Given that a typical 'home' hair dryer will be at least 1500 watts or more then it's no surprise that a 12 volt one is pulling nearly 20 amps to give a 220 watt output which is probably not too good compared with a home type version.
Trying to generate heat from a 12 volt supply is always going to require a large number of amps. As others have said I always thought that 10 amps (120 watts) was the typical maximum for 12 volt accessory sockets be that in cars or caravans. Anything more than that will probably put the wiring at risk and prolonged use 'may' test the capacity of the battery, perhaps not such a problem if your on EHU with a power supply topping up, but 12 volts systems in cars and caravans are probably rated for stand lone use when the battery is bing used without top up power in the background.
I remember the same with my Golf with DSG, solo I was always happy with choice of gear but with the van on the back I felt the box was unduly pessimistic about the gear it needed, generally holding on to lower gears longer than I thought was required; forcing an up change never seemed to cause the engine any problem.
Having owned our van for 11 years (Fleetwood Sonata - but really an Adria with Fleetwood stickers) it has provided remarkably trouble free service (I hope I don't live to regret saying that!). The only thing that really bugs me is the chattering water pump. Even that last couple of years on a seasonal pitch where we're constantly on mains hook up and so voltages should be quite stable we suffer the chattering every so often for no apparent reason.
Looking (again) at solutions I've seen the 'Whale Watermaster IC (intelligent control) system, I would be interested to hear if anyone has any experience of this and does it 'really' cure the problem?
To change would mean changing the pump (currently on Crystal Maxi Pump), socket into caravan and adding the IC unit to the socket, it would be an expensive change but I'm close to accepting the cost 'if' it cures the problem, so what comments do the panel have to offer ... please? Worth the money or another snake oil offering?
P.S. does anyone know if the Crystal compact caravan inlet socket is the same size as the Whale Watermaster? I can't find any dimensions online.
ATC is a great safety feature .... but suffering problems with a 2014 outfit doesn't sound good. I hope you get it fixed but this really isn't a good advert for the system, never the less thanks for posting.
IF .. I was buying a new van and ATC was on offer this sort of experience would certainly put me off paying for the system.
Sound impressive but I think the number required for comparison sake is the cost per mile ... I'm sure you'll still be ahead of the curve but cost per mile is the only fair way to make a comparison ...
I'm sure I've read recently that the BMW 3 series is now more popular than the Mondeo, so Ford need to do something to make the Mondeo more attractive.
I'm not sure that adding the Vignale name/brand will do that, I think Ford are expecting the Vignale name to do the same as Ghia in the 70's and 80's. The problem is that people had some appreciation of the Ghia name beforehand which was what made it desirable at the time. I'm not sure that the same will be true for the Vignale brand ....
I think you are right to point this out, what we read in the highway about how to use a roundabout includes the following conditional statement "unless signs or markings indicate otherwise" which I think covers the point you are making.
Left lane and indicating right ... it just doesn't add up ... I learnt this the hard way when I failed my first HGV driving test because of crap tuition.
Anything more than 180 degrees around the junction requires right lane and initially right signal.
For anyone lacking on confidence to use the right hand lane for their manoeuvre, well thats not good, you may incorrectly use the left hand lane but please don't indicate right, you will confuse other who know what they are doing.
The problem arises for other road users who may be using the roundabout in a different direction.
sorry ... but ... If that's what I don't think you've done much research ... there are many 'small' ones and its easy to wire them in ... it all depends on whether you really want to do it ... if you want to ... you can ..
There is no doubt that having a dash cam could be a distinct advantage if/when things go wrong. some Police forces are willing to prosecute drivers on the evidence of driver dash cams ...
Because up to now the politicians have put their faith in CO2 (which favours diesel) as the most important measure on emissions ... now ... all of a sudden they are focused on NO2 so they believe something different.
The problem is that politics takes truth and objectivity out of all these measures.
There might be a change in the overview of which fuel is less polluting ... but given the previous changes of opinion how do we know this change is any more reliable than any previous change?
After a 10+ year use of diesel cars (as company cars) I found myself in the position of having to fund my own car about 18+ months ago. Taking everything into consideration ... including the maintenance issues of older diesels ... I decided to go back to petrol.
I can get a 'real' 40+mpg out of my focus 1.6 petrol estate ... and maintenance is a piece of cake and low cost. I accept that there will be many diesel owners who have equally low cost experiences to relate ... but on balance DPF and injector pump costs caused me to go back to petrol.
I am surprised that I am saying that having been such a diesel fan ... but have to admit that my diesel enthusiasm coincides with my period of company car car ownership ... where maintenance costs were NOT my responsibility ... same logic applies to owning a VW with a DSG gearbox ... a superb company car experience but not something I would entertain in private ownership.
As much as my natural instinct is to defend the trucker driver, I can't say in this case that the truck driver is without some level of blame.
Without doubt the car driver appears to have a death wish; between 15 and 25 seconds the car driver is along side and then just ahead of the truck with his left indicator clearly in view. The car driver certainly appears to be using the indicator to force his way into a none existent gap, which is plain stupid and shows he has no understanding of how to use his signals and carry out his manoeuvre. At 21 seconds the truck driver reacts to the presence car because he moves to the left, as can be seen when he closes in on the line of cones. At this point the truck driver (the professional here) knows full well the car and caravan are there and he can see what situation is developing. This is the point where the truck driver 'could' chose to back off and let the car in. That doesn't happen.
At 25 seconds the car goes out of view because the truck appears to speed up as his lane clears. It is then a further 9 seconds before the car comes back into view, in that time the car driver has a clear view that his intended route is not clear however he makes a very determined effort to try and accelerate in front of the truck, which is shear stupidity. He has no defence against the charge of being an idiot.
The final act of cutting in starts at 34 seconds, at this point there is little evasive action the truck can take, both driver are committed to their respective courses of action, the outcome is inevitable and it comes to an end very quickly.
As well as the visual evidence with the timings as described above there are the comments made by the truck driver which are recorded after the impact. For me the truck driver shoots himself in the foot here because he makes a comment about the indicators on the car, in making the comment he acknowledges that the car indicated and that he saw the indication from the car. Now while the signal cannot be used to claim a right of way it has given the truck driver a clear idea about the car driver’s intentions; he says several times "you came over on me".
I would say that as the professional driver in this incident the truck driver "could" take a course of action to prevent the collision. The left signal from the car is first visible at 15 seconds, a full 20 seconds before the collision. That is plenty enough time to instigate an evasive course of action (without sudden change of speed or direction), which would have prevented the collision.
The car driver was determined he wanted to be involved in a collision, no doubt about it, but the truck driver could have used his 'professional' skill and judgment to understand the developing situation and take a course of action to prevent the collision, I think it is clear he made a choice not to do that.
Earlier in the thread Gary B mentioned that he attended a ROSPA driving course that resulted in him changing his attitudes to the point of taking positive actions to prevent collision (regardless of who is right or wrong) when he could see a situation developing. For several years I have been an instructor delivering a similar type of driving course specifically for drivers of fuel tankers. If I was confronted with this video evidence as a result of one of my drivers being involved in this incident he would get a very hard time from me. I don’t know what view the police would take of this but our defensive driver training courses are designed to prevent just this type of incident; even if the police took no action there would be company discipline over such behavior.
Sorry to go on about it, but there is too much of this combative behavior behind the wheel. A well-trained ‘professional’ driver should know better.