Ekona

Right, I'm with you now, sorry. In that case any of the above really will do, by default they'll have more grip than a road tyre in like for like sensible conditions. If budget allows then still Cup2s as they're the very best and if you're competing then why not give yourself the maximum advantage, but if not then I'd go R888R out of those on the list for bang/buck. I know some folks are terrified about using track tyres in dodgy conditions, but I've personally used the older R888s in semi-monsoon conditions and only spun it because I was being a tit

Only going on personal recommendations from others on this one, but from guys whose taste tends to be similar to mine, I'd go with the Cup2s. These are the standard tyres on GT3s, and I know more than a few people who run their cars all year round as well as on track, and they cannot believe the difference in cold & wet conditions from the older Cup1s. Not to say you wouldn't still struggle in monsoons, but in terms of temps they've done sub-zero runs in Europe with no real problems at all. Not saying they're going to be flawless, and like any tyre you're going to have to get some heat into them to get them working, but that's where I'd put my money. FWIW I ran R888s on both my 350 and MR2, and the only time I had real issues with grip was in the MR2 when it was -7c outside: First corner I came to I ended up going straight on even at 5mph, so I turned round and went home In all other conditions, they were always offering superior grip to anything else, MPSS included.

Genuinely can’t believe how lightly the ICC have gone on Smith. That kind of deliberate planned cheating is disgusting, right up there with drugs cheats imho.

It's an auto!! That really is a lovely colour blue.

It’s “Happy wife, happy life” not happy Mrs

I don't have Sky any more, so thankfully I get to miss shizzle like that I feel we need more description though...

Boris didn't actually say that. It was a Labour MP, Ian Austin, that actually made the comparison: Boris simply agreed with the sentiment. Whether it's a fair comparison or not, it certainly wasn't a clever thing for either man to say.

I'd take it to a specialist and ask them to give it a once over. Be far more reliable than any of the generic companies.

I’ve seen every episode of Spooks, I know how this all works.

Best. Response. Ever. Well OP, don’t you look a little foolish now? Not really sure what else you expected done for you: Sometime’s things go wrong, Adrian did all he could to help, job’s a carrot.

Yup, but not the target’s home country (ignoring that he is Russian, working on the basis he was given asylum here so basically one of us). It’s a moral grey area I know.

And there’s no chance in hell that we’ve not shown the Russians the evidence. They know we know they know we know.

As I see it, 100% definitely. Doing it on sovereign soil is a big no-no, abroad is fair game.

To convince even the EU (who don’t really like us atm) that the Russkies did it, there must be some seriously credible evidence. For security reasons it’s safe to assume they’re not going to publically show this.

Russia’s response was very odd. Using a nerve agent to take out a traitor is excessive to say the least, not to mention incredibly risky politically. Why not just shoot the guy? Botched robbery etc. These guys are pros, and this all just seems a little amateur. However, going back to my first sentence, why did Russia not really deny it? They’ve basically done nothing more than pooh-pooh the whole idea, rather than be outraged at the suggestion. That suggests to me that they did do it, and aren’t actually that bothered about people knowing that. Muscle flexing? And just before the presidential election? Yeah, sounds about right to me. Bearing in mind Putin is losing his support from Trump due to Trump being a bit useless, I can see why he’d want to do something like that. I’ve no doubt Russia was responsible, if not directly then indirectly at least. They’ve taken a mighty big risk doing it though, so there’s a bigger end game here.

Sports car for me is: 2 seat Convertible Reasonably light Reasonably small Compromised, so not a lot of room for luggage So MX5 is definitely a sports car, as is an S2K and a 488 Spider. BRZ86 and the Zeds are sports coupes, as is the 911 and 488 tintop.

Sorry, that wasn’t meant as a dig, I totally get the reasoning I was merely speaking in broad terms. Most manufacturers kill off the base model at the end of the life cycle, and it’s not like the 370 has been a massive seller for Nissan anyway.

It makes sense really, I can imagine no one really wants the basic model anymore esp when the car itself is so old now, so everyone is buying the newer one which is what they’re maximising production of. I’m actually half amazed that they’re producing the standard 370 at all.

Rumours.

Does it bobbins assuming a £30k car is going to have payments of at least £300pcm, another £24 is nothing.

Why was it cancelled then? I missed that.

Anyone who runs a performance car or who spends over £30k on a new car and even gives VED a second thought needs shooting. It’s totally and utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Not sure a potential 400Z would be remotely eating into Alpine sales at all. One's a mid engined four pot with a DCT, one's (likely) a front engined turbo V6 with a slushbox. Sports car vs GT, 250bhp vs at least 350bhp. My biggest worry for future Zed is that it has no idea what it wants to be. Not luxury enough to worry the Infiniti, not sporty enough to worry the Cayman, too pricey to worry the GT86. If (and it's a big if) the rumours are true, it sounds like it's destined for Flopsville. Or at least, not remotely interesting for those of us that y'know, like to actually drive a car.

See, I'm okay with this one Truth is, flat earth opens up far more questions than it ever answers. Davey has his beliefs that are very much rooted in what humans used to believe in hundreds of years ago back when we thought we could treat all illnesses with leeches, and most of those thoughts based in just that: Belief. There's zero evidence to support a lot of what he believes to be true, yet he still chooses to do so. I can't have a serious and genuine intellectual conversation with someone who thinks like that, and whilst I admire a lot of you (especially Col and Stevo) for carrying this thread on with reasoned debate, ultimately you're on a hiding to nothing. Davey, as I've said before you're a lovely guy and anything non-religious and non-scientific then I'm happy to treat you like a brother, but on this I have to take a step back for the sake of everyone. My posts on here of late have become flippant simply due to the fact I find your replies/questions obtuse and misleading, and whilst I'm certainly open to the idea of questioning everything sometimes a blinkered response caused by religious beliefs closes your mind off to what could actually be the truth. I respect that you have different beliefs to me, but whereas I can accept that new ideas may well cause me to give second thought to previously upheld truths (so let's use the Higg's Boson or even Hawking's ideas), I very much doubt that anything anyone in the world will ever say to you could change your spiritual beliefs to the point where you question them. But that's okay. We don't all have to think the same, and whilst it would be very easy of me to make a ridiculously sarcastic comment here I choose not to, out of respect. What I will say is that I genuinely hope and believe that one day all of mankind will open their minds to what is in front of them, and not look back to the past for guidance. Ironically the sooner we question everything (and I mean everything), the quicker we can all move on and look to the future.

Well, I’m convinced now, that’s conclusive evidence to me. Flat earth ftw.