Morris Minor Owners Club

Seems the Toyota Prius cars are being recalled - because when the brake pedal is pressed - nothing much happens! Perhaps all Minors should also be recalled ?

Especially those with faulty servos

You made that rod for your own back Bill!

No problem with "W" brakes

bmcecosse wrote:Seems the Toyota Prius cars are being recalled - because when the brake pedal is pressed - nothing much happens! Perhaps all Minors should also be recalled ?

Can't believe what I'm reading, Roy!! Surely you should have put a "Big W" qualifier in that statement!

Who me ? I was waiting to see who would take the bait - I didn't have long to wait.........

bmcecosse wrote:Who me ? I was waiting to see who would take the bait - I didn't have long to wait.........

Only 744 to go! You're doing this on purpose

just posting for the sake of it

i think roy should get out more instead of idling on the computer

Absolutely Brilliant

Those Priuses (Prii??) need good brakes because pretty much everytime I see one down here in Kent on the Motorway they are blasting past at 90mph. For a car supposed to be designed for maximum economy you would think they would be found on the inside lane of the dual carriageway at a steady 56mph! At 90MPH, most diesel cars would give better economy than a big petrol car with a 1.5 L engine carrying heavy batteries and electric motors! With that usage a small light car with a small petrol engine would give better economy.

Just goes to show that purchase of such a car by the smug looking occupants is a statement of perceived green image rather than true intent.

"LOOK AT HOW ECO I AM IN MY POSH MODERN HYBRID, I have a right to look down on the rest of you with smugness, holding the ethical high ground as I do".

OK, I can see the point if you live in a city and do a lot of stop start motoring where the hybrid system will be doing its bit, but even then if you live in the city and mistakenly think that producing CO2 harms the environment, then you should be using public transport.

I've seen the same thing John. I think it was Top Gear that did a test between a Prius and a VW Polo bluemotion - The Polo won on fuel economy by about 25% and was cheaper to buy in the first place.
Glad you have spotted the "CO2" farce - I thought it was just me

PSL184 wrote:I've seen the same thing John. I think it was Top Gear that did a test between a Prius and a VW Polo bluemotion - The Polo won on fuel economy by about 25% and was cheaper to buy in the first place.
Glad you have spotted the "CO2" farce - I thought it was just me

Controversial stuff! I make a habit of disbelieving anything any Government says on principle!
The idea that they are concerned about the environment for any reasons other than making non-jobs and raising taxation I find frankly laughable! Everyone should be forced to drive Morris Minors- that would be enough to persuade the masses to revert to Public Transport!

Yes, not only are some non- hybrids more economical, but if not driven economically then the situation is even worse. Top Gear recently drove a Prius and a BMW M3 (or some big engined BMW) around their track as fast as possible.

The BMW got 19MPG being driven as hard as possible on the track and the Prius 17mpg! So going fast down the motorway, tailgating other motorists who are driving at economical speeds and tearing round roundabouts and cornering fast on A roads in your Prius somehwat defeats the purpose of buying such a hybrid in the first place!

AS for the farce that is a whole other kettle of worms that I'd best not get into on here! PM me if you want PSL. I'm all for saving resources, eco driving (eco as in economy) and caring for the environment but not for being conned due to a dubious theory!
I wonder if in the future, especially if Europe and the US have more very bad winters if the Prius and it's ilk will replace 4x4's as the most hated cars on the road.

A letter to the editor of the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin 22/12/2009. A bit of a long read and mainly regarding the situation in Australia, but thought provoking nonetheless:

The Editor

The Morning Bulletin.

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.

Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.


As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.


We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective; If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to ..038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by ..004 percent.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that.

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.


T.L. Cardwell

PS. To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.

No need for me to send you a PM John - I think ferret has said everything I would have said above.....

PSL184 wrote:No need for me to send you a PM John - I think ferret has said everything I would have said above.....

I won't say anymore in public on this part of the website as I got into trouble a couple of years ago here for my views on this subject. I will send you a PM with a few interesting websites.

PSL184 wrote:No need for me to send you a PM John - I think ferret has said everything I would have said above.....

I was only quoting text from the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin (I'm using that as a loophole), not my opinion although I may be sympathetic to the gentleman's cause.

I know we shouldn't laugh but...

It's up there already Matt! I believe these Pious cars have substantial tax advantages for business users ..... And I don't think they pay the London 'congestion' charge? Which is why they can be popular as 'Company' cars - they don't care about the MPG (or the emissions) - they just want the least tax bill!