When I have my mother in law in the car I get 2mpg less.
Perhaps Adski is a little er... overweight?
|
Adam - at 17k a year and 85p a litre, you're getting a back of the envelope (okay Windows calculator) 28 mpg.
I've modified my driving style, partly in response to fuel prices, partly as a result of thinking "If only I had a more economical diesel/faster petrol" and wanting to change car all the time, rather than giving the car a chance, I've got my car back to the 43 mpg from the last tank, 45 from the previous one, compared to the ~36mpg I was getting driving harder.
My driving style, though not overly aggressive, sounds like it was like yours and now I drive as WhiteTruckMan suggests. The result is that I've more than cancelled out the fuel price increases and am getting just over 500 miles from a 52 litre fill up, compared to barely scraping past 400 before the red light came on.
|
Thanks for the many more replies.
Firstly, I'm not overweight - or at least I don't think I am. I'm 16 1/2 stone but I'm 6ft 5 so not a lot I can do about that!
28mpg doesn't sound too bad really David. Thanks for working that out! I've used just over quarter of a tank with this new style so I'm seeing a few more miles to the gallon but I'll have to work out the proper figures later.
Watch this space.
--
Adam
|
|
No, you're not overweight, just a foot too short! Low gears and high revs is the major use of fuel.
|
"I'm 16 1/2 stone but I'm 6ft 5"
Blimey, that's destroyed my image of you - like when you read a book and then they make a film of it using someone completely different from what you have imagined. Don't know why but I pictured you as about 6ft and 11 stone, fair haired etc. Mind you, I have a better image of your car - someone just down the road has just got a gold (beige?) booted Focus - am I closer with this image?
Picture of ND's goatee somewhere destroyed my image of him as a debonair, smart businessman! Won't tell you my image of Mark and Hugo but aren't Nowheels and Pologirl gorgeous!!
PS I'm a grey haired (well, blonde really) grumpy old git.
|
Gold...gold - It's GOLD!!! ;-)
What can I say? I'm big. Probably accounts for my lousy fuel consumption!!
I do have blonde hair though so that's something!
--
Adam
|
6ft 5 and 16 1/2 stone with blonde hair?
I know who you are. You?re He-man, master of the Universe!
By the power of Greyskull...
|
You've been eating too many red sweets today haven't you Dave?!
Too many E numbers ;-)
--
Adam
|
"You've been eating too many red sweets today haven't you Dave?!"
Yeah, cos you ate all the pies!
|
"He-man, master of the Universe!"
New image!! Not bad - but what about the beige Focus with a boot, what can I do about that!!??
|
LOL....
::scrolls back up::
PhilW, see me after class.
Pleased to say that whilst the goatee remains, the beergut is waning fast. As for debonair businessman, I scrub-up pretty well if a decent suit is draped about my person. Or at least I think I do, I can't see people paying me as much as they do on the basis of my CV.
|
Well going back to the fuel consumption topic, I'd just like to say I have had my diesel Saxo for 4 years now and have averaged 59.145 miles to the gallon! Yes I am a sad git who runs a spreadsheet for his fuel.
Currently doing a longer 100 mile round trip and getting 63mpg. Car is slow, rattly, noisy and pretty uncomfortable but hey, I can get over 600 miles out of a 45 litre tank!
|
|
I use a rover 100 diesel as a run around to keep my demo clean and respectable - i get about 55 to 60 out of it and thats driving everywhere foot to the board (you have to - it's the same 1.5 diesel as in BobbyG's saxo)
|
|
Hey Adam, i get between 44-50 mpg in my Ford Ka with a mixture of roads, what i was taught to do was to reach cruising speed as soon as you can, if i was to take off at the lights in 30 mph limit when conditions allow it: i change into 2nd at 20 mph then at 30mph i block change from 2nd to 4th, not sure your Focus can do that dure to the different gearing, but then if you were to accelerate onto a motorway, my driving instructor said to stay in 3rd upto 60 mph then block change into 5th, you can save some fuel by less gear changing!!!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
Actually, DAVE! I've stopped eating pies now and have gone to...erm....McDonalds. ;-)
Anyway, frazerjp. 50mpg? You're just making me feel worse now! What I have noticed though, in 30mph limits, I've been sitting in 3rd a hell of a lot more because for the most part, they're on a very slight incline and to traverse them in 4th would make the engine labour too much. At 35 however, 4th is perfect for them.
I am interested to see the figures when I've done it though.
--
Adam
|
Are you sure you have got your figures right Adam? Even at todays prices, your £50 would equate to at least 12 gallons of petrol. If you are only getting 245 miles from this amount of petrol, there is something radically wrong.
It is none of my business but I couldn't have funded that kind of fuel consumption when I was a student. Come to think of it, I couldn't fund it now!
|
Well the trick is, when you put the petrol in, run off very quickly! Joking! Joking! I manage it...just but obviously I'd rather have to put less in!
I should point out that that £50 a week isn't from a full tank. I only ever put £10 or £20 in which usually puts a bit under half a tank in.
ALSO, I may have made a gross misjudgement when it comes to the distances to my Mum's work. A gross misjudgement of 8 miles. I forgot that I go a different way back for the fun roads and to miss the traffic out.
On just under half a tank now by the way. I did get quite impatient behind a knackered Tranny van before though and kind of....well - overtook him quickly on a perfectly straight, open and empty road. It was only about 5 seconds of foot to floor in 3rd though so hopefully I haven't screwed up the figures too much.
--
Adam
|
|
Ok then, let us know an accurate number of miles per tank, and what the tank holds. It doesn't matter how many times you fill it up, just how many miles per tank. I would have thought £50 was around a full tank at least?
|
£50 would fill the tank . I don't put the 50 in all at once - I never fill a tank until this experiement.
55 litres is popping into my head from somewhere for tank capacity. I shall check this and wait till I run out of juice for miles on each tank.
It's quite interesting actually - up to this point, I've just plonked the petrol in and never thought about it. Whether the findings will make me change my driving style, I don't know! But I want to see how much of a difference driving like I'm dead makes.
--
Adam
|
£50 would fill the tank... 55 litres is popping into my head from somewhere for tank capacity.
If this is true, you need to find yourself a new filling station mate! 91p a litre??
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Can't be 55 litres. I never filled the car you see so I wouldn't be able to tell you the exact amount it cost to fill the tank. I was just working off 20 quid putting just under half in, another 20...you get the picture.
89p a litre I think....I'm pretty sure anyway!
--
Adam
|
Have looked at a back issue of what car, according to them the fuel capacity is 12.1 gallons which is equivilant to 55 litres.
Unfortunatley measuring fuel compsumption by using the guage will produce alarming mpg compsumption. Eg on my car the fuel light is meant to come on when I have used up 10.5 gallons left and on average this occurs after I have driven aprox 330 miles, so if I was going by the guage my mpg would be 31mpg but when I fill the tank up it will only take aprox 9.25 gallons making my mpg to be around 36 mpg.
|
That's interesting.
I must admit, I drive loads on the light. For example, if the light's on in the morning and it's just come on, I won't immediately go to get petrol. I've never run out yet so I'll have to check the manual to see how much reserve is left when the light illuminates.
--
Adam
|
Reserve (when light comes on) tends to be the last 10-12% or so of the overall capacity. So 4-8 litres, depending on your tank size.
Some very interesting points raised in this thread. Adski, your consumption is definitely way too high. Unless you've made some errors with your figures, or your driving style is aggressive beyond belief, then there is something wrong with your car.
I've never quite understood putting small amounts of fuel in the tank at a time. I appreciate there may be financial reasons, but these are usually pyschological ('it doesn't feel so painful if I don't spend so much in one go') rather than genuinely insurmountable. I buy all fuel on my credit card and pay the bill in full each month after I get paid. Filling up with fuel costs time (and fuel if you have to deviate from your usual route to do it), so I reason that it's best to do it as little as I have to - i.e. fill the tank each time and run it until almost empty.
Interesting points also about fuel consumption as related to throttle position / engine revs. On older engines I think it's simply related to throttle position - you push the pedal further down and the throttle butterfly(s) open(s) further and the inlet manifold vacuum sucks more fuel from the carburettor(s). Of course there is the potential for wasting lots of fuel here. On my Spitfire I only open the throttle gradually at first, and a bit more rapidly as the revs increase. If I were to plant my right foot on the floor at 1000 rpm, then the engine would simply suck in far more fuel from the carburettors than it is capable of burning at that sort of speed.
With modern fuel management systems, your control with the 'gas pedal' isn't quite so direct. Pressing it further down tells the system you want more revs, but the software won't generally allow the injectors to supply more fuel than the engine is capable of burning at that particular speed.
A very interesting thread...
|
"With modern fuel management systems, your control with the 'gas pedal' isn't quite so direct. Pressing it further down tells the system you want more revs, but the software won't generally allow the injectors to supply more fuel than the engine is capable of burning at that particular speed."
Which is why most modern cars return much better consumption figures then the old ones.
You still cant escape basic science tho. To accelerate a body requires effort, to accelerate that body faster requires more effort. To keep an already moving body moving requires much less affort. To stop a moving body requires throwing effort away somewhere
Effort = gas.
|
"Which is why most modern cars return much better consumption figures then the old ones."
Whilst I don't dispute this point, you can get excellent consumption from an older engine - it just requires a lot more skilled use of the throttle than a newer engine does.
You've nailed it with the effort/acceleration/momentum thing, RF. Momentum as we all know is the holy grail of truckers, and for a good reason. Too often though they can be seen prioritising it above keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front!
To draw an example here, my girlfriend is on a week-long course in Cambridge this week and is doing the nightmare stretch of the A14 each day. She gets scared witless by how close the trucks sit to her rear bumper. Problem compounded by the fact that she's stubborn and refuses to let them bully her out of the way - I think she'd be better off with my approach of 'the guy is being an idiot, best defence is to be somewhere he's not'.
|
Does anybody know what fuel consumption I would have been getting from a MKIII Cortina 2.0 or a bog standard 1967 Mini 1000 ?
|
Saddo that I am, still have the fuel records from my 1969 Mini 1000, about 40mpg average, worst high 30s best mid 40s. Interesting that my 1.6 Megane averages more than that now!
|
Adam, my mate had a 1.4 Xsara (I know, we tried to stop him), which had high fuel consumption. Tell-tale signs in this were engine pinking under load and oil smelling of petrol! Two things I think you should check.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
All this talk about 50mpg is making me go all funny. My Range Rover 4.2 does 13mpg! I try not to work it out if I can - it's too depressing.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
Mike,
the oil doesn't smell of petrol, nor does the car pink. It drives perfectly. If anything, it seems more responsive than ever!
Graham, you will rarely find over half a tank of petrol in either mine or my Dad's car. I've said before that I thought this was the norm but it seems we're just odd. We always have put 20 quid in and for the most part I always will. The exceptions are if we're going on a very long journey however.
95% of the time, I fill up at the petrol station I pass every day so no wasted petrol. Plus the fact, I'd be carrying half the weight other people do - that's negligable I know it would offset any extra fuel costs to fill up.
In any event, I've gone just under half a tank now.
--
Adam
|
Adam,
good luck with the experiment. I did something similar many years ago and discovered two things:
it was BORING
it made no difference to the fuel consumption whatsoever, which was quite a shock.
You're right about the fast car phase prior to diesels. I now drive a diesel, having given permission to my wife to shoot me if I ever bought one a few years previously. My excuse it, it don't half go. I'm now trying to convince myself that a big petrol engine would give the sort of mid range performance that the diesel gives and do I cover enough miles pa that the increased fuel consumption would matter v the higher purchase price ?
Good luck,
John
|
In any event, I've gone just under half a tank now.
>>
So did you fill it up to start with? You won't get any accurate figures unless you do.
Commenting on fuel consumption from older cars, I used to get about 33 mpg from an NSU 1000, which I owned for many years, and about the same from a 1300 Marina (I didn't own it, it a company car). The Marina was replaced with an Ital, which did nearer to 40 mpg. These cars were set to run much leaner and, unforturately, it caused it to almost stall every time I moved off from a standing start.
I then progressed to two 309 1300s, which returned almost identical mpg, at around 40 mpg. Following those was a ZX, which easily achieved 40 mpg. Only the ZX had fuel injection, of course.
My driving style hasn't changed a great deal in 35 years.
|
JH - it is boring!!! I'm hoping I don't see that much of a difference so I can justify NOT going that slow!
Machika, I did fill the tank for this experiment.
--
Adam
|
Adam,
It's not a focus, but driving within the limits and gentle acceleration does make a difference... for my Audi A3:
Driven hard: 40mpg
Average Tank: 49mpg
Good tank: 56mpg (no limits broken but still some hard acceleration)
Best tank ever: 66mpg, but that was mainly distance driving and I didn't exceed 70mph at all.
Chris
|
66mpg Chris is amazing!
However, the results are in.
Having worked it out, I can now tell you, driven completely within the limit on all roads (yes - all of them!) I have returned 26.11mpg.
That being said, the fact my back brakes were half on apparently (fixed along with the coil pack) may have altered the results which is why I am going to conduct the experiment again this week. If I get over 30, I'll be happy.
Thanks for all of your comments. I must say though, I don't like all this obeying the law malarkey! ;-)
30mpg here I come!
--
Adam
|
Oh - that's not taking it over 3,000 revs once, and effectively half the engine power for one day (knackered coil pack!).
Also, I stayed on the inside lane mostly - driving at around 65mph when I could which was boring, but in the name of science, I had to!
All of this had led me to draw the conclusion that I must have been getting just under 20mph before this.
An interesting experiement anyway.
--
Adam
|
try doing 56mph the week after, i think you will see even more of an improvement.
its good fun tho, huh?
think of the saving of petrol, then just blast it all away on a friday night !
and it wont cost you a penny more!
|
Exactly VTiredeye - you're on the same wavelength!
And yes I did mean mph. Damn keyboards!
--
Adam
|
and I meant VTiredeyeS!
--
Adam
|
|
What are the boundaries of the experiment? Windows up/down? A/C on? Radio? Heater? All will affect the consumption...;-) gd luck tho...
|
Having worked it out, I can now tell you, driven completely within the limit on all roads (yes - all of them!) I have returned 26.11mpg. That being said, the fact my back brakes were half on apparently (fixed along with the coil pack) may have altered the results which is why I am going to conduct the experiment again this week. If I get over 30, I'll be happy.
You should be unhappy if you don't get over thirty.
|
I forgot to update this.
After another week of deathly sedate driving, the result is;
28.64mpg
Having become so bored I'm going back to "normal" driving. It will be interesting to see how much a difference it makes.
--
Adam
|
y2k+4,
I could have swore I replied to you ages ago but;
A/C off. Windows down for around town - up on the motorway so shouldn't be too bad.
--
Adam
|
|
Something is amiss somewhere, if that is all you are getting with fairly sedate driving.
|
I did overtake someone doing 30 on an NSL road because it was taking the mick. But that was a few seconds hard acceleration in 2nd. Not enough to skew the results that much surely.
Are you sure 28mpg is bad? Looking on t'internet, people say the 1.8 is notoriously thirsty. I can live with sub 30mpg. When I get a nice V6 or V8, it won't hit me so hard!
--
Adam
|
It doesn't sound very good to me, when the new 2.0 litre Focus is given a combined figure of nearly 40 mpg in the Car-by-Car Breakdown.
What are the official figures from Ford for the old 1.8 Focus?
|
I don't know what the official figures are for mine but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get 4ompg out of a 2.0 Focus however you drove it.
--
Adam
|
|
If What Car? is to be believed, combined figure should be 37.7, urban figure should be 27.4.
|
For mine or the new 2.0?
--
Adam
|
Just looked on Autobytel and the figures given for the 1.8 Mondeo (125 bhp) are:
Combined - 37.2
Urban - 25.7
|
That does surprise me. I'd have thought a car as heavy as the Mondeo would have lowered those figures quite a bit.
--
Adam
|
Also on Autobytel, for the new Focus 2.0 litre
Combined - 39.8
Urban - 28.8
|
For mine or the new 2.0?
Yours
|
Surely that's in keeping with what I've returned though?
Usually built up areas - the odd 40mph road, a 70mph dual carriageway for about 1 mile and a 10 mile motorway blast every day.
--
Adam
|
Surely that's in keeping with what I've returned though? Usually built up areas - the odd 40mph road, a 70mph dual carriageway for about 1 mile and a 10 mile motorway blast every day.
Exactly. With your driving routine, it would be unrealistic to expect anything more than the quoted urban petrol consumption figure.
|
Exactly. With your driving routine, it would be unrealistic to expect anything more than the quoted urban petrol consumption figure.
With that mix of driving, you should be getting better than urban cylce figures. It is very similar to the mix of motoring I have mostly done for years with our Xantia and that never returns less than 40 mpg (remember, it is old diesel technology). I would expect you to get low thirties at least.
|
I don't know what the official figures are for mine
This tells you enough:
www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.as...1
The 27.7 mpg figure is for cold running, remember. Bit low to me.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
>>Are you sure 28mpg is bad? Looking on t'internet, people say the 1.8 is notoriously thirsty.>>
That is absolutely appalling - my son`s BMW 530i Sport manual is averaging 34 mpg overall and on motorway cruise at 75 mph regularly returns 38 mpg. I know this is pathetic besides some of the diesel figures quoted earlier in this thread, but for a 3 litre petrol engine, with superb performance when needed, IMHO is excellent.
|
|
Yes, I would agree, but BMW engines are known to be frugal.
|
The figures aren't much worse for the 2.0 Mondeo
Combined - 36.2
Urban - 25.2
|
You're right. They're not much worse.
God help me if I had an ST24...or even a 3.0 ST220!
Still, at least I don't have a V8 Rangie...(sorry v8man!)
--
Adam
|
The Landie that i offroad in has a 3.5V8 Efi in it with an auto box - during normal driving it will average about 16-18mpg. This is in a couple of tons of Landrover 90 which has the aerodynamics of a breeze block and permanent 4wd.
If you are only getting 10mpg more in your focus there is either something up with the car or something up with the way you drive it. In my old Peugeot 309 Gti i would get about 30mpg out of that and i drove that VERY hard.
|
34mpg??? That is amazing on a 530. That'd be good on a 320!
I can't drive any slower as there's no point. I've driven pretty much at the limit and never over, changed gears before 3,000 revs, never laboured the engine, never had the aircon on or anything.
28mpg doesn't sound that ridiculous to me but compared to 34 for a 530 is concerning me somewhat.
--
Adam
|
|
I think there's something up with your car. My brother has a 1.6 Megane (2003) and that returns high 30's -> low 40's on a combined journey and is in fact now cheaper to run than my 1.9 diesel Xsara, which returns 44-50mpg.
|
The face that a V8 Landie isn't too far away from my consumption is worrying. Also, I never knew the 1.6 Megane was so economical. My Mum wants one but we don't like her to be so independent - better make sure she never finds out about the consumption ;-)
However, I was speaking to someone last night who had a 2.0 Zetec as a company car a while back and didn't think 28mpg was too bad. He said he seemed to be always filling up. I'm not quite sure whether I'd be happier if there was no problem - my car was just thirsty or that there was a problem which could be fixed thus solving the problem!
Thanks for all your help guys
--
Adam
|
I've run my Alfa 155 2 litre twin-spark for nearly 2 years. A fair mix of motoring, 20 mile commutes on fast A roads, some urban and I don't hang about. I keep a meticulous record of consumption, brim to brim every time.
Cumulative average to date is 32.5 mpg, worst tank 27.0, best 37.5.
I'd say there's something wrong with your car.
|
I'd agree that there must be something wrong with your Focus, or with the way that you're calculating mpg.
I used to get 35-40mpg out of my MX5 and my Golf 1.8T, and this weekend I got 40mpg out of my Fiesta 1.25 on a trip down to Bournemouth (50/50 split between motorway and twisty A-roads, carrying two heavy passengers and luggage).
|
Why don't you just take it to a rolling road/tune up place?
Sounds like a duff sensor to me.
|
As I said earlier on this thread, my old 1.8 Focus (2001) used to return about 26 - 28mpg. It was driven fairly enthusiastically, but even when I was on long journeys it was still pretty poor. So I don't know if there's much wrong.
Now got an A4 1.8T and am getting about 30 to the gallon, only difference is the tank is bigger so I feel a bit poorer each time I fill up (I know that I'm not poorer, just feel it!)
|
I understand the 2.0 litre is particularly thirsty, but I don't know about the 1.8.
How did the last MoT test go? An MoT test would have spotted signs such as overfuelling via excessively high HC output, and any brake binding problems.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Adam,
Just for comparison, Volvo V40 1.8XS (standard not the GDi engine)
weights approx 1400Kg, estate version. Not a light car for its size. W (2000) reg.
Commuting/shopping general use with rural B roads, some A roads some traffic around Oxford. Some hard accelerating, generally 2000-3500 rpm with excursions to 4000 rpm. average 33mpg.
Very very few journeys less than 7 miles each way.
Long journeys steady 70 on motorways typically 37mpg, can be upto 43mpg for long A road journeys.
Worst tank 28mpg, Best tank 46mpg
So heavier car with same size engine.
StarGazer
|
Adam,
I haven;t taken time to read all hundred odd posts in the thread but I do recall reading the original postings.
Have you had your MAF checked /replaced? Mine hadn;t totally failed but was not working correctly, gave rubbish MPG on the Leon - won't always show on diagnostics.
My Impreza returns similar mileage to your motor when you drive it easy.... Its a thirsty 2L 280BHP brute of a thing!
Have you tried fuel with a higher RON - Optimax or the new Tesco 99 Ron stuff. Might lift the MPG a bit for a few extra pennies a litre???
Leon
|
I would agree with other posts that there is something not quite right with the car.
I had the 1.8 16v in my company Escort complete with A/C which was on most of the time. This car was with 105ps rather than the 115ps (ps = near-enough bhp if you like) you are probably enjoying. As far as I am aware the higher powered engine was more efficient = better mpg (I stand to be corrected........)
I thrashed the life out of it from 1997 (100 miles on the clock) to 2000 (87,000 miles) with very mixed motoring (heavy congested towns, a bit of M/way, etc).
I never had less than 33mpg from a full tank, even on days in West Wales along the coast heading South to North (ah, wonderful driving roads, even in an Escort!) pretty much foot-to-the-floor.
My next car was a 2.0 Mondeo Estate Ghia X (so very heavy with goodies). Pretty much the same driving style and average to a tank was 33 mpg. Only got into the high 20's with 100% town driving with no open roads at all.
I now have a Volvo S60 Diesel D5 and on the first 2,000 miles have averaged 43.4mpg, but that is using the 'running-in' techniques recommended to me from an earlier post on this site which I have enjoyed following.
It is interesting to slow down a bit and see what difference it make to mpg (got the Escort and Mondeo up to mid-40's on very gentle weeks) but I still cannot resist that loud pedal on the open road (although within limits of course - I strictly adhere to all limits but M-Way, and even then no more than 82mph.
|
I keep a record of all miles and fuel and my 2001 1.6 Fiesta (same engine as Focus) has improved from 37mpg overall to 39 as I have run it in - now just under 20k miles.
I regularly use Shell (standard) or Texaco petrol. I find supermarket petrol gives 2-3 mpg less. (all based on brim to brim and recorded mileage).
I accelerate briskly (not hard) and use 5th gear whenever I can - it will pull from c 27mph.
I rev to 6,000rpm at least once a week and travel at 75mph on motorways - no faster. Keeps the engine clear of gunge and prevents combustion chambers fouling up.
In town I try to anticipate holdups and will slow down before I join a queue if there is a chance it will start moving again before I stop.
And never acclerate hard up hills: that's the best way to waste fuel....
madf
|
And never acclerate hard up hills: that's the best way to waste fuel....
Interesting comment. I've been wondering what the best way of taking hills is. My usual method is to try to get up some speed (not always possible, of course), and then take them in 5th gear if possible, and if not, 4th (& if that's not possible, 3rd.) Would I be better opting for a low gear, and just going up them slowly?
|
|
My policy is to be in the highest gear possible without labouring the engine.
|
My policy is to be in the highest gear possible without labouring the engine.
Thanks. That raises another question, but I'll post elsewhere so as not to get this thread off the track!
|
28 !! I had a 2 litre Mondeo hire car and got the best part of 40mpg out of it. And I wasn't hanging about.
John
|
Sorry - I read all of these and cried into a bottle of Jack's finest.
On a serious note, you're all crying out something's wrong but if you give me until Saturday, I can give you the reading I get when driving....enthusiastically.
There is a really, really steep hill that must destroy fuel consumption. Unless you hit it doing 30-35 you'll need second. AS it is, I need third to get up to the very top as there's a bend and those ridiculous chichanes on the "peak" so 4th would leave me in the middle of nowhere with no place to go.
I'm quite interested to see what my "normal" driving figures will be.
--
Adam
|
Frank???
Yeah i was wondering too
|
>> Frank??? >> Yeah i was wondering too
He's probably only being perfectly frank!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
He's probably hiding from Nowheels
|
He's probably hiding from Nowheels<<
How did you guess?
Seriously though, it was my attempt at humour. Let that be a lesson to you all - don't take Wit Lessons off Alan ;-)
--
Adam
|
>> He's probably hiding from Nowheels<< How did you guess? Seriously though, it was my attempt at humour. Let that be a lesson to you all - don't take Wit Lessons off Alan ;-) -- Adam
I hadn't realised you were attending the lectures.
|
|
Surprising really, since only the other day I overheard someone commenting that Alan was a shining wit. I might have misheard, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
