Monthly Archives: September 2008

Yamaha FZ6 Fazer S2 vs Suzuki SV650S

Posted by David Hurst on September 25, 2008 2 comments

Regular readers of my blog will know that I started my motorcycle riding career on a Suzuki SV650S. The SV didn’t suit me, largely because the riding position was too sporty and uncomfortable (I’m 6ft1 tall) for any major distances, plus the mileage was getting up to the 27,000 mark. So, I’ve traded it in for a new Yamaha FZ6 Fazer S2 with ABS, and having lived with the Fazer for a few days, thought it might be worth doing a quick comparison between the two bikes, particularly as they are similar and are aimed at the same target market.

2008 Yamaha FZ6 Fazer S2

I should make it clear that my SV650S was a 2001 model with plenty of mileage on it, whereas I’m comparing it with a brand new bike. It’s also worth pointing out that it is only the faired version of the SV (the SV650S as opposed to the SV650) that has the sportier riding position. The naked SV probably would have suited me fine.

The riding position on the Fazer is completely different. You sit very upright, and the bike feels quite tall, which leads to almost motocross style flickability, and possibly a less involved ride than the SV and other more sporty bikes. The seats on both bikes are hard on the buttocks over longer distances, but the Fazer is far more bearable due to the more upright riding position.

Another key difference between the two bikes is the engines. The SV is a v-twin, whereas the Fazer is an inline 4 cylinder, and both have different characteristics. V-twins typically have lower redlines, and generate their peak power earlier in the rev range. They also return excellent levels of torque, meaning you can get away with being more lazy on your gear changes. An inline 4 usually develops less torque and reaches peak power much later in the rev range, meaning you have to make the most of the gears, and rev the engine a bit more to realise the full performance of the engine.

The Fazer has a 600cc engine developing 98BHP @ 12,000 RPM. The SV650S (2001) has a 645cc engine developing 70BHP @ 9,000 RPM. So, which is quicker?

2001 Suzuki SV650S

I think the SV is easier to ride more quickly, with an instant surge of power from the throttle at almost any gear and rev combination. The Fazer feels weaker around town, but when you open it up (7000RPM+) it takes off with a huge surge of power. If you had a drag race, the SV would probably pull off the line quicker, but the Fazer would catch up and win as soon as it hit the magic power band! In every day use, there really isn’t as much difference as you might expect.

Pillion comfort is good on both bikes, but the SV seems to pull better two-up than the Fazer. Grab rails are good on both bikes, with the handle at the rear on the SV and handles on the side of the Fazer. Because the exhausts run under the seat on the Fazer, the pillion does benefit from warm hands and bum too!

Both bikes have a half or bikini fairing with a screen, so how is the wind deflection? Simple answer: the SV is better. At least for me, anyway. I have purchased and started using ear plugs with the Fazer, when I never felt I needed them on the SV. Wind noise is high above 70MPH, and any speed above 90 is pretty untolerable, which is probably a good thing. It’s worth mentioning also that the SV’s mirrors seemed to suffer less from vibration at high speed.

The only real disappointment with the new Yamaha though, is its gearbox. Suzuki just seem to be able to make better gearboxes. Changing gear on my 15 year old GSX1100F is like a knife through hot butter. The Yamaha gearbox is fine until you miss your change downs at a junction. At which point you have to stand on the pedal and engage the clutch slowly until it snaps in, and then repeat until you hit first (pulling away in second is much harder than on the SV due to less torque), which takes time. Simple answer is to make sure you don’t get caught out, but we all have our off-days, and the Suzuki gearbox just seems to be more forgiving. Perversely, the Yamaha gearbox is perfect for clutchless up-changes when on the power – it snicks in very easily, despite the user manual advising you that you should always use the clutch because the engine and drivetrain is not designed to withstand the shock of clutchless changes. Knackers to that. The differences could of course be due to my comparing older bikes with a brand new one.

The only other mild irritation is that only one of the headlights switches on at low beam. I’ve found a guy on the FZ6 Forum who makes up cables to wire up the other headlight though, so I will shortly be making that modification.

In terms of handling, both bikes are exceptionally good and can be flicked around the twisty roads with very little rider input. The Fazer feels like it drops into corners faster (probably due to the tall riding position), but it does hold lines very well.

The brakes are brilliant on both bikes. I spent extra on the Fazer to have ABS, but thankfully I haven’t had cause to use it yet, and I hope I never do, but it seemed like a worthy thing to have for the sake of £300. It will no doubt pay dividends if I ever have to do an emergency stop in the wet with a pillion.

Suzuki are often slated for their finish quality, and the SV is no exception. I use my bikes in all weathers, and the SV which I only had for 4 months, was showing signs of deterioration. Previously, it had been garaged all its life, so the speed with which the rust and oxidisation appeared was a little alarming, and another factor in selling the bike. The Fazer has a painted engine, and the quality of finish looks generally better, so I have a bit more confidence in its weather proofing. Only time will tell. I was disappointed with the thickness of the paint and lacquer though. I foolishly didn’t go straight out to buy a tank protector, and somehow managed to scratch the tank with just the plastic buttons on my jacket. Pretty poor that.

So, which is the better bike?

It’s not that simple. It depends what you want from your ride and how you will use the bike. I would choose the Yamaha every time, purely for the riding position and the generally better quality of finish. The engine (a second generation R6 engine) is good when it gets going, and the sound it makes as you get to the top of the rev range is awesome. Very addictive too, which is not so good given that the top of the rev range in second gear equals points on the licence if you get caught!

There will be plenty of others who prefer the SV. I did love the relaxed thump of the v-twin, but the best sounds are to be enjoyed from about 10 metres behind the bike, which is not much use to the rider.

With Yamaha’s amazing 3.5 year 0% finance deal (which has just been extended), the Fazer will be more accessible to most people, and it’s a great bike for the money. Either way, you’re going to have a great bike that delivers lots and lots of grins.

Want to learn more about SEO?

Posted by David Hurst on September 24, 2008 3 comments

I will be presenting a short introductory workshop at the Connecting Somerset Expo, 1 October 2008, Haynes International Motor Museum, Sparkford.

The introductory SEO workshop is aimed at demystifying online marketing with search engine optimisation and pay-per-click advertising with Google. I have had consistently excellent feedback for previous workshops, and there are still places open for delegates.

Other workshops will be available throughout the day covering topics including: legal aspects of being online; e-commerce; IT security; IT acquisition; remote working, and; much more.

Plus, you will have the opportunity to get free advice and information from a number of trade partners who will have stands at the event.

If you would like to book your free place, please contact Matt Ballard at Somerset County Council on 01823 355867.

How often does Google update its algorithm?

Posted by David Hurst on September 17, 2008 4 comments

I regularly get asked how frequently Google change their ranking algorithm, and how this affects rankings. The simple answer is: often! Major algorithm changes can have pretty dramatic effects on search engine rankings, and can cause no end of headaches for search engine marketing professionals.

In fact, the algorithm is typically updated and changed up to 10 times every week! Not all of these changes are major. For instance, the PageRank algorithm is updated less frequently, the last major update (at time of writing) being back in January 2008. Most of these small changes won’t have much effect on your website’s position within the search results. So, why do they keep changing it?

Google is concerned with the quality of the results it delivers, and has an active program of improvements to ensure that results are local and language targetted, and are what the user was searching for. Searches that are not performing well are flagged up, and changes are made to ensure that Google remains in its hard-earned number 1 slot. Google, by their own admission, experiment a lot and have advanced systems to track user behaviour and trends which can then identify whether changes are successful or not.

There is no magic secret to getting around algorithm changes, and it is normal for a website’s ranking to fluctuate within the search results, particularly if it has not been well established in a particular keyword cloud.

The best SEO methods are, as always, the Google prescribed methods of delivering quality content (and plenty of it) that others will want to view and link to. Ensuring that you make full use of Google’s webmaster tools and other technologies like XML site maps and RSS feeds will make sure that Google is visiting your website regularly, and as a result, algorithm changes will have less overall impact. A good spread of content is also useful in this regard.

My site (the one you’re reading) is well indexed by Google. My posts typically appear within the Google Index in around 30 minutes. They will bounce up and down, before settling a little – generally at the top end of the results. I have been writing content for many years, and my website currently has archived content going back to March 2006. That’s pretty useful.

A lot of companies working on improving their search engine rankings focus far too much on the results, checking them every day and then panicking when they slip, usually blaming an algorithm change by Google. The fact is, SEO is and always has been a long-term view. Check your rankings once per month. If they are really poor, check again a few days later just in case it was just a brief fluctuation. Most of all, don’t make huge wholesale changes to your website in a short space of time. Little and often is the key.

In summary, Google is always updating its algorithm – after all, it is the key to their success, so you can be sure they look after it – and generally, these changes will not have an adverse effect on your website unless you are doing things wrong in the first place.

Brandon White – killed when he rode his motorcycle into the back of a truck – but, do we really need to see the pictures?

Posted by David Hurst on September 13, 2008 1 comments

I was reading a copy of Superbike magazine from back in the “summer” and was rather appalled to see pictures of Brandon White’s horrific accident reprinted, ostensibly as a “warning” on road safety. This from a magazine that seems to actually encourage high speed riding. I don’t believe anybody unrelated to the accident or Brandon’s family needs to see these pictures.

Brandon was a 25 year old American, who hit the back of a “semi” (big truck to all the UK readers) after it changed lanes in front of him. It is believed that Brandon was traveling at 120 MPH, and if the truck was doing 50, then that’s pretty much like hitting a wall at 70 MPH. Suffice it to say, Brandon did not live to tell the tale. Thankfully, he probably felt nothing, but that may be slim consolation for his family that now have to deal with the pictures whizzing around the Internet and being printed in magazines and newspapers.

These same magazines all showed utmost respect when Craig Jones (a British racer) died in an on-track accident recently, printing beautiful eulogies to a “great man”. I’m sure Craig Jones was a great man, but the people writing these articles don’t necessarily know that any more than they know Brandon White wasn’t a great man. He certainly does not deserve to be ridiculed in this way.

Even more upsetting are the various posts in forums by sub-humans with a morbid desire to intrude upon another individual’s death. There are even posts in one forum (that I found thanks to Google) expressing disappointment because the photos of Brandon hanging limply from the back of a truck are not gruesome enough.

The only good that can come from his brutal end being publicised is that others will think more carefully about their own road safety. Anyone who rides a powerful motorcycle knows that a flick of the wrist and a few seconds are all that stand between rider and speeds our ancestors could only dream of. Empty straight highway? 120MPH? Not a problem. Take the same highway and add a few slow-moving vehicles and 120MPH is likely to result in what happened to young Mr White. Arbitrary speed limits or limited bikes may be the answer for the ignorant few, but for most sensible riders, they just need to ensure that their speed does not wildly exceed the speed of those traveling around them, and that the speed they choose to travel at is appropriate for the road and weather conditions.

Brandon White has been severely punished for his mis-judgment, whereas many other (probably less worthy) individuals will get away with it. For now.

The human body is a fragile thing, comprised mostly of water. It cannot survive high speed impacts. The seasoned rider will be acutely aware of this fact, without being morbidly obsessed with it, and will temper his riding accordingly.

Whether Brandon White was at fault or not in his accident is irrelevant to his family who were not in any way responsible for his actions, and deserve to be treated with respect and allowed to grieve in peace. I certainly am sorry for their loss and I sincerely hope that I don’t see any similar pictures the next time I open a bike magazine for a quiet morning read.

For now, the sun is out (!) and I have my GSX1100F back from the garage, so I’m heading out to enjoy my motorcycle. At safe speeds, of course. ;-)

Apple iPhone 3G Review

Posted by David Hurst on September 7, 2008 None comments

I resisted buying the first incarnation of the iPhone, due to the lack of 3G, which always seemed utterly bizarre in a “breakthrough communications device”. That, and the non-subsidised price ensured that my cash stayed firmly in my pocket. Both of these issues were resolved with the iPhone 3G, so I have relented and bought one, and after living with it for a few weeks, I think I’m in a position to write a review.

I think it’s important to remember that the iPhone is primarily a mobile phone, so I think it’s appropriate to judge it first of all on that basis. So, what do we need from a phone? Quick and easy dialling; an easy to use contacts list; portability; battery life; signal strength, and; call quality. Let’s see how it measures up on each of these points…

Quick and easy dialling
Most phones on the market have a series of number buttons, and making a call is no more complicated than pressing the buttons for the number you want and hitting the dial button. The iPhone has no buttons. To make a one-off call, we have to press the home button, slide the “button” to activate the screen, press the home button again if we’re not already at the home screen, tap the phone icon, tap the number pad icon if it’s not already selected and finally we can dial the number. It doesn’t take that long, but it’s not exactly quick and I can’t help but wonder how that might affect someone trying to call the emergency services when in dire need of emergency assistance.

I’m happy to trade off speed of dialling with all the additional features I get with iPhone, but not all users will feel the same.

Having said that, most calls will be to someone in your contact list, and the iPhone makes this nice and easy to do. You can also assign contacts as favourites, and these appear in their own shortcut list.

Easy to use contacts list
I can’t fault the contacts list at all. It’s easy to use, and allows you to store multiple numbers per contact, and all sorts of other useful information too. Adding and editing the data is easy on the iPhone, but as it syncs up with your computer, you can just add all your contacts there more quickly and then they will just appear on the iPhone. If you subscribe to Apple’s MobileMe service, they sync across all your computers and the iPhone.

You can add photos to contacts, much like you can with any modern handset, but I like the way these are also synced up and applied to emails as well as phone calls. I like the way you can also add custom fields of your own, and these are remembered so that you can use them across multiple contacts.

Grouping contacts and sending messages to groups is also possible, as is setting individual ring tones for each contact or groups of contacts.

Portability
The iPhone is lightweight, and surprisingly compact considering all the features it has, but there are certainly lighter and smaller handsets on the market. Given that most people will buy the iPhone partly because of the way it looks, I don’t think many prospective purchasers will spend too much time thinking about its portability.

It is worth thinking about how expensive the iPhone is, and how easily it could get damaged. It would be pretty easy for the iPhone to slip out of sweaty hands, hit the floor, and end up horribly scratched and disfigured. A case is essential! The one I have is a bit fiddly, and getting the iPhone extracted before the caller has hung up can be a bit of a challenge.

Battery life
This is a really important aspect of a mobile phone – after all, you can’t be very mobile if you have to plug it in all the time. Surely though, this won’t be a problem with an Apple product, not if their laptop battery performance is anything to go by anyway. So, how is the iPhone 3G battery life?

Crap.

There’s no other way to describe it. If you use the features of your iPhone regularly, you just won’t make it through the day without a charger and convenient power point. Mine is perpetually plugged in when I’m at home or in the office, and I’ve now taken to carrying a pay-as-you-go handset with me when I’m out and about, just in case the battery fails.

You can’t buy an extended battery. You can’t buy a second battery. You can’t even open the iPhone to get at the battery. When you consider that rechargeable batteries have a life span of around 500 full charges, I have to wonder if it will even last out my 18 month contract before it has to go to Apple to be replaced.

This is a very serious fault that needs addressing. I’m fed up with seeing the red battery icon.

Signal strength and call quality
I can’t fault either of these things. The phone is quite happy making reliable calls even on just 1 bar of service. Clarity of speech is excellent.
Now, it’s time to look at the iPhone’s additional features. Bearing in mind that Apple are trying to capture some of the corporate market, the iPhone 3G will be competing head to head with XDAs, Blackberrys and Smart Phones, so how does it hold up?

Connectivity
Pretty important for the internet and push email features of the iPhone 3G, and I have to say it is brilliant. It switches seamlessly between GPRS EDGE, 3G and WiFi, automically picking the fastest/cheapest connection within range. Internet browsing on 3G is perfectly acceptable, although you probably wouldn’t want to browse YouTube or any other high bandwidth sites.

National 3G coverage is pretty good and most major towns and cities have good 3G signals. There’s plenty of free WiFi around too, so getting online is never really a problem with the iPhone 3G.

Internet
The Safari browser on the iPhone is certainly the best browser I have ever used on a mobile device. You can open multiple windows, and easily zoom in on any part of the screen. The keyboard only appears when needed, and the iPhone neatly detects the orientation of the device in your hand and displays pages in portrait or landscape format accordingly.

That said, it does have limitations. You can only open 5 windows, and if you switch between the windows a lot, you will notice a rather odd bug where the window you switch to will load the content from the window you switched from, rather than showing the content you wanted to see. It’s bizarre and Apple need to sort it out.

There’s also no Flash support. Apple have been rapped by the ASA and forced to change their TV commercials as Flash is an important part of the Internet, and the iPhone 3G simply won’t display it.

Email and push functionality
The email client is excellent and supports all the major standards perfectly. When the iPhone first syncs with your computer, it will automatically import the email settings and set it all up for you – utterly painless. It makes most sense to use IMAP, Exchange or MobileMe with such a device so that your email syncs up. MobileMe is great, but there is an annual fee for the service, and it really warrants its own review. I think the big draw of the iPhone 3G, particularly for corporate users, will be the Exchange support.

For most users, the Exchange setup will be simple and painless, but for some, it will be difficult. I don’t think this is particularly a fault of the iPhone, it has more to do with Exchange and the plethora of different possible configurations. I couldn’t get my iPhone 3G to sync with my Exchange server as we use Windows Small Business Server (SBS) 2003, which doesn’t have the right service pack for Exchange as standard. Once upgraded, it worked perfectly and now my email is pushed directly to my iPhone. (I have written a guide elsewhere on my blog on how to get connected with SBS. Do a search in the box above if you need help.)

In fact, everything now syncs perfectly. My work email and calendar syncs with Exchange. My home calendar, email and contacts all sync with MobileMe. I have everything I need in the palm of my hand and then replicated across my iMac, MacBook Pro and Windows laptop. Perfect!

Camera
Many people are concerned with having a great camera in their phone. If that’s the case, then you will be disappointed with the iPhone camera. The resolution is poor and taking photos is fiddly, particularly self portraits. On the Mac, iPhoto opens every time I connect my iPhone and tries to import my iPhone photos. This is a pain in the butt. Frankly, I don’t want to take photos on my phone. I have a camera.

Horses and courses of course, but I’m sure Apple could do better here. Surely a forward facing camera would be sensible on a 3G device? Have Apple missed an opportunity with video calling?

iPod
More and more phone handsets now have MP3 players built in. Again, I have an iPod for my music, and using my phone for music is not my first preference, but if you’re going to have a music player and phone together, this is the one you want. The iPhone has all the same features as the iPod touch, with a beautiful coverflow system for browsing your music by album cover. It works well, and I must confess that I have loaded some tunes on to listen to at the gym.

In fact, you can also load full movies onto your iPhone, and in the USA you can actually rent movies on the iTunes store. For some reason, in the UK you cannot yet do this, which is pretty poor.

The real problem is…

Memory
The iPhone has no memory card slot. Presumably this would have detracted from the smooth lines of the gadget, but this just smacks of form over function to me. I have the 8Gb version, mainly because I refused to pay the outrageous additional cost for one with slightly more memory. Flash RAM is cheap. Why not allow users to expand their device as they wish?

GPS
A very welcome addition to the second generation iPhone is GPS. This hooks up seamlessly with the Google maps application to show you exactly where you are anywhere in the world. The iPhone can also triangulate your rough position from cell towers if it can’t see any satellites. The application does provide step-by-step directions, but it does not actually direct you through each step like a vehicle sat nav system. It seems to me that it wouldn’t take much to add this, and then with the help of a car cradle, you could make better use of the GPS. No doubt this would also dramatically boost iPhone sales.

Office documents
The iPhone has viewers for all the main Office document types, but you cannot edit the files. This is a huge disappointment as every other smart phone, XDA, or PDA I’ve tried has had this capability. Apple could easily resolve this, and I’m very surprised that they have not provided a mobile version of their brilliant iWork office suite.

Files
I am rather staggered by the complete lack of any sort of file storage or browsing functionality on the iPhone. OS X, upon which the iPhone interface is built, has Finder – the best file broswing and searching system of any modern OS, and yet the iPhone has nothing. I can’t copy files over to the device and organise them, and Apple has missed a serious trick here. I still need to carry my USB flash drive around with me. Very annoying.

Applications
One of the great features of the iPhone 3G is the downloadable applications. Be warned though that the quality of the apps is wide and varied. Some are fantastic (Apple’s HoldEm poker game for instance), but there are many utterly rubbish third party apps, some of which cost money, so you need to pay attention to the application rating and reviews before splashing the cash. The Apps feature does add serious capability to the iPhone, and the SDK that Apple provides for developers is excellent, so expect to see better things from the App store in the future.

The applications highlight another limitation with the iPhone: that of multi-tasking. It doesn’t have any. You can only run one application at a time, which makes things like mobile MSN, iChat or Skype completely impractical. This is something they may solve with a future software update – I certainly hope so.

Interface
The touch screen interface really needs to be seen (and touched) to be believed. It is truly stunning. The keyboard in particular is worthy of mention. With the “buttons” on screen for the keyboard being very small, it is very easy (and common) to make typos. However, the iPhone is extremely clever at working out what you wanted to type and automatically correcting this for you. Unlike T9 predictive text messaging systems, it is reliable, accurate and rarely gets in the way, which allows you to type quickly and with confidence.

The iPhone also boasts two accelerometers (is that spelled right?) which detect movement, and this means you can play games like Super Monkey Ball by actually moving the iPhone around in your hands. I hope to see some more innovative use of these features in future Applications.

Summary
The iPhone is not perfect, and it is not far enough ahead of the competition to warrant their being excluded from consideration. It’s not for everybody. I can live with the niggles because the overall package is so good, but the battery life really riles me. I can’t understand why it is so poor. I would rather have a slightly thicker iPhone and a much longer battery life if such an option existed.

As an everyday work tool, the iPhone works well. Invariably, the average worker will have it plugged into their computer or car regularly through the day, and therefore the battery won’t be too much of a problem. In a purely social setting though, the iPhone doesn’t make as much sense. There are other handsets with Internet, better cameras and better battery life. Whether or not their better features will be enough to overcome the draw of the iPhone’s sheer beauty and desirability is another question.

If the battery was good, I would score the iPhone 9 out of 10, with the dropped point for the lack of Office software and file browsing. With the shoddy battery, I can only give it a 7 out of 10, and I think I might have been better waiting for the 3rd generation.

Just leave that crap there mate, someone else will pick it up

Posted by David Hurst on September 2, 2008 None comments

I fancied a Burger King for lunch today. After ordering myself a rather tasty Meat Beast Whopper, I headed to the upstairs seating in BK Yeovil, to sit and enjoy my lunch with a magazine. The mess was unbelievable. There were empty food wrappers everywhere. I had to clean my table before I could sit down, and there was even a pile of rubbish at my feet.

I don’t think this should necessarily reflect badly on BK Yeovil – they did send someone up to clean it up – rather, I think it has more to do with ignorant, arrogant, retards who believe it’s perfectly acceptable to leave your crap all over the place for someone else to pick up. Burger King, and indeed all such eateries, are not full service restaurants. There is no table service, and that is partly why the food is cheap (unless of course you are in a motorway services Burger King, in which case a [Burger] King’s ransom is what you will pay).

Leaving your rubbish behind is not just about the staff that have to clean up after you either, it’s about the next people that have to use the table. If I can go to these places with two children and leave the table as clean and tidy as I found it, then so can everybody else. Stop being so lazy. Clean up your own mess. Become a decent and civilised member of human society. Even animals can clear up their own waste. You are a human being, aren’t you?

I’m confused.com so compare the market and quote me happy

Posted by David Hurst on September 2, 2008 3 comments

Every ad break on every show I watch on TV, one of these car insurance websites is telling me that I can save money on my insurance bills with them. They all claim to be cheaper than each other, so you could be forgiven for expecting to actually get cheap insurance premiums right?

I had to arrange insurance for the new family roadster, a Fiat Grande Punto. It’s only a 1.3 diesel, so I’m not really expecting to have to pay top dollar. My experience over the years has always been that it is cheapest to buy your car insurance from Direct Line, and yet still, each time I need some, I feel the need to shop around. Every time I do, I usually end up back where I started with Direct Line. Anyway, I thought I’d get a few quotes for the Punto, the question is: where do I start?

Well, I decided not to bother with Norwich Union. I called them a couple of years ago for a quote on my Fiat Coupe and was given a figure of £1,600. I now understand the “Quote Me Happy” slogan: they quote you, you fall about laughing, and then you phone someone else. In this case I phoned Direct Line and insured my coop for £350. So, I narrowed my list down to three places this time:

  1. Confused.com – because I hate their TV commercials so much. I don’t believe they can save money and I wanted to verify this.
  2. Tesco – my business partner Tom is convinced they are the cheapest.
  3. Direct Line – because they are bound to be cheaper than the above.

So, confused.com – not an actual insurer, but one of the new scourge of Internet price comparison websites that are systematically re-channelling profits away from the actual provider into the pockets of a middle man. I’m convinced this is ultimately bad for the consumer, as it will result in inevitable price increases. If the insurance company has to pay a cut to confused.com, then you are not getting the best price, and the provider is not getting the best margin. Anyway, after inputting all the details (and there are a lot of details to be entered), I got a list of insurance quotes in order of cheapest. The top entry was some budget outfit that I had never heard of, that had a huge excess and no windscreen cover. There’s no way I would take such a useless policy – the chances of a smooth payout if you ever needed one are slimmer than Beckham’s missus. Anyway the amazing price was £228. Bearing in mind I pay £330 for a group 19 performance car, this seemed excessive.

Next up, Tesco. I have noticed that Tesco’s insurance paperwork and quoting engine are identical to Direct Line’s. Does this mean Tesco car insurance is actually Direct Line? I don’t know, but, they were cheaper at £198. They also offered me a “Value” policy, so called because it has no value, just like the rest of Tesco’s “Value” range. Not for me thanks.

And finally, Direct Line, who came in at £152. Thanks very much. I’ll take two.

In fact, as my Coupe was already insured with Direct Line, I just adjusted my existing policy. I got a refund and they covered the Coupe for another 2 weeks free of charge to give me time to sell it.

So, if you’re looking for insurance, I reckon you are much better off going direct to the insurers, rather than helping fund Confused.com’s directors’ new fleet of Ferraris, which will probably be insured with Direct Line, because they’re cheapest.