cabin/pollen filters
in [Car Maintenance]
|
From: Stu on 24 Jun 2010 15:55 My �0.02: A/C is a creature comfort, hence it's importance is very much a matter of personal opinion. Speaking for myself, I find it's a marvellous feature and offers enormous benefits in terms of comfot & convenience in exchange for a small (not significant IME) loss of economy. I'd be reluctant to buy another car without it and I certainly value it more than electric windows, central locking or even PAS. A pollen filter is very much the same; a convenience feature, not strictly necessary, but very nice to have especially for hayfever sufferers such as myself where, combined with the above feature, it really does make a difference. The reason I've heard that the A/C breaks down with lack of use is because the seals become starved of lubrication and contract, thus allowing the refrigerant to escape. I've run an A/C equipped car for several years straight without ever needing so much as a regas, simply by making sure it's switched on for a couple of minutes at least once a week, so it's not exactly costly to maintain. However, *if* for whatever reason you don't like A/C, it will do no harm whatsoever to simply ignore it's existence and continue to do so after it ceases to function. ;-) Stu
From: DavidR on 25 Jun 2010 18:00 "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:35:16 +0100, DavidR wrote: >> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >>>>> It has nothing to do with mileage, or the length of journeys, and >>>>> everything to do with the amount of time the vehicle is left unused >>>>> between journeys. > >> I had hoped that with a statement like the one you made above you did so >> with technical background. > > Why? It's not a "technical" situation. Oh, but it is. > Common sense is all that's needed here... Even statements offering "common sense" need background to show how you got there and the reasoning shouldn't need to be teased out of you. As the paragraph stands it's another to file under "old wives' tales". Unless you want to add the various assumptions discussed.
From: Chris Whelan on 26 Jun 2010 03:19 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:00:31 +0100, DavidR wrote: > "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:35:16 +0100, DavidR wrote: >>> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote > >>>>>> It has nothing to do with mileage, or the length of journeys, and >>>>>> everything to do with the amount of time the vehicle is left unused >>>>>> between journeys. >> >>> I had hoped that with a statement like the one you made above you did >>> so with technical background. >> >> Why? It's not a "technical" situation. > > Oh, but it is. OK. So where's the background to that statement? >> Common sense is all that's needed here... > > Even statements offering "common sense" need background to show how you > got there and the reasoning shouldn't need to be teased out of you. > As the paragraph stands it's another to file under "old wives' tales". > Unless you want to add the various assumptions discussed. From previously: "I ran a Focus for 10 years. Whilst I was working, I had a 14 mile each way commute. When I retired, I resolved to try to cut down on multiple short trips, and walk instead. The car is often unused for between 3 and 7 days. After a couple of months, the A/C started to smell. I started turning it off before journey's end, and over time the smell disappeared." That's not an assumption. It happened. To me. Review the archives; many others have had the same problem. and resolved it with the same solution. Chris -- Remove prejudice to reply.
From: DavidR on 26 Jun 2010 20:05 "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:00:31 +0100, DavidR wrote: >> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:35:16 +0100, DavidR wrote: >>>> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >> >>>>>>> It has nothing to do with mileage, or the length of journeys, and >>>>>>> everything to do with the amount of time the vehicle is left unused >>>>>>> between journeys. >>> >>>> I had hoped that with a statement like the one you made above you did >>>> so with technical background. >>> >>> Why? It's not a "technical" situation. >> >> Oh, but it is. > OK. So where's the background to that statement? Your statement was phrased in the language used by science, religion and advertising - "nothing to do with", "everything to do with". Only science likes to explain how it reaches those conclusions. You *need* to know what conditions things like to grow in, how fast they grow and what kills them. Common sense can't help here. >>> Common sense is all that's needed here... Common sense is often indistinguishable from religion. Advertising is often indistinguishable from the ramblings of idiots. It was necessary to establish where you were coming from. <...> > That's not an assumption. It happened. To me. The symptom (it smelt) happened. That is not a required assumption. > Review the archives; many others have had the same problem. and resolved > it with the same solution. The solution (making sure it was dry) seemed to work. That is not a required assumption. The problem is that the symptom and solution for your particular case does not lead you to the statement you gave: it's far too simplistic. Nor is it going to predict the scenario you gave. Your statement only holds *if* the aircon is wet when parked. The solution you described was to try and dry it before parking. So by your own words, you're saying it is possible to park it in conditions where a smell does not develop.[1] As for suggesting that it takes 6 days to dry... Under such conditions (if such exist - don't guess, give some kind of basis), the low mileage car will also not dry out between journeys (so what length journey does it need to kill a day's growth?) [1] Anecdote time - My previous car had done 10k in it's first 6 months and it was kicking around forecourts for another 6 months before I bought it. Did it smell when I bought it? What does your hypothesis suggest? My current car had just 2K7 miles at 17 months. Did it smell when I bought it? What does your hypothesis suggest?
From: Chris Whelan on 27 Jun 2010 03:18
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:05:05 +0100, DavidR wrote: > "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:00:31 +0100, DavidR wrote: >>> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:35:16 +0100, DavidR wrote: >>>>> "Chris Whelan" <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote >>> >>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with mileage, or the length of journeys, and >>>>>>>> everything to do with the amount of time the vehicle is left >>>>>>>> unused between journeys. >>>> >>>>> I had hoped that with a statement like the one you made above you >>>>> did so with technical background. >>>> >>>> Why? It's not a "technical" situation. >>> >>> Oh, but it is. > >> OK. So where's the background to that statement? > > Your statement was phrased in the language used by science, religion and > advertising - "nothing to do with", "everything to do with". Only > science likes to explain how it reaches those conclusions. Where I come from, we call my language "English" > You *need* to know what conditions things like to grow in, how fast > they grow and what kills them. Common sense can't help here. It seems it can't help you, that's for sure... >>>> Common sense is all that's needed here... > > Common sense is often indistinguishable from religion. Advertising is > often indistinguishable from the ramblings of idiots. > > It was necessary to establish where you were coming from. I can assure you my statement had nothing to do with religion! I've been an active atheist for over 50 years. IMHO, common sense and religion are about as far apart as it is possible to get. I haven't a clue what you mean WRT advertising... > <...> > >> That's not an assumption. It happened. To me. > > The symptom (it smelt) happened. That is not a required assumption. ? >> Review the archives; many others have had the same problem. and >> resolved it with the same solution. > > The solution (making sure it was dry) seemed to work. That is not a > required assumption. ? > The problem is that the symptom and solution for your particular case > does not lead you to the statement you gave: it's far too simplistic. > Nor is it going to predict the scenario you gave. What about the fact that the archives show a large number of people whose vehicles had the same symptoms, and for whom the same solution worked? And none I can remember for whom it didn't? > Your statement only holds *if* the aircon is wet when parked. "In even moderately humid conditions..." > The > solution you described was to try and dry it before parking. So by your > own words, you're saying it is possible to park it in conditions where a > smell does not develop.[1] As for suggesting that it takes 6 days to > dry... Under such conditions (if such exist - don't guess, give some > kind of basis), the low mileage car will also not dry out between > journeys (so what length journey does it need to kill a day's growth?) This is usenet, not some scientific academy! Way back up there ^^^^^ you asked someone to explain why if you run A/C regularly, you don't get the nasty smells. I've explained, as someone who has experienced this, how I prevented it. If you need scientific explanations for the phenomenon, why are you asking here, in a NG about car maintenance? > [1] Anecdote time - > > My previous car had done 10k in it's first 6 months and it was kicking > around forecourts for another 6 months before I bought it. Did it smell > when I bought it? What does your hypothesis suggest? > > My current car had just 2K7 miles at 17 months. Did it smell when I > bought it? What does your hypothesis suggest? Insufficient information in both cases. Did the vehicles have A/C? Was the A/c used? Was the A/C switched off before journey's end? What sort of smell were you asking about? What were the usage patterns of the vehicles before you got them? Chris -- Remove prejudice to reply. |