Gerrycan

I'm not sure how many runners there are are on Briskoda but but instead of hijacking Mac's diary I thought I'd start a general discussion area for runners. My journey: I was mis-diagnosed with arthritic knees in my late teens and advised to give up many of the physical activities I was engaged in to avoid potential replacements in my thirties. Discovered cycling in my late twenties, bought a decent bike with toe-clips, suitable gearing and a high cadence fixed up all the knee pains I experienced each Autumn. I became a bit of a cycling fanatic, cycling the 10 miles into London to work each day and a keen European cycle tourer. Came to Australia and in my mid-thirties I got into running through involvement with a short corporate team triathlon, I was a necessary addition to the team as I had the bike which everyone used. Everyone in the team each did a 300 metre swim, 8 kilometre cycle and a 2 kilometre run in succession. Before the event I did a 2k run, my first in years, and it nearly killed me. I swear I was coughing up blood which was a bit of a shock for someone who thought they were aerobically fit. My run in the event itself was a joke as I put everything into the cycle part (it was what I did after all) and then suffered cramps when I tried to run from lack of transition training. I was overtaken by grannies pushing their shopping trolleys from an adjacent supermarket (seriously). SO I got into triathlons for a few years until work and family commitments got in the way of training for the three disciplines and I turned to running as the most time efficient way of retaining some fitness. I should add that my previous dedication to only cycling had caused bad back problems and I was also diagnosed with osteoporosis. However, running improved my (previously) weak stomach muscles and provided the weight bearing exercise I needed to reverse my bone density issues. Back problem fixed. My doctor, optician and dentist tell me I am in good condition, but always with the caveat, "for my age". When I do the occasional Parkrun (mostly when away on holiday) I may win my age category but there is often someone, one or two age categories older, sometimes female, who does a better time. I am competitive but I was never athletically gifted and know the enormous gulf that exists to the truly talented. A 'beep test' is a shuttle run between two points 20 metres apart at incrementally faster times to recorded beep tone. It is brutal. I did one the other day and the disappointing result was indicative I need to mix up my training a lot more to offset natural muscle loss from ageing and improve my anaerobic capacity. I've got in a comfortable and repetitive running routine (rut) of just going out a few times a week. My tip for the day: I get athletes foot (tinea pedis) fairly regularly and I always hated the chemist creams but someone put me onto regular applications of simple methylated spirits and it is no longer a problem for me. Apply early as soon as you get that itch, as the alcohol stings a bit on an open wound. One of my casual jobs brings me into regular contact with elite athletes, a young professional football player I spoke to suffered a really bad secondary infection from his tinea that required medical treatment, antibiotics and missing a few games, so it can get serious if left unattended.

I have given a 'like' for your post purely because there is not a 'sympathise' option. I remember life with young children and demanding workloads and sometimes it was real hard to get some personal time. These days the children have left home and I am grateful I no longer have to run or ride first thing in the morning and especially in the dark at night. My night vision is nowhere near as good as it used to be My revised running style is becoming more natural and I am seeing some benefits. I will take 30 seconds off my circuit target time since I have bettered my old one a couple of times now. If I get the time tomorrow between appointments, home chores and a late evening shift, then I will pop up the hockey field and do a 'beep test'. Not the most enjoyable thing to do but it is quick and does give a different perspective of personal fitness levels. The last two or three laps is as much to do with psychology as fitness. Should probably stop hijacking your diary and start my own.

Yesterday was ideal for me, overcast, cool and only a mild breeze along the coast. I managed to maintain my improved stance for the whole run and finished 15 seconds inside my current target time and it did feel good. Found a four year old photo my wife took of me at the Romford parkrun while on holiday in the UK and my 'now old' forward leaning style looks awful. I obviously have years of bad conditioning and habits to overcome. By lifting my eyes from the ground while running I'm now seeing dolphins frolicking out at sea and a seal lazing under the jetty which is a real enjoyment bonus, the downside is the increased risk of treading in dog's poo but so far so good

Sorry to hear about your issues but it is necessary they are shared. I find your story quite disturbing at several levels. When technology works it can be great and I can understand it can fail, but when it actually fights against you and cannot just be turned off or rebooted.....

I've found that monitoring running shoes wear gives an insight into my running style. When I was (considerably) younger my shoes used to wear really fast on the outside heel and the forward outer edge. So much so I used 'Shoe Goo' to extend the shoe's life and save some money otherwise I would have been buying expensive new running shoes every three months. General ageing, arthritic toes and sundry other issues have slowed me down (a lot) and the wear pattern is completely different, with most of the shoe wear now occurring under the ball of the foot and I think that reflects the more 'hunched forward' style I have unconsciously adopted. Shoes easily last me about a year as I run slower, shorter distances and less often, it equates to about 1000 kilometres a pair. My attempt to get back to a more natural upright stance is challenging my cardiovascular system, but the legs feel fine. Weather and work have interrupted my running routine this week. Maybe tomorrow?

Well I tried the recommended techniques and it was illuminating. Seems I have become a ground watcher over the years and lifting my head for the required running posture made a whole lot of difference to appreciating the run more. The first two kilometres felt good but it was more difficult to maintain it for the rest. Stride pattern felt shorter but with a bit more 'rebound' the difference in the actual number of strides taken and time were minimal. I will stick with it and see where it goes, it feels more correct if you know what I mean.

Funny, the graphics work well for me on my pc, but you are correct in that they are necessary part of the communication. I'll try out the articles suggestions tomorrow as I feel something is amiss with my running style lately and it is affecting my enjoyment. Nothing to lose.

Technique is all important and having run for years it is really easy to develop bad habits especially as you get tired. This feature on the ABC Australian Broadcast Company is fairly simple but informative. I'm going to try to implement it but I really should do some interval training (which I do not enjoy one bit because it hurts sooo much) Why almost everything you thought about running is wrong - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) And for a bit of inspiration about a relative running late starter: Olympic marathon runner Sinead Diver's 'unique' story: From running for fitness to Tokyo Games - ABC News

This topic has been a bit quiet lately. From an Australian context the time is nearing where the price I'm prepared to pay, the supporting infrastructure and battery technology will come advance to a point where I would buy an EV. Unfortunately it is unlikely to a be a Skoda. Some long promised Australian research is likely to influence future EV battery tech and supporting infrastructure. Lithium Sulphide batteries have long been known to offer much higher energy densities than existing options (up to 6x) but they were never capable of many recharges (massive expansion and contraction over the use cycle) Australian uni research had improved it from 5 recharges to around 50 but it was announced last week they had managed to improve it even further to around 500 recharges. Apparently they have managed to control the problem by adding sugar, prompting many Mary Poppins references in the headlines. Still a long way to go but apparently there are a few performance car manufacturers knocking on their doors. If they can get it into production then the implications for vehicles, aviation, well almost everything, would be revolutionary. Most of the technology used in currently produced solar panels was developed in Australia, but (at least) one of the scientists involved was Chinese and he set up production in China aided by the other Australian scientists. They made a lot of money. Anyway a small Australian start up company has a produced a PVC (photo voltaic cell) which has set a new efficiency world record. Ok it has only moved it by a couple of points (I think from 25.3 to 25.5%) but this is quite a big deal because the theoretical maximum is 27% (for a single layer silicon base). The REALLY remarkable thing is that they have achieved this by replacing the fairly high amount of expensive silver used in conventional solar cells with copper (99% cheaper than silver). IF we are going to produce more electricity with solar then it needs to be stored which segways into the next battery development of a production ready Nickel Bromide Gel battery. Nickel Bromide solution batteries have been available for years (Redarc) but involve pumps/valves etc. which offset their advantages of cheap materials and excellent high cycle use. The innovation is to turn the solution into a gel which overcomes the disadvantages. Apparently it does not require any special cooling and no risk of fire (the gel is a fire suppressant). It does not have the density of Lithium batteries but can easily replace lead acid on a production line with similar outputs at half the weight. It can support multiple 100% energy cycles so is an excellent domestic and large storage option at prices of around A$100 per kwh. Totally recyclable as well.

A turbo on a relatively small engine offers a different paradigm of features compared to the traditional naturally aspirated engine and in my opinion the VW groups 1.4tsi (and related engines) are good examples of the genre. If you just look at power then it is far from impressive, my 103kw (140ps) and the later 110kw (150ps) at 4000-5000 rpm can be matched by a sub 2.0l NA engine but look at torque and it is a different matter. Its 250Nm of torque from 1500-3500rpm would probably require a near 3.0l NA engine to match that torque at those low revs. The engine is turbine smooth, quiet and still revs out cleanly to the redline although there is no real benefit in going over 4000rpm, and this is in a car that only weighs circa 1300kg. IF you use the performance available then consumption will be quite heavy, but driven sensibly on public roads (ie avoiding speeding fines) then that small capacity engine can be very thrifty. I've overtaken B-double and triple trucks doing a regulation 100kph on an Australian (one lane each way, undivided) highways many times with our car fully loaded with 4 people and luggage and never felt I needed more performance. There is better out there for economy though. Last week my wife and I rented a Toyota Hybrid Corolla hybrid with a 1.8l engine and peak power of 80kw at 4000rpm and we did 2300km in two weeks touring on the flat empty roads of the Northern Territories of Australia where the hybrid system would contribute relatively little benefit. The remarkable thing is I reckon my Octavia would have used at least 25% more fuel for any given speed up to their local 130kph speed limit and around town it was even better. That is progress for you, although there were other aspects of the car I found wanting compared to ours.

Not sure where you read the pessimistic comments? Sure you get the occasional issue as they have been around for 8 years or so but most reports I've read are fairly complimentary. When I got mine 7 years ago and joined this forum most were averaging around 45 mpg (6.3L/100) with general driving. There was of course one exception, "He who must not be named" was getting 30 mpg (9.5L/100) and was still pretty pleased with that with his 'drive it like it was stolen' approach.

@plutus just allow for the fact that UK motorway speed limits are 112kph (70mph) unlike French autoroutes 130kph when looking at UK consumption figures being given.

If you look at the extract of the manual above it says you can manually reset the long term anytime you want. I just went out to my car to test it and it read 5.2l/100 for the long term and 30 km travelled so had only just reset automatically. I pressed the knurled roller on the steering wheel for a couple of seconds and all the long term data reset to zero. A 100 hours of driving is usually good for about 6000 km of holiday driving averaging 60kph We just did 2300km in two weeks in a rental Toyota hybrid in the Northern Territories of Australia with 4.25L/100 returns actual calculated. The longer journeys showed trip average speeds ranging from 100 to 105kph. The roads were very clear of traffic and some speed limits are up to 130kph, but we were happy not to push too hard and soak up the scenery on the way through.

Whoops it seems I was wrong. My apologies

As mentioned above, servicing is very important. Unless you misquoted them then you are being fed some BS. There is no timing chain, it is a belt, so they do not stretch but they can break. A break can be disastrous but not something I have heard of in this forum. With the age and mileage the belt should have been changed at least once already. Seek proof this has been done otherwise other maintenance claims may be suspect. Fuel system on this car is a dual port and direct injection. A good system that reduces carbon build up on inlet valves but a probably a more complex system to repair of things go wrong. DSG system is a wet bath for the clutches and is very durable IF the oil is changed as scheduled. However the oil change is not cheap and a thing likely 'missed' after the warranty finished. Watch for issues with gearchanges and pull aways on test drive. Issues can be expensive to fix. Tend to agree that a misfire would be electrical or fuel feed. Great car if you get a good one. Good luck.

Any car made after 2011 should be ok but you can check your model here: https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-e10-petrol

The suggestion was a very 'tongue-in-cheek' one. I probably wouldn't do it either. I'm still not quite convinced about the standard suspension being adjustable. DCC has been available on a lot of models across the VW group for a while now but always at extra cost. On the other hand the group to have a lot hanging off the success of this pioneering range so maybe they have gone that bit further? It is just your initial complaint about the hardness and the easy rectification is absolutely typical of all the other incidents where they were not removed during the PDI.

Great news the problem has been fixed and I was very confident it would. Pity you were not present when they 'corrected' the suspension setting as I suggested to see if blocks were removed. I find it very hard to believe they would fit more expensive adjustable suspension, either manual or electronic, without charging for it or mentioning in the marketing blurb. Of course you could always call their bluff at some point and ring them up and ask if they could try a harder intermediate setting as it is currently too soft 😁. Bet they won't know what you are talking about.

That is a horological joke right? 🤣 You did a good job of 'Tetris-ing' it in there as neatly as that.

For what is worth, the belt replacement is recommended at 7 years in Australia. Even the tech who asked me at the last service, at 7 year mark, admitted I was not the first to defer and he had not encountered a belt failure yet. Still making up our mind whether to keep or replace our 1.4tsi estate which is still a joy to drive.

The 1.4tsi Octavia available in Australia is not available with the manual box and the auto is an Aisin torque converter which I am not keen on. However a few weeks ago I went in the local dealer while servicing on my old mk3 1.4tsi and saw a white manual 1.5tsi Scala which I was very tempted to put a deposit on there and then. A modicum of common sense (maybe a fear of wife?) prevailed and I attempted to first arrange a test drive for us. A dsg Monte Carlo version available to test, which was really not going to be good enough, so the moment was lost, although not entirely abandoned. I presume the Scala has the same ratios as the Octavia 4 so it interesting to read of such differing characteristics between 1.4tsi and 1.5tsi. My opinion of the 1.4tsi is that it is a really good flexible engine which pulls from low revs but still happily revs up to the red line. Great performance and economy. At 70mph in 6th gear it is revving at 2700rpm and it is quite possible to accelerate up relatively steep long hills without changing down, although I usually display a little mechanical sympathy and change down to 5th. I believe the 7 speed dsg box is geared to 2500rpm for the 1.4tsi. I did feel the gearing could have been lower in 6th for at least a reduction to 2200rpm. I'm confident both engines deliver the same specified power and torque but there may be a little more at play than just the gearing affecting the apparent lower performance of the 1.5tsi. The new engine has ACT and a different type of turbo (variable) and the emphasis of the new engine is lower consumption and emissions which quite honestly seems to have been a problem for VW to meet with good driving characteristics. I believe the eco ACT cuts in above 1400rpm and below 30% max torque so if you press the accelerator it is quite possible the 1.5tsi throttle mapping is less sensitive to allow some acceleration and still run more economically on two cylinders. That is purely speculation of course. I'm sure that using a bit more welly with 1.5tsi in the appropriate gear will get things moving for easy overtaking. Having read this thread I am keen to again get a manual Scala test drive arranged for us. I have only once driven a long geared manual and that was a diesel Kia C'eed we hired on a UK visit about 4 years ago. We did a LOT of motorway driving and I was pleased with the initial 60mpg returns on refills but when I twigged how long the gearing was and that the diesel had a sudden torque hole at lower revs I changed my style and the last two tanks gave actuals of 70mpg. I did this by ignoring the displays gear advice and not loading the engine using to low a gear, so had to be doing over 60mph for 6th, over 50mph for 5th, over 40mph for 4th and so on. A lot more gear changing, slightly higher revs but still on small throttle settings and things were much happier. Would be interesting to see if the 1.5tsi manual responds similarly. Trouble is my wife is a bit more of a lead foot than I am and likes the 1.4tsi characteristics so that's why the test drive is important. Very few Australian women are happy to drive manuals so she is still a 'keeper' whatever she decides

If you compare the calorific values for diesel, petrol and ethanol by the traditional sales system of volume (litres/gallons) then petrol has 10% less than diesel and ethanol 30% less than petrol. If you compare them by weight (kilograms/pounds) then there is far less difference. Aromatics are usually added to petrol to achieve regulation anti-knock ratings but they are not without problems: Fuel left in a tank will usually degrade over a period (beyond 6 weeks) as the more volatile aromatics deteriorate/evaporate so your RON rating will reduce which can affect how well the engine performs. The aromatics are not without their environmental issues. In Australia they were also a real problem for remote aboriginal communities where the youth engaged in petrol sniffing highs resulting in permanent brain damage or death from the Aromatics. A special low aromatic 91 RON fuel is now sold in those areas (I believe it is methanol based) Pure ethanol has a relatively high 109 RON rating so it can be mixed with petrol to replace some aromatics to achieve regulation RON ratings, but it is not without its problems: Ethanol is more corrosive on older incompatible tank linings, seals and fuel lines, but most modern engines are designed to accommodate at least 10% Ethanol content. Ethanol is quite hydroscopic and will attract water more than petrol. If this is allowed to happen through poor storage/transport then the ethanol will separate from the petrol and the engine will run very poorly as it runs on either the lowered octane petrol or the ethanol/water mix. Ethanol mixed with petrol will reduce the calorific content, with a 10% mix by roughly 3% although in Australia when mixed with 91 Ron petrol it raises it to 94 RON. Ethanol is usually touted as a 'green' fuel as it is made from renewable resources. This claim stands up to examination where they use a waste resource to produce ethanol but less so where good agricultural land is used or virgin Amazon rainforest is destroyed to produce the source material. Australian E10 is marginally cheaper than pure petrol but has developed a very poor reputation as there have been many cases where independent testing has shown the ethanol content to vary considerably between batches and storage/transport is below acceptable standards especially for humid conditions by the lower tier producers. The major reputable petrol companies here have had little involvement in the addition of Ethanol to their products, although that will change with future legislation which should improve the product reputation. I'm sure these aspects will already be better controlled in the UK and Europe by your suppliers. E85 (105 RON) is available at some stations here but as far as I know there was only one, now defunct local manufacturer (Holden), who made a 'Flexfuel' engine capable of running it. Unfortunately the engine was designed to run on petrol or the Ethanol mix so was not optimised for either and each fuel has completely different characteristics. The 15% petrol in E85 is required because pure ethanol is otherwise quite difficult to ignite.

Might as well put some Hydroxychloroquine in the tank while you are at it. 🤣 Sorry, but I am not a believer. Our 17 yo Toyota with 194,000 km on the clock, an untouched engine and runs on some of the worst fuel in the world, can still meet the official fuel consumption standards without any additives.

You did not mention how much fuel you put in after achieving your 480 miles. The simple way to determine how accurate your reported consumption is to calculate at refill but 45 litres is 9.9 gallons so your actual would be 48.5 mpg if 45 litres went in. The tank size is officially 50L in the mk3 and in probably a bit larger than that (closer to 55L). Never a good idea to run out of fuel though Lots of reports/complaints from diesels owners over the years that they are being prompted to refill by light/gauge/zero distance to empty and only getting circa 40 litres in. If you are being prompted at 45 litres then I'd consider that as liveable. The vRS 190 was never reported in this forum as being quite as economical as the 2.0L 150bhp version but from memory most reported about 50 to 55 mpg. You don't mention the car's mileage which might give an idea of how it has been used over the last 7 years. If I were you I'd get a cheap OBDC dongle and the DPF app on your phone to monitor ash content and regen frequency. An Italian tune-up now and then when warmed up (in a quiet, unmonitored spot) might not do any harm to long term mileage either.

60mpg at 60mph average is very good for a petrol engine and the 1.0tsi is a comparatively efficient unit but based on my limited experience of driving on UK motorways, I think it is about right in near ideal temps. If you are a naturally economical driver who does not brake much then I don't think the 48volt mild hybrid system would have contributed very much to your results. I see no reason why you will not get similar consumption, maybe better, from your manual 1.5tsi (with cylinder deactivation) in similar circumstances. The mk4 has exceptional aerodynamics for its class and that has got to help at higher average speeds.