On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

On Oct 5, 9:09*pm, Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:
are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

I think we need to have an input from a member of the generation who
learnt to drive when brakes were really something you used in
emergency only as they were in general something that one day was
reliable and the next day not.

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

Brakes have improved - engines have become much more expensive to
maintain whereas brakes haven't and have improved no end in capability
so the logic is quite apparant, use the brakes - cheaper and
considerably more efficient.

"Hugh Jampton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move off. This
slows things down and is what the government wants. Presumably to make you
fed up and cease driving Look at these ridiculous speed limits and how long
the police take to open the road after an accident. If these safety people
really believed in safety, they would take on the car manufacturers who
design cars which make cars in which it is a workshop job to change a bulb.
Robbie

On 05/10/2011 21:09, Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

Why do you think gears are safer? Brakes act on all four wheels and the
brake lights warn the driver behind, who may be too close and/or not
paying attention.

On Oct 5, 9:51*pm, robgraham wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:09*pm, Hugh Jampton wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:
are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

I think we need to have an input from a member of the generation who
learnt to drive when brakes were really something you used in
emergency only as they were in general something that one day was
reliable and the next day not.

1920s? Not many cars like that still on the road.


My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. *The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

Brakes have improved - engines have become much more expensive to
maintain whereas brakes haven't and have improved no end in capability
so the logic is quite apparant, use the brakes - cheaper and
considerably more efficient.

I've never seen the point in going down through the gears, its easy
enough to go into gear if accceleration is needed. The one exception
is/was snowy/icy roads, where engine braking reduces the tendency to
skid, plus a rear wheel skid has a lot less impact on control than a 4
wheel skid. However with ABS now that's the other way round too,
leaving the only real use for engine braking being as a last resort
for brake failure. Which rarely happens on modern cars anyway. And few
people drive leaving enough space for brake failure any more.


NT

On 05/10/2011 22:08, Roberts wrote:
"Hugh wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't waste
time

You can change gear whilst using the brake, I do if I want to be ready
to move off quickly.

In article , Gareth
wrote:

On 05/10/2011 21:09, Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down, so they are
in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems
much safer to me.

Why do you think gears are safer? Brakes act on all four wheels and the
brake lights warn the driver behind, who may be too close and/or not
paying attention.

With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade' if
they got too hot. This happened if you were using them for an extended
peroid. The other reason for slowing the car with the aid of the gears is
that if you have to accelerate suddenly, you will be in the correct gear to
do so.

Slowing with the gears, used to be known as "engine braking". I understand
that if you change down a gear in a large Volvo when it is going somewhat
over the speed limit, you do indeed cause "engine breaking".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT), robgraham
wrote:

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

The Triumph Herald had brake bits made of low grade discarded chewing
gum. To get it through an MOT required precise timing. You parked it
with two wheels on the pavement just outside the garage and when your
car was summonsed you dived underneath it (that's why you parked with
two wheels on the pavement) and tightened the handbrake cable as much
as you could. With much squealing and scraping you drove the car in
for its test and hoped the mechanic didn't get any phone calls. With
no interruptions it might just stay tensioned for the 20 min's before
it was reached on the test sequence.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:13:46 +0100, Gareth wrote:

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

Why do you think gears are safer? Brakes act on all four wheels and the
brake lights warn the driver behind, who may be too close and/or not
paying attention.

Sorry - reading my post again I can see I didn't make myself clear.

I use a combination of brakes *and* gears to slow down - not just the
gears. As Robbie says - it's always handy to be in the correct gear.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:24:07 +0100
Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT), robgraham
wrote:

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

The Triumph Herald had brake bits made of low grade discarded chewing
gum. To get it through an MOT required precise timing. You parked it
with two wheels on the pavement just outside the garage and when your
car was summonsed you dived underneath it (that's why you parked with
two wheels on the pavement) and tightened the handbrake cable as much
as you could. With much squealing and scraping you drove the car in
for its test and hoped the mechanic didn't get any phone calls. With
no interruptions it might just stay tensioned for the 20 min's before
it was reached on the test sequence.


Funny, my Herald never had that problem in all its 112,000 miles. The
chassis rotted, but that was fixed.
--
Davey.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT), robgraham
wrote:

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

The Triumph Herald had brake bits made of low grade discarded chewing
gum. To get it through an MOT required precise timing. You parked it
with two wheels on the pavement just outside the garage and when your
car was summonsed you dived underneath it (that's why you parked with
two wheels on the pavement) and tightened the handbrake cable as much
as you could. With much squealing and scraping you drove the car in
for its test and hoped the mechanic didn't get any phone calls. With
no interruptions it might just stay tensioned for the 20 min's before
it was reached on the test sequence.


I had a Triumph herald, yours was broken.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:21:34 +0100, charles wrote:

Why do you think gears are safer? Brakes act on all four wheels
....

So does engine braking on my car. B-)

... and the brake lights warn the driver behind, who may be too
close
and/or not paying attention.

I tempted to say that is their problem but having nearly being caught
by a car with no working brakes lights... They where stopping to fast
to be on pure engine braking.

With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade'
if they got too hot.

You've not managed to fade a set of ventilated disc brakes then? Your
not trying hard enough. B-) I've done it and it's rather
disconcerting, the really hard bit is then nursing them once some
braking has come back so they don't fade on you again.

This happened if you were using them for an extended peroid.

My occasion was towards the bottom of a "sprited" decent down from
Hartside to Melmerby, about 1500' in 5 miles with fast straight
sections and sharp bends.

But yes people these days do seem to use the brakes in preference to
the engine. I guess this isn't too bad pootling aroud town but not so
good on long down hills. I don't think I've ever seen a car go down
Causey Hill in Hexham just on engine braking. It's a 30 limit and not
all that long or steep but everyone goes down on their brakes. Me?
3rd gear no throttle and it just potters down without gaining or
losing any speed or wearing the brakes out.

--
Cheers
Dave.

charles :
With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade' if
they got too hot.

I believe the same is true of disc brakes, though perhaps it's a bit
more difficult to get them "too hot".

--
Mike Barnes

On 05/10/2011 22:08, Roberts wrote:

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move off.

If you can do it properly, it's faster using the brakes to slow, then
change into the right gear to go again. And it's not hard to do it
properly, though quite a few people don't understand that it's a good idea.

In article ,
Hugh Jampton wrote:
Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

Makes autos very unsafe, then. ;-)

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

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

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:18:12 +0100, Clive George wrote:

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't
waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move
off.

If you can do it properly, it's faster using the brakes to slow, then
change into the right gear to go again.

Seems the modern driving technique only allows you to do one thing at
a time, I use the brakes and gears to slow down. On snow it'll be far
more engine braking, no chance of locking the wheels, still might
slide but you are in gear with still driven (aka revolving) wheels so
you have a much better chance of regaining control or have some
control.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 05/10/2011 23:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But yes people these days do seem to use the brakes in preference to
the engine. I guess this isn't too bad pootling aroud town but not so
good on long down hills. I don't think I've ever seen a car go down
Causey Hill in Hexham just on engine braking. It's a 30 limit and not
all that long or steep but everyone goes down on their brakes. Me?
3rd gear no throttle and it just potters down without gaining or
losing any speed or wearing the brakes out.

That's not using the gears to slow, it's maintaining speed using
throttle in the appropriate gear, and is sensible. I agree people
probably don't engine brake enough in such situations.

The bit I think is silly is when eg people approach a roundabout where
they can see they're going to have to stop, but still go
5th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st, rather than 5th, brake, clutch in, 1st before
it's time to go again. Substitute the appropriate gear for the speed
required after the slowing down part for different situations.

On 05/10/2011 23:49, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:18:12 +0100, Clive George wrote:

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't
waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move
off.

If you can do it properly, it's faster using the brakes to slow, then
change into the right gear to go again.

Seems the modern driving technique only allows you to do one thing at
a time, I use the brakes and gears to slow down. On snow it'll be far
more engine braking, no chance of locking the wheels, still might
slide but you are in gear with still driven (aka revolving) wheels so
you have a much better chance of regaining control or have some
control.

Same as the modern way - the car is still in gear. You spend less time
with the wheels not connected to the engine than you do if you're changing
through the box.

On 5 Oct,
Hugh Jampton wrote:



Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

For slowing I just take my foot of the accelerator (or release cruise
control). Brakes are a last resort if you are going too fast!

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:24:07 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT), robgraham
wrote:

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

The Triumph Herald had brake bits made of low grade discarded chewing
gum. To get it through an MOT required precise timing.

Snip

I had an A35 van which had mixed rod and cable brakes. The floor
rotted through around the rear mountings of the back springs, so I had
the floor welded up involving dismounting and re-mounting the rear
axle.

From that moment on, try as I might, it became impossible to adjust
the slack out of the rear brake cables. The workshop eventually had to
bodge it by fabricating a load of new`parts with completely different
dimensions.

45 years later it came to me in a flash of inspiration that the
metalworks must have re-mounted the rear axle 2-3cms forward of its
proper position, in effect shortening the length of the vehicle by
that amount.

Derek G

On Oct 5, 9:09*pm, Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:
are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?

Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

The brakes work on all four wheels and are cheaper to replace than
clutches.
This method has been taught for fifty years to my knowledge. Where
have you been?
Changing down is pointless. When you want to accelarate, go straight
to the gear you want and pull away.
I bet you religiously go1-2-3-4-5and 5-4-3-2-1 ? Learnt from your
dad/mate.
Load of old mans ********. I often skip a gear or two depending on the
gradient.

On 5 Oct, 23:18, Mike Barnes wrote:
charles :

With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade' if
they got too hot.

I believe the same is true of disc brakes, though perhaps it's a bit
more difficult to get them "too hot".

--
Mike Barnes

ISTR the Met Police Handbook recommended being in the right gear, at
the right speed, at the right time.

ISTR dipping the clutch whilst using the brakes (not obviously when
coming to a stop) was a fail in the driving test.

Using the gears to assist (not replace brakes) leaves one in better
control of the car.

The automatic gearbox in my 7 series can be felt changing down as the
speed reduces under braking.

The idea of slipping a car into neutral and applying the handbrake is
anti-deluvian IMHO. It infuriates me to sit at traffic light behind
one of those onanists.

Lights go green. Wow ! Wasn't expecting that. What do I do now ? Oh
yes. Put it in gear.Starts to fumble for first gear. Starts to fumble
for hand brake.

Streuth.

Spare me.

Paul Mc Cann

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:21:33 +0100
Derek Geldard wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:24:07 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT), robgraham
wrote:

My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes
to pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the
successfully passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty
useless, so yes you had to use the engine as a brake and double
declutching down a hill was a skilful task.

The Triumph Herald had brake bits made of low grade discarded chewing
gum. To get it through an MOT required precise timing.

Snip

I had an A35 van which had mixed rod and cable brakes. The floor
rotted through around the rear mountings of the back springs, so I had
the floor welded up involving dismounting and re-mounting the rear
axle.

From that moment on, try as I might, it became impossible to adjust
the slack out of the rear brake cables. The workshop eventually had to
bodge it by fabricating a load of new`parts with completely different
dimensions.

45 years later it came to me in a flash of inspiration that the
metalworks must have re-mounted the rear axle 2-3cms forward of its
proper position, in effect shortening the length of the vehicle by
that amount.

Derek G


You mean shortening the wheelbase, not the vehicle, surely?
--
Davey.

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:52:22 +0100, Davey
wrote:

You mean shortening the wheelbase, not the vehicle, surely?


I'm sure I would have noticed if they'd removed a 2 cms slice from the
body between the 2 axles, so yes, that must be it.

Derek G

On 06/10/2011 09:38, fred wrote:

The idea of slipping a car into neutral and applying the handbrake is
anti-deluvian IMHO. It infuriates me to sit at traffic light behind
one of those onanists.

You're the ******, but thanks for telling us anyway.

Lights go green. Wow ! Wasn't expecting that. What do I do now ? Oh
yes. Put it in gear.Starts to fumble for first gear. Starts to fumble
for hand brake.

Why don't you or they pay attention to the lights. There is enough time
as the lights change through amber to green to get the handbrake off and
the car moving.

Streuth.

So you sit there for what could be several minutes with one foot on the
brake and the other on the clutch just so you can jump the lights, not
caring that if you have been braking with the same enthusiasm as you
leap away from the lights you are probably warping your disks as they
differentially cool while the brakes are on and the car is stationary.

--
Roger Chapman

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Hugh Jampton wrote:
Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

Makes autos very unsafe, then. ;-)


On older automatics you can change down using the shifter.
I used to anyway because the box was so slow and dumb.
I have given up on my latest auto because the brakes and the gearbox are so
good.
Takes a lot of the fun away, though.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
charles :
With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade' if
they got too hot.

I believe the same is true of disc brakes, though perhaps it's a bit
more difficult to get them "too hot".

Disks will glow red if you use your brakes a lot.
They still appear to work when glowing red, so too hot will probably result
in warped disks rather than fading.

Of course there are some pretty cr@p pads out there (fakes, etc.) that will
fade, decent ones are a lot better.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:18:12 +0100, Clive George wrote:

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't
waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move
off.

If you can do it properly, it's faster using the brakes to slow, then
change into the right gear to go again.

Seems the modern driving technique only allows you to do one thing at
a time, I use the brakes and gears to slow down. On snow it'll be far
more engine braking, no chance of locking the wheels, still might
slide but you are in gear with still driven (aka revolving) wheels so
you have a much better chance of regaining control or have some
control.

Modern cars have ABS to stop you locking the wheels.
Not that you want ABS on when driving on snow as you want to lock the wheels
if you have to brake.
Talking of snow quick fit have 25% off winter tyres ATM.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:18:12 +0100, Clive George wrote:

If you are already in the right gear to move off, Then you don't
waste
timebut when you use the brakes you have select a gear and move
off.

If you can do it properly, it's faster using the brakes to slow, then
change into the right gear to go again.

Seems the modern driving technique only allows you to do one thing at
a time, I use the brakes and gears to slow down. On snow it'll be far
more engine braking, no chance of locking the wheels, still might
slide but you are in gear with still driven (aka revolving) wheels so
you have a much better chance of regaining control or have some
control.

Modern cars have ABS to stop you locking the wheels.
Not that you want ABS on when driving on snow as you want to lock the
wheels if you have to brake.
Talking of snow quick fit have 25% off winter tyres ATM.

ABS requires a level of rediual grip for the system to detect that the
wheels are starting to slip or are locked up but still gripping the surface.
If lock up your wheels in snow and ice then ABS is about as much use as a
proverbial.
It assumes that you have stopped as there is no feedback from the wheels to
suggest anything else.
I must disagree with your wish to lock wheels up in the snow - this just
sets you off down the road like a sledge, especially down hill with a steep
camber.

I have had a few scary moments with powerful automatics and ABS.
In gear, the tickover pushes you forward at a considerable speed and if you
brake then everything locks up and you slide.
The only way out I have found is to put the auto box into neutral and then
use the brakes.
In a manual car you have much more control as you can dip and slip the
clutch to adjust the amount of engine braking at the wheels.

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/10/2011 23:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But yes people these days do seem to use the brakes in preference to
the engine. I guess this isn't too bad pootling aroud town but not so
good on long down hills. I don't think I've ever seen a car go down
Causey Hill in Hexham just on engine braking. It's a 30 limit and not
all that long or steep but everyone goes down on their brakes. Me?
3rd gear no throttle and it just potters down without gaining or
losing any speed or wearing the brakes out.

That's not using the gears to slow, it's maintaining speed using throttle
in the appropriate gear, and is sensible. I agree people probably don't
engine brake enough in such situations.

It saves fuel too, modern engines don't use any in overrun.


The bit I think is silly is when eg people approach a roundabout where
they can see they're going to have to stop, but still go
5th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st, rather than 5th, brake, clutch in, 1st before
it's time to go again. Substitute the appropriate gear for the speed
required after the slowing down part for different situations.

That's because they aren't very good at driving and can't select the correct
gear quickly if circumstances change so they need to select the gears as
they go.

wrote in message ...
On 5 Oct,
Hugh Jampton wrote:



Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

For slowing I just take my foot of the accelerator (or release cruise
control). Brakes are a last resort if you are going too fast!

the brake pedal is a switch for those rear lights, no need to press it hard
enough to activate the servo most of the time.

Having said that I had to stand on the pedal last night when some halfwit
pulled out across me.
I nearly had the rear end remodelled as the bloke behind ended up halfway
alongside me.
Bloody women drivers.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/10/2011 23:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But yes people these days do seem to use the brakes in preference to
the engine. I guess this isn't too bad pootling aroud town but not so
good on long down hills. I don't think I've ever seen a car go down
Causey Hill in Hexham just on engine braking. It's a 30 limit and not
all that long or steep but everyone goes down on their brakes. Me?
3rd gear no throttle and it just potters down without gaining or
losing any speed or wearing the brakes out.

That's not using the gears to slow, it's maintaining speed using
throttle in the appropriate gear, and is sensible. I agree people
probably don't engine brake enough in such situations.

It saves fuel too, modern engines don't use any in overrun.

I noticed the other day that, according to my car's onboard computer, my
mpg was 999 in an overrun situation.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

NT wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, robgraham wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:09 pm, Hugh Jampton wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:
are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down,
so they are in the right gear at all times?
Google tells me :-
"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the thing
these days.
Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

I think we need to have an input from a member of the generation who
learnt to drive when brakes were really something you used in
emergency only as they were in general something that one day was
reliable and the next day not.

1920s? Not many cars like that still on the road.


My first vehicle (elderly in 1960) had brakes that were operated by
cables - I did a major rebuild on it and had to tune up the brakes to
pass the recently introduced MOT. The day following the successfully
passed MOT, the brakes were in all reality pretty useless, so yes you
had to use the engine as a brake and double declutching down a hill
was a skilful task.

Brakes have improved - engines have become much more expensive to
maintain whereas brakes haven't and have improved no end in capability
so the logic is quite apparant, use the brakes - cheaper and
considerably more efficient.

I've never seen the point in going down through the gears, its easy
enough to go into gear if accceleration is needed.

it takes at least half a second though.

I guess u never drove 'enthusiastically'
The one exception
is/was snowy/icy roads, where engine braking reduces the tendency to
skid, plus a rear wheel skid has a lot less impact on control than a 4
wheel skid.

...and were heavy handed on the brakes.


However with ABS now that's the other way round too,
leaving the only real use for engine braking being as a last resort
for brake failure. Which rarely happens on modern cars anyway. And few
people drive leaving enough space for brake failure any more.


NT

charles wrote:
In article , Gareth
wrote:

On 05/10/2011 21:09, Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:46:51 +0100, Dave wrote:

are they not taught to use the gear box for slowing down, so they are
in the right gear at all times?
Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems
much safer to me.

Why do you think gears are safer? Brakes act on all four wheels and the
brake lights warn the driver behind, who may be too close and/or not
paying attention.

With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to 'fade' if
they got too hot. This happened if you were using them for an extended
peroid. The other reason for slowing the car with the aid of the gears is
that if you have to accelerate suddenly, you will be in the correct gear to
do so.

happens with disks too.
just not so much.

Slowing with the gears, used to be known as "engine braking". I understand
that if you change down a gear in a large Volvo when it is going somewhat
over the speed limit, you do indeed cause "engine breaking".

dennis@home wrote:


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
charles :
With old fashioned drum brakes, there was a tendence for them to
'fade' if
they got too hot.

I believe the same is true of disc brakes, though perhaps it's a bit
more difficult to get them "too hot".

Disks will glow red if you use your brakes a lot.
They still appear to work when glowing red, so too hot will probably
result in warped disks rather than fading.

wrong.

Of course there are some pretty cr@p pads out there (fakes, etc.) that
will fade, decent ones are a lot better.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Hugh Jampton wrote:
Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems much
safer to me.

Makes autos very unsafe, then. ;-)

correct.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Hugh Jampton wrote:
Google tells me :-

"Gears are for going and the brakes are for slowing". Seems to be the
thing these days.

Crazy :-( I've always used gears for slowing and always will - seems
much
safer to me.

Makes autos very unsafe, then. ;-)

correct.

Incorrect. What makes *any* vehicle unsafe is the loose nut behind the
wheel. Autos are no worse than manuals, and I've driven enough of both
types, both as cars and coaches/ buses to know how to deal with their
foibles.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06/10/2011 12:02, David WE Roberts wrote:

Modern cars have ABS to stop you locking the wheels.
Not that you want ABS on when driving on snow as you want to lock the
wheels if you have to brake.
Talking of snow quick fit have 25% off winter tyres ATM.

ABS requires a level of rediual grip for the system to detect that the
wheels are starting to slip or are locked up but still gripping the
surface.

If lock up your wheels in snow and ice then ABS is about as much use as
a proverbial.
It assumes that you have stopped as there is no feedback from the wheels
to suggest anything else.

Modern ABS may well be more sophisticated but back in the 80s my first
ABS equipped car ran away down a steep snowy hill with next to no
retardation. OK so I could still steer but what good was that when the
gap between the rubbernecker parked at the bottom and the van coming the
other way was less than the width of my car.

I must disagree with your wish to lock wheels up in the snow - this just
sets you off down the road like a sledge, especially down hill with a
steep camber.

If you are sliding downhill in snow it is only the build-up of snow in
front of the wheels that gives you a chance of stopping.

--
Roger Chapman

On Oct 6, 12:25*pm, charles wrote:
In article om,
* *dennis@home wrote:



"Clive George" wrote in message
news:hqSdnQeFSJiSdRHTnZ2dnUVZ7s6dnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
On 05/10/2011 23:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But yes people these days do seem to use the brakes in preference to
the engine. I guess this isn't too bad pootling aroud town but not so
good on long down hills. I don't think I've ever seen a car go down
Causey Hill in Hexham just on engine braking. It's a 30 limit and not
all that long or steep but everyone goes down on their brakes. Me?
3rd gear no throttle and it just potters down without gaining or
losing any speed or wearing the brakes out.

That's not using the gears to slow, it's maintaining speed using
throttle in the appropriate gear, and is sensible. I agree people
probably don't engine brake enough in such situations.
It saves fuel too, modern engines don't use any in overrun.

I noticed the other day that, according to my car's onboard computer, my
mpg was 999 in an overrun situation.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

The vast majority of cars these days cut off the fuel on overrun, so
the mpg trip computer has a divide by zero error, the car is still
moving but using no fuel; most cars IMX present this as 999 like yours.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:51:22 -0700, robgraham wrote:
I think we need to have an input from a member of the generation who
learnt to drive when brakes were really something you used in emergency
only as they were in general something that one day was reliable and the
next day not.

I've got drums on all four wheels on the ('60s) truck, and no servo-
assist. Stopping it can be a little interesting at the best of times.
Engine braking is a bit more tricky too because it's a column-shift, so
it takes a little while to swap between gears (and there are only three
of them, and forget trying to put it into 1st above a couple of mph
anyway :-)

Never had anything with cable brakes, though. Most of my cars have been
'70s and at least had floor-shifters and discs on the front - even then
braking performance without using the engine in tandem with the wheel
brakes wasn't exactly impressive.

Brakes have improved - engines have become much more expensive to
maintain whereas brakes haven't and have improved no end in capability
so the logic is quite apparant, use the brakes - cheaper and
considerably more efficient.

TBH I'd expect to get 200,000mi out of a clutch these days, engine
braking or not. At that sort of mileage I'm not too worried about it, as
it's getting into the sort of territory where I'd start expecting other
component failures anyway.

OTOH, I %$^*ing hate changing brake pads, I really do - of all car
maintainance jobs it's always the one that never seems to go as smoothly
as I think it should!

cheers

Jules