Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:34:46 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>Hello,
>Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I
>doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the
>transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if
>you shift into neutral every time you go downhill.
>Jason
We've just had a past that states it saves on carb cars, but not,
generally, fuel injected ones, which you obviously didn't read -
despite the fact that the poster only considered immediate
consumption, and not the increased downhill speeds and its
implications if the coast is continued on the flat or near-flat areas
following the slope.
I'm intrigued though, by your asertation that being in neutral puts
INCREASED wear on a transmission, since it was my understanding that
since it would ahve no load, and not be spun beyond the rated ranges
(in all probability slowly, depending on gearbox design), that it
wouldn't increase wear, but instead decrease it.
>Hello,
>Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I
>doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the
>transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if
>you shift into neutral every time you go downhill.
>Jason
We've just had a past that states it saves on carb cars, but not,
generally, fuel injected ones, which you obviously didn't read -
despite the fact that the poster only considered immediate
consumption, and not the increased downhill speeds and its
implications if the coast is continued on the flat or near-flat areas
following the slope.
I'm intrigued though, by your asertation that being in neutral puts
INCREASED wear on a transmission, since it was my understanding that
since it would ahve no load, and not be spun beyond the rated ranges
(in all probability slowly, depending on gearbox design), that it
wouldn't increase wear, but instead decrease it.
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
flobert wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>
>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>
>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>
>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
>
> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
> with the decades old misinformation please.
it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>
>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>
>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>
>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
>
> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
> with the decades old misinformation please.
it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
flobert wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>
>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>
>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>
>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
>
> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
> with the decades old misinformation please.
it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>
>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>
>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>
>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
>
> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
> with the decades old misinformation please.
it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
said:
> it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
> /do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
> become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
> in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
> for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
> hill! /EVER/!
Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
said:
> it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
> /do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
> become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
> in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
> for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
> hill! /EVER/!
Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
said:
> it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
> /do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
> become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
> in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
> for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
> hill! /EVER/!
Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
said:
> it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
> /do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
> become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
> in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
> for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
> hill! /EVER/!
Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>flobert wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>
>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>
>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>
>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>
>>
>> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>> with the decades old misinformation please.
>
>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
constant application of brakes
weakened brake lines
under-spec brake fluid
Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
(such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
more fatel then.
Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh. For an
avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference. For
stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
the vehicles tyres. In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
ahead there too. The only way i can see the engine being of any
benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
cruising gear in any case.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
wrote:
>flobert wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>
>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>
>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>
>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>
>>
>> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>> with the decades old misinformation please.
>
>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
constant application of brakes
weakened brake lines
under-spec brake fluid
Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
(such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
more fatel then.
Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh. For an
avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference. For
stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
the vehicles tyres. In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
ahead there too. The only way i can see the engine being of any
benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
cruising gear in any case.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>flobert wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>
>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>
>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>
>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>
>>
>> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>> with the decades old misinformation please.
>
>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
constant application of brakes
weakened brake lines
under-spec brake fluid
Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
(such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
more fatel then.
Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh. For an
avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference. For
stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
the vehicles tyres. In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
ahead there too. The only way i can see the engine being of any
benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
cruising gear in any case.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
wrote:
>flobert wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>> <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>
>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>
>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>
>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>
>>
>> Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>> the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>> mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>> with the decades old misinformation please.
>
>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
constant application of brakes
weakened brake lines
under-spec brake fluid
Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
(such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
more fatel then.
Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh. For an
avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference. For
stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
the vehicles tyres. In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
ahead there too. The only way i can see the engine being of any
benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
cruising gear in any case.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> said:
>
>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
>>in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
>>for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
>>hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
> wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
> changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he wastes
his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/ however care if his
willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the road. if he careens out of
control onto /my/ side of the freeway and hits /my/ car because he's
been coasting in neutral and has lost control because his brakes are
toasted, he'd better make sure he can run faster than me, because i
/will/ be upset.
> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> said:
>
>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
>>in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
>>for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
>>hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
> wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
> changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he wastes
his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/ however care if his
willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the road. if he careens out of
control onto /my/ side of the freeway and hits /my/ car because he's
been coasting in neutral and has lost control because his brakes are
toasted, he'd better make sure he can run faster than me, because i
/will/ be upset.
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> said:
>
>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
>>in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
>>for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
>>hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
> wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
> changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he wastes
his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/ however care if his
willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the road. if he careens out of
control onto /my/ side of the freeway and hits /my/ car because he's
been coasting in neutral and has lost control because his brakes are
toasted, he'd better make sure he can run faster than me, because i
/will/ be upset.
> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> said:
>
>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle
>>in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad
>>for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a
>>hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate
> wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by
> changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he wastes
his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/ however care if his
willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the road. if he careens out of
control onto /my/ side of the freeway and hits /my/ car because he's
been coasting in neutral and has lost control because his brakes are
toasted, he'd better make sure he can run faster than me, because i
/will/ be upset.
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
flobert wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>flobert wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
> constant application of brakes
> weakened brake lines
> under-spec brake fluid
1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
more!!! that's fact!!!
2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
> more fatel then.
that's stupid.
>
> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
hills, heats brakes. period.
>
> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
>
> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
> For an
> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
engine braking and safety.
> For
> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
> the vehicles tyres.
only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
into the road.
> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
> ahead there too.
what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
> The only way i can see the engine being of any
> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
> cruising gear in any case.
eh?
>
> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
law??? buddy, you take the prize!
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>flobert wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
> constant application of brakes
> weakened brake lines
> under-spec brake fluid
1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
more!!! that's fact!!!
2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
> more fatel then.
that's stupid.
>
> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
hills, heats brakes. period.
>
> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
>
> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
> For an
> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
engine braking and safety.
> For
> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
> the vehicles tyres.
only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
into the road.
> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
> ahead there too.
what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
> The only way i can see the engine being of any
> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
> cruising gear in any case.
eh?
>
> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
law??? buddy, you take the prize!
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
flobert wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>flobert wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
> constant application of brakes
> weakened brake lines
> under-spec brake fluid
1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
more!!! that's fact!!!
2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
> more fatel then.
that's stupid.
>
> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
hills, heats brakes. period.
>
> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
>
> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
> For an
> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
engine braking and safety.
> For
> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
> the vehicles tyres.
only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
into the road.
> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
> ahead there too.
what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
> The only way i can see the engine being of any
> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
> cruising gear in any case.
eh?
>
> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
law??? buddy, you take the prize!
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>flobert wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>
>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>
>
> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
> constant application of brakes
> weakened brake lines
> under-spec brake fluid
1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
more!!! that's fact!!!
2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
> more fatel then.
that's stupid.
>
> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
hills, heats brakes. period.
>
> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
>
> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
> For an
> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
engine braking and safety.
> For
> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
> the vehicles tyres.
only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
into the road.
> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
> ahead there too.
what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
> The only way i can see the engine being of any
> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
> cruising gear in any case.
eh?
>
> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
law??? buddy, you take the prize!
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
said:
> Larry J. wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam
>> <nospam@example.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the
>>>vehicle in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers.
>>>it's bad for the transmission too. do not ever coast in
>>>neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant
>> debate wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars
>> a favor by changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>>
> good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he
> wastes his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/
> however care if his willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the
> road. if he careens out of control onto /my/ side of the
> freeway and hits /my/ car because he's been coasting in neutral
> and has lost control because his brakes are toasted, he'd better
> make sure he can run faster than me, because i /will/ be upset.
Hahaha..! Agreed.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
said:
> Larry J. wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam
>> <nospam@example.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the
>>>vehicle in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers.
>>>it's bad for the transmission too. do not ever coast in
>>>neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant
>> debate wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars
>> a favor by changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>>
> good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he
> wastes his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/
> however care if his willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the
> road. if he careens out of control onto /my/ side of the
> freeway and hits /my/ car because he's been coasting in neutral
> and has lost control because his brakes are toasted, he'd better
> make sure he can run faster than me, because i /will/ be upset.
Hahaha..! Agreed.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
said:
> Larry J. wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam
>> <nospam@example.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the
>>>vehicle in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers.
>>>it's bad for the transmission too. do not ever coast in
>>>neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant
>> debate wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars
>> a favor by changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>>
> good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he
> wastes his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/
> however care if his willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the
> road. if he careens out of control onto /my/ side of the
> freeway and hits /my/ car because he's been coasting in neutral
> and has lost control because his brakes are toasted, he'd better
> make sure he can run faster than me, because i /will/ be upset.
Hahaha..! Agreed.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
said:
> Larry J. wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, jim beam
>> <nospam@example.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings
>>>/do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can
>>>become excessive, and you are not in full control of the
>>>vehicle in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers.
>>>it's bad for the transmission too. do not ever coast in
>>>neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant
>> debate wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars
>> a favor by changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
>>
> good comparison! but here's the difference: i don't care if he
> wastes his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/
> however care if his willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the
> road. if he careens out of control onto /my/ side of the
> freeway and hits /my/ car because he's been coasting in neutral
> and has lost control because his brakes are toasted, he'd better
> make sure he can run faster than me, because i /will/ be upset.
Hahaha..! Agreed.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
On 8/20/2005 2:34 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
> flobert wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>flobert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
>> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
>> constant application of brakes
>> weakened brake lines
>> under-spec brake fluid
>
> 1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
> dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
> using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
> more!!! that's fact!!!
No; the *fact* is, braking will generate more heat. If that heat is
dissipated in some other, controlled manner, the brakes will not be any
hotter.
> 2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
> going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
>
> 3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
>
> 4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
> moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
>>
>> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
>> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
>> more fatel then.
>
> that's stupid.
I don't know what flobert is talking about here either.
>> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
>> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
>> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
>> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
>> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
>> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
>> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
>> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
>
> you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
> of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
> into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
> hills, heats brakes. period.
The kinetic energy is the car in motion. The conversion desired is from
kinetic energy to heat energy. I think you know this, but that's not
how your paragraph read. Any form of braking heats brakes, period. The
point made was that the incline adds to kinetic energy being overcome by
the brakes. This is entirely correct, but your note indicates that
gravity is irrelevant as a contributor. Again, I think you know this,
but your paragraph doesn't indicate it.
>> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
>> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
>> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
>
> dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
> indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
Even if you are in a place where the local populace has enacted some
statute, your blanket statement is wrong. For it to be correct in the
United States, it would have to be a federal statute. It is not. To
me, it sounds like the old canard we heard when we were kids, that it
was illegal to drive your car barefoot.
It what respect is the vehicle not under proper control? Granting that
if it's moving, it *may* not be under proper control, I don't see that
coasting automatically means it is not.
>> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
>> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
>
> eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
I agree. I don't understand this at all.
>> For an
>> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
>
> but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
> engine braking and safety.
>
>> For
>> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
>> the vehicles tyres.
>
> only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
> you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
> thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
> into the road.
>
>> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
>> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
>> ahead there too.
>
> what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
> manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
> so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
Apples and oranges here, Jim. The truck has a great deal more weight
(and therefore kinetic energy) to overcome at any given time, and the
typical over-the-road truck is driven anywhere from 5 to 20 times as
many miles over its lifetime.
>> The only way i can see the engine being of any
>> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
>> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
>> cruising gear in any case.
>
> eh?
I don't get this either.
>> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
>> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
>> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
>
> be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
> the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
> law??? buddy, you take the prize!
Please tell me what law you're speaking of, and what jurisdiction you're
referring to. There is no such reference in the US Code (federal law).
Although I've found one place that indicates that there is such a law in
British Columbia, that forum points out that each province makes its own
laws. I found a reference to a California law and a Texas law as well,
so wherever this guy is (looks like Florida), he may be covered, he may
not. In either event, simply saying coasting is illegal generally is
incorrect.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... At dinner yesterday, I tried to cut myself a slice of prime rib, but
it was only divisible by itself and one.
> flobert wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>flobert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
>> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
>> constant application of brakes
>> weakened brake lines
>> under-spec brake fluid
>
> 1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
> dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
> using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
> more!!! that's fact!!!
No; the *fact* is, braking will generate more heat. If that heat is
dissipated in some other, controlled manner, the brakes will not be any
hotter.
> 2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
> going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
>
> 3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
>
> 4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
> moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
>>
>> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
>> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
>> more fatel then.
>
> that's stupid.
I don't know what flobert is talking about here either.
>> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
>> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
>> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
>> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
>> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
>> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
>> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
>> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
>
> you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
> of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
> into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
> hills, heats brakes. period.
The kinetic energy is the car in motion. The conversion desired is from
kinetic energy to heat energy. I think you know this, but that's not
how your paragraph read. Any form of braking heats brakes, period. The
point made was that the incline adds to kinetic energy being overcome by
the brakes. This is entirely correct, but your note indicates that
gravity is irrelevant as a contributor. Again, I think you know this,
but your paragraph doesn't indicate it.
>> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
>> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
>> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
>
> dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
> indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
Even if you are in a place where the local populace has enacted some
statute, your blanket statement is wrong. For it to be correct in the
United States, it would have to be a federal statute. It is not. To
me, it sounds like the old canard we heard when we were kids, that it
was illegal to drive your car barefoot.
It what respect is the vehicle not under proper control? Granting that
if it's moving, it *may* not be under proper control, I don't see that
coasting automatically means it is not.
>> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
>> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
>
> eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
I agree. I don't understand this at all.
>> For an
>> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
>
> but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
> engine braking and safety.
>
>> For
>> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
>> the vehicles tyres.
>
> only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
> you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
> thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
> into the road.
>
>> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
>> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
>> ahead there too.
>
> what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
> manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
> so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
Apples and oranges here, Jim. The truck has a great deal more weight
(and therefore kinetic energy) to overcome at any given time, and the
typical over-the-road truck is driven anywhere from 5 to 20 times as
many miles over its lifetime.
>> The only way i can see the engine being of any
>> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
>> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
>> cruising gear in any case.
>
> eh?
I don't get this either.
>> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
>> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
>> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
>
> be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
> the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
> law??? buddy, you take the prize!
Please tell me what law you're speaking of, and what jurisdiction you're
referring to. There is no such reference in the US Code (federal law).
Although I've found one place that indicates that there is such a law in
British Columbia, that forum points out that each province makes its own
laws. I found a reference to a California law and a Texas law as well,
so wherever this guy is (looks like Florida), he may be covered, he may
not. In either event, simply saying coasting is illegal generally is
incorrect.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... At dinner yesterday, I tried to cut myself a slice of prime rib, but
it was only divisible by itself and one.
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord
On 8/20/2005 2:34 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
> flobert wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>flobert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
>> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
>> constant application of brakes
>> weakened brake lines
>> under-spec brake fluid
>
> 1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
> dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
> using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
> more!!! that's fact!!!
No; the *fact* is, braking will generate more heat. If that heat is
dissipated in some other, controlled manner, the brakes will not be any
hotter.
> 2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
> going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
>
> 3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
>
> 4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
> moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
>>
>> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
>> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
>> more fatel then.
>
> that's stupid.
I don't know what flobert is talking about here either.
>> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
>> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
>> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
>> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
>> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
>> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
>> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
>> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
>
> you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
> of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
> into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
> hills, heats brakes. period.
The kinetic energy is the car in motion. The conversion desired is from
kinetic energy to heat energy. I think you know this, but that's not
how your paragraph read. Any form of braking heats brakes, period. The
point made was that the incline adds to kinetic energy being overcome by
the brakes. This is entirely correct, but your note indicates that
gravity is irrelevant as a contributor. Again, I think you know this,
but your paragraph doesn't indicate it.
>> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
>> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
>> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
>
> dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
> indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
Even if you are in a place where the local populace has enacted some
statute, your blanket statement is wrong. For it to be correct in the
United States, it would have to be a federal statute. It is not. To
me, it sounds like the old canard we heard when we were kids, that it
was illegal to drive your car barefoot.
It what respect is the vehicle not under proper control? Granting that
if it's moving, it *may* not be under proper control, I don't see that
coasting automatically means it is not.
>> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
>> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
>
> eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
I agree. I don't understand this at all.
>> For an
>> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
>
> but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
> engine braking and safety.
>
>> For
>> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
>> the vehicles tyres.
>
> only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
> you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
> thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
> into the road.
>
>> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
>> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
>> ahead there too.
>
> what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
> manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
> so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
Apples and oranges here, Jim. The truck has a great deal more weight
(and therefore kinetic energy) to overcome at any given time, and the
typical over-the-road truck is driven anywhere from 5 to 20 times as
many miles over its lifetime.
>> The only way i can see the engine being of any
>> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
>> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
>> cruising gear in any case.
>
> eh?
I don't get this either.
>> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
>> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
>> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
>
> be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
> the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
> law??? buddy, you take the prize!
Please tell me what law you're speaking of, and what jurisdiction you're
referring to. There is no such reference in the US Code (federal law).
Although I've found one place that indicates that there is such a law in
British Columbia, that forum points out that each province makes its own
laws. I found a reference to a California law and a Texas law as well,
so wherever this guy is (looks like Florida), he may be covered, he may
not. In either event, simply saying coasting is illegal generally is
incorrect.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... At dinner yesterday, I tried to cut myself a slice of prime rib, but
it was only divisible by itself and one.
> flobert wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:04 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>flobert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
>>>><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>>>>>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>>>>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>>>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>>>>>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>>>>>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>>>>>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>>>>>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
>>>>the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
>>>>mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
>>>>with the decades old misinformation please.
>>>
>>>it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over
>>>heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive,
>>>and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to
>>>make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not
>>>ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
>>
>>
>> For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen
>> badly ventilated/cooled brakes.
>> constant application of brakes
>> weakened brake lines
>> under-spec brake fluid
>
> 1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're
> dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not
> using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat
> more!!! that's fact!!!
No; the *fact* is, braking will generate more heat. If that heat is
dissipated in some other, controlled manner, the brakes will not be any
hotter.
> 2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never
> going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
>
> 3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
>
> 4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the
> moment you open the bottle. fact.
>
>>
>> Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed
>> (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility
>> more fatel then.
>
> that's stupid.
I don't know what flobert is talking about here either.
>> Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for
>> longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of
>> manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this
>> from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you
>> then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains
>> you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater
>> application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the
>> brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
>
> you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function
> of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn
> into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of
> hills, heats brakes. period.
The kinetic energy is the car in motion. The conversion desired is from
kinetic energy to heat energy. I think you know this, but that's not
how your paragraph read. Any form of braking heats brakes, period. The
point made was that the incline adds to kinetic energy being overcome by
the brakes. This is entirely correct, but your note indicates that
gravity is irrelevant as a contributor. Again, I think you know this,
but your paragraph doesn't indicate it.
>> You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake
>> instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride
>> the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
>
> dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also
> indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.
Even if you are in a place where the local populace has enacted some
statute, your blanket statement is wrong. For it to be correct in the
United States, it would have to be a federal statute. It is not. To
me, it sounds like the old canard we heard when we were kids, that it
was illegal to drive your car barefoot.
It what respect is the vehicle not under proper control? Granting that
if it's moving, it *may* not be under proper control, I don't see that
coasting automatically means it is not.
>> As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's
>> and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh.
>
> eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.
I agree. I don't understand this at all.
>> For an
>> avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference.
>
> but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for
> engine braking and safety.
>
>> For
>> stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of
>> the vehicles tyres.
>
> only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast,
> you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned
> thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball
> into the road.
>
>> In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational
>> inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're
>> ahead there too.
>
> what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck
> manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its
> so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.
Apples and oranges here, Jim. The truck has a great deal more weight
(and therefore kinetic energy) to overcome at any given time, and the
typical over-the-road truck is driven anywhere from 5 to 20 times as
many miles over its lifetime.
>> The only way i can see the engine being of any
>> benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer
>> situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a
>> cruising gear in any case.
>
> eh?
I don't get this either.
>> Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this,
>> each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to
>> see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
>
> be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if
> the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the
> law??? buddy, you take the prize!
Please tell me what law you're speaking of, and what jurisdiction you're
referring to. There is no such reference in the US Code (federal law).
Although I've found one place that indicates that there is such a law in
British Columbia, that forum points out that each province makes its own
laws. I found a reference to a California law and a Texas law as well,
so wherever this guy is (looks like Florida), he may be covered, he may
not. In either event, simply saying coasting is illegal generally is
incorrect.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... At dinner yesterday, I tried to cut myself a slice of prime rib, but
it was only divisible by itself and one.