"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray wrote:
Fark. I was considering a PDK for my next car. **** that.

Other than the above, it's brilliant.

Sure, but I am ****ed if I am going to fart around
putting it out of drive every time I have to stop for
long in traffic.

Actually less effort than putting on the handbrake.

Sure, but I never do that. I do use the handbrake
when starting off up a steep hill after stopping in
traffic, instead of doing the alternative heal and toe
approach, but never use the hand brake when when
stopped in traffic. Always use it when parked.

You drive a manual at present?

Yep. But am considering an auto for the
best cruise control for long distance trips.

All autos creep on the level, unless the brakes are
applied. My PDK works just fine provided you don't
mind the brake lights being on all the time.

But with that risk of wear of the clutches.

It even has a hill hold feature. What it doesn't seem
to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.

I likely would if I changed to an auto.

I don't like having the brake lights
on all the time I'm stopped.

I don't care.

In which case it will be fine.

Except for the clutch wear.

I never need to do any maintenance on clutches
or manual gearboxes and keep my cars for a very
long time. The previous one for 45 years and the
current one for 14 and I am only considering a
change now to get a decent cruise control for
long distance trips and to avoid having to fart
around with gear changes around town.

When you know you're going to be stopped
for some time like at traffic lights.

I don't care and never find that I ease off on
the brake pedal and find the car moving either.

I might turn the engine off and apply the handbrake
when it a very long line of stopped traffic after a major
accident that sees the road closed completely for hours
but that's so rare that its not worth considering.

It only happened the once here.

Its never happened to me. Once the entire road was closed for
about half an hour with a major HGV rollover on a motorway
but it wasn't clear why the cops had the traffic stopped with
such a long tail back and we were creeping along for part of that.

"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 27 January 2020 10:43:41 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You drive a manual at present? All autos creep on the level, unless the
brakes are applied. My PDK works just fine provided you don't mind the
brake lights being on all the time. It even has a hill hold feature. What
it doesn't seem to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.

My car has a 7-speed DSG gearbox (which is broadly similar to PDK). And
the parking brake applies automatically when it comes to a complete stop.
So I don't think about keeping my foot on the brake pedal, nor do I apply
the parking brake. But nor do I even consider knocking it out of drive
under normal circumstances.

Which model is that ?

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 04:53:16 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

04:53? You've been up and trolling for ONE HOUR already! So when is bedtime
for you THIS day, you abnormal sleepless senile pest? LOL

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 27/01/2020 11:44, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 11:10:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 10:43:41 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You drive a manual at present? All autos creep on the level, unless the
brakes are applied. My PDK works just fine provided you don't mind the
brake lights being on all the time. It even has a hill hold feature. What
it doesn't seem to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.

My car has a 7-speed DSG gearbox (which is broadly similar to PDK). And
the parking brake applies automatically when it comes to a complete
stop. So I don't think about keeping my foot on the brake pedal, nor do
I apply the parking brake. But nor do I even consider knocking it out of
drive under normal circumstances.

Mine is an older version with no auto parking brake. Just a conventional
handbrake.

But could you clarify? It applies the parking brake as soon as you come to
a complete stop? So no need to keep the footbrake applied at a red traffic
light etc? And disengages the clutch totally?

The car stops, and within probably some fraction of a second, the parking brake applies and the clutch seems to totally disengage.

When I want to move off again, I gently press the accelerator, which then uses the clutch and starts moving - releasing the parking brake at the right moment. It also has hill start assist.

Mind, sometimes I do feel it doesn't do quite such a good job as it should with a little bit of a jerk as it starts/releases parking brake.

(Bloomin' confusing going back to the other car I regularly drive which, whilst auto, is entirely different.)

According to an established tro^W expert on all subjects, that automatic
brake application will not be fast enough. Fractions of a second is not
as fast as a manual handbrake.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2avdogwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:02:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions and
it's
their problem.

And yours when you have to do something
that you wouldn't have had to do if they
hadn't run into the back of your car.

The back of a car is 10 times stronger than the front.

But still easy to damage bits that you have to fix like the lights.
And have to fart around making the other driver pay for.

I've had a paint scratch vs. a broken radiator, two headlights, a bumper,
and a bonnet.

I didn't even have a paint scratch when the silly cow
demolished her plastic bumper completely on my
tow bar, but it was a damned nuisance to have to
stop and exchange details and go down the cop
shop and report her stupidity when she reported
it to the cops. Out cops wont show up anymore
unless someone is injured and even when they
did, you have to fart around waiting for them
to show up and record the detail, while furiously
swatting mozzies the last time that happened.

And she was only going 20mph more than me.

Yeah, doesn't take much to turn the car into a writeoff now.

Perfectly good weather, but she wasn't paying attention

Same with my latest, silly cow drove out of a carpark spot
too fast right into the back of mine as I backed out slower.

Stupid cow had an immense gouge right down
the entire side of hers from her previous stupidity.,

and didn't notice the queue of traffic ahead of her had slowed from 50mph
to 30mph.

On Monday, 27 January 2020 18:40:40 UTC, mm0fmf wrote:
On 27/01/2020 11:44, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 11:10:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 10:43:41 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You drive a manual at present? All autos creep on the level, unless the
brakes are applied. My PDK works just fine provided you don't mind the
brake lights being on all the time. It even has a hill hold feature. What
it doesn't seem to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.

My car has a 7-speed DSG gearbox (which is broadly similar to PDK). And
the parking brake applies automatically when it comes to a complete
stop. So I don't think about keeping my foot on the brake pedal, nor do
I apply the parking brake. But nor do I even consider knocking it out of
drive under normal circumstances.

Mine is an older version with no auto parking brake. Just a conventional
handbrake.

But could you clarify? It applies the parking brake as soon as you come to
a complete stop? So no need to keep the footbrake applied at a red traffic
light etc? And disengages the clutch totally?

The car stops, and within probably some fraction of a second, the parking brake applies and the clutch seems to totally disengage.

When I want to move off again, I gently press the accelerator, which then uses the clutch and starts moving - releasing the parking brake at the right moment. It also has hill start assist.

Mind, sometimes I do feel it doesn't do quite such a good job as it should with a little bit of a jerk as it starts/releases parking brake.

(Bloomin' confusing going back to the other car I regularly drive which, whilst auto, is entirely different.)

According to an established tro^W expert on all subjects, that automatic
brake application will not be fast enough. Fractions of a second is not
as fast as a manual handbrake.

Does a fraction of a second make a scrap of real world difference?

I depress brake pedal (with my right foot). Car stops. Parking brake applies. I take my foot off brake pedal. However long it actually takes, the car doesn't start rolling forwards, nor backwards. Which, in my book, is fast enough.

(Partner keeps pointing out that faster computers get to a point where they are, from the perspective of the user, instantaneous. Faster than that is utterly unnecessary.)

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2a04mwwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:06 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:44:44 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions and
it's
their problem.

Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close to
you
before they even know you are there. And while it may be their *fault*
if
they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car even if
their insurance pays for it.

It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog. If
I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

But you can see loss of lights and the hatch unusable with hatches.

No big deal to fix,

Depends on how badly damaged the surround
metal is and its not that easy to get it back to
what it used to be with those corners.

In spades with hatches.

and since it's their insurance paying, I usually make a whacking big
profit.

But a lot more convenient if they don't hit you.

Like I'm going to buy new parts.... I was once paid £700 by a woman's
insurance for hitting the side of me reversing out of a car park. It cost
me £75. I kept the rest.

Sure but much more convenient if they don't hit you.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog. If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule plus an extra factor of
safety because of the fog. If I can see a car in front, I can judge how far
away it is and know how safe it is to drive; if I can't see a car, driving
is much more difficult because you have to rely on trying to see kerbs,
white lines, trees etc to work out where the bends are.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

That's very true. The first time I was rear-ended, when I was lead car at a
roundabout and the car behind thought I was going to set off but I judged it
not to be safe, my tailgate was slightly bent (though I managed to tie it
shut with my tow rope) but the other car lost his radiator. That was back in
the early 90s; I bet health and softy rules make modern cars even more
liable to crumple that those of late 80s/early 90s vintage.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2a04mwwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:06 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:44:44 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions and
it's
their problem.

Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close to
you
before they even know you are there. And while it may be their *fault*
if
they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car even if
their insurance pays for it.

It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog. If
I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

But you can see loss of lights and the hatch unusable with hatches.

No big deal to fix,

Depends on how badly damaged the surround
metal is and its not that easy to get it back to
what it used to be with those corners.

Never had that happen, even when the colliding car was completely ****ed.. The rear end of a car is way stronger.

In spades with hatches.

and since it's their insurance paying, I usually make a whacking big
profit.

But a lot more convenient if they don't hit you.

Who cares if I make £100s?

Like I'm going to buy new parts.... I was once paid £700 by a woman's
insurance for hitting the side of me reversing out of a car park. It cost
me £75. I kept the rest.

Sure but much more convenient if they don't hit you.

Same answer as above. Doh.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog. If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule

If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.

plus an extra factor of safety because of the fog.

Er....fog doesn't make your brakes less effective.

If I can see a car in front, I can judge how far
away it is and know how safe it is to drive; if I can't see a car, driving
is much more difficult because you have to rely on trying to see kerbs,
white lines, trees etc to work out where the bends are.

If it's foggy, you should be driving slower to see non-lit things anyway, so you don't need the car in front lit at all.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

That's very true. The first time I was rear-ended, when I was lead car at a
roundabout and the car behind thought I was going to set off but I judged it
not to be safe, my tailgate was slightly bent (though I managed to tie it
shut with my tow rope) but the other car lost his radiator. That was back in
the early 90s; I bet health and softy rules make modern cars even more
liable to crumple that those of late 80s/early 90s vintage.

ROFL! My colleague did the same, except he was the guy behind. The woman in front was too tentative. What excuse did you have for not going?

I had worse. I was waiting behind a woman who pulled halfway out into a junction, then proceeded to reverse (!) back into me when she realised something was coming. I blasted my horn, she jammed on her brakes, then panicked as she saw the other car swerve around her. It would have been funnier if there was something coming the other way and 4 of us had collided. Having her pay for the damage to 4 cars would have been hilarious.

In article , NY writes
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I think what you do is exactly the right thing to do with torque
converter transmission. I've no idea about the newer systems. Perhaps
if they disengage completely when stopped there is no reason to take
them out of "drive".

There's generally no need to put a TC transmission in neutral under heavy
traffic conditions, as the TC is designed to handle vastly more heat than
this generates. Like when going up hill, etc.

With a conventional clutch type, the clutch only 'slips' when moving off
from rest. With idling in a traffic jam in drive, it is slightly engaged
to provide the creep function. And since many are multi plate wet types,
may also drag slightly at all times when nominally disengaged, generating
some heat. But in neutral or park, any drag will simply spin the
layshaft(s)

I was thinking more of avoiding the need to keep my foot on the brake,
rather than "wear" (heating up) of the torque converter. I imagine that
most handbrakes aren't enough to prevent an auto creeping in drive - or
at least, can't be *guaranteed* to avoid it...
I've had several autos and never come across one where the handbrake
couldn't hold against creeping.
--
bert

In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to see you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
What
it doesn't seem to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.
"Normal" autos should not be held in drive with brake on for long
periods esp. on a hot day - hydraulic fluid overheats.

Just how much heat to you think it generates lugging a caravan up a hill?
I'll give you a clue. A lot more than when idling.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

In article ,
NY wrote:
I was thinking more of avoiding the need to keep my foot on the brake,
rather than "wear" (heating up) of the torque converter. I imagine that
most handbrakes aren't enough to prevent an auto creeping in drive - or
at least, can't be *guaranteed* to avoid it...

Not deserving the name of brake if it can't prevent an auto creeping.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

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

In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 13:53:08 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

DSG to me is a single clutch box. They are anything but smooth
changing. The PDK (twin clutch) is as smooth as any auto - except if
you kick it down several gears. And if in that sort of hurry,
smoothness likely doesn't matter so much.

DSG to me is dual clutch! Very smooth. 7 gears.

Ah - it may well be now. The original on BMW was single clutch.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

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

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:13:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

05:13? Is it dawning outside in Australia already, you sleepless troll? LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 06:04:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two clinically insane prize idiots' usual idiotic bull**** unread
again

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID:

In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
But other than playing with it, the auto generally works just fine.

Yes, can do it on the gear shift lever thingy as well.

About the only thing I ever do is occasionally choose S ("Sport") mode,
which keeps the gearing much lower. Without that it is often in 7 at
just a bit over 40. (Depends on general settings, Comfort, Economy, etc.)

It's what I like about the PDK. If not in a rush, it gets into the highest
gear it will pull. Which is 7 at just over 40.

--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

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

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:51:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 64 lines of absolutely idiotic drivel

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On 27/01/2020 19:40:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the
car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule

If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.

That shows how clueless you are.

Come back with the true stopping times, I know you can't.

On 27/01/2020 19:48:47, bert wrote:
In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares?Â* I never ever use mine.Â* They look like brake lights.Â* So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you.Â* A
very dangerous invention.Â* Tail lights are enough for the following
car to see you.Â* If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.

Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

P Hucker understands very little.

Next he'll be saying he can always stop in less than 2 seconds.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:56:57 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 19:40:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the
car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule

If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.

That shows how clueless you are.

Come back with the true stopping times, I know you can't.

It's less than it says in the highway code, since I don't have drum brakes.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:59:58 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 19:48:47, bert wrote:
In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following
car to see you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.

Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

P Hucker understands very little.

Next he'll be saying he can always stop in less than 2 seconds.

How old is your car that it takes that long? That rule was made before disk brakes and ABS were invented.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:48:47 -0000, bert wrote:

In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to see you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

I understand it perfectly. It reduces the distance you can see, therefore the people behind me should allow more space and travel more slowly. What if an unlit deer, pedestrian, dog, etc walks in front of them? If they require lights to see what's in front of them, they shouldn't be driving.

On 27/01/2020 19:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I was thinking more of avoiding the need to keep my foot on the brake,
rather than "wear" (heating up) of the torque converter. I imagine that
most handbrakes aren't enough to prevent an auto creeping in drive - or
at least, can't be *guaranteed* to avoid it...

Not deserving the name of brake if it can't prevent an auto creeping.

+1

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY, the notorious, troll-feeding,
endlessly driveling senile idiot, blathered again:


The first time I was rear-ended

LOL Hilarious! Does it still hurt, troll-feeding senile idiot?

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:56:57 +0000, Fredxx, the brain dead troll-feeding
senile idiot, babbled again:


That shows how clueless you are.

Says the troll-feeding senile asshole who hasn't a clue what's happening to
him! LOL

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
What
it doesn't seem to like is the handbrake on and being in drive for long
periods on a hot day. BTW, I left foot brake on an auto.
"Normal" autos should not be held in drive with brake on for long
periods esp. on a hot day - hydraulic fluid overheats.

Just how much heat to you think it generates lugging a caravan up a hill?
I'll give you a clue. A lot more than when idling.

All my car manufacturers of the autos I've had must have got it wrong in
the handbooks then. Perhaps I should write to them all and tell them
Plow**** says you are all wrong. That would be BL, Renault, VW, LR,
Jeep, Suzuki. Don't think I've missed anyone.
--
bert

In article op.0e2h6vcswdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:48:47 -0000, bert wrote:

In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to see you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

I understand it perfectly. It reduces the distance you can see,
therefore the people behind me should allow more space and travel more
slowly. What if an unlit deer, pedestrian, dog, etc walks in front of
them? If they require lights to see what's in front of them, they
shouldn't be driving.
Which bit of "reflection" do you not understand?
--
bert

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:32:07 -0000, bert wrote:

In article op.0e2h6vcswdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:48:47 -0000, bert wrote:

In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to see you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

I understand it perfectly. It reduces the distance you can see,
therefore the people behind me should allow more space and travel more
slowly. What if an unlit deer, pedestrian, dog, etc walks in front of
them? If they require lights to see what's in front of them, they
shouldn't be driving.
Which bit of "reflection" do you not understand?

What's reflection to do with it? An unlit car will reflect as well as an unlit dog or pedestrian. If you can't see one you can't see the other. Don't expect everyone else to display themselves to you with flashing lights.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2gq0spwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2a04mwwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:06 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:44:44 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights. So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions
and
it's
their problem.

Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close to
you
before they even know you are there. And while it may be their
*fault*
if
they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car even
if
their insurance pays for it.

It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If
I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the
front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I
have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

But you can see loss of lights and the hatch unusable with hatches.

No big deal to fix,

Depends on how badly damaged the surround
metal is and its not that easy to get it back to
what it used to be with those corners.

Never had that happen,

Most have.

even when the colliding car was completely ****ed. The rear end of a car
is way stronger.

But those folded corners arent in the sense of
what it takes to move the metal enough so that
you can't just replace the smashed light easily.

In spades with hatches.

and since it's their insurance paying, I usually make a whacking big
profit.

But a lot more convenient if they don't hit you.

Who cares if I make £100s?

Not everyone is such a desperate unemployable pov.

And not everyone who runs into you has insurance anyway.

Like I'm going to buy new parts.... I was once paid £700 by a woman's
insurance for hitting the side of me reversing out of a car park. It
cost me £75. I kept the rest.

Sure but much more convenient if they don't hit you.

Same answer as above. Doh.

See above, dumb.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
But could you clarify? It applies the parking brake as soon as you
come to a complete stop? So no need to keep the footbrake applied at a
red traffic light etc? And disengages the clutch totally?

The car stops, and within probably some fraction of a second, the
parking brake applies and the clutch seems to totally disengage.

When I want to move off again, I gently press the accelerator, which
then uses the clutch and starts moving - releasing the parking brake at
the right moment. It also has hill start assist.

Mind, sometimes I do feel it doesn't do quite such a good job as it
should with a little bit of a jerk as it starts/releases parking brake.

Ah - right. I have to apply the foot brake to engage drive, so after that
all I have to do is release the footbrake for it to move off slowly, as in
creeping in a traffic jam.

(Bloomin' confusing going back to the other car I regularly drive which,
whilst auto, is entirely different.)

Seems there is no 100% perfect solution if you don't want the brake lights
on all the time you're stopped. ;-)

There is with the best dual clutch systems that apply the brake auto
when stoped and auto disconnect the clutch so it never gets overheated.
Basically its like your use of the handbrake without you actually having
to do anything every time you stop. That would suit me fine and I have
just discovered that the car I am considering, the Hyundai i30 does that
from the owners manual.

Still doesn’t do what I need otherwise tho,, the best cruise control
that allows you to set an increment over the speed limit that you
want it to cruise at and have it cruise at that speed in towns on a
long trip. Stupid to have manually adjust the cruise speed at each
speed limit change.

But what I want will be mandated by the EU forget the
date so presumably all cruise controls will do that soon.

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:03:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


See above, dumb.

See your posting hours, you abnormal sleepless senile idiot!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 27/01/2020 20:05:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:56:57 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 19:40:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the
car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule

If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.

That shows how clueless you are.

Come back with the true stopping times, I know you can't.

It's less than it says in the highway code, since I don't have drum brakes.

Have you read the Highway Code recently? Are you illiterate? Where does
it give stopping *times*?

On 27/01/2020 20:06:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:59:58 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 19:48:47, bert wrote:
In article op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
writes
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares?* I never ever use mine.* They look like brake lights.* So
when you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you.* A
very dangerous invention.* Tail lights are enough for the following
car to see you.* If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the
conditions and it's their problem.
*
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?

P Hucker understands very little.

Next he'll be saying he can always stop in less than 2 seconds.

How old is your car that it takes that long?* That rule was made before
disk brakes and ABS were invented.

Show us how you work out you can stop and all UK legal speeds in less
than 2 seconds?

I said you can't.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:03:14 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2gq0spwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2a04mwwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:06 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:44:44 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights.. So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions
and
it's
their problem.

Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close to
you
before they even know you are there. And while it may be their
*fault*
if
they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car even
if
their insurance pays for it.

It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If
I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the
front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I
have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

But you can see loss of lights and the hatch unusable with hatches..

No big deal to fix,

Depends on how badly damaged the surround
metal is and its not that easy to get it back to
what it used to be with those corners.

Never had that happen,

Most have.

Maybe you should drive better.

even when the colliding car was completely ****ed. The rear end of a car
is way stronger.

But those folded corners arent in the sense of
what it takes to move the metal enough so that
you can't just replace the smashed light easily.

Never happened to me, and I've had about 8 idiots hit me.

In spades with hatches.

and since it's their insurance paying, I usually make a whacking big
profit.

But a lot more convenient if they don't hit you.

Who cares if I make £100s?

Not everyone is such a desperate unemployable pov.

The point is, when you make several hundred quid, it ain't an inconvenience.

And not everyone who runs into you has insurance anyway.

They usually have with me. If they don't, you get cash off them as they're worried they'll get into ****.

Like I'm going to buy new parts.... I was once paid £700 by a woman's
insurance for hitting the side of me reversing out of a car park. It
cost me £75. I kept the rest.

Sure but much more convenient if they don't hit you.

Same answer as above. Doh.

See above, dumb.

Try not answering the same thing twice, it makes you sound like a child.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2o8ko6wdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:03:14 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2gq0spwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e2a04mwwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:06 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:44:44 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass...
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:04:17 -0000, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:

Is it OK for rear fog lights to go off when the ignition is
turned
off?....

Who cares? I never ever use mine. They look like brake lights.
So
when
you brake, the person behind doesn't know and slams into you. A
very
dangerous invention. Tail lights are enough for the following car
to
see
you. If they aren't, they're driving too fast for the conditions
and
it's
their problem.

Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close
to
you
before they even know you are there. And while it may be their
*fault*
if
they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car
even
if
their insurance pays for it.

It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If
I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the
front
gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I
have
in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car,
whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a
radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.

But you can see loss of lights and the hatch unusable with hatches.

No big deal to fix,

Depends on how badly damaged the surround
metal is and its not that easy to get it back to
what it used to be with those corners.

Never had that happen,

Most have.

Maybe you should drive better.

Not possible with being rear ended unless
you regularly do crash stops for no reason.

even when the colliding car was completely ****ed. The rear end of a
car is way stronger.

But those folded corners arent in the sense of
what it takes to move the metal enough so that
you can't just replace the smashed light easily.

Never happened to me, and I've had about 8 idiots hit me.

Because you drive so badly.

In spades with hatches.

and since it's their insurance paying, I usually make a whacking big
profit.

But a lot more convenient if they don't hit you.

Who cares if I make £100s?

Not everyone is such a desperate unemployable pov.

The point is, when you make several hundred quid, it ain't an
inconvenience.

Corse it is over no accident at all.

And not everyone who runs into you has insurance anyway.

They usually have with me. If they don't, you get cash off them as
they're worried they'll get into ****.

Only possible if they have that much cash.

Few do with hundreds of quid.

And even when they do have insurance, its
still a lot of farting around making the claim.

I'd much rather not have the accident in the first place.

Like I'm going to buy new parts.... I was once paid £700 by a woman's
insurance for hitting the side of me reversing out of a car park. It
cost me £75. I kept the rest.

Sure but much more convenient if they don't hit you.

Same answer as above. Doh.

See above, dumb.

Try not answering the same thing twice,

Corse you didn't do that yourself, eh ?

it makes you sound like a child.=

Yes it did make you look like your usual pathetic excuse for a troll.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:38:30 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 20:05:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:56:57 -0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 27/01/2020 19:40:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:17:49 -0000, NY wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0e18vcyvwdg98l@glass...
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog.
If I
can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.

How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the
car in
front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater
distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule

If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.

That shows how clueless you are.

Come back with the true stopping times, I know you can't.

It's less than it says in the highway code, since I don't have drum brakes.

Have you read the Highway Code recently? Are you illiterate? Where does
it give stopping *times*?

It gives distances at specific speeds. Speed = distance over time, hope this helps.

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:37:56 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the sleepless senile asshole's endless troll****

09:37??? LOL And you've been up and trolling since 03:59 in Australia, you
abnormal senile cretin! NO cure for you in sight, senile pest? LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:38:30 +0000, Fredxx, the brain dead troll-feeding
senile idiot, babbled again:


Have you read the Highway Code recently? Are you illiterate? Where does
it give stopping *times*?

Has it ever occured to you that he might a troll, you troll-feeding senile
idiot? BG