geoff wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I have towed and have been towed by rope, I prefer to be the tug.
When being towed you are *very* close to the tug and really have to
concentrate looking past the tug so you can anticipate the tug
slowing and keep the rope taught. The tug just (ha!) has to remember
that the rope might be slack and pull off very gently until they
feel the weight come on or can see that the towed vehicle is moving.

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

That's why I would not tow another electrician home when his van packed in.
I have been a passenger when he is driving - wrong lane at roundabouts, an
emergency stop every 20 miles and a ride that you would pay money for if you
were in Alton Towers.

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

I've already promised you that if you turn into dennis I'll shoot you.
That's what friends are for.

--
Adam

dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I have towed and have been towed by rope, I prefer to be the tug.
When being towed you are *very* close to the tug and really have to
concentrate looking past the tug so you can anticipate the tug
slowing and keep the rope taught. The tug just (ha!) has to
remember that the rope might be slack and pull off very gently
until they feel the weight come on or can see that the towed
vehicle is moving.

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

They are starting to realise how stupid you and a few of the others
are. Next you will be saying its OK to ram others while towing if
they aren't doing 90 mph.

Why dont you go and set fire to an induction hob?

--
Adam

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:15:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
geoff wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

I can concur, after having the pressure hose split on my old 3500 auto
SD1. I was doing a fair lick along the M27 one night, doing well over
the limit. Went to turn off at Fareham and no response, I missed the
turn off. Needed muscles like Popeye to manouevre, especially at slow
speeds.

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I have towed and have been towed by rope, I prefer to be the tug.
When being towed you are *very* close to the tug and really have to
concentrate looking past the tug so you can anticipate the tug
slowing and keep the rope taught. The tug just (ha!) has to remember
that the rope might be slack and pull off very gently until they feel
the weight come on or can see that the towed vehicle is moving.

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

They are starting to realise how stupid you and a few of the others are.
Next you will be saying its OK to ram others while towing if they
aren't doing 90 mph.


No dennis, really I won't, believe me

you really are a ****wit, aren't you

--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.
--
hugh

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"Nightjar" wrote in message
m...

I have read that rigid tow bars are, however, a requirement when
towing on a motorway, but have not found the relevant legislation.

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways..

Well - having been shown to be wrong by several people are you going to
admit that you are wrong on this point?


there is a maximum of 4.5 m of rope allowed..
you can't reach the minimum speed limit without being done for
dangerous driving with only 4.5 m of spacing.

You're not driving (the engine is not running), you are being towed



Stay off the roads dennis - you're not safe

--
geoff

On 10/10/2011 20:54, hugh wrote:

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Was the one without PS designed for it with the quicker rack they
typically have, or did it have a rack designed for manual steering?
That's where the difference comes from.

On 10/10/2011 21:05, Clive George wrote:
On 10/10/2011 20:54, hugh wrote:

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Was the one without PS designed for it with the quicker rack they
typically have, or did it have a rack designed for manual steering?
That's where the difference comes from.

s/rack/other steering gear/ as appropriate for a landy :-)

On 07/10/2011 14:32, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:58:19 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
wrote:
'Its potentially dangerous,' as is all driving. Its just stating the
completely obvious, at least to any person capable of driving. Any
towee will be aware of the risks of travelling very close to the
vehicle in front, with no ability to see ahead if its a van, no ability
to steer one's course or even stop the combined vehicles.

The big snag is most vehicles have both power steering and brakes. One
being towed with the engine stopped will have neither. So towing with a
rope should be done with great caution - and only if both drivers have
experience of doing so.

And don't do what a friend of mine once did, and forget to put the key in
the ignition of the towed vehicle to release the steering column lock ;-)
Apparently he managed a quite graceful drift into the side of a parked
van.

I had a friend with a Fiesta, who's electrics failed in heavy snow. His
dad came out to tow him home, but with no wipers, he couldn't see and of
course he had no lights, so he couldn't flash and no horn, so he
couldn't attract his father's attention. He tried to brake, but as he
was being towed by a V8 Rangerover, he was just dragged home!

ISTR it feels a bit strange at first from the POV of the person in the
towed vehicle, having to start slowing down before the tow vehicle has in
order to keep the rope taut and avoid too much stress when pulling away
again; it's easy to break a rope...

BTDT, but more recently I towed my dad's Citroen C5 with my Focus, using
a solid bar - far, far better for both drivers. The bar strips down to
three pieces to fit in the boot too. I have yet to try the bars with a
damper in the middle though.

SteveW

In article ,

[Snip]

BTDT, but more recently I towed my dad's Citroen C5 with my Focus, using
a solid bar - far, far better for both drivers. The bar strips down to
three pieces to fit in the boot too. I have yet to try the bars with a
damper in the middle though.


and the source of said solid bar?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 08/10/2011 13:19, NT wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:25 am, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:37:11 -0700 (PDT)



wrote:
On Oct 7, 4:24 pm, wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
o.uk, Dave
wrote:
The big snag is most vehicles have both power steering and
brakes. One being towed with the engine stopped will have
neither.

Well it will, I don't think a vechicle that had absolutely no
steering or brakes without the engine running would be allowed
on the road.

Neither *power* steering or brakes. Didn't say no steering or
brakes *at all* Although to some it might appear just like that.

and worse, after an hour, in fog, no lights either...

It depends on what the fault is. Possibly the engine/alternator
still works.

but, strickly speaking, the towed vehicle is a trailer and would
need a "trailer" lighting bar at the back - powered from the towing
one.

If you put the engine in high gear, with ignition switched off, you
get power brakes and electricity.

NT

That depends on why the tow is taking place. If most towing is done
because of engine or gearbox failure, this could cause a lot more
damage. If it is because of anything to do with most other
mechanicals, you shouldn't be towing it.

I dont know what percentage of tows are due to spark or fuel mix
failure, but I expect its not far off 100%.

I've been towed three times (a fair few more as a passenger), have been
in the tow car many more times and have been driving the tow car a
couple of times. Once was due to electrical failure, once was due to a
fuel problem (blocked jet) and the rest were a whole variety, including:
stripped cam-belts, con-rod through the crank-case, clutch slave
cylinder failure, fan failure (putting a blade through the radiator) and
even stripping the threads on the cylinder head studs!

Mechanical failures seem to result in towing, electrical and fuel can
often be fixed at the roadside.

SteveW

On 08/10/2011 16:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
But Dave Plowman has already made the main point. It's no good trying
to tow unless both of the drivers know what they are doing. If they
do then you can cover a good distance with a tow rope and without a
problem.


Just don't do it with an automatic as the towed vehicle.

The trick is to overfill the gearbox so the gears and bearings are
submerged in ATF. And tow slowly. Or, of course, remove the propshaft if
RWD.

I can't remember which car or exactly how it worked, but I have heard of
one automatic where there were pumps connected to both input and output
shafts, making it possible to tow or even bump start.

SteveW

On 07/10/2011 16:39, Ret. wrote:
In ,
says...

In whill.co.uk,
Dave wrote:
The big snag is most vehicles have both power steering and brakes. One
being towed with the engine stopped will have neither.

Well it will, I don't think a vechicle that had absolutely no
steering or brakes without the engine running would be allowed on the
road.

Neither *power* steering or brakes. Didn't say no steering or brakes *at
all* Although to some it might appear just like that.

Indeed. Some years ago I bought a nearly-new VX Omega that had a problem
with its 'idle air control valve'. The symptom would be that the engine
would cut out on the over-run - and it would happen without warning and,
because the engine is quiet on the over-run, I wasn't even aware that
the engine had stopped the first time it happened. I was slowing down
for a bend, the engine stopped, I tried to turn the wheel into the bend
and for one horrible moment I thought that the steering had seized
because the wheel just wouldn't turn with normal effort. Quite
frightening...

A friend of mine had a company car that cut-out suddenly on a
roundabout. The garage said there was nothing wrong, but a week later
the same thing happened and he hit the kerb, wrecking the suspension.
They finally found a damaged wire that was intermittently causing a
problem on right-hand turns.

SteveW

On 10/10/2011 20:54, hugh wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

You are forgetting the different gearing. I don't know current ratios,
but one set that I do remember from the 80s was non-PS 4.15 turns lock
to lock, whereas a PS rack was 2.1 and that makes a big difference. On
top of that, the PS racks are a lot stiffer when not powered, making a
failed PS setup extremely hard to turn, the PS is usually standard on
the heavier models with wider wheels and smaller, sporty, steering
wheels may be used. I know that at low speeds, my wife would be totally
unable to turn the wheel on my Focus 1.8 TDCI if it weren't for the PS.

SteveW

On 10/10/2011 22:22, charles wrote:
In ,

[Snip]

BTDT, but more recently I towed my dad's Citroen C5 with my Focus, using
a solid bar - far, far better for both drivers. The bar strips down to
three pieces to fit in the boot too. I have yet to try the bars with a
damper in the middle though.


and the source of said solid bar?

Just about any car parts shop. Even Halfords.

http://tinyurl.com/67zhqlo

Although the one we used was borrowed from my uncle and seemed stronger.

SteveW

hugh wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Defenders have very low ratio racks.

Try a heavy performance car with fat tyres and a quick rack like an XJS. :-(

DANGEROUSLY undrivable

Clive George wrote:
On 10/10/2011 20:54, hugh wrote:

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Was the one without PS designed for it with the quicker rack they
typically have, or did it have a rack designed for manual steering?
That's where the difference comes from.

Defenders have recirculating ball 'worm' boxes..not a rack IIRC.

e.g.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAND-ROVER-DEFENDER-RHD-PAS-STEERING-BOX-4BOLT-OE-/370439244613?pt=UK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM& hash=item563fe64b45

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.


No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Perhaps I explained it badly. Have you tried a power steering one with the
power assistance not working? That is *way* heavier than the non PS
version - even when the gearing is similar. Due, I assume, to the friction
of the seals, etc.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The trick is to overfill the gearbox so the gears and bearings are
submerged in ATF. And tow slowly. Or, of course, remove the propshaft
if RWD.

I can't remember which car or exactly how it worked, but I have heard of
one automatic where there were pumps connected to both input and output
shafts, making it possible to tow or even bump start.

A propshaft driven second pump was common once upon a time. But I dunno of
any modern auto with one. Last car i had with that was a '67 P6 Rover
2000. The 3500 version - with nominally the same B-W 35 box didn't have
one.

Not a good idea to tow start such an auto - it will likely run into the
tow car when it starts. Push starts were recommended - you'll sometimes
see this in old US films.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

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

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:25:39 +0100, geoff wrote:

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

Pah. Wait until you have to drive a towed car with mole grips in place
of a steering wheel.

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:25:39 +0100, geoff wrote:

As I said, both drivers must know what they're doing.

Hardly the case when I needed towing halfway across the country

soon picked it up, hardly rocket science

more of a case of ****wits need not apply, I think

You re all turning into Dennis clones, I fear

Pah. Wait until you have to drive a towed car with mole grips in place
of a steering wheel.


Why would you want to do that ?

Every schoolboy comic tells you that if the steering wheel comes off you
just push it back on the splines again

I did gewt towed halfway across Wales when my Enfield broke down and
bugger me, if the ******* thing didn't fire up as son as I got it home


--
geoff

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:24:59 +0100, geoff wrote:

Pah. Wait until you have to drive a towed car with mole grips in place
of a steering wheel.


Why would you want to do that ?

Every schoolboy comic tells you that if the steering wheel comes off you
just push it back on the splines again

And if the steering whelk is missing?

I did gewt towed halfway across Wales when my Enfield broke down and
bugger me, if the ******* thing didn't fire up as son as I got it home

A mate's big dumb brother pushed a Vespa 150 for ten miles home. When
we looked at it, the wire to the coil had come off.

On Oct 11, 1:13*am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

Pah. Wait until you have to drive a towed car with mole grips in place
of a steering wheel.

Mole grips? You were lucky!

You need to try it with reins lad! When I were a nipper, I had to
drive the steam roller home from Halifax every night, and getting
beaten with a wet kipper all the way back. A plate of crushed asbestos
for supper, and we thought we were lucky.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:24:59 +0100, geoff wrote:
Every schoolboy comic tells you that if the steering wheel comes off you
just push it back on the splines again

It can be done, at least on a basket-case student Renault 5 (I think that
qualifies as my "most worried moment as a car passenger"!)

cheers

Jules

On Oct 11, 1:27*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:

It can be done, at least on a basket-case student Renault 5 (I think that
qualifies as my "most worried moment as a car passenger"!)

The traditional form of this is to wake up a sleeping front seat
passenger and agitatedly hand them a steering wheel with the cry,
"It's come off!"

It takes them _ages_ before they realise you're still using a
perfectly good one that's still attached, and that you've thoughtfully
brought a spare with you...


Also works for handbrake levers when parking on hills, or the advanced
form can use a distributor cap or brake fluid reservoir when already
blasting along a motorway. "Oh, this fell off at the last services"

On Oct 11, 12:38*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *hugh ] wrote:

A vehicle with power steering is far heavier to steer when the
assistance fails than the same vehicle fitted without power steering.

No **** sherlock

It doesn't seem to have occurred to most. And I also doubt many have had
the opportunity to do this comparison. I have.

Well so have I. RAF Land Rover Defenders playing on their off-road
course, one with PS one without. Sure the one without was a bit heavier
but even the girls could drive it around without too much trouble.

Perhaps I explained it badly.

It was perfectly clear.

MBQ

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:10:55 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
NT wrote:
Yes, they've dropped to the point of being useless to stop a car.
Someone somewhere must have naively believed the idea that dual
circuits brakes dont fail if one circuit leaks. I can assure you they
do.

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:19:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
AIUI, they've never needed to be independent. At one time they had to
have an independent operating system, which was interpreted to mean
separate calipers (or even drums!) when rear disks first appeared.

It dated back before discs. Dunlop disc brakes used a separate calliper.
Probably to save money since their systems were very expensive to make.
But other makers soon made rear calipers with a built in handbrake
mechanism. The drum inside a disc type is later still. However, as I
said, plenty older cars had a lot of shared parts. Far more than just
the shoes/pads drums/discs.

Can't speak for all, but saw a Jag (XJ40 ???) which had a rear disc foot
brake, but the inside of the disc formed a drum for the handbrake with
separate shoes


This was then re-worded to an independent actuating mechanism, allowing
the now-common system of shared rear calipers. Oddly this never seems
to have been an issue of confusion when rear drums shared shoes.

Independently actuated just seems to refer to a mechanical brake rather
than hydraulic.

There has certainly never been a need for a "hand" brake. Foot parking
brakes go back to the 1900s

Indeed. A better name is parking brake.

A comment our MOT tester used to make when I saw the difference between
the foot braking force and hand braking force ...

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:12:28 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"NT" wrote in message
news:6c02f681-c1f2-433e-
...
On Oct 8, 12:33 am, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:40:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

I have read that rigid tow bars are, however, a requirement when
towing
on a motorway, but have not found the relevant legislation.

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways..

What is it?

I always understood it was 30. He's allowed to be right once a
century.

You aren't allowed on if the vehicle can't do 25 MPH IIRC (there must
be exceptions as some loads that travel on the motorway are slower than
that). Of course you can drive slower than that if conditions demand
it. But that is true even if the road has minimum speed limit signs
(blue
speed sign).

And the minimum speed on a motorway is?

£50 says you will go into worm mode rather than admit you were wrong.

A simple "I was wrong, there is no minimum speeed on the Motorway" will
suffice.

Being charitable, maybe the poster has confused the fact there exists
signage in the UK for minimum speed limits, with the existence of such
things ?

In article , Jethro wrote:

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....

Been there, done that, had the AA Relay van turn up without having to have
a patrol check it really wasn't a roadside repair first....
(It didn't just leak a bit past the seal - the casting had cracked.)

In article ,
Jethro wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....

Some have a diagonal split, so that wouldn't make any difference.

--
*The statement above is false

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

In article ,
Jethro wrote:
Indeed. A better name is parking brake.

A comment our MOT tester used to make when I saw the difference between
the foot braking force and hand braking force ...

It could be the parking brake friction material is optimised for holding
rather than sliding friction.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

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

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:34:42 +0100, Alan Braggins wrote:

In article , Jethro wrote:

If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...

Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....

Been there, done that, had the AA Relay van turn up without having to
have a patrol check it really wasn't a roadside repair first.... (It
didn't just leak a bit past the seal - the casting had cracked.)

Oooooh, never seen that ... most common reason was corrosion/scoring on
the inside due to crud, invariably due to old brake fluid ...

On 07/10/2011 19:32, NT wrote:
On Oct 7, 4:02 pm, "Dave Plowman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The big snag is most vehicles have both power steering and brakes. One
being towed with the engine stopped will have neither. So towing with
a rope should be done with great caution - and only if both drivers
have experience of doing so.
The only time I was towed with a rope was nearly 40 years ago, and it
was bloody frightening. I don't normally drive less than a car's length
behind the vehicle in front.

Which is why both drivers need to be experienced at such things. The
towing driver realising speed must be kept low regardless of holding up
other traffic.

If the tower forgets that, the towee's brakes can end up overheating
so badly they fail. The result is predictable.

To prevent that is simple. The driver of the towed car should put it in
gear and hold the clutch down until he needs to slow the car.

Dave

On Oct 11, 2:56*pm, Jethro wrote:

Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....

Unless it's a Citroen (LHM mineral fluid) or a recent silicone fluid,
the effect of DOT 3 fluids on friction surfaces is less trouble than
the loss of hydraulic pressure.

On Oct 11, 3:06*pm, Jethro wrote:

Being charitable, maybe the poster has confused the fact there exists
signage in the UK for minimum speed limits, with the existence of such
things ?

There certainly are such things. Some of them are on motorways.
However they're not on motorways by default, and _unless_ signed.

Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:34:42 +0100, Alan Braggins wrote:

In article , Jethro wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the other
fails. Of course if one has already failed...
Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....
Been there, done that, had the AA Relay van turn up without having to
have a patrol check it really wasn't a roadside repair first.... (It
didn't just leak a bit past the seal - the casting had cracked.)

Oooooh, never seen that ... most common reason was corrosion/scoring on
the inside due to crud, invariably due to old brake fluid ...


There are a number of failures that are not common enough for one person
in ten to see them in a lifetime.

For instance, I had a clamp diode go in a 16 year old XJS that removed
the power steering and power brakes. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I personally have never ever had a steering rack go - stripped - yet I
know of one woman who had three...do that. I hesitate to comment on her
driving style.

I've seen something on our potholed roads that is totally rare in
suburbia..damaged wheels and tyres.

Red hot brakes and a cold puddle and a flawed casting..its possible.

You probably wont ever see a siezed Mcpherson top bearing in this
country. (where you wind up the springs every time you turn a corner)
yet I drove my GFs Datsun like that for over a year in Africa..think dust.

Dave wrote:
On 07/10/2011 19:32, NT wrote:
On Oct 7, 4:02 pm, "Dave Plowman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The big snag is most vehicles have both power steering and brakes. One
being towed with the engine stopped will have neither. So towing with
a rope should be done with great caution - and only if both drivers
have experience of doing so.
The only time I was towed with a rope was nearly 40 years ago, and it
was bloody frightening. I don't normally drive less than a car's length
behind the vehicle in front.

Which is why both drivers need to be experienced at such things. The
towing driver realising speed must be kept low regardless of holding up
other traffic.

If the tower forgets that, the towee's brakes can end up overheating
so badly they fail. The result is predictable.

To prevent that is simple. The driver of the towed car should put it in
gear and hold the clutch down until he needs to slow the car.


...as long as the reason its being towed isn't a rod through the block :-)

Dave

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:03:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:34:42 +0100, Alan Braggins wrote:

In article , Jethro wrote:
If it were a hydraulic failure, the idea is one will work if the
other fails. Of course if one has already failed...
Unless the wheel cylinder leaked and ****ed brake fluid all over the
shoes ....
Been there, done that, had the AA Relay van turn up without having to
have a patrol check it really wasn't a roadside repair first.... (It
didn't just leak a bit past the seal - the casting had cracked.)

Oooooh, never seen that ... most common reason was corrosion/scoring on
the inside due to crud, invariably due to old brake fluid ...


There are a number of failures that are not common enough for one person
in ten to see them in a lifetime.


Had a car come in once, the alternator light wasn't coming on with the
ignition. After 3 exchange alternators we discovered the wire for the
alternator and oil pressure had been swapped ...

On 08/10/2011 16:12, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:28:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In the UK, handbrakes have always had to be indepenednt which would
preclude such things.

Foot pedal operated parking brakes are legal in the UK. Some M-B use
them. And 'independant' is a large variable. Most share parts with the
footbrake - drums or discs and pads and shoes - and many older a great
deal more. The Austin 7 for example had the handbrake operate on the
actual footbrake mechanism.

Yes, on my truck it's just a cable from the pedal which operates the rear
shoes for the 'main' drum brakes (which is what I'd expect on an older
vehicle - it's just that it has the foot pedal system for the parking
brake rather than a center hand-lever as common on vehicles elsewhere in
the world).

Bench seats were common in the UK at one time. Usually coupled with
steering column gear change and an umbrella handle type handbrake. (IIRC
some cars would have had a conventional handbrake but on the outside of
the driver rather than the inside).

On the car, which has discs, there are actually separate shoes working
against a small drum on each rear wheel as part of the parking brake
system - it's still cable from the foot pedal though.

If I remember I'll have a look at the van later and see what the setup
there is - that's discs all round for main brakes, too, but I don't
recall seeing any small drums behind the discs at the rear.

Lotus Elans (the rear wheel drive ones) had a separate set of small disk
pads for the handbrake as well as the umbrella style handbrake lever
which was not at all easy to grab when the foot-brake failed.

I think I find a hand-operated parking brake rather than the foot-pedal
system a bit more natural in use - in an emergency it'd be easy to steer
with one hand and operate it, whereas moving feet around to press a
separate pedal doesn't seem so intuitive (plus there'd be time needed to
hunt for the pedal with your foot or take your eyes off the road to see
where it is - they're not typically in line with the main driving pedals
or close to them).

You want to try grabbing for a handbrake when the handle is under the
dash and you are just entering a 120 degree bend on a steep hill?

cheers

Jules

--
Roger Chapman