On Oct 5, 8:51*pm, Lee wrote:
By which I meant engine braking is now considered deprecated, apparently.

Lee

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

On 05/10/2011 21:10, airsmoothed wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, wrote:
By which I meant engine braking is now considered deprecated, apparently.

Lee

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

That is pretty much what my driving instructor told me many years ago.
Using the brakes also has the advantage that the brake lights warn the
driver behind that you are slowing down, which using the gears does not.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

The clutch only wears when it's slipping. Unless you are riding the
clutch it won't be slipping... Fully pressed doesn't wear it either.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

The clutch only wears when it's slipping. Unless you are riding the
clutch it won't be slipping... Fully pressed doesn't wear it either.

No, it just screws the release bearing

On Oct 5, 9:10*pm, airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

If your engine braking involves using the clutch as a brake pad, then
you're doing it wrong.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:36:05 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Fully pressed doesn't wear it either.

Now in the good old days of carbon clutch release bearings..........

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:06:45 +0100, Gareth wrote:

On 05/10/2011 21:10, airsmoothed wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, wrote:
By which I meant engine braking is now considered deprecated, apparently.

Lee

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

That is pretty much what my driving instructor told me many years ago.
Using the brakes also has the advantage that the brake lights warn the
driver behind that you are slowing down, which using the gears does not.

Brake lights indicate that red lights are on, nothing else (same as
'indicators' - often left on or counter to the change of direction). Slowing
down on the clutch gives a proportional and infallible indication of
acceleration.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 05/10/2011 21:10, airsmoothed wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, wrote:
By which I meant engine braking is now considered deprecated, apparently.

Lee

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

Engine braking does not equal clutch wear.

In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

Engine braking does not equal clutch wear.

Unless you synchronise the engine speed *exactly* when changing down, it
does. And very very few do these days. It also means wear on the gearbox -
like say to the synchromesh clutches. Unless you double de-clutch
perfectly.

The most economical way is to anticipate stopping and let the inherent
friction do the job. Where you can. Unless you have some form of
re-generative braking.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

On Oct 6, 10:36*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Engine braking does not equal clutch wear.

Unless you synchronise the engine speed *exactly* when changing down, it
does.

No - it means the infinitesimal wear of using the clutch plate to
bring the engine rotating mass to a matching speed, then using the
engine as an air pump retarder, rather than a false assumption that
the engine speed is fixed and you're trying to decelerate the car to
match that.

In the 1980s there was a little-used semi-auto gearbox called the
Maxwell, with one clutch (of 4) per ratio, They never took off en
masse, but they were used successfully for buses. Although these were
admittedly wet clutches, it also had the unusual feature that you
could engage 1st & 2nd simultaneously, to act as a hydraulic retarder.
This is a useful feature in bus and coach work, and not something that
would be used if it accelerated clutch pack wear.


On a similar note, when did you last see a failed clutch release
bearing? Since these went to ball races rather than carbon, I've never
heard of a clutch problem caused by one.

In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:36 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Engine braking does not equal clutch wear.

Unless you synchronise the engine speed *exactly* when changing down, it
does.

No - it means the infinitesimal wear of using the clutch plate to
bring the engine rotating mass to a matching speed, then using the
engine as an air pump retarder, rather than a false assumption that
the engine speed is fixed and you're trying to decelerate the car to
match that.

In the 1980s there was a little-used semi-auto gearbox called the
Maxwell, with one clutch (of 4) per ratio, They never took off en
masse, but they were used successfully for buses. Although these were
admittedly wet clutches, it also had the unusual feature that you
could engage 1st & 2nd simultaneously, to act as a hydraulic retarder.
This is a useful feature in bus and coach work, and not something that
would be used if it accelerated clutch pack wear.


On a similar note, when did you last see a failed clutch release
bearing?

since you ask - 1968 on my Anglia.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

I suggest you learn to drive.

You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.



The clutch only wears when it's slipping. Unless you are riding the
clutch it won't be slipping...

Precisely.

It would have to be very precise not to have additional wear on the drive
train.
Even a small difference in road speed to engine speed will wear the plates
and the synchromesh with each additional gear change.
I suggest you learn how stuff works.


Fully pressed doesn't wear it either.

Although it does wear the release bearing.

Fully pressed does wear the plates as there is no such thing as a completely
disengaged clutch, the friction between the plates may not be enough to move
the car but it will wear, slowly.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:

[Snip]

Fully pressed does wear the plates as there is no such thing as a
completely disengaged clutch, the friction between the plates may not be
enough to move the car but it will wear, slowly.

ah well, I've so far got 103,000 miles out my current clutch and over
110,000 on a previous car and I use the gears box as well as brakes for
slowing down, particularly before a corner.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

dennis@home wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

I suggest you learn to drive.

You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.


wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.



The clutch only wears when it's slipping. Unless you are riding the
clutch it won't be slipping...

Precisely.

It would have to be very precise not to have additional wear on the
drive train.
Even a small difference in road speed to engine speed will wear the
plates and the synchromesh with each additional gear change.
I suggest you learn how stuff works.


Fully pressed doesn't wear it either.

Although it does wear the release bearing.

Fully pressed does wear the plates as there is no such thing as a
completely disengaged clutch, the friction between the plates may not be
enough to move the car but it will wear, slowly.

wrong as usual.

charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:

[Snip]

Fully pressed does wear the plates as there is no such thing as a
completely disengaged clutch, the friction between the plates may not be
enough to move the car but it will wear, slowly.

ah well, I've so far got 103,000 miles out my current clutch and over
110,000 on a previous car and I use the gears box as well as brakes for
slowing down, particularly before a corner.

Dennis is on form today. Ever statement he has made is completely wrong.

On 06/10/2011 10:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:
Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.

Engine braking does not equal clutch wear.

Unless you synchronise the engine speed *exactly* when changing down, it
does. And very very few do these days.

Unless you make a ham-fisted effort, it won't be a lot. Put it this way,
I routinely engine-brake. The only replacement clutch I've had was on a
car that had 80k on the clock when I bought it. I *do* match the speeds,
to some degree or another, though.

It also means wear on the gearbox -
like say to the synchromesh clutches. Unless you double de-clutch
perfectly.


True, and hardly anyone will DDC these days. But how much *additional*
wear over not doing it. Again, I've never had to replace a manual
gearbox, apart from the one with a CV-shaped hole in it (long story).

The most economical way is to anticipate stopping and let the inherent
friction do the job. Where you can. Unless you have some form of
re-generative braking.

Indeed. I was more aiming at the popular misconception that engine
braking involves slipping the clutch against an idling engine in order
to use it as a brake. That's clearly madness- brake pads are much
cheaper and designed for it.

On 06/10/2011 14:33, Huge wrote:

You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.


wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.

Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

ISTR comments about one F1 driver nursing it home recently doing such
things, but that was very much an exception.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.

Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.


suggest you watch an F1 race.

how DO you think they charge the KERS?

How DO you think they are already on the throttle mid corner as well.

Engine marking is part of the package. You always change down to keep
revs in the max power band whilst braking as well.

Same goes for anyone really trying in a road car.


Fully pressed does wear the plates as there is no such thing as a
completely disengaged clutch, the friction between the plates may not be
enough to move the car but it will wear, slowly.
wrong as usual.

Indeed.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:07:11 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace
than clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to
brake, I suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.

Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.


suggest you watch an F1 race.

I do, frequently.

how DO you think they charge the KERS?


Charging the KERS involves using a generator as part of the braking
system, but it does not use the engine.

How DO you think they are already on the throttle mid corner as well.

Same as on a road car, I don't see the problem.

Engine marking is part of the package. You always change down to keep
revs in the max power band whilst braking as well.


Agreed, as I stated earlier, but that doesn't mean that the engine is
used as a brake.

Same goes for anyone really trying in a road car.


Agreed.

--
Davey.

Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2011 14:33, Huge wrote:

You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.


wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.

Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

ISTR comments about one F1 driver nursing it home recently doing such
things, but that was very much an exception.
I am aghast..

They *always* use the engine as part of the braking.

The aero does more, the brakes do still more.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2011 14:33, Huge wrote:

You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.
Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.
ISTR comments about one F1 driver nursing it home recently doing such
things, but that was very much an exception.

Well, quite.


nursing is an exception, but not using the engine as part of braking.

if you watch ANY race with in car cameras you can hear the engine
note..NEVER is it 'coasting in neutral'- in fact neutral is very hard
to find on a paddle shift.

Davey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:07:11 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace
than clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to
brake, I suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.
Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

suggest you watch an F1 race.

I do, frequently.
how DO you think they charge the KERS?


Charging the KERS involves using a generator as part of the braking
system, but it does not use the engine.

How DO you think they are already on the throttle mid corner as well.

Same as on a road car, I don't see the problem.

Engine marking is part of the package. You always change down to keep
revs in the max power band whilst braking as well.


Agreed, as I stated earlier, but that doesn't mean that the engine is
used as a brake.

It doesn't mean it isn't part of it either.


Same goes for anyone really trying in a road car.


Agreed.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace than
clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to brake, I
suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.
Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

suggest you watch an F1 race.

I suggest you go and get some proper performance driving tuition before
you pontificate about it in public.



dukie I got that years ago.

"Chris Bartram" wrote in message
...

Indeed. I was more aiming at the popular misconception that engine braking
involves slipping the clutch against an idling engine in order to use it
as a brake. That's clearly madness- brake pads are much cheaper and
designed for it.

I've never heard that one from anyone else, can't be very popular.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Davey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:07:11 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace
than clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to
brake, I suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.
Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

suggest you watch an F1 race.

I do, frequently.
how DO you think they charge the KERS?


Charging the KERS involves using a generator as part of the braking
system, but it does not use the engine.

How DO you think they are already on the throttle mid corner as well.

Same as on a road car, I don't see the problem.

Engine marking is part of the package. You always change down to keep
revs in the max power band whilst braking as well.


Agreed, as I stated earlier, but that doesn't mean that the engine is
used as a brake.

It doesn't mean it isn't part of it either.

You really don't have a clue..
you want maximum braking at the latest time you can get away with it.
Using the brakes means you get maximum braking.
If you then apply engine braking as well you lock up the drive wheels and
get less braking and less control.
If you ease off on the brakes to avoid the drive wheels locking up you don't
get maximum braking.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I suggest you go and get some proper performance driving tuition before
you pontificate about it in public.



dukie I got that years ago.


I bet they went bust.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Davey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:07:11 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-05, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT), airsmoothed wrote:

Given that brakes are generally much much cheaper to replace
than clutches these days then I'd rather use the brakes.
I suggest you learn to drive.
You won't find any high performance driver using the engine to
brake, I suppose they need to learn to drive too.

wrong..they are the one type that regularly does.
Wrong. No performance driver ever engine brakes.

suggest you watch an F1 race.

I do, frequently.
how DO you think they charge the KERS?


Charging the KERS involves using a generator as part of the braking
system, but it does not use the engine.

How DO you think they are already on the throttle mid corner as well.

Same as on a road car, I don't see the problem.

Engine marking is part of the package. You always change down to
keep revs in the max power band whilst braking as well.


Agreed, as I stated earlier, but that doesn't mean that the engine is
used as a brake.

It doesn't mean it isn't part of it either.

You really don't have a clue..
you want maximum braking at the latest time you can get away with it.
Using the brakes means you get maximum braking.
If you then apply engine braking as well you lock up the drive wheels
and get less braking and less control.
If you ease off on the brakes to avoid the drive wheels locking up you
don't get maximum braking.



Wrong
No performance driver EVER doesn't have the engine NOT connected to the
driving wheels except for the briefest time when changing gear and no
performance driver EVER has the engine anywhere near idle at any
time..the RPM is ALWAYS 'on the cam' and ready for maximum power.


In 30 years off watching motorsport the sole exception I can recall is
qualifying 1000 bhp+ turbo cars where blipping the throttle with the
clutch depressed mid corner helped the turbos keep spinning.

Engine braking is part of the mix always.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Wrong
No performance driver EVER doesn't have the engine NOT connected to the
driving wheels except for the briefest time when changing gear and no
performance driver EVER has the engine anywhere near idle at any
time..the RPM is ALWAYS 'on the cam' and ready for maximum power.

What's that got to do with engine braking?
You do know what engine braking is?




In 30 years off watching motorsport the sole exception I can recall is
qualifying 1000 bhp+ turbo cars where blipping the throttle with the
clutch depressed mid corner helped the turbos keep spinning.

Again what's that got to do with engine braking?


Engine braking is part of the mix always.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Wrong
No performance driver EVER doesn't have the engine NOT connected to
the driving wheels except for the briefest time when changing gear and
no performance driver EVER has the engine anywhere near idle at any
time..the RPM is ALWAYS 'on the cam' and ready for maximum power.

What's that got to do with engine braking?
You do know what engine braking is?


Its using the engine to slow the car down dennis.





In 30 years off watching motorsport the sole exception I can recall is
qualifying 1000 bhp+ turbo cars where blipping the throttle with the
clutch depressed mid corner helped the turbos keep spinning.

Again what's that got to do with engine braking?


the engine is used as part of the braking dennis.

That's what 'engine braking;' means as opposed to having the clutch
depressed or the gearbox in neutral, where there is no engine braking.