Forum menu
the car control and skills of a deaf blind diplodocus.
😆
Don't holiday in the westcountry George, I think it would finish you off for good!
engine braking isn't seen as current good driving practise. According to a driving instructor I was arguing with the other day. Apparently brake wear is OK but clutch wear isn't. Which doesn't seem right, I'll carry on using engine braking.
Heel and toe - don't make me laugh, I could hit all three pedals at once with my feet!
The reason they used to teach engine braking is because cars had drum brakes which were a pain in the butt to keep on adjusting, so they would go for increasing wear on the bits that last the longest. Now brakes adjust themselves so they encourage wear on them instead of the clutch. Pretty simple really.
Surely the sensible-ness engine braking depends on the location of the driven wheels and the load on them. What about a RWD f6rd ranger pickup with nothing in the back? I'd rather brake using the front wheels under the engine on that one... I was told not to engine brake when I did that local authority 'driving kids in minibus' training, (this was an lwb rwd transit minibus with no one in the back).
PMSL at the H&T justifications for "normal" road driving!
You can have this argument every day of the week over on Pistonheads.
I always rev match on a downshift, either heel and toe, or without braking, because it's smoother, and like many things, it's satisfying when you get it right.
The argument against heel and toe usually revolves around the fact that the system of driving taught by the IAM teaches you explicitly to not overlap braking and gear changing. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I believe that this is as much about having a standardised system that can be taught and tested, as about having any specific advantage over heel and toe.
Heel and toe is certainly not essential for normal road driving: you can just prepare earlier and avoid overlapping your braking and downshifting, but it can be satisfying when you smoothly combine the two.
I learned to do it shortly after passing my test, in a 950cc Fiesta. I learned it because it seemed interesting, then I stopped doing it since I never needed it really.
I thought it was needed on old cars because they had no synchromesh, and on racing cars because they were being pushed so hard..?
You don't need to engine brake in a modern car unless you are going down a very LONG hill and the brakes might overheat. And if it's icy or snowy then you are probably better off on the brakes alone since you are going really slowly anyway (aren't you?) and they work evenly on all four wheels. And the brakes have ABS. Engine braking is just retarding force on the wheels same as brakes.
I am a very smooth driver and I don't do it. I get smooth gear changes by slipping the clutch slightly and changing down at low revs when slowing down.
Engine breaking and block shifting is kind of taught on the current driving test. There are questions on each in the theory although you don't need to use either in the practical test.
breaking or braking?
Ha ha braking
What people forget is that the driving test is the minimum acceptable standard. Sadly for the vast majority of the population the day they pass their test is as good as their driving gets..
And if it's icy or snowy then you are probably better off on the brakes alone since you are going really slowly anyway (aren't you?) and they work evenly on all four wheels. And the brakes have ABS. Engine braking is just retarding force on the wheels same as brakes.
Er, no. Have you tried braking on a car with ABS in the snow? You get a continuous cycle of skid, no brake, skid, no brake which doesn't do a lot to slow you down. As opposed to engine braking which will provide a decelerating force without trying to completely stop the wheels turning.
Seriously - try both when descending a hill, and see which gives you better control.
Now brakes adjust themselves so they encourage wear on them instead of the clutch.
Except that when you're in gear engine braking down a hill there is no wear on the clutch.
Not one comment about the vid of Walter rohl that pistonbroke posted! That Audi was "awesome" and totally deserved the "A" word, and as for Walter, well he did nearly kill my old man in a 911 on the Manx rally, but that's another story!!
Er, no. Have you tried braking on a car with ABS in the snow? You get a continuous cycle of skid, no brake, skid, no brake which doesn't do a lot to slow you down. As opposed to engine braking which will provide a decelerating force without trying to completely stop the wheels turning.
I do it all the time.
Engine braking = retarding force on wheels. Too much force = skid
Normal braking = retarding force on wheels. Too much force = skid
If your ABS is kicking in you are braking too hard. If you are too ham-footed to brake gently then I suppose engine braking might help you be smooth 🙂
Still think it's better to brake on four wheels than two (assuming 2wd).
Except that when you're in gear engine braking down a hill there is no wear on the clutch.
How does having the clutch depressed wear it out?
Engine braking causes wear on the clutch and engine?
Hahaha.
Engine braking causes wear on the clutch and engine?
Enlighten me as to what slows the car down when it undergoes engine braking. Is it the magical retardation properties of pixie dust? Please let it be. I think there is plenty evidence for retardation due to pixie dust all around us, especially in this thread.
I've lost track of who's arguing for which side now... 😕
You don't need to engine brake in a modern car unless you are going down a very LONG hill and the brakes might overheat. And if it's icy or snowy then you are probably better off on the brakes alone since you are going really slowly anyway (aren't you?) and they work evenly on all four wheels. And the brakes have ABS. Engine braking is just retarding force on the wheels same as brakes.
I use engine braking all the time, and, while not a brilliant driver I consider myself a reasonably smooth driver, taking care not to have any jerk at all when I change gear. Last night I drove myself and a mate over to the pub, and to get to his house required using three miles of ungritted lanes with polished packed snow and ice, with three crossroads. I got to his house and the pub without incident, going no more than 15-20mph on the icy bits, not touching the brakes except on clear Tarmac. On the way back, at the second junction I shifted from 2nd to 1st at 10mph, slowing down to around 5mph, and as I started to turn to the left the car slid straight on. Tapping the brake pedal just got tha ABS all excited and I slid to a gentle halt against the low snowy kerb on the opposite side. Using the brakes to slow at any point on the approach to the junction would have had the car going sideways onto the verge, and possibly into the ditch. The only way brakes would have worked is with chains or studs, and all main roads in North Wilts are clear. I doubt if a 4x4 with winter tyres would have stopped using brakes on that road, standing upright is almost impossible with 5:10's on, 'cos I tried it. I don't care what the 'experts' say, after thirty-three years of driving using engine braking without incident on snowy, icy roads I'm not changing now.
I started to turn to the left the car slid straight on. Tapping the brake pedal just got tha ABS all excited and I slid to a gentle halt against the low snowy kerb on the opposite side
And engine braking helped how?
I'm not saying engine braking is bad, I'm saying it won't help you on icy roads.
You lot talk about ABS like it's a bad thing. If you don't have it you have to feather the brakes just like the ABS does automatically anyway, otherwise you skid and end up out of control.
Molgrips, don't you drive a Prius? I'm no mechanic nor expert driver. But as I understand it engine braking in hybrids is simulated to replicate traditional engine braking, extra revs are lost on purpose by the engine to prevent batteries becoming shorted out? Just asking you as someone in the know. As I said I'm definately no expert driver, on my lessons Ive been using engine braking on the ice both toward junctions and down steep hills. As an experiment I applied the foot brake (in safe area) and found the car harder to control having to steer into the skid to straighten up. Wish I started driving sooner as I love it.
Engine braking = retarding force on wheels. Too much force = skid
Normal braking = retarding force on wheels. Too much force = skid
The significant difference being that with engine braking the wheels will always keep turning. As the wheels slow down the braking force will automatically decrease in a proportional way rather than the on/off of ABS. Of course if you are a driving god (I make no claim to be one) it's possible to brake gently enough to maintain traction, and ease off before the ABS kicks in, but in the real world engine braking limits the retarding force in a way that's almost impossible using the brakes.
How does having the clutch depressed wear it out?
Thrust bearings. Though my point was that engine braking doesn't mean you're wearing the clutch (as had been alleged).
Blinkin flip, this is heavy stuff!
As wrightson said, no one commented on the vid of Walter Rohl dancing on the pedals. If it was as dangerous to do as some on here are making out he would have wiped out half of portugal! I can bet he wasn't even consciously thinking about it, just so praticed at it that it was instinctive. (pretty good though!)
I used to do a bit of rallying and used it quite a lot, still do just from habit half the time, and i drive a Berlingo!
I would agree you don't want to learn it in traffic or in this weather but once learnt it certainly is smoother, kinder to the car and no more dangerous. If hashed up it may get dodgy of course!
ps. today I saw someone driving with the mobile in one hand and a cig in the other, now that does get me worried!!
Happy Christmas!
So if a jet on a treadmill-style runway used engine braking, would it stay in the same position on the runway but slow it down, or fall off the back?
What about if it used wheel braking?
Molgrips, don't you drive a Prius?
Yes, but I have driven other cars too 🙂
It doesn't quite simulate engine braking, it simulates the drag of a traditional auto which will de-clutch when you lift off but you still slow down slightly quicker than coasting because of drag.
The significant difference being that with engine braking the wheels will always keep turning
Yes but they can still skid. ABS is meant to keep the wheels turning too.
[img] 
[/img]
Is that supposed to illustrate you missing the point?
Though I guess you do use the words "meant to", so maybe you do get it.
and like many things, it's satisfying when you get it right.
This is pretty much entirely why I used to do things like H and T shifting when I owned a car that was suitable (and incidentally had a pedal layout that made it easy).
This is because I enjoy driving, and I enjoy the total immersion of the driving experience.
My mr2 was only a 1.6 so the actual speed was never that high, but the work required to keep the engine singing and maintain speed in a smaller car meant that it was all the more immersive an experience and incredibly satisfying when it all came together on a good bit of road.
And by "all coming together" I don't mean driving like a hooligan - I mean driving at pace, in a controlled manner where you are hyper-aware of all that's going on around you.
Probably some of the safest driving I've ever done.
Incidentally I tried to gently learn left foot braking once on the road, and decided it was definitely not something for me to learn in that environment!
aracer - MemberThe significant difference being that with engine braking the wheels will always keep turning.
Sorry, but this is just incorrect.
Try changing down to 1st at 70mph then letting the clutch out.
I can assure you that the wheels will lock.
Have you never heard of a slipper clutch? Many modern production and racing motorcycles are fitted with such a device, specifically to eliminate the risk of over revving the engine and locking the driven wheel(s) during downchanges.
[url= http://www.sigmaperformance.com/slipperclutch.html ]Link. [/url]
[img] 
[/img]
The graphic I posted is "splitting hairs" innit.
Anyway - aracer, are you saying that you don't like ABS? Something of a different debate of course. The way I see it, whenever I've driven a car without ABS I've had to feather the brakes to avoid skidding in slippery situations. ABS just does that exact same thing only on individual wheels (which I can't do) and very quickly.
I suppose there are good and bad ABS implementations. On the Passat the pulsing of the ABS is so quick it's like a vibration. Feels like you're hitting gravel or something.
[i]Sorry, but this is just incorrect.
Try changing down to 1st at 70mph then letting the clutch out.
I can assure you that the wheels will lock[/i]
What would cause them to lock? Skid sure, but locking means zero rotation - what would cause that?
What would cause them to lock? Skid sure, but locking means zero rotation - what would cause that?
Couple of reasons really:
The engine will not be able to spin up fast enough to keep up with the demands of the driven wheels and gearbox. All engines have a maximum rate of acceleration, exceed this and it will 'seize'.
It simply will not be able to deal with the volume of air/fuel that it is being asked to process.
The majority of engines now also have rev limiters which use various means to restrict maximum revs. Wheels will lock when this limit is reached.
Also, pistons (and all the other bits, but pistons tend to be the culprits because they have to accelerate, stop, then accelerate in the opposite direction twice every revolution) can only travel at a certain speed before failing (about 26 metres per second for road engines). Force pistons to accelerate and decelerate faster than their intended design speed and they tend to make a bid for freedom, usually straight out of the side of the block.
Wow - that's an impressive strawman you've got there, RS - is Sergeant Howie inside?
Little hint - when we talk about engine braking we don't mean chucking it in 1st at 70mph and seizing the engine. Maybe you'd like to explain how engine braking down a hill in 2nd gear at 15mph would cause the wheels to lock?
I reckon molgrips has never driven down the sort of slippery road I'm referring to where it's extremely difficult to avoid skidding using the brakes, yet engine braking won't result in a skid - have one I go down every time I drive which has been like that a lot recently (I've tried both using the brakes and engine braking down there). Either that or he's a driving god.
wow all the stw cocks in a thread together
On my Integra Type-R you had to be hard on the brakes to be able to get to the throttle (like you would do on I track I guess), but my old Elan (1990's one) was much easier.Current car - not a chance (for me).
The only car I've ever had where pedal layout allowed for H & T was my Integra Type R. Every other car the pedals were too far apart, or a diesel like now.
It was probably the only car I've had where I felt it of any benefit though. But like was said, you need to be braking hard.
Usfull to learn, much like left foot braking but might only be needed once in a blue moon, if ever! But it might make that one tricky journey possible if you know how to do it.
Little hint - when we talk about engine braking we don't mean chucking it in 1st at 70mph and seizing the engine. Maybe you'd like to explain how engine braking down a hill in 2nd gear at 15mph would cause the wheels to lock?
Little hint - when we talk about foot braking we don't mean burying the pedal through the bottom of the footwell and welding the pads onto the discs/drums. Maybe you'd like to explain how gentle feathering of the brake would cause the wheels to lock?
Can't believe I'm still trying to explain this to the hard of understanding: [b]because the road surface is very slippery, and even a very light application of the brakes will cause the wheels to lock[/b]. Are you really telling me you've not experienced conditions like that recently? In such circumstances, engine braking (of the sort which doesn't result in the engine seizing) [b]will not[/b] cause the wheels to lock.
Why would engine braking which works on two wheels be less snatchy than the footbrake which works on all 4 wheels?
Trolling, do you not understand why engine braking won't lock the wheels?
I asked a simple question to which I was hoping to get a simple answer. Engine braking wont lock the wheels for obvious reasons, it might well break traction though. Now can you answer the question please.
A song to listen to while we wait for that simple answer.
Can't believe I'm still trying to explain this for the hard of understanding: [b]Footbrakes are not operated by an on/off switch. There are various degrees of modulation. Should the driver's foot be a bit heavy on the brake and loss of traction occurs, the average none-racetrack-trained driver will find it easier to comprehend what's happening and the best course of action to take than they would if they lose traction due to a bodged downchange/heel & toe.[/b]
Also, if you're going to argue, at least stick to the same set of parameters for each type of braking. You're using engine braking down a hill as an example of why using the footbrake on icy roads is a bad idea.
Anti-trolling - severe/bodged engine braking won't lock the wheels, it'll just cause them rotate slower than necessary to maintain traction.
EDIT:
even a very light application of the brakes will cause the wheels to lock
Really? I mean, [i]really[/i] really? You come across as someone who knows about cars and driving and all that, but... [i]really[/i]?
Why is it less snatchy? AFAIK mainly because the rate of wheel deceleration achievable with engine braking is a lot lower than with the wheel brakes.
Priceless.
AFAIK mainly because the rate of wheel deceleration achievable with engine braking is a lot lower than with the wheel brakes
[img] 
[/img]