In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
Didn't get that far. It was a courtesy car so I wasn't really doing "moving off slowly"
FILL THE BOTTLE NOW
I was thinking more of avoiding the need to keep my foot on the brake, rather than "wear" (heating up) of the torque converter. I imagine that most handbrakes aren't enough to prevent an auto creeping in drive - or at least, can't be *guaranteed* to avoid it...
Or, to look at it another way, they need to get dangerously close to you before they even know you are there. And while it may be their *fault* if they run into the back of you, there's still damage to your car even if their insurance pays for it.
DSG to me is dual clutch! Very smooth. 7 gears.
Yes, can do it on the gear shift lever thingy as well.
About the only thing I ever do is occasionally choose S ("Sport") mode, which keeps the gearing much lower. Without that it is often in 7 at just a bit over 40. (Depends on general settings, Comfort, Economy, etc.)
However, it does change down very obviously and positively - but it only does that under the control of the Adapative Cruise Control, if I am using it. Jolly effective when going downhill.
It's not dangerously close, I can see taillights easily in the fog. If I can't, then I'm going so fast I'm going to run off the road anyway.
As for damage, when the front of a car hits the back of a car, the front gets 10 times more damage (due to health and softy regulations). I have in fact had nothing more than a chip of paint on the back of my car, whereas the woman (it's always a woman) that rear ended me lost a radiator, both headlights, the bumper, and the bonnet.
Yep. But am considering an auto for the best cruise control for long distance trips.
But with that risk of wear of the clutches.
I likely would if I changed to an auto.
Except for the clutch wear.
I never need to do any maintenance on clutches or manual gearboxes and keep my cars for a very long time. The previous one for 45 years and the current one for 14 and I am only considering a change now to get a decent cruise control for long distance trips and to avoid having to fart around with gear changes around town.
Its never happened to me. Once the entire road was closed for about half an hour with a major HGV rollover on a motorway but it wasn't clear why the cops had the traffic stopped with such a long tail back and we were creeping along for part of that.
According to an established tro^W expert on all subjects, that automatic brake application will not be fast enough. Fractions of a second is not as fast as a manual handbrake.
Does a fraction of a second make a scrap of real world difference?
I depress brake pedal (with my right foot). Car stops. Parking brake applies. I take my foot off brake pedal. However long it actually takes, the car doesn't start rolling forwards, nor backwards. Which, in my book, is fast enough.
(Partner keeps pointing out that faster computers get to a point where they are, from the perspective of the user, instantaneous. Faster than that is utterly unnecessary.)
How close do you have to get before you can see the taillights of the car in front? Fog lights allow you still to see the car at a much greater distance - to allow for the normal 2-second rule plus an extra factor of safety because of the fog. If I can see a car in front, I can judge how far away it is and know how safe it is to drive; if I can't see a car, driving is much more difficult because you have to rely on trying to see kerbs, white lines, trees etc to work out where the bends are.
That's very true. The first time I was rear-ended, when I was lead car at a roundabout and the car behind thought I was going to set off but I judged it not to be safe, my tailgate was slightly bent (though I managed to tie it shut with my tow rope) but the other car lost his radiator. That was back in the early 90s; I bet health and softy rules make modern cars even more liable to crumple that those of late 80s/early 90s vintage.
If you need 2 seconds to stop, please surrender your license.
Er....fog doesn't make your brakes less effective.
If it's foggy, you should be driving slower to see non-lit things anyway, so you don't need the car in front lit at all.
ROFL! My colleague did the same, except he was the guy behind. The woman in front was too tentative. What excuse did you have for not going?
I had worse. I was waiting behind a woman who pulled halfway out into a junction, then proceeded to reverse (!) back into me when she realised something was coming. I blasted my horn, she jammed on her brakes, then panicked as she saw the other car swerve around her. It would have been funnier if there was something coming the other way and 4 of us had collided. Having her pay for the damage to 4 cars would have been hilarious.
In article <r0n095$947$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, NY snipped-for-privacy@privacy.invalid writes
I've had several autos and never come across one where the handbrake couldn't hold against creeping.
In article <op.0e12ges3wdg98l@glass>, Commander Kinsey snipped-for-privacy@military.org.jp> writes
Which bit of "fog" do you not understand?
Just how much heat to you think it generates lugging a caravan up a hill? I'll give you a clue. A lot more than when idling.
Not deserving the name of brake if it can't prevent an auto creeping.
Ah - it may well be now. The original on BMW was single clutch.
It's what I like about the PDK. If not in a rush, it gets into the highest gear it will pull. Which is 7 at just over 40.
That shows how clueless you are.
Come back with the true stopping times, I know you can't.
P Hucker understands very little.
Next he'll be saying he can always stop in less than 2 seconds.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.