping. I'd been stuck behind two cars doing about 35-40mph in a 60 limit on a road where not only is it safe to do that, it's safer to do that than 30!
It's one of those roads where you need to ease out to have a look, even while maintaining a safe distance behind the car you're about to overtake because there are lots of areas of dead ground and some double bends in the distance. However being a fast road, those double bends actually need to be considered much closer.

As i've eased out to have a look, my left eye catches the rear view mirror in the corner of my eye. Some muppet in a white van that was tailgating me had decided he was going to overtake as well - no signals though.
A bit of split-second thinking on my part, indicator on, moved completely out and floored it about 35-40mph which kicked it down into 2nd so may have been 45-50mph in actual fact.
Meanwhile Numb-Nuts behind still hadn't indicated but had moved out and floored it.
As he was driving a Pugrot van, no prizes for guessing i left him standing but i didn't ease off the loud pedal until after it had gone into 3rd at about 90mph then eased the power back gradually for the bends.

The rule of thumb I was given about overtakes on single-carriageways was "you need 20mph leeway to do it safely" - any less and you're putting yourself at risk. This does not, however, apply to White Vans which need only 0.5mph more speed than the vehicle they are overtaking because they have a special dispensation from the laws both of physics and of unintended consequences.

It was the late Bill Blydenstein who felt that mid-range torque and the 30-50, 40-60 and 50-70 acceleration times in top gear that were the hallmark of a true performance road-car; the 2.6litre FE Victor was quicker in the mid-range than SAAB's vaunted 99 Turbo.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

The rule of thumb I was given about overtakes on single-carriageways was "you need 20mph leeway to do it safely" - any less and you're putting yourself at risk. This does not, however, apply to White Vans which need only 0.5mph more speed than the vehicle they are overtaking because they have a special dispensation from the laws both of physics and of unintended consequences.

It was the late Bill Blydenstein who felt that mid-range torque and the 30-50, 40-60 and 50-70 acceleration times in top gear that were the hallmark of a true performance road-car; the 2.6litre FE Victor was quicker in the mid-range than SAAB's vaunted 99 Turbo.

White vans are indeed strange animlas!

A 2.6 litre Victor FE? Was that a typo or are you referring to the stroker kit to increase the capacity?

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

White vans are indeed strange animlas!

A 2.6 litre Victor FE? Was that a typo or are you referring to the stroker kit to increase the capacity?

The 2.6 was Blydenstein's final development of the Vauxhall slant-4; the original long-stroke was a 2.5 litre one but the 2.6 litre unit superseded it. The ultimate would have been a 2.6 with a Stage-3 head (big valves, and gas-flowed ports and manifolds) running with twin Strombergs or EFI.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

The 2.6 was Blydenstein's final development of the Vauxhall slant-4; the original long-stroke was a 2.5 litre one but the 2.6 litre unit superseded it. The ultimate would have been a 2.6 with a Stage-3 head (big valves, and gas-flowed ports and manifolds) running with twin Strombergs or EFI.

That's the one i wondered if you meant, it's not very well known about though so was a little surprised. That said i know you've got a lot of knowledge on the slant-four, hence my question.