Quote from bbman :

I would stop driving if I'd have to be always on the lookout for cars behind me to avoid an accident...

Actually, thats by definition defensive driving, or paying attention to traffic around you. Anytime I hit the brakes, I subconsciously glance in my rear view mirror to see what traffic behind me is doing. Judging from that statement you made, I'm sure (whether of not you admit it), you just go when the light turns green. Admittedly, I often do as well, but I've avoided being hit by a light runner at least twice now by looking left and right. You've got to remember, I live in America, the home of some of the worst imaginable drivers. You've got to watch for dumbasses texting, dumbasses reaching for something on the floor, dumbasses doing makeup, dumbasses that are drunk, and so on.

Quote from bbman :

If you rear-end someone, you didn't leave enough space and/or went too fast. There is no possible way you can make an exception to that.

Yes, and people often do not leave enough room. Average reaction for a person to see a situation, make a decision, and move the foot from gas to brake is something like 1.5 seconds (I'm talking just some joe off of the street who isnt expecting anything). So, it is now being taught that you need 3 second spacing at 35mph, and 5 or 6 second spacing at 65.

Quote from sinbad :

I don't consider that to be coasting if drive is still engaged. Obviously it's part of driving to lift the throttle and gently slow without applying the brake, but taking it out of gear, or declutching for an extended period at 60mph is different.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, you and I just have different definitions for coasting.

I've just leave it in gear with the clutch engaged when I'm braking for a stop light or what ever, then push the clutch in when I feel the fuel injectors turn back on (yes, the CRV is so unrefined that you can actually feel the injecotors turn back on at around 1200-1000rpm) and downshift to what ever gear is appropriate for moving forward again when the light turns green.

That was one of the best things ever.

Quote from sinbad :

For me it's simple, the brakes are there to slow you down, they are not there to maintain a speed- unless absolutely necessary- that's what the pedal on the right is there for. Coasting at anything other than a crawl is needless and quite idiotic imo.

You do realize that costing with the car in gear (assuming fuel injection) and clutch engaged cuts the fuel injectors, thus reducing fuel consumption. You weren't really clear about what you mean by coasting, so sorry if I misinterpreted it.

Like I said before, by law, the car must be in gear at all times. Shifting is the only time that you can be in neutral. Which means that you CAN be pulled over if the cop behind you sees through your rear window that you are in neutral, not first at a stop light. Plus, what happens if that truck behind you cant stop in time. You probably arent going to be able to get it in gear fast enough to avoid being rear ended.

Something else I've never understood, why put it in neutral in the first place? Clutches arent that hard to hold down and (I'm comparing it to every other manual transmissioned cars that I've driven, and what I've been told by a few people now) my CR-V has a fairly heavy clutch (thanks in part to wear; its a fairly heavy, underpowered car with around 100k miles on it that 3 or 4 people have learned on).

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Or there is a nice hill a stones throw from where I live. Last time I went down it I was in a 207 and found 3rd gear kept it at a constant 32MPH, so once at the bottom I could stick it back into 4th and carry on my way. If I left the car in 4th or put it in neutral for that hill, I'd have to have the brakes on the whole way down and that is piss poor driving. And hardly mechanically sympathetic.

That kind of sums up my current opinion on engine braking;use it for keeping speed under control or as a slight assistance, not full on slowing down.

Quote from tristancliffe :

And don't put the car in neutral on the way down; that's just moronic.

Actually state side (at least in mine) putting it in neutral is illegal.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

E: I would perceive efficient as meaning getting the most horsepower possible out of the engine for the MPG, and economical as getting the best MPG possible at the expense of power

Really? Well then, I guess I mean economical.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Do you mean efficient, or economical?

They tend to be used interchangeably. . .

I was wondering, when going up a hill/incline is it more efficient to leave it in fifth (top gear for me) and give the car a bit more throttle but keep the revs down, or downshift into fourth or even third (I'm not talking about reving it to 5000rpm, but maybe 3000-3500rpm in fourth VS. 2500ish rpm in fifth). I guess the main question: Is it more efficient to use a few more revs with a bit less throttle or a bit more throttle with a few less revs?

Edit: I should probably add that I'm talking about a fuel injected cars.

Last edited by speed1, Fri 9 Oct 2009, 01:36.

Quote from (SaM) :

Modern cars, yes - older cars, no. Even though they're made to do that, you'll greatly extend a clutch's life expectancy by revmatching.

Though besides that, and more importantly, revmatching provides a much smoother and more comfortable ride.

And, on top of that, you can bust the bolts holding your engine in place (but that would be very extreme, as in dump clutching from idle to 6000rpm)

So I'm correct in assuming that the general idea is that its pointless with modern cars, but way more fun?

Quote from morpha :

Why not? Coasting saves fuel, ideally you burn exactly none (also resulting in no emissions btw, none at all) while braking.
Use your engine whenever possible! Whether it's moving due to internal combustion or external forces makes (almost) no difference to the drivetrain and engine internals, whereas regular braking will needlessly burn fuel and wear your pads and discs.

I'm not talking about slowing going down hills or over mountain passes or in normal driving (and I know that when I see a light go to red in front of me, I put it in fourth and coast with the clutch engaged right up until the motor sounds like it hits 1500rpm because, yes, with a fuel injected engine that is way more efficient). What I'm talking about is the people who through it from 5th to 3 at 65 mph without blipping. That slows you down a lot faster than blipping, but it is super bad for the clutch. What I was getting at is that its better to use your brakes for the same amount of slowing force you'd get from relying on your clutch. Bottom line, I've spent a good deal of time driving over passes out in the rockies, so by no means am I anti-keeping-your-speed-under-control, but I am anti clutch reliant engine braking.

Quote from morpha :

Considering how hard it is to do it (close to) perfect every single time and how well, fast and reliable synchromeshed transmissions work... Yeah, it pretty much is
Assuming we're talking about road cars of course.

Thats kind of what I figured, but I will say that I've just gone out and tried it on some twisty back roads, and it is quite smoother, but way slower. You shouldnt be using your engine for braking that much anyways, so you might as well go with what is fun/smoother.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

Actually, I've taken to clutchless shifting recently. I've found at about 5k in every gear bar first, I can shift up clutchless with zero resistance, which I've been told means everything is syncro'd at that speed. I haven't noticed any strange noises or feel when driving, and I've also been told it lessens the wear on the syncros, as long as you have the revs matched.

I know I've done that just to screw with the minds of people who dont understand how to drive standard, and it can be entertaining, but I've never heard about the being better on syncros thing, but I guess it might keep the lay shaft spinning at the same speed. I'm def. not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that I've never heard it.

Quote from morpha :

double declutching is something

• many people believe to be doing correctly, even if they're not
• that needs practice (and loads of it!) to outperform a synchromesh in matching revs, simply because it takes a lot of time to declutch/engage/declutch/engage all in the same time the synchros would need

That said, it does give you more control and allows for smoother gearchanges, even if they're slower.

Yeah, I spend around 2 hours in a big empty parking lot practicing 3-2-1 double clutching, and it feels to be just about right (it also looks exactly the same as the times that I've seen my grandpa do it, and he's been to quite a few perf. driving school), but thats not to say that it is. My double clutch heel toe down shifts do feel way smoother than my single clutch ones. One of my biggest problem is the fact that our CR-V has very oddly spaced petals, so foot positioning can be a tad strange unless you plan ahead.

Ok, so I just taught myself how to double clutch heel and toe and I find it extremely entertaining. I know the idea behind double clutching is to get the lay shaft spinning the same speed as the engine and drive shaft so that the syncros are less stressed, but my question is this: In the real world, is that really going to help your tranny that much? I mean, on paper it helps, and I'm sure it does in the real world, but is it really that much?

I will say though, that just for fun's sake, I cant see myself going back to single clutching.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of those headlight covers are. They look bad, give law enforcement agencies probable cause to pull you over, and its just about the same as putting sunglasses over your head lights. All it does is dim them.

Wow, I think thats one of the coolest things I've ever seen on the internet.

I feel worse about Billy Mays than any of the others who have died recently. He really did start with close to nothing.

^^^
Yeah, I defiantly wouldn't say they have next to no computers, just those aren't for driver aid.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No it's not the speed. It's the show of skill, both driving and technical. The political intrigue. Touring cars, for me, is slightly rubbish drivers barging into each other, in cars that look like the rubbish you find in showrooms.

They just do nothing for me. But every F1 race us edge of the seat stuff for me.

Just an FYI, I'm not one of those idiots that thinks that F1 is all computer and no skill, but I love the slight rubbishness of it all, call me ignorant, but I love to see stuff explode. Besides, for a test of skill, I prefer something like rally or hillclimb.

God almighty, Could somebody post a link to a reputable site other than Reuters? And I wouldnt listen to an effin thing TMZ says.

I guess you're one of those people who just likes speed, not close racing with some contact and crashing.

I'm going to assume you're joking. . .

Quote from deggis :

Racing being boring has little to do with Max/Bernie. And the average viewer barely knows who the hell they are anyway.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I dont really care that much about the whole issue as I find F1 boring in the first place.