• 2 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle













  • I doubt it was for anything to do with compliance. More that it was just PSA trying something out. PSA Group marques are fairly well known for doing unusual things, even if it isn’t financially viable.

    From the wiki:

    In 1995, Peugeot launched an electric powered version of the 106, called the 106 Electrique. This was offered in a number of European countries including France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom.

    The electric powertrain was developed and built by French engineering company Heuliez. The car used Nickel-cadmium battery technology manufactured by Saft Groupe S.A., had a top speed of 56 mph (90 km/h) and had an official range of 100 km (62 mi).

    Despite the high price of the vehicle, Peugeot anticipated demand for around 15,000 to 20,000 Peugeot 106 Électriques each year, with an expected total production run of 100,000 vehicles. In the end, only 6,400 Peugeot 106 Électriques were sold between 1995 and 2003, most purchased by the French Administration.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_106

    To me that reads like the French govt thought that a fleet of small EVs would be useful for their staff to use for short metropolitan/LA travel thinking that it would reduce fuel/servicing costs or something. For that, it’s specs are totally adequate.

    Seems that they outsourced the manufacturering to Heuliez who are a coachbuilder who probably sourced some kind of milk float drive train and stuck in the body and chassis delivered to them by Peugeot.

    Selling it on a wider market beyond the French govt was likely a ‘well, we’ve gone through this effort, and we’re building them anyway, might as well sell them to the public and see what happens’.

    Obviously, like everyone else who tried it around the same time, they realised that it was just too soon to try tech wise. And the French govt also realised that there was little benefit to overcome the list of negatives. From things I read in trying to find out more about them, at least some are being kept on the road by replacing the batteries with LiOn and more modern e-motors. One example had a BMW i3 motor retrofitted.

    This particular example was in the middle of the Angus countryside, with two toddler sized car seats on the back bench, so I suspect that it wasn’t entirely as it was as it left the factory in 1998 and likely had a bit more power at its disposal.




  • Smith and Sniff. It’s Johnny Smith (of 5th Gear, Late Brake Show YT channel fame) and Richard Porter (of off Top Gear producer and otherwise general very well known and respected in the behind the scenes car journo world fame).

    Absolutely hilarious conversation. It’s not about the Top Trump type of ‘petrrolhead’ that seems to be so popular these days. It’s a couple of middle aged guys who have a pure passion for anything automotive and have been in the industry for a very long time.


  • ‘SUV’ are big cars. Most are pushing 2 tonnes or more, so will naturally wear brakes out faster. That goes for all unsprung components such as tyres, bushings, and all the other wear items in the suspension.

    Some cars are notorious for being under braked for their size, especially ‘SUVs’ that share platforms with standard sized counterparts so that contributes to it as well.

    That said, brakes shouldn’t judder/shake under braking during normal operation, even when worn. Juddering is due to something either not being right or very, very heavily and dangerously worn brakes. It may be warped disks/rotors (from cooking them due to overuse), pitting (if the car hasn’t been driven much) or something else. The squeaking can be anything from debris caught between the pad and disk, a hard point on the pad or the wear indicator (called a squealer). The former 2 generally clear themselves out.

    Without knowing how and where you drive or perhaps even the car itself it’s difficult to say where the problem lies. A set of pads and disks can easily last 10s of 1000s of miles. But it depends on many factors.




  • For the most part I think that they’re all entirely nonsense and based around people searching for something that simply isn’t there.

    At the end of the video Lemmino spends some time talking about these, saying that they’re just not credible based on so many factors. And for that I entirely agree. However he doesn’t talk about the weird behaviour of the Secret Service following the event.

    Now all of that could be down to Secret Service corruption, incompetence, secrecy etc etc, but it could also just as likely be on purpose.

    I’m a big believer in Occam’s Razor, that the simplest thing is probably what happened. As we all know the events, I fully believe that Oswald did what he did entirely as described in the video, but there are is also interesting ‘evidence’ that suggests that maybe one of Kenney’s Secret Service detail may have unintentionally shot Kennedy in the back of the head in the chaos of everything and upon realising this, the Secret Service obviously decided to try and (successfully) cover it up.

    Again, I fully recognise this theory as a conspiracy, but for me, based on what (admittedly small amount) I’ve seen on the matter this is the most credible. Because it’s the simplest answer. Only being trumped by the simpler answer that everything happened as described.