No Bill, stop being so obtuse.
I meant freewheeling down hill with everything in running mode including the gearbox connected to the wheels by the clutch. The engine keeps turning but the sensing mechanism says it doesn't need power so cuts off the fuel.
All vehicles, petrol and diesel, have being doing this for a decade or two now.
Wish I had a pound for everyone who says they'd do that then don't.
But what ever happened to 'the will of the people'? Only when it suits you, obviously.
But it's far more important the rich are able to put money away for a rainy day than the poor. In Mr Doom's world the poor have rain every day and should be grateful for it.
It's more of a practical issue.
I remember when there was a 98% rate of tax. I don't think it brought in that much money, because people ordered their affairs to avoid paying it. Just as an example, they would buy shares with capital growth prospects but producing very little income. Amazon, for example.
There's some academic research that suggests a top tax rate in the region of 40-50% maximises the tax take, but don't ask me to find it please. Anything above that is counter-productive, ie it reduces the revenue raised.
That's certainly what my turbo diesel does: I can see the instantaneous fuel consumption on the trip computer drop to 999 mpg ("infinitesimal") if I lift off the power while in gear, but it only falls to about 200 mpg if I also press the clutch. This means that if the momentum of the car is keeping the engine turning, the fuel is cut off, whereas if the engine is not being turned by the wheels, a small amount of fuel is needed to keep it idling.
I did a similar thing driving the works van about 30 years ago. The backfires were simply the inevitable side effect of the experiment I was conducting which was to test the increased engine braking effect you can achieve by switching the ignition off and pressing the accelerator pedal hard to the floor. This increases the pumping losses, and therefore the drag which varies quite noticeably as you operate the accelerator pedal up and down.
This trick might still work with fuel injected petrol engines where the accelerator links directly to the throttle valve. The latest engines may be relying entirely on the ecu to indirectly control the throttle valve as well as the fuel injection, for all I know of the latest and greatest models of car in use today, so will probably fail to produce the same result.
I can confirm that. One of my early (and cheap) cars was a P4 Rover (a bit like TV's Siegfried Farnon used to drive), only mine was tatty and one of the quarterlights was missing its lock, so anyone could open the door through that window. That model of Rover had an electric fuel pump, so I fitted a concealed switch in the pump circuit that I could reach from the driver's seat. When I parked the car I switched off the fuel pump. The theory was that if anybody stole the car, the engine would start and they could drive off, but the engine would stop when the float chambers emptied. I reckoned that anybody stealing the car wouldn't hang around to find out why it had stopped, and I would get it back within walking distance of where I had parked it. (Nobody did steal the car, but the idea was good).
Anyway, I was driving through north Devon, and there is a progressively steep hill going down into Lynmouth. The signs count down from 1 in 15 as the first sign, via various steeper warnings on the way to the final
1 in 3 before entering the town. When I saw the 1 in 15 in the distance, I turned off the petrol pump, and just before I got to the 1 in 12 sign I ran out of petrol in the carburettors, and after that I could use the compression as a brake by varying the throttle position. I didn't need to touch the brakes at all until the 1 in 4 sign.And when I turned the petrol pump back on at the bottom of the hill, there was no BANG.
Jim
In message , Indy Jess John writes
Very ingenious! What you had simulated was what happens in modern engines on overrun, where the control system stops feeding any petrol to the engine when it's not needed (albeit immediately, and not after waiting for a carburettor to empty).
But of course there wouldn't be any bang. The engine would simply think you had run out of petrol, so there would be no petrol vapour to ignite in the exhaust pipe.
Needed for emissions. A petrol engine on the overrun will produce lots of nasties if you don't cut off the fuel or introduce more air.
Dunno what diesels do. Many seem to smoke after you re-apply power.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
Isn't that often a sign of leaky piston rings (both diesel and petrol)?
There wouldn't be a bang without any juice left in it. I used to do it
*with* the petrol on down Mt. Pleasant in Tunbridge Wells when I was a callow youth of 20; got a really *loud* report towards the bottom when I switched the ign back on. One day I did this in a 3.8 Jag and blew the silencer box wide open. I didn't do it any more after that. Still, it was fun while it lasted. One bloke I'd sized-up waiting at the road side to cross managed to jump backwards up an 10" curb he was so alarmed (and that was the one that blew the silencer).
Blue or black smoke?
One feature of the early Rover cars is their use of drum brakes with twin trailing shoes at the front. As a anti-lock device it worked very well, but if I used the brakes a lot they got very hot.
Maximising engine braking rather than using the brakes too much downhill was the best way to ensure that when I really needed the brakes, they worked well.
Jim
A mate used to do that to girls but just by blipping the throttle on his Gixxer as he was about to pass them.
I was following him once and saw a couple collapse in fits of laughter, like yours, after they jumped 10". ;-)
Cheers, T i m
I didn't worry about the throttle.
I had a Honda CB72, and managed to fit a pair of Maserati air horns to it.
That worked very well. One pair jumped *into* the road, though.
That was going back a bit. A predecessor to my CB250 Nighthawk.
Hehe.
I bet!
Ooops. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
I bought it in 1967. Kept it for about 6 years, but had a car for the last 3.
I pretty well stripped it down and rebuilt it, engine included.
Nice one Bill. Lovely picture.
The top 1% of taxpayers currently pay an astonishing 29% of the entire amount of income tax collected by HMRC.
If only half of them leave if Corbyn gets into power, the JAMS are going to be paying a *lot* more tax to make up the difference.
meanwhile the bottom 50% who pay 0.001% of total income tax won't be affected.
Really> Where do you think they get the money from to pay that tax? Do they print it themselves? If it is earned in this country, then they'll be no longer able to do that when they leave. And good riddance anyway. Very few who claim they'll leave if such and such happen ever do.
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.