Chancellor's Spring Statement - Red Diesel

[WotEver]

33 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Neither.

Agreed

[Machpoint005]

It's a shame that nuclear fusion reactors are still 15 years in the future, and always will be ...

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

It is interesting; but how can you tell if the vehicle is not taxed now that the Tax Disc has been abolished?

I would suggest that the retailer is logging the registration numbers. I had quite a wait at Turners as no way was he turning his back on the chap filling cans to go in the back of his van.

[WotEver]

23 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

It's a shame that nuclear fusion reactors are still 15 years in the future, and always will be ...

Well that’s much closer than it was. For the last 50 years it’s always been 20 years in the future. So it’s five years closer now

[b0atman]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

Amazing! I tried it out and discovered that RFA 5, which was the number of a Wolseley which my Dad owned for years, still exists - though now attached to a 2016 Mini. I'm not sure exactly why I'm pleased that it lives on, but I am.

I'm not sure what impels you to check the tax status of these cars and van either, but that's your business.

RFA5 could be arthurs or a very valuable personal number probably worth more than the Wolsely cost new

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, b0atman said:

RFA5 could be arthurs or a very valuable personal number probably worth more than the Wolseley cost new

Arthur's?

Actually when dad bought the car about 1965 the "cherished number plate" thing had not really got into gear. By the early '70s when he finally realised that the car, which he loved dearly, was dropping to pieces, it had become more fashionable. So he advertised it in, I think, a special number plates classified section of The Observer and a chap called R.F.A. Smallshore bought it (and the attached Wolseley 16/60 remains) for twice the car's market value.

[Momac]

4 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

These days one is made to feel demonised for having one, even if originally bought when you were encouraged to do so.

 

I think if you want a new diesel car it is a good time to get one before they go out of production. I don' think you need to feel bad about it.

[Athy]

4 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

  These days one is made to feel demonised for having one, even if originally bought when you were encouraged to do so.

 

I look forward to seeing Flamingo and Sickle gliding silently past once you have fitted their new electric engines.

We, after many years of petrol-engined models, have had a diesel Suzuki for about two years now. We don't feel demonised at all but, with its very low car tax and its 50 + m.p.h. economy (on a 2-litre engine) we do feel rather richer.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Athy

[Psycloud]

17 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I would suggest that the retailer is logging the registration numbers. I had quite a wait at Turners as no way was he turning his back on the chap filling cans to go in the back of his van.

Some people even try sticking the red diesel nozzle straight into their car/van and expecting us to start the pump!

[IanD]

On 3/14/2018 at 14:01, Alan de Enfield said:

Checking my log-books and going back a few years (to 2001)

We were in Douglas (IoM) and they didn't have enough fuel for us at the yacht club so we had to get a tanker to come down to the harbour wall to fill us up. We took on 325 gallons (1475 litres)  at 25p / litre

With twin 6-cylinder Volvo 200's we used  14 gallons per hour at cruise speed of 3150 RPM, which worked out at roughly 1.5nm per gallon

2-days earlier we had refuelled at Rhu (Scotland) and paid 21.5p / litre

On the same trip we paid 20p /litre at Holyhead and 29p / litre at Port St Mary (Iom)

Wow, that's *terrible* fuel consumption and speed -- 14 gallons per hour at 1.5nm per gallon means that even if you travelled for 8 hours every single day it would take you more than 500,000 tons of fuel and over 10,000 years to travel one meter... ;-)

[Mac of Cygnet]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Wow, that's *terrible* fuel consumption and speed -- 14 gallons per hour at 1.5nm per gallon means that even if you travelled for 8 hours every single day it would take you more than 500,000 tons of fuel and over 10,000 years to travel one meter... ;-)

Actually, there are 5 ways to abbreviate 'nautical mile'  They do not include Alan's version, precisely for the reason you imply.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Actually, there are 5 ways to abbreviate 'nautical mile'  

I did knot know that.

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Actually, there are 5 ways to abbreviate 'nautical mile'  They do not include Alan's version, precisely for the reason you imply.

They are obviously unaware of the 6th variation.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Wow, that's *terrible* fuel consumption and speed -- 14 gallons per hour at 1.5nm per gallon means that even if you travelled for 8 hours every single day it would take you more than 500,000 tons of fuel and over 10,000 years to travel one meter... ;-)

You mean one metre ? Unless you are an American.

[Naughty Cal]

20 hours ago, Athy said:

I look forward to seeing Flamingo and Sickle gliding silently past once you have fitted their new electric engines.

We, after many years of petrol-engined models, have had a diesel Suzuki for about two years now. We don't feel demonised at all but, with its very low car tax and its 50 + m.p.h. economy (on a 2-litre engine) we do feel rather richer.

Quite so.

Our little mini pays for itself (tax, insurance and MOT) in the fuel saved over using the Nissan.

[Mac of Cygnet]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

They are obviously unaware of the 6th variation.

I would say they are, but also aware of the confusion it could cause (but rarely, given context).  Converting nm to NM/nmi involves multiplying by 1,852,000,000,000.  Alternatively, one could move to upper case 

[IanD]

9 hours ago, MartynG said:

You mean one metre ? Unless you are an American.

Dammit, I'm not a Yank and I'm sure I typed it correctly -- bloody autocorrect again... :-(

[Machpoint005]

On 3/15/2018 at 15:54, WotEver said:

Well that’s much closer than it was. For the last 50 years it’s always been 20 years in the future. So it’s five years closer now

The key word there is "future".

[Machpoint005]

11 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Actually, there are 5 ways to abbreviate 'nautical mile'  They do not include Alan's version, precisely for the reason you imply.

If there is no standard abbreviation or symbol, it's up to the writer to make the meaning clear. "Naut ml" ?

[Alan de Enfield]

49 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

If there is no standard abbreviation or symbol, it's up to the writer to make the meaning clear. "Naut ml" ?

"Naut ml" is that a 'sea going millilitre' ?

[Machpoint005]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

"Naut ml" is that a 'sea going millilitre' ?

If you like.

I did say "standard".

[WotEver]

11 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

The key word there is "future".

Yes indeed. Did my humour escape you?

[TheBiscuits]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

"Naut ml" is that a 'sea going millilitre' ?

Is Nauti Mil the sister ship of Naughty Cal?

[pete.i]

Now that I no longer have a boat but this bunch of idiots, that laughingly call themselves a government, are about to hammer diesel cars tax wise, I sincerely hope that everybody who uses "red" diesel gets hammered as well.

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, pete.i said:

Now that I no longer have a boat but this bunch of idiots, that laughingly call themselves a government, are about to hammer diesel cars tax wise, I sincerely hope that everybody who uses "red" diesel gets hammered as well.

Even doubling the tax on red-diesel will have a minimal affect on the overall cost of boating.

But you may not feel so smug when the cost of food increases due to the rises in red-diesel costs for farmers.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Alan de Enfield