ilogikal1

Or stones collecting in a bucket that you've driven over? Yes, I'm being extra helpfull tonight, I know.

One day someone on here is going to complete a build and then actually keep the car... Just for the novelty! Granville, GLWTS (you crazy fool!).

Have you tested it with a different phone? Just a thought.

What you need is a bird, to catch the spider. Then of course you need a cat to catch the bird. Then a dog to catch the cat. Then apparently a goat to catch the dog, a cow to catch the goat, a horse to catch the cow and you need to swallow them all or something.

I've just checked; there's a Ferrari parked outside my house, that means it's mine right? I mean my neighbour owns it and all but he lets me look at it from my living room window so that means it's mine now, yeah?

I'm just going to casually leave this completely unrelated and innocent comment here... (I have no idea if this is at all related to the explanation, I've just seen a conclusion within jumping distance btw.).

Which is fine, if you're the one buying the car that you're selling.... If however the buyer is someone else, someon who disagrees with that (and there's plenty of reason on this thread to suggest that a number of people would see it as questionable if not detrimental) then all you're doing is reducing your target market for, as Ekona says, the sake of saving £40.

The whole franchise has been fundamentally flawed in principal; super-computer that's smart enough to take over the world, can't figure out the grandfather paradox... or the bootstrap paradox either of which predetermines it's rather predictable failure. Not to mention the predestination paradox, especially in the first film. The first one was meh - unusually it was a good execution of a ****-poor plot, it's usually the other way around. The second one was better - still flawed but marginally less so. After that it just got worse (and worse, and worse...).

Unless you look at them from the other direction...

As Ekona says about the insurance. Speak to them directly, be honest and explain to them that you believe it has a factory fitted bodykit one - get them to list what exactly that comprises of too! - and let them decide if they want to charge you extra for it or not essentially. Admiral will charge you extra for the priviledge of having modifications on the car (any their definition of "modifications" is loose at the best of times) but if you opt for the additional "modifications cover" they will pay out a maximum of £500 and not a penny more. That, by the way, is £500 over the "market value" of a base spec car. Speak to proper insurers instead and get a proper level of cover.

Best way? Ask someone who knows what they're doing to do it for you. Failing that pay someone who knows what they're doing to do it for you. Failing both of those, a steam cleaner is by far the easiest way to do it yourself - work methodically on small areas at a time to clean it up, polish and dress where needed afterwards and you're done. You can do it with a pressure washer - you're safest bet is to cover anything electrical/delecate/air intakes with cling film/plastic bags/tin foil - spay on a good degreaser (Bilt Hamber Surfex HD, I'm looking at you!), allow to dwell for a minute or two, aggitate with a brush if needs be then carefully rinse off with water (lower pressure is safest, but most modern engines can cope with pressure washers so long as you're sensible with where you're directing it!). Carb cleaner is great for stubborn dirt, simply spray on a small area and then immediately wipe off with a rag, repeat as necessary - be careful around the trim though as it can stain if it dries out on plastics. When it's clean allow to dry (either go and have a beer or two, or run the engine for a bit to dry it out) and then dress appropraite areas. Again, it's usually best to work methodically over smaller areas than trying to do everything at once. Or, accept defeat and just never look under the bonnet again.

Grundy trying to show off again I'd just assumed his right hand wanted it's own car...

Yep, snipers dotted around the rooftops of London ready to take out anyone daring to drive an actual car into the exclusion zone by way of enforcing this.... Or, you know, just the option (or choice, if you will) to pay not to comply with the emissions "requirement" instead.

Yes sir your taxi will be with you in three hours, we've just plugged it in...

Can I interest sir in Tesco's new ICE burger?

I have read plenty of material on the subject, both biased one way or the other and impartial and I have drawn my own conclusions. I'm still not convinced that EV's are the solution so it's not "very obvious", it's not even slightly obvious - and I consider my own opinion to be objective because I have no vested interest in EV's being the solution or just being an alternative to ICE. Currently, as the technology stands today, EV's are merely an alternative to ICE suitable for a certain cross-section of the market, they are not currently the one sole solution for the whole market. That might change in the future, but the speculation about where that technology could be in the future is actually no different to the speculation about where ICE could be, or hydrogen fuel cells could be, or even any other alternative - currently known or not. The concept that EV's are the be all and end all is flawed. The concept that EV's could be a viable solution is in it's infancy, until the technology is readily available (not just a mid-to-long term plan of one company that may or may not actually get there) it's just not a solution; it's merely a theory.

Essentially the point I was trying to express, the enthusiasm for the Leaf and Tesla appears to have overcome the objectivity.

What do you mean unwilling to acknowledge what?? That thing I said in the rest of the sentence...

I'd rather continue to question the parts I have a different understanding or view of to try and understand where you're actually coming from, if you don't object that is? I'm not just trying to be a smart arse ****, I'm actually trying to understand why you're (seemingly) unwilling to acknowledge that EV's aren't now, and probably never will be, a perfect solution.

Rest assured I've not just taken your word for anything you've said so far on this topic. You seem to consistently say that any alternative wont work because of reasons X, Y & Z whilst simultaneously completely overlooking that reasons Y & Z apply to EV's, albeit in differing degrees both lesser and greater. It was entertaining at first but it's starting to wear thin to be honest. As Ekona said, it's not "clear and obvious" as identified by every single argument put forward against EV's in this thread for a start. The solution is actually very complex and confused, hence the continued reliance on fossil fuels on a massive scale.

Unlike batteries, which don't use any precious metals at all in their production... It never ceases to amaze me just how blinkered you come across on this topic, it's quite mesmerising at times.

Having seen the pictures in proper sizes, I suspect more now that Ricey is spot on.

My theory is/was that the lacquer is just retaining moisture in the pores on one side of the tide mark - if the area above the mark was considerably warmer than the area under it, it could simply be that the upper portion has dried out fully, if that side wasn't in the sun that would support my thinking. I may be grasping at straws here, but dark patches in paint can be/have been/will be caused by this. If I am right, it'll go away on its own so check it again tomorrow. If it doesn't go away, get a paint depth reading as per Ricey's post.

Good point, I hadn't though of it that way. Taking a closer look at that reaction you spotted, you could well be right, I'd just overlooked that to be bird lime etching or something. I'm also viewing on my phone currently and a whole load of other bad excuses... Still interested to see at what point my (wrong) theory holds water (pardon the pun) though, if the OP could indulge me - but Ricey's probably right.