Re: [doc] Re: Thatcham Visit.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [doc] Re: Thatcham Visit.
- From: "Mark" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:26:28 +0100
Martin
I hear what you say but you have this uncanny knack of correcting people,
always making out you are right, they are wrong. Put brain into gear 1st
syndrome I think!! Now, I don't want to get into a slanging match like you
have done previously on this and other forums.
Firstly, I was a Licensed Thatham approved fitter for lazerline cat1 alarms
& cat 2 immobilisers many years ago and sub contracted to fit alarms for
Alan Days & Millcars.
You state that on the systems you have fitted that if the door was to be
opened or brakes applied, it would immobilise the engine, you feel the car
is still secure!
What if I come along with a big flat headed screw driver. Break the drivers
door window, climb inside the window (without opening the door), force the
ignition barrel with this screw driver and pull the wires off the brake
pedal switch. Hey presto I drive away, no special tools, got myself a nice
car.
Any alarm system fitted will not deter the professional thief, just make it
more difficult. It will only stop the opertunist.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Hawes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <doc-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [doc] Re: Thatcham Visit.
The Clifford system arms/de-arms in the same manner as the different system
that Martin has on Lex. Based on Martin's comment I cannot see why Thatcham
have a problem with it....
It gives me at least one question to ask
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gutkowski" <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <doc-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [doc] Re: Thatcham Visit.
Hi Mark
Your first point is not entirely valid, however without knowing these
systems, I can see how anyone will form this impression. The manual
transmission versions rely on "knowing" the car has been left in
neutral. How it does this is simple and very clever and ties into a
security system that disables the remote start in the event the brakes
are touched, or the door is re-opened. If the engine is running when
either of these two signals are detected, the engine is cut instantly
and returns to its immobilised state.
I _was_ aware of the second point, and it also applies to so-clled
"turbo-timers" but these are becoming increasingly commonplace.
Best Wishes
Martin
Mark wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You have just answered your own question. That is the reason, the
> car is
> now not secure, it only now takes one feed to switch any immobilised
> circuits and start the engine. The car may still be locked when the engine
> is running but you only need to gain entrance through a door window, break
> the steering lock and drive off.
>
> Also it is against the law to leave a car running without a person holding
> a full driving license in or about the motor vehicle. I have seen many a
> person nicked for this offence, especially where the driver leaves a car
> running, i.e.. outside the newsagents and pops in leaving his
> wife/girlfriend who does not have a full driving license or insurance
> because they are now in charge of the vehicle. You would get done for
> leaving the vehicle unattended and the wife/girlfriend would get done
> for no
> license/ insurance.
>
> Beware
>
> Mark
DOC UK Website: www.deloreans.co.uk
Unsubscribe: doc-uk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
** Unless otherwise stated, all messages posted to the group are assumed
public and may be printed in the club magazine **
Yahoo! Groups Links
DOC UK Website: www.deloreans.co.uk
Unsubscribe: doc-uk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
** Unless otherwise stated, all messages posted to the group are assumed public and may be printed in the club magazine **
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
| |
|
Yahoo! Groups Links
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN