Sangrail

I'd gone about a mile last night before I realised something was wrong - though I still didn't think it was a flat tyre, as the wretched TPMS hadn't gone off. I generally reset the TPMS when I check the type-pressures, every couple of weeks. I can't remember whether I reset it after putting the spare on. Probably not, as I had other things on my mind (like being late....) - apart from which I didn't think it would mind the difference between the spare and the usual tyre, since it didn't notice the difference between the usual tyre completely flat and properly inflated.

I take the point that I should habitually check all four corners before driving off. However, I completely fail to understand why a system based on comparative numbers of revolutions failed to spot, and to spot quickly, the gross difference between a properly-inflated tyre (for which it was set) and a completely flat one. This is the first car I've had with TPMS, and had it not been for the false reassurance from the TPMS that all was well with the tyres I'd have stopped to inspect them much sooner. I still this this is really odd - particularly as it advised me this morning that the spare (215/60r16, cf. 225/50r17 standard wheels) was under-pressure - though it wasn't: presumably because of its very-marginally smaller diameter than the tyre it's temporarily replacing. It seems to be straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

I left home in the car this evening, trundling at speeds up tp 20mph in traffic and wondering why the vehicle felt a bit sluggish and odd. Can't be a flat tyre, I thought - TPMS would have let me know. Anyhow, on to a faster bit of road - up to 30, then 40. Car definitely feeling very odd. Pulled over and found rear nearside nearly as flat as a pancake. So why did the TPMS not let me know? Any thoughts gratefully received!

Dear Forum I wonder whether any of you has come across this? While using VCDS to enable the climate control fan-speed lights to show in 'Auto' on my Octavia 3 Scout, I noticed an option to set the climate control for 'with sunroof' or 'without sunroof'. My car has a sunroof, but the option set is for without. Has anyone any idea what this option changes with respect to the behaviour of the climate control, and why a car with a sunroof might be set to 'without sunroof'? Thanks!

Hello I have Device 5E0035874A Hardware 41 Software 0435 and would very much appreciate a link for the latest compatible update. Thanks!

To be fair, this response would do for most of the posts on forums such as this, so I'm not sure it's fair to post it only on this thread. I note that you haven't posted any really obvious stuff that you think for some reason is relevant - but it might be that views on measurements related to geography/cartography would be more use coming from someone who is aware that Manchester is actually in the UK. This is all very pertinent. I think I can live quite happily with yards for altitude if they are indeed actually meters. I imagine that the amount of programming required is beyond what one can do with VCDS. It's interesting to note that the newer vehicles do indeed use feet when set to God's own units. PS: I've just checked. With distance set to miles I get 60yds. Set to Km, I get 55m. So it looks as though I'll need to extend my knowledge of the 3x table.

What astonishing insights - some stuff I'd never have realised: though I admit I did know that we measure light intensity in lux nowadays, rather than foot-candles. It's almost as if my original post ended with '...but if your view is that my query is pointless, just post some really obvious stuff which you think for some reason is relevant.' It is less impressive than the diagnosis of persectuory delusions I got in response to my queries about the central locking, when I first bought the Octavia3 last year!

Sadly, that level of mathematical effort doesn't leave me with enough spare processing-capacity to remain safely in control of a moving vehicle. Even with Lane Assist on. I note from a comment on another forum that it seems that they might not really be yards at all - but in fact meters: i.e. the Imperial 'conversion' is no more than a substitution of 'yds for 'm'. If true, I'm not sure whether it is more, or less, irritating.

1. Indeed so! 2. A few feet higher that the ground under my tyres 3. I really don't know Back to my main question: has anyone managed to change the readout from yards to feet?

Dear Forum Perhaps I'm alone in this but although I find it interesting to know my elevation, I find it irritating to have it displayed in yards. Yards are for measuring distance. I'm bad at mental arithmetic - so turning yards to meters (if I must) or feet (better) in my head is quite a challenge. Is anyone else annoyed by this? More importantly, has anyone found a way of changing to it feet?

I'm quite interested in this also - not because I've had a remap, but just because my MPG display is wrong. So, if it's set at 100%, and the average displayed is 55mpg but the actual figure is 50mpg: what do you do? I guess you'd need to set the VCDS thing to 90 or 91%?

Might there be a cheap, hacksaw-based solution to this problem? I have roof-bars, but I' terrible for carting unneccessary fuel-consuming stuff about in the car without adding those the the burden - so I confess I've never tried to put them in the space provided. I do carry the towing hitch, though...

So - after extensive research the answer is... Conti Crosscontacts 225/50r17 on the summer wheels. I'll see how they do when the time for winter tyres is over.

I bought a used Scout last summer, and it came with 225/50r17 Runway tyres on it - new ones. Not my choice, but there it is. Economy E, wet braking C, noise 72dB This winter it's been running very nicely on Dunlop WinterSport 5 205/60r16 on a spare set of scrap-yard Skoda alloys. So far, so good. The reason I bought the Scout was mainly for the clearance, partly for the 4x4, to help with the reasonably-frequent drives on rough tracks and fields. Having got the car for that, it seems sensible to fit tyres which faciliate that kind of driving (resistant to damage, grippy) rather than ones intended only for tarmac. 225/50r17 is not really a SUV/4x4 size, and therefore there seems to be little choice of suitable tyres. Pretty much the only one I can find is ContiCrossContact LX2 Economy E, wet braking C noise 71dB - which seems no worse than the Runway for braking, or being thirsty and noisy - but would offer some extra grip off the tarmac. Has anyone, particularly Scout users, and thoughts? Thanks!

So did I. These are interesting points, and I honestly didn'tremember what the tread looked like in those high and far-off times. I certainly recall that they were a good deal narrower than most of todays', which I imagine also helped with snow-handling.