Brakes Handbrake failure

BRO-T · 20th June 2008, 07:56

Hi all,

I'm sorry that this has been covered loads but I need a quick answer on what to do.
Parked up at my girlfriends last night on a steep hill. Came out 2 hours later and the car had rolled 10 feet forward into the back of another car. handbrake was on.

Bumper, bonnet, head lights, wheel arches are all pushed out. Also front tyre seems rather low!!!

Do i call Honda Assistance,
Do I take it to my dealer round the corner?
Is this a common problem that Honda know of and will fix!!!

It's a 57 plate S type.

Dimplyred · 20th June 2008, 08:01

Yes it has been discussed at great length on here. It is a well know problem and Honda sent letters out to notify people of the correct way to park your car.

According to Honda this involves applying the handbrake WITHOUT pressing the release button in and leaving it in gear.

Did you recieve this letter.

BRO-T · 20th June 2008, 08:08

No I didn't, only had the car since beginning of may

Dimplyred · 20th June 2008, 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRO-T

No I didn't, only had the car since beginning of may

Did you buy it from a Honda dealer? If so I'd contact them and ask if the handbrake recall modification has been done, I suspect it hasn't and if it hasn't why they didn't inform you of the handbrake problem, and the advice Honda have given on applying it.

pcr · 20th June 2008, 08:54

If the car is drivable, take it to whoever you want to repair it, else call Honda assistance.

Call insurance company if you intend to claim.

There is a recall to replace the handbrake but that only deals with the problem of the handbrake releasing itself. If the brake was firmly on after the incident then something else is the cause and has been much discussed on the forum.

streakybird · 20th June 2008, 08:57

sorry to hear that Bro-T! Its a subject that scares me the most... if the handbreak can fail so easily and the car rolls and god forbid a child gets caught, who would get the blame! Something needs to be done quick and fast before we start reading it in the newspapers!!!

Good Luck and fight for it to be fixed Properly!!!

allan40alt · 20th June 2008, 09:18

Very simple cure, been around for years, always leave the car in gear when you park on an incline and, where possible, turn the front wheels towards the kerb. In an i-Shift leave it in Auto or select 1st or Reverse before turning off the engine, anything but Neutral!

BRO-T · 20th June 2008, 10:34

Thanks all, been to my dealer, they've tightened the handbrake, but apparently it was fine ** hand. Qu I ask is, why tighten it. Dealer won't touch it now.
Spoken to Honda UK who are now going to investigate, up to 10 working days.

BRO-T · 30th June 2008, 07:39

Honda have been back in touch.

My car has had the handbrake recall and it passed all their tests when i took it to the dealer. The reason behind it slipping was that, the discs must have been hot which caused the metal to expand. Upon parking up I didn't have the handbrake on enough and once the discs cooled, the metal contracted, releasing the braking system.

Apparently this is common on all disc brake cars!!!!!! What do you lot think?

Unknownsoldier · 30th June 2008, 08:46

It is, but it shouldn't be that noticeable, my BMW 3 series was terrible for this reason (in fact it's handbrake was almost non-existant on a hill) and yet I remembered to put it in gear because I knew about it, where does it mention this in the civ's handbook?? Also what are you supposed to do, sit there for ten minutes waiting for them to cool??? I would personally be arguing the toss, howeverit's up to you.

Tom

BRO-T · 30th June 2008, 12:55

Unknown soldier, I agree with you. If it is a common problem/flaw, then it should be in the manual. Should be warned when purchasing the car for health and safety reasons. Maybe the health and safety angle is the route to pursue!

Unknownsoldier · 30th June 2008, 12:59

Possibly, I should have thought a warning was needed in the book, if it is a common occurrence.....

Tom

BRO-T · 3rd July 2008, 08:24

Has anyone had the handbrake upgrade and found it to fail???

BRO-T · 3rd July 2008, 08:26

I am currently in the process of contacting my dealer as we (my lawyer) believe that Honda are in breach of the Sales of goods act 1979. By failing to acknowledge and warn customers that their is a general problem with the braking system when hot!

Unknownsoldier · 3rd July 2008, 09:06

Personally, I agree it comes under the Sale of Goods act, as the brakes technically become unfit for purpose when heated......however check their T&C carefully, I beleive they put the onus on you to keep your car maintained, serviced and roadworthy, I believe they'll hide behind this and say, it's your problem.....

TBH, it probably comes under either section 14 [ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._19790054_en_1 ]:

14 Implied terms about quality or fitness

(1)Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [F1term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
[F2(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]
[F3(2D)If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
(2E)A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2D) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract of sale, if the seller shows that—
(a)at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,
(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or
(c)the decision to buy the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.
(2F)Subsections (2D) and (2E) above do not prevent any public statement from being a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above (whether or not the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, whether or not the contract of sale is a consumer contract) if the statement would have been such a circumstance apart from those subsections.]
(3)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known—
(a)to the seller, or
(b)where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,
any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [F1term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.
(4)An implied [F1term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
(5)The preceding provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.
[F4(6)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the terms implied by subsections (2) and (3) above are conditions.]
(7)Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below applies in relation to a contract made on or after 18 May 1973 and before the appointed day, and paragraph 6 in relation to one made before 18 May 1973.
(In subsection (7) above and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below references to the appointed day are to the day appointed for the purposes of those provisions by an order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument.
Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1Words in s. 14(1)(3)(4) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(a) (with s. 8(3)).
F2S. 14(2)(2A)-(2C) substituted for s. 14(2) (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 1(1), 8(2) (with s. 8(3)).
F3S. 14(2D)-(2F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 3(2)
F4S. 14(6) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(b) (with s. 8(3)).
Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Power of appointment conferred by s. 14( fully exercised: 19.5.1985 appointed by S.I. 1983/1572, art. 2

Or under section 48b, but this is unlikely, as they will not repair your brakes as they state no fault has occurred.

BTW guessing your also in touch with Trading Standards???

ATB,
Tom

BRO-T · 3rd July 2008, 09:09

Good point, although I've only had the car 2months, not done a 1000 miles yet! Can't see how they can say it's not maintained!

Unknownsoldier · 3rd July 2008, 09:17

Amended above posting with further info.

Tom

Pottsy · 3rd July 2008, 09:18

I'm sure your lawyer will be focussing on the following expressions in the handbook:

Quote:

Make sure the parking brake is set firmly, or your vehicle may roll if it is parked on an incline.

Quote:

If the vehicle is facing downhill, turn the front wheels toward the curb, and put the transmission in reverse gear.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother with the expense of the lawyer, because I'm sure the court will look at the instruction book and work out how ambiguous or foolproof the instructions are. "Firmly" is so vague that there may be a good case (if you apply the handbrake good and hard the stretch in the cable compensates for the disk contraction). But leaving it in gear when on a hill is tricky to argue against.

Unknownsoldier · 3rd July 2008, 09:21

Agreed, however it is up to them to then decide on how much of an incline if there was any perceptable, as I'm sure you know the minorist incline will if the conditions are right cause roll, without them being necessarily perceptable to the naked eye....... however if you state that the handbrake was applied firmly and still was when you returned to the car (i.e. the discs have shrunk and the handbrake hasn't moved...) then you may be in with a chance at them having to amend their book without necessarily owing you anything other than the repair for your car (the bill does not cover repair of third party items, only repair or replacement of your own).

Tom

However he admits it was on a steep hill.... case sadly closed.

T

Pottsy · 3rd July 2008, 09:26

Tom, agreed - but the handbook doesn't define the steepness of the incline. You can prove that there was an incline, because the car rolled. The handbook is the defining document, and although it would be great for the decision to BRO-T's way, I just suspect that Honda are totally covered with the clear instructions. If it's on a hill, however small, then leave it in gear. Firmly should be defined (as a measurement in Newtons), but I don't think that would help most owners!

20th June 2008, 07:56	#1 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Handbrake failure Hi all, I'm sorry that this has been covered loads but I need a quick answer on what to do. Parked up at my girlfriends last night on a steep hill. Came out 2 hours later and the car had rolled 10 feet forward into the back of another car. handbrake was on. Bumper, bonnet, head lights, wheel arches are all pushed out. Also front tyre seems rather low!!! Do i call Honda Assistance, Do I take it to my dealer round the corner? Is this a common problem that Honda know of and will fix!!! It's a 57 plate S type.

3rd July 2008, 09:06	#15 (permalink)
Unknownsoldier Comedian/Smart Ase Civinfo guru* Join Date: 22nd September 2007 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 2,422 Thanks: 47 Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts	Personally, I agree it comes under the Sale of Goods act, as the brakes technically become unfit for purpose when heated......however check their T&C carefully, I beleive they put the onus on you to keep your car maintained, serviced and roadworthy, I believe they'll hide behind this and say, it's your problem..... TBH, it probably comes under either section 14 [ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._19790054_en_1 ]: *14 Implied terms about quality or fitness* (1)Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [F1term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale. [F2(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. (2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. (2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— (a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, (b)appearance and finish, (c)freedom from minor defects, *(d)safety, and* *(e)durability.* (2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory— (a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, (b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or (c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.] [F3(2D)If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling. (2E)A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2D) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract of sale, if the seller shows that— (a)at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement, (b)before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or (c)the decision to buy the goods could not have been influenced by the statement. (2F)Subsections (2D) and (2E) above do not prevent any public statement from being a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above (whether or not the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, whether or not the contract of sale is a consumer contract) if the statement would have been such a circumstance apart from those subsections.] (3)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known— (a)to the seller, or (b)where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker, any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [F1term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker. (4)An implied [F1term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage. (5)The preceding provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made. [F4(6)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the terms implied by subsections (2) and (3) above are conditions.] (7)Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below applies in relation to a contract made on or after 18 May 1973 and before the appointed day, and paragraph 6 in relation to one made before 18 May 1973. (In subsection (7) above and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below references to the appointed day are to the day appointed for the purposes of those provisions by an order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument. *Annotations:* *Amendments (Textual)* F1Words in s. 14(1)(3)(4) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(a) (with s. 8(3)). F2S. 14(2)(2A)-(2C) substituted for s. 14(2) (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 1(1), 8(2) (with s. 8(3)). F3S. 14(2D)-(2F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 3(2) F4S. 14(6) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(b) (with s. 8(3)). *Modifications etc. (not altering text)* C1Power of appointment conferred by s. 14( fully exercised: 19.5.1985 appointed by S.I. 1983/1572, art. 2 Or under section 48b, but this is unlikely, as they will not repair your brakes as they state no fault has occurred. BTW guessing your also in touch with Trading Standards??? ATB, Tom Last edited by Unknownsoldier; 3rd July 2008 at 09:14.

3rd July 2008, 09:21	#19 (permalink)
Unknownsoldier Comedian/Smart Ase Civinfo guru* Join Date: 22nd September 2007 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 2,422 Thanks: 47 Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts	Agreed, however it is up to them to then decide on how much of an incline if there was any perceptable, as I'm sure you know the minorist incline will if the conditions are right cause roll, without them being necessarily perceptable to the naked eye....... however if you state that the handbrake was applied firmly and still was when you returned to the car (i.e. the discs have shrunk and the handbrake hasn't moved...) then you may be in with a chance at them having to amend their book without necessarily owing you anything other than the repair for your car (the bill does not cover repair of third party items, only repair or replacement of your own). Tom However he admits it was on a steep hill.... case sadly closed. T Last edited by Unknownsoldier; 3rd July 2008 at 09:22. Reason: re-read first post about the hill.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads for: Handbrake failure
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Handbrake failure compensation	mrh339	General Discussion	120	11th February 2008 15:37
Brakes Honda S2000 also handbrake failure	Type S Bournemouth	Bugs, faults and irritations	1	26th December 2007 07:44
Brakes Handbrake failure!!!	aleem	Bugs, faults and irritations	7	19th December 2007 21:28
Handbrake To All Members Of Civinfo!!! Handbrake failure?	Brodick	Bugs, faults and irritations	173	6th December 2007 20:06
Handbrake releasing without warning (handbrake failure)	civic driver	Wiki Article Discussion	0	3rd December 2007 20:35


This thread is about: Handbrake failure, it's in Wheels, Tyres, Suspension and Brakes at the Honda Civic forum Civinfo; Hi all, I'm sorry that this has been covered loads but I need a quick answer on what to do. Parked up at my girlfriends ...

20th June 2008, 08:01	#2 (permalink)
Dimplyred Type R GT 09570 Civinfo guru Join Date: 24th August 2007 Location: Staffordshire Posts: 3,710 Thanks: 17 Thanked 65 Times in 64 Posts	Yes it has been discussed at great length on here. It is a well know problem and Honda sent letters out to notify people of the correct way to park your car. According to Honda this involves applying the handbrake WITHOUT pressing the release button in and leaving it in gear. Did you recieve this letter.

20th June 2008, 08:08	#3 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	No I didn't, only had the car since beginning of may

20th June 2008, 08:54	#5 (permalink)
pcr Magic Rear Seat Join Date: 5th September 2006 Location: Shropshire Posts: 847 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	If the car is drivable, take it to whoever you want to repair it, else call Honda assistance. Call insurance company if you intend to claim. There is a recall to replace the handbrake but that only deals with the problem of the handbrake releasing itself. If the brake was firmly on after the incident then something else is the cause and has been much discussed on the forum.

20th June 2008, 08:57	#6 (permalink)
streakybird Supporter Locking Wheelnut Join Date: 3rd June 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 198 Thanks: 2 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	sorry to hear that Bro-T! Its a subject that scares me the most... if the handbreak can fail so easily and the car rolls and god forbid a child gets caught, who would get the blame! Something needs to be done quick and fast before we start reading it in the newspapers!!! Good Luck and fight for it to be fixed Properly!!!

20th June 2008, 09:18	#7 (permalink)
allan40alt Supporter Civinfo guru Join Date: 6th August 2006 Location: Rugby, Warwickshire. Posts: 2,227 Thanks: 12 Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts	Very simple cure, been around for years, always leave the car in gear when you park on an incline and, where possible, turn the front wheels towards the kerb. In an i-Shift leave it in Auto or select 1st or Reverse before turning off the engine, anything but Neutral!

20th June 2008, 10:34	#8 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks all, been to my dealer, they've tightened the handbrake, but apparently it was fine ** hand. Qu I ask is, why tighten it. Dealer won't touch it now. Spoken to Honda UK who are now going to investigate, up to 10 working days.

30th June 2008, 07:39	#9 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Honda have been back in touch. My car has had the handbrake recall and it passed all their tests when i took it to the dealer. The reason behind it slipping was that, the discs must have been hot which caused the metal to expand. Upon parking up I didn't have the handbrake on enough and once the discs cooled, the metal contracted, releasing the braking system. Apparently this is common on all disc brake cars!!!!!! What do you lot think?

30th June 2008, 08:46	#10 (permalink)
Unknownsoldier Comedian/Smart Ase Civinfo guru* Join Date: 22nd September 2007 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 2,422 Thanks: 47 Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts	It is, but it shouldn't be that noticeable, my BMW 3 series was terrible for this reason (in fact it's handbrake was almost non-existant on a hill) and yet I remembered to put it in gear because I knew about it, where does it mention this in the civ's handbook?? Also what are you supposed to do, sit there for ten minutes waiting for them to cool??? I would personally be arguing the toss, howeverit's up to you. Tom

30th June 2008, 12:55	#11 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Unknown soldier, I agree with you. If it is a common problem/flaw, then it should be in the manual. Should be warned when purchasing the car for health and safety reasons. Maybe the health and safety angle is the route to pursue!

30th June 2008, 12:59	#12 (permalink)
Unknownsoldier Comedian/Smart Ase Civinfo guru* Join Date: 22nd September 2007 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 2,422 Thanks: 47 Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts	Possibly, I should have thought a warning was needed in the book, if it is a common occurrence..... Tom

3rd July 2008, 08:24	#13 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Has anyone had the handbrake upgrade and found it to fail???

3rd July 2008, 08:26	#14 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I am currently in the process of contacting my dealer as we (my lawyer) believe that Honda are in breach of the Sales of goods act 1979. By failing to acknowledge and warn customers that their is a general problem with the braking system when hot!

3rd July 2008, 09:09	#16 (permalink)
BRO-T Supporter Valve Cap Join Date: 30th April 2008 Location: Solihull Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Good point, although I've only had the car 2months, not done a 1000 miles yet! Can't see how they can say it's not maintained!

3rd July 2008, 09:17	#17 (permalink)
Unknownsoldier Comedian/Smart Ase Civinfo guru* Join Date: 22nd September 2007 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 2,422 Thanks: 47 Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts	Amended above posting with further info. Tom

3rd July 2008, 09:26	#20 (permalink)
Pottsy Administrator Civinfo master Join Date: 10th April 2006 Location: Leics Posts: 5,039 Thanks: 13 Thanked 96 Times in 51 Posts	Tom, agreed - but the handbook doesn't define the steepness of the incline. You can prove that there was an incline, because the car rolled. The handbook is the defining document, and although it would be great for the decision to BRO-T's way, I just suspect that Honda are totally covered with the clear instructions. If it's on a hill, however small, then leave it in gear. Firmly should be defined (as a measurement in Newtons), but I don't think that would help most owners!