Traktion

lol! looks nice though! we never get any snow down in Southampton

nice one

Look very cool! Can they do clever stuff like cover parts of the dash board and stuff? Not sure if that'd be good or not, but it'd remove some of the plasticy look.

lol! Is it just me or did that guy totally mess that up... he was going too fast, cranked on the brakes and slammed in to the tree at some speed. It's not like he was even close to missing the tree! lol!

I have no argument with their being no lift if the plane isn't moving. That's totally true. I do however think that the conveyor belt wouldn't provide enough resistence to freely spinning wheels to stop the plane going forward when it powered its jets/props.

But the wheels are spinning freely, yes? So the only affect this would have on the speed of the plane would be the friction in the bearings. IMO, the conveyor belt is just a red herring as the wheels have little to do with the equation.

The wheels are the only thing that can move the plane forward? If that was the case, how would the plane keep moving forward after it had left the ground? In fact, I can't remember ever sitting in a plane, while those tiny wheels frantically spun and slipped trying to accelerate a large passenger plane up a run way either! The jets/propellers power a plane forward and they do so by working against the air (not the ground). It's a trick question which is trying to make you think that the ground has something to do with it; it doesn't. Whether the conveyer belt is moving at 500mph or 1mph, the air above the conveyer belt (which is the important bit) with still be relatively stationary (maybe some turbulence from the belt, but that's it). The wheels are just spinning freely and it wouldn't matter how fast or slow they spun, they would still have practically zero affect on the acceleration of the plane - the only difference would be that the wheels would be spinning faster as the plane moved forward. I guess the only time you could say the ground would have something to do with it, would be if the wheel brake were applied. This would give some reverse force against the jet/props, but even then, given the tires would have finite grip, the huge power from the engines would eventually overcome this too.

But what is keeping the plane stationary? Are you saying that by spinning the planes wheels on a conveyer belt, the plane won't be able to move forward? IF the plane increased it's velocity by powering the *wheels*, this would be the case. BUT it's isn't - it uses a jet engine to provide thrust (or props instead), which is pushing against the *air* at the back and not against the conveyer belt. The wheels have little/no bearing on the speed of the plane, so it makes little/no difference what speed the conveyer belt is running at. If it was a car with wings, powering itself up a runway from powing the wheels, then the conveyer belt *could* keep the car stationary (and stop any lift), but we're talking about engines that are pushing against the air - the wheels just stop it from sitting on it's belly and help when landing EDIT: P.S. I want my vote switched to YES!

Voted no, but then thought about it - Of course it's YES. The wheels are just holding the stationary mass of the plane off the floor. The thrust comes from the jet engine, which pushes against the air and NOT through the wheels. As a result, the only thing the wheels can do to "slow" the plane down, is cause some resistence. It doesn't mention that the wheels have brake, so I'll conclude that it'd only be the resistence in the bearings that would slow the plane at all. Essentially, the wheels have a negligible affect on the acceleration of the plane from the jet thrust. If the power was coming through the wheels, then the belt could keep the plane still, thus not providing the wings with air flow to create lift. TBH, the question is clever though as it fools you into thinking the plane would be stationary, when in fact, it'd take off with the same easy as if it was on a normal runway

That rabbit thing is very odd!

If only I had lots more money...

Mine does that too, but after a few miles, it eases up just nicely. I tend to shift from 1st to 3rd during this period as it doesn't sound like the car is hurting so much! As long as you hang on to first a little longer, 1st to 3rd is just fine anyway imo.

14k?! And you're gonna pay it?! Are you: a) a footballer won the lottery c) have a rich father ?

Mine was pipelinecard.org though! The thing is, it resolves the IP on both the trace and the ping (so no need to put it in my hosts file), but it seems to fail to actually route the traffic for some reason. Even if I go directly to http://213.228.244.140, it still fails. If no one else is having this problem, I'm wondering if it's my ISP.

Many thanks... PM sent. No firewall and every other site on the planet seems to work just fine and dandy. I dunno if it's their DNS that isn't quite right or something as I always just get timeouts. Ping: Pinging www.pipelinecard.org [213.228.244.140] with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Ping statistics for 213.228.244.140: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), Trace: Tracing route to www.pipelinecard.org [213.228.244.140] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms ppp.adsl-5.router.parbin.co.uk [213.162.127.132] 3 17 ms 16 ms 15 ms adsl-5.uk-e14-3.router.parbin.co.uk [213.162.127.118] 4 17 ms 16 ms 18 ms ae0-206.lon22.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.78.133] 5 18 ms 19 ms 21 ms ge-7-1.core2.London1.Level3.net [213.200.77.130] 6 18 ms 20 ms 45 ms ae-15-53.car5.London1.Level3.net [4.68.116.83] 7 150 ms 209 ms 199 ms 80.253.125.76 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 * * * Request timed out. 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out. 16 * * * Request timed out. 17 * * * Request timed out. 18 * * * Request timed out. 19 * * * Request timed out. 20 * * * Request timed out. 21 * * * Request timed out. 22 * * * Request timed out. 23 * * * Request timed out. 24 * * * Request timed out. 25 * * * Request timed out. 26 * * * Request timed out. 27 * * * Request timed out. 28 * * * Request timed out. 29 * * * Request timed out. 30 * * * Request timed out. Trace complete. As you can see... it's pretty dead to me

...and I STILL can't reach their site!?! They hosted on a 286 somewhere?!

Just another comment on here... it's been in my tank a couple of days now and it still definitely seems a lot more pokey at the bottom end; more so than Optimax and even more so than the 95 RON. It's good stuff!

I should imagine it's manufactured under license... pretty common practice these days tbh.

I'm certain that it made a noticable difference on mine... I remember the car tending to lurch a bit as the revs dropped close to 1000-1200rpm, but now it's smooth all the way down until just above idle (about 700rpm or whatever). In fact, with this Tesco 99 fuel too, it seems even happier than ever. Sure, you may not notice the kit if you're revving the nuts off the car, but it made a big difference when I was just trying to drive smoothly, especially in slow moving traffic.

90.7p a litre I think it was. Mine did the moving bit before when cold, but I can't remember being able to pull away from a stand still when warm, just by pulling up the clutch. Anyway, it's pretty decent stuff and a lot cheaper than Optimax/Ultimate around these parts (Southampton).

I've just had a good drive on my first tank full of Tesco 99 petrol and have to say it's pretty sweet! Performance was great and there seemed to be more torque low down too (managed to provoke a little wheel spin in the wet, in forth doing about 40 odd on a bend lol). Seemed to be at least as good as anything else I have tried for at higher revs too. Also, one cool thing is low speed performance... after doing 50 miles on a nicely warm engine, the car would stroll along at about 3 mph with my foot off all the pedals in first gear - no sign of stalling. To test it, I actually manoeuvred into a parking space without using the accelerator! lol! It's probably nicer to the engine to give it a few more revs, but a good demonstration of the low end torque characteristics of the fuel!

It sounds like you had a total nightmare! I'm just glad the site is back and I have some more trivia to read to break up the day!

Good to see you have it all sorted out! I've missed this place...

The car feels much smoother, esp at low revs with them added imo.

When are they gonna sort their server out though?! I STILL can't reach it!