Re: Transmission Activity
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
<snip>
you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.

i'm sorry i wasted my time.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:07:02 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:45aa3da7$0$9646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> FWIW, neither of those responses have anything to do with safety, although
>> I suppose you could make a tenuous case for the first, given some
>> not-obvious assumptions about manufacturer's intent to provide and buyer's
>> intent to use engine braking.
>
> For one thing, the fact that coasting doesn't allow for engine braking
>is a safety issue. For the second, the fact that it is illegal makes it a
>valid point.

Saying that coasting is unsafe because it doesn't allow engine braking
is like saying that not pushing on the brake pedal is unsafe because
it doesn't allow frictional braking. Engine braking is available if I
want it, just like frictional braking. When and where each is used is
a decision to be made by the driver based on the situation. For
example, coasting on glare ice is a lot safer than compression
braking, especially on a rear wheel drive car. Even more so with the
advent of ABS.

As for laws against coasting; they may vary from state to state. Here
is one form Maine:

An operator, when traveling on a downgrade, may not coast with the
gears of the vehicle in neutral. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt.
B, §5 (aff).]

Now notice that it specifies coasting *on a downgrade* *in neutral*.
Coasting on level ground or coasting down a hill with the clutch
disengaged but the transmission in gear is legal. I would agree that
this is generally a bad idea and certainly bad if you are riding the
foot brake. However, if you are coasting down the hill with the
clutch in, not using the foot brake, and you are satisfied that your
speed is not excessive, what is the problem?

The only purpose of such a law is to give them another charge to throw
as some idiot who causes a wreck because he doesn't know how to
control his vehicle. Can you imagine being pulled over because you
were coasting down a hill?

And just to be sure we are perfectly clear on this point, I use more
compression braking and less frictional braking than about 95% of
drivers in the same situation. But I don't use any braking where it
is not needed.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:07:02 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:45aa3da7$0$9646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> FWIW, neither of those responses have anything to do with safety, although
>> I suppose you could make a tenuous case for the first, given some
>> not-obvious assumptions about manufacturer's intent to provide and buyer's
>> intent to use engine braking.
>
> For one thing, the fact that coasting doesn't allow for engine braking
>is a safety issue. For the second, the fact that it is illegal makes it a
>valid point.

Saying that coasting is unsafe because it doesn't allow engine braking
is like saying that not pushing on the brake pedal is unsafe because
it doesn't allow frictional braking. Engine braking is available if I
want it, just like frictional braking. When and where each is used is
a decision to be made by the driver based on the situation. For
example, coasting on glare ice is a lot safer than compression
braking, especially on a rear wheel drive car. Even more so with the
advent of ABS.

As for laws against coasting; they may vary from state to state. Here
is one form Maine:

An operator, when traveling on a downgrade, may not coast with the
gears of the vehicle in neutral. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt.
B, §5 (aff).]

Now notice that it specifies coasting *on a downgrade* *in neutral*.
Coasting on level ground or coasting down a hill with the clutch
disengaged but the transmission in gear is legal. I would agree that
this is generally a bad idea and certainly bad if you are riding the
foot brake. However, if you are coasting down the hill with the
clutch in, not using the foot brake, and you are satisfied that your
speed is not excessive, what is the problem?

The only purpose of such a law is to give them another charge to throw
as some idiot who causes a wreck because he doesn't know how to
control his vehicle. Can you imagine being pulled over because you
were coasting down a hill?

And just to be sure we are perfectly clear on this point, I use more
compression braking and less frictional braking than about 95% of
drivers in the same situation. But I don't use any braking where it
is not needed.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:07:02 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:45aa3da7$0$9646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> FWIW, neither of those responses have anything to do with safety, although
>> I suppose you could make a tenuous case for the first, given some
>> not-obvious assumptions about manufacturer's intent to provide and buyer's
>> intent to use engine braking.
>
> For one thing, the fact that coasting doesn't allow for engine braking
>is a safety issue. For the second, the fact that it is illegal makes it a
>valid point.

Saying that coasting is unsafe because it doesn't allow engine braking
is like saying that not pushing on the brake pedal is unsafe because
it doesn't allow frictional braking. Engine braking is available if I
want it, just like frictional braking. When and where each is used is
a decision to be made by the driver based on the situation. For
example, coasting on glare ice is a lot safer than compression
braking, especially on a rear wheel drive car. Even more so with the
advent of ABS.

As for laws against coasting; they may vary from state to state. Here
is one form Maine:

An operator, when traveling on a downgrade, may not coast with the
gears of the vehicle in neutral. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt.
B, §5 (aff).]

Now notice that it specifies coasting *on a downgrade* *in neutral*.
Coasting on level ground or coasting down a hill with the clutch
disengaged but the transmission in gear is legal. I would agree that
this is generally a bad idea and certainly bad if you are riding the
foot brake. However, if you are coasting down the hill with the
clutch in, not using the foot brake, and you are satisfied that your
speed is not excessive, what is the problem?

The only purpose of such a law is to give them another charge to throw
as some idiot who causes a wreck because he doesn't know how to
control his vehicle. Can you imagine being pulled over because you
were coasting down a hill?

And just to be sure we are perfectly clear on this point, I use more
compression braking and less frictional braking than about 95% of
drivers in the same situation. But I don't use any braking where it
is not needed.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:07:02 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:45aa3da7$0$9646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> FWIW, neither of those responses have anything to do with safety, although
>> I suppose you could make a tenuous case for the first, given some
>> not-obvious assumptions about manufacturer's intent to provide and buyer's
>> intent to use engine braking.
>
> For one thing, the fact that coasting doesn't allow for engine braking
>is a safety issue. For the second, the fact that it is illegal makes it a
>valid point.

Saying that coasting is unsafe because it doesn't allow engine braking
is like saying that not pushing on the brake pedal is unsafe because
it doesn't allow frictional braking. Engine braking is available if I
want it, just like frictional braking. When and where each is used is
a decision to be made by the driver based on the situation. For
example, coasting on glare ice is a lot safer than compression
braking, especially on a rear wheel drive car. Even more so with the
advent of ABS.

As for laws against coasting; they may vary from state to state. Here
is one form Maine:

An operator, when traveling on a downgrade, may not coast with the
gears of the vehicle in neutral. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt.
B, §5 (aff).]

Now notice that it specifies coasting *on a downgrade* *in neutral*.
Coasting on level ground or coasting down a hill with the clutch
disengaged but the transmission in gear is legal. I would agree that
this is generally a bad idea and certainly bad if you are riding the
foot brake. However, if you are coasting down the hill with the
clutch in, not using the foot brake, and you are satisfied that your
speed is not excessive, what is the problem?

The only purpose of such a law is to give them another charge to throw
as some idiot who causes a wreck because he doesn't know how to
control his vehicle. Can you imagine being pulled over because you
were coasting down a hill?

And just to be sure we are perfectly clear on this point, I use more
compression braking and less frictional braking than about 95% of
drivers in the same situation. But I don't use any braking where it
is not needed.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
><snip>
>you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>
>i'm sorry i wasted my time.

I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
operation of the transmission.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
><snip>
>you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>
>i'm sorry i wasted my time.

I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
operation of the transmission.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
><snip>
>you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>
>i'm sorry i wasted my time.

I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
operation of the transmission.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
><snip>
>you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>
>i'm sorry i wasted my time.

I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
operation of the transmission.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip>
>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>
>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>
> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
> operation of the transmission.

jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!! way you talk,
having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
steering wheel are the way to go too.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip>
>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>
>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>
> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
> operation of the transmission.

jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!! way you talk,
having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
steering wheel are the way to go too.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip>
>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>
>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>
> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
> operation of the transmission.

jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!! way you talk,
having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
steering wheel are the way to go too.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip>
>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>
>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>
> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
> operation of the transmission.

jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!! way you talk,
having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
steering wheel are the way to go too.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:54:37 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>>
>>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>>
>> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
>> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
>> operation of the transmission.
>
>jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
>of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!!

I don't expect anywhere near that level of autonomy in the foreseeable
future. Nor am I looking for it. I like to drive the car.

> way you talk,
>having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
>steering wheel are the way to go too.

I am hardly a Luddite. I like technology when it is well applied. My
first Honda had a manual choke. It was fun, but I never hesitated to
exchange it for an automatic choke and later FI. These systems manage
the engine so that it gives me what I want as a driver; smooth,
predictable throttle response. That increases my control over the
power.

I remember being in 3rd grade (1964) and reading how in the future (by
the year 2000?) you would just hop in the back seat of the car and
tell it where you wanted to go. I hope they have that perfected by
the time I am too old to drive. Until then, I have no use for it. And
as long as I am driving, there are certain things I want to control.
If new technology increases my control, I am all for it. If it makes
driving easier while decreasing driver control, I have no interest in
it and I resent having to pay for it. That is how I feel about every
AT I have ever driven. I is the fundamental way in which they work
which I object to. Refining that operation does not address my
primary objection.

Re: Transmission Activity
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:54:37 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:17:02 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> you just want to express your opinion, not discuss merits of either
>>> system. that's fine if the opinion is informed, but since you have no
>>> experience and apparently don't wish to pay any attention to fact, then
>>> your opinion isn't opinion, it's mere prejudice.
>>>
>>> i'm sorry i wasted my time.
>>
>> I stand by my original position; if it doesn't know what is happening
>> on the road ahead, it cannot possibly make the best decision regarding
>> operation of the transmission.
>
>jeepers, engage brain before opening mouth will ya? if it had that kind
>of autonomy, it wouldn't even need a steering wheel!!!

I don't expect anywhere near that level of autonomy in the foreseeable
future. Nor am I looking for it. I like to drive the car.

> way you talk,
>having 1930's style manual ignition timing controls in the middle of the
>steering wheel are the way to go too.

I am hardly a Luddite. I like technology when it is well applied. My
first Honda had a manual choke. It was fun, but I never hesitated to
exchange it for an automatic choke and later FI. These systems manage
the engine so that it gives me what I want as a driver; smooth,
predictable throttle response. That increases my control over the
power.

I remember being in 3rd grade (1964) and reading how in the future (by
the year 2000?) you would just hop in the back seat of the car and
tell it where you wanted to go. I hope they have that perfected by
the time I am too old to drive. Until then, I have no use for it. And
as long as I am driving, there are certain things I want to control.
If new technology increases my control, I am all for it. If it makes
driving easier while decreasing driver control, I have no interest in
it and I resent having to pay for it. That is how I feel about every
AT I have ever driven. I is the fundamental way in which they work
which I object to. Refining that operation does not address my
primary objection.