Tal

On question 2, there are three separate things and they get blurred together:

Survivorship. The people you are looking at are the ones who stuck with a programme for years. That is the strongest predictor of how they look, far stronger than the split. A worse programme done for six years beats a better one abandoned twice a year, and it is not close.

They train more than you think. Somebody with an "arm day" is usually also hitting arms indirectly on chest day and back day. Direct volume once a week; actual stimulus more often. The split's label describes the emphasis, not the frequency.

Advanced lifters have earned the volume. Twenty hard sets for chest in one session is a genuinely reasonable thing for someone with a decade of training and no job that requires standing up. For most people it is a session that ruins the next three days.

None of that makes body-part splits optimal. It makes them workable for people who have solved the harder problems.

The answer to 1 is self-adhesive trunking, not clips, and the reason is load spreading.

A clip holds the cable at one point, so the entire weight of the run plus every accidental tug lands on a 15mm square of adhesive. They fail all at once on a warm day exactly as you describe, because the adhesive softens and the load has nowhere to go. Trunking is a channel with a lid, stuck along its whole length: the same adhesive over a hundred times the area, and the cable sits in it rather than hanging from it.

It also solves the vacuum cleaner problem, which clips do not — a cable in a closed channel with a rounded profile gets bumped rather than caught.

For rented plaster, the removal trick is heat and patience: a hairdryer along the length softens the adhesive enough that it peels rather than tears. Doing that on cold two-year-old adhesive is how people take the paint with it.

Short version: almost certainly no damage, and the people saying "engines run for days" are right — but for a reason that also explains why the worried list is not pure nonsense.

Idling is mechanically gentle. Low revs, low load, low cylinder pressures. In terms of wear, 14 hours of idling is worth a small fraction of 14 hours of driving. Plant and generator engines run continuously for far longer than this by design.

What makes extended idling different from driving is heat and airflow, not wear. At idle the engine makes just enough heat to stay warm but the exhaust runs cooler than it does under load, and there is no air moving through the engine bay except what the fan pulls. That is the seed of truth in the scary lists.

For a single 14-hour event on a healthy five-year-old car, the honest answer to question 1 is: you bought a tank of nothing. Roughly half a litre to a litre an hour, so probably 7-12 litres.

So the callipers reading slightly under nominal is expected rather than me measuring badly. That has been quietly bothering me for a year.