Rave

Members
  • Content Count

    898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rave

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rave

    Poor people aren't allowed to eat octopus

    Yes, what a load of condescending shite. If a state school kid is determined enough to do the work to get into Oxford or Cambridge I hardly think they're going to be put off by being served some food with which they're not familiar (but which actually tastes fairly bland, in my experience). And if you're not brave enough to stick a bit of octopus in your mouth to at least see what it tastes like, you're going to shit yourself at your first tutorial when your tutor tells you you're talking bollocks and challenges you to do better (which I believe is still what tends to happen at Oxford?) . I've eaten plenty of octopus in tapas bars on cheapo beach holidays in Spain. Admittedly I started off middle class and have been downwardly mobile since, but it's not exactly posh grub out there, quite the opposite really.
  2. Rave

    4x4 recommendations.

    A narrow car with an unrivalled ability to soak up potholes? As a slightly more serious suggestion, Peugeot 106s soak up bumps and yet still handle brilliantly in a way that you'd not believe until you try one.
  3. Rave

    moped rider stabbed to death

    The AR80 had a bigger carb as well...and a sixth gear. The 50 just had an empty space on the shafts in the 6th gear position (or some sort of blanking washer, I forget which). The dogs must have been different as well in some way I guess, to stop you changing into the nonexistent 6th gear. I still have my AR50, in bits in my mum's garage. It never really ran right, and when I split the cases when I was 18 I found a big chunk had somehow been gouged out of one of them, I seem to recall it was between the crankcase and the gearbox. All the steel engine bits will be rusty as hell by now and the case would be tricky to repair, so at some point I'd like to see if I can drop a KX65 or 85 engine in it, I reckon that would be good fun, and probably not too much of a challenge to weld on new mounts for the engine and radiator. It's probably worth as much as a basket case as I (well, my parents) paid for it in 1995 though, they're quite collectible now.
  4. Rave

    moped rider stabbed to death

    Haha, well maybe. The change in the law didn't retrospectively ban 16 year olds from riding the old mopeds, so they became more valuable as a result, and it wasn't beyond the wit of the average bike mad 16 year old to tune up their post-77 mopeds to do more than 30mph anyway, and I gather that you were unlikely to get done for it unless you egregiously took the piss. As a suburban Londoner I only ever took my AR50 out of town once, to Brands Hatch, and while that was as shit a ride as you'd imagine, it was plenty fast enough for me round town. Especially as it had AR80-sized Pirellis on it and would quite happily lean over to knee scraping angles . It's still clearly the case that kids can get away with riding bikes that they've no legal entitlement to, so nothing much has changed, really.
  5. Rave

    moped rider stabbed to death

    Well legally it's a motorcycle, there's no distinction between conventional bikes with gears and a top mounted petrol tank that you climb aboard by swinging a leg over the back, and automatic, step through designs which are almost universally referred to as scooters in the motorcycling world. Some step throughs have gears; the classic Vespa for example, and most people would still call that a scooter- though they probably wouldn't call a Honda C90 one. Referring to them as motorcycles would be quite correct. Referring to them as mopeds simply is not. The law actually changed on 1st September 1977, not 1976 as I put previously. In the years prior to that bikes like the Yamaha FS1-E (the quintessential and now rather valuable 'sports moped') and the AP50 were essentially exploiting a loophole in the law by simply fitting 'pedals' that attached to the gearbox or front sprocket somehow and moved the bike forward when pushed- they were not actually in any way useful for moving the bike or starting the engine, they were just there to make the bike legal for 16 year olds to ride, and as they were capable of a genuine 50mph, I guess that wasn't considered safe for 16 year olds, or people with a car licence but no formal motorbike training, to just jump on. After that there were still plenty of mopeds that were capable of more than 30mph with fairly simple modifications- they were built for world markets and restricted for the UK by fitting restrictors in the carb and/or exhaust, or in the case of the Kawasaki AR50 like I had as a 16 year old in 1995, by fitting a CDI that massively retarded the ignition over 7000rpm, thus cutting the power. Mine did about 38mph when I first got it thanks to the previous owner fitting a larger front sprocket.
  6. Rave

    moped rider stabbed to death

    No, a moped is a motorcycle with a capacity of <50cc and a top speed of 30mph (actually 45kph now, thanks presumably to euro harmonisation of the standards). It has been thus since 1976, when the rules were changed to remove the requirement for pedals, and restrict the top speed. The scooter in the picture appears to be a Gilera Runner 125, or something very similar. In which case it is definitely NOT A MOPED so if posters could stop referring to it as such that'd be great cheers Nobody has "changed the categories for marketing purposes" by the way. It's just ignorant fuckwits who should know better getting their terminology wrong, and everyone else blindly following on.
  7. Rave

    moped rider stabbed to death

    The widespread misuse of the word 'moped' to describe any twist and go scooter makes my blood boil. A moped is a motorcycle with a capacity of <50cc and a top speed of 45 or 50 kph. The number of actual mopeds used by criminals in London must be vanishingly small, for the obvious reason that they're not very fast, and hence not ideal for quick getaways. I know that (in increasing order of shamefulness) the media, the police, and the legal profession get it wrong, but let's not join in on here please, for the sake of my sanity if nothing else. Cheers.
  8. Rave

    Right To Repair

    I've just half-fixed a Playstation 3 I found dumped on the street. It was dead easy to strip it down, which is good as I needed to do it three times, as I failed to diagnose that the problem was the fan before I put it back together the first time, and then the replacement (£6.99 delivered from Ebay) needed some shimming to not catch on the heatsink assembly. Now I've tested it I've found that the laser in the disc drive appears to be faulty. Replacements are ~£10 delivered from China. I'm in two minds about whether to bother as I already have a working PS3, and this one ought to still work for streaming Amazon Prime stuff to our bedroom TV, which is the only other use I can find for a second one.
  9. Rave

    FAC

    I haven't looked into it for a while but when I last did it appeared that the police needed a good reason not to give you a shotgun certificate, rather than you needing a good reason to get one. I daresay a shotty is pretty good against 95% of likely home invaders in that they'll shit themselves and run as soon as you point it at them, but against the other 5%, the properly prepared / desperate / high on PCP ones, they're not great unless you live in an open plan house, too unwieldy, and only 3 rounds max. You can get 12-round semi-automatic shotguns, and they're cool as fuck TBH, but you need a proper FAC for those- apparently shooting waterfowl is a possible reason for wanting one.
  10. Beware though, this only works with larger old cars, or ones that have obvious sporting pretensions. I have found that I get tailgated quite badly in my Peugeot 106s as people seem to perceive them as being slow, or driven by dawdlers. One day I'm going to send someone through a hedge by not slowing down for a tight corner...
  11. I wait until the front of my car is pointing past the front of the oncoming car, but before I pass, then give a brief flash that hopefully they can see without it shining directly in their eyes.
  12. This is an interesting one- round my way there aren't all that many lanes that are specifically for turning right, most are for turning right or going straight ahead (usually with the lane to the left for turning left or going straight). There are also very few road signs showing the lane layout, it's usually just arrows on the road, which are often obscured by having a queue of traffic extending back over them. I find it infuriating when I join a line of traffic in the outside lane only to have a car in front stick their right indicator on only as the lights go green and we move towards the junction, so that I'm now stuck behind them. If I'm turning right I make damned sure that my indicator is on before I get to the back of the queue, so that cars behind can make an informed decision about whether to stay behind me or take the left lane. And so, once I'm on the back of that queue, I could then switch off my indicator to avoid dazzling the car behind, but that might suggest to following drivers that I've changed my mind about turning right, and it also means that people still to join the queue can't see that there's someone in it who intends to turn right and thus might prevent others in that lane from being able to proceed ahead. If the lane is specifically for turning right then I agree that once you're in it there's no need to indicate.
  13. Rave

    I think I'm getting too old for all this...

    I've never worked in IT, but I did quit my last job because I became utterly fed up with incompetent, arse-covering managers undermining our ability to do what we were supposed to be there for. It's endemic, unfortunately.
  14. YABU mate- everyone gets sucked into the sidebar of shame from time to time
  15. Fair enough. You can call me what you like, this being a place for free speech and all that, but for the record I'm a Georgist Minarchist, who regards Mrs Thatcher as having been a bit too much of a statist for my taste. What I also am though is a social liberal, and my approach to the question of trans rights (and most other questions obv.) is that the government should interfere only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of other citizens. My objection to anti-trans feminists (or however you want to define them) is that I perceive that they are keen on the idea of there being special privileges for women, and that transwomen should be excluded from receiving them. Clearly the question of ascribing motivations to others is in danger of becoming a circular argument, or already has . However we don't have any anti-trans feminist types here to put their case as far as I know, so I can't really object to their ideas without assuming their motivations to some extent, whereas I am here, and if you want to know my motivations you only have to ask! I appreciate that makes me sound a bit of a prick BTW, but I can't think how else to phrase it.