 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / October 2006Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero emission, air powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iXrM02g_yc > This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero emission, air > powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iXrM02g_yc Don't forget these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-A3XHFT5qc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c -phaeton >> This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero >> emission, air powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-A3XHFT5qc > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c More efficient than charging lead-acid batteries, but only 58% thermally efficient on charging. That power comes from some other source. David A. Smith >>> This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero >>> emission, air powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > More efficient than charging lead-acid batteries, but only 58% thermally > efficient on charging. That power comes from some other source. The engine can be a petro/air hybrid, "all in the one motor". Brake regen is compressing air, it can be charged overnight with cheaper electricity too. Like the Prius the engine can be off when the vehicle is stopped (kerbside pollution is bad in cities) and takes off on air and when up to speed the engine cuts in - all on air. Cheap and sounds the part when a hybrid. Look at petro/electric hybrid and the two motors, expensive batteries, etc. More complex that a petro/air hybrid. They should do research into making this car a full hybrid. Mmmm how about an air/electro hybrid. A metal spring would be more economical and practical. > The engine can be a petro/air hybrid, "all in the one motor". Brake > regen is compressing air, it can be charged overnight with cheaper [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that a petro/air hybrid. They should do research into making this > car a full hybrid. Mmmm how about an air/electro hybrid. > This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero emission, air > powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iXrM02g_yc Wow, a 2004 CNN video clip where they claim it'll be on sale by the end of the year. My calendar says it's getting on towards the end of 2006. Where can I buy one? Anthony > This is a 7 & 1/2 minute CNN (Europe) report of a zero emission, air > powered car - designed to sell for 6.5K... > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iXrM02g_yc Not again....these "cars" seem to pop up every 6 months on this forum. Even if this vaporware becomes a reality what the sellers conveniently leave out of the equation is that the compressed air is really just another form of energy that has been transferred from elsewhere. And the elsewhere is ultimately a coal fired power plant. ... > Not again....these "cars" seem to pop up every 6 months on this forum. > Even if this vaporware becomes a reality what the sellers conveniently > leave out of the equation is that the compressed air is really just > another form of energy that has been transferred from elsewhere. And > the elsewhere is ultimately a coal fired power plant. In this sense, the idea isn't any worse than electric or hydrogen cars. The energy for all these technologies have to come from somewhere else. The advertising from MDI suggested that air tanks could be a cheaper and longer lasting form of energy storage than batteries. Clearly this advertising is misleading (or even downright fraudulent) since they have not built a single prototype that lives up to the hype in over 12 years. The last I heard (from Wired) was that their prototype was limited to a range of around 5 miles. Enough for a quick spin around the block to wow a reporter but not enough to actually go anywhere. Anthony > ... > > Not again....these "cars" seem to pop up every 6 months on this forum. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to a range of around 5 miles. Enough for a quick spin around the block > to wow a reporter but not enough to actually go anywhere. It's a techological dead-end. Graham This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors I've seen are big noisy 220V several HP contraptions and they huff and puff and finally shut off at a whopping 150 psi.) http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm >This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and >compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors >I've seen are big noisy 220V several HP contraptions and they huff and >puff and finally shut off at a whopping 150 psi.) >http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm Energy density by weight is not an issue except for big hills, one of the reasons for using air is to have regenerative braking, and with regenerative braking, weight is not anywhere near as critical, if at all. And storage is apparently not at 150 psi, it is hundreds of bars, which is 3000 psi or more. While storage tanks are high tech for this pressure range, it makes a big difference in whether or not the vehicle has any utility. If regenerative braking were perfect (100 percent efficient), the energy needed to make a trip would only be the bearing friction (which should be negligible for good bearings), rolling friction (which can be reduced by less flex in the tires), and air resistance (which should also be negligible at low speeds and no wind). It is these facts that make EVs or any other technology that supports good regenerative braking viable at all. The auto industry has not placed good physics above inept road testing programs, and they need to start from scratch, with good physics, and build cars that take almost no energy at all to make a trip on level ground! Only then will the myth of weight being a critical issue be discarded and the understanding that it has been hills and overpowered ICE engines that have been wasting all the energy (plus having an engine running and wasting energy waiting at traffic lights). Joe Fischer > It is these facts that make EVs or any > other technology that supports good regenerative > braking viable at all. Aha - yes - I was wondering where the 10 times efficiency savings would come from. Regenerative braking (built in to those UPS units, in effect) would bring the total storage needs down considerably. > >This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and > >compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Joe Fischer Another big waster is inefficient driving. I drive my car like a bicycle, there is absolutely no need to use an engine downhill, so in goes the clutch on every slope. >>>This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and >>>compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > bicycle, there is absolutely no need to use an engine downhill, so in > goes the clutch on every slope. And away goes the pilot bearing, half the life of the brake pads wasted, and in many areas, the law is broken. Dumb, dumb, dumb. > > Another big waster is inefficient driving. I drive my car like a > > bicycle, there is absolutely no need to use an engine downhill, so in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dumb, dumb, dumb. Furthermore, it uses more gasoline ! Modern cars with fuel injection simply stop injecting fuel when the engine is used for braking. In comparison when an engine idles as in Mark's case it's still *using* fuel ! Graham > > > Another big waster is inefficient driving. I drive my car like a > > > bicycle, there is absolutely no need to use an engine downhill, so in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Furthermore, it uses more gasoline ! No it doesn't, and my lower fuel costs prove it. > Modern cars with fuel injection simply stop injecting fuel when the engine is > used for braking. No car I have ever owned does that. In any case the engine ISN'T used for braking most of the time when coasting, and guess what: it even goes part of the way UP the hill on the other side, before one needs to engage the engine. > In comparison when an engine idles as in Mark's case it's still *using* fuel > ! Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal going downhill, Twit. Why don't you just f.cking try it instead of blowing hot air in ignorance. > Graham > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > going downhill, Twit. > Why don't you just f.cking try it instead of blowing hot air in > ignorance. Ah, obscenities. The last refuge of an idiot when quantitatively shown that he's an idiot. > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, obscenities. The last refuge of an idiot when quantitatively shown > that he's an idiot. Seems that the real idiot is the one who doesn't speak from experience. Like I said, go coast down an incline. If you need to slow down you can THEN use the engine, if you don't want to use your brakes (I usually use the momentum to go up the other side instead). Apparently, however, your driving skills are not up to it. > > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > use the momentum to go up the other side instead). Apparently, however, > your driving skills are not up to it. What a waste of gas! With today's fuel injected computerized systems, it uses less gas when in deceleration mode than when in idle mode so putting it in idle just wastes gas. Let alone coasting downhill is illegal in 'most' countries because an unloaded suspension can get away on you quick. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What a waste of gas! Coasting UP a hill on the other side is "a waste of gas"? > With today's fuel injected computerized systems, it uses less gas when > in deceleration mode than when in idle mode so putting it in idle just > wastes gas. Sigh, another one who hasn't actually tried it but spouts from presumption.... > Let alone coasting downhill is illegal in 'most' countries because an > unloaded suspension can get away on you quick. I don't think you have any clue about where coasting is or isn't illegal. And now freewheeling "messes up your suspension", what crap will they think of next.... > Mike > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > > > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Coasting UP a hill on the other side is "a waste of gas"? Yup, vs minimal throttle to keep the speed. Once you slow, you have to give a whole bunch of pedal to get back up to speed. > > With today's fuel injected computerized systems, it uses less gas when > > in deceleration mode than when in idle mode so putting it in idle just > > wastes gas. > > Sigh, another one who hasn't actually tried it but spouts from > presumption.... What are you talking about? Even the last of the carb engines used 'deceleration' valves on the vacuum lines to switch pollution controls over for best mileage and emissions. Read the specs on the FI engines and you will see they do the same. Running in idle uses more gas and pollutes way more. > > Let alone coasting downhill is illegal in 'most' countries because an > > unloaded suspension can get away on you quick. > > I don't think you have any clue about where coasting is or isn't > illegal. Actually I have. There are past threads in this tech group I was involved in that looked up what countries it isn't legal in. Use google if you want, I don't feel like looking them up. > And now freewheeling "messes up your suspension", what crap will they > think of next.... Actually that's old. > > Mike > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > > > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > > > > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yup, vs minimal throttle to keep the speed. Once you slow, you have to > give a whole bunch of pedal to get back up to speed. Fafucksake, the speed you gained going downth hill takes you half way up the other side, where you then engange the engine to carry on at the same speed you engaged it. There is no need to accelerate again. I'm amazed at the amount of morons here incapable of efficiently coasting a car, were you all too fat as kiddies to ride a bicycle or are you just plain stupid? > > > With today's fuel injected computerized systems, it uses less gas when > > > in deceleration mode than when in idle mode so putting it in idle just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'deceleration' valves on the vacuum lines to switch pollution controls > over for best mileage and emissions. I've just about had it with cretins here. The engine is BRAKING the car, that means it's SLOWING IT DOWN when you want to freewheel instead and then coast up the other side. Now instead of being dense f.ck off an f.cking well try it or are you too stupid or chicken to actually do anything for yourself at all? > Read the specs on the FI engines and you will see they do the same. > Running in idle uses more gas and pollutes way more. No, I listen to my engine and know what it does in PRACTICE. I also know that letting the clutch out without giving it gas SLOWS DOWN THE CAR. And you then have to apply gas (thereby giving it fuel) to not decelerate. That's why the engine is used for "braking", because it works like a f.cking "brake" when it's not using fuel, do try and get this through your numb skull. And before any other twathead comes here and whines any more, they can go actually try :-O coasting down and up inclines for real first. > > > Let alone coasting downhill is illegal in 'most' countries because an > > > unloaded suspension can get away on you quick. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > involved in that looked up what countries it isn't legal in. Use google > if you want, I don't feel like looking them up. Yeasure. > > And now freewheeling "messes up your suspension", what crap will they > > think of next.... > > Actually that's old. Or how about "it's unpatriotic" because it deprives the oil industry of profits. > > > Mike > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) I'm > amazed at the amount of morons here incapable of efficiently coasting a > car, were you all too fat as kiddies to ride a bicycle or are you just > plain stupid? How many ways do folks here have to demonstrate that there IS NO way to "efficiently coast" a typical car made within the last 20 years. A car is not a bicycle, the principles do not apply. ... > How many ways do folks here have to demonstrate that there IS NO way to > "efficiently coast" a typical car made within the last 20 years. A car > is not a bicycle, the principles do not apply. I can remember driving a 60s GM truck where you could turn off the ignition going downhill. It seemed to coast pretty well but that was probably because it had so much weight. Modern cars don't behave as well when you turn off the ignition ever since the invention of steering wheel locks. Anthony > ... > > How many ways do folks here have to demonstrate that there IS NO way to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't behave as well when you turn off the ignition ever since > the invention of steering wheel locks. The ECU turns off the fuel for you without even having to be asked. Graham > > ... > > > How many ways do folks here have to demonstrate that there IS NO way to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The ECU turns off the fuel for you without even having to be asked. And your momentum is wasted on revving the engine.... > Graham > ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can remember driving a 60s GM truck where you could turn off > the ignition going downhill. It seemed to coast pretty well but being carbureted, it was STILL using fuel (just spraying it unburned out the tailpipe. >Modern cars > don't behave as well when you turn off the ignition ever since > the invention of steering wheel locks. If all the interlocks are working, you CANNOT lock the steering wheel while coasting because you can't put the gearshift lever in "Park" (automatic transmissions, anyway). But turning the key one "click" back will shut off the engine WITHOUT locking the wheel anyway- that's what you should do to get a feel for how the car drives without power steering and brakes (in an empty parking lot, of course). > I'm > > amazed at the amount of morons here incapable of efficiently coasting a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "efficiently coast" a typical car made within the last 20 years. A car > is not a bicycle, the principles do not apply. Freewheeling hubs have in fact been made illegal here. Graham > > I'm > > > amazed at the amount of morons here incapable of efficiently coasting a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Freewheeling hubs have in fact been made illegal here. I hope you don't mean freewheeling bicycle hubs... No doubt the legislators have connections to the oil industry in some way. > Graham > I'm > > amazed at the amount of morons here incapable of efficiently coasting a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "efficiently coast" a typical car made within the last 20 years. A car > is not a bicycle, the principles do not apply. Duh. You can't really get a better idea of exactly how much power is needed on various types of incline than with a bicycle. Of course you can keep spouting about perpetual motion engine management systems until hell freezes over, meanwhile I spend less money on fuel than I ever did, *in practice*. Your brain apparently can't handle the plain and clear logic that an engine that remains engaged and revving downhill either uses MORE fuel, or produces MORE drag (=waste of momentum) than one that's ticking over at low revs during freewheel. You don't seem to realise that the energy to keep your engine revving downhill has to come from somewhere (from the momentum of the car +fuel) and is considerably more than than the energy needed to just keep it ticking over and not wasting the momentum gained from the incline for revving the engine. We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out brains.... Resorting to insults is the sure clue you, the troll, have totally lost the argument because you have no real come back. Bye now. Mike > > > > > > > Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > > > > > > > going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > brains.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bye now. Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > > brains.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks > spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. What part of 'the fuel is shut off' in deceleration mode don't you get? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > > > brains.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What part of 'the fuel is shut off' in deceleration mode don't you get? What people don't seem to grasp is that instead of fuel, coasting momentum is now being wasted on turning the engine. It means that you coast nowhere near as far, fast or long, which in turn means you have to use fuel much sooner. Additionally, the speed the engine is turned at by the incline is much higher than idling speed, which means more energy is needed than idling would. Like you say, allowing air without fuel in does help, but I put to you that the fuel needed to make up the lost coasting distance is usually more than if the engine were left to tick over at minimum revs and the car was freewheeling. > Mike > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks > > > spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lost coasting distance is usually more than if the engine were left to > tick over at minimum revs and the car was freewheeling. Just because your engine is in 'deceleration mode' with no gas pedal input doesn't mean you have to be racing the engine or engine braking. That is what the gear shift is for.... I can be coasting at 40 mph with my foot off the gas in deceleration mode and the engine can be turning at idle speed with little or no load on it. I actually do that all the time or 'drive with the tach' and then use the gears to slow down when I approach a light or stop sign. I don't need the brakes until the last little bit. I manage to get a nice 23 mpg or 11 L/100 km in my 1986 Jeep CJ7 on the highway and about 16 to 18 mpg city. It has the aerodynamics of a flying brick. Mike > > Mike > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > > > Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks > > > > spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > input doesn't mean you have to be racing the engine or engine braking. > That is what the gear shift is for.... Quite right, however in practice you do rev the engine higher than idling. I've got to the stage now where I push the clutch in to accelerate (on downhill inclines, obviously) rather than giving it gas. Generally I then engage a fast gear (which I'm usually already in) when the car begins to slow. I don't mind the car slowing towards the brow of the hill because I know I can gain the momentum economically on the downhill. IOW, I use pretty much the same technique as in cycling. > I can be coasting at 40 mph with my foot off the gas in deceleration > mode and the engine can be turning at idle speed with little or no load > on it. I actually do that all the time or 'drive with the tach' and > then use the gears to slow down when I approach a light or stop sign. I > don't need the brakes until the last little bit. If I see a red traffic light in the distance my clutch goes in and I coast up to them. In this case there's probably not much in it between our methods. > I manage to get a nice 23 mpg or 11 L/100 km in my 1986 Jeep CJ7 on the > highway and about 16 to 18 mpg city. It has the aerodynamics of a > flying brick. Maybe the best thing you could do to save petrol/gas is to get an economical car.... :-) Here petrol is about $7 per US gallon (£1/litre) and there is absolutely no point in owning a fuel guzzler unless one has to go off road regularly or it is necessary for work or a large family. The driving position is no different in an economical car as in a large one, except mabe for eye level above the road. In practice all that extra space and capability rarely get used in larger vehicles. On the rare occasions we need cargo space we just fold down the rear seats and still have enough space for a washing machine and shopping. > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) <snip> > > Just because your engine is in 'deceleration mode' with no gas pedal > > input doesn't mean you have to be racing the engine or engine braking. > > That is what the gear shift is for.... > > Quite right, however in practice you do rev the engine higher than > idling. That 'still' comes down to the computer sending 'no' or extremely little gas to the engine so the revs make no matter. That is just engine braking. Idle uses fuel. > > I can be coasting at 40 mph with my foot off the gas in deceleration > > mode and the engine can be turning at idle speed with little or no load [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > coast up to them. In this case there's probably not much in it between > our methods. Again, you use Idle which uses fuel, I coast in gear with no throttle and still need the brakes to finish stopping so I am not wasting energy, just saving brake wear. > > I manage to get a nice 23 mpg or 11 L/100 km in my 1986 Jeep CJ7 on the > > highway and about 16 to 18 mpg city. It has the aerodynamics of a > > flying brick. > > Maybe the best thing you could do to save petrol/gas is to get an > economical car.... :-) I own a 200 mpg Daimler Puch Bike and a Triumph/BSA Trike that gets a little less but over 150 mpg.... I also keep my Jeeps tuned to the max and drive smart and 'legal' by using engine braking and gears to coast easy and safe. Yes, I am a firm believer that when a vehicle is in neutral is has a major loss of control potential due to seeing first hand what happens off road if someone tries to coast in neutral. It just don't work... > Here petrol is about $7 per US gallon (£1/litre) and there is > absolutely no point in owning a fuel guzzler unless one has to go off [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rare occasions we need cargo space we just fold down the rear seats and > still have enough space for a washing machine and shopping. I need a 4x4 that can go anywhere year round for work and for our Vacations. We live in Canada and love The great Outdoors. Same for my wife. We both are in the service industry here in Canada and get off work before the snowplows are in action in a storm so we need 4x4 lots just to get home. I even get paid extra for using it and just having it come along on jobsites so the main service truck is assured he can get in and out because of the winch and recovery gear I have onboard. I also did service work for a company which required me to be on the road at 4:00 A.M. in any weather. Mike > > Mike > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > <snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gas to the engine so the revs make no matter. That is just engine > braking. It uses more energy (of whatever kind) to spin an engine+gearbox faster than slower. > Idle uses fuel. Yes. > > > I can be coasting at 40 mph with my foot off the gas in deceleration > > > mode and the engine can be turning at idle speed with little or no load [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and still need the brakes to finish stopping so I am not wasting energy, > just saving brake wear. I can coast up to them from much further away. I'd say there's negligible difference in fuel use between the two methods. > > > I manage to get a nice 23 mpg or 11 L/100 km in my 1986 Jeep CJ7 on the > > > highway and about 16 to 18 mpg city. It has the aerodynamics of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I own a 200 mpg Daimler Puch Bike and a Triumph/BSA Trike that gets a > little less but over 150 mpg.... Sensibly sized motorbikes sure are very economical. I had a Jincheng 125 4stroke a few years ago. Two up it would go as fast as the (dreadful) roads allowed in that region (caribbean). I'd fill the tank every few weeks.You can buy them in containerloads for about $500 each (plus delivery) > I also keep my Jeeps tuned to the max and drive smart and 'legal' by > using engine braking and gears to coast easy and safe. Yes, I am a firm > believer that when a vehicle is in neutral is has a major loss of > control potential due to seeing first hand what happens off road if > someone tries to coast in neutral. It just don't work... By that logic one is "out of control" at every gear change. It all comes down to using common sense. Coasting you are ready to executing an emergency stop instantly because your clutch is down and your foot (usually) already on the brake pedal instead of the accelerator. Here in Europe people are used to driving much lighter and more nimble cars. Off road driving is a different ballgame. > > Here petrol is about $7 per US gallon (£1/litre) and there is > > absolutely no point in owning a fuel guzzler unless one has to go off [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > also did service work for a company which required me to be on the road > at 4:00 A.M. in any weather. Here in GB most people who have SUVs think it's some kind of a status symbol and virtually never take them off-road. You'd laugh at how many drive around in them in central London. Often it's some blonde bimbo jabbering away on the mobile with one hand on the steering wheel. > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > > > > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > <snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and still need the brakes to finish stopping so I am not wasting energy, > just saving brake wear. A modern engine with the gas pedal off and the engine revving above a certain rev will cut off the fuel completely, until the revs get low enough. >A modern engine with the gas pedal off and the engine revving above a >certain rev will cut off the fuel completely, until the revs get low enough. From http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/warpstealth.html it sounds like driving a Prius is a fun thing to do. :-) JoeFischer >>A modern engine with the gas pedal off and the engine revving above a >>certain rev will cut off the fuel completely, until the revs get low enough. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > it sounds like driving a Prius is a fun thing to do. :-) So is a Viper. So is a '69 Charger R/T. > > <snip> > >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > A modern engine with the gas pedal off and the engine revving above a > certain rev will cut off the fuel completely, until the revs get low enough. ..and will be wasting momentum from coasting to turn the engine instead. >>>>Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks >>>>spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>at by the incline is much higher than idling speed, which means more >>energy is needed than idling would. > Just because your engine is in 'deceleration mode' with no gas pedal > input doesn't mean you have to be racing the engine or engine braking. > That is what the gear shift is for.... And in deceleration mode, the ECM cracks open the idle speed control air bleed so that manifold pressure rises (vacuum decreases) making the engine very much easier to spin. Zoomie just doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, apparently. Everyone else (including the automakers who have to eke out every bit of mileage they can so that they can meet CAFE requirements) seems to understand this. From a pure *DRIVER* perspective, all this annoys me in new cars. They don't have nearly enough natural engine braking for my preferences, especially with automatics that additionally decouple the locking torque convertor on deceleration. Taking your foot off the gas already feels exactly like coasting (because it virtually IS). But they do get amazing gas mileage even in very large vehicles compared to past years. >And in deceleration mode, the ECM cracks open the idle speed control air >bleed so that manifold pressure rises (vacuum decreases) making the >engine very much easier to spin. Are you an auto mechanic? I can't imagine any idle control to pass enough air to make much difference in manifold pressure. >Everyone else (including the >automakers who have to eke out every bit of mileage they can so that >they can meet CAFE requirements) seems to understand this. I don't see much difference between the idle air bleed and a choke, except the ECM is automatic and more precise, and doesn't need the maintenance that a choke needs. Eliminating the choke is in itself a big improvement in wasted gas because the mechanical choke doesn't react as fast as an ECM. Both of my carb cars have choke problems, the heat for the spring has to be pulled through a tube heated by exhaust gas, and that tube gets plugged, causing a lot of wasted gas. >From a pure >*DRIVER* perspective, all this annoys me in new cars. They don't have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >coasting (because it virtually IS). But they do get amazing gas mileage >even in very large vehicles compared to past years. The torque converter clutch does not decouple anything, it just prevents any slippage, and would slip and burn out if it were engaged under heavy load or deceleration. Naturally the wheels do not turn the engine quite as fast, but the torque converter still transmits the same power as it does under acceleration. My cars are old, but do have a torque converter clutch, with 3:2 overdrive. These systems work fine if no problems exist, but really waste gas and cause other problems when they get out of whack. Joe Fischer digging a ditch because nobody else will. >>And in deceleration mode, the ECM cracks open the idle speed control air >>bleed so that manifold pressure rises (vacuum decreases) making the >>engine very much easier to spin. > > Are you an auto mechanic? No, I'm an engineer. > I can't imagine any > idle control to pass enough air to make much difference > in manifold pressure. It makes a difference, because its exactly the same as cracking the throttle open! From what you say below: > I don't see much difference between the idle air bleed > and a choke, I don't think you know what an idle speed control DOES (also called "Automatic Idle Speed" or AIS by some manufacturers prior to standardization). Its nothing whatsoever like a choke. It is a separate air feed into the intake manifold (a second throttle, if you will) that is under computer control rather than linked to the driver's foot. It regulates the engine idle speed, and when coasting can be used to reduce intake manifold vacuum to make the engine easier to spin (gasoline engines only, obviously.) > The torque converter clutch does not decouple anything, So what does it do when its released? Keep the input and output coupled? I don't THINK so, Tim. It releases, and therefore DE-couples the input and output shaft, which it had formerly COUPLED. > it just prevents any slippage, and would slip and burn out if > it were engaged under heavy load or deceleration. It depends entirely on the design. Some TCC clutches can handle full engine torque and are just as rugged as the other clutches inside the transmission. Some are much more limited in ultimate torque capacity, but in ALL cases they are released during high-gear deceleration solely to reduce drag and save fuel. > Naturally the wheels do not turn the engine quite > as fast, but the torque converter still transmits the same > power as it does under acceleration. No torque convertor comes even CLOSE to having the same coupling coefficient when back-driving the engine as it does when the engine is driving the transmission. That is even true of my 1966 automobile, even moreso today. A good analogy would be "does a desk fan blow as much air if you spin it backwards as it does when you spin it forward?" and the answer is "no" because the blades are curved to be more efficient when spun forward. The same is true for the impeller, turbine, and stator vanes inside a torque convertor. The shape of the vanes is optimized for FORWARD operation, and nowdays specifically optimized for LOWER coupling in the other direction, for the very reason we're discussing here- to reduce the drag when decelerating to *just* enough to keep the engine (with fuel flow off and the idle control open) spinning. And to provide acceptable engine braking when a lower gear is manually selected (although it still is too "slippery" for my preferences compared to older automatics). > My cars are old, but do have a torque converter clutch, > with 3:2 overdrive. > These systems work fine if no problems exist, but > really waste gas and cause other problems when they > get out of whack. That's about as relevant as saying "they sky is blue." HUNDREDS of components will "really waste gas and cause other problems when they get out of whack." Nothing special about that with regard to the TCC, that's why we maintain our cars. >>>And in deceleration mode, the ECM cracks open the idle speed control air >>>bleed so that manifold pressure rises (vacuum decreases) making the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It makes a difference, because its exactly the same as cracking the >throttle open! From what you say below: Do you know the diameter of the port? I would guess about 1/4 inch at most. >> I don't see much difference between the idle air bleed >> and a choke, > >I don't think you know what an idle speed control DOES (also called >"Automatic Idle Speed" or AIS by some manufacturers prior to >standardization). On fuel injected engines probably, and oxygen sensors regulate the fuel to keep the fuel-air ratio. >Its nothing whatsoever like a choke. It is a separate >air feed into the intake manifold (a second throttle, if you will) that >is under computer control rather than linked to the driver's foot. It just works in reverse of the choke, all the choke does is reduce air flow. >It regulates the engine idle speed, and when coasting can be used to reduce >intake manifold vacuum to make the engine easier to spin (gasoline >engines only, obviously.) If the diameter is small, it can't change manifold pressure much, and I can't imagine why there would be a desire to make the engine easier to spin, sorry we are from different planets. :-) >> The torque converter clutch does not decouple anything, > >So what does it do when its released? Keep the input and output coupled? >I don't THINK so, Tim. It releases, and therefore DE-couples the input >and output shaft, which it had formerly COUPLED. Not hardly, it simply locks the converter blades to the housing, for no slippage. If I apply much power at any speed, I can tell it unlocks, but it is almost not noticeable. >> it just prevents any slippage, and would slip and burn out if >> it were engaged under heavy load or deceleration. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >but in ALL cases they are released during high-gear deceleration solely >to reduce drag and save fuel. If the computer shuts off fuel, how would it save fuel? I realize there is a whole culture surrounding the coasting, and it has only been after reading the comments here that I wonder if a front wheel drive car has any steering problem when coasting downhill in gear. I would think rear wheel drive would provide better control, either with the engine, or rear wheel only brakes. >> Naturally the wheels do not turn the engine quite >> as fast, but the torque converter still transmits the same [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >FORWARD operation, and nowdays specifically optimized for LOWER coupling >in the other direction, No argument about vanes, just that nothing is decoupled on my transmission but the vanes from the rotating housing, leaving only the hydrodynamic coupling, which is substantial. >for the very reason we're discussing here- to >reduce the drag when decelerating to *just* enough to keep the engine >(with fuel flow off and the idle control open) spinning. As long as regenerative braking is not available, I agree that engine drag is a desire able factor, especially for less experienced drivers. But to reduce the drag further, the transmission can be put in neutral, but apparently that is frowned on. >And to provide >acceptable engine braking when a lower gear is manually selected >(although it still is too "slippery" for my preferences compared to >older automatics). I went to GM transmission school (1955) on the original 4 speed hydromatic that was about the same as used in some tanks in WWII, and it had only disk clutches and bands behind the torque converter. And the same school for the second design, which had a fluid drive that filled and emptied in a fraction of a second, it handled two of the shifts and was barely noticeable. Oldsmobile usually had the new devices before the Cadillac, but sometimes used the previous year Cadillac chassis parts. But I much preferred the Buick Dynaflow transmission, that you might not like because everybody said it "slipped". :-) >> My cars are old, but do have a torque converter clutch, >> with 3:2 overdrive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >out of whack." Nothing special about that with regard to the TCC, that's >why we maintain our cars. Yes, and "modern" devices literally have hundreds of times more components to go bad. Even though most things have good long term failure rates, they are complex to service. I am getting too old to do the things I want to do, I can still do it, but it hurts too much. My 5.0 liter carbs have two sets of wires going to them, vacuum and mechanical linkages to control hot idle speed, cold idle speed, accelerator pump assist, and other things I would have to read the manual on. I have slightly oversize tires on my 86, so the good news is, I can add about 6 percent to the miles per gallon according to the odometer and gas pump numbers. This thread is way too long, but it has pointed out that most cars keep the motor connected to the drive shaft when coasting, some fuel injected cars may shut off fuel when coasting but do waste some momentum that could allow coasting farther without using gas. Turning the key off with a stick shift in gear and turning it back on is a good way to blow out a muffler (sorry, catalytic converter first). And engineers apparently feel that the brakes are not dependable for stopping the car (this is definitely true for big trucks, but it isn't that the brakes are no as capable as the engine, if the truck attempts to go down a steep hill with a high speed, neither the engine or the brakes can be depended on). I still think most of the controls for saving gas are overly complex, and this is in good favor to switch to electric cars, if only they don't make them too complex. I appreciate how much better modern fuel injection is, but cars have become almost throw away items, they last a long time usually, and if something goes wrong after 10 years, they are junked. Joe Fischer >>>>And in deceleration mode, the ECM cracks open the idle speed control air >>>>bleed so that manifold pressure rises (vacuum decreases) making the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Do you know the diameter of the port? I would > guess about 1/4 inch at most. What type engine? What "port"? The mechanism is implemented all sorts of different ways! Some cars have a stepper motor that actually does just open the main throttle slightly. As a "for instance" my wife's 3.5L v6 uses an AIS motor bolted onto the back or the intake manifold. The hole it bolts into is about 1" in diameter, the air inlet pipe to the AIS from the filtered air plenum is 3/4" diamter, but I have no idea what the "full open" cross-section of the pintle/seat combination is. Nor does it matter- in all cases the AIS can run the engine up to around 2000 RPM even with the drivers foot off the pedal, which results in substantially less manifold vacuum than with the throttle closed. >>> I don't see much difference between the idle air bleed >>>and a choke, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > On fuel injected engines probably, and oxygen > sensors regulate the fuel to keep the fuel-air ratio. If that's your level of understanding of engine managment algorithms and hardware, then how can you postulate claims about how they perform? I realize that comes off as "rude," but I really can't whitewash it any more, its just a fact. Sensors don't "regulate" ANYTHING!!! They provide information to other mechanisms that DO regulate. Fuel injector pulse widths regulate fuel flow. Throttle position and AIS opening regulate air flow. The computer itself directly regulates ignition timing. Oxygen sensors are completely OVERRIDDEN in some operating regimes (wide-open throttle, idle, and cold engine, just to name the main cases). >>Its nothing whatsoever like a choke. It is a separate >>air feed into the intake manifold (a second throttle, if you will) that >>is under computer control rather than linked to the driver's foot. > > It just works in reverse of the choke, all the choke does > is reduce air flow. No, No NO!!!! The throttle reduces airflow. The choke INCREASES fuel flow RELATIVE to the airflow by artificially increasing the "vacuum signal" at the metering jets in a carburetor, thus enriching the mixture. AIS is in NO WAY "like a choke." The function of the "choke" is replaced in electronic engine management systems by increasing the duty cycle of the fuel injectors beyond what is normal for a given air mass flow through the engine, thus enriching the mixture. It is quite undetectable by the driver, unless he's driving with an oscilloscope in his lap. >>It regulates the engine idle speed, and when coasting can be used to reduce >>intake manifold vacuum to make the engine easier to spin (gasoline >>engines only, obviously.) > > If the diameter is small, it can't change manifold pressure > much, If that were true, then it couldn't increase the idle speed of the engine, nor could it maintain the same idle speed with the AC off in neutral as it does with the AC on in gear. Understand this: ANYTHING that throttles the engine DIRECTLY affects manifold pressure. >and I can't imagine why there would be a desire to make > the engine easier to spin, Ummm.... maybe to reduce the drag on the driveline while coasting, so that fuel can be shut off to increase the efficiency of the vehicle to a greater degree than could be accomplished by shifting to neutral and allowing the engine to burn fuel while idling against a high manifold vacuum? Maybe? Perchance? DO YOU THINK!!?!?!? > sorry we are from different planets. :-) On that, I can only agree. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not hardly, it simply locks the converter blades > to the housing, for no slippage. IOW, it COUPLES the engine solidly to the transmission input shaft. > If I apply much power at any speed, I can tell > it unlocks, IOW, it DE-COUPLES the engine from the transmission input shaft, leaving only the fluid coupling of the torque convertor. How much more directly can I state this??? >>>it just prevents any slippage, and would slip and burn out if >>>it were engaged under heavy load or deceleration. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If the computer shuts off fuel, how would it save fuel? Uhhh..... by NOT burning fuel that would otherwise be wasted. > and it has only been after reading the comments here that > I wonder if a front wheel drive car has any steering problem > when coasting downhill in gear. > > I would think rear wheel drive would provide better > control, either with the engine, or rear wheel only brakes. FWD and RWD cars respond differently in countless ways. Coasting versus not coasting is about 5000th on the list in importance- its just not even relevant. > This thread is way too long, but it has pointed > out that most cars keep the motor connected to the > drive shaft when coasting, some fuel injected cars > may shut off fuel when coasting but do waste some > momentum that could allow coasting farther without > using gas. I give up. Some people are just GOING to believe that there's a net fuel savings from coasting in neutral, despite having absolutely ZERO evidence in favor and the fact that carmakers have documented evidence to the contrary, at least when combined with deceleration fuel shut-down. I might as well try to talk Tom Cruise out of believing that alien souls live in volcanoes. > Turning the key off with a stick shift in gear > and turning it back on is a good way to blow out a > muffler (sorry, catalytic converter first). Which is why ECMs turn the damn FUEL off, not the ignition! Turning the ignition off merely dumps raw air/fuel mix into the exhaust pipe (and the air we breathe), while shutting off the fuel just pumps air through the engine. > And engineers apparently feel that the brakes > are not dependable for stopping the car (this is > definitely true for big trucks, but it isn't that the > brakes are no as capable as the engine, if the truck > attempts to go down a steep hill with a high speed, > neither the engine or the brakes can be depended on). ?!?! "Neither can be depended on?" So just how DO the thousands of trucks on the highways come to reliable stops millions of times per year, anyway??? I mean, sure, things can break and sometimes do, but... Arrrgh. So much doesn't make sense about that paragraph that I can't even comment. I'm just going to go shoot myself. This thread is a PERFECT example of why fuel-saving progress has been so painfully slow. There are thousands of well-meaning people out there who are willing to throw money at PATENTLY STUPID ideas (like compressed air as a power source for cars) rather than vigorously persue technologies that, while they may have great engineering challenges, are not guaranteed to be net losers by basic physics. Better engine management of simple gasoline and diesel cars, better hybrids, better batteries, flywheel energy storage, etc. are all VASTLY more promising than an idea that cannot help but discard 40+% of the energy you put into it at the front end, and then another 40+% when you try to take it out as compressed gas energy storage does. Maybe I'm just becoming an old fart, but don't they teach "PV=nRT" in high school anymore?!?!? Or maybe this is just what happens when threads from "alt." newsgroups leak into "sci." and ".tech" newsgroups. I'm going to hope and pray that is the case, and therefore there is still hope for society as a whole :-p > >>>>Glad to be rid of your "input". There goes another one that thinks > >>>>spinning an engine fast uses less energy than spinning it slow. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > engine very much easier to spin. Zoomie just doesn't have two brain > cells to rub together, apparently. And Stevie remains too dense to realise that energy to spin an engine and gearbox (even fed wit air) has to come from somewhere else when it's not supplied by fuel. Spinning the engine and gearbox wastes momentum from the incline. > Everyone else wastes fuel. > (including the > automakers who have to eke out every bit of mileage they can so that > they can meet CAFE requirements) seems to understand this. They have to apply their design to comply with dumbassed laws/myths that claim you are "out of control" without the engine engaged. Never cycle downhill folks, you'd be "out of control" of your bicycle. Be real careful when you change gears driving, folks, you're "out of control" for the duration of that hazardous operation. What a pile of horseshit. The fastest way to carry out an emergency stop is from coasting. > From a pure > *DRIVER* perspective, all this annoys me in new cars. They don't have > nearly enough natural engine braking for my preferences, especially with > automatics that additionally decouple the locking torque convertor on > deceleration. Taking your foot off the gas already feels exactly like > coasting (because it virtually IS). But it isn't quite! > But they do get amazing gas mileage > even in very large vehicles compared to past years. By american standards maybe. > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > brains.... > > Resorting to insults is the sure clue you, the troll, have totally lost > the argument because you have no real come back. Did anyone else find the juxtaposition of these two statements amusingly ironic? > > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > > brains.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did anyone else find the juxtaposition of these two statements > amusingly ironic? I did after I typed it and sent it. LOL! Mike > > We can clearly see you missed the line up when they were handing out > > brains.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did anyone else find the juxtaposition of these two statements > amusingly ironic? Lol, Rodan actually started two ad-hominem threads solely about me trying to apply a similar logic. >>>Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal >>>going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seems that the real idiot is the one who doesn't speak from experience. > Like I said, go coast down an incline. By my best estimate, I've driven somwhere between 700,000 and 1 million miles in my life, everywhere from flat plains to rolling hills to 14,000 foot mountain passes. How many miles do YOU have under your belt? And while education doesn't correlate to basic intelligence, in this case it is important for separating fantasy from what is realistically achievable. How many engineering degrees do you have (I've got two)? > >>>Of course, but not nearly as much as with the foot on the gas pedal > >>>going downhill, Twit. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > miles in my life, everywhere from flat plains to rolling hills to 14,000 > foot mountain passes. How many miles do YOU have under your belt? I have CYCLED thousands of miles, which is far more relevant to the subject. > And > while education doesn't correlate to basic intelligence, in this case it > is important for separating fantasy from what is realistically > achievable. How many engineering degrees do you have (I've got two)? Well I don't have any offivial engineering degrees (though I have helped engineering students) but I have made numerous injection moulding tools, built an automatic spark eroder from scratch (including electronics), built some automatic injection moulding machines from scratch (including electronics) and numerous other items. I also invented, made the tooling for, manufactured and marketed a product which people still buy today after 15 years. I guesstimate people have so far used it for over 60 million man hours. More relevantly, I can actually use my ears, which means I can tell wether my engine is burning fuel or not, and I can also apply basic logic, which says that if an engine is used for braking , it needs fuel to NOT do so (even if the valves remain open). Now you clearly haven't tried coasting, so get some experience at it before you boast about your archaic driving "experience". > More relevantly, I can actually use my ears, which means I can tell > wether my engine is burning fuel or not, Don't fool yourself. Unless you have completely open headers (and even then its marginal), I DARE you to tell me if an engine, with the throttle 90% closed and being driven at 2200 RPM by the driveshaft, is actually getting fuel injected or not. Even when fuel is being injected, the burn rate at such low power and with the engine being back-driven is such that there's no real expansion when the exhaust valve opens, therefore no noise. There are aberrant conditions that cause you to be able to tell- like a mal-tuned carburetor or very radical cam that spits enough fuel into the exhaust to cause tail-burning (often incorrectly called "backfiring"), but modern EFI engines don't DO that anyway. > and I can also apply basic > logic, which says that if an engine is used for braking , it needs fuel > to NOT do so (even if the valves remain open). Sure, it needs to burn a little fuel to produce exactly ZERO braking force- but the whole point (which you seem to have missed) is that it takes MORE FUEL to simply idle the engine, which is what happens when you shift to neutral while coasting downhill. That, as if the reduced vehicle control and poor driving practice weren't enough for a rational person, should prove that it is pointless to "coast" a car. > Now you clearly haven't tried coasting, so get some experience at it > before you boast about your archaic driving "experience". Friend, you have NO idea what I have and haven't tried in 30 years of having fun driving and wrenching on cars. That's exactly how I know how they work (that and reading SAE papers and talking to software engineers who work or have worked at various carmakers to understand how engine management systems function under coasting conditions.) > > More relevantly, I can actually use my ears, which means I can tell > > wether my engine is burning fuel or not, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > throttle 90% closed and being driven at 2200 RPM by the driveshaft, is > actually getting fuel injected or not. There is negligible difference in the engine note. Graham > > More relevantly, I can actually use my ears, which means I can tell > > wether my engine is burning fuel or not, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > enough fuel into the exhaust to cause tail-burning (often incorrectly > called "backfiring"), but modern EFI engines don't DO that anyway. It's pretty easy to tell, quite apart from an occasional backfire at first. You can also tell by the way it pulls or more relevantly, doesn't. But I see that you noted that you do need to use fuel if you don't want to use the engine as a brake. > > and I can also apply basic > > logic, which says that if an engine is used for braking , it needs fuel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > takes MORE FUEL to simply idle the engine, which is what happens when > you shift to neutral while coasting downhill. Idling doesn't use more fuel in practice, quite apart from the fact that you go quite a way up the next incline. Go and damn well try it. > That, as if the reduced > vehicle control and poor driving practice weren't enough for a rational > person, should prove that it is pointless to "coast" a car. I don't know what cars/trucks you drive under what conditions but there is obviously something wrong with them, or your driving. > > Now you clearly haven't tried coasting, so get some experience at it > > before you boast about your archaic driving "experience". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > who work or have worked at various carmakers to understand how engine > management systems function under coasting conditions.) Yet you remain clueless of the economy of coasting *in practice*, which continues to save me wallet, engine and gearbox wear. Just yesterday my engine and gearbox spent approximately 25% of the journey idling and I hardly needed to use the brakes either. >>>More relevantly, I can actually use my ears, which means I can tell >>>wether my engine is burning fuel or not, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's pretty easy to tell, quite apart from an occasional backfire at > first. A backfire is combustion of air/fuel mix in the intake manifold. If that happens when you're coasting, your car needs attention. > Idling doesn't use more fuel in practice, quite apart from the fact > that you go quite a way up the next incline. Go and damn well try it. As I said, I have played around with coasting. Now YOU show me fuel consumption numbers that prove you're using less fuel (hint: you can't because you're actually using more than you would otherwise). > Yet you remain clueless of the economy of coasting *in practice*, Its a false economy. which > continues to save me wallet, engine and gearbox wear. Just yesterday my > engine and gearbox spent approximately 25% of the journey idling and I > hardly needed to use the brakes either. Show me some numbers. > >>>This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and > >>>compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Dumb, dumb, dumb. What's REALLY dumb is using an engine to go downhill. Using the engine as a brake wears out the engine instead of easily replacable and much cheaper brake pads. As for the "law", think about it (if you are capable of independent thought): If you are coasting with your foot ready on the brake pedal you are already half way to an emergency stop, so, if anything it's safer, Numbnut. > As for the "law", think about it (if you are capable of independent > thought): > If you are coasting with your foot ready on the brake pedal you are > already half way to an emergency stop, so, if anything it's safer, > Numbnut. Maybe but in a lot of states if is illegal to 'coast' or 'free wheel' down hill. Have something go wrong, get in an accident and have the police discover your car was not in gear at the time and several things MIGHT happen. 1) You insurance will NOT pay for ANY of the dammages caused, leaving you open to personal law suits. 2) You get a ticket for breaking the law. 3) You get arrested if the amount of dammage you caused is above $1,000 (in most states that makes it a felony) or you injure a human. 4) Either your insurance rates go way up or your company cancles your policy. > > As for the "law", think about it (if you are capable of independent > > thought): [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe but in a lot of states if is illegal to 'coast' or 'free wheel' down > hill. US law doesn't apply in any other country. Forget the law for a moment, let's discuss the logic of coasting as opposed to using the engine downhill. I'd say that I'm a good enough driver to judge when I need to use the engine to slow me down. If I can safely do my intended speed without using the engine then I simply won't use it. I haven't heard any logical argument why the engine *must* be used at *all* times, only some nonsensical bullshit about "not being in control" or *wearing out the brakes* (instead of the engine). The only situation I can think of when it might be vital is when there is a risk of overheating the brakes, like on steep hills. > Have something go wrong, get in an accident and have the police > discover your car was not in gear at the time and several things MIGHT [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 3) You get arrested if the amount of dammage you caused is above $1,000 (in > most states that makes it a felony) or you injure a human. > 4) Either your insurance rates go way up or your company cancles your > policy. In your particular country or region of maybe, but it's a big world out here. Now tell me the practical reasons for not coasting when it's safe to do so. OK...so you prefer the asbestos dust to breathe. <markzoom@digiverse.net> wrote in message > US law doesn't apply in any other country. > Forget the law for a moment, let's discuss the logic of coasting as > opposed to using the engine downhill. Dear Solar Flare: > <markzoom@digiverse.net> wrote in message > US law doesn't > apply in any other country. >> Forget the law for a moment, let's discuss the >> logic of coasting as opposed to using the engine downhill. > OK...so you prefer the asbestos dust to breathe. They don't use asbestos in brake pads anymore. That is why they don't last as long as they used to. Couldn't be the way I drive. ;>) David A. Smith I know they have reduced the amount of asbestos used but I am fairly sure they are still contain some. The handling procedures for brake pads haven't changed. > Dear Solar Flare: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David A. Smith > I know they have reduced the amount of asbestos used but I am fairly > sure they are still contain some. The handling procedures for brake > pads haven't changed. A quick google search indicated that, at least in the United States, asbestos has been eliminated from new cars and most replacement brake pads. There is still the possibility of finding it in some replacement pads for older vehicles. That said, many of the replacement materials can also be hazardous to breath when they are turned into dust. This is why the safe handling practices one might find for asbestos are likely still used even for non-asbestos brakes. Anthony Dear Solar Flare: > I know they have reduced the amount of asbestos used > but I am fairly sure they are still contain some. No. Most nations that have legal systems and courts will no longer have asbestos brake pads available. > The handling procedures for brake pads haven't changed. Anything that can handle that amount of heat and retain structure is going to act like asbestos when ingested. It wasn't that asbestos was chemically toxic, it was that it was extremely rigid and chemically inert. Once ingested the body treats it like a foreign body and throws everything in its arsenal at it. Finally ends up encasing it in "cyst". But asbestos punches through even that line of defense to continue irritating. Cell walls are terribly important... Lots of fine dusts cause problems in the lungs. One of the downsides of walking erect, with the breathing apparatus from a 4-legged evolution... what goes into the lungs almost always stays in them. Your point about applying brakes is also producing contamination is well said. It just isn't "asbestos". David A. Smith > Dear Solar Flare: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anything that can handle that amount of heat and retain structure > is going to act like asbestos when ingested. Your simplistic presumption is wrong. > It wasn't that > asbestos was chemically toxic, it was that it was extremely rigid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lots of fine dusts cause problems in the lungs. Yes, "lots" being the operative term. > One of the > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message