New to automatics
 

Harry Bloomfield verbally sodomised in
:

Ok - in a moment of madness, I have just bought my first ever automatic
(Scorpio) and apart from 1/4 mile in a Jag twenty years ago, I've never
driven one before. It is to be a secondary car, rather than my primary
one and to be honest I was dreading trying to get used to it.

I have been quite surprised how quickly I got to be familiar with the
basics, though I there has not been any traffic yet to deal with - I
done about 75 miles on a variety of roads - sticking to just D and R
when needed. The first few miles were rather hairy, until I had worked
out to stick my left foot behind my right, but now I don't need to do
that. I'm now thinking it might even be useful to cover the brake with
my left in traffic - good or bad idea?

The manual doesn't give many clues as to how to use the gearbox
properly, it's got the usual P, R, N, D, 3, 2, 1.

What's the best way to actually use the box (1 2 3 and D)?

Also are you supposed to put it in neutral when stopped in traffic,
does P actually provide an equivalent to leaving a manual in gear?

Is it normal for them to creep forward slowly at tick over, when the
brake is off?

Any points to be wary of?

Cheers..



Glad to see you're still as clueless as ever, Hazza! Have you figured out
how to switch your headlights on yet? ROFFLE!



--
Phil Kyle™

T
h i
i s
s l
f i l
S o n o
i u e n
g r s g

New to automatics
 

"Phil Kyle" wrote in message
.. .
Harry Bloomfield verbally sodomised in
:
manual in gear?

Is it normal for them to creep forward slowly at tick over, when the
brake is off?

Yes. Your car uses a torque converter (fluid flywheel) which relies on
centrifugal force to work.
Make sure that the engine is idling at the recommended RPM (revolutions per
minute), and not faster.

Any points to be wary of?

Check the oil level _now_, and at the recommended intervals. Don't ignore
oil leaks.

Sylvain.

Cheers..



Glad to see you're still as clueless as ever, Hazza! Have you figured out
how to switch your headlights on yet? ROFFLE!



--
Phil KyleT

T
h i
i s
s l
f i l
S o n o
i u e n
g r s g

New to automatics
 

In article ,
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
Yes. Your car uses a torque converter (fluid flywheel) which relies on
centrifugal force to work.

A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel
only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A torque
convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way
to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel
only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A torque
convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way
to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable.

In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

New to automatics
 

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel
only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A
torque
convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way
to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable.

In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one and
the same.

But then, what do I know...

--
Steve
Velocette Venom Clubman
Velocette Venom Thruxton
Milk floats, stainless steel sinks

New to automatics
 

"Threadstopper" steve at pvl dot co dot uk wrote in message
...

I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one and
the same.

Torque converter has an extra vaned bit in the middle over a fluid flywheel-
the stator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_coupling

The howstuffworks article on torque converters is better than usual - it's
actually useful, rather than just a paraphrase of a marketing leaflet.

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

In article ,
Threadstopper steve at pvl dot co dot uk wrote:
I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one
and the same.

But then, what do I know...

You'd know if you compared autos fitted with each one. R-R and M-B used 4
speed fluid flywheel autos until the late '60s, then changed to 3 speed
torque convertor ones. The gearchanges on the later ones are much smoother
- and the step off from rest better, despite having one less gear.

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

New to automatics
 

PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...



You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

New to automatics
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote:

PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

Just a larger value of infinite than the other one.

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

New to automatics
 

"Silk" wrote in message
...

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever in a variety of ways. And even if we dig
past your possibly confused explanation, it's still wrong.

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

The message
from Silk contains these words:

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from
zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger
infinity.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

New to automatics
 

"Ace" wrote in message
...
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the
works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical
dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a
rigorous manner,

New to automatics
 

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Silk contains these words:

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's
impossible.

Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from
zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger
infinity.

You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way you
do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including
infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere on
the complex plane if you like).

New to automatics
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote:

PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

It's always amusing when people make an effort to display their
ignorance on usenet.
--
Champ

ZX10R
GPz750turbo
My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle

New to automatics
 

In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

In article ,
gomez wrote:
"Ace" wrote in message
...
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the
works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical
dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a
rigorous manner,

One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-)

--
*Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

Silk wrote:
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...



You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

No its not.

New to automatics
 

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Silk contains these words:

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from
zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger
infinity.

You can multiply it by zero as well.

New to automatics
 

The message
from "gomez" contains these words:

You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way you
do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including
infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere on
the complex plane if you like).

A good point - and well made. I plead distraction for making me think of
division by zero.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

New to automatics
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
gomez wrote:
"Ace" wrote in message
...
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's
impossible.

You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics
is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the
works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a
philisophical
dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a
rigorous manner,

One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry
folks. ;-)

But ****loads more interesing than the original topic ;)

New to automatics
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum is
obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite
number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween.

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

In communiqué , "Dave Plowman (News)"
cast forth these pearls of wisdom
BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?


A continuum innit.
--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

New to automatics
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

Here you go, knock yourself out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

New to automatics
 

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "gomez" contains these words:

You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way
you
do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including
infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere
on
the complex plane if you like).

A good point - and well made. I plead distraction for making me think
of
division by zero.

Ooh, no! You can do that too.

New to automatics
 

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum
is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an
infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween.

cheers,
clive

Find out what integer and real numbers are.

New to automatics
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Guy King wrote:
The message
from Silk contains these words:

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from
zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger
infinity.

You can multiply it by zero as well.

Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that?
All that calculation for nothing. :-)
Mike.

New to automatics
 

Mike G wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Guy King wrote:
The message
from Silk contains these words:

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double
the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's
impossible.

Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from
zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger
infinity.

You can multiply it by zero as well.

Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that?
All that calculation for nothing. :-)

Not at all. Infinity times zero can be any number.

Consider: 3/0=infinity.
now (3/0) * 0 is obviously 3, because the zeros cancel out...;-)

Mike.

New to automatics
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?


No. There is an infinite set of real numbers between e.g. 1 and
1.00000000000000000001

New to automatics
 

Clive George wrote:


How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2,

The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc. etc...

the
minimum is obviously 1,

No. its zero.

There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-)


ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer
is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween.

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
gomez wrote:
"Ace" wrote in message
...
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.
You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the
works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical
dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a
rigorous manner,

One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-)

Well it was only in the 20th century that the concept of numbers
infinitely bigger than infinity, for example, was nailed down.

New to automatics
 

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.

That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum
is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an
infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween.

Find out what integer and real numbers are.

Um, I think I know that already, ta. What relevance does your comment have
to my statement?

clive

New to automatics
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:


How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2,

The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc.
etc...

the
minimum is obviously 1,

No. its zero.

There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-)

Maximum/minimum numbers, not numbers of numbers...

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:


How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2,

The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc.
etc...

the
minimum is obviously 1,

No. its zero.

There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-)

Maximum/minimum numbers, not numbers of numbers...

Apols if you were just trying to be funny - sense of humour slightly
disjointed by presence of drivel talking crap...

cheers,
clive

New to automatics
 

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an
infinite number the other has to be 0?

Any number space can be infinitely subdivided.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

New to automatics
 

The message
from "Mike G" contains these words:

You can multiply it by zero as well.

Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that?
All that calculation for nothing. :-)

At least it's reasonably easy to get the right answer!

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

New to automatics
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:11:52 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-)

's'wot happens when you x-post to ukrm. A damned sight more
interesting than poxy auto gearboxes anyway.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

New to automatics
 

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the
minimum is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the
answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps
inbetween. cheers, clive

Find out what integer and real numbers are.

The group cretin believes boiler efficiencies can be more than 100% and
now wants to eductate others about maths...

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New to automatics
 

Ace wrote
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote:

PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the
ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween.
That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero.

Doesn't go up to infinity either.

BUT it can still be infinite steps in between...

Just a larger value of infinite than the other one.

You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the
ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible.

You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is
you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's
infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like.

[1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have
theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity.

I dunno. I heard some programme the other day where they were talking
about advances in making rational use of whole sets of infinities to do
modern sums with and how some really interesting work was being done on
it all right now. It had a professor on it and everything so it must
have been good.




--
steve auvache
i rate dates