 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / March 2006BMW Accelerator jam car hits 135mph
Accelerator jam car hits 135mph A motorist drives for 60 miles at speeds of 135mph after the accelerator on his BMW car jams. Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/england/4796264.stm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have slowed down the car. Derek Allegedly, he thought doing so would disable the vehicle's power steering. Funny how he broke down in tears though, beer belly, bleached blond hair, ear-ring, BMW driver, I bet he used to be a proper Jack-The-Lad at his local pub. These young boys certainly are in touch with their feminine side these days. >Allegedly, he thought doing so would disable the vehicle's power >steering. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >These young boys certainly are in touch with their feminine side these >days. I had an auto gearbox Cavalier once where the auto choke jammed on resulting in very high revs, not 135 mph I admit but, pulled to side of road, engaged neutral, switched off engine, called garage, problem solved. Mike  SignatureMichael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners. Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians. Yorkshire Halvard Lange OK, no Brits should get mad at this because it's just a reaction to seeing this guy's picture and that's all. There was a (serious) news story some decades back about how Soviet scientists had conducted a careful study and found that Russians were the most beautiful people of all the worlds nations and the English were, eh, shall we say, at the other end of the spectrum. (And no, I am neither.) > Allegedly, he thought doing so would disable the vehicle's power > steering. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > These young boys certainly are in touch with their feminine side these > days. >OK, no Brits should get mad at this because it's just a reaction to seeing >this guy's picture and that's all. There was a (serious) news story some >decades back about how Soviet scientists had conducted a careful study and >found that Russians were the most beautiful people of all the worlds nations [...] Brezhnev. DG Why should the Brits get mad? The English might, but the rest of us Brits are ok! ;0) > OK, no Brits should get mad at this because it's just a reaction to seeing > this guy's picture and that's all. There was a (serious) news story some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (And no, I am neither.) > OK, no Brits should get mad at this because it's just a reaction to seeing > this guy's picture and that's all. There was a (serious) news story some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (And no, I am neither.) Interesting study. I also heard a funny story once about British sailors. Apparently, they owe their success to ugly British woman they were running away from all over the world :-) NHF to anyone from "THE island", but the statement is not far from true from what I remember being there 11 years ago :-) Regardin stuck accelerator jams; I'm having hard time to believe that there was no way to slow down and stop the car for 60 miles of highway... -- nabolji auto je citroen 2cv > Allegedly, he thought doing so would disable the vehicle's power > steering. That's a chance I would have willingly taken - find a nice straightish section of hard shoulder (of which there are several on that stretch of road) and go for it. Well worth the risk in my opinion... And what of the brake pedal? Having said all that though, the fact that he hit Blyth roundabout rather than mysteriously regaining control just before it suggests that this was a genuine problem... Have they announced what model of BMW it was? My mother drives a 316TI, with all the "Fly by wire" circuitry. As a computer programmer myself, I don't like the idea of my foot not being physically connected to the throttle! >If the driver had turned the engine off, >surly that would have >slowed down the car >Derek Yes .... but it was a BMW owner ! Turk 182 > Accelerator jam car hits 135mph >A motorist drives for 60 miles at speeds of 135mph after the accelerator on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >slowed down the car. I expect there's a lock to stop you doing that. Might get some backfiring or summat - safety regs y'know. >>If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >>slowed down the car. > > I expect there's a lock to stop you doing that. Might get some > backfiring or summat - safety regs y'know. Either turn off the engine (not a good idea to turn it so far that you lock the steering) or clutch in and select N. Engine will go to the red line and make a lot of noise. Better than crashing though. > > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have > > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you lock the steering) or clutch in and select N. Engine will go to > the red line and make a lot of noise. Better than crashing though. is there a clutch on an auto? Signaturewigwambam >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > is there a clutch on an auto? No > >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have > >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No Oh yes there is!! >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Oh yes there is!! Not on the on's I drive! Where? JS > >>>> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would > have >>>> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not on the on's I drive! Where? In the engine, the correct question would be, "does it have a clutch pedal". Signaturewigwambam so ur going technical on this? then ur stupid!!!! >> >>>> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would >> have >>>> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > In the engine, the correct question would be, "does it have a clutch > pedal". > >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have > >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not on the on's I drive! Where? Between the engine and the gearbox. > JS > > >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have > > >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Between the engine and the gearbox. OK it appears that automatics don't work quite as I thought, (although they could), but it does seem they have some form of clutch ableit a fluidal rather than a mechanical one. > > JS >> > >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would >have [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >(although they could), but it does seem they have some form >of clutch ableit a fluidal rather than a mechanical one. Why don't you stick to something you know about, like wide screen televisions? .............. on second thoughts ................ >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >> >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> JS Good Lord there is some crap on Usenet. There is a torque converter between the engine and 'box on conventional automatics which may have a lock-up clutch to give a direct drive without slip above a certain speed which may vary. However there are a number of multi-plate clutch packs inside these gearboxes which are engaged and disengaged hydraulically and, these days, controlled electronically. None of these clutches are directly controlled by the driver. Now it seems to me that the only plausible cause of this 'accident' is if the cruise control malfunctioned. He could still have knocked the auto into neutral or switched the engine off though. Huw >Now it seems to me that the only plausible cause of this 'accident' is if >the cruise control malfunctioned. Well, let's get this back on course. Has the car definitely got a neutral. I think I know the answer to that one, but let's hear it from someone who does know about cars and this one in particular. > He could still have knocked the auto into >neutral or switched the engine off though. The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral wasn't an option... As for switching the engine off, presumably his hands were already full what with phoning the AA, the Police, Mum and the RSPCA. > The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst > the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral > wasn't an option... I'm thinking that the electronics wouldn't let him deselect 5th if going into 4th would put the engine past redline. I didn't think beemer box's did that though. SignatureAlan LeHun > > The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst > > the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into 4th would put the engine past redline. I didn't think beemer box's > did that though. It's a 4 speed old-tech slushomatic box. Whatever really happened, we'll never know, but the story being spouted by said chav is obviously bullshit. SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst >> the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into 4th would put the engine past redline. I didn't think beemer box's > did that though. These things let the driver select neutral from drive at any speed. There is no facility for blocking neutral from either drive or reverse. If you have any idea of how the shifter works you would know that either it has a staggered gate or a tiptronic type, most likely the latter. The man is either a bullshitter or a mental defective of some kind. Quite possibly both. Huw > These things let the driver select neutral from drive at any speed. > There is no facility for blocking neutral from either drive or reverse. > If you have any idea of how the shifter works you would know that > either it has a staggered gate or a tiptronic type, most likely the > latter. BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have it. Signature*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> These things let the driver select neutral from drive at any speed. >> There is no facility for blocking neutral from either drive or reverse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have it. Nevertheless it can be smoothly and easily slipped into neutral. Huw > > BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have it. > Nevertheless it can be smoothly and easily slipped into neutral. As can any auto. Signature*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> These things let the driver select neutral from drive at any speed. >> There is no facility for blocking neutral from either drive or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have > it. Steptronic is basically a means of overriding the engine's choice of gear... It's basically a means of giving you manual control of an auto car... > > BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have > > it. > Steptronic is basically a means of overriding the engine's choice of > gear... It's basically a means of giving you manual control of an auto > car... Not quite. If you try and exceed the preset maximum or minimum speeds of the engine in that gear it will change anyway. It gives you a degree of manual control which simply isn't needed with a modern auto. It's a five minute wonder to those who specify it. Signature*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > BMW calls their system Steptronic. But this car was too old to have >> > it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > manual control which simply isn't needed with a modern auto. It's a five > minute wonder to those who specify it. Yes indeed. I hardly ever use it and then only to maintain a low gear for descending very steep slopes in the Range Rover where I am loath to use the standard Hill Descent Control system for fear of braking traction. Hardly significant or relevant to road car use. Huw >>> The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst >>> the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The man is either a bullshitter or a mental defective of some kind. Quite > possibly both. Or surely, as a third possibility, given that it was an old car with lots of mileage on the clock maybe he or someone else had done some incompentent DIY car mechanics on it. On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all control over it. Sounds a bit dubious to me. Assuming you don't engage the steering lock, surely even the loss of power steering would still leave you enough control to bring it to a halt? >>>> The report said the gears had jammed so one would assume that amongst >>>> the other disasters to have struck this rolling pile of crap, neutral [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of mileage on the clock maybe he or someone else had done some > incompentent DIY car mechanics on it. There may well have been some kind of minor malfunction such as a stuck throttle cable but any 'normal' person would have dealt with it in a few seconds one way or another. > On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should > not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all > control over it. Sounds a bit dubious to me. Bollocks. Switching the engine off would have no more effect than taking the foot off the accellerator. Huw Assuming you don't engage the steering lock, > surely even the loss of power steering would still leave you enough > control to bring it to a halt? Of course. Huw >> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should >> not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all >> control over it. Sounds a bit dubious to me. > >Bollocks. Switching the engine off would have no more effect than taking the >foot off the accellerator. When the M1 was first opened, we were solemnly warned not to take our foot off the accelerator quickly as the car would become uncontrollable. >>> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should >>> not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > foot off the accelerator quickly as the car would become > uncontrollable. Blimey! You are an old cretin ;-) Whoever told or informed you of that is also brainless. JS >>>> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should >>>> not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Blimey! You are an old cretin ;-) Whoever told or informed you of that is > also brainless. Well that was in an era of old three speed Ford Zephyr 6 cars which would be floored on a speed limitless new M1 when the car was built for pootling around at low speeds in a low top gear. The engine braking was such that the brakes were seldom needed to slow down other than to a stop and the suspension was almost uncontrolled by today's standards. So I would not be surprised if some cars actually became unstable on their crossplies and blamaunge suspension at that time purely from decelerating. Cars changed for the better later in the 60's but we are now 40 years on and no car I can think of would become unstable in anything like that situation. In case you think I am another old git for me to remember this, I am not 50 but do remember my grandfathers Zephyr vividly and climbing roads in top gear which have modern cars needing second gear out of five. Huw >In case you think I am another old git for me to remember this There's only one old git round here... > >>>> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you > >>>> should not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Blimey! You are an old cretin ;-) Whoever told or informed you of > > that is also brainless. > Well that was in an era of old three speed Ford Zephyr 6 cars which > would be floored on a speed limitless new M1 when the car was built for > pootling around at low speeds in a low top gear. A three speed Zephyr 6 wouldn't do 100 mph anyway. About 85 was the tested maximum. > The engine braking was such that the brakes were seldom needed to slow > down other than to a stop and the suspension was almost uncontrolled by > today's standards. They actually handled quite well with decent tyres - certainly as well as other UK offerings from the major makers on a car this size. Remember it was one of the first cars to be fitted with the now common strut front suspension. The small Jaguars were better - but not by much. > So I would not be surprised if some cars actually became unstable on > their crossplies and blamaunge suspension at that time purely from > decelerating. Not so if in good condition. Their brakes may have been a problem, but some had all round discs in the late '50s. And the Ford in question had them as an option on the front in the early '60s. > Cars changed for the better later in the 60's but we are > now 40 years on and no car I can think of would become unstable in > anything like that situation. Magazines like Autocar existed well before this and - as today - tested cars at their top speed. And would have been very critical of any which was unstable at this. > In case you think I am another old git for me to remember this, I am not > 50 but do remember my grandfathers Zephyr vividly and climbing roads in > top gear which have modern cars needing second gear out of five. It's still a very practical car for today's use if in good condition. I remember it fondly. It just pulled hard from any speed in any gear. The likely problem with trying to cruise at high speeds on the then new motorways was the engine blowing up. The gearing on most mainstream cars sold in the UK was low enough to allow the engine to exceed its safe limit if attempted for long periods. Signature*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >>>> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you >> >>>> should not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A three speed Zephyr 6 wouldn't do 100 mph anyway. About 85 was the tested > maximum. Yes but it really felt like 200 compared with today. >> The engine braking was such that the brakes were seldom needed to slow >> down other than to a stop and the suspension was almost uncontrolled by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was one of the first cars to be fitted with the now common strut front > suspension. The small Jaguars were better - but not by much. They were all wallowy and lurchy as heck and had very little traction on those tyres. Good for their time but I am judging by today's standards. >> So I would not be surprised if some cars actually became unstable on >> their crossplies and blamaunge suspension at that time purely from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > some had all round discs in the late '50s. And the Ford in question had > them as an option on the front in the early '60s. Their original dire shock absorbers were non existant within two years of use or less as I remember it and were seldom changed in those days prior to the MOT. >> Cars changed for the better later in the 60's but we are >> now 40 years on and no car I can think of would become unstable in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cars at their top speed. And would have been very critical of any which > was unstable at this. They were judging on the standards of the time though. Today they would give any motorist used to a modern car the heeby-jeebies. >> In case you think I am another old git for me to remember this, I am not >> 50 but do remember my grandfathers Zephyr vividly and climbing roads in >> top gear which have modern cars needing second gear out of five. > > It's still a very practical car for today's use if in good condition. I > remember it fondly. It just pulled hard from any speed in any gear. And drank like an alky. > The likely problem with trying to cruise at high speeds on the then new > motorways was the engine blowing up. The gearing on most mainstream cars > sold in the UK was low enough to allow the engine to exceed its safe limit > if attempted for long periods. No doubt. Huw >>>> On the BBC they had an experienced racing driver saying that you should >>>> not switch the ignition off at speeds over 100mph or you'd lose all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Blimey! You are an old cretin ;-) Less of the "old" - I was a small kid in my parents' car. I don't think they believed it either. >Whoever told or informed you of that is also brainless. Well, that's OK then. >Assuming you don't engage the steering lock, >surely even the loss of power steering would still leave you enough control >to bring it to a halt? Scenario: The man is driving for 60 miles with his car in this condition and has had time to experiment. He has found he can bring the speed down to 70 mph using the brakes, but not for long. It has dawned on him that if he cuts the engine he will stop, but has somehow got hold of the idea that this will lock the steering. Also he believe that cutting the ignition over 100mph causes terrible things to happen. Ummm.. in that situation, wouldn't you just wait for a relatively straight bit of road; aim for the hard shoulder; jam on the anchors until you are below 100mph then cut the ignition anyway and come to a relatively safe halt? Surely that makes more sense than continuing at full speed until you crash? Is there such a thing as criminal stupidity? If not, why not? Derek Potter <me@privacy.net> wrote in message <kla812l638s0ervpejkk55a2h7iaoj7mci@4ax.com>: >Scenario: The man is driving for 60 miles with his car in this >condition and has had time to experiment. He has found he can bring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that cutting the ignition over 100mph causes terrible things to >happen. I think he *could* bring the speed down to 70 at one point but he did this until he cooked his brakes. >Ummm.. in that situation, wouldn't you just wait for a relatively >straight bit of road; aim for the hard shoulder; jam on the anchors >until you are below 100mph then cut the ignition anyway and come to a >relatively safe halt? Surely that makes more sense than continuing at >full speed until you crash? What I'd like to know is the advice that the police gave him whilst he was on the phone to them. > Derek Potter <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > <kla812l638s0ervpejkk55a2h7iaoj7mci@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What I'd like to know is the advice that the police gave him whilst he > was on the phone to them. Not a lot it seems! Probably a civilian who takes calls for the police from the public. JS > Derek Potter <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > <kla812l638s0ervpejkk55a2h7iaoj7mci@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What I'd like to know is the advice that the police gave him whilst he > was on the phone to them. At seventy you can downshift the bmw into a lower gear infact you can downshift into 2nd at seventy in a bmw > >Ummm.. in that situation, wouldn't you just wait for a relatively > >straight bit of road; aim for the hard shoulder; jam on the anchors [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What I'd like to know is the advice that the police gave him whilst he > was on the phone to them. Telling him he's going to be charged £60 for using a phone whilst driving, surely? >> >Ummm.. in that situation, wouldn't you just wait for a relatively >> >straight bit of road; aim for the hard shoulder; jam on the anchors [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Telling him he's going to be charged £60 for using a phone whilst >driving, surely? Why would he be charged £60? Even mobile phone companies don't normally charge £2 per minute, and the police have nothing to do with that. If you are suggesting he might be charged with an offence, you should read the article, since it quite plainly states it was a hands free phone. And the law has exceptions for emergencies anyhow. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager You have a fine personality..but not for a human To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>Assuming you don't engage the steering lock, >>surely even the loss of power steering would still leave you enough [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Is there such a thing as criminal stupidity? If not, why not? I had a Rover V8 3500 SDi by the time I was 25, and although I only had three and half years serious driving experience by then, knew perfectly well how to bring the car to a halt from its top speed (of 129mph downhill with the wind behind it*). This guy is a former [professional] lorry driver (why former? - he is only 25), so he can't work out how to turn the ignition back one notch and then control the car on wide straight dual carriageway (motorway during part of his journey) - tell me another... * we took it for a test - the limiting factor was the aerodynamics, which caused it to scoop air under each side alternately. >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have >> >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Between the engine and the gearbox. "If you've read about manual transmissions, you know that an engine is connected to a transmission by way of a clutch. Without this connection, a car would not be able to come to a complete stop without killing the engine. But cars with an automatic transmission have no clutch that disconnects the transmission from the engine. Instead, they use an amazing device called a torque converter." So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) JS >Instead, they use an amazing device called a torque converter. I thought that was Google's Babelfish. > >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would have > >> >> >> > > slowed down the car. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) And what does a clutch do? It converts torque :O) > JS >> >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would > have [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > And what does a clutch do? It converts torque :O) No it does not. You aren't a mechanical engineer are you:-0 JS > >> >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would > > have [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > No it does not. It does. >You aren't a mechanical engineer are you:-0 Electrical actually but I also did some mechnacial > JS >> >> >> >> >> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that >> >> >> >> >> > > would [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Electrical actually but I also did some mechnacial Not enough then! :-0 JS > >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not enough then! :-0 Enough to get by :O) > JS >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Electrical actually but I also did some mechnacial Then you should know that a conventional car dry clutch is a switch which facilitates drive or power transfer [or not]. It does exactly what an electric light switch does. It switches power on or off. Would you describe a light switch as a torque converter or a device for converting torque? No? Then neither is a clutch. Huw > >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) > >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > facilitates drive or power transfer [or not]. It does exactly what an > electric light switch does. It switches power on or off. No it doesn't, at least not if not being driven by a learner driver kangerooing down the road. If it was a switch the car would stall when it was switched on (as learners find). > Would you describe > a light switch as a torque converter or a device for converting torque? No? > Then neither is a clutch. A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be transmited through it. > Huw >> >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > learners > find). The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. >> Would you describe >> a light switch as a torque converter or a device for converting torque? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be > transmited through it. A clueless digger. An electrical wall switch can control a single or two bar electric fire but it is not a converter, it is just an on/off switch. Huw > >> >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > A clueless digger. An electrical wall switch can control a single or two bar > electric fire but it is not a converter, it is just an on/off switch. No its not it has 3 phase open closed and variable slip. > Huw >> >> >> >> So no clutch! A torque converter ;-) >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > No its not it has 3 phase open closed and variable slip. Then it is not a simple on/off switch as is a car clutch silly. A car clutch is not even a torque limiting device let alone a torque converter. Give up. You haven't a clue. Huw > >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to > >> > be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is not even a torque limiting device let alone a torque converter. Give up. > You haven't a clue. It converts torque at a variable range of power. > Huw >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque >> >> > to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> Huw Why do you always leave the previous posters name at the bottom of your post? JS > >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque > >> >> > to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Why do you always leave the previous posters name at the bottom of your > post? No the previous poster does that. > JS "John Smith" <> wrote > > Why do you always leave the previous posters name at the bottom of your > post? I think his answer to this proves beyond doubt what kind of person we are dealing with. One similar to the BMW driver to which this conservation initially referred to. Huw >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque >> >> > to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > It converts torque at a variable range of power. My dear chap/girl, a standard car clutch either transmits power or it doesn't. It converts nothing. It slips only momentarily for smooth modulation. It is designed to be either 'on' or 'off'. It is a method of breaking the transmission of power just like a light switch. It is not like a transformer. You just don't get it. Frankly you should read those links I kindly provided you and stop making such a damned fool of yourself, albeit anonymously. Huw > >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque > >> >> > to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > kindly provided you and stop making such a damned fool of yourself, albeit > anonymously. You don't appear to understand what a clutch is used for when in *operation*. Its function is to provide a *smooth* conversion of torque from minimum to maximum, hence to convert torque(smoothly). It is not at all lilke a switch, that it its whole point, to avoid the abruptness of a switch which would stall and/or damage the engine/gearbox. > Huw >> >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of >> >> >> > torque [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > abruptness of a switch which would stall and/or damage the > engine/gearbox. It is a switch and the smoothness of modulation is irrelevant. There are many types of clutches but a car clutch is very similar to an aircon compressor clutch. It is a simple switch, with some refinements. You think otherwise. Quite simply you are wrong. A car clutch is not designed to be slipped other than a minimum for smooth full engagement and the refinement is to facilitate this and cushion shock loads. Of course there are clutches that have no facility for smooth modulation. An example of these is a dog clutch which has fierce teeth which engage. It is nevertheless a clutch. A torque converter is as described and is designed to slip almost constantly and facilitates a very high first gear in the case of a motor vehicle so that the power input can be a converted to a greater torque output at lower revs. It is NOT a clutch. In fact it is common industrial practice to fit a converter in conjunction with a dry clutch. In this case the clutch can be fully engaged at low revs while the vehicle pulls away simply by increasing the revs. The conventional clutch is nevertheless used to facilitate the changing of the conventional synchromesh gearbox while on the move. Also common on modern cars is the fitment of a clutch to the torque converter to lock both halves together. In the torque converter itself there is no mechanical link between the drive and driven sides. The drive is purely through the fluid which is thrown from one side to the other. Read the articles to which I provided a link! Huw > >> >> >> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of > >> >> >> > torque [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > purely through the fluid which is thrown from one side to the other. > Read the articles to which I provided a link! The point is they both act as and are used at clutches the only difference is one is manual and the other automatic. A clutch and a convertor is like wearing a belt and braces! > Huw >> It is a switch and the smoothness of modulation is irrelevant. There are >> many types of clutches but a car clutch is very similar to an aircon [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > A clutch and a convertor is like wearing a belt and braces! A car clutch disengages drive. Its primary function is NOT to slip unless it is a different type such as a torque limiting device which suddenly disengages upon overload [a torque limiting clutch used instead of say a shear bolt, but not generally fitted to cars]. A torque converter has no facility to disengage drive fully and is designed primarily to variably slip and increase torque. Neither does it have the facility to lock up fully to provide a direct mechanical drive without an additional clutch to facilitate this. The clutch can only transmit the torque that is input. These are fundamental differences. In an automatic transmission clutches are used to engage and disengage the gears. They are either engaged or disengaged apart from a short slip period as they are modulated for smoothness and convenience. The slip causes heat and wear which are undesirable so in some cases the modulation from release to drive is quite sharp with shock loads being taken by the slipping torque converter between engine and transmission Fundamentally and contrary to your initial claim, a conventional car clutch is not designed to convert torque. It just transmits torque or not. Clutching is actually a means to disengage drive, not a means to multiply torque or vary gearing ratio. Give up and stop digging. Huw > A car clutch disengages drive. Its primary function is NOT to > slip unless it is a different type such as a torque limiting device which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Clutching is actually a means to disengage drive, not a means to multiply > torque or vary gearing ratio. Give up and stop digging. Yes as I have reached sufficient depth to final bury your arguement there is no need to dig futher!! (see below!!). http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/torque_converters_explained.htm "the sprag is a one-way mechanical *clutch* mounted on races and fits inside the stator" (pump, turbine, stator and cover are the four components of a torque convertor). I rest my case M'Lud. Better luck next time :O) > Huw > Yes as I have reached sufficient depth to final bury your arguement > there is no need to dig futher!! (see below!!). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Better luck next time :O) Actually it says that the stator contains a one way clutch, a sprag in fact. All cars have a number of clutches. This does not mean that the car is a big clutch any more than it means that just because a converter contains a clutch or two, that it is actually a clutch in itself. For Dave, the first sentence defining a converter describes it as a fluid coupling device that also acts as a torque multiplier during initial acceleration. Never any mention of a converter being a clutch, which of course it is not and if a converter allied to a conventional synchromesh gearbox there must be an actual clutch in the driveline to allow disconnection during a gearchange. While synchro boxes in conjunction with torque convertors are not common in cars they are not uncommon per-se. In an automatic or power-shift gearbox, there is of course no need to disconnect drive to achieve a ratio change because the clutch is integral to the gearbox in that it replaces a synchro unit in effect, whether in a constant mesh or planetary unit. From this it should be obvious that it does not matter which side of the converter a clutch is fitted, either on the input shaft or the output. Please do try again your widescreenness :-) Huw > The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has > been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. Not a good analogy. Better to consider it as a variable resistor that allows the light to be fully on or off and anywhere inbetween. A clutch which is only 'on' or 'off' is called a dog clutch and you find them in most motor cycle gearboxes - as opposed to the more normal synchromesh clutches in cars. Signature*7up is good for you, signed snow white* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has >> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. > > Not a good analogy. Better to consider it as a variable resistor that > allows the light to be fully on or off and anywhere in-between. That is not correct because it is not designed to be operated anywhere in-between except momentarily as it is modulated. Try driving and regulating your speed by slipping the clutch and see how long it lasts. > A clutch which is only 'on' or 'off' is called a dog clutch and you find > them in most motor cycle gearboxes - as opposed to the more normal > synchromesh clutches in cars. I have mentioned dogs elsewhere. The only practical operating difference between a dog and a conventional traction automobile clutch is in the smoothness of engagement. Both are designed to operate either engaged or disengaged. Neither multiplies torque or alters gearing in operation. Huw >>> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has >>> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in-between except momentarily as it is modulated. Try driving and regulating >your speed by slipping the clutch and see how long it lasts. Try holding the car on a hill with clutch that can only be "on" or "off". SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Love is grand. Divorce is twenty grand. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has >>>> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Try holding the car on a hill with clutch that can only be "on" or > "off". Oh you can certainly abuse it in all kinds of ingenious ways. Nevertheless it is not meant to be used in such a way and it will hit you where it hurts, your wallet, if you do so. Huw >>>>> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has >>>>> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >it is not meant to be used in such a way and it will hit you where it hurts, >your wallet, if you do so. No doubt. But the point is that it is NOT a simple on/off switch, or you couldn't do that. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Sleep is a poor substitute for caffeine. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has >>>>>> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But the point is that it is NOT a simple on/off switch, or you > couldn't do that. But that is just what it is. There are a multitude of drive clutch types designed for all kinds of jobs but when it comes down to it they have two working modes, on and off. Any intermediate mode or delay in transition from on to off or visa versa is purely a refinement to the fundamental operation of the switch in the same way as most dry driven plates also have springs to dampen shock loads which result from sudden near-slip-free engagement. Huw > >> The modulation of the switch is irrellevant. It is a switch which has > >> been well engineered to smoothly modulate. You really know how to dig. > > > > Not a good analogy. Better to consider it as a variable resistor that > > allows the light to be fully on or off and anywhere in-between. > That is not correct because it is not designed to be operated anywhere > in-between except momentarily as it is modulated. Try driving and > regulating your speed by slipping the clutch and see how long it lasts. By using it as an on off switch you'd not do it any good either.;-) > > A clutch which is only 'on' or 'off' is called a dog clutch and you > > find them in most motor cycle gearboxes - as opposed to the more > > normal synchromesh clutches in cars. > I have mentioned dogs elsewhere. The only practical operating difference > between a dog and a conventional traction automobile clutch is in the > smoothness of engagement. Both are designed to operate either engaged or > disengaged. Neither multiplies torque or alters gearing in operation. A standard car friction clutch allows the transfer of torque from zero to the output of the engine and anywhere inbetween. A dog clutch doesn't. Either nothing or maximum. Signature*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be >> transmited through it. >A clueless digger. An electrical wall switch can control a single or two bar >electric fire but it is not a converter, it is just an on/off switch. Yes. Unlike a rheostat, which has a function that is more analogous to a standard car clutch. SignatureCynic >>> A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be >>> transmited through it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes. Unlike a rheostat, which has a function that is more analogous >to a standard car clutch. Whereas a torque converter is more like a variable transformer... >>>A clueless digger. An electrical wall switch can control a single or two bar >>>electric fire but it is not a converter, it is just an on/off switch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Whereas a torque converter is more like a variable transformer... A *true* torque convertor perhaps, but not the type under discussion which, like both a rheostat and a plate clutch, dissipates the unused power as heat. SignatureCynic >>>>A clueless digger. An electrical wall switch can control a single or two bar >>>>electric fire but it is not a converter, it is just an on/off switch. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >which, like both a rheostat and a plate clutch, dissipates the unused >power as heat. Which I call a "fluid clutch". >>A *true* torque convertor perhaps, but not the type under discussion >>which, like both a rheostat and a plate clutch, dissipates the unused >>power as heat. > >Which I call a "fluid clutch". Which is IMO the more correct term. Nevertheless we are stuck with the label that is commonly applied. SignatureCynic >>>A *true* torque convertor perhaps, but not the type under discussion >>>which, like both a rheostat and a plate clutch, dissipates the unused [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which is IMO the more correct term. Nevertheless we are stuck with > the label that is commonly applied. Since it doesn't declutch or clutch it is not a clutch. It is properly a fluid flywheel coupling or more commonly called a torque converter, never called a clutch and for a reason. Huw >>>>A *true* torque convertor perhaps, but not the type under discussion >>>>which, like both a rheostat and a plate clutch, dissipates the unused [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >fluid flywheel coupling or more commonly called a torque converter, never >called a clutch and for a reason. Of course it clutches and declutches; the torque that is transmitted is controlled by the speeds of the two shafts. As a rough approximation it's proportional to the square of the difference. Hence at high RPM the clutch is fully engaged for a few percent slippage, at low speeds it slips like mad with very little torque transmitted. But whatever you call it, there is no torque conversion whatsoever. So if mechanics insist on calling it a torque converter it is only because they are ignorant of what it does. > Since it doesn't declutch or clutch it is not a clutch. It is properly > a fluid flywheel coupling or more commonly called a torque converter, > never called a clutch and for a reason. A fluid flywheel doesn't provide torque multiplication. They were used on pre-selector gearboxes fairly common on some pre WW2 cars. And on the first common auto on UK cars - the GM Hydramatic that Rolls and others used. A torque convertor has a different construction. Signature*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> Since it doesn't declutch or clutch it is not a clutch. It is properly >> a fluid flywheel coupling or more commonly called a torque converter, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first common auto on UK cars - the GM Hydramatic that Rolls and others > used. A torque convertor has a different construction. I have quite good knowledge of industrial applications [it is part of my business] and the only difference in many applications is the stall speed and terminology. I am thinking specifically of ZF transaxles which had an option of with or without fluid flywheel aka low stall speed torque converter. On engines with a maximum rated speed of 2200 these things more or less lock up at 1100erpm which is a high idle. The primary purpose is to reduce wear on the primary dry traction clutch. The reason that there is no way you can define a torque converter as a clutch is that it does not actually 'clutch' or 'declutch'. Substitute 'grab' for the word 'clutch' and you should see what I mean; grab or degrab. Huw > > A fluid flywheel doesn't provide torque multiplication. They were used > > on pre-selector gearboxes fairly common on some pre WW2 cars. And on > > the first common auto on UK cars - the GM Hydramatic that Rolls and > > others used. A torque convertor has a different construction. > I have quite good knowledge of industrial applications [it is part of my > business] and the only difference in many applications is the stall > speed and terminology. Huw, with all respect, you need to do a bit of research. The construction of a fluid flywheel and torque convertor *is* different. Google will come up with the answer. > I am thinking specifically of ZF transaxles > which had an option of with or without fluid flywheel aka low stall > speed torque converter. On engines with a maximum rated speed of 2200 > these things more or less lock up at 1100erpm which is a high idle. The > primary purpose is to reduce wear on the primary dry traction clutch. I'm no expert on industrial equipment - this is a car group. But I've owned car autos with both fluid flywheels and torque convertors, and the big difference is the FF acts more or less like a normal dry clutch in that it has effectively no action once the car is moving. A TC is obviously in action in all but the highest engine speeds. Of course many autos lock it out under some circumstances since it's not the most efficient way to provide torque multiplication. > The reason that there is no way you can define a torque converter as a > clutch is that it does not actually 'clutch' or 'declutch'. Substitute > 'grab' for the word 'clutch' and you should see what I mean; grab or > degrab. Signature*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > A fluid flywheel doesn't provide torque multiplication. They were used >> > on pre-selector gearboxes fairly common on some pre WW2 cars. And on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm no expert on industrial equipment - this is a car group. But I've > owned car autos with both fluid flywheels A Lanchester? and torque convertors, and the > big difference is the FF acts more or less like a normal dry clutch in > that it has effectively no action once the car is moving. Yes, that type of coupling is certainly more of a clutch than a torque converter. A TC is > obviously in action in all but the highest engine speeds. Of course many > autos lock it out under some circumstances since it's not the most > efficient way to provide torque multiplication. Almost all torque converters fitted to modern cars have a lock-out mechanism which, surprise-surprise, requires a CLUTCH to work. LOL. Huw >> The reason that there is no way you can define a torque converter as a >> clutch is that it does not actually 'clutch' or 'declutch'. Substitute >> 'grab' for the word 'clutch' and you should see what I mean; grab or >> degrab. > > Huw, with all respect, you need to do a bit of research. The > > construction of a fluid flywheel and torque convertor *is* different. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm no expert on industrial equipment - this is a car group. But I've > > owned car autos with both fluid flywheels > A Lanchester? Close. The first one was actually a BSA - but of course with a pre-selector box, not auto. Rolls Royce didn't use torque convertor autos until something like '68. They had fluid flywheels. As did Mercedes. > and torque convertors, and the > > big difference is the FF acts more or less like a normal dry clutch in > > that it has effectively no action once the car is moving. > Yes, that type of coupling is certainly more of a clutch than a torque > converter. But your definition of a clutch is like a light switch? ;-) > A TC is > > obviously in action in all but the highest engine speeds. Of course > > many autos lock it out under some circumstances since it's not the > > most efficient way to provide torque multiplication. > Almost all torque converters fitted to modern cars have a lock-out > mechanism which, surprise-surprise, requires a CLUTCH to work. But not an on/off switch. ;-) BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear. > LOL. Didn't realise you were an AOL customer. Signature*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > Huw, with all respect, you need to do a bit of research. The >> > construction of a fluid flywheel and torque convertor *is* different. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > But not an on/off switch. ;-) Well yes actually. It is either engaged or disengaged with, in most cases, a degree of softeness to the actuation or 'soft modulation' designed in. > BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and > Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear. Even these had an actual CLUTCH to lock the torque converter then. Huw > > BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and > > Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear. > Even these had an actual CLUTCH to lock the torque converter then. So what? It still didn't operate like an on off switch. It modulated the speed of lockup - same as you do with the clutch on a manual transmission when starting from rest. Signature*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and >> > Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speed of lockup - same as you do with the clutch on a manual transmission > when starting from rest. Yep. It modulates between the on and off position, neither of which is possible with a torque converter without a separate clutch to facilitate. Huw > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be > transmited through it. A conventional clutch allows from zero to maximum of the engine torque to be transmitted. A torque convertor acts like a continuously variable gearbox and multiplies the torque by producing a lower rpm output than the engine. Signature*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be > > transmited through it. > > A conventional clutch allows from zero to maximum of the engine torque to > be transmitted. > A torque convertor acts like a continuously variable > gearbox and multiplies the torque by producing a lower rpm output than the > engine. As does a clutch, a clutch act as a torque convertor. A torque convertor is just a posh word for a clutch, cars with automatic transmissions are bought buy posh people who are impressed with posh sounding words, clutch sounds so common. "Emperor's New Widescreen" <me@invalid.net> wrote >> "If you've read about manual transmissions, you know that an engine is >> connected to a transmission by way of a clutch. Without this connection, >> a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And what does a clutch do? It converts torque :O) You are having a laugh aren't you? It purely connects and disconnects drive from the engine to the transmission. A torque converter is in effect a fluid flywheel which throws oil from the front part to the back. At low revs it slips like heck and continues to slip to what is called its stall speed or to where a clutch engages full mechanical drive to by-pass it. I wonder what you think torque is converted to, in the context of your answer to your own question? Huw |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message