Chesterfield

So, The Z wins in a straight line. The Z wins round a track. The Z is the better drivers car. But one driver gives it a split vote and the other would take home the RX-8, so theRX-8 is a winner! Brilliant logic. The RX-8 is a nice car, we looked at one some time ago, but I really couldntget on with those doors. Cool for 5 minutes, but when I found out that it is possible to hit the exterior paintwork of the front door with the interior metal of the rear door, I left it. Still, its a decent car though. As for the bit where a modified older subaru is quicker on the quarter than the Z, well its not really a surprise is it, but I didnt buy the Z to look like a chav or to have something that 9 billion other people in the same town have.

Yeah, I suppose asking for tax raised from roads to be spent on roads is a bit far fetched, but why should it be. Im a believer that tax for a particular item should be based on the costs of providing the infrastructure etc for the particualr item. i.e alchohol tax should be split and fund the health service and policing (alchohol fueld crimes etc) tax from cigarettes to fund the enforcement of ban and the national health service tax from petrol, on the roads, tax from businesses to pay for business waste services etc. Rather than chucking it all into one pot and splitting it out wherever the government deem fitin order to try and swing a few votes.

Sounds like Lamborghini are trying to cover their arse at the moment. It certainly sounds fishy with several cars crashing in apparently the exact same manner, by doing a hard right into whatever barrier/woodland is on the right. Especially seeing as one of those cases involved a Lamborghini test driver. Mind you, somebody at Lamborghini must be crapping themselves, because if a defect is found that explains these hars right turns, then somebody is responsible for the lives of the 2 people who died in one of those crashes. The fueling cut off of the Gallardo also sounds very dodgy indeed! Enough to put me off buying one for now anyway. Well that and the obvious lack of funds right now.

Its actually the linking of tax to polution that really gets on my threpenny bits. Lets say they rebranded road tax as "polution tax" (in fact it is that in all but name now anyway) The new car Im intent on getting to replace the Golf, has a CO2 level of 167gkm - and with about 16000km per annum, thats 2,672KG of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, all for a cost of £160. The Z has a C02 rating of 288g/km, and wil do about 9000km per annum which is 2592KG of CO2 pumped out for a cost of £190 (£210 for a new one thanks to the newly created bracket) So the Z would actually cost £30 a year more in order to pump out 80KG of CO2 less! I totally dissagree with taxes being linked to polution, without taking into account the actual usage of the offending machine/device. Some motorway cruisers will be paying lesstax than my Z, but pottentially pumping out much. much more CO2. So how can this tax be based on emissions?

Its possible that Im actually in a minority here who think this may be a good idea. For example, I pay £110 road tax on the Golf, and do maybe 10,000 miles. Yet I pay £190 for the Z and it does maybe half the mileage. There are positives and negatives for such a system, but I dont think it is beyond the realms of possibility.

Ahh well. Perhaps it was something I said?

We wont change the name, it requires a change in the database, which quite honestly, I cant be bothered to make in order to carry on a joke, as it could cause errors with existing posts etc. Breath easy!

Gents, Is there any possibility we can leave some of the comments/responses in this topic to the likes of Max power and Nuts magazine. Ta, Chris.

ahh yes - of course, one owner previous to the current one. Its going to be a long day.

Its also listed as one previous owner, how does that work if Dorian was the first?

Do these go over, or replace the existing plastic covers?

Nope, it was the driveshaft, and its carbon steel. It may well have popped a propshaft too since then, I wouldn't be surprised given the torque.

Im pretty sure the one above is no longer clicking but yes, I believe they are the culprits.

Just thought Id settle the debate here as to whether the Sumo car snapped its prop shaft or drive shaft. It was the driveshaft. The shaft from the diff, to the wheels. Not the long carbon shaft running the length of the car. I have a picture of said snapped shaft, in my mitten... Its most certainly the driveshaft (well a drive shaft as I know it anyway). With the torque the pink Z puts out, I could see it snapping a CF propshaft too if pushed though.

Exactly - a win win situation for all.....

Is it big enough to hold a mini meet in the area?

Louis thats just a nasty video. lol

It will take off. The converyor cant stop it, all that would happen is that the plane would move forward, and the converyor would speed up. The plane would continue to push forward and the conveyor would try and push it backward, but it wouldnt as the conveyor would just be spinning the wheels. The plane would eventually build up enough forward momentum and take off. Though it would need to be a VERY long runway and the wheels would be spinning at an infinite speed. It probably wouldnt take off in reality as the friction/heat built up in the wheels spinning at this rate would melt the tyres, cause the plane to list and wobble out of control, smash its lnding gear and end up a big messy fireball at the side of the conveyor.

Jim, thats just nasty.. heres my first one.. http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/play_ ... id=1784341

Nope, they probably know that we are not that naive, just that they know nothing will be done about it, and after a week it will all be forgotten.

Actually I dont think it got to court, as there was not enough evidence to bring charges. Isnt the fact that its in the car with him enough evidence? Its just one example of how distorted our legal system has become, unfortunately its the system and not those who work within it. But in the case of the speeding policemen, they should be sacked with immediate effect. They are supposed to uphold the law, and doing 48 in a 40 would have seen any one of us with a fine and points, regardless of excuses.

What a total surprise. And the police wonder why more and more people have completely lost confidence in the police. If there is no fine at the end of a crime, then they arent bothered. Look at that police/car show on the beeb the other night. Lady uses a bus lane to overtake when there is zero traffic around, an she gets a £30 fine. Same time a copper finds a bloke with 2 kilo of weed under the drivers seat, and no charges are brought due to lack of evidence as to who it belonged to. If the crime you committ carries no fine, then its just not bothered with anymore. Im still waiting for a police officer to justify to me the use of forward facing cameras, which have no effect against motorcycles, yet motorcyclists are the single "most at risk of death" group on the roads. Wheres the "safety" in that?

That just gave me one of the biggest giggles Ive had in a while.

Agreed, locked as requested by the author.

Phew, thanks guys - just though I had better check.