Skip to main content

Get real, car manufacturers

Here's one I inflated earlier
Like, I suspect, most drivers I don't check my tyre pressures anywhere near frequently enough. (This is not helped by the assumption of everyone else in my family that it's my job to look after their tyres too.) But when I do, as I did this morning, I feel a strong urge to get hold of the car maker and shake them until they rattle.

Pretty well every car I've ever had has presented the driver with two different pressures, one for if you just have one or two people in the car, and one for when the car is full and so is the boot. As if anyone is going to modify the tyre pressure every time someone gets in the car. 'Sorry, Auntie Carol, you can't get in my car, I would need to increase the tyre pressure to cope with your weight.' It's just not realistic.

What I need is a sensible inflation level (in bars, please - get over this pounds per square inch nonsense) that will do in all circumstances. It might not be ideal, but that's life. Few things are ideal. Let's just be given a practical value and get on with things. Life is too short to have to guess an interpolated value between the two. I wouldn't mind, but at least one of the cars I deal with has identical pressures all round if you have 2 people in the car but widely differently pressures front and back for a full load.

Arggh! Send the motor manufacturers to the naughty step.

Next week - does it have to be so difficult to change a bulb?
Labels:

Comments

  1. pjt5 September 2012 at 10:33

    I think the suggestion for higher tyre pressure with big load does make sense, in a circumstance when you're planning a long road trip with all the family and lots of stuff packed in.

    Right, no one changes the tyre pressure when just Auntie Carol gets in the backseat, but if I am about to take a 1500 km road trip, I actually usually check the oil and other liquid levels, check the tyre pressure, and generally inspect the car - and check the tyre pressure and if I have lots lof load, I fill up to the high mark. I have an air compressor at home for tool use, so I use that also for checking tyres; I also have a smaller 12V mobile compressor that I sometimes take with me if I expect I need to check tyre pressures on the road (for example, when towing something).

    This may be less of an issue if you live on a small island like the Britain isles, as then you're less likely to drive far away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. pjt5 September 2012 at 10:36

    Now, with the light bulbs, I know some people have a real reason to fume. Some Renault models seem to require that you take out the front wheel, disassemble the inner splashguard (or whatever you call the plastic that protects the emgine compartment from mud thrown by the wheel) and part of the nose assembly, and then you can change the bulb. Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg5 September 2012 at 12:28

    PJT - I take the point about higher pressure for a really heavy load, but what irritates me is there isn't an 'average anything between 1 and 4 people with a bit of luggage' pressure, which is what most of us want most of the time. It's either 2 people or a full load.

    ReplyDelete
  4. pjt5 September 2012 at 14:55

    Well, if the figures ar 2.2 bar for small load and 2.6 bar for full load, most people will happily average that to 2.4 for medium load. Which works nicely.

    Providing the endpoints of the range is useful just to know the safe limits for tyre pressure. If it's lower than the bottom of range, you know it's too low, and likewise you shouldn't exceed the maximum. Anything in between is just to be adjusted for comfort and fuel efficiency, after all.

    Sure, if the car gave just one figure, then everyone would use that. Take note that providing the range between min and max recommended could be something coming from an EU directive, so the car makers may not really have a say on it. (I have no idea if this is so, but I wouldn't be surprised).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more