mike wilson

Bob's absolutely on the money with the type of machine. Also, as he says, these were often one-offs, made with gigantic (for the time) engines. There is record of one with a V-8 Curtiss-Wright aircraft engine. My guess would be a Cyclone. The date is even more difficult, as bits were replaced willy-nilly with whatever was handy. This machine may have been built originally before WWI but has engine and wheels from much later. Even the frame seems to have been replaced - welded frames were introduced quite recently. So it could even be a machine built in the 1950s from the remnants of a much earlier machine. As another guess, 1920. WRT capacity, I am making another guess at 2litres based soely on an approximation of the cylinder size. It's an interesting engine; webbed case, OHV. Obviously had sporting pretensions when young.

My furry 8-) little head is full of useless shit. Such as: Caledonian MacBrayne is the oddest named fairy company I know. John Prescott, our beloved DPM, used to wait on fairies.

Orkadians have Fair Isle.

Done it regularly on (whisper it) two strokes. It's the recommended technique for measuring MZ squish. If it's good enough for Walter Kaaden, I don't think there is anyone here qualified to naysay it. mike

Egyptians have Pharoahs.

He's using it as an adjective there.

I've only ridden the 1200 (not Mirage) but it was for about 6 months when the machine was about 4 months old. In good tune, a magic carpet ride. By which, I mean ultimately smooth, with engine power coming on like an electric motor, with that smooth drone from the exhaust. At some speeds. Outside those speeds, noticeable engine vibration - to the point of pain in the hands if trying to exceed legal (over 90mph) speeds for any distance. Solid, stable handling. The chain seemed to need adjusting at least every other day but this was the days before Oring beasties. You may get better mileage now. On the lower run of the chain, there was a frame member at right angles just behind the passenger peg (IIRC) that would start to get sawn by the slack if you didn't keep on top of it. Definitely a point to check. Slow speed running was compromised by an early form of electronic ignition that rattled back and forth between fully advanced and whatever, causing the machine to stutter badly when travelling at legal speed in town. You had to sit in a lower gear than was pleasant to avoid it. Fuel mileage as you would expect. I seem to remember that the engines were built on Japanese principles, with the cam running direct in the head material. In short, good fun to have my own spurs and a borrowed horse but I wouldn't have bought one then and probably wouldn't now.

The motor is definitely a II - the alternator cover extends upwards to cover points on the end of the cam in the III. The II's electronic ignition is just that - electronic. It works perfectly until it dies and then you have to go hunting for amplifiers - situated just in front of the rear shocks on both sides. In the UK, that bike would be worth considerably less than £1000. Fun machine, usual Guzzi foibles and plusses. mike

...around Consett, of all places, and on to the A68. I was on my way to a survey and saw it in the rearview mirror. At first, I thought it was a UJM, because it had a fairing and two pipes going straight down. Then I felt that the pipes were a bit far apart for an across frame four, so that meant... Pulled over slightly to let it past and off it went, disappointingly quietly. It seems a lot smaller than I thought it would be. A very unassuming-looking machine but it looks better in the flesh than on the screen. m

If I manage to get down to Cambridge (possible) I am only 20 miles further up the road, unless by North Yorks you mean somewhere like Leeds........

Or have a head so big that they can only just get it into a full face lid and that only after removing a significant part of the padding......... Nasty man. 8-)))

This is utter twaddle. Statistics _prove_ nothing. They are a means to examine hypotheses. The difference in figures could equally be said to be due to immigration, change of alcohol licencing laws (when did the "six o'clock swill" finish?) or some other cultural change during the observation period. There is absolutely no proof that gun laws had anything to do with it. A question: since it is a "given" that, in a controlled society only the ciminal will have guns, why is the rate of burglary not changing? They have less to be scared of, now. Criminals are too lazy to plan them? Bollocks. More likely, given that burglary has the lowest rate of detection, fewer people are bothering to report tham. Well, when it was full of someone else's distortions and half truths, anyway. Maybe he's happier now that his own are in place.

It's a technical issue. Rather like the person who tries you has to be a judge/magistrate. If the camera was supposed to be calibrated daily and wasn't, it matter not one whit whether it was reading to within one millionth of a mile per hour or not. It's not the legal tool for the job and the case is thrown out. These things can be overturned rarely but I suspect that this case is not one of them.

Check before you get to the airport as to what you can take on board. Apparently, we are in serious danger of being shampooed to death by religious fanantics of the extreme Hairbollah faction. Many useful and otherwise items are now verboten in hand baggage. At one point last week, the only stuff allowed in the cabin was the clothes you stood up in, your wallet, keys, ticket and passport.

Down at the bottom of the "reply" form is a box for file attachments. You need to load the pictures to your own computer (fold the prints and slip them in the disc drive...) and browse for them on there. Click the "add attachment" button and then watch the progress bar crawl over the screen. I would limit the file size to maybe 100Kb - should be plenty big enough for the minutest detail. mike

Try to keep all the lights off whilst you are running it, or anything else that will use electricity. The sound you hear is either the starter solenoid trying to engage but running out of juice to do that _and_ turn the starter motor or, if your battery is _realy_ flat, the relay trying to move the solenoid and doing the same thing. The batteries on Guzzis are larger than an average [8-)] motorcycle's and need much more time (charge) to recover after accidental discharge. m

Looks like a 500S. Not enough space over the heads for a 350, I think. Diffcult angle.

Do prairie dogs know about virginity? Or care? It's someone plinking vermin in the midwest somewhere, iirc. I think it's even on Snopes.com

When people die in weather extremes like heat, cold or high levels of pollution, it is usually the ones who were near term anyway. The infamous London smogs of the 1950s removed hundreds at a time. Then there were following periods when much fewer than usual died, until the rate evened out. Same thing was noted in the recent French heatwaves. There will be exceptions..... m

I've heard it said that, as a rule of thumb, less than a 10% power change is not immediately noticeable by the average owner. That probably does not apply to someone who is, er, intimate with their machine or who is testing by other than "seat of the pants". It also applies across the rev range, so change of the curve shape is probably as important as peak numbers. m

This (suprisingly?) seems to be a reasonable representation of the situation in the UK. The statistics at the end are interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_..._United_Kingdom m

In the UK, at normal temperatures, 15 miles will be just about getting the oil up to temperature. Double that for thorough warming, especially of the rear drive box. Quadruple _that_ for any chance of driving off excess moisture. Even on my small block, notorious for running hot, I find droplets of water when I drop the sump. Sludge in there sounds like some serious cool running.

As expected, a voluble response but not really a rebuttal. A few generalisations: I would be more impressed with Mr Lott if he had formulated his title as a question. That would have shown some adherence to scientific method. I know his agenda before I have read the book. It might have been definitive in 1996 and again in 2000 but it is now way out of date and quite possibly not relevant any more. I don't have an answer any more than the parents of the dead kids at Columbine but I'm prepared to at least think about the possibility of change and how that might be brought about. The status quo doesn't need to remain that. The problem with quoting reams of statistics is that you get drawn into definitions. For example, in this paragraph from the Sowell article: "Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media. " Gun ownership - is he talking about legal ownership? Murder - murder by gun or what? How are the murder rates defined - by murders per square mile or by unit population? In a rural community, one would expect lower rates of pretty much anything as people have to travel further to interact. Fewer unplanned pregnancies? Guns are contraceptive! What about the correlation between level of wealth and murder rates? So much that is unexplained and unexplainable. Unless you take the article at face value. Etc., etc., for all the rest of it. I don't think you do your arguments any favours by larding them with so many references. It might make people give up arguing but it certainly doesn't change their minds. None of the above alters the fact that entirely innocent people are killed with firearms. My own theory is that it is because it is so easy. It is much easier to pull the trigger at a distance than it is to be right next to someone and kill them. To feel them struggling against you, smell their fear and still take the step of removing their life. Quite possibly the people doing the killing would not have the stomach for it if they had to do it some other way. Certainly, the after effects of such an act are likely to be similar for the perpetrator but by then it is too late. The hot-headed teenager who would have puched his friend is suddenly his murderer. As you so very clearly point out, you are a strong believer in gun control. Proper training, proper personal control - it's not clear where you stand on licencing issues. It's just a matter of degree of deciding who is eligible for ownership. Here, I'm perfectly happy that people can own guns of certain types for sporting reasons. The licencing system (when it works - there have been at least two spectacular failures) is very good at weeding out the sociopath/psychopath/sadist/numbskull who wants to own guns for the wrong reasons. Firearms for personal protection are not necessary and, in the event of a dramatic change in society, I would expect that many other avenues would be examined before that option became a reality. As an aside, governments don't want an armed populace because, when you are trying to organise the society you have been elected for, the last thing you want to have is every dissenting voice equipped with lethal force and the declared intention of using it. Common sense, really. mike No but you should _definitely_ stop riding a motorcycle..... (Damnation! - for some reason, the software seems to think that I want to add to the last post I made, rather than sending a separate one. Grrrr. Where's my gun?????)

Not as well as this guy: http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Kill..._2430Metres.asp

Stupid laws are stupid laws, although location has a great bearing on what is stupid, where. Banning personal protection firearms would be stupid in the USA, as there are so many a significant proportion would immediately go underground. Banning handguns (only used for target shooting) in the UK because one lunatic took his weaponry and executed a class of infants was equally stupid. That was a failing of that particular instance of the firearm licencing system. The fact that gun crime apparently rose after the ban is meaningless - it was rising before. Even so, it is at a very low level. Virtually nobody in the UK has carried concealed (or otherwise) firearms since before the first world war. There has been no significant rise in gun crime here associated with that, nor have there been any (government or otherwise) pogroms that I am aware of. The rise in gun crime in the UK can be correlated to the influx of criminals from areas where firearms are more easily available and carried normally by criminals. Control those people and you pretty much control gun crime. Seems to be working, here. I suspect my chances of getting shot are in the same order as being hit by a meteorite or winning the lottery. Whilst I (think I) understand your desire to protect yourself as best you can, I find your contempt for anyone who suggests that there is an altenative puzzling. Sure, it will be a long and rocky road - it will definitely need to be an international effort (maybe that is your difficulty?) - but, as a long term aim, it seems to me that a God-fearing democrat would want a society where disputes can be settled without violence? Two more things: None of the above should be taken to mean that I dislike guns. Having fired many things between a Brown Bess and a Barrett, I do find them interesting and enjoy exercising my skill. In the National Museum of Russia, in Moscow, there is a 16th Century, percussion cap, six shot revolver rifle. Is this as much of an anachronism as I think? m