Andy Champ wrote:

harry wrote:

The correct way is to slow down with the brakes. When you've finished
slowing down, you select the right gear to accelerate away in.
http://www.drivingexpert.co.uk/braking-safely.html
http://www.2pass.co.uk/gears.htm

There are a lot of inexperienced drivers here clearly.
I wonder what else they don't know?

Probably _very_ experienced drivers, just not up to date. I think that
advice has changed.

My first car had drums all around, and engine braking was indicated. It
also had 3000 mile service intervals - which more often than not
involved swapping one of the 6 slave cylinders.

Now I have big discs and dual circuit brakes and an ABS computer to help
me out, and it's just not required any more.

As for accelerating away - well I have over 4 times the power I had on
that early car, and a wider power band, so that's not really a problem
either.

Andy

ps TNP did you really drive a car with no brakes AND no clutch AND no
accelerator?

yes but you forgot that one of the wheels was also missing and it had run
out of petrol 200 miles earlier.
\0

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Burns
saying something like:

Even a fag packet estimate of the momentum of each vehicle will give
you a clue, also I'm sure you know how well a car with handbrake
applied reacts to steering ...
It's actually a secondary /tertiary brake, not a parking brake,
although it's normally used as such. Think of it as an emergency
braking system to be used in the event of the main system failing.
Quite what most modern drivers would do in the said event I leave to
your imagination.


a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

I doubt you'll find any new car that makes 0.5g on the handbrake these
days - or lock the rear wheels unless FWD. The regs have changed since
dual circuit brakes came in and it's no longer an emergency brake.

well it was at the time already an old car. Or most of three old cars
Now its ahem. ABOUT 37 years old.

Depending on which bit you are looking at.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news
ps TNP did you really drive a car with no brakes AND no clutch AND no
accelerator?

I took it that he meant on different occassions:-)

I have driven a car with no foot brakes - I used the handbrake and gears,
bloody hard work

I have driven a car with no clutch cable - piece of ****

I have driven a car with a broken accelerator cable - hard work as I made
up a new cable with a piece of string and attached it directly to the
throttle spring and controlled it by hand.


Bugger, are you a mad irishman in his mid 60's Did you pick up a hitchiker
in the late 60;s'..in that car?

I was only a twinkling in my Dads eyes in the late 1960's

Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news

ps TNP did you really drive a car with no brakes AND no clutch AND no
accelerator?

I took it that he meant on different occassions:-)

I have driven a car with no foot brakes - I used the handbrake and
gears, bloody hard work

I have driven a car with no clutch cable - piece of ****

I have driven a car with a broken accelerator cable - hard work as I
made up a new cable with a piece of string and attached it directly
to the throttle spring and controlled it by hand.

All things are possible when you are a skint student in a MKII Escort.

I would not like to try a combination of the above.


You brave idiot - though I have a similar T shirt!

In message uE50o.147332$9c1.74044@hurricane, Clot
writes
ARWadsworth wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news

ps TNP did you really drive a car with no brakes AND no clutch AND no
accelerator?

I took it that he meant on different occassions:-)

I have driven a car with no foot brakes - I used the handbrake and
gears, bloody hard work

I have driven a car with no clutch cable - piece of ****

I have driven a car with a broken accelerator cable - hard work as I
made up a new cable with a piece of string and attached it directly
to the throttle spring and controlled it by hand.

All things are possible when you are a skint student in a MKII Escort.

I would not like to try a combination of the above.


You brave idiot - though I have a similar T shirt!


Ha - what we did when we were young, eh ?

I remember driving my car at 31 mph in a built up area

.... and got away with it

clot - how deep in to dragonland do you live ?

--
geoff

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:46:05 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

It's actually a secondary /tertiary brake, not a parking brake, although
it's normally used as such. Think of it as an emergency braking system
to be used in the event of the main system failing.

That depends on the car. The hand brake on mine really is only a
parking brake, it acts on the transmission not the rear brakes
directly. It's not designed to stop the vehicle when it's moving at
any speed.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 16 July, 23:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

Locking the rear wheels is easy (FWD or RWD), but it won't give you
more than about 0.25g, as the weight's on the front.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:05:28 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .


No set of front brake pads would get near to lasting me a year at
present, from new. But I am driving 40,000 miles per year, which seems
unlikely for somebody who (from her other posts) is a pretty new
driver.

How do you manage to wear them so quickly?

By driving normally.


I have never managed to wear out a set of pads on a car yet and I do about
80,000 (about 3 years) miles before changing cars.


You must be driving almost entirely on motorways then.

And even then, that seems exceptional. When I have looked it up
previously, it has always been suggested that "normal" life for a set
of front brake pads is around 15000 - 25000 miles, depending on the
style and type of driving.

That is quite a wide range, and there will always be people outside
even that, but more than three times the upper end of the "normal"
range seems very high.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:48:01 +0100, 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 ********.

That is a very unusual way to say "completely correct".

Which he was..

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

Are you stupid enough to believe that comment had any relevance
whatsoever to the previous one?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If laughter is the best medicine, shouldn't we be regulating it?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:05:28 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...


No set of front brake pads would get near to lasting me a year at
present, from new. But I am driving 40,000 miles per year, which
seems unlikely for somebody who (from her other posts) is a
pretty new driver.

How do you manage to wear them so quickly?

By driving normally.


I have never managed to wear out a set of pads on a car yet and I
do about 80,000 (about 3 years) miles before changing cars.


You must be driving almost entirely on motorways then.

And even then, that seems exceptional. When I have looked it up
previously, it has always been suggested that "normal" life for a
set of front brake pads is around 15000 - 25000 miles, depending on
the style and type of driving.

That is quite a wide range, and there will always be people outside
even that, but more than three times the upper end of the "normal"
range seems very high.

I have managed 50,000 miles on a set of pads , 99% of milage was
motorway , then again on the same vehicle i have managed 8000 miles
on a set of pads driving in london

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:39:42 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On 15 July, 22:36, 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.

The don't have to check for MOT. However there is a little hole in the
caliper where the pad thickness can be seen. All cars. No problem. On
some cars you don't even have to take the wheel off.

They *do* have to check at the MOT.

http://www.ukmot.com/3-5.asp#Text_top

Item f on that page.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:28:26 +0100, Terry wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 July, 13:15, Jo wrote:

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).

Seems reasonable. It's usually hard to measure the last smidgen of pad
thickness without some dismantling. Once you're in there, you might as
well re-assemble with new pads.

They didn't _need_ to be replaced just yet, but it wasn't gouging to
replace pads in that state. They wear out with use, they _will_
inevitably need replacement. Yours were certainly getting that way.

Laboour (2 hours?) is maybe on the high side. Shouldn't take that long
to swap pads on most modern cars.

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.


The MOT manual requires him to do so.

http://www.ukmot.com/3-5.asp#Text_top
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never trust a skinny cook.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:05:28 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Alex Heney" wrote in message
. ..


No set of front brake pads would get near to lasting me a year at
present, from new. But I am driving 40,000 miles per year, which seems
unlikely for somebody who (from her other posts) is a pretty new
driver.

How do you manage to wear them so quickly?

By driving normally.


I have never managed to wear out a set of pads on a car yet and I do about
80,000 (about 3 years) miles before changing cars.


You must be driving almost entirely on motorways then.

And even then, that seems exceptional. When I have looked it up
previously, it has always been suggested that "normal" life for a set
of front brake pads is around 15000 - 25000 miles, depending on the
style and type of driving.

How can this be so?

Dennis stated only a few days ago that he did 30,000 miles last year

Surely the rest of the world must be wrong


That is quite a wide range, and there will always be people outside
even that, but more than three times the upper end of the "normal"
range seems very high.

--
geoff

Alex Heney gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

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

The don't have to check for MOT. However there is a little hole in the
caliper where the pad thickness can be seen. All cars. No problem. On
some cars you don't even have to take the wheel off.

They *do* have to check at the MOT.

http://www.ukmot.com/3-5.asp#Text_top

Item f on that page.

Not quite so simple...
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s03000501.htm
"A visual and physical check must be carried out on all mechanical
components _that are visible and accessible_"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Indeed. I am generally the person on the road with the biggest gap in
front of me.

Liar.


And unlike Dennis, I dont accelerate to close it because someone is Trying
to over take ME.

No you are the one that has stated you pull out and start overtaking 100
yards worth of traffic and hope nobody else decides to do the same at the
same time, leaving you stuck in the outside at whatever speed they were
doing when they started desperately trying to force your way back in.
I think I have seen you do it or at least some other idiot that thinks like
you.

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

Even a fag packet estimate of the momentum of each vehicle will give you
a clue, also I'm sure you know how well a car with handbrake applied
reacts to steering ...

It's actually a secondary /tertiary brake, not a parking brake, although
it's normally used as such.
Think of it as an emergency braking system to be used in the event of
the main system failing. Quite what most modern drivers would do in the
said event I leave to your imagination.


a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

More cr@p.
A good handbrake will easily lock the rear wheels but you won't have enough
grip to get .5G.
Also you can expect the rear end to slide with the wheels locked as anyone
that has done so would be able to tell you.
Why don't you go and try it somewhere and see before you make stuff up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Burns
saying something like:

Even a fag packet estimate of the momentum of each vehicle will give
you a clue, also I'm sure you know how well a car with handbrake
applied reacts to steering ...

It's actually a secondary /tertiary brake, not a parking brake,
although it's normally used as such. Think of it as an emergency
braking system to be used in the event of the main system failing.
Quite what most modern drivers would do in the said event I leave to
your imagination.


a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

I doubt you'll find any new car that makes 0.5g on the handbrake these
days - or lock the rear wheels unless FWD. The regs have changed since
dual circuit brakes came in and it's no longer an emergency brake.

You cana change the laws of physics, it never was much of an emergency brake
except on a few cars where it acted on the front wheels. It is still just as
effective on real wheel cars. If you have one that you can't lock the wheels
I recommend having it fixed(1).


1: I suppose you could be so weak as to not be able to pull the handbrake on
fully, my wife can't on mine.

In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 July, 23:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

Locking the rear wheels is easy (FWD or RWD), but it won't give you
more than about 0.25g, as the weight's on the front.

My old Rover P6 used to give 0.5g on the handbrake at MOT time. But you
don't get weight transfer to the front wheels when only braking the rears
- so a RWD with 50:50 weight distribution or thereabouts could easily give
0.5g.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

More cr@p. A good handbrake will easily lock the rear wheels but you
won't have enough grip to get .5G.

You're talking FWD here where the wheels lock because there's no weight
over them. On a RWD car with 50:50 weight distribution, you could
theoretically get 0.5g, as there is no weight transfer when braking just
the rear wheels. As indeed I did get with a Rover P6.

Also you can expect the rear end to slide with the wheels locked as
anyone that has done so would be able to tell you. Why don't you go and
try it somewhere and see before you make stuff up.

Perhaps you'd tell me about any modern RWD car which will lock the rear
wheels using the handbrake. My BMW which has separate drums for the
parking brake certainly won't. It is purely for parking - not emergency
use. My SD1 Rover with 10 in rear drums won't lock the wheels using the
handbrake either. But achieves 0.35g at MOT time.

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I doubt you'll find any new car that makes 0.5g on the handbrake these
days - or lock the rear wheels unless FWD. The regs have changed since
dual circuit brakes came in and it's no longer an emergency brake.

You cana change the laws of physics, it never was much of an emergency
brake except on a few cars where it acted on the front wheels. It is
still just as effective on real wheel cars. If you have one that you
can't lock the wheels I recommend having it fixed(1).

Pray tell what RWD car you have which can lock the rear wheels using the
handbrake.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 July, 23:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

Locking the rear wheels is easy (FWD or RWD), but it won't give you
more than about 0.25g, as the weight's on the front.

My old Rover P6 used to give 0.5g on the handbrake at MOT time. But you
don't get weight transfer to the front wheels when only braking the rears
- so a RWD with 50:50 weight distribution or thereabouts could easily give
0.5g.

Thats about my impression.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 July, 23:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

a GOOD handbrake will lock the rear wheels. Typically .3-.5g.

Locking the rear wheels is easy (FWD or RWD), but it won't give you
more than about 0.25g, as the weight's on the front.

My old Rover P6 used to give 0.5g on the handbrake at MOT time. But you
don't get weight transfer to the front wheels when only braking the rears

Yes you do. For a given G force change in velocity you get exactly the same
weight transfer from one end of a vehicle to the other regardless of what it
is that is producing that G force. Weight transfer is caused because the
centre of gravity is higher than the tyre contact patch and tries to pivot
around it.

Think about accelerating a FWD car. The front still rises and weight
transfers to the rear. Makes no difference that it's the front wheels
pulling rather than the rear ones pushing.

The reason you "think" there's no weight transfer when only using the
handbrake is because it produces much lower forces than using all 4 brakes
so you don't notice it as much.
--
Dave Baker

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I doubt you'll find any new car that makes 0.5g on the handbrake these
days - or lock the rear wheels unless FWD. The regs have changed since
dual circuit brakes came in and it's no longer an emergency brake.

You cana change the laws of physics, it never was much of an emergency
brake except on a few cars where it acted on the front wheels. It is
still just as effective on real wheel cars. If you have one that you
can't lock the wheels I recommend having it fixed(1).

Pray tell what RWD car you have which can lock the rear wheels using the
handbrake.

My spitfires certainly could.

So could my XJS. So could my triumph heralds

All capable of exquisite 'handbrake turns'.

It helps of course that the front brakes work well enough to take the
load off the rears before you apply the handbrake. But all could at
modest speeds lock the rears easily.

Takes a hard tug, but of you have the handbrake well adjusted, they will
certainly do it.

I cant answer for cars that have a separate 'parking brake' because I
dont know of any that I have ever owned. Apart from the land rovers
series III and defender, which had a transmission mounted drum IIRC. All
the cars I have operate the rear brakes - the same rear brakes that are
perfectly capable of locking the rear wheels in an emergency. It does
however take considerably more force than most people would normally
think of applying to the handbrake..

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:32:56 +0100, geoff wrote:

Anyway, I phoned around and found a chap who would do it for 60
quid.

once in 15 years, its not worth joining the RAC.

Always been my philosophy

Think how much I've saved in nearly 40 years of driving

How much does the lack of hassle cost in at?

Try phoning around to find a chap to come out, recover you and do the
repair late on a Sunday night when you are 200 miles from home and
don't know the area or it's garages. Or if the car will take a day or
two to repair getting you home or to a hotel and a hire car
delivered... Both paid for.

A wage slave can just phone up and say "the cars bust, I won't be
in", it doesn't matter to them they'll still get paid(*). A
freelancer doesn't get paid unless they do the work.

(*) Even if they have to use a couple of days paid holiday or pull a
sickie.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:32:56 +0100, geoff wrote:

Anyway, I phoned around and found a chap who would do it for 60
quid.
once in 15 years, its not worth joining the RAC.
Always been my philosophy

Think how much I've saved in nearly 40 years of driving

How much does the lack of hassle cost in at?

Try phoning around to find a chap to come out, recover you and do the
repair late on a Sunday night when you are 200 miles from home and
don't know the area or it's garages. Or if the car will take a day or
two to repair getting you home or to a hotel and a hire car
delivered... Both paid for.


That's when you join the AA and pay your 200 quid. :-)

A wage slave can just phone up and say "the cars bust, I won't be
in", it doesn't matter to them they'll still get paid(*). A
freelancer doesn't get paid unless they do the work.


If I was using a car for that kind of work - and I have - I would in
fact buy new(ish), because you will find that most cars not only come
with a warranty, but also come with a free breakdown recovery service.

Paid for by the manufacturer.



(*) Even if they have to use a couple of days paid holiday or pull a
sickie.


But even if it costs you say 500 quid to join the AA and hire a car
because the thing is irremediably borked, that's only the cost of 3
years of AA membership. If such breakdowns are more than once very three
years, you aren't treating your car to decent maintenance anyway.

I've only been stranded twice in the last 25 years, both ones oddly
enough in vauxhalls - and both times it was a bust cam belt, on cars
bought second hand where one would reasonably have expected the damned
things to have had them replaced under proper service schedules. Oh and
another time in a hired van, but that had its own breakdown service,.
Accelerator cable snapped. Fixed after 2 hours wait, at the roadside.

I COULD have used a bit of string..but it wasn't MY van..;-)

I am not saying that a breakdown recovery service is in all cases crap,
just that in most cases its not cost effective.If the car is new enough,
its in the warranty, if its old enough, the costs incurred in doing it
yourself are less than the costs of paying to join..

What transpires is that people join the AA as a way of NOT doing car
maintenance at all.

which is why its expensive.

Bit like the old company car thing, where a rep gets a shiny new ford
Mondeo, does 80,000 miles in it without a single service, and then it
gets traded in ..and sold as is to a punter.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


What transpires is that people join the AA as a way of NOT doing car
maintenance at all.

which is why its expensive.

I believe that you are only allowed so many call outs a year before they
stop your membership.

I actually do have breakdown cover due to the long distances I sometimes
travel and often with a disabled passenger. Over the years that I have had
cover I would have been better off banking my money and paying for a tow
truck for the two occasions that I have used them. Both recoveries were less
than 30miles and were not due to a lack of maintainance.

Adam

Spamlet wrote:


You may have got off lightly too. Plenty of places seem to insist that you
need new discs as well...

TBH replacing pads and disks is such a simple job that it's aggravating
to see what garages charge. Charging 1.5 hours to replace pads is a
rip-off. That's too long even if the job was to replace both front and
rear pads. It takes about 30 - 45 minutes to change every single pad on
the cars that I own, and I'm fussy anout cleaning everything in sight
while I do it. It is the sort of job that anyone with reasonable DIY
knowledge could do. With 90 minutes to spare I actually changed all four
calipers and pads on one of my cars. After all, all it needs is to
undo/redo a total of eight to 12 bolts (depending on the vehicle) and a
willingness to get one's hands slightly mucky. I've changed everything
in that area of the vehicle (bearings, disks, pads, change of brake
fluid) in an afternoon taking lots of time off for tea and pondering.
After all I'm not in a hurry and not getting paid.

On accasions when the job has needed doing and I have been too busy to
do it mself I've been charged up to £600 + VAT by a main dealer for
replacement of two disks and pads. If I buy all four disks, calipers and
pads from a motor factors, using original parts, I can expect to pay
£260 for the parts. The price of the calipers includes the brake pads.
The main dealer marks these prices up to three times the parts cost and
then charges almost as much again to fit them.

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

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:46:05 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

It's actually a secondary /tertiary brake, not a parking brake, although
it's normally used as such. Think of it as an emergency braking system
to be used in the event of the main system failing.

That depends on the car. The hand brake on mine really is only a
parking brake, it acts on the transmission not the rear brakes
directly. It's not designed to stop the vehicle when it's moving at
any speed.

There are always exceptions.
Frankly, I'm concerned about the number of cars there are on the road
where the handbrake is of limited or no use as an emergency brake
because for years the makers have been allowed to get away with the
fiction that dual-circuit brakes fill the requirements for primary and
secondary braking systems.
It is an utter fallacy that such systems work reliably.
Twice I've been in a car that suffered brake failure of one side of a
dual circuit braking system and guess what? - the pedal did buggerall
with the second circuit. On both those occasions I've been bloody glad
the handbrake existed and there wasn't much traffic about.

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

And even then, that seems exceptional. When I have looked it up
previously, it has always been suggested that "normal" life for a set
of front brake pads is around 15000 - 25000 miles, depending on the
style and type of driving.

I routinely get 60K+ from front pads, but then, I don't drive on the
brakes, touching them for every corner when it's quite unnecessary.

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

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

Utter ****ing ********.

That is a very unusual way to say "completely correct".

Which he was..

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

Are you stupid enough to believe that comment had any relevance
whatsoever to the previous one?

Here's an idea - why don't you **** off?

ARWadsworth wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


What transpires is that people join the AA as a way of NOT doing car
maintenance at all.

which is why its expensive.

I believe that you are only allowed so many call outs a year before they
stop your membership.

I actually do have breakdown cover due to the long distances I sometimes
travel and often with a disabled passenger. Over the years that I have had
cover I would have been better off banking my money and paying for a tow
truck for the two occasions that I have used them. Both recoveries were less
than 30miles and were not due to a lack of maintainance.


I agree.

I think that the AA/RAC is simply only justified if you know sod all
about cars, and the thought of being stranded somewhere without a
number to call bothers you.

In the snow earlier this year, as I drove carefully down a snowy road,
there was a car stick halfway up it. It wasn't a huge slope 1:30 maybe.

I stopped and enquired if she needed assistance 'I can't get up the
hill, but i have phoned my husband and he is on his way'

I was, to put it mildly, amazed. Has she thought of reversing back down
it, an turning around? or simply revering back a few feet, and trying a
different bit of snow? or even using the clutch a bit more sensibly?

Ok I had a 4WD but really, it wasn't THAT bad.

No, it was s pure reflex 'when stupidity exceeds competence, get a man in'

The AA make a fortune out of people like that.

IF you can get through to someone on a mobile, who has an internet
connection finding a tow truck and booking it, is not that hard. And for
a few quid more they will probably drop you near a train, or car hire
company.

And if it is truly life threatening, 999 is your friend




Adam

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

And even then, that seems exceptional. When I have looked it up
previously, it has always been suggested that "normal" life for a set
of front brake pads is around 15000 - 25000 miles, depending on the
style and type of driving.

I routinely get 60K+ from front pads, but then, I don't drive on the
brakes, touching them for every corner when it's quite unnecessary.

when I drove sports cars with gay abandon, I got about 10k out of a set.

When I started doing longer trips, 25k was about the mark

Driving auto's fairly carefully, 25k also seems the mark.

I dont recall changing pads on my defender in 55k miles, or the tyres,
either.

Brakes like clutches, wear according to driving style.

One of the joys of semi-retirement is that I am seldom under pressure to
get somewhere fast.

Nor am I forced to drive at times when heavy traffic may be expected, or
into that sink hole called London.All of which are heavy on braking.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Spamlet wrote:


You may have got off lightly too. Plenty of places seem to insist that
you
need new discs as well...

On accasions when the job has needed doing and I have been too busy to
do it mself I've been charged up to £600 + VAT by a main dealer for
replacement of two disks and pads.

I could replace my car for £600:-)

But even a non mechanic like me can swap a set of front pads in the street
in less than 1 hour using a trolley jack and a few basic tools. On a ramp
with air tools it is even easier.

I actually got the local garage to change the pads last time as it was in
for an MOT and it was minus 3 outside in the daytime. I supplied the pads
and they charged me half an hours labour. Well worth the money in those
temperatures. It was not much warmer in their garage.

Adam

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

You should *always* be in the right gear to accelerate away in.
Are you stupid enough to believe that comment had any relevance
whatsoever to the previous one?

Here's an idea - why don't you **** off?

Grimley is a man who always leaves his car in first gear when parked, so
its in the right gear to accelerate away next time he gets in.

His front bumper bears testimony to te fact that occasionally its a good
idea to depress the clutch before starting the engine, as well.

On 17 July, 10:39, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Locking the rear wheels is easy (FWD or RWD), but it won't give you
more than about 0.25g, as the weight's on the front.

My old Rover P6 used to give 0.5g on the handbrake at MOT time. But you
don't get weight transfer to the front wheels when only braking the rears

Not on a roller, but you will in any forward-travelling car.

On 17/07/2010 14:17 Cicero wrote:

My Green Flag cover (who wouldn't do the collection I wanted) costs about
£80-00 p.a. but it's still worth it for peace of mind.

Have a look at AutoAid - http://www.autoaidbreakdown.co.uk/

£35 per year for my wife and myself in any car.

No connection other than that of a (very) satisfied customer.

--
F

Steve Firth wrote:
Spamlet wrote:

You may have got off lightly too. Plenty of places seem to insist that you
need new discs as well...

TBH replacing pads and disks is such a simple job that it's aggravating
to see what garages charge. Charging 1.5 hours to replace pads is a
rip-off.

How much do you think the tools cost to do the job? How much the council
taxes for the premises? Staff bill? Public Insurance liability?
Electricity? Being blamed for the exhaust pipe falling off after
changing the spark plugs?

If being a mechanic is so easy you try having a go at it.

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:

Grimley is a man who always leaves his car in first gear when parked, so
its in the right gear to accelerate away next time he gets in.

No, for best acceleration, reverse.

His front bumper bears testimony to te fact that occasionally its a good
idea to depress the clutch before starting the engine, as well.

Bugger that, might wear the clutch bearing out.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


What transpires is that people join the AA as a way of NOT doing car
maintenance at all.

which is why its expensive.

I believe that you are only allowed so many call outs a year before they
stop your membership.

I actually do have breakdown cover due to the long distances I sometimes
travel and often with a disabled passenger. Over the years that I have
had cover I would have been better off banking my money and paying for a
tow truck for the two occasions that I have used them. Both recoveries
were less than 30miles and were not due to a lack of maintainance.


I agree.

I think that the AA/RAC is simply only justified if you know sod all about
cars, and the thought of being stranded somewhere without a number to
call bothers you.

One of the times I broke down was on the motorway. The police pulled up
behind me and warned me that I only had 1 hour to get off the hard shoulder
or they would arrange recovery for me and I would be billed for it. I am not
sure that if I am 200 or more miles away from home on a Mway that I would be
able to arrange recovery as easily as calling my breakdown company and
saying "help". So yes, the lack of a number bothers me when so far from
home.


When my clapped out Sierra (student days) decided to seize it's diff in
Tintwhistle I just left it and hitched a lift home. I never saw the car
again. I left the keys in the glovebox and called a scrap yard to take it
away the next morning and posted off the log book.

It is not always my van or car that I am driving. I am not sure that the
owners would like me to leave their car/van if it broke down and let me
hitch home.

Adam

"Albert" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
Spamlet wrote:

You may have got off lightly too. Plenty of places seem to insist that
you
need new discs as well...

TBH replacing pads and disks is such a simple job that it's aggravating
to see what garages charge. Charging 1.5 hours to replace pads is a
rip-off.

How much do you think the tools cost to do the job? How much the council
taxes for the premises? Staff bill? Public Insurance liability?
Electricity? Being blamed for the exhaust pipe falling off after changing
the spark plugs?

Steve did not question the hourly rate. He questioned the number of hours
that the garage charged for.

If being a mechanic is so easy you try having a go at it.

He did. And he can change his pads on a DIY basis on his car in less than 1
hour as can most people with a brain cell or two. So a garage charging 1.5
hours labour is a ripoff.

Adam