Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Many cars suffer from increased lift at higher speeds. The spoiler
provides increased downforce to counter this.

The Audi TT (first model) suffered a significant increase in rear lift
at higher speeds. In some markets, but not the UK, the automatic rear
spoiler was standard equipment. In the UK, which has a 70 mph limit, it
was an optional extra, presumably on the basis that it was not actually
needed at 70 mph.

There was some discussion in the motoring press about whether TTs sold
in the UK should all be so fitted, in case they were taken to (for
example) Germany and driven at much higher speeds - some stretches of
German autobahn have no speed limit for cars in good weather.

IIRC Audi UK accepted the suggestion. Subsequently all TTs sold in the
UK had the spoiler fitted as standard.

Not an automatic rear spoiler, but the little permanently fixed one.
Also, ESP stability control. Both were also retro-fitted in a recall.

Have a google for "vosa R/2000/008".

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

B2003

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:31:17 +0100, Bruce wrote
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:01:31 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

Of course, there is an argument that says a properly designed car shouldn't
need 'add-on' wings/spoilers etc fixed or otherwise.


Many cars suffer from increased lift at higher speeds. The spoiler
provides increased downforce to counter this.

The Audi TT (first model) suffered a significant increase in rear lift
at higher speeds. In some markets, but not the UK, the automatic rear
spoiler was standard equipment. In the UK, which has a 70 mph limit,
it was an optional extra, presumably on the basis that it was not
actually needed at 70 mph.

There was some discussion in the motoring press about whether TTs sold
in the UK should all be so fitted, in case they were taken to (for
example) Germany and driven at much higher speeds - some stretches of
German autobahn have no speed limit for cars in good weather.

IIRC Audi UK accepted the suggestion. Subsequently all TTs sold in
the UK had the spoiler fitted as standard.


The original TT was released without any spoiler but a well-publicised spate
of accidents which were blamed on loss of rear-end grip prompted a recall for
the fitting of a small duck-tail spoiler. All subsequent Mk 1 TT's were
fitted with the spoiler from new.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:02:03 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:
The original TT was released without any spoiler but a well-publicised spate
of accidents which were blamed on loss of rear-end grip prompted a recall for
the fitting of a small duck-tail spoiler. All subsequent Mk 1 TT's were
fitted with the spoiler from new.


Thank you.

d wrote:

Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding
and he couldn't?

Concerned as in "having an interest in", not concerned as in "worried
about". It is in the interests of all citizens that the law of the land
is upheld; it's how society works.

Please do explain how the motocyclist was effecting or doing any harm
to anyone or any property or business. Though no doubt he deprived the
treasury of some tax , sorry fine, revenue. Oh cry me a river.

I suppose that, since a motorcyclist is somewhere around 30 times more
likely to die on the road than a car occupant, you could argue that
idiots on motorcycles are a danger only to themselves. Unfortunately,
there's always a external cost.

Cheers

mark-r

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:38:35 +0100
Mark Robinson wrote:
wrote:

Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding
and he couldn't?

Concerned as in "having an interest in", not concerned as in "worried
about". It is in the interests of all citizens that the law of the land
is upheld; it's how society works.

Not always. It used to be the law that women couldn't vote and gays went
to prison.

B2003

On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

--
Mike Bristow

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. Average speed cameras exist to
raise revenue for the treasury.

B2003

In message
d wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common
consent and the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock.

There's a certain amount of evidence to show that is not necessarily true.
Also traffic lights have been used to create congestion.

But that's not the problem caused by cyclists (and drivers) who jump red
lights.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/