According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and all the other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
On 26/11/2021 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that
broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
i.e. back to what it used to be, before BBC3 went away ...
Yes, given all that I'm surprised they didn't select Feb 2nd as the
return date.
Mark Carver wrote:
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that
broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
i.e. back to what it used to be, before BBC3 went away ...
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and all the >> other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if anything, >> is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?According to Ofcom's statement yesterday
2.9 The BBC has proposed that the new BBC Three channel should appear
within the top 24 slots of electronic programme guides (‘EPGs’). It
proposes that the channel will be available on the main terrestrial, >satellite and cable platforms in all the nations of the UK. The BBC is >planning to launch the channel on 1 February 2022 in standard definition >(‘SD’) and high definition (‘HD’) on Freeview, except in Scotland where
the HD capacity is used for the BBC Scotland channel, and in Wales where
the HD capacity is used by S4C. On all other platforms, the channel
would launch in SD and HD.
2.10 To accommodate BBC Three within current distribution capacity, the
BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that broadcast
ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/228519/statement-bbc-three-final-determination.pdf
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and allAccording to Ofcom's statement yesterday
the
other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if
anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
2.9 The BBC has proposed that the new BBC Three channel should appear
within the top 24 slots of electronic programme guides (‘EPGs’). It proposes that the channel will be available on the main terrestrial, satellite and cable platforms in all the nations of the UK. The BBC is planning to launch the channel on 1 February 2022 in standard definition (‘SD’) and high definition (‘HD’) on Freeview, except in Scotland where
the HD capacity is used for the BBC Scotland channel, and in Wales where
the HD capacity is used by S4C. On all other platforms, the channel would launch in SD and HD.
2.10 To accommodate BBC Three within current distribution capacity, the
BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that broadcast
ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/228519/statement-bbc-three-final-determination.pdf
Interesting that Scotland won't get the HD version because the
capacity is occupied by the BBC Scotland channel. I wonder how the respective audience figures compare, but I assume it is trumped by
politics.
According to today's Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and all the other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
So there probably isn't much "competition" between BBC
Three and CBBC for Freeview/Sat viewers, whereas if BBC Four was ever
removed from broadcast or its hours curtailed, it would have a hell of an effect on the more Luddite older population.
On 26/11/2021 11:14, NY wrote:
So there probably isn't much "competition" between BBC
Three and CBBC for Freeview/Sat viewers, whereas if BBC Four was ever
removed from broadcast or its hours curtailed, it would have a hell of an
effect on the more Luddite older population.
Why "Luddite"?
The trendier audience often like to claim that they never watch broadcast television, some are even convinced that "no one" watches broadcast television.
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today's Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and allAccording to Ofcom's statement yesterday
the
other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if
anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
2.9 The BBC has proposed that the new BBC Three channel should appear
within the top 24 slots of electronic programme guides ('EPGs'). It
proposes that the channel will be available on the main terrestrial, satellite and cable platforms in all the nations of the UK. The BBC is planning to launch the channel on 1 February 2022 in standard definition ('SD') and high definition ('HD') on Freeview, except in Scotland where
the HD capacity is used for the BBC Scotland channel, and in Wales where
the HD capacity is used by S4C. On all other platforms, the channel would launch in SD and HD.
2.10 To accommodate BBC Three within current distribution capacity, the
BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that broadcast
ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/228519/statement-bbc-three-final-determination.pdf
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and all
the
other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if
anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
On 26/11/2021 11:14, NY wrote:
So there probably isn't much "competition" between BBC
Three and CBBC for Freeview/Sat viewers, whereas if BBC Four was ever
removed from broadcast or its hours curtailed, it would have a hell of an
effect on the more Luddite older population.
Why "Luddite"?
The trendier audience often like to claim that they never watch broadcast television, some are even convinced that "no one" watches broadcast television.
Mark Carver wrote:
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that >>broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
i.e. back to what it used to be, before BBC3 went away ...
I was meaning "Luddite" in the sense of resisting to change from older technologies like broadcast through terrestrial or satellite transmission,
to stream-on-demand technologies over an internet connection.
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:snqglu$tab$1@dont-email.me...
On 26/11/2021 11:14, NY wrote:
So there probably isn't much "competition" between BBC
Three and CBBC for Freeview/Sat viewers, whereas if BBC Four was ever
removed from broadcast or its hours curtailed, it would have a hell of an >>> effect on the more Luddite older population.
Why "Luddite"?
The trendier audience often like to claim that they never watch
broadcast television, some are even convinced that "no one" watches >>broadcast television.
I was meaning "Luddite" in the sense of resisting to change from older >technologies like broadcast through terrestrial or satellite
transmission, to stream-on-demand technologies over an internet
connection.
As far as I can see they have gone back more or less to what it used
to be. Like much of the country we have never had BBC Three and Four
HD and the hours seem back to what they were.
On 26/11/2021 12:26, NY wrote:
I was meaning "Luddite" in the sense of resisting to change from older
technologies like broadcast through terrestrial or satellite transmission, >> to stream-on-demand technologies over an internet connection.
I stick to off air radio because it is more convenient, I have a Roberts
93i so quite a capable Internet Radio but it is not as convenient as
just listening off air
and of course Internet Radio is no use in the car
unless you want to pay for a data connection and risk prosecution with
the latest definition of what you can do when driving.
Newer is not always better whatever some might think.
On 26/11/2021 07:58, Mark Carver wrote:
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and all
the
other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if
anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
It only matters if there is anything worth watching
it would have a hell of an effect on the more Luddite older population.
I hate to say it but GB news has been a massive
disappointment.
The term luddite is pejorative (and thus provocative).
BBC Three HD was on the PSB 3 mux, every TV transmitter in the UK
carried it.
On 26/11/2021 07:02, Tweed wrote:
According to today’s Times BBC Three is to return to Freeview (and allAccording to Ofcom's statement yesterday
the
other normal outlets) in February. Is there any news on what, if
anything,
is going to take a hit on Freeview to fit it in?
2.9 The BBC has proposed that the new BBC Three channel should appear
within the top 24 slots of electronic programme guides (‘EPGs’). It proposes that the channel will be available on the main terrestrial, satellite and cable platforms in all the nations of the UK. The BBC is planning to launch the channel on 1 February 2022 in standard definition (‘SD’) and high definition (‘HD’) on Freeview, except in Scotland where
the HD capacity is used for the BBC Scotland channel, and in Wales where
the HD capacity is used by S4C. On all other platforms, the channel
would launch in SD and HD.
2.10 To accommodate BBC Three within current distribution capacity, the
BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that broadcast
ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/228519/statement-bbc-three-final-determination.pdf
On 26/11/2021 14:40, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
The term luddite is pejorative (and thus provocative).
I am perversely proud to be one.
Bill
On 26/11/2021 11:53, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I hate to say it but GB news has been a massive
disappointment.
I'm impressed with it. At one point this morning all I could find on the other channels were stupid games shows etc, but GBN had very good analysis
of the situation in N Ireland re the EEC.
Bill
can't see why kids shows need to air after their sensible bedtime. why
did they ever extend the hours?
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 15:05:01 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/11/2021 12:26, NY wrote:
I was meaning "Luddite" in the sense of resisting to change from older
technologies like broadcast through terrestrial or satellite transmission, >>> to stream-on-demand technologies over an internet connection.
I stick to off air radio because it is more convenient, I have a Roberts >>93i so quite a capable Internet Radio but it is not as convenient as
just listening off air
How so? I have 94i and I only listen to internet radio. The presets
are set up for the stations I listen to so no searching is needed.
Having 20 presets helps!
and of course Internet Radio is no use in the car
unless you want to pay for a data connection and risk prosecution with
the latest definition of what you can do when driving.
Newer is not always better whatever some might think.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:48:00 +0000, the dog from that film you saw ><dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:
can't see why kids shows need to air after their sensible bedtime. why
did they ever extend the hours?
They will have extended them as far as they were allowed because it's
"the watershed". As every programme planner knows, all children in the
UK are in bed before 9pm and can only watch programmes while they're
being broadcast, just like it was in the 1950s, so it's OK for the
grownups to swear and do rude things on the telly after that.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:12:50, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
Mark Carver wrote:
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that
broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
i.e. back to what it used to be, before BBC3 went away ...
I never really liked the concept of one block of bandwidth (or relevant term), different LCNs at different times. I could say do they really
think people are getting two (or more) times as many channels, but I
fear many probably do; that doesn't mean _I_ have to like it.
On 26/11/2021 11:14, NY wrote:
it would have a hell of an effect on the more Luddite older population.
Oi! Watch your language! Don't disrespect us Luddites!
They will have extended them as far as they were allowed because it's
"the watershed". As every programme planner knows, all children in the
UK are in bed before 9pm and can only watch programmes while they're
being broadcast, just like it was in the 1950s, so it's OK for the
grownups to swear and do rude things on the telly after that.
On 27/11/2021 10:22, Scott wrote:
They will have extended them as far as they were allowed because it's
"the watershed". As every programme planner knows, all children in the
UK are in bed before 9pm and can only watch programmes while they're
being broadcast, just like it was in the 1950s, so it's OK for the
grownups to swear and do rude things on the telly after that.
CBBC is aimed at children up to 15 years old, how many 15 year olds are
in bed by 19:00h?
On 27/11/2021 10:22, Scott wrote:
They will have extended them as far as they were allowed because it's
"the watershed". As every programme planner knows, all children in the
UK are in bed before 9pm and can only watch programmes while they're
being broadcast, just like it was in the 1950s, so it's OK for the
grownups to swear and do rude things on the telly after that.
CBBC is aimed at children up to 15 years old, how many 15 year olds are
in bed by 19:00h?
The problem is that much of the time it seems to be just, well, borring. Maybe they need to tighten up their criteria a bit. I notice that on the
free channels on line on my smsung is CNN Eoro News and Reuters to name but
a few. Apart from CNN most of the others seem very amateurish and also when its quite do reviews of the year and all that stuff. Bloomburg TV is there, with loads of so called financial experts talking out of their backsides
most of the time.
On 26/11/2021 11:53, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
 I hate to say it but GB news has been a massive
disappointment.
I'm impressed with it. At one point this morning all I could find on the other channels were stupid games shows etc, but GBN had very good
analysis of the situation in N Ireland re the EEC.
On 26/11/2021 12:26, NY wrote:
I was meaning "Luddite" in the sense of resisting to change from older
technologies like broadcast through terrestrial or satellite
transmission,
to stream-on-demand technologies over an internet connection.
I stick to off air radio because it is more convenient, I have a Roberts
93i so quite a capable Internet Radio but it is not as convenient as
just listening off air and of course Internet Radio is no use in the car unless you want to pay for a data connection and risk prosecution with
the latest definition of what you can do when driving.
I have a 93i as a bedside radio and only listen to internet radio. I
think it has only five presets (or five on each waveband if you're
trying to advertise it) but after the novelty of having thousands of
stations to choose from wears off, I find I mostly listen to the same
station and only switch to another if there are problems.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:17:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I have a 93i as a bedside radio and only listen to internet radio. I
think it has only five presets (or five on each waveband if you're
trying to advertise it) but after the novelty of having thousands of >>stations to choose from wears off, I find I mostly listen to the same >>station and only switch to another if there are problems.
There are only five preset buttons but there are 120 presets
available (40 each for internet radio, DAB, and FM) using the
Mode button (immediately to the right of the five preset
buttons) the Preset button (ditto but immediately to the left)
and the large Tuning/Select control. Instructions are in the
manual; I can't remember where I downloaded it from.
Yes, can we use Google Maps now? What about paper maps?
On 27/11/2021 12:25, Max Demian wrote:
Yes, can we use Google Maps now? What about paper maps?
It is the usual "horses for courses". Online maps are good for some
things and paper for other things.
On 27/11/2021 12:25, Max Demian wrote:
Yes, can we use Google Maps now? What about paper maps?
It is the usual "horses for courses". Online maps are good for some
things and paper for other things.
I rarely use Google maps, don't like them and prefer to stick to OS maps.
On 26/11/2021 17:19, williamwright wrote:
On 26/11/2021 11:14, NY wrote:
it would have a hell of an effect on the more Luddite older population.Oi! Watch your language! Don't disrespect us Luddites!
If he's not carful he might find a clog jamming up the works
I like the concept of long running stories on Dr.Who - like it used to
be in the old days before being relaunched as individual stories with
added irrelevant gayness. However I don't like the absence of logic,
and frequent use of the sonic screwdriver to cover the more extreme >impossibilities.
On 26/11/2021 17:21, williamwright wrote:
On 26/11/2021 11:53, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I hate to say it but GB news has been a massive
disappointment.
I'm impressed with it. At one point this morning all I could find on the
other channels were stupid games shows etc, but GBN had very good
analysis of the situation in N Ireland re the EEC.
Those that are critical of GBN are often, in my personal experience, woke bigots that wouldn't "lower themselves".
I'm also aware of one person (the landlord of my local), that sees it as a bit "left wing" for their tastes
--
Guess who?
On 27/11/2021 12:25, Max Demian wrote:
Yes, can we use Google Maps now? What about paper maps?
It is the usual "horses for courses". Online maps are good for some
things and paper for other things.
I rarely use Google maps, don't like them and prefer to stick to OS maps.
Google maps (and maybe some of the others) has an interesting half-way version: you can download a sizeable area (as big as north of England,
I _think_) when you have a good connection, and it remembers it for a
certain time (months or weeks I think, provided there's space in the
'phone). I _think_ you don't actually tell it to download (say)
Northern England, you just set up your route, and it downloads that
and a considerable amount either side
In article <snu582$m4e$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I rarely use Google maps, don't like them and prefer to stick to OS maps.Google Maps does show traffic conditions, something that paper maps don't.
I don't often use paper OS maps any more, though I still have a
bookshelf of them for areas that I visited - it seems a sin to thrown
them away. They have the advantage over an electronic version that you
can see a large area in decent detail, as long as there is space to
open them out. And they don't need batteries ;-)
But I much prefer an electronic copy of an OS map to a Google map for >navigation. We have the Viewranger app on our phones and iPads, and we
bought a multi-device licence for 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 maps of all
Great Britain when Viewranger had a heavily discounted offer.
Compared with Google maps, OS maps distinguish better between types of
road ("C", B, A, A-trunk, motorway) and have additional features
(woodland, churches) that help when relating the map to the real world.
They also label road names and motorway junctions much better.
But Google maps often come with an overlay of traffic information. When
we are driving, we tend to have one device running Google maps for
traffic info "avoid this road because of stationary traffic" and
another for "where are we, what is just around us, where does this road
go". The car satnav (or HereMaps on Android) is good for working out
the best route, but we've learned that its traffic info is of dubious
use: it warns of delays that no longer exist (if they ever did) while
not warning us of hold-ups that do exist.
I would never trust any mapping system that relied on an internet
connection for using its maps (as opposed to traffic info which does
need live internet!). That is too prone to going into an area that has
no mobile internet coverage. Offline maps are much better.
On 28/11/2021 14:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Google maps (and maybe some of the others) has an interesting
half-way version: you can download a sizeable area (as big as north
of England, I _think_) when you have a good connection, and it
remembers it for a certain time (months or weeks I think, provided
there's space in the 'phone). I _think_ you don't actually tell it to >>download (say) Northern England, you just set up your route, and it >>downloads that and a considerable amount either side
I've used the feature, particularly when going abroad, to minimise
roaming data use. You can preselect an area (by zooming a square over
the area you want ).
I've still got Paris loaded on my phone, 115 MB, London takes 190 MB.
On 27/11/2021 21:21, charles wrote:
In article <snu582$m4e$1@dont-email.me>,And restaurants, cafes, pubs, shops, filling stations, car parks, car
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I rarely use Google maps, don't like them and prefer to stick to OS maps. >> Google Maps does show traffic conditions, something that paper maps don't. >>
charge points, (tell me when to stop ?)...............................................
Google maps (and maybe some of the others) has an interesting half-way version:
you can download a sizeable area (as big as north of England, I _think_) when you have a good connection, and it remembers it for a certain time (months or weeks I think, provided there's space in the 'phone)
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 14:38:31, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
On 28/11/2021 14:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:AIUI it will delete itself eventually?
Google maps (and maybe some of the others) has an interesting
half-way version: you can download a sizeable area (as big as north
of England, I _think_) when you have a good connection, and it
remembers it for a certain time (months or weeks I think, provided
there's space in the 'phone). I _think_ you don't actually tell it
to download (say)Â Northern England, you just set up your route, and
it downloads that and a considerable amount either side
I've used the feature, particularly when going abroad, to minimise
roaming data use. You can preselect an area (by zooming a square
over the area you want ).
I've still got Paris loaded on my phone, 115 MB, London takes 190 MB.
Can you set it to get traffic information - which obviously needs data
- but not mapping data?
But I much prefer an electronic copy of an OS map to a Google map for >>navigation. We have the Viewranger app on our phones and iPads, and we >>bought a multi-device licence for 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 maps of all Great >>Britain when Viewranger had a heavily discounted offer.
Does that mean all the maps are actually in the device, or is it a load-as-needed principle? (More below.)
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do you have
to pay for that?
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2021 21:21, charles wrote:
In article <snu582$m4e$1@dont-email.me>,And restaurants, cafes, pubs, shops, filling stations, car parks, car
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I rarely use Google maps, don't like them and prefer to stick to OSGoogle Maps does show traffic conditions, something that paper maps
maps.
don't.
charge points, (tell me when to stop
?)...............................................
Just as an aside for anyone that doesn’t know, if you go to bing.com/maps on a browser you can view OS maps. Towards the top right is a button that defaults to Road. Click in that and select OS maps. When you zoom in sufficiently the display converts to OS maps.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...[]
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good
at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do
you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime
of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast received by
the car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
The Garmin satnav has a weird algorithm for working out the best route.
If you deviate from the route that was originally worked out (eg
because of an accident or roadworks) it keeps trying to get you back
onto the original road. Initially this makes sense, but it continues to
do so when we're so far along the diversionary route that we intend to
take, that it is now shorter/quicker to continue that way than a >cross-country route that more or less doubles back on itself to get you
to the original route. We play a game "how much will the ETA go down
when 'she' (the satnav) finally decides to route us the way we're going >anyway?".
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 21:35:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...[]
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good
at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do
you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime
of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast received by
the car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd still
need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies [I know
there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on all transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic
incident.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 21:35:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message[]
news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good
at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do
you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime
of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast received by
the car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd still
need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies [I know
there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on all
transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic
incident.
[...]
Speculation: the satnav service will be aware of vehicle speeds
from its vehicle locator facility. It wouldn't be rocket science to
infer a traffic problem from a number of subscribers all stationary
or crawling in the same section of the route.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 00:21:36, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 21:35:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message[]
news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good >> >>at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do
you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime >> >of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast received by
the car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd still >> need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies [I know
there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on all
transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic
incident.
[...]
Speculation: the satnav service will be aware of vehicle speeds
from its vehicle locator facility. It wouldn't be rocket science to
infer a traffic problem from a number of subscribers all stationary
or crawling in the same section of the route.
Yes, but that requires uplink of the speeds. As does the vehicle locator facility itself. NY was positing no uplink.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 21:35:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (myThe live traffic data in my Peugeot is supplied by TomTom. It can get
responses usually follow points raised):
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message[]
news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very
good at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at
all). Do you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the
lifetime of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast
received by the car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd
still need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies
[I know there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on
all transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic incident.
Speculation: the satnav service will be aware of vehicle speeds
from its vehicle locator facility. It wouldn't be rocket science to
infer a traffic problem from a number of subscribers all stationary
or crawling in the same section of the route.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:Last time I had a honda, the free traffic info was piggy-backed on the FM tuner (TMC) which I think was based on the data from those blue trafficmaster numberplate cameras?
Do you have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime of the
car (a Honda).
Speculation: the satnav service will be aware of vehicle speeds
from its vehicle locator facility. It wouldn't be rocket science to
infer a traffic problem from a number of subscribers all stationary
or crawling in the same section of the route.
I find the VW Sat Nav very poor and have even been tempted to get a standalone one.
I often send a new Waypoint/POI to the car the night before over the
WiFi but it often does not appear on the Sat Nav until late in the day
i.e. after I have reached my destination.
Entering a new destination is very poor if you do not have the postcode.
The Garmin satnav has a weird algorithm for working out the best route. If >>you deviate from the route that was originally worked out (eg because of
an accident or roadworks) it keeps trying to get you back onto the
original road. Initially this makes sense, but it continues to do so when >>we're so far along the diversionary route that we intend to take, that it >>is now shorter/quicker to continue that way than a cross-country route
that more or less doubles back on itself to get you to the original route. >>We play a game "how much will the ETA go down when 'she' (the satnav) >>finally decides to route us the way we're going anyway?".
Oh, I'm pleased to hear one of the big SatNav companies has that
algorithm; I did have a no-name one that did that (try to turn you round
if you left the original planned route). Newcastle to Kent could come via
M1 or A1/M11, and I think it preferred M1 - I prefer A1/M11; that got to ridiculous, hundreds of miles and many hours predicted ETA. I think it
only corrected itself when you actually got onto a part of the original
route (in that case when on the M25 where the M11 joins it).
On 29/11/2021 00:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 21:35:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (myThe live traffic data in my Peugeot is supplied by TomTom. It can get this from the TMC data channel carried on Classic FM and I think the D1 DAB
responses usually follow points raised):
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message[]
news:YIIm1sauC5ohFwtq@255soft.uk...
So the car satnav has a mobile connection (even if it's not very good
at traffic reports, it must have something to get them at all). Do you >>>> have to pay for that?
No. It seems that the traffic information is available for the lifetime
of the car (a Honda). I imagine it's a one-way broadcast received by the >>> car, with no uplink from car to Garmin's HQ.
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd still
need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies [I know
there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on all
transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic
incident.
Mux. (The car radio is able to receive multiple services simultaneously,
so you don't need to be specifically 'tuned' to an appropriate service).
It can also use my mobile phone's data connection via Bluetooth
I suspect they (TomTom etc) harvest live traffic data from Google Maps,
I've seen hold ups on very minor local roads displayed on the car's
screen, there is no other way they could obtain it ?
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
But via what route: a separate network of transmitters (sounds
horrendously expensive), or the mobile network (in which case it'd still
need special arrangements with all the mobile network companies [I know
there are only 3])? If it's truly one-way, it'd need to be on all
transmitters, or at least all the ones in the area of the traffic
incident.
[...]
Speculation: the satnav service will be aware of vehicle speeds
from its vehicle locator facility. It wouldn't be rocket science to
infer a traffic problem from a number of subscribers all stationary
or crawling in the same section of the route.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:21:25 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I actually find it just a bit boring.
Still, I hate news shows in any case as often the governing factor in main >>stream news is whether they have some pre recorded sound byte or bit of >>video to show, not whether its something that matters.
Brian
Indeed. A lot of BBC news seems to include a topic covered by a
programme that day.
--
Dave W
...Unfortunately the lowest volume of
the satnav voice is still fairly loud and you have to use the touch-screen
of the satnav to change the volume.
With respect you have to understand how a satnav works.
When you enter a destination it will work out what route is compliant
with your choice - economy, fastest, or shortest or whatever. When you
set off no matter which way you go if you deviate it will do its
damnedest to get you back onto the original route and it can be a very
long way before it decides to look for another route.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:DP1QkPldhBphFwH8@255soft.uk...
The Garmin satnav has a weird algorithm for working out the best
route. If you deviate from the route that was originally worked out
(eg because of an accident or roadworks) it keeps trying to get you
back onto the original road. Initially this makes sense, but it
continues to do so when we're so far along the diversionary route
that we intend to take, that it is now shorter/quicker to continue
that way than a cross-country route that more or less doubles back on
itself to get you to the original route. We play a game "how much
will the ETA go down when 'she' (the satnav) finally decides to route
us the way we're going anyway?".
Oh, I'm pleased to hear one of the big SatNav companies has that
algorithm; I did have a no-name one that did that (try to turn you
round if you left the original planned route). Newcastle to Kent could
come via M1 or A1/M11, and I think it preferred M1 - I prefer A1/M11;
that got to ridiculous, hundreds of miles and many hours predicted
ETA. I think it only corrected itself when you actually got onto a
part of the original route (in that case when on the M25 where the M11
joins it).
The classic case where it occurs is on our journey home to East
Yorkshire after visiting parents in Buckinghamshire. We know from bitter experience that it is a lot better to turn off the M1 at Leicester
Forest East, go via the newly-dualled A46 and then up the A1, rather
that taking the M1 all the way up to the M18 south of Sheffield - less traffic and fewer interminable stretches of 50 mph speed limit in "road works" where many miles are coned off but they are only working on one
small section.
As we turn off the M1, the satnav tries to get us back onto it, telling
us at each junction on the A46 to turn round or to take a narrow country
lane to the next M1 junction. The ETA gets later and later, the further
we go on the A46. We've sometimes got well onto the new dual-carriageway section before the satnav finally decides to route us that way - at
which point the ETA suddenly gets about 30 minutes earlier and the
distance remaining drops by many miles.
You'd think that the algorithm would check alternative routes at every junction, and hence fairly quickly decide that the route we are on is
now quicker than doubling back.
On routes that we know well, we tend to set a "go home" route, not for
the directions but just to estimate "when will we be home" and "can we
safely get home where we know there is a cheaper fuel station, instead
of having to buy some more expensive fuel en route".
Next time we do that journey (a few weeks' time) I'll have to set
HereMaps running on my phone and see how long *that* takes to switch
from the default M1 route to the A46/A1 route once we turn off.
What is odd about the Honda satnav (Garmin) is that it doesn't even seem
to adjust the route depending on traffic: it still prefers the M1 even
if it's warned us that the M1 is very busy (or closed) further on.
Reminds me of the traffic police officer who made a prat of him on local radio about 15 years ago when there was a big accident on the A34 near
Oxford which closed the road completely. He was ranting and raving about
how he thought that radio stations were being irresponsible for giving traffic news which might divert traffic away from the accident onto
other roads which would be unable to cope. Radio Oxford wound him up and
let him run! They got him to say that he much preferred traffic to be
queued up stationary on the road that they had intended to take than to divert onto other roads. You could hear the sound of the swarm of bees buzzing frantically around his bonnet ;-)
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 14:38:31, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points >raised):
On 28/11/2021 14:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:AIUI it will delete itself eventually?
Google maps (and maybe some of the others) has an interesting
half-way version: you can download a sizeable area (as big as north
of England, I _think_) when you have a good connection, and it
remembers it for a certain time (months or weeks I think, provided >>>there's space in the 'phone). I _think_ you don't actually tell it to >>>download (say) Northern England, you just set up your route, and it >>>downloads that and a considerable amount either side
I've used the feature, particularly when going abroad, to minimise
roaming data use. You can preselect an area (by zooming a square over
the area you want ).
I've still got Paris loaded on my phone, 115 MB, London takes 190 MB.
Can you set it to get traffic information - which obviously needs data -
but not mapping data?
On Mon 29/11/2021 09:34, NY wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:DP1QkPldhBphFwH8@255soft.uk...
The Garmin satnav has a weird algorithm for working out the best
route. If you deviate from the route that was originally worked out
(eg because of an accident or roadworks) it keeps trying to get you
back onto the original road. Initially this makes sense, but it
continues to do so when we're so far along the diversionary route
that we intend to take, that it is now shorter/quicker to continue
that way than a cross-country route that more or less doubles back on
itself to get you to the original route. We play a game "how much
will the ETA go down when 'she' (the satnav) finally decides to route
us the way we're going anyway?".
Oh, I'm pleased to hear one of the big SatNav companies has that
algorithm; I did have a no-name one that did that (try to turn you
round if you left the original planned route). Newcastle to Kent could
come via M1 or A1/M11, and I think it preferred M1 - I prefer A1/M11;
that got to ridiculous, hundreds of miles and many hours predicted
ETA. I think it only corrected itself when you actually got onto a
part of the original route (in that case when on the M25 where the M11
joins it).
The classic case where it occurs is on our journey home to East
Yorkshire after visiting parents in Buckinghamshire. We know from bitter
experience that it is a lot better to turn off the M1 at Leicester
Forest East, go via the newly-dualled A46 and then up the A1, rather
that taking the M1 all the way up to the M18 south of Sheffield - less
traffic and fewer interminable stretches of 50 mph speed limit in "road
works" where many miles are coned off but they are only working on one
small section.
As we turn off the M1, the satnav tries to get us back onto it, telling
us at each junction on the A46 to turn round or to take a narrow country
lane to the next M1 junction. The ETA gets later and later, the further
we go on the A46. We've sometimes got well onto the new dual-carriageway
section before the satnav finally decides to route us that way - at
which point the ETA suddenly gets about 30 minutes earlier and the
distance remaining drops by many miles.
You'd think that the algorithm would check alternative routes at every
junction, and hence fairly quickly decide that the route we are on is
now quicker than doubling back.
On routes that we know well, we tend to set a "go home" route, not for
the directions but just to estimate "when will we be home" and "can we
safely get home where we know there is a cheaper fuel station, instead
of having to buy some more expensive fuel en route".
Next time we do that journey (a few weeks' time) I'll have to set
HereMaps running on my phone and see how long *that* takes to switch
from the default M1 route to the A46/A1 route once we turn off.
What is odd about the Honda satnav (Garmin) is that it doesn't even seem
to adjust the route depending on traffic: it still prefers the M1 even
if it's warned us that the M1 is very busy (or closed) further on.
Reminds me of the traffic police officer who made a prat of him on local
radio about 15 years ago when there was a big accident on the A34 near
Oxford which closed the road completely. He was ranting and raving about
how he thought that radio stations were being irresponsible for giving
traffic news which might divert traffic away from the accident onto
other roads which would be unable to cope. Radio Oxford wound him up and
let him run! They got him to say that he much preferred traffic to be
queued up stationary on the road that they had intended to take than to
divert onto other roads. You could hear the sound of the swarm of bees
buzzing frantically around his bonnet ;-)
With respect you have to understand how a satnav works.
When you enter a destination it will work out what route is compliant
with your choice - economy, fastest, or shortest or whatever. When you
set off no matter which way you go if you deviate it will do its
damnedest to get you back onto the original route and it can be a very
long way before it decides to look for another route.
NY wrote:
We know from bitter experience that it is a lot better to turn off the M1
at Leicester Forest East, go via the newly-dualled A46 and then up the A1
newly? 25+ years old ...
We know from bitter experience that it is a lot better to turn off the M1 at Leicester Forest East, go via the newly-dualled A46 and then up the A1
The south-west part of the A46 was dualled a while ago - 25 years, maybe.
But the north east section from somewhere near Six Hills to Newark was
single carriageway until the late 2010s
I can remember driving the old way a couple of
times, then seeing the dual carriageway sections being built alongside and opened piecemeal, and the single carriageway sections becoming dead-end stubs in
places. I'm guessing that the new dual section has been open end-to-end for about 10 years.
On 26/11/2021 14:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:12:50, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
Mark Carver wrote:
the BBC is proposing to reduce the operating hours of CBBC so that
broadcast ends at 7pm instead of 9pm.
i.e. back to what it used to be, before BBC3 went away ...
I never really liked the concept of one block of bandwidth (or relevant
term), different LCNs at different times. I could say do they really
think people are getting two (or more) times as many channels, but I
fear many probably do; that doesn't mean _I_ have to like it.
It helps people to know what to expect. Or kids expecting CBeebies who
stay up past their bedtime would be mystified by BBC4 programmes. And
BBC4 viewers who tune in early would wonder why they are expected to
watch Peppa Pig.
With respect you have to understand how a satnav works.[]
When you enter a destination it will work out what route is compliant
with your choice - economy, fastest, or shortest or whatever. When you
set off no matter which way you go if you deviate it will do its
damnedest to get you back onto the original route and it can be a very
long way before it decides to look for another route.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 11:34:57, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
With respect you have to understand how a satnav works.[]
When you enter a destination it will work out what route is compliant
with your choice - economy, fastest, or shortest or whatever. When you
set off no matter which way you go if you deviate it will do its
damnedest to get you back onto the original route and it can be a very
long way before it decides to look for another route.
With equal respect, _you_ need to try some more modern SatNavs.
Yes, I had one which would say "turn around if possible" - or try to
turn you round at the next junction - if you deviated from the route it
first worked out, to the extent of hundreds of miles and hours of travel
time - I think it only stopped trying to take you back if you joined a
bit of the route it had originally planned. But more modern ones _do_ recalculate: I don't think it's after you've ignored them X times, I
think it's when they detect you're a (fairly short) distance from the
planned route. An intermediate one I had would say "recalculating" when
it was, er, recalculating; my present one doesn't say anything, just
starts giving you different directions.
NY wrote:
The south-west part of the A46 was dualled a while ago - 25 years, maybe.
yes.
But the north east section from somewhere near Six Hills to Newark was
single carriageway until the late 2010s
A little bit further north, it was dual all the way to the Melton turn
where the old dalby test railway crosses, but that dual carriageway to
Newark opened 2013, I can't wait for the dual to make it over the A1 to
join up with the Lincoln stretch.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
...Unfortunately the lowest volume of
the satnav voice is still fairly loud and you have to use the touch-screen >> of the satnav to change the volume.
Anything which is visible to the driver and uses a touch screen or menus >should be banned outright.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:39:42 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
...Unfortunately the lowest volume of
the satnav voice is still fairly loud and you have to use the touch-screen >> of the satnav to change the volume.
Anything which is visible to the driver and uses a touch screen or menus >should be banned outright.
Thank goodness you're not a politician. The world isn't that simple.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:39:42 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
...Unfortunately the lowest volume of
the satnav voice is still fairly loud and you have to use the
touch-screen
of the satnav to change the volume.
Anything which is visible to the driver and uses a touch screen or menus >>should be banned outright.
Thank goodness you're not a politician. The world isn't that simple.
A satnav or a radio or any other persistent distracting device which
can't be instantly silenced by pressing or turning something which is immediately obvious by feel or position is a serious danger when a
dificult driving situation arises. My van was fitted with a radio which couldn't be silenced in a hurry, so I silenced it permanently by
scrapping it and installed a very simple 30-year-old car radio (with
Long Wave!) in its place.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:39:42 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
...Unfortunately the lowest volume of
the satnav voice is still fairly loud and you have to use the touch-screen >>>> of the satnav to change the volume.
Anything which is visible to the driver and uses a touch screen or menus >>> should be banned outright.
Thank goodness you're not a politician. The world isn't that simple.
TV screens are already banned. Touch screens and menu-driven systems
divert the driver's vision and attention from the road for long periods,
so it would have been a simple matter to include them in the ban too if
it had been done from the outset.
A satnav or a radio or any other persistent distracting device which
can't be instantly silenced by pressing or turning something which is immediately obvious by feel or position is a serious danger when a
dificult driving situation arises. My van was fitted with a radio which couldn't be silenced in a hurry, so I silenced it permanently by
scrapping it and installed a very simple 30-year-old car radio (with
Long Wave!) in its place.
I have a personal interest in this: a friend of mine and part of her
family were wiped out because of a lorry driver trying to tune a radio
whilst driving.
I imagine that if it was possible to cast a mobile phone screen onto a >centre-console screen of a car, that would be illegal because of the >potential for people to be distracted reading a text.
Satnavs can be very useful, and a diagram with road name and distance
to junction (but not much else) can be assimilated without distracting
the driver from his main task of driving safely. I find that a voice
Should we expect car drivers to obey the same rules as train drivers,
where even a radio (for entertainment and whiling away the journey) is >banned?
I'm always surprised that smoking is still allowed by a car driver. Not
from the pollution point of view but that of having one hand off the
wheel holding a red-hot object: you can dump a mobile phone or a Mars
Bar or whatever on the passenger seat if you suddenly need to use both
hands, but a cigarette will burn you or the seats, so there is the
potential for "oh shit, WTF do I do with the fag?" distraction.
Getting back on topic though, I don't miss bbc three as most of its shows were a bit childish in nature.
Most of the other channels show some pretty adult content these days if that is what floats your boat.
Brian
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I imagine that if it was possible to cast a mobile phone screen onto a
centre-console screen of a car, that would be illegal because of the potential
for people to be distracted reading a text.
I was forgetting the modern use of "cast" when I started to read that; I thought
you were talking about HUD technology
When closed last time, the best BBC3 progs were transferred to ITV2,
viz. Family Guy and American Dad.
Incidentally, at least one study has shown that using a hands free
mobile phone causes an increased risk of a collision roughly equivalent
to being at the legal drink driving limit, and this extra risk still
exists for quite some time after the call finishes. Hand held phones as
still used by a lot of professional drivers are a*lot* more risky,
which is why many police forces now have a lorry on patrol, so the
officers can check for such use, as well as video screens which can't be
seen from their normal cars.
On 29/11/2021 11:34, Woody wrote:
With respect you have to understand how a satnav works.
When you enter a destination it will work out what route is compliant
with your choice - economy, fastest, or shortest or whatever. When you
set off no matter which way you go if you deviate it will do its
damnedest to get you back onto the original route and it can be a very
long way before it decides to look for another route.
that has not been my experience with successive versions of TomTom on
PDA, tablet and Android phones since 2007.
Reminds me of the traffic police officer who made a prat of him on local radio about 15 years ago when there was a big accident on the A34 near
Oxford which closed the road completely. He was ranting and raving about
how he thought that radio stations were being irresponsible for giving traffic news which might divert traffic away from the accident onto
other roads which would be unable to cope. Radio Oxford wound him up and
let him run! They got him to say that he much preferred traffic to be
queued up stationary on the road that they had intended to take than to divert onto other roads. You could hear the sound of the swarm of bees buzzing frantically around his bonnet ;-)
My old Garmin used to have the faciltiy for a way-point, so if I
wanted to force away from the standard route I'd put that in. I
thought some satnavs allowed multiple way-points.
The only police I've noticed using their radios while driving lately
have been two in a car, or on a motorbike with a headset in the helmet.
Round here, it is very rare to see only on copper in a car.
Include touchscreens in a ban and you get very close to being unable to
drive a Tesla!
On 30/11/2021 10:41, John Williamson wrote:
Incidentally, at least one study has shown that using a hands free
mobile phone causes an increased risk of a collision roughly equivalent
to being at the legal drink driving limit, and this extra risk still
exists for quite some time after the call finishes. Hand held phones as
still used by a lot of professional drivers are a*lot* more risky,
which is why many police forces now have a lorry on patrol, so the
officers can check for such use, as well as video screens which can't be
seen from their normal cars.
But police can use their "radios" as well as many other electronic toys
but of course they are superhumans and never have accidents.
On 30/11/2021 18:05, Paul Taylor wrote:
When closed last time, the best BBC3 progs were transferred to ITV2,
viz. Family Guy and American Dad.
If they were the best then the rest must have been worse than I thought.
A crude ban on touchscreen devices would effectively outlaw satnav for
many drivers, and
On 01/12/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
A crude ban on touchscreen devices would effectively outlaw satnav
for
many drivers, and
Make a Tesla almost undriveable.(I personally think all modern models of vehicle - especially EVs, but
T
In article <ry2KbPQeZBqhFwZx@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 14:35:02, Tony Gamble <tonygamble@compuserve.com>Having just got an EV, I'm inclined to agree with you. Rain on the
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On 01/12/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:Depends on whether it's a total and outright ban on any _use_ of them -
A crude ban on touchscreen devices would effectively outlaw satnav
for
many drivers, and
like garlic for vampires - or just a ban on _touching them while in
motion_.
Make a Tesla almost undriveable.(I personally think all modern models of vehicle - especially EVs, but
T
even most if not all petrol or diesel models - are far too much
computerised* - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)
*I'm not a luddite - I like technology, and am not even against
autonomous vehicles - I just think we're moving too much towards - and
thus the public are accepting of - that being the _default_, often with
the option to change said default becoming harder and harder to find.
windscreen - wipers come on by themselves. Getting dark - lights come on automatically. But I still have to point it the right way and I can decide how fast ;-)
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 14:35:02, Tony Gamble <tonygamble@compuserve.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On 01/12/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
A crude ban on touchscreen devices would effectively outlaw satnav
for
many drivers, and
Depends on whether it's a total and outright ban on any _use_ of them -
like garlic for vampires - or just a ban on _touching them while in
motion_.
Make a Tesla almost undriveable.
T(I personally think all modern models of vehicle - especially EVs, but
even most if not all petrol or diesel models - are far too much
computerised* - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)
*I'm not a luddite - I like technology, and am not even against
autonomous vehicles - I just think we're moving too much towards - and
thus the public are accepting of - that being the _default_, often with
the option to change said default becoming harder and harder to find.
Rain on theIndeed. Though my fossil fuel car has those same features, and I've also
windscreen - wipers come on by themselves. Getting dark - lights come on
automatically. But I still have to point it the right way and I can
decide
how fast ;-)
been driving cars with only two pedals for 40 years.
In article <ry2KbPQeZBqhFwZx@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 14:35:02, Tony Gamble <tonygamble@compuserve.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On 01/12/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
A crude ban on touchscreen devices would effectively outlaw satnav
for
many drivers, and
Depends on whether it's a total and outright ban on any _use_ of them -
like garlic for vampires - or just a ban on _touching them while in
motion_.
(I personally think all modern models of vehicle - especially EVs, but
Make a Tesla almost undriveable.
T
even most if not all petrol or diesel models - are far too much
computerised* - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)
*I'm not a luddite - I like technology, and am not even against
autonomous vehicles - I just think we're moving too much towards - and
thus the public are accepting of - that being the _default_, often with
the option to change said default becoming harder and harder to find.
Having just got an EV, I'm inclined to agree with you. Rain on the
windscreen - wipers come on by themselves. Getting dark - lights come on automatically. But I still have to point it the right way and I can decide how fast ;-)
charles wrote:
windscreen - wipers come on by themselves. Getting dark - lights come onIndeed. Though my fossil fuel car has those same features,
automatically. But I still have to point it the right way and I can decide >> how fast ;-)
and I've also been driving cars with only two pedals for 40 years.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:07:14 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
On 03/12/2021 14:03, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:07:14 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>Instead of a Torque Converter, there is a robotic clutch, or better still two. On paper it's more efficient than a torque converter, because you're
wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
not soaking up energy by the inherent 'slipping clutch' of a TC.
Some are better than others. I'm told the VW one is quite good and feels
just like a TC ?
Andy Burns wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:j0uosmFlm8pU1@mid.individual.net...
On 03/12/2021 14:03, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:07:14 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>Instead of a Torque Converter, there is a robotic clutch, or better
wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
still two. On paper it's more efficient than a torque converter,
because you're not soaking up energy by the inherent 'slipping
clutch' of a TC.
Some are better than others. I'm told the VW one is quite good and
feels just like a TC ?
I would hope that a robotised manual (DSG) gearbox would feel a *lot*
better than a TC because it has fixed ratios with none of the vague
woolly feeling of TC where you apply a little more throttle and the TC "downshifts" slightly so you still go at the same speed. I like a
fixed ratio and ideally I like to be able to control when that ratio
changes, even if I let the gearbox handle the mechanics of the change (matching engine revs for the new gear). The TC is the one component
of a conventional automatic which lets the side down because it is so
vague.
The thing that I always find difficult with TC automatics, and I
wonder if it's the same with robotised manual, is controlling the
precise speed at very low speed. Maybe because in a manual I let the
engine idle and control the speed by letting the clutch up to bite in
first or second as appropriate, then disengaging it when the car is
rolling, rinse and repeat. Less chance of pressing the accelerator
slightly too much and having the car surge forward until you can come
off the power and/or hit the brake.
I would hope that a robotised manual (DSG) gearbox would feel a *lot*
better than a TC because it has fixed ratios with none of the vague
woolly feeling of TC where you apply a little more throttle and the TC "downshifts" slightly so you still go at the same speed. I like a fixed
ratio and ideally I like to be able to control when that ratio changes,
even if I let the gearbox handle the mechanics of the change (matching
engine revs for the new gear). The TC is the one component of a
conventional automatic which lets the side down because it is so vague.
The thing that I always find difficult with TC automatics, and I wonder
if it's the same with robotised manual, is controlling the precise speed
at very low speed. Maybe because in a manual I let the engine idle and control the speed by letting the clutch up to bite in first or second as appropriate, then disengaging it when the car is rolling, rinse and
repeat. Less chance of pressing the accelerator slightly too much and
having the car surge forward until you can come off the power and/or hit
the brake.
With practice, a torque convertor type gearbox is easier to control at
low speeds than a manual, and *much* easier than the flappy paddle types.
On 03/12/2021 17:01, John Williamson wrote:
With practice, a torque convertor type gearbox is easier to control at
low speeds than a manual, and *much* easier than the flappy paddle types.
I played a game with myself once
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
effectively one clutch for the even gears, another for the odd gears.
So it can preselect the next gear and very rapidly change from the gear you're in to that gear by opening one clutch while closing the other,
then preselect the new next gear.
I actually don't use the flappy paddles much, but the gearboxes tend to
come with them, racing style up/down shifters just behind the steering
wheel.
On 03/12/2021 15:30, Andy Burns wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
effectively one clutch for the even gears, another for the odd gears.
So it can preselect the next gear and very rapidly change from the
gear you're in to that gear by opening one clutch while closing the
other, then preselect the new next gear.
Sounds like the preselector gears that the old London buses had (the
ones with the vertical radiator grill).
Sounds like the preselector gears that the old London buses had (the ones with
the vertical radiator grill).
I actually don't use the flappy paddles much, but the gearboxes tend to come >> with them, racing style up/down shifters just behind the steering wheel.
Can you pretend to be Lewis Hamilton?
On Fri 03/12/2021 18:09, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2021 15:30, Andy Burns wrote:[snip]
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What's a dual clutch flappy-paddle gearbox ?
effectively one clutch for the even gears, another for the odd gears.
So it can preselect the next gear and very rapidly change from the
gear you're in to that gear by opening one clutch while closing the
other, then preselect the new next gear.
Sounds like the preselector gears that the old London buses had (the
ones with the vertical radiator grill).
That would be a Routemaster?
And weren't the gear boxes hydraulically operated cyclic?
I played a game with myself once (in a TC auto) on a nightmare 2 hour
crawl around a 20 mile section of the M25. I tried not to actually stop
at any point, by simply at certain points reducing my speed to literally
a snails pace, and not zooming off when things started moving
temporarily. Fortunately no one leapt into the gap I had in front of me,
but it worked.
I fear we'll eventually not have the choice (other than seeking
increasingly hard to find and maintain older models). Even now, I
suspect most new models - and not just electric - don't have a touch
screen, at least for some functions (radio etc. years ago, I suspect
climate control now, probably locking etc. too now).
On 03/12/2021 17:01, John Williamson wrote:
With practice, a torque convertor type gearbox is easier to control
at low speeds than a manual, and *much* easier than the flappy paddle >>types.
I played a game with myself once (in a TC auto) on a nightmare 2 hour
crawl around a 20 mile section of the M25. I tried not to actually
stop at any point, by simply at certain points reducing my speed to
literally a snails pace, and not zooming off when things started moving >temporarily. Fortunately no one leapt into the gap I had in front of
me, but it worked.
Mark Carver wrote:
charles wrote:
windscreen - wipers come on by themselves. Getting dark - lights come on >>> automatically. But I still have to point it the right way and I can decide >>> how fast ;-)Indeed. Though my fossil fuel car has those same features,
same here and automatic things like that are fine. However, in the same
way that I'll never [again] buy a car with a bottle of gunge and a
compressor instead of a spare tyre, I'll never buy a car with a
touchscreen instead of actual knobs and buttons.
and I've also been driving cars with only two pedals for 40 years.
I've swapped and changed between manual and auto several times, but
since having dual clutch flappy-paddle gearboxes, it'd take a lot to go
back to anything else. Maybe EV will get good enough eventually ...
Oh, do EVs - I mean, all-electric, not hybrid - still have gearboxes then?
I thought they had direct drive to (two or four of) the wheels. (The only reason for having gears - automatic or otherwise - is that the engine
won't work outside a certain range; I thought electric motors were usable over a near-infinite range of speeds, certainly including zero. But I've
not actually driven a modern EV.)
do EVs - I mean, all-electric, not hybrid - still have gearboxes then? I thought
they had direct drive to (two or four of) the wheels.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 214:18:47 |
| Calls: | 6,619 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,486 |