On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2) move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie until I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time, as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold the car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol. Maybe I have more agile feet. If you move your feet quicker, you don't need so much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in 1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either. I think I was told to change down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice - and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes. I'm talking about planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency. Mind you, I'm also not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes, without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope. I think I've only used gears on a hill once though, in the French alps. It was when the brakes started smelling hot. I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least 10 minutes. So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st) to limit the speed to something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed for each corner.

One useful trick that my IAM "observer" (instructor) taught me was to get
into the habit of always waggling the gear lever from side to side just
before starting the engine or turning it off. If the car is in gear, the
lever won't move and I'll know that I have to put it in neutral (or press
the clutch) before starting, and I'll know I can't just let the clutch up
blindly after stopping and as I'm about to turn off. Saves the embarrassing
(and maybe costly) mistake of the car unexpectedly lurching forward.

Completely unnecessary, just start the car with the clutch pedal pushed in.

In article op.0o3k4xe3wdg98l@glass, says...

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in 1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!



I never heard of that and did not have to practice it or do it for the
drivers test back in 1966.

We had several weeks of drivers ed and it was with a manual
transmission. The car I took my test in was an automatic.
We did have to give hand signals,however it was cold when I took the
test and the lady giving the test told me she was not feeling well and I
could use the electricl signals.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:28:59 -0400, Ralph Mowery, another absolutely brain
dead, troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered:

I never heard of that

You will be able to hear a LOT of stories from the sociopathic attention
whore that you never heard of before, you troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE! BG

On Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:28:59 +0100, Ralph Mowery wrote:

In article op.0o3k4xe3wdg98l@glass, says...

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in 1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!

I never heard of that and did not have to practice it or do it for the
drivers test back in 1966.

We had several weeks of drivers ed and it was with a manual
transmission. The car I took my test in was an automatic.

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK if you pass your test in an auto, you can't legally drive a manual.

We did have to give hand signals,however it was cold when I took the
test and the lady giving the test told me she was not feeling well and I
could use the electricl signals.

You would have had to use hand signals in a car with electrical ones? What purpose would that serve? Then you'd have passed your test unable to use newer cars.

In article op.0o3pygd5wdg98l@glass, says...

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK if you pass your test in an auto, you can't legally drive a manual.

We did have to give hand signals,however it was cold when I took the
test and the lady giving the test told me she was not feeling well and I
could use the electricl signals.

You would have had to use hand signals in a car with electrical ones? What purpose would that serve? Then you'd have passed your test unable to use newer cars.



In the US the type of transmission for the test does not matter. IN NC
there is a seperate test for motocycles now. However for anything under
so many thousand pounds other than the motocycle it is just one license
no mater what you take the test in.
Above that I think you get into the comercial license that lets you
drive the tractor tralier type rigs.

The three wheel bikes (usually clled a trike) just need the regular
drivers license.

Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on the
road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 18:03:47 -0400, Ralph Mowery, another absolutely brain
dead, troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered:

In the US the type of transmission for the test doe

Just what kind of a perverted, troll-feeding senile SWINE are you, you
senile cretin?

On Sun, 09 Aug 2020 23:03:47 +0100, Ralph Mowery wrote:

In article op.0o3pygd5wdg98l@glass, says...

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK if you pass your test in an auto, you can't legally drive a manual.

We did have to give hand signals,however it was cold when I took the
test and the lady giving the test told me she was not feeling well and I
could use the electricl signals.

You would have had to use hand signals in a car with electrical ones? What purpose would that serve? Then you'd have passed your test unable to use newer cars.

In the US the type of transmission for the test does not matter.

Kinda insane, since if you've never driven a manual, you're gonna be a bit dangerous.

IN NC there is a seperate test for motocycles now. However for anything under
so many thousand pounds other than the motocycle it is just one license
no mater what you take the test in.
Above that I think you get into the comercial license that lets you
drive the tractor tralier type rigs.

There's some funny rules here about weight. If I hire a van and put more than a certain amount in the back, technically I'm breaking the law. I think.

The three wheel bikes (usually clled a trike) just need the regular
drivers license.

Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on the
road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

So the test should have covered both.

On 10/8/20 5:44 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2) move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes
second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my
heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so
the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie until
I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time,
as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold the
car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol.* Maybe I
have more agile feet.* If you move your feet quicker, you don't need so
much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in
1997.* Maybe they stopped it.* That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either.* I think I was told to change
down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that
would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice
- and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes.* I'm talking about
planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency.* Mind you, I'm also
not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I
gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down
at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes,
without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not
every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope.* I think I've only used gears on a hill
once though, in the French alps.* It was when the brakes started
smelling hot.* I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp
corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least
10 minutes.* So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and
sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st)* to limit the speed to
something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed for
each corner.

If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector. That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

One useful trick that my IAM "observer" (instructor) taught me was to get
into the habit of always waggling the gear lever from side to side just
before starting the engine or turning it off. If the car is in gear, the
lever won't move and I'll know that I have to put it in neutral (or press
the clutch) before starting, and I'll know I can't just let the clutch up
blindly after stopping and as I'm about to turn off. Saves the
embarrassing
(and maybe costly) mistake of the car unexpectedly lurching forward.

Completely unnecessary, just start the car with the clutch pedal pushed in.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:24:32 +1000, Beno, another brainless, troll-feeding,
senile Australian idiot, blathered:


If the indicator had 2 and 3

YOU again, you troll-feeding piece of senile ****?

In article t,
Ralph Mowery wrote:
Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on the
road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

Trying to think of any UK post WW2 supplied without indicators. And even
many pre WW2 vehicles would have been retro fitted by the mid 60s.

--
*The modem is the message *

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

In article ,
Xeno wrote:
If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector. That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

On some transmissions, the lock did just that. Preventing any gear change
at all. Starting off in a high gear could be useful on ice, etc.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article t,
Ralph Mowery wrote:
TFold you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on
the road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

Trying to think of any UK post WW2 supplied without indicators. And even
many pre WW2 vehicles would have been retro fitted by the mid 60s.

from school, probably we had a trip round Jaguar in Coventry -1956 I think
- and there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

not what the wiki article said.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/08/2020 16:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

not what the wiki article said.

EXACTYLY what the wiki said

"Designed specifically to win the Le Mans 24-hour race, the slippery
D-Type was produced by Jaguar Cars Ltd. between 1954 and 1957. Sharing
the straight-6 XK engine and many mechanical components with its C-Type
predecessor, its structure however was radically different. Innovative
monocoque construction and aerodynamic efficiency integrated aviation
technology in a sports racing car, some examples including a renowned
vertical stabilizer.

Engine displacement began at 3.4 litres, was enlarged to 3.8 L in 1957,
and reduced to 3.0 L in 1958 when Le Mans rules limited engines for
sports racing cars to that maximum. D-Types won Le Mans in 1955, 1956
and 1957. After Jaguar temporarily retired from racing as a factory
team, *the company offered the remaining unfinished D-Types as XKSS
versions* whose *extra road-going equipment* made them eligible for
production sports car races in America. In 1957 25 of these cars were in
various stages of completion when a factory fire destroyed nine of them.

No indicators on a D type.


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 16:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

not what the wiki article said.

EXACTYLY what the wiki said

"Designed specifically to win the Le Mans 24-hour race, the slippery
D-Type was produced by Jaguar Cars Ltd. between 1954 and 1957. Sharing
the straight-6 XK engine and many mechanical components with its C-Type
predecessor, its structure however was radically different. Innovative
monocoque construction and aerodynamic efficiency integrated aviation
technology in a sports racing car, some examples including a renowned
vertical stabilizer.

Engine displacement began at 3.4 litres, was enlarged to 3.8 L in 1957,
and reduced to 3.0 L in 1958 when Le Mans rules limited engines for
sports racing cars to that maximum. D-Types won Le Mans in 1955, 1956
and 1957. After Jaguar temporarily retired from racing as a factory
team, *the company offered the remaining unfinished D-Types as XKSS
versions* whose *extra road-going equipment* made them eligible for
production sports car races in America. In 1957 25 of these cars were in
various stages of completion when a factory fire destroyed nine of them.


we went when Jag were still racing, .

No indicators on a D type.

I though they "theoretically" had to be "road" cars

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/08/2020 17:58, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 16:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

not what the wiki article said.

EXACTYLY what the wiki said

"Designed specifically to win the Le Mans 24-hour race, the slippery
D-Type was produced by Jaguar Cars Ltd. between 1954 and 1957. Sharing
the straight-6 XK engine and many mechanical components with its C-Type
predecessor, its structure however was radically different. Innovative
monocoque construction and aerodynamic efficiency integrated aviation
technology in a sports racing car, some examples including a renowned
vertical stabilizer.

Engine displacement began at 3.4 litres, was enlarged to 3.8 L in 1957,
and reduced to 3.0 L in 1958 when Le Mans rules limited engines for
sports racing cars to that maximum. D-Types won Le Mans in 1955, 1956
and 1957. After Jaguar temporarily retired from racing as a factory
team, *the company offered the remaining unfinished D-Types as XKSS
versions* whose *extra road-going equipment* made them eligible for
production sports car races in America. In 1957 25 of these cars were in
various stages of completion when a factory fire destroyed nine of them.


we went when Jag were still racing, .

No indicators on a D type.

I though they "theoretically" had to be "road" cars

Nope.

That's why the XKSS was made, to run them INTO road cars

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:11:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article t,
Ralph Mowery wrote:
Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on the
road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

Trying to think of any UK post WW2 supplied without indicators. And even
many pre WW2 vehicles would have been retro fitted by the mid 60s.

At primary school in the UK in about 1983, one of the teachers had an Austin something or other, the one that looked like a small van with two doors at the back. I was fascinated when it indicated, an arm popped up with an orange light on it. Not sure why they did that instead of having normal lights like we do now. Was it a law it had to stick out back then?

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

In article op.0o5aynmiwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:11:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article t, Ralph
Mowery wrote:
Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on
the road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

Trying to think of any UK post WW2 supplied without indicators. And
even many pre WW2 vehicles would have been retro fitted by the mid 60s.

At primary school in the UK in about 1983, one of the teachers had an
Austin something or other, the one that looked like a small van with two
doors at the back. I was fascinated when it indicated, an arm popped up
with an orange light on it. Not sure why they did that instead of having
normal lights like we do now. Was it a law it had to stick out back then?

It was probably trying to replace the driver's arm giving turning signals

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

not what the wiki article said.

Think the D type may have just about been road legal, but it was built for
competition. The XKSS was the road going version and very rare as a fire
at the factory destroyed the tooling etc before many were built. Rumour
was it used up spare D-type body tubs.

--
*WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED "HEMORRHOIDS" INSTEAD OF "ASTEROIDS"?

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

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:17:45 +0100, charles, another brain damaged,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered:


We were told they were D Type.

You were told that he is a sociopathic troll and you are a senile
troll-feeding asshole!

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:16:20 +0100, charles, the brain damaged,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered:


It was probably trying to replace the driver's arm giving turning signals

Nope, senile asshole, it was certainly another idiotic bait set out by the
sociopathic ****** for you! tsk

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:16:20 +0100, charles wrote:

In article op.0o5aynmiwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:11:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article t, Ralph
Mowery wrote:
Told you the hand signals were a thing back in 1966. Lots of cars on
the road back then did not have electrical turn signals.

Trying to think of any UK post WW2 supplied without indicators. And
even many pre WW2 vehicles would have been retro fitted by the mid 60s.

At primary school in the UK in about 1983, one of the teachers had an
Austin something or other, the one that looked like a small van with two
doors at the back. I was fascinated when it indicated, an arm popped up
with an orange light on it. Not sure why they did that instead of having
normal lights like we do now. Was it a law it had to stick out back then?

It was probably trying to replace the driver's arm giving turning signals

If you drove one of those nowadays some ****** cyclist would pull it off.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:09:42 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:56:16 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It was probably trying to replace the driver's arm giving turning signals

If you drove one of those nowadays some ****** cyclist would pull it off.

More likely the driver would overtake closer than the legal 1.5m distance and knock it off themselves.

If you're wobbling by 1.5m in each direction, you need to take a cycling proficiency test. I cycle on the road, and I'm quite happy for cars to leave 1 cubit between me and them.

Do you seriously expect a queue of 10 cars stuck behind you to wait until nothing is coming the other way? You're as bad as a caravaner.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:24:32 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 10/8/20 5:44 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2) move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes
second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my
heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so
the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie until
I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time,
as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold the
car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol. Maybe I
have more agile feet. If you move your feet quicker, you don't need so
much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in
1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either. I think I was told to change
down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that
would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice
- and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes. I'm talking about
planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency. Mind you, I'm also
not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I
gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down
at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes,
without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not
every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope. I think I've only used gears on a hill
once though, in the French alps. It was when the brakes started
smelling hot. I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp
corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least
10 minutes. So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and
sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st) to limit the speed to
something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed for
each corner.

If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector.

It had 123DNRP. I call it "2nd" instead of the "1" marked on it, as it had 4 gears, roughly lined up with a manual's 2/3/4/5.

That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

This was a 1998 car, not one of those old mechanical gearshifts. All the lever did was electronically request the gear you prefer. If I selected 1st at 100mph, nothing happened. If I selected 1st at 60, it would drop to 3, then as the car slowed, 2, then eventually 1. I tried it once at high speed and alarmed a passenger who'd never seen an auto before. The car very neatly slowed down rapidly, dropping gears at precisely the right time to make the revs just touch the red line. Accelerating with it in 3 would keep it in 3 until it was bad to do so, as in overrevving, then go into 4th.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:13:43 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Xeno wrote:
If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector. That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

On some transmissions, the lock did just that. Preventing any gear change
at all. Starting off in a high gear could be useful on ice, etc.

Every auto I've driven (3 of them) was perfectly good in ice and snow using D. Press the gas gently and it would stay in the highest gear possible.

One of them (a 1988 3.5L V8 4WD Range Rover) didn't have so many safety measures on it. I could rev it up fully in N, then select D. All 4 wheels spun briefly and the vehicle shot forwards. Scared the **** out of any nearby pedestrians.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:42:06 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 8:30:18 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:09:42 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:56:16 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It was probably trying to replace the driver's arm giving turning signals

If you drove one of those nowadays some ****** cyclist would pull it off.

More likely the driver would overtake closer than the legal 1.5m distance and knock it off themselves.

If you're wobbling by 1.5m in each direction, you need to take a cycling proficiency test. I cycle on the road, and I'm quite happy for cars to leave 1 cubit between me and them.

Do you seriously expect a queue of 10 cars stuck behind you to wait until nothing is coming the other way? You're as bad as a caravaner.

I am happy to sit behind a horse rider until I can overtake them on the opposite side of the road, as I also am for a cyclist.

A horse gets spooked, a cyclist does not.

After all, I spend more time in traffic jams behind cars than waiting to overtake cyclists safely.

I'm not talking about traffic jams, I'm talking about when the road has plenty of room to go at full speed, but there's something like a tractor or caravan going too slowly, but too much coming the other way to overtake it. Why the **** don't they pull into laybys?! As for cyclists, there's loads of room for 2 cars and a bicycle on most roads, so you can overtake with oncoming traffic. If they're too far out (like your sort) they soon move in when you threaten to nudge them.

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

wiki says the XSS wasn't built until 1957, afer Jaguar ceased racing. We
went to Brown's Lane in 1956.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:24:32 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 10/8/20 5:44 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2) move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes
second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my
heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so
the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie until
I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time,
as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold the
car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol. Maybe I
have more agile feet. If you move your feet quicker, you don't need so
much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in
1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either. I think I was told to change
down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that
would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice
- and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes. I'm talking about
planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency. Mind you, I'm also
not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I
gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down
at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes,
without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not
every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope. I think I've only used gears on a hill
once though, in the French alps. It was when the brakes started
smelling hot. I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp
corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least
10 minutes. So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and
sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st) to limit the speed to
something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed for
each corner.

If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector.

It had 123DNRP. I call it "2nd" instead of the "1" marked on it, as it
had 4 gears, roughly lined up with a manual's 2/3/4/5.

You cannot arbitrarily assign your own numbering system to the ratios. If 1
is the lowest ratio, then it is 1 not 2 or any other notation you might
dream up. The 1, 2 & 3 indications on the shift indicator are Lock Ratios
indicating the trans wont upshift beyond that ratio. A lock is not
required on 4th which is, should you care to investigate, an overdrive
ratio. The direct drive (1:1) is usually on 3rd in a 4 speed auto. As well,
the trans is likely set up so TC lockup is only enabled on overdrive 4th.

That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

This was a 1998 car, not one of those old
mechanical gearshifts. All the lever did was electronically request the
gear you prefer. If I selected 1st at 100mph, nothing happened. If I
selected 1st at 60, it would drop to 3, then as the car slowed, 2, then
eventually 1. I tried it once at high speed and alarmed a passenger who'd
never seen an auto before. The car very neatly slowed down rapidly,
dropping gears at precisely the right time to make the revs just touch the
red line. Accelerating with it in 3 would keep it in 3 until it was bad to
do so, as in overrevving, then go into 4th.


It matters not one whit what the selection mechanism is. The difference
here is the electronics are much more adept in the foolproofing department
- as you clearly make apparent.

€”-
Xeno

On 11 Aug 2020 01:21:50 GMT, Beno, another brainless, troll-feeding,
senile Australian idiot, blathered:


You cannot arbitrarily assign your own numbering system to the ratios.

He CAN! He's clinically insane, you demented, troll-feeding, senile asshole!


Some examples of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"mathematics":

"100 is 5 times more than 20.
"5 times less" is the opposite of "5 times more", so this makes 100 back to
20 again.
20 is 5 times less than 100, the same as dividing by 5.
An elephant is 5 times bigger than a tiger, a tiger is 5 times smaller than
an elephant."
MID:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm comparing being able to tell the difference between 21 and 12 to being
able to tell the difference between 21 and 12. If you think that it's easy
to think a 12 year old is 21, it's only fair to use it as a reason when you
get caught ****ing a 12 year old, which you mistook to be 21."
MID:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"50 watts is ten times more than 5 watts. Likewise 5 watts is ten times
less than 50 watts."
MID:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The answer is 9. The 0.5 chicken is dead, so basically it's 1 chicken
laying 1 egg per day. The half egg was one halfway out, the only egg for
that day."
MID:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"let's say you prefer 20C water. If you go in 10C water you'd say that was
cold (10C colder than you want). Now you go in 0C water, that's twice as
cold, because it's now 20C colder than you want."
MID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Even if only 25% of people want it legalised, and let's say LibDems already
have 15% of the vote. If 75% of that 15% stop voting for them because they
don't want it legalised, they're down to 3.75%. But 25% of the 85% who
didn't previously vote for them, change their mind due to this policy, they
gain 21.25%, giving them a total of 25%, well up from 15%."
MID:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I say 1, then "or so", the "or so" means another 1.
If I say 5, then "or so", the "or so" means up to another 5.
Is English not your first language?"
MID:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you live for 4 years and die, you wasted 4 years. If you live for 20
years and die, you wasted 20 years, that's 5 times worse."
MID:

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

wiki says the XSS wasn't built until 1957, afer Jaguar ceased racing. We
went to Brown's Lane in 1956.

That would explain it using up spare D type bits.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

On 10/08/2020 21:20, charles wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

wiki says the XSS wasn't built until 1957, afer Jaguar ceased racing. We
went to Brown's Lane in 1956.

The jaguar D type had no indicators at all. Front headlights tail lights
and stop lights


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:17:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 21:20, charles wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types, They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+. Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

wiki says the XSS wasn't built until 1957, afer Jaguar ceased racing. We
went to Brown's Lane in 1956.

The jaguar D type had no indicators at all. Front headlights tail lights
and stop lights

No hazard lights in case of a crash?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:21:50 +0100, Xeno wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:24:32 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 10/8/20 5:44 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2) move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes
second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my
heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so
the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie until
I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time,
as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold the
car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol. Maybe I
have more agile feet. If you move your feet quicker, you don't need so
much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in
1997. Maybe they stopped it. That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either. I think I was told to change
down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that
would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice
- and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes. I'm talking about
planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency. Mind you, I'm also
not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I
gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down
at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes,
without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not
every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope. I think I've only used gears on a hill
once though, in the French alps. It was when the brakes started
smelling hot. I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp
corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least
10 minutes. So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and
sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st) to limit the speed to
something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed for
each corner.

If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector.

It had 123DNRP. I call it "2nd" instead of the "1" marked on it, as it
had 4 gears, roughly lined up with a manual's 2/3/4/5.

You cannot arbitrarily assign your own numbering system to the ratios. If 1
is the lowest ratio, then it is 1 not 2 or any other notation you might
dream up.

I see it went right over your head. Let me try to explain simply for you. In a manual, the gears are approximately equal ratios - eg 2nd is twice 1st, 3rd is three times first, etc. In an auto, it's the 1st that's missing. They may be called 1234 by the manufacturer to make it simpler for the driver, but that's not what they are.

The 1, 2 & 3 indications on the shift indicator are Lock Ratios
indicating the trans wont upshift beyond that ratio.

Wrong, it will to avoid overrevving. Again, what you select with the lever is simply a suggestion to the car's computer.

A lock is not
required on 4th which is, should you care to investigate, an overdrive
ratio. The direct drive (1:1) is usually on 3rd in a 4 speed auto. As well,
the trans is likely set up so TC lockup is only enabled on overdrive 4th.

A lock on 4th would be handy if you wanted to drive more economically. But then you can always just use a lighter foot.

That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

This was a 1998 car, not one of those old
mechanical gearshifts. All the lever did was electronically request the
gear you prefer. If I selected 1st at 100mph, nothing happened. If I
selected 1st at 60, it would drop to 3, then as the car slowed, 2, then
eventually 1. I tried it once at high speed and alarmed a passenger who'd
never seen an auto before. The car very neatly slowed down rapidly,
dropping gears at precisely the right time to make the revs just touch the
red line. Accelerating with it in 3 would keep it in 3 until it was bad to
do so, as in overrevving, then go into 4th.

It matters not one whit what the selection mechanism is.

It matters a lot what the mechanism is. If it's mechanical, it's no longer overrideable by the computer.

The difference
here is the electronics are much more adept in the foolproofing department
- as you clearly make apparent.

Nothing to do with foolproofing, it's making it easier to use. I want the car to slow rapidly in an emergency without having to select 3 2 1 in order, just select 1 and let the car sort the gears while you concentrate on braking and steering to avoid what you might be going to hit.

On 12/8/20 9:14 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:17:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/08/2020 21:20, charles wrote:
In article ,
*** charles wrote:
In article op.0o5a0m0rwdg98l@glass,
*** Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:58:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/08/2020 15:34, charles wrote:
there was 'production line' of D Types,* They had lights rather than
indicator arms which was very unusual for the time.
Not on 100mph+ cars..

Arm at 100mph+.* Whoops!

That's why they had lights - we were told

D types were exclusively le Mans racers. Probably XKSS or XK120

We were told they were D Type.

wiki says the XSS wasn't built until 1957, afer Jaguar ceased racing. We
went to Brown's Lane in 1956.

The jaguar D type had no indicators at all. Front headlights tail lights
and stop lights

No hazard lights in case of a crash?

Way before that concept appeared on the scene.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 12/8/20 9:21 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:21:50 +0100, Xeno wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:24:32 +0100, Xeno
wrote:

On 10/8/20 5:44 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:14:14 +0100, NY wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
I've heard that it takes a second or so to apply and release the
handbrake.
This makes it very difficult to hold the car on the handbrake
briefly
while
"changing feet" to do a hill start on an uphill gradient. I am
used to
coordinating hand and feet movements: 1) apply handbrake, 2)
move foot
from
footbrake to accelerator, 3) bring clutch up to bite point and
apply
power,
4) release handbrake, increase power and let clutch up. It
sounds a
right

Too many steps to that procedure, IMHO. As a kid, I learned to
do it
without the handbrake steps. Like you said, after a bit it becomes
second
nature and you do it without having the car roll back.

I remember watching Greyhound bust drivers doing that 55 years
ago, the
did roll back a little. I keep my toe on the foot brake and use my
heel to
press the accelerator.

I learned to drive on my mum's little Renault and that had such a
small
petrol engine that if you brought the clutch up to the bite point so
the car
didn't roll back, the engine would stall with no accelerator (ie
until
I'd
moved my foot from the footbrake to the accelerator). So I got
into the
habit of always using the handbrake to hold the car during that time,
as I
was taught for the driving test, and I still do it even in modern
diesel
cars which have enough torque to allow the clutch to slip and hold
the
car
stationary, with no throttle.

I've never had a car that would do that, even a 1 litre petrol.
Maybe I
have more agile feet.Â* If you move your feet quicker, you don't
need so
much non-throttle power.

I soon dropped some of the other pedantic things that the driving
test
teaches you, like applying the handbrake after every forward and
backward
cycle of a three-point turn,

Wow, I don't remember being told to do that when I took my test in
1997.Â* Maybe they stopped it.Â* That would take ages!!

and changing down through every gear when
braking to a halt.

I don't recall having to do that either.Â* I think I was told to change
down SOME gears, but not every one, and definitely not into 1st, that
would cause a jerk.

When I took my advanced test about 10 years after the
normal test, *not* changing down gear-by-gear was normal IAM practice
- and
that's what I do nowadays: brake almost to a halt in 6th gear

I do that, but am probably wearing out the brakes.Â* I'm talking about
planned stopping for a roundabout, not an emergency.Â* Mind you, I'm
also
not wearing out the gears and clutch.

and then go
straight into whatever gear I need to accelerate out of the hazard
once I
see whether or not I need to stop completely at the give-way line. I
gather
that the normal test has now abandoned the
change-down-through-every-gear
advice. My nephews were saying that they were told not to change down
at all
when going down a steep hill, but to rely *only* on the brakes,
without the
assistance of engine braking. I'm talking about a long 1:3 hill, not
every
puny 1:100 slight slope.

Bad idea if it's a lot of slope.Â* I think I've only used gears on a
hill
once though, in the French alps.Â* It was when the brakes started
smelling hot.Â* I was descending a winding road at about 10mph (sharp
corners) to 30mph (the straight bits), the hill continued for at least
10 minutes.Â* So I dropped into the manual equivalent of 3rd and
sometimes 2nd (it was an auto so 2nd and 1st)Â* to limit the speed to
something more reasonable, then used the brakes to adjust the speed
for
each corner.

If the indicator had 2 and 3 on it, then, rest assured, there was a 1st
below that but it just didn't have a *lock* control on it so no
indicator at the selector.

It had 123DNRP.Â* I call it "2nd" instead of the "1" marked on it, as it
had 4 gears, roughly lined up with a manual's 2/3/4/5.

You cannot arbitrarily assign your own numbering system to the ratios.
If 1
is the lowest ratio, then it is 1 not 2 or any other notation you might
dream up.

I see it went right over your head.Â* Let me try to explain simply for
you.Â* In a manual, the gears are approximately equal ratios - eg 2nd is
twice 1st, 3rd is three times first, etc.Â* In an auto, it's the 1st
that's missing.Â* They may be called 1234 by the manufacturer to make it
simpler for the driver, but that's not what they are.

It has become quite clear to me that all this is going right over *your*
head. Your idea that gears are approximately equal ratios is wrong. The
gear ratios are selected at the design stage to suit the torque and
power curves of the engine countered by the mass of the vehicle. Get
this, the torque converter does not endow an auto with a magical low
gear. It simply multiplies torque through a regenerative process. It
does this at any time the engine is under power acceleration and in any
and every gear.

The 1, 2 & 3 indications on the shift indicator are Lock Ratios
indicating the trans wont upshift beyond that ratio.

Wrong, it will to avoid overrevving.Â* Again, what you select with the
lever is simply a suggestion to the car's computer.

Like I've said, that is but an attempt to make the trans foolproof. I
have noted, however, fools are very ingenious and can wreck anything
they turn their hands to.

A lock is not
required on 4th which is, should you care to investigate, an overdrive
ratio. The direct drive (1:1) is usually on 3rd in a 4 speed auto. As
well,
the trans is likely set up so TC lockup is only enabled on overdrive 4th.

A lock on 4th would be handy if you wanted to drive more economically.

Not at all. You would be surprised at the number of people out there who
fail miserably to understand the concept of economical driving. You have
indicated by your response above that you are one such person.

But then you can always just use a lighter foot.

It ain't that simple.

That is all those numbers indicate - the
ability to lock into either 2nd or 3rd without the trans doing auto
upshifts.

This was a 1998 car, not one of those old
mechanical gearshifts.Â* All the lever did was electronically request the
gear you prefer.Â* If I selected 1st at 100mph, nothing happened.Â* If I
selected 1st at 60, it would drop to 3, then as the car slowed, 2, then
eventually 1.Â* I tried it once at high speed and alarmed a passenger
who'd
never seen an auto before.Â* The car very neatly slowed down rapidly,
dropping gears at precisely the right time to make the revs just touch
the
red line.Â* Accelerating with it in 3 would keep it in 3 until it was
bad to
do so, as in overrevving, then go into 4th.

It matters not one whit what the selection mechanism is.

It matters a lot what the mechanism is.Â* If it's mechanical, it's no
longer overrideable by the computer.



The difference
here is the electronics are much more adept in the foolproofing
department
- as you clearly make apparent.

Nothing to do with foolproofing, it's making it easier to use.Â* I want
the car to slow rapidly in an emergency without having to select 3 2 1
in order, just select 1 and let the car sort the gears while you
concentrate on braking and steering to avoid what you might be going to
hit.

If you drive in a manner that would cause you to require first whilst at
a speed where you are rolling along in 4th, I'd suggest it might be time
to hand in your driver's licence.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 13:55:53 +1000, Beno, another brainless, troll-feeding,
senile Australian idiot, blathered:


No hazard lights in case of a crash?

Way before that concept appeared on the scene.

Funny, how quickly you appeared on the scene to suck off the unwashed
Scottish troll again. LOL

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:11:14 +1000, Beno, another brainless, troll-feeding,
senile Australian idiot, blathered:


It has become quite clear to me that all this is going right over *your*
head.

Has it EVER occured to you that the clinically insane ****** might just be
trolling and baiting for attention, senile sucker of troll cock?