OT: Brakes seizing on electric cars?

Don't assume you know how every car works. I speak from 1st hand experience when I tell you with 100% certainty that my 1998 VW Golf 1.9 TDI had precisely 4 ratios. You can tell when you're driving it! The first ratio took it up to 50mph, the second ratio to 75mph, the third ratio to 100mph, and the 4th ratio to 125mph (speeds are approximate but you get the idea). A similar manual car got to speeds of 25/50/75/100/125mph in each gear. Clearly mine had the lowest ratio removed.

For the record, a lot of autos, under light throttle, will skip the lowest ratio at launch. Under heavy throttle however, *every available ratio* will be used *in sequence*.

I know way more than you, that much is certain.

You cannot compare *ratios* of an auto with a manual gearbox. gear ratios of a manual are selected, in conjunction with a final drive ratio, by reference to *engine performance* and, in particular, the

Our resident idiot likely thinks if 1st gear isn't on the selector mechanism it doesn't exist. And autos that only have drive neutral reverse and park on the selector only one forward gear.

Many 3 speed autos have a higher geared reverse than 1st. I'd guess a function of how reversing the motion is achieved.

Do remember many autos around these days that don't have a torque convertor. In the US, they seem to think they ain't autos. ;-)

A lot of people haven't a clue. They just drive the things.

Yes, exactly that. The power input on a typical compound gearset (eg. BW35) enters at different points. For low, it enters at the primary sun gear, for reverse at the secondary sun gear. That's where you get the higher reduction reverse ratio. I won't try to explain that to a person who has no clue about the internals of an auto trans given he thinks a torque converter gives a *reduction ratio*.

Bullshit. I was going by noticing when it changed gear - blatantly obvious from the rev counter and the engine pitch.

However it did it, it was bloody fun.

Of course it does. It varies the ratio between the engine speed and the wheel speed, just like the gears do.

Presumably ALMOST in contact, otherwise you're just wearing them out.

I guess you're right though, occasional braking, even just twice each time you use the car (stopping at the destination and stopping when you get back), still moves all the brake parts so they can't rust up. Or maybe they've come up with the wonderful idea of not using rustable metals! You'd think we were still in the last century.

Different skill set. Cars ain't like houses.

Then put me in your killfile you moron.

You wash a device which is outdoors? Do you not have rain where you live?

Mine does it by just parking on the drive for a week.

Never had the latter happen.

I virtually never use the handbrake, it's unnecessary unless you're parked on a very steep hill and can't find anything like a kerb to steer the wheels into.

What's wrong with your feet? I can do that using the footbrake. Hold the car on the brake with the clutch pressed in fully. Lift the clutch until just before the point the engine will stall. This will hold the car for the split second required for the next step. Now move your foot from the brake to the accelerator, apply power, and release the clutch. I always do that and find it much easier than faffing around with the handbrake.

It's one of those things you do on the test then don't do again, like using both hands on the wheel.

All cars should be automatic, then you wouldn't have to do the above. There really is no point in inventing a far superior gearbox, then continuing to make cars using the old one. Same applies to petrol cars, they were superceded by the more efficient and longer lasting diesel engines.

So there are actually drivers even more incompetant than you?

Wow, all that clever tech, when they could have just fitted an auto box.

I went to school every day on a Greyhound bus. The oldest ones they had, as kids tend to vandalise the interior. They required double-de-clutching, not sure if that was the way they were made or because the gearboxes were f***ed. When Tayside buses bought them over, it was quite funny to see the new set of drivers having no clue how to change gear.

Actually, sometimes wheelspinning helps. I once tried to ascend a steep hill with deep snow in a VW Golf auto. Nobody else was managing to get up the hill and had given up. I tried it and went up gently, but there wasn't enough traction in the snow. So I just stood on the throttle. Being an auto the front wheels very quickly got up to a tremendous speed (about 100mph on the speedo) and snow flew everywhere. It dug through to the tarmac and got grip. I continued this all the way up the half mile of road, going about 5mph but with the wheels at 100 and made some nice tracks, which other cars then followed.

Gears are a *fixed ratio*. A torque converter has no ratio as such. It has, instead, a *variable slip factor* and a variable torque multiplication factor. No gears are used in a torque converter.

It was the way they were made, no synchromesh. My brother dropped into a bus depot to apply for a job bus driving. The boss of the depot came out to see him and noticed a *truck* parked outside the office. The boss asked him if he drove that truck into the depot. My brother gave an affirmative reply and he got the job on the spot, no further interview required. You see, the truck he drove in was an old Bedford with *no* synchromesh. The bus company had a lot of old Bedford buses, also with no synchromesh and used on the extremely hilly routes around the city, and a dearth of drivers capable of driving them.

Most drivers nowadays would have trouble with an open low gearbox, much less a full crash gearbox.