 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / April 2005Braking in New Handbrake shoes and Disks
How long to brake in new handbrake shoes and rear disks? (E46 330D) The rear drivers side disk on my car is rubbing on the bottom shoe on the side facing front of car. I've stripped the brake down and checked everything else and by putting some tip-ex onto the shoe I discovered where it's rubbing. Doesn't seem to drag all the time, just once per rotation. It's been about 1000miles now since they were installed on the car but I can still hear it rubbing sometimes. Used genuine BMW dealer disks and ATE shoes. Will the rubbing go away as they bed in some more or have I a problem here ? Thanks MC > How long to brake in new handbrake shoes and rear disks? (E46 330D) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shoes. Will the rubbing go away as they bed in some more or have I a > problem here ? I'd say you have a problem. Sounds like the discs are not running true. Either the discs are faulty, which is unlikely as they're new, or the hub mounting flange is damaged, or there's a foreign body trapped between the disc/hub mating faces. Check the mounted disc for runout with a dial guage. It should be true within a thou or two. If it's more, it should give an indication of where to look for the problem. If nothing is apparent, check the disc mounting face on the hub. If that's OK it could be a faulty disc. Mike. > The rear drivers side disk on my car is rubbing on the bottom shoe on > the side facing front of car. I've stripped the brake down and checked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dealer disks and ATE shoes. Will the rubbing go away as they bed in > some more or have I a problem here ? The handbrake shoes should be bedded in using the procedure described in the owner's handbook. From memory, you just drive at moderate town speeds with the handbrake applied gently for a couple of miles. However, it's most unusual for the handbrake shoes to *ever* need replacing in normal use.  Signature*Does fuzzy logic tickle? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. You're probably right but I (perhaps unwisely) decided to replace them when replacing the rear disks, together with the spring kit from the dealer. I've driven loads with the handbrake applied and the problem persists. I think it may be something more serious. I've booked it in to be checked out. MC >> The rear drivers side disk on my car is rubbing on the bottom shoe on >> the side facing front of car. I've stripped the brake down and checked [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > However, it's most unusual for the handbrake shoes to *ever* need > replacing in normal use. This question is counter intuitive. I would not have thought that the break in period for a parking brake would even exist. I have to wonder if the parts were installed correctly. I would be looking to see if the shoes are on straight, that sort of thing. My inclination is that a parking brake is something that would work right out of the box if everything was done correctly. > How long to brake in new handbrake shoes and rear disks? (E46 330D) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > MC > This question is counter intuitive. I would not have thought that the break > in period for a parking brake would even exist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that a parking brake is something that would work right out of the box if > everything was done correctly. My owners manual states the procedure from bedding in the drum emergency brake, and also as a different item the procedure for the main 4 wheel disc brake system. Does yours? -Russ. > I have to wonder if the parts were installed correctly. I would be > looking to see if the shoes are on straight, that sort of thing. My > inclination is that a parking brake is something that would work right > out of the box if everything was done correctly. Depends what you are expecting. The handbrake on my E39 - in perfect condition - is what I'd describe as poor. The one on my 'classic' - which is similar in performance and weight, and also RWD - will lock the wheels on a dry road at 20 mph. I also had an older car, with inboard disc brakes, where the handbrake worked on the discs, which would exceed 50% efficiency on a brake tester, and lock the rear wheels at 30 mph with moderate effort. So it can be done. But modern cars don't need an emergency brake - merely a parking brake. I think it's a retrograde step. Signature*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > I have to wonder if the parts were installed correctly. I would be > > looking to see if the shoes are on straight, that sort of thing. My [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > moderate effort. So it can be done. But modern cars don't need an > emergency brake - merely a parking brake. I think it's a retrograde step. We have talked about this before, Dave. The "handbrake" is not a hand brake at all but a Parking Brake. It is meant to hold a static load static, it is not meant to bring a dynamic load to a static condition. So, I was not aware that a parking brake had a break in period because by design it only works when the car is already parked. TO ANOTHER POSTER Yes, I think they do discuss pulling the handle up a few clicks and driving slowly (~25mph) to get the new shoes to mold to the drums. But, I was not thinking that this procedure would alter the OP's experience that was described. > > Depends what you are expecting. The handbrake on my E39 - in perfect > > condition - is what I'd describe as poor. The one on my 'classic' - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > cars don't need an emergency brake - merely a parking brake. I think > > it's a retrograde step. > We have talked about this before, Dave. The "handbrake" is not a hand > brake at all but a Parking Brake. It is meant to hold a static load > static, it is not meant to bring a dynamic load to a static condition. > So, I was not aware that a parking brake had a break in period because > by design it only works when the car is already parked. I'm not sure how you could design a friction brake that only worked to hold the car stationary? Although you could mess about with the linings so it had the very best friction under those conditions?. But if all it was required to do was just this, then a mechanical lock - like you have on an auto - would be perfect. But handbrakes are the same as the normal working brakes in principle, ie friction. And do the job rather badly on the average BMW. > TO ANOTHER POSTER Yes, I think they do discuss pulling the handle up a > few clicks and driving slowly (~25mph) to get the new shoes to mold to > the drums. But, I was not thinking that this procedure would alter the > OP's experience that was described. Signature*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > > Depends what you are expecting. The handbrake on my E39 - in perfect > > > condition - is what I'd describe as poor. The one on my 'classic' - [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > brakes in principle, ie friction. And do the job rather badly on the > average BMW. A mechanical lock that used pins into a spline, or equivelent, AND if the car was nudged for any reason, then the pins could sheer and the brake would be rendered useless. If the parking brake was a pad of any sort that pressed against a surface, and the car was nudged, then the pad and surface could slip and set to the new position without destruction of the system. All a Parking Brake has to do is keep a vehicle that is at rest at rest. A parked car needs to remain parked. This is what a parking brake does. Yes, they _could_ have linked it mechanically to the disc brakes and called it an emergency brake, but they didn't They created a brake shoe and drum that is minimally designed to keep a stationary load stationary. I don't understand houw you could possible ask how to design a friction brake that only worked to hold a car stationary. BMW Parking Brakes work as good as they need to. They don't make very good emergency brakes, but they rise to the challenge of keeping a parked car parked, and that is all they need do by definition. > > I'm not sure how you could design a friction brake that only worked to > > hold the car stationary? Although you could mess about with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > same as the normal working brakes in principle, ie friction. And do > > the job rather badly on the average BMW. > A mechanical lock that used pins into a spline, or equivelent, AND if > the car was nudged for any reason, then the pins could sheer and the > brake would be rendered useless. Make it strong enough and the tyres would simply slide. > If the parking brake was a pad of any > sort that pressed against a surface, and the car was nudged, then the > pad and surface could slip and set to the new position without > destruction of the system. If you've designed this magical friction material which is super efficient at rest, but near useless when moving, the car will simply continue on its way? > All a Parking Brake has to do is keep a vehicle that is at rest at rest. > A parked car needs to remain parked. This is what a parking brake does. It needs to hold efficiently on *any* hill, and also against the force of an auto in drive. To do this so the most wimpy person can use it easily means it would probably be a half decent emergency brake too? But in any case I disagree it works well as a parking brake. > Yes, they _could_ have linked it mechanically to the disc brakes and > called it an emergency brake, but they didn't They created a brake shoe > and drum that is minimally designed to keep a stationary load > stationary. I don't understand houw you could possible ask how to design > a friction brake that only worked to hold a car stationary. Thought that was your idea? > BMW Parking Brakes work as good as they need to. They don't make very > good emergency brakes, but they rise to the challenge of keeping a > parked car parked, and that is all they need do by definition. Others make handbrakes that are more efficient. It's not rocket science. Signature*i souport publik edekashun. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > I'm not sure how you could design a friction brake that only worked to >> > hold the car stationary? Although you could mess about with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Make it strong enough and the tyres would simply slide. Yes, but why screw with it? The Parking Brake does it's job easily and reliably. And cheaply. >> If the parking brake was a pad of any >> sort that pressed against a surface, and the car was nudged, then the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at rest, but near useless when moving, the car will simply continue on its > way? What are you talking about? It's a simple matter of surface area. If the surface area of the brake is small, it will not change a dynamic load into a static load very efficiently, but will easily keep a static load from becoming a dynamic one. The very fact that this needs to be explained again and again shows that you just don't get it Dave. I thought you were smarter than this. >> All a Parking Brake has to do is keep a vehicle that is at rest at rest. >> A parked car needs to remain parked. This is what a parking brake does. > > It needs to hold efficiently on *any* hill, and also against the force of > an auto in drive. To do this so the most wimpy person can use it easily > means it would probably be a half decent emergency brake too? There is no need for it to work against the force of the transmission in Drive. Indeed, Drive at idle is a load that it can easily hold in place, but there is no reason to think that mashing the gas will be kept in check by the parking brake. I have never owned a car with a parking brake that could not be overpowered by an automatic transmission if therer was enough effort put into the abuse. > But in any case I disagree it works well as a parking brake. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thought that was your idea? It was my idea, and you questioned how it could be possible to have such a design. >> BMW Parking Brakes work as good as they need to. They don't make very >> good emergency brakes, but they rise to the challenge of keeping a >> parked car parked, and that is all they need do by definition. > > Others make handbrakes that are more efficient. It's not rocket science. True, it isn't rocket science. Anybody could do it, but the fact remains they didn't do it for whatever reason. It is beyond the scope of the Parking Brake system to haul a moving car to a standing stop with any degree of effenciency. Yes, the car will eventually stop, but that is not the objective of a Parking Brake. That is the objective of an Emergency Brake, but not of a Parking Brake. > Yes, but why screw with it? The Parking Brake does it's job easily and > reliably. Perhaps on your car. But not on mine. > And cheaply. You're right there. > >> If the parking brake was a pad of any > >> sort that pressed against a surface, and the car was nudged, then the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > efficient at rest, but near useless when moving, the car will simply > > continue on its way? > What are you talking about? It's a simple matter of surface area. If the > surface area of the brake is small, it will not change a dynamic load > into a static load very efficiently, but will easily keep a static load > from becoming a dynamic one. > The very fact that this needs to be explained again and again shows that > you just don't get it Dave. I thought you were smarter than this. Err, care to measure the 'surface area' of the rear pads and then that of the handbrake shoes? ;-) > >> All a Parking Brake has to do is keep a vehicle that is at rest at > >> rest. A parked car needs to remain parked. This is what a parking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > an auto in drive. To do this so the most wimpy person can use it easily > > means it would probably be a half decent emergency brake too? > There is no need for it to work against the force of the transmission in > Drive. Indeed, Drive at idle is a load that it can easily hold in > place, but there is no reason to think that mashing the gas will be > kept in check by the parking brake. I have never owned a car with a > parking brake that could not be overpowered by an automatic > transmission if therer was enough effort put into the abuse. I'm talking about at idle in drive. Facing downwards on a steep hill. > > But in any case I disagree it works well as a parking brake. > >> Yes, they _could_ have linked it mechanically to the disc brakes and > >> called it an emergency brake, but they didn't They created a brake > >> shoe and drum that is minimally designed to keep a stationary load > >> stationary. I don't understand houw you could possible ask how to > >> design a friction brake that only worked to hold a car stationary. > > Thought that was your idea? > It was my idea, and you questioned how it could be possible to have such > a design. > >> BMW Parking Brakes work as good as they need to. They don't make very > >> good emergency brakes, but they rise to the challenge of keeping a > >> parked car parked, and that is all they need do by definition. > > > > Others make handbrakes that are more efficient. It's not rocket > > science. > True, it isn't rocket science. Anybody could do it, but the fact remains > they didn't do it for whatever reason. It is beyond the scope of the > Parking Brake system to haul a moving car to a standing stop with any > degree of effenciency. It's beyond the ability of it to just hold the car stationary under some circumstances. Oh - and not just on my particular car. Many others have complained about it. It's undoubtedly made worse by the 'creep' with an auto, and most will simply hold the car on the footbrake. But that's not the point. > Yes, the car will eventually stop, but that is > not the objective of a Parking Brake. That is the objective of an > Emergency Brake, but not of a Parking Brake. I don't know why you keep on bringing up an emergency brake, since this isn't really needed with dual circuit brakes. But an efficient parking brake would also by nature be one from low speeds. All that's needed is to increase the mechanical advantage of the system - ie, increase the maximum available clamping force. But then you'd also need a self adjusting mechanism. Signature*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > What are you talking about? It's a simple matter of surface area. If the > > surface area of the brake is small, it will not change a dynamic load [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Err, care to measure the 'surface area' of the rear pads and then that of > the handbrake shoes? ;-) More importantly, take a worn shoe out and notice how little of the surface area has been contacting the drum due to bad alignment. Ccompare *that* to you disc brake pad surface area -- which operates farther from the axis and thefore has more leverage anyway. > It's beyond the ability of it to just hold the car stationary under some > circumstances. Oh - and not just on my particular car. Many others have > complained about it. It's undoubtedly made worse by the 'creep' with an > auto, and most will simply hold the car on the footbrake. But that's not > the point. All 3 E30's I've driven had the same problem, parking brake is too weak to hold the car on a driveway-grade hill. Any of the crappy entry-level Pontiacs from my youth could lock the rear wheels at 30kph easily with their foot actuated parking brakes. Not so the bimmers. > All that's needed is to increase the mechanical advantage of the system - > ie, increase the maximum available clamping force. But then you'd also > need a self adjusting mechanism. Which is absent, hence my comment about shoe alignment. -Russ. > All 3 E30's I've driven had the same problem, parking brake is too weak > to hold the car on a driveway-grade hill. Any of the crappy entry-level > Pontiacs from my youth could lock the rear wheels at 30kph easily with > their foot actuated parking brakes. Not so the bimmers. Yup. I had a '60s Rover P6 3500 with inboard rear discs with the handbrake operating on these. It was a fairly involved mechanism, with a mechanical self adjuster for both foot and handbrake in the caliper. The caliper pivoted, but had only one hydraulic piston. It also would easily lock the rear wheels at 30 mph with minimal effort on the handbrake. So it can be done. BMW have simply saved money with a crappy design. A decent drum handbrake would need to be about 10" and self adjusting as providing the required amount of leverage would leave no room for wear, etc. Signature*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > All 3 E30's I've driven had the same problem, parking brake is too weak > > to hold the car on a driveway-grade hill. Any of the crappy entry-level [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > handbrake would need to be about 10" and self adjusting as providing the > required amount of leverage would leave no room for wear, etc. You guys are missing the point, the example you gave of a '60s era Pontiac used the actual brakes for stopping as a Parking Brake. Frankly, in those days, the parking brake was reasonably termed an Emergency Brake. It could be called upon to stop the car if needed. The trouble was that there was a court case where a person told the judge, "it was an emergency, so I used that brake to stop sooner." Shortly after that, it became known as a parking brake. You have to think of what they - the engineers - have as the goal, not of what you would like it to do. The ONLY goal is to hold the car in place once you have found a parking spot. It does this job very well, IF it is adjusted properly. My bitch about the parking brake is that it is a bitch to adjust properly. > You guys are missing the point, the example you gave of a '60s era > Pontiac used the actual brakes for stopping as a Parking Brake. Frankly, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an emergency, so I used that brake to stop sooner." Shortly after that, > it became known as a parking brake. I'm not missing the point, Jeff, you are. A parking brake should be capable of holding the car stationary on *any* hill using modest force - the amount anyone could be expected to provide. The one on my car isn't - despite being in perfect condition. Neither was the previous one on my E34. Or in the previous E28. Its use as an emergency brake became redundant after dual circuit brakes came in. With an auto, the problem is not great. But with a manual, doing hill starts on a steep hill would be a real pain. Signature*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. <snip> > With an auto, the problem is not great. But with a manual, doing hill > starts on a steep hill would be a real pain. While I agree that the parking brakes don't work very well, starting on hills is really not a problem if you can drive a manual properly. Hill starts should be done using the service brake with heel-and-toe, not with the parking brake. Irrespective of the hill's slope, it is not difficult to start this way without any backward movement and without excessive clutch wear. JRE > I'm not missing the point, Jeff, you are. A parking brake should be > capable of holding the car stationary on *any* hill using modest force - > the amount anyone could be expected to provide. The one on my car isn't - > despite being in perfect condition. Neither was the previous one on my > E34. Or in the previous E28. IMHO, any parking/emergency brake that 1) won't stop a car or 2) won't hold on hills is broken and needs attention. The hand brakes on *all* the BMW's I've owned (E12, E21, E34, E46) can stop my car, and can hold on any Seattle hill. > Its use as an emergency brake became redundant after dual circuit brakes > came in. I don't completely agree. I'm really glad to have another option - the more the better IMO. Floyd > > You guys are missing the point, the example you gave of a '60s era > > Pontiac used the actual brakes for stopping as a Parking Brake. Frankly, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > despite being in perfect condition. Neither was the previous one on my > E34. Or in the previous E28. Except when it was out of adjustment because the cable was stretched, my E36 has never failed to hold my car anywhere I have asked the Parking Brake to do its job. I am not a good source of discussion on using the parking brake as a hill holder because I can safely say that I never do that. I am sure I have done it a time or two while playing in my car, but I do not make it a practice. > Its use as an emergency brake became redundant after dual circuit brakes > came in. > > With an auto, the problem is not great. But with a manual, doing hill > starts on a steep hill would be a real pain. Only for people that don't know how to drive. As I said, I never use the parking brake as a hill holder. > I am not a good source of discussion on using the parking brake as a > hill holder because I can safely say that I never do that. I am sure I > have done it a time or two while playing in my car, but I do not make it > a practice. It's the recognised way of doing a hill start - as taught in the UK. Do it any other way and you'd fail your driving test. > > Its use as an emergency brake became redundant after dual circuit > > brakes came in. > > > > With an auto, the problem is not great. But with a manual, doing hill > > starts on a steep hill would be a real pain. > Only for people that don't know how to drive. I'd dispute that. 'Heel and toeing' isn't for everyone, and isn't practical on some vehicles. Or for some with small feet, etc. > As I said, I never use the parking brake as a hill holder. Fine. You'll not find any authority on save driving who agrees with you. And you're tacitly admitting the BMW handbrake isn't up to it. Signature*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> I am not a good source of discussion on using the parking brake as a >> hill holder because I can safely say that I never do that. I am sure I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's the recognised way of doing a hill start - as taught in the UK. Do it > any other way and you'd fail your driving test. The only rule we have is that the vehicle can't roll backwards. I can start on a hill without rolling backwards and without using the parking brake as a hill holder. >> > Its use as an emergency brake became redundant after dual circuit >> > brakes came in. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd dispute that. 'Heel and toeing' isn't for everyone, and isn't > practical on some vehicles. Or for some with small feet, etc. Did I say one word about heel & toe driving? No. >> As I said, I never use the parking brake as a hill holder. > > Fine. You'll not find any authority on save driving who agrees with you. > And you're tacitly admitting the BMW handbrake isn't up to it. I am admitting nothing of the sort. Indeed, I have repeatedly said that the parking brake is well suited to keep a stationary car stationary. That is all it is good for. If yo have to use to as a hill holder, it should work well. I don't need that kind of crutch. > > I'd dispute that. 'Heel and toeing' isn't for everyone, and isn't > > practical on some vehicles. Or for some with small feet, etc. > Did I say one word about heel & toe driving? No. I'm not quite sure how you can start a manual on a steep hill - without rolling back - and without either the handbrake or heel and toeing? Signature*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > I'd dispute that. 'Heel and toeing' isn't for everyone, and isn't >> > practical on some vehicles. Or for some with small feet, etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not quite sure how you can start a manual on a steep hill - without > rolling back - and without either the handbrake or heel and toeing? If conditions are right, it's quite possible. If some thing is not (e.g. slightly slippery pedal) then it's a crapshot. SignatureIgnasi. '90 325is (using SPAM trap e-mail address) > >> > I'd dispute that. 'Heel and toeing' isn't for everyone, and isn't > >> > practical on some vehicles. Or for some with small feet, etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not quite sure how you can start a manual on a steep hill - without > > rolling back - and without either the handbrake or heel and toeing? > If conditions are right, it's quite possible. If some thing is not > (e.g. slightly slippery pedal) then it's a crapshot. I suppose with many modern cars that control the idle via a stepping motor etc it won't stall if you let up the clutch while holding it on the footbrake, but it still goes against best driving practice to me. Of course, I learned to drive in a 28 bhp sidevalve Morris Minor, and such tricks were not an option. ;-) Indeed, my hill start during my driving test was on a 1 in 3 hill, where the car wouldn't pull anything above 1st gear. Signature*I want it all and I want it delivered Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > The ONLY goal is to hold the car in place once you have found a parking > spot. Err, hill starts on a steep hill in a manual? Or do you just hold it on the clutch? And do you ever have a full load in your car? > It does this job very well, IF it is adjusted properly. My bitch > about the parking brake is that it is a bitch to adjust properly. Easy enough with the correct technique. But given the quality of the rest of the mechanics, it should be self adjusting. Self adjusting brakes have been around for a long, long, time. It's just cheap and nasty. Signature*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > The ONLY goal is to hold the car in place once you have found a parking > > spot. > > Err, hill starts on a steep hill in a manual? Or do you just hold it on > the clutch? And do you ever have a full load in your car? Also a nightmare if you have another car sitting right behind your rear bumper and the traffic is only inching forward once in a while. Even worse if you have to back up a steep ramp for some reason (like the garage door not opening for some reason). Without the handbrake you will have to slip your clutch a lot more than you'd care to. > > It does this job very well, IF it is adjusted properly. My bitch > > about the parking brake is that it is a bitch to adjust properly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's just cheap and nasty. The one in my 540 works just fine and the damn car is even heavier than yours. Unless the tolerances are really that sloppy there must be something wrong with yours. > -- > *Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. > > Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW > To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > > The ONLY goal is to hold the car in place once you have found a > parking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > garage door not opening for some reason). Without the handbrake you > will have to slip your clutch a lot more than you'd care to. I hate to sound so superior, but I never have these issues. I never use my parking brake as a hill holder under any circumstances, with the possible exception when I am playing around just to see what you guys are talking about. But, even if I used it this way, it works fine because it holds a stationary car stationary, which is all it needs to do. Try this Jeff, place your 2-ton car, nose-first, at the bottom of a narrow entry ramp ramp inclined at a very steep angle with the nose of your car about a foot away from a garage door that won't open. Now try backing up without using the handbrake. By the way, it just rained and the surface of the ramp is slippery. Next try this. Try going forward 5 to 10 feet to bridge the gap with the car in front on a steep hill with another car just behind your rear bumper. You can't see the hood of the car behind because the new-fangled design of your BMW precludes looking over the trunk lid. You car, like my 540i, develops over 320 lb-ft of torque at 3000 rpm. You can more easily make these maneuvers without the handbrake in small-engined light-weight cars but there is high probability you'll regret not having used it if you have a 2-ton car with a big engine. There's nothing macho about insisting on playing with the clutch when it makes a great deal more sense just to use the handbrake. It is also gentler on the clutch. If you prefer macho there's always the track. Sorry, I have done all of those things. And I do them with out resorting to using the handbrake. I just don't understand the problem, I have no trouble drving my car in these condidions. I have to admit, I seldom find myslef in these situations, except that the local supermarket driveway is a relatively steep hill. But, I have no problem whenever I do find myself in the situations you describe. Sorry that my life is so simple. > Try this Jeff, place your 2-ton car, nose-first, at the bottom of a > narrow entry ramp ramp inclined at a very steep angle with the nose of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > it makes a great deal more sense just to use the handbrake. It is also > gentler on the clutch. If you prefer macho there's always the track. > Sorry, I have done all of those things. And I do them with out resorting > to using the handbrake. I just don't understand the problem, I have no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do find myself in the situations you describe. Sorry that my life is so > simple. If you're saying you live in a flat part of the world, I'm not surprised you find the handbrake ok. Signature*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> Sorry, I have done all of those things. And I do them with out resorting >> to using the handbrake. I just don't understand the problem, I have no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you're saying you live in a flat part of the world, I'm not surprised > you find the handbrake ok. For some strange "cultural" reason people here in the US are very adverse to using the hand brake. (They even call it the parking brake. Sheesh.) My own wife (American) freaks out when I used it to hold her car on the ramp to move out of the underground garage in our building. She feels more comfortable if I hold the car using the clutch! It doesn't make sense. Then there were my grad school roommates not being too fond on me using the handbrake to park the car at an angle when we got a lot of snow around... SignatureIgnasi. '90 325is (using SPAM trap e-mail address) > Then there were my grad school roommates not being too fond on me using > the handbrake to park the car at an angle when we got a lot of snow > around... Handbrake turns. :-) I can do these in a deserted wet carpark with two fingers on my other car, but nothing on the E39. And it's not down to the DSC, either. Signature*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >>> Sorry, I have done all of those things. And I do them with out resorting >>> to using the handbrake. I just don't understand the problem, I have no [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the handbrake to park the car at an angle when we got a lot of snow > around... I hold my car with the BRAKES. I take my foot off the brake and place it on the gas, and go. What's the big deal? > I hold my car with the BRAKES. I take my foot off the brake and place > it on the gas, and go. What's the big deal? It is not a good method and it doesn't work in all circumstances, like extreme or slippery slopes. SignatureIgnasi. '90 325is (using SPAM trap e-mail address) Jeff, you forgot something - you don't HAVE a manual transmission 2-ton car that develops over 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. Actually, I wasn't saying anything about my life being less simple because of the need to use the handbrake - it's actually SIMPLER, because of the handbrake. Yes I do. Well, I don't know what the weight is, but the trans is a 5 spd. I also drive a Jeep with a manual trans, and I stall it on VERY steep hills, and I have never used the manual brake as a hill holder. Ever. I am not even sure the manual brake on my Jeep works, but I don't care that it works or not, I never use it. > Jeff, you forgot something - you don't HAVE a manual transmission 2-ton > car that develops over 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. > > Actually, I wasn't saying anything about my life being less simple > because of the need to use the handbrake - it's actually SIMPLER, > because of the handbrake. Isn't the "manual brake" in a Jeep a footbrake? So what is the 5-speed manual that you say is an equivalent 2-ton car? > Isn't the "manual brake" in a Jeep a footbrake? > > So what is the 5-speed manual that you say is an equivalent 2-ton car? The "manual brake" on the Jeep is most certainly foot operated to set it, and has a lever to pull to release it. I don't recall the weight discussion that you started. I said I have a manual transmission in my BMW, and that I never use the hand brake as a hill holder. You suggested that because I never use the hand brake then I must be driving an automatic. Not only to I not drive an automatic on the street, I also do not drive an automatic offroad. No matter where I do not drive an automatic, I do not use the hand brake as a hill holder. BTW, The Parking Brake in the BMW is well suited for this activity, I just don't use it. The Jeep's parking brake is not well suited for this, but I suspect that is more a function of my particular modified Jeep than it is of the brake itself - the release lever is in a very cramped location next to the roll cage. > > Isn't the "manual brake" in a Jeep a footbrake? > > > > So what is the 5-speed manual that you say is an equivalent 2-ton car? > > The "manual brake" on the Jeep is most certainly foot operated to set it, > and has a lever to pull to release it. A foot brake is not at all practcal to use on a hill. You'd have to move your right foot to the brake pedal before you release your left foot to apply the brake. Anyway, it looks like you admit the brake release handle itself wouldn't even be reachable even if you should want to test using the brake on a hill. I have a Dodge truck and it has a very similar manual brake - it is IMPOSSIBLE to use on a hill. It's only good for parking. Thank God it's an AUTO. A good truck though. > I don't recall the weight discussion that you started. I said I have a > manual transmission in my BMW, and that I never use the hand brake as a hill > holder. You have an E36 and I am referring to my E39 which is much heavier and its V-8 engine has at least twice as much torque than any I-6 in the E36. With a heavy car, unless you want to burn your clutch, you must fully release the clutch and engage the engine to avoid slipping back and bumping the car behind - which I already told you is often very close and because of the high trunkline, one cannot see the hood of most cars behind an E39. You can't allow the car to slide backwards. As others have pointed out - that is also sufficient grounds for failing a driving test. You can play with the clutch and slip it but it makes much more sense to wear a handbrake lining than to wear the clutch and flywheel. The clutch/flywheel mechanism on an E39 also requires finesse to achieve a smooth release - you must apply sufficient RPM / torque to the engine to avoid the clutch "stumbling". So if you also insist on not using the handbrake the car will thus lurch forward when you fully release the clutch. Since the car in front is not far away you must then apply the foot brake heavily to overcome the huge momentum from the mass of the heavy car over the short distance. It's a very clumsy way to drive. However, if you use the handbrake you can also fully release the clutch and just let the engine slowly overcome the handbrake. It is very safe and very elegant. Nothing macho about it - just very smooth. I think you made a hasty comment because you are obviously not familiar with driving a much heavier car like a 540i. You suggested that because I never use the hand brake then I must be > driving an automatic. That's odd. Where did I ever allude to that? Jeff, you're mistaken. I'd be interested to see where you got that idea from. Not only to I not drive an automatic on the street, I > also do not drive an automatic offroad. No matter where I do not drive an > automatic, I do not use the hand brake as a hill holder. An E36 is easy to drive. Try driving a 6-speed 540 E39 - it's a great car but it demands much more respect than the 3er. > BTW, > The Parking Brake in the BMW is well suited for this activity, I just don't > use it. BMW designed it to allow the driver to use it for more than parking purposes. I use it on hills and to do handbrake turns in Winter all the time. If you don't use it then it's your loss. The Jeep's parking brake is not well suited for this, but I suspect > that is more a function of my particular modified Jeep than it is of the > brake itself - the release lever is in a very cramped location next to the > roll cage. Jeff, if your Jeep has a foot-actuator for the brake so that means the release lever cannot actually apply the brake (otherwise your brakes wouldn't need a foot actuator). The fact is your hand release lever only releases the brake. It cannot set it. So it is useless on a hill because on a hill you must be able to re-apply the handbrake immediately after you pause the car as you move up the hill. What would you do in this case? Swap pedals with your feet to re-apply the foot brake - IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. That's why you never use your manual brake on a hill in your Jeep. It has nothing to do with you having a choice to use it or not. It's simply not possible to use on a hill. You had no choice. > You have an E36 and I am referring to my E39 which is much heavier > and > its V-8 engine has at least twice as much torque than any I-6 in the > E36. Heavier, yes. Twice the torque, no. E36 M52B28 193 HP 280 ft/lbs E39 M62B44 286 HP 440 ft/lbs Your V8 has close to 50% more HP and 60% more torque than a 2.8L I6, not twice as much. The relative torque is generally related to displacement and your 4.4 liter is 60% bigger than a 2.8 liter. Details, details... ;-) -Fred W > > You have an E36 and I am referring to my E39 which is much heavier > > and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Details, details... ;-) As a matter of full disclosure, I have the M50 motor. I have no idea what this does to the comparison, but I suspect not very much. "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote > "The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no spam please*yahoo.com> wrote >> Heavier, yes. Twice the torque, no. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As a matter of full disclosure, I have the M50 motor. I have no idea what > this does to the comparison, but I suspect not very much. In US form, the M50B25 (like the one in my '91 525i) makes 189HP@5900rpm and 181ft-lb@4700rpm. I believe that the 280, above, is a typo, or is the metric newton-meters figure (and the 440 figure has to be wrong, too.) Floyd >> "The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no spam please*yahoo.com> wrote >>> Heavier, yes. Twice the torque, no. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or is the metric newton-meters figure (and the 440 figure has to > be wrong, too.) Ooops... my bad. That is a bit high isn't it. ;-) Yes the web site I was quoting the specs from was in nM not ft/lbs. -Fred W Jeff, the M50 design was used in 2.0 to 2.5 L motors. The M52 design was used for engines with 2.0 to 2.8 L displacement. I suspect your E36 was a 2.5 L model. IMO, it's one of BMW's best engines. But you're right though. This is moot to Fred. What may be more relevant, at least to Fred, is the comparison of M52 and M62 engines. He is trying to point out an error in my previous gut-feel ballpark assertion that the M62 engine would be putting out at least twice the torque of an engine in any regular E36 in a hill start - just a technical point, not really at the core of our debate. Here's my answer: I looked up the torque curves for the latest M52 engine - the one in the E39 528i - so it is likely identical to the one in the latest E36. I also looked up the M62 engine's torque curve. I'm not sure if it's the one with VANOS - it shouldn't be because that engine is the M62 TU. Anyway, here's what I found: ENGINE Nm @ 1,000 rpm @ 2000 rpm @3000 rpm ---------------------------------------------------------------- M52B28 ~125 215 260 M62VB44LEV ~295 ~390 ~420 RATIO 2.36 x 1.81 x 1.62 x Fred seems to have quoted maximum engine performance figures for the respective engines. That's not relevant to our debate because neither of us would use our engines at that level for starting on a hill. What is relevant is each engine's performance between 0 to 3000 RPM, the figures I actually suggested in my earlier message. As you see, the torque curve differences of the two engines between 1,000 RPM and 3,000 RPM are between 2.38 times to 1.62 times. In fact, if you average the two numbers, the result is exactly 2.0 times. I didn't cook the numbers - you can fetch the information off the AC Schnitzer website. Here is the URL for engine specs: http://www.acschnitzer.com/englisch/index.html So I think the point I made was a fair one, don't you? The idea was simply that when you drive a much heavier car with so much more torque the resulting moving mass is more difficult to control if you do not blunt the momentum with some sort of gradual braking force. That is why I use the handbrake in the E39 - it makes the car behave in a smooth and predictable manner and reduces wear on my clutch / flywheel. > Jeff, the M50 design was used in 2.0 to 2.5 L motors. The M52 design > was used for engines with 2.0 to 2.8 L displacement. I suspect your [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > why I use the handbrake in the E39 - it makes the car behave in a > smooth and predictable manner and reduces wear on my clutch / flywheel. I would suggest that as a practical matter, driving in city streets, the torque and weight and control issues would be pretty much moot. That is, I can't imagine - without actually sitting in the driver seat - that I would personally use a different technique in my driving style at a standing start on a hill. I don't think the "blunt force momentum" would be significantly different to the extent that it would cause me to change my behavior and style. Certainly, on a closed course in balls-to-the-walls racing, the differences would be huge, but when trying to get the car moving in traffic without damaging the nose of the car I was driving or the car immediately behind, I am not sure how the blunt force would come into play. I hold my car with my right foot on the brake pedal. When my turn to proceed comes along, I let the clutch out just a little so that it just begins to grab but not drag the motor down to stall speed, then I take my foot from the brake and apply the gas and proceed to release the clutch so that my car rolls up the hill. I never even begin to do any of this until I am sure that I can proceed, this prevents protracted periods - or any period - of using the clutch to keep my car stationary. If I don't want the car to move, I apply the brakes. If I felt the need to use the parking brake as a hill holder, though, it would easily perform that task. The entire discussion arose out of my suggestion that the parking brake is intended to keep a stationary car at rest, it is not designed for nor does it function well to bring a moving car to a stand still. Whether or not I use the parking brake as a hill holder says nothing about whether or not it can actually perform that task. As a hill holder, the parking brake would be called upon to keep a stationary car at rest, which is precisely what I maintain it can do. > I would suggest that as a practical matter, driving in city streets, the > torque and weight and control issues would be pretty much moot. That is, I > can't imagine - without actually sitting in the driver seat - that I would > personally use a different technique in my driving style at a standing > start > on a hill. In fairness to our Euro friends though, their perspective in many cases is premised upon the reality that they can get some pretty weak-willed cars, and it will matter to them in greater degree than it does us, here in "chaotic" America, how weight and torque affect their driving techniques (in this case moving up a hill from a standing start). Also, there seems to be a homogenous aspect to how everyone in say, Britain, drives, because they all have to pass some pretty rigorous testing to gain a license )I have a friend I dive with who's daughter applied to take the test and was given a testing date 13 or 14 months later). While here in the states we'll let any blind-as-a-bat idiot behind the wheel as easily as we will a superb driver, like me. Couple that with 50 different driving test across the land and you end up with more of Michael's "chaos" :^) I tend to agree with you Jeff. I don't use my handbrake for holding the car still while I move to accelerate up a hill either. Nor do I think these guys who are proponents of this technique actually need to employ it. They can negotiate a hill without this crutch if they want to. More than likley I think this about driving in a manner that saves wear on certain auto components. And my individual experience is that Americans are more "brutes" to their cars than most people around the world. Jeff, what I said was that it is harder to stop a heavier car that has been thrusted forward by a more powerful engine than it is to stop a lighter car moved forward by a smaller engine. Small, light cars are easier to control. The difference is critical when you maneuver the bigger heavier (EXPENSIVE) vehicle in tight places - you need to adopt a finer touch. I know people can feather the clutch and throttle to start on a hill. Some people don't think it's a big deal to use the clutch in such a fashion. However you can't do that successfully under the situations I pointed out. Why don't you go on Lombard Street and see if you can avoid rolling back 3 or more inches without using a handbrake? I was in a German town called Erlangen last Fall and the ramp to the small old-fashioned hotel's indoor parking lot was about the Lombard Street grade or a bit steeper. A person can probably get vertigo just looking down that ramp. When I reached the bottom I found the door wouldn't open. I was in a 6-speed manual Mercedes SLK and it had just been drizzling. Luckily the car had a good handbrake. The SLK wasn't heavy but it was brand new and the metal garage door was inches from the hood. A very similar situation happened to me in my 540 at a downtown condo in Toronto a few years ago. Finally, if you had used the handbrake you would never have bumped the guy behind. > Jeff, the M50 design was used in 2.0 to 2.5 L motors. The M52 > design [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > start > - just a technical point, not really at the core of our debate. <snip> No need to get testy, Michael. Let's try and maintain just a touch of civility in these pedantic discussions, eh? If your point was the 8 cylinder had more torque at low rpm you should have just said so. But that wasn't what you said, and hence my input pertaining to peak torque output, which is what is generally what is specified about an engine. But to get back to the point of your discussion, I do see your point about the weight, but I fail to understand why a car with higher torque would be *harder* to start moving on an uphill stop. If anything an engine with higher torque would be better at this, no? -Fred W Fred, sorry if I sounded testy but even you may find it irksome if other people interject in a mistaken fashion and seemingly throw the discussion off in a tangent. You may have missed the part where I told Jeff "...Jeff, you forgot something - you don't HAVE a manual transmission 2-ton car that develops over 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm.". So you see, my point was that, in the example of my car, it does have way more torque at low revs. And as I will explain below, that can present a different sort of problem in hill-starts. As for the issue of more torque being an aid in hill starting - I agree. However, just starting on a hill wasn't what I was discussing - controlling the car after it starts WAS. What I said was that BECAUSE a torquey engine would accelerate a heavier mass like the 540 in an aggressive manner, it makes it more awkward when you are pointing up on a hill with the car in front not that far away. Unless you feather the clutch or the handbrake, you'd have to stomp on the foot brake to avoid bumping the car in front. The 540 has a fussy clutch release action and you have to sort of "prime it" with some revs to get a smooth release and even more so as the grade on a hill adds resistance to the drivetrain (on level or declined ground you can easily start in 2nd). So, if you are only using the foot brake, the car will tend to lunge forward in such situations unless you feather the clutch or the handbrake. If you want to feather the clutch in such a heavy car then your right foot must dart for the throttle, making a smooth take-off even harder. IMO, trying to "suspend" a heavy car with a torquey engine mid-way on a steep hill is a very bad and unnecessary thing to do. It's much better to wear the handbrake lining. And in addition ...as Jeff has himself admitted (when you mis-time swapping the footbrake for the throttle) your car can roll back too far and bump the guy behind. It is quite annoying to have someone in front bump your car just because they insist on not using the handbrake. While hill-starts are not the regimen in many towns, taking too many such liberties do add to the likeliness of "road rage". > > > Isn't the "manual brake" in a Jeep a footbrake? > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > IMPOSSIBLE to use on a hill. It's only good for parking. Thank God > it's an AUTO. A good truck though. The point isn't the configuration of the brake, the point is that I never use any brake other than the one operated by the brake pedal to hold my car on a hill. > > I don't recall the weight discussion that you started. I said I have > a [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I think you made a hasty comment because you are obviously not familiar > with driving a much heavier car like a 540i. Not a 540 specifically, but my father was in car business when I was learning to drive, and I have driven just about every American Muscle Car that ever came out of Detroit, and I have never found a case where I had to use the parking brakes to hold the car in place while I was changing state from stationary to being in motion. Only once in my life has my vehicle rolled back and into the car behind, and in this case the car behind was within 3 inches of me. I played with using the parking brake to hold a car, and I attempted to show my daughter the technique as an alternative to the method I actually use, and my method works better for me and her than using the parking brake as a hill holder. > You suggested that because I never use the hand brake then I must be > > driving an automatic. > > That's odd. Where did I ever allude to that? Jeff, you're mistaken. > I'd be interested to see where you got that idea from. My mistake, you said I don't have a two ton car with a manual transmission, I read that to mean you must have though that I drive an automatic. I do have a two ton car with a manual transmission, and I have owned some with 300 hp. I don't see hp as an issue here. Indeed, hp would be an advantage where one opted to not use the parking brake as a hill holder. > Not only to I not drive an automatic on the street, I > > also do not drive an automatic offroad. No matter where I do not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > An E36 is easy to drive. Try driving a 6-speed 540 E39 - it's a great > car but it demands much more respect than the 3er. Fine. Bring yours over and I'll drive it. > > BTW, > > The Parking Brake in the BMW is well suited for this activity, I just [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > having a choice to use it or not. It's simply not possible to use on a > hill. You had no choice. I can always shift into N and free up the clutch foot to work the brake, so it is silly to suggest that it is impossible. It might not be easy, and it might take talent, but it aint impossible. I obviously HAVE the talent because I can work the brakes and clutch to keep my car where it belongs already. > I played with using the parking brake to hold a car, and I attempted to > show my daughter the technique as an alternative to the method I > actually use, and my method works better for me and her than using the > parking brake as a hill holder. I'm amazed such practices are allowed in your driving test. Using the handbrake as a 'hill' holder' on a manual is near universally the way taught round the world as the safest way - or at least it is for all I've asked. Perhaps readers of this group from other countries might comment? I'm not saying alternative methods can be developed - as with many things after passing the test = but this doesn't make them the safest way for all. Signature*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. I'll enter the fray as a newbie to the group - have an '05 330Ci on the ship coming to the West Coast of U.S. I've never used hand brake as a hill holder. Am 62, license since 15. Driven everything from MG's, Jags, Jeeps, Buicks, almost you name. I've never so much as nudge a vehicle behind me. I know this is only an anecdotal data point. Perhaps, the hand brake business is easier for those just learning to drive and so the "approved" method for some license exams? Oh, should add I'm not a flatlander. At present reside in hilly Seattle, WA. Driven many, many times in San Francisco, which also is known for its hills. I typically get well beyond 100K miles before any clutch work. Last car, and Audi Quattro, had 185K miles on the clock when clutch was replaced. Disk was still fine, it was the "fingers", essentially its pressure plate release that went bad. HTH - Jon > I've never used hand brake as a hill holder. Am 62, license since 15. > Driven everything from MG's, Jags, Jeeps, Buicks, almost you name. I've > never so much as nudge a vehicle behind me. I know this is only an > anecdotal data point. Before the days of ECU controlled idle speed, you'd stall most cars - well certainly something like an MG - on a steep hill if the idle speed was set correctly buy holding it on the clutch. Unless you 'heel and towed' it to increase the idle speed. Which to me seemed like hard work - given you'd a convenient hand operated brake that would easily hold the car on near any hill. Signature*Ever stop to think and forget to start again? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. I should have been clearer. I NEVER hold a car on a hill with the clutch, only the brake pedal. When it's time to go it's just a matter of knowing when your clutch take up begins, moderating the throttle, and letting go the brakes. - Jon >> I've never used hand brake as a hill holder. Am 62, license since 15. >> Driven everything from MG's, Jags, Jeeps, Buicks, almost you name. I've [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > convenient hand operated brake that would easily hold the car on near any > hill. > I should have been clearer. I NEVER hold a car on a hill with the clutch, > only the brake pedal. When it's time to go it's just a matter of knowing > when your clutch take up begins, moderating the throttle, and letting go > the brakes. > - Jon Sorry Jon, but I don't see how you can "...moderate the throttle and THEN let go of the brakes". In a manual, your left foot is normally only on the clutch pedal or not engaged. Your right foot would be on the throttle or the brake pedal unless as Dave says, you "heel and toe" - but you can't do that with most cars let alone Jeeps and Buicks. There are some "racers" who also left-foot brake but I somehow doubt you'd go to that extent with a Buick or Jeep and in any case, if your left foot is off the clutch and on the brake, you won't be able to moderate the throttle effectively because the clutch is fully released and you'll stall the engine if you try to feather the throttle at the speeds you need to affect a slow hill start. The problem with not using the handbrake is that there is always some roll-back caused by the time lag between your right foot leaving the brake pedal to apply the throttle. With a heavy car on a steep hill, the rollback can be a few inches if you're not fast enough. Not everyone is - that's why the Brits fail people who don't use the handbrake - it's the sensible and safe thing to do. Everything else is bravura. What kind of Buick was it that had a manual transmission? > I should have been clearer. I NEVER hold a car on a hill with the > clutch, only the brake pedal. When it's time to go it's just a matter > of knowing when your clutch take up begins, moderating the throttle, > and letting go the brakes. For which you need three feet for the car to be totally under control. Or a means of operating two pedals with one foot - which isn't always possible on every vehicle. Signature*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. I've yet to have the car towed after starting on a hill. ;-) <snip> > Unless you 'heel and towed' it to > increase the idle speed. <snip> > I've yet to have the car towed after starting on a hill. ;-) > <snip> > > Unless you 'heel and towed' it to > > increase the idle speed. > <snip> Heh heh - the dreaded spool cheekier at work again... Signature*He who laughs last, thinks slowest. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> I played with using the parking brake to hold a car, and I attempted to >> show my daughter the technique as an alternative to the method I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm not saying alternative methods can be developed - as with many things > after passing the test = but this doesn't make them the safest way for all. I grew up and learned to drive in Barcelona, Spain. The canonical way to start in an uphill is using the handbrake as well, although many people don't use it with varying success. My own mother, not the adventurous type at all when it comes to driving, religiously uses the handbrake method to get in motion in the many really steep streets around their place in the city. As I mentioned before, I've been living in the US for a while and people here don't know how to use their handbrake, Even in places like San Francisco where it works well. The fact that most cars are automatics is largely the explanation, IMHO. SignatureIgnasi. '90 325is (using SPAM trap e-mail address) > >> I played with using the parking brake to hold a car, and I attempted to > >> show my daughter the technique as an alternative to the method I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > San Francisco where it works well. The fact that most cars are > automatics is largely the explanation, IMHO. Ignasi, I live in Canada and have visited and driven in the US on many occasions. I share your observations. America is a wonderful country with an enviable love and respect for freedom. Unfortunately, as in all things human - some people don't know where to stop in all this pursuit of personal expression of freedom and individualism. It can be chaotic. It's not easy to have everyone understand where to draw the line. Two sides of the same coin. > As I mentioned before, I've been living in the US for a while and > people here don't know how to use their handbrake, Even in places like > San Francisco where it works well. The fact that most cars are > automatics is largely the explanation, IMHO. Of course it's easy with an auto. And perhaps with large torquey engines. But with a low powered car, most would stall without the use of the handbrake. Signature*You! Off my planet! Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > I grew up and learned to drive in Barcelona, Spain. Despite our earlier unpleasantries, I must say your home town is quite nice. My oldest daughter lived there for a couple years between undergrad and grad school and we ended up buying a flat along Travessera de Dalt. Haven't been back since 2003, but have to be in Italy this fall and my wife's demand is we set aside time to visit Barcelona. I am looking forward to spending some time there again. As for your following comment........... > I've been living in the US for a while and > people here don't know how to use their handbrake, ...............it's nonsense :^) > I'm amazed such practices are allowed in your driving test. Using the > handbrake as a 'hill' holder' on a manual is near universally the way > taught round the world as the safest way - or at least it is for all I've > asked. Perhaps readers of this group from other countries might comment? > I'm not saying alternative methods can be developed - as with many things > after passing the test = but this doesn't make them the safest way for all. As Jeff said, our standard is that the car not move back a whit when starting on a hill. The examiner cares not how you do this. My guess is that a reasonable examiner in the UK would likewise not care. Why not ask one? You're a lot closer to them than I am. I have also seen several German drivers heel-and-toe to start on a hill without using the parking brake. I have of course seen any number of sloppy drivers go backward when starting on a hill, and have no clue whether how they are trying to avoid it though I have found this much more prevalent in the USA than I have seen in the UK, Germany, France, or even Canada. By the way, I looked at the MOT rules of the road on their website and don't find anything about *how* one controls the car in this situation. Our rules are much the same (except for that little matter of driving on the correct--er, right--side of the road). JRE > As Jeff said, our standard is that the car not move back a whit when > starting on a hill. The examiner cares not how you do this. My guess > is that a reasonable examiner in the UK would likewise not care. Why > not ask one? You're a lot closer to them than I am. No, I was stating that correct use of the handbrake is part of the UK test. This also means engaging it whenever the car comes to rest - even in a traffic queue. > I have also seen several German drivers heel-and-toe to start on a hill > without using the parking brake. I'm sure they do. But I'm willing to bet not on their driving test. Many learners have enough trouble with simple clutch control - let alone trying to operate three pedals with two feet. Signature*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > No, I was stating that correct use of the handbrake is part of the UK > test. This also means engaging it whenever the car comes to rest - even in > a traffic queue. ....or at the bottom of a hill. Which probably explains why most of the people here who don't understand that a person can acquire the skill to move any car, with any weight or power levels, up a hill and in control, without ever engaging the parking brake, are not American. If you guys are taught to put the brake on everytime the cars stops, then it would seem natural for you to rely on the handbrake when negotiating an incline from standing start. > > No, I was stating that correct use of the handbrake is part of the UK > > test. This also means engaging it whenever the car comes to rest - > > even in a traffic queue. > ....or at the bottom of a hill. And facing either way. > Which probably explains why most of the people here who don't understand > that a person can acquire the skill to move any car, with any weight or > power levels, up a hill and in control, without ever engaging the parking > brake, are not American. Perhaps all the vehicles sold outside the UK have pedals suitable for operating with two feet by everyone? If so, how do you explain the large Renault van I recently drove which it was impossible to heel and toe on - the pedals were too widely spaced and in such a place that didn't allow me - at least - to pivot my foot sufficiently. And the handbrake in a near impossible place for the driver to use - obviously left over from LHD. The only practical way so to start off on a steep hill without rolling back was to get the passenger to operate the parking brake, or to hold it on the clutch all the time. > If you guys are taught to put the brake on everytime the cars stops, > then it would seem natural for you to rely on the handbrake when > negotiating an incline from standing start. Signature*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Perhaps all the vehicles sold outside the UK have pedals suitable for > operating with two feet by everyone? Or perhaps people who regularly heel & toe, don't buy cars with pedal layouts ill-conceived for that technique. Most of us test drive cars before buying and wouldn't it seem likely that we would at some point recognize whether or not that car suits our needs. For example: someone like Ignasi, who uses the handbrake regularly, isn't likely to decide to buy a manual tranny car with a foot operated parking brake (ala Cadillac), is he? > If so, Well, we would have to agree it is "so". > how do you explain the large > Renault van I'm sorry, but I can no sooner explain a French car, than I can flowery French prose. Maybe when Nissan decides to imply a bit more influence on Renault, that van will be better organized. > I recently drove which it was impossible to heel and toe on - > the pedals were too widely spaced and in such a place that didn't allow me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > back was to get the passenger to operate the parking brake, or to hol |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message