Noddy is a Knob

[Ext User(Anonyma)]

He drives a fiat what else needs to be said

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Anonyma" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote in message
news:b9f82a25d091e8beaf7ba8bd4b236a50@deuxpi.ca...

> He drives a fiat what else needs to be said

I'd rather rip your eyeballs out and eat them than drive a Fiat.

Actually, I'd rather do that than anything else I've got planned today....

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Dan---)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:45340a58$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Anonyma" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote in message
> news:b9f82a25d091e8beaf7ba8bd4b236a50@deuxpi.ca...
>
>> He drives a fiat what else needs to be said
>
> I'd rather rip your eyeballs out and eat them than drive a Fiat.
>
> Actually, I'd rather do that than anything else I've got planned today....

Hired another stalker eh Nod! :-p

For gods sake just say sorry to your mrs. ;-)

--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Dan---" <iamgod@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:12j849f5qe6pnd8@corp.supernews.com...

> Hired another stalker eh Nod! :-p

Looks like it :)

> For gods sake just say sorry to your mrs. ;-)

Fuck that :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"Anonyma" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote in message
news:b9f82a25d091e8beaf7ba8bd4b236a50@deuxpi.ca...
> He drives a fiat what else needs to be said

Fiat used to build some good cars. In 1970 they brought out their
belt-driven twincam 1600cc. What a ball-tearer donk that was compared to a
lot of the competition at the time. In the standard Fiat 125 sedan, that
engine took it to 100 mph no troubles. The rest of the car wasn't great, but
that donk was an example of true Italian engineering.

Jason

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Dan--- wrote:
> "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45340a58$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>> "Anonyma" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote in message
>> news:b9f82a25d091e8beaf7ba8bd4b236a50@deuxpi.ca...
>>
>>> He drives a fiat what else needs to be said
>> I'd rather rip your eyeballs out and eat them than drive a Fiat.
>>
>> Actually, I'd rather do that than anything else I've got planned today....
>
> Hired another stalker eh Nod! :-p
>
> For gods sake just say sorry to your mrs. ;-)
>

LOL.


Daryl

[Ext User(George W. Frost)]

"Jason James" <home@work.1.0> wrote in message
news:4534558b$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Anonyma" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote in message
> news:b9f82a25d091e8beaf7ba8bd4b236a50@deuxpi.ca...
> > He drives a fiat what else needs to be said
>
> Fiat used to build some good cars. In 1970 they brought out their
> belt-driven twincam 1600cc. What a ball-tearer donk that was compared to a
> lot of the competition at the time. In the standard Fiat 125 sedan, that
> engine took it to 100 mph no troubles. The rest of the car wasn't great,
but
> that donk was an example of true Italian engineering.
>
> Jason


And we can all remember the brilliance of Eyetalian excellent engineering
with the Fiat
Remember the Fiat tank they built during WW2 ??
excellent bit of machinery, one forward and six reverse gears

[Ext User(John_H)]

Jason James wrote:
>
>Fiat used to build some good cars. In 1970 they brought out their
>belt-driven twincam 1600cc. What a ball-tearer donk that was compared to a
>lot of the competition at the time. In the standard Fiat 125 sedan, that
>engine took it to 100 mph no troubles. The rest of the car wasn't great, but
>that donk was an example of true Italian engineering.

Pity the piston skirts used to part company from the crowns (while
still on warranty if you were lucky). I can recall at least two
bought new that suffered that fate, and a few more more secondhand
ones that had.

100mph mighta been stretching it a bit too... more like 90 as I
remember 'em... if you could stand the noise.

Best part of 'em was actually the brakes. :)

--
John H

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"John_H" <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jav8j25jhn6j7u7h1cifp2tpm7c2ecb67h@4ax.com...
> Jason James wrote:
>>
>>Fiat used to build some good cars. In 1970 they brought out their
>>belt-driven twincam 1600cc. What a ball-tearer donk that was compared to
>>a
>>lot of the competition at the time. In the standard Fiat 125 sedan, that
>>engine took it to 100 mph no troubles. The rest of the car wasn't great,
>>but
>>that donk was an example of true Italian engineering.
>
> Pity the piston skirts used to part company from the crowns (while
> still on warranty if you were lucky). I can recall at least two
> bought new that suffered that fate, and a few more more secondhand
> ones that had.
>
> 100mph mighta been stretching it a bit too... more like 90 as I
> remember 'em... if you could stand the noise.
>
> Best part of 'em was actually the brakes. :)
>
Is that all?!!?
I thought the lower-tech 1968 Datsun 1600 was good for the ton!
--
Knob

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:42:12 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au>
scribbled thusly:

>> For gods sake just say sorry to your mrs. ;-)
>
>Fuck that :)

Send me a picture of her and I'll decide...


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:09b9j2d4296m8g69v0avhn4bhsa0vaelid@4ax.com...

> Send me a picture of her and I'll decide...

Sorry Oz, but she's not into dago sports car drivers.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(John Hudson)]

"George W. Frost" <frosty@iceworks.org.au> wrote in message
news:jc_Yg.48500$rP1.3265@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> And we can all remember the brilliance of Eyetalian excellent engineering
> with the Fiat
> Remember the Fiat tank they built during WW2 ??
> excellent bit of machinery, one forward and six reverse gears
>
>

What was the one forward gear for?

[Ext User(John_H)]

Knobdoodle wrote:
>
>I thought the lower-tech 1968 Datsun 1600 was good for the ton!

Downhill with a tail wind perhaps!

'Motor' managed to get 95 out of one (presumably on their best
run).... http://www.turbophile.com/media/1968_1600_review.html

The SSS, on the same site, did crack the ton (according to 'Sports Car
World').

They were also the days of optimistic speedos, exaggerated power
claims and specially prepared cars for road testers.

Can't say I ever measured the top speed of a Datsun 1600 (stopwatch
over a measured distance) but I can recall a few other makes of the
same era that never got within 10mph of the 'road test' figure (or
within 20mph of what their owners claimed).

IIRC the Fiat 125 had about the same claimed output as the 1600SSS
(around 75kW) and possibly the one prepared by the manufacturer for
the motor magazines might've been good for the ton. None I ever got
to try was.

--
John H

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"John_H" <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2jaj2pc4omdb2kb2bscsjg1hf6ou2h24h@4ax.com...
> Knobdoodle wrote:
> >
> >I thought the lower-tech 1968 Datsun 1600 was good for the ton!
>
> Downhill with a tail wind perhaps!
>
> 'Motor' managed to get 95 out of one (presumably on their best
> run).... http://www.turbophile.com/media/1968_1600_review.html
>
> The SSS, on the same site, did crack the ton (according to 'Sports Car
> World').
>
> They were also the days of optimistic speedos, exaggerated power
> claims and specially prepared cars for road testers.
>
> Can't say I ever measured the top speed of a Datsun 1600 (stopwatch
> over a measured distance) but I can recall a few other makes of the
> same era that never got within 10mph of the 'road test' figure (or
> within 20mph of what their owners claimed).
>
> IIRC the Fiat 125 had about the same claimed output as the 1600SSS
> (around 75kW) and possibly the one prepared by the manufacturer for
> the motor magazines might've been good for the ton. None I ever got
> to try was.

I owned a '72 125, and flat-chat it would just crack the ton on the speedo,
so it may have been out of cal. The gearbox was troublesome as it needed
reracing at 70,000 miles. Very light in the arse as well,..wet roads just
after rain had started, had to be careful.

Jason

[Ext User(John_H)]

Jason James wrote:
>
>I owned a '72 125, and flat-chat it would just crack the ton on the speedo,
>so it may have been out of cal.

Any speedo of that era that read within 20% higher than the actual top
speed would've been well within the manufacturer's calibration. They
deliberately made them that way.

Cars that did 100mph by the speedo were as common as arseholes (almost
everybody had one). Cars that really did 100mph were relatively rare.

It's also interesting to check the modern ones with GPS (handhelds are
accurate at steady speed). Every 4WD commercial I've ever checked
(which is heaps of 'em) reads around 10% high at 100kph, with that
being the ADR accuracy requirement at the time they were built.
Possibly because very few 4WD owners run the stock tyres, though I've
never bothered to do the arithmetic for the popular alternatives.

Cars tend to be considerably better. My Dunny ('90 model) always
reads around 1 to 2% fast depending on the tyres it's running at the
time. Modern tyres also tend to much more uniform in size than their
predessors (both between brands and variations within a brand).

Contrary to popular opinion tread wear (and pressure) has very little
effect on speedo calibration -- which is completely logical if you
think very hard about it. :)

--
John H

[Ext User(Athol)]

John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Cars that did 100mph by the speedo were as common as arseholes (almost
> everybody had one). Cars that really did 100mph were relatively rare.

LOL. Too true.

These days, virtually every late model vehicle is capable of it except
for speed limited trucks and miniature shiteboxen.

> It's also interesting to check the modern ones with GPS (handhelds are
> accurate at steady speed).

On horizontal ground. Most don't include the vertical component of
velocity in the vehicle speed reading. :-(

Having said that, the error on moderate grades still makes the GPS more
accurate than most speedos.

> Cars tend to be considerably better. My Dunny ('90 model) always
> reads around 1 to 2% fast depending on the tyres it's running at the
> time. Modern tyres also tend to much more uniform in size than their
> predessors (both between brands and variations within a brand).

My Falcon always read 130 on the speedo when the GPS was showing 124.

I've just changed from stock 16" steelies to 17" mags (I stuffed one
tyre and a different rim on the steelies on the way to and from Cowra
via the Bylong Valley Way last weekend and all but the spare were
basically worn out). The tyre diameter is smaller, so will have to
run the GPS on it later today to find out how the speedo compares.

Anybody know if it's possible to adjust the multiplication factor on
the speedo on an AU? Even though the tyre placard shows 215/60R16 and
215/55R16 tyres, they're about 3.2% different in diameter. The
235/45R17s that just went on are within 1mm of the 215/55R16 and were
an option on the AUII Fairmont and all AUIII. I'd prefer to adjust the
factor to suit even if the rules say that it doesn't have to be done!

My calculations predict that the odometer, which was pretty much spot
on before will now be about 3% out and the speedo will be 8% out at
124 (ie read 134). Obviously, these are still within the 4% and 10%
allowed respectively.

> Contrary to popular opinion tread wear (and pressure) has very little
> effect on speedo calibration -- which is completely logical if you
> think very hard about it. :)

Depends how much the casing under the tread stretches with pressure.
:-)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(John_H)]

Athol wrote:
>
>John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Contrary to popular opinion tread wear (and pressure) has very little
>> effect on speedo calibration -- which is completely logical if you
>> think very hard about it. :)
>
>Depends how much the casing under the tread stretches with pressure.
>:-)

The steel belts in a radial tyre won't stretch measurably within the
recommended pressure ratings for the tyre. Errors will normally only
occur if the tyre is grossly underinflated.

Nor is the effective circumference of tyre at the surface of the
tread... it's closer to the steel belts below the tread. As the tyre
rotates the tread material between the belt and the road surface
flexes to conform with the steel belt. The ride height of the tyre,
which changes with pressure and load, doesn't matter a hoot either as
it must always travel a distance equal to the effective circumference
in one revolution (unless slippage is taking place).

If you do the calculations for tread depth, and allowable wear, it
will typically change the actual circumference by at least 1.5%. In
practice the effective circumference (which is below tread) will
barely change at all.... Using a GPS you'll be hard to put to
measure any difference in speedo reading (for the same tyres) between
a new set and a bald set.

--
John H

[Ext User(Athol)]

John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Athol wrote:
>>John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> Contrary to popular opinion tread wear (and pressure) has very little
>>> effect on speedo calibration -- which is completely logical if you
>>> think very hard about it. :)

>>Depends how much the casing under the tread stretches with pressure.
>>:-)

> The steel belts in a radial tyre won't stretch measurably within the
> recommended pressure ratings for the tyre. Errors will normally only
> occur if the tyre is grossly underinflated.

Note the smiley...

> If you do the calculations for tread depth, and allowable wear, it
> will typically change the actual circumference by at least 1.5%. In
> practice the effective circumference (which is below tread) will
> barely change at all.... Using a GPS you'll be hard to put to
> measure any difference in speedo reading (for the same tyres) between
> a new set and a bald set.

Effective circumference here is a little like effective diameter of a
V-belt pulley. It's not at the inside or outside but part way in
between. The difference is that the pulley effective diameter is part
way down the belt while the tyre effective diameter is within the casing
below the entire tread.

I just did a comparison of the tyres as mentioned earlier. The speedo
only reads about 131 to 132 at 124. Working off tyre design diameter,
you'd predict the speedo to be reading about 134.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(atec77)]

Athol wrote:
> John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Athol wrote:
>>> John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Contrary to popular opinion tread wear (and pressure) has very little
>>>> effect on speedo calibration -- which is completely logical if you
>>>> think very hard about it. :)
>
>>> Depends how much the casing under the tread stretches with pressure.
>>> :-)
>
>> The steel belts in a radial tyre won't stretch measurably within the
>> recommended pressure ratings for the tyre. Errors will normally only
>> occur if the tyre is grossly underinflated.
>
> Note the smiley...
>
>> If you do the calculations for tread depth, and allowable wear, it
>> will typically change the actual circumference by at least 1.5%. In
>> practice the effective circumference (which is below tread) will
>> barely change at all.... Using a GPS you'll be hard to put to
>> measure any difference in speedo reading (for the same tyres) between
>> a new set and a bald set.
>
> Effective circumference here is a little like effective diameter of a
> V-belt pulley. It's not at the inside or outside but part way in
> between. The difference is that the pulley effective diameter is part
> way down the belt while the tyre effective diameter is within the casing
> below the entire tread.
>
> I just did a comparison of the tyres as mentioned earlier. The speedo
> only reads about 131 to 132 at 124. Working off tyre design diameter,
> you'd predict the speedo to be reading about 134.
>
One of the toys just got run and tested for speedo in Brisbane
changed brands on the rear ( 295 x 50 x 15 ) and they were 27 mm lower)
at 220 k speedo reads 3% high :)

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:34:12 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au>
scribbled thusly:

>
><OzOne> wrote in message news:09b9j2d4296m8g69v0avhn4bhsa0vaelid@4ax.com...
>
>> Send me a picture of her and I'll decide...
>
>Sorry Oz, but she's not into dago sports car drivers.

Have you asked her?
I could always slip it to her in the back of the peugeot....slide back
the blind and she could see the stars thru the glass roof....


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.