"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I've also driven Buckingham to Cambridge with no brakes on a Friday night.

idiot.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Albert wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Those would do me a couple of years of driving

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather
than depend on the brakes.

What costs most, pads or a new gearbox?

If your gear changing skills are that poor, have you considered having
driving lessons or buying an automatic?

Of course you can change gear without the clutch - which also costs a
damn site more than pads - but it won't do the synchromesh any good so
you **** both up.

Not if you are good at heel and toe..

I've driven miles without a clutch. Only problem is starting..just do it
in first gear, and you more or less can start the whole car on the
starter. Assumongte clutch is stick engaged of course.

Slipping clutches are bad news. That of course what you get if you are
crap at changing gears and you use engine braking.

I've also driven Buckingham to Cambridge with no brakes on a Friday
night.

You did bloody what?. No brakes all that way?. Why didn't you get a
breakdown truck to take you home?..?...


I was soaked with perspiration when I finished. Because all I had
was the engine and the handbrake (chafed hydraulic line) I didn't dare
go fast. This was open invitation for idiots in BMW's to overtake and
cut in in front of me. I didn't over rev the engine either, but it was
close.
Engine braking doesn't cut the mustard. Been there..done that..

--
Tony Sayer

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Jo
wrote:



Adrian wrote:
Jo gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Thanks, here's another picture of them:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5119/brakepads2.jpg

Mmm. That one doesn't look too clever at all. See how the friction
material appears to be starting to separate from the back plate, and some
of the edges?

I know they used a vise, took a hammer and a 0.5m lever of some sort
to it to separate two parts into the four in the photograph. So some
of the wear you see may have been caused by them.

They didn't allow me on the garage work floor as well, so I couldn't
see what they were doing.

I take back my earlier comments. If t'were me, they'd be heading binwards.

Arrrgh! I am sooo angry. Cheating students must call for the lowest sort
of scum.

Did he even know you were a student? Do you think students should be
treated differently to anybody else?

Yes he did know I was a student, because I said "I'm a skint student,
can you please give me a discount?" and he said "If you pay cash with
no receipt we can take the VAT off".

I think fleecing anyone is despicable but fleecing a hard up person is
more so!!

But there is no evidence at all of any fleecing going on.

I would replace those pads, given the condition they are in. And the
damage doesn't look all that likely to have been inflicted by the
process of extracting them,

And the price you were charged was quite reasonable overall for the
replacement of a set of front disc pads.

The second photo tells a very different story from the first

I think that, give someone as clueless as the OP, and with the attitude
shown, I think the garage prolly had little choice to have changed the
pads as opposed to prolly getting sued for negligence if they had failed
6 months later

OP - cars and human bodies are both mechanical machines, I think you
need to learn how both work


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:


Reverse torque on the old MAXI gearbox was guaranteed to pull the nut
holding the (layshaft) pinion off, gouging a hole in the side of the
gearbox, and losing all the oil..:-)

You learn something every day. I had four Maxis which all suffered fromthe
crankshaft oil seal going and thus ruining clutch plates. Got to the stage
where I could and did replace one in 45 mins. at the roadside, I became so
paranoid about it happening that I always had a spare seal and plate in the
boot together with a drift to centre the pressure when putting the new seal
in)!

In message , martin
writes
On 15/07/2010 22:39, Terry wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

Slowing down using the gearbox is definitely bad practice and
uneconomic on fuel too.

Utter ****ing ********.
You should *always* be in the right gear to accelerate away in.



Errr You are confusing slowing down with accelerating.

No he's not, even when slowing down you should be in the correct gear
to accelerate

Which, as a biker, is something GC is acutely aware of

--
geoff

On 15 Jul,
"Andy" wrote:

The price is not too bad for parts. Labour.....depends on the car. I have
replaced the front brake pads on a Focus in about 15 minutes as they are
basically a matter of 2 bolts per caliper. Other cars can take much much
longer.

Depends on if its just a pad change. If caliper or cylinder stiff, or self
adjuster stuck, time may mount up. When mine seized on, after a few days
layup, they gave the options of how they would proceed before they started.
As it happened they got away with the cheaper option of just winding off the
self adjuster rather than a full strip down.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
dave wrote:

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather than
depend on the brakes.

I used to do that. Now I anticipate and usually can let the speed reduce in
top gear. Fuel consumption has reduced by about 20%, a worthwhile reduction.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
Terry wrote:

Once you have driven a Bedford TK you never forget.

Or an early Landrover with no synchro on 1st and second.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tekky wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo wrote:

I paid with cheque. So yes I paid the VAT.
Fair enough.

Regardless of how or little the pads were actually worn down, they
do look rather crumbled away at the edges, impossible to say now
whether they were like that before they started removing them, but
I wouldn't fancy them on my car, and it doesn't sound like the
price they charged you was OTT, you'd probably have come away more
skint if you'd gone to one of the "big name" chains ...

'While the car is on the ramps your shock absorbers have had it, I
repeat.......'

I have seen many a car with obviously failed shocks, kangaroo
hopping down the roads. The drivers either don't notice, or don't
care. I overtake them as swiftly as possible.

dennis will be along shortly!


I have overtaken him on many ovccasions

Its importamnt to be far back so he can't see you as he peers out of
his mypopic lenses, doing exactly 10.1 mph under whatever he thinks
the speed limit is, congratulating himself on how safe he is as he
swerves from side to side should anyone dare endanger their lives by
attempting to overtake him.

With luck you are past his unsafe (but street legal) kangaroo court
car, before he even knows you exist.

I note that the person concerned has suitably chastised you elsewhere in
this thread!

I've yet to perfect my skills passing him as he weaves about at such high
speeds to the frustration of drivers behind me.

On 15 Jul,
Terry wrote:

So as well as a ****ed clutch and gear box you can now chuck a ****ed
starter motor into the equation. I wonder if you had the courage to
demonstrate these amazing driving skills on your driving test?

My driving instructor demonstrated those skills on the way to my first
(failed[1]) driving test. A lump of spoil fell on the road in front of us
from an earth mover constructing the M6 passing in the opposite direction,
and ruptured the (pneumatic) clutch pipe, 15 miles from the test centre.

[1] The only replacement car available was a twin carb, servo braked version
of the one I was used to (Singer Chamois rather than basic Hillman Imp). I
kept speeding, and when lightly braking I kept ejecting the examiner from his
seat.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Reverse torque on the old MAXI gearbox was guaranteed to pull the nut
holding the (layshaft) pinion off, gouging a hole in the side of the
gearbox, and losing all the oil..:-)

I drove several of Maxis (which were fleet(pool) cars. We never had that
problem.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
harry wrote:

Slowing down using the gearbox is definitely bad practice and
uneconomic on fuel too.

Certainly no less economic on a modern car than using the brakes. Fuel is cut
off on the overrun, above about 1500 revs.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

In message , writes
On 15 Jul,
dave wrote:

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather than
depend on the brakes.

I used to do that. Now I anticipate

Are you telling me that you couldn't before?

and usually can let the speed reduce in
top gear. Fuel consumption has reduced by about 20%, a worthwhile reduction.

Gold star to you, well done

--
geoff

On 15 Jul,
Jo wrote:

I just wish I was more assertive and said "No" to the job when he
found incidental problems with the car while doing some other work on
it.

What was the other work? It may be relevant.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
Jo wrote:


I'm better with people than anything mechanical.

From an engineer's perspective most people are mechanical, and operate within
the basic priciples of physics/chemistry.


--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I would say there was lots of wear left on those pads. I can't quite
see, but lots of pads these days have thin metal projecting fingers
that rub on the disk when the pads are worn right down. They make a
screeching noise when they contact the disk. It just an audible
warning.

No that's the backing plates hitting the disks, a sign that you are
ruining the discs.

NO! It's certainly true on Vauxhalls. An audible warning. Saves them fitting
a lamp.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Look a strip check of the brakes is a standard annual service thing. IF
the brakes are much below half worn, the questions has to be asked of
the customer 'how many miles do you so? when did you last have the
brakes relined?' because normally you would not want the pads to be less
that 2-3mm at the *next* service, which leaves a margin.

The annual service on mine is only an oil/filter change. At two years there
is an inspection.

A strip check went out about half a century ago, even on fords and BMC.

True that a pad change is (more necessarily now) called for, depending on the
mileage to the next service inspection.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 16 July, 00:07, wrote:

and ruptured the (pneumatic) clutch pipe, 15 miles from the test centre.

Esoteric pneumatic accelerator, but bog-standard hydraulic clutch,
wasn't it on Imps?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Terry saying
something like:

Utter ****ing ********.
You should *always* be in the right gear to accelerate away in.



Errr You are confusing slowing down with accelerating.

No.
As you decelerate, you should be in the right gear to pick up speed
again in the event of having to take evasive action - which happens from
time to time. Alternatively, to nip cheekily into a space left by some
dozy Dennis (this is more a bike thing, tbh).

On 15 July, 22:34, Terry wrote:

Do you know how a synchro' box works?

So what? The point about engine braking on the gears isn't to use the
clutch friction plate as a brake, it's to use the engine as an air
compressor.

So great for gentle retardation on hills, no bloody use for sudden
stopping.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

What a load of ****ing ********.

In what way?


You bollcked the guy who said 'use the gerabox' and bolloxed me for
saying its irrelavnt/ and/or not a good idea.

So, which side ARE you on?

I'm on the side of using the brakes AND the gearbox, not exclusively
either. Fine, use the brakes to slow, but simultaneously always match
your gear choice with road speed.

On 16/07/2010 01:37, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 July, 22:34, wrote:

Do you know how a synchro' box works?

So what? The point about engine braking on the gears isn't to use the
clutch friction plate as a brake, it's to use the engine as an air
compressor.

For a normal carburetor that isn't really why an engine brakes. A diesel
doesn't really apply much engine brake because the air-flow doesn't go
through restricted air intake.

A normally aspirated petrol engine performs braking because of the
suction on the cylinders because the butterfly valve is closed in the
inlet manifold on the intake stroke.

Nothing to do with air compression, it's air suction that causes the
usual engine brake.


So great for gentle retardation on hills, no bloody use for sudden
stopping.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:33:20 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On 16 July, 00:07, wrote:

and ruptured the (pneumatic) clutch pipe, 15 miles from the test centre.

Esoteric pneumatic accelerator,

Only for so-long IIRC. ;-)

but bog-standard hydraulic clutch,
wasn't it on Imps?

Derek

Terry wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Albert wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Those would do me a couple of years of driving

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather
than depend on the brakes.

What costs most, pads or a new gearbox?

If your gear changing skills are that poor, have you considered
having driving lessons or buying an automatic?

Of course you can change gear without the clutch - which also costs a
damn site more than pads - but it won't do the synchromesh any good
so you **** both up.

Not if you are good at heel and toe..

I've driven miles without a clutch. Only problem is starting..just do
it in first gear, and you more or less can start the whole car on the
starter. Assumongte clutch is stick engaged of course.

So as well as a ****ed clutch and gear box you can now chuck a ****ed
starter motor into the equation. I wonder if you had the courage to
demonstrate these amazing driving skills on your driving test?


No, on my driving test the brakes were faulty and the car slewed
sideways across the road on the 'emergency stop', I removed the brakes
and straightened the car up, getting a comment of approval from the
instructor. I passed first time. having spent a year getting about 2000
miles under my belt, first.

Now perhaps you see why people who DO NOT use the brakes at all or only
gently, may find themselves caught out when a real emergency comes along.

As far as driving with no clutch, no accelerator and no brakes goes,
some of us are old enough and wise enough to have done it, and learnt
how, because roadside assistance wasn't something we could afford, in
those days, nor was it as ubiquitous. as it is today.

You got the car home, if it was humanly possible.
..
The clutch wasn't ****ed, it had merely lost its fluid due to a worn
seal in the slave cylinder. starting in first gear doesn't actually
impose very much load on the starter motor at all. There's a fine
sequence in 'ice cold in alex' where they hand crank the truck in low
gear or reverse up a sand dune. No roadside assistance in the desert
you see. It didn't break their arms. Ok its fiction, but people have
done those sorts of things. One trick on steep slippery slopes with
older carss was to reverse up the snowy slope.

These days people 'cant get out of their drives' at the first hint ofg
snow. I drove 90 miles on 4" of fresh snow once. In a bloody sports car.
Hard, but not impossible.


There's a neat story I saw abouta cuople who got stick in sand in the
Australian outback. They died of thirst. When they were found, the
recovery crew let all the air bar a few pounds out of the tyres and
*drove straight out*.

Perhaps when it happens to you, you will die because there is no RAC and
save the world all the trouble of listening to your sanctimonious whinings.

meantime the rest of us who understand the vehicles we drive, will
continue to drive them as safely as we know how - which is, in general a
lot safer than those who are terminally ignorant, and rely on street
signs, a book, and the AA to tell them what to do and wipe their bottoms
for them when they fail to treat their cars with due attention and
respect, and get let down my them. Or end up dead.

I suppose I learnt a lot from my father, who flew bombers in WWII. three
people depended on some fairly unreliable machinery to get them out over
hostile territory and back, alive. His log books are littered with test
flights made on account of engine problems, and the most telling picture
in his album is a smashed aircraft with 'they only kite I ever pranged'
(yes they did talk like that) 'engine failure on takeoff. All crew OK'

I test my cars. I don't assume that everything is hunky dory just
because I have a valid MOT certificate. . I want to know what sort of
road I am on. how much grip it has. What the car will do in a stop, or a
corner. How it handles on the limit, not because I ever want to drive
anywhere near the limit on a public road, but because the dark fear
exists that one day I may have to...the dark corner that has unmelted
frost,...or wet leaves.. or an oil spill, or loose gravel..may catch you
out even if you THINK you are so far below the limit that you could
drive with your eyes shut. My business partner once joked that I was
'the only person who knew every bump on the A603'. Actually, I did.
Every one.


Do *you* know? Are you feeling lucky today?

safety is anticipating everything that can go wrong, and being able to
make sensible choices when it does, and in the limit, when the totally
unexpected happens, having the skill to get out of it alive.

The air france airbus crash last year is most likely to have happened
because they flew into weather they didnt know was there, that totally
iced up their airspeed indicators. The book doesn't cover that. They had
to fly that airbus in the dark, by the seat of their pants. Indications
are that they almost made it too. It had nearly pulled out of the dive
when it hit the water.I am sure they had all passed their tests too.

They don't teach you how to glide an airliner with all four engines out
into a river at flying school. Luckily THAT pilot was also a glider
pilot, and was used to doing those sorts of things in his head.

Sometimes crashing a car at speed into the softest option, is better
than anything else. After all, is a clutch or set of brake pads or a new
gearbox, worth more than your life?

In your case, the answer is obviously yes, but I prefer to spend money
on car maintenance than on medical bills or funerals. I have driven god
knows how many miles in all conditions on three continents, I have only
once ever damaged a human being. A motor cyclist who overtook a car
turning into a road I was pulling out of. I couldn't see him and he
couldn't see me. He threw the bike down to avioid going over the top,
and grazed himself on the road and bent a pedal against my rear bumper.
I never touched him. He apologised and took full responsibility 'Never
overtake a car turning left ' he said.' Should have bloody
remembered:It's in the book'. But I should have remembered that towns
are full of people who cant really drive, and not assumed that someone
wouldn't overtake a car turning left, even if they couldn't actually see
past them. If I had had a bit more power I might have got away from him.
Underpowered bloody truck that was.

So carry on with your cosy opinion of yourself, and your idiot attitude
to car maintenance, and your dull suspicion that all mechanics are just
trying to rip you off, not maybe save your or someone else's life.


I've seen three people killed in front of me in car accidents, and 5
more that bloody well should have been. I was not involved in any of
them except as a witness.

They live with me when I feel lucky, today. They are the memories that
cause me to test evertyhing, trust nothing, and drive a car like I was
going out in a war over hostile territory. Because frankly, you are. 310
soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. 3000 people are killed on the
roads every year. All probably by people like you, bimbling along with
their MOT certificates and their certain knowledge that they are good
safe drivers,under the limits of speed and alcohol, till a situation
they simply couldn't handle came into their lives.

you may think its stupid to drive a broken car. Perhaps today in the
Nanny state it is. But this country is not the whole world, and the
nanny state is not the world government. Perhaps one day you too will be
halfway along a 100 mile dirt road in Africa, or Australia, and your
clutch will go. Maybe then you will appreciate how you can get somewhere
with food and water, before you die.

Terry wrote:
martin wrote:
On 15/07/2010 20:52, Albert wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Those would do me a couple of years of driving

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather
than depend on the brakes.

What costs most, pads or a new gearbox?

If your gear changing skills are that poor, have you considered having
driving lessons or buying an automatic?

Of course you can change gear without the clutch - which also costs a
damn site more than pads - but it won't do the synchromesh any good so
you **** both up.

Well actually, the only time I use a clutch is when I brake to a stop
and move from a standing start, for normal driving it's easy to match
engine speed to road speed and just slip the box in and out of gear


Do you know how a synchro' box works?

More than you I would say.

Have you ever driven a box without any synchro at all?

Adrian wrote:
Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

A car will also pass its MOT on far less pad than what is shown. It
really is disgusting that so long as a car shows a stoppable on a roller
that the pad could shear off at next pedal push. The tester doesn't need
to look at the pads at all.

Since the tester isn't permitted to dismantle the car at all, the pad
thickness quite simply can't be checked on many cars.

It can be on every car I have come across, if you have a ramp, a mirror
and a lamp..drum brakes are a different matter entirely, however.

Terry wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

Slowing down using the gearbox is definitely bad practice and
uneconomic on fuel too.

Utter ****ing ********.
You should *always* be in the right gear to accelerate away in.



Errr You are confusing slowing down with accelerating.

No, you are confusing being *ready* to do the opposite, with doing the
thing itself..

But we expect no more from, you, you being a very inexperienced driver
with no knowledge of car mechanics.

geoff wrote:
In message , Terry writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Albert wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like
they
were saying:

Those would do me a couple of years of driving

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather
than depend on the brakes.

What costs most, pads or a new gearbox?

If your gear changing skills are that poor, have you considered
having driving lessons or buying an automatic?

Of course you can change gear without the clutch - which also costs
a damn site more than pads - but it won't do the synchromesh any
good so you **** both up.
Not if you are good at heel and toe..
I've driven miles without a clutch. Only problem is starting..just
do it in first gear, and you more or less can start the whole car on
the starter. Assumongte clutch is stick engaged of course.

So as well as a ****ed clutch and gear box you can now chuck a ****ed
starter motor into the equation. I wonder if you had the courage to
demonstrate these amazing driving skills on your driving test?

Some people do insist on posting the most stupid crap in here

There are time when you have to do what you have to do to get home

ISTR having a similar problem in my youth, made it home without any
serious damage to the car. Not the only time I had to just get home
somehow with the various cars that one has when young with very little
money

There's a different mentality between someone who limps home knowing the
risks and someone who sits and waits for a breakdown truck to come and
take their vehicle to "a man that can"....


.....who previously wouldn't pay to the the car serviced, and now will
refused to pay the tow charge. And gripe and moan on uk.legal. ;-)

They do say that many people regard the flat payment to the AA as an
alternative to maintaining their cars.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Albert wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Tekky gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Those would do me a couple of years of driving
Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather
than depend on the brakes.
What costs most, pads or a new gearbox?
If your gear changing skills are that poor, have you considered having
driving lessons or buying an automatic?
Of course you can change gear without the clutch - which also costs a
damn site more than pads - but it won't do the synchromesh any good so
you **** both up.
Not if you are good at heel and toe..

I've driven miles without a clutch. Only problem is starting..just do it
in first gear, and you more or less can start the whole car on the
starter. Assumongte clutch is stick engaged of course.

Slipping clutches are bad news. That of course what you get if you are
crap at changing gears and you use engine braking.

I've also driven Buckingham to Cambridge with no brakes on a Friday
night.

You did bloody what?. No brakes all that way?. Why didn't you get a
breakdown truck to take you home?..?...


Cos I wanted to get home, it was before the days of mobile phones and I
couldn't afford the 60 quid mate.

And besides, there was only one man who knew that car well enough to fix
it, and he was in Cambridge. We sort of built it together. It
was..ahem...Somewhat non standard in many departments. And that was the
problem. Id fitted a scarp Ford Something brake servo to it, but it
wasn't strapped down well enough, , and it eventually wore a brake pipe out.

Its still in my garage today. Must get it back on the road..some day..

wrote:
On 15 Jul,
dave wrote:

Me too. I was taught to drive using my gearbox to slow down, rather than
depend on the brakes.

I used to do that. Now I anticipate and usually can let the speed reduce in
top gear. Fuel consumption has reduced by about 20%, a worthwhile reduction.

yep. Driving highly loaded vans with crap brakes (although as good as
they could ever be) taught me that one. Extreme anticipation.

Mind you, on a Bedford CA about the only place it has ANY ability to
pull g's in braking. Outbraking people into roundabouts which had short
dualled sections leading up to them was its only real way to overtake...

On 16 July, 02:24, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Since the tester isn't permitted to dismantle the car at all, the pad
thickness quite simply can't be checked on many cars.

It can be on every car I have come across, if you have a ramp, a mirror
and a lamp..drum brakes are a different matter entirely, however.

Single piston sliding caliper. You often can't even see the pads
unless you slide the caliper out.

Clot wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tekky wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo wrote:

I paid with cheque. So yes I paid the VAT.
Fair enough.

Regardless of how or little the pads were actually worn down, they
do look rather crumbled away at the edges, impossible to say now
whether they were like that before they started removing them, but
I wouldn't fancy them on my car, and it doesn't sound like the
price they charged you was OTT, you'd probably have come away more
skint if you'd gone to one of the "big name" chains ...

'While the car is on the ramps your shock absorbers have had it, I
repeat.......'

I have seen many a car with obviously failed shocks, kangaroo
hopping down the roads. The drivers either don't notice, or don't
care. I overtake them as swiftly as possible.
dennis will be along shortly!


I have overtaken him on many ovccasions

Its importamnt to be far back so he can't see you as he peers out of
his mypopic lenses, doing exactly 10.1 mph under whatever he thinks
the speed limit is, congratulating himself on how safe he is as he
swerves from side to side should anyone dare endanger their lives by
attempting to overtake him.

With luck you are past his unsafe (but street legal) kangaroo court
car, before he even knows you exist.

I note that the person concerned has suitably chastised you elsewhere in
this thread!


Has he? hes been in my killfile for years now. All mouth and no trousers.

I've yet to perfect my skills passing him as he weaves about at such high
speeds to the frustration of drivers behind me.



get a jaguar. the you can overtake 100 yards of traffic in 150 yards. I
loved my jags. Sigh. Just not the cost of running them... real CARS they
are. Not boxes on wheels.

Lke the bloke said about eh Harley Davidsons ' when asked, 'but does it
get you where you want to go any better?' he replied. 'Man, when I am
awn mah Hog, I am already where ah want to be!'


Jags were like that. Just nicee cars to be IN. surrounded by luxury,
quality stereo, climate control, slip her into cruise control amnd sit
in the slow lane at 62mph with the trucks, and let the beemers blast
past, knowing you could beat the bloody lot of them if you wanted to.

Knowing that one day the oil would run out, I ended up with an XKR, for
a couple of years. Just for the experience. Top spec 155mph car. Brembo
brakes brakes and stereo to match. Now THAT was a Car!

wrote:
On 15 Jul,
harry wrote:

Slowing down using the gearbox is definitely bad practice and
uneconomic on fuel too.

Certainly no less economic on a modern car than using the brakes. Fuel is cut
off on the overrun, above about 1500 revs.

I think above idle actually. twas so when I played with one. rev em up,
and let the engine drop. It goes down to maybe 500 RPM before the
sensors panic and start injecting again..you can here 'em rattling..:-)

wrote:
On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Reverse torque on the old MAXI gearbox was guaranteed to pull the nut
holding the (layshaft) pinion off, gouging a hole in the side of the
gearbox, and losing all the oil..:-)

I drove several of Maxis (which were fleet(pool) cars. We never had that
problem.

The one my mate called upon me to fix(and never paid me for), had that
problem. When we walked into Unipart brandishing te gerabox casing, the
man already had the right parts on the counter..'here's the nut' he said
'and here's the locking washer that stops it coming undone, an here's a
gasket for that casing' 'what locking washer ' we said' 'the one they
dint fit in the factory till a lot of them had dropped their gearbox oil
on the pavement'. We got a new casing from a scrapyard, boorrowed a
massive torque wrench and a socket to fit the bloody nut, and STOOD on
teh end of it 180 ft lb it was supposed to need - and bent the tabs up
as well. And bolted the casing on and filled it up with oil. Me mate
sold it, made 1500 quid qnd gave me a glass of wine in thanks.

Later on he stitched me up for a LOT more than that, but that's another
story. What are friends for if not to screw you totally just because
they can?

wrote:
On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Look a strip check of the brakes is a standard annual service thing. IF
the brakes are much below half worn, the questions has to be asked of
the customer 'how many miles do you so? when did you last have the
brakes relined?' because normally you would not want the pads to be less
that 2-3mm at the *next* service, which leaves a margin.

The annual service on mine is only an oil/filter change. At two years there
is an inspection.

A strip check went out about half a century ago, even on fords and BMC.


If you have rear drums, there is no other way to tell.

My cars both are of that ilk at the moment.

True that a pad change is (more necessarily now) called for, depending on the
mileage to the next service inspection.

whqat is 'required' by the service manual and what is actually cheap and
sensible...like having a good poke around the car to see if anything
moves when it shouldn't or doesn'tn't when it should, is never a waste
of money IMHO.

Iv.e seen some fairly ghastly things fail to get spotted. Even at MOT
and full inspection.


Bent kingpin.
Seized top bearings on McPherson struts.
Seized callipers

I've had a garage replace an axle oil seal, but not the oil..

Ive had a car FAIL for having a different brake light bulb in one side
and a bonnet stay that didn't..very well. Another garage passed them
both without a murmur saying the one was not a requirement and the other
was not a safety issue except when working on the car, and that a
mechanic should prop a bonnet anyway if he was worth his salt...

I took oyur Freelander to a new place in a hurry because its MOT ran out
and I forgot.

'First car today that I have passed straight off' he said. I was
ASTOUNDED. That people would drive cars around that were not just in bad
shape but below MOT standards to boot!

But seeing the contributors to this thread 'I could make those pads do
two more years' I now completely understand.

The day I cant afford £100 quid to keep my brakes in tip top condition
is the day I stop driving altogether.

wrote:
On 15 Jul,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I would say there was lots of wear left on those pads. I can't quite
see, but lots of pads these days have thin metal projecting fingers
that rub on the disk when the pads are worn right down. They make a
screeching noise when they contact the disk. It just an audible
warning.
No that's the backing plates hitting the disks, a sign that you are
ruining the discs.

NO! It's certainly true on Vauxhalls. An audible warning. Saves them fitting
a lamp.

really? haven't driven a vauxhall in..must be getting on for twenty years!


...did test drive a corsa. about 9 years ago. same heap of **** it always
was..

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 July, 00:07, wrote:

and ruptured the (pneumatic) clutch pipe, 15 miles from the test centre.

Esoteric pneumatic accelerator, but bog-standard hydraulic clutch,
wasn't it on Imps?

was it? I liked em. Lovely little engine, dead light steering and could
be thrown around well. shame the engines always blew up.

martin wrote:
On 16/07/2010 01:37, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 July, 22:34, wrote:

Do you know how a synchro' box works?

So what? The point about engine braking on the gears isn't to use the
clutch friction plate as a brake, it's to use the engine as an air
compressor.

For a normal carburetor that isn't really why an engine brakes. A diesel
doesn't really apply much engine brake because the air-flow doesn't go
through restricted air intake.

A normally aspirated petrol engine performs braking because of the
suction on the cylinders because the butterfly valve is closed in the
inlet manifold on the intake stroke.

Nothing to do with air compression, it's air suction that causes the
usual engine brake.


actually there's a trick there with a carbed engine. Never tried it on a
injected..with the engine OFF and push on the accelerator. Its now
PUMPING air and compression DOES do the biz. much better braking!

Another useful trick for when the brakes fail totally.

I discovered it by accident when a wire fell of the distributor :-)



So great for gentle retardation on hills, no bloody use for sudden
stopping.

Not even so good there. I had an XJS and I slapped it into second going
down a steep icy hill..and the back end started to overtake me..

it was really a question of crash now or crash later. I acellerated just
enough to get the back back in, and made it round te bend at the bottom
somehow.

With the possible exception of the Triumph swing axle cars, the most
tail happy car I have ever driven...

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

What a load of ****ing ********.
In what way?


You bollcked the guy who said 'use the gerabox' and bolloxed me for
saying its irrelavnt/ and/or not a good idea.

So, which side ARE you on?

I'm on the side of using the brakes AND the gearbox, not exclusively
either. Fine, use the brakes to slow, but simultaneously always match
your gear choice with road speed.

well so am I!

Unless you are totally driving for economy on 4 wheels. In a clear road.
In which case slowing down in gear to a bit below the normal gear change
point wastes less energy spinning the engine up on the downshift.

Or its a 3 ton camper, and really any use of the brakes beyond minimum
will have things crashing about in the cupboards, and broken eggs in the
fridge.

The concept of anything other than gradually gaining or losing speed is
alien to the brute anyway.

And it has a mind of its own on corners.


I suppose it CAN do an emergency stop. I hope it never has to.
And I drive it that way ;-)

On 15 July, 16:26, Jo wrote:
Ste wrote:
On 15 July, 13:15, Jo wrote:
Hello,

My car was taken to a garage for an unrelated problem. The garage said
my brakes were worn and needed replacing. They charged me £30 for the
parts and £55 for labour (excluding VAT).

It wasn't a tyre outfit was it? They are notorious for crooks trying
to do unnecessary work. But yes, the price in principle seems to be
within the reasonable range, although you may be able to get it
cheaper.

The guy seemed shifty - he said if I paid with cash I wouldn't need to
pay VAT!

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8355/brakediscs.jpg

Are these brakes worn and were his charges reasonable? I estimate the
thickness of the abrasive portion of the parts to be 5mm thick.

Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, I'm a medical student!

They are worn, but not necessarily to the point of requiring
replacement. I assume these are the front pads. Starting thicknesses
vary, but are typically around 10mm or so, and under average yearly
mileage and typical driving styles pads can be expected to last a few
years from new. The legal minimum for pads if I recall correctly is
1.5mm, and realistically anything approaching 2mm requires imminent
replacement. If the pads are down to 4mm or less at the time of a
routine service, you'd expect a garage to discuss with the customer
the potential need for replacement before the next yearly service.

It's difficult to accurately gauge the thickness because of the
perspective and low resoluton of the picture. I'd say replacement may
have been premature. It would help if you could take another picture
of just the top-right pad, because that one looks the thinnest, and
from the opposite edge to the one now showing (i.e. from the same edge
as the bottom-right pad), and perhaps put the pound coin against the
pad material (so that the coin is sitting on one of the protrusions
from the side of the backing plate).

Thanks, here's another picture of them:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5119/brakepads2.jpg

Arrrgh! I am sooo angry. Cheating students must call for the lowest
sort of scum.

I'd say those pads had more life in them, but given that they are
showing signs of age I wouldn't say it was worth losing sleep over
after the fact.