ilogikal1

Or imports...

Okay, Regulation 14 refers to the link Modd1uk posted up earlier. Criteria 1 satisfies Seat and Land Rover, and other European marketed cars. However, it is criteria 2 specifically that I have been referring to all this time. All information courtesy of DTLR.

I will never ignore somebody unless they were a complete ass. But if you do find some official documentation please feel free to post it, i mean if i'm wrong i would like to know so i can make humble apologies You can't argue with the permitted layouts though, that's as clear as day it shows a square plate lol. Well, I'm not sure about complete, but the other bit might apply. I absolutely agree that square plates are a permitted format, I think I already said that, but it may not be a blanket "help yourself to this" type format. Unless I'm wrong. Which is perfectly possible. And Seat differ from the Land Rover or Mitsubishi examples I already quoted how exactly? The grey area (if I'm right, which I admit is in doubt) is the definition of "suitable space", or more accurately the lack thereof.

Yeah, I'd believe what you've found over me too... even if I did have a link to back me up. I'd read that document more as "assuming you have this plate, set it out as such, if you have this one do this" rather than "you can set it out as either this, this or this". But either way, if the rectangular mount is coming off anyway then it shouldn't ever be an issue regardless. If I find some ar*sed to search out where I read that above, I'll post it up. Until then, feel free to ignore me (I'm used to that these days anyway).

Apologies if I'm wrong on this, but that relates to character spacing more than plate shape. Whilst square plates are permitted (I'm not denying that, btw) I'm sure there is something (which I accept may have assumed to be law) that states something along the lines of (I can't remember the exact wording and I can't be ar*sed to look it up ) that if there's a "suitable space" for a rectangular plate then it must be rectangular. Certain cars - such as Land Rovers, Evos, etc, (with regards to taxi's, it's more specifically the lack of space for the required information to be displayed along with the plate leads to the lack of space) - don't offer a "suitable space" to mount a rectangular plate and so comply; hence my comment regarding the rectangular mount. Not meaning to be argumentative here or anything, but I'm adamant there is something along those lines in place. If this is the case, and as I tried to make out in my last post, you'd be incredibly unlucky for it ever to be an issue providing you remove the rectangular mount... which would just look stupid with a square plate anyway in fairness.

Lexx is right, it is technically illegal. However the only way you're likely to get pulled by the police for it is if you still have the rectangular mount fitted. A particularly mardy MOT tester could fail it, if you happen to catch him on the wrong day, but that's also unlikely.

He has just about everything, ever.

You still need to declare it as a claim when your renewing your insurance as it goes down a no fault claim.... My windscreen claim shows up as non-fault claim.... That just seems unfair. So if you got a crack in your window from a brick flying from a lorry that goes down as a not at fault claim? I thought windows were outside of affecting no claim bonuses. It depends largely on the insurer. Generally speaking, most will allow 2 window claims within 12 months where a third would result in it being recorded as such.

Ah, the Goldilocks temp.

There's an argument that hot water shifts dirt better/easier than cold water (hence why washing machines, dishwashers, etc. use hot water), however I only have a cold water tap outside thus my pressure washer stage is all cold water. I do prefer warm water in the buckets though... but that's because it's preferable to sticking my hands in freezing cold water more than anything.

They really suit the car, Chris, looks good.

Lots of colours? Could Smudgeon get purple? Yeah, but probably not the right shade...

Great job.

Clean with any (suitably diluted) all purpose cleaner, dress with Einszett Gummi Pflege. Done and done.

Nope, you're not the only one. I've not tried the last one yet, but of the others only one has come close to being usable (in my opinion) and that was #008. Even that wasn't particularly easy to work with though - having said that, I do tend to compare waxes to the likes of Poorboys Natty's and Dodo Juice in terms of ease of use - and I still wouldn't choose it, given the option, much less buy it. The rest have just been utterly terrible at best.

That. Also, if you happen to write off one car, there's still as great a risk (or more according to insurance companies, because once you've claimed that's all you ever do for you the next 5 years... or something) of having to pay out for the other car. Twice the assets, twice the risk of them having to pay out, twice the premium, simple.

In my own recent test, Rim Wax didn't even last a month and has been out performed by Poorboys Wheel Sealant so I'd recommend the latter over the former. But then FK1000P is better still. If, however, you want durability then G-Techniq C5 is my suggestion.

Or, as someone might have mentioned already once or elevetysix times, you could do the pedal dance and find out what the problem is... er... today.

They look better than I thought they would actually.

Cheers for the comments guys. You can't beat a good bit of beading porn!

I'll keep you informed of how I get on then, as I'm also using PIAA wipers. I've currently got just G5 on the windscreen to see how it plays with the wipers & durability, but it's only been on for a week - first impressions are that the rain runs off at slightly lower speeds than the PIAA Screen Protect (that it's replaced). but there's not much difference. I did get a bit of judder from the wipers for the first 10 minutes or so of having them on in light rain, but it soon settled down - G-Techniq advise it can happen at first but I forget how long they suggest to give it. On the rear screen I've got a 50/50 thing going with G5 on one side, PIAA on the other with corresponding side windows too for good measure - G5 seems to sheet the water from the hose a little quicker than than PIAA - only driven once in light-ish rain since applying it and to be honest there's not really much between them so far. The only other noticeable difference was that G5 is a touch more involved to apply, PIAA is almost a simple wipe on/wipe off but G5 needs a bit more elbow grease both to spread and buff (not a huge effort though!) - and it will dry on the microfibre if you don't spread it quickly enough too. I know what you mean about the Sonax, it is a lot of work for a QD... but it's not a typical QD. I've not decided if it's worth the extra effort it takes though yet.