Skip to main content

Ditch the alloys

Is it alloy? Who knows.
But I hope it isn't.
When I next get a new(ish) car, I'm not going to have a lot of choice. Let me explain. Around 70% of them are too expensive and around 20% too cheap and nasty.

I then have to eliminate all the cars with those ludicrous fairy light eyebrows as running lights.

Finally, the new car must not have alloy wheels. I just don't see the point of alloys. The slightest encounter with a curb and they go out of shape. And then alloys mean locking wheel nuts. And inevitably you either can't find the key when you need a new tyre, or the key breaks (as it did once when I tried to change a tyre), or you discover, as I did once, that the same car was made by both Ford and VW - I had Ford nuts and an incompatible VW key. The garage had to drill the nuts out.

So, definitely no alloys.

By the time I add in all my requirements I think there are going to be about two cars to chose from. In the whole world. Maybe I should learn to ride a bike.

Really I just want to say to car makers - stop it. Ditch the alloy wheels. They aren't clever, they aren't nice, they are just a pain. Give us wheels that are easy to take off and that are solid and dependable. Okay?
Labels:

Comments

  1. pjt4 January 2013 at 11:42

    Hmm, I tried to post a comment yesterday, but it doesn't show up. I wonder what happened to it.

    Anyway: it's not technically necessary to have lock nuts in alloy wheels. I don't have lock nuts in my alloy wheels, for instance. And my alloys haven't gone out of shape, either, although they are clearly scratched by hitting the curb.

    Not that I care so much whether I have regular steel wheels or alloys. I must say the plastic covers of steel wheels are annoying, too, as they break easily and fall off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg4 January 2013 at 12:49

    There's nothing sinister about your comment not appearing - must have been a Google glitch.

    When you buy cars with alloy wheels, they usually come with locking wheelnuts.

    I have known at least two cases of wheels having to be replaced after hitting a curb (not necessarily me driving!)

    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
117 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