Parallel park +1.8m?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 18:12 In article <lqmdnSkrHc0EBIjWnZ2dnUVZ8nJi4p2d(a)pipex.net>, JNugent says... > > Ray Keattch wrote: > > Harry Bloomfield wrote: > >> TV proggy yesterday evening with Carol Voderperson. Apparently someone > >> has done the maths to work out how much extra space is needed, extra > >> to your vehicle length, to be able to park between two other vehicles > >> - they said VL + 1.8m... They demonstrated by driving along side > >> perfectly parallel level with the most forward car, then reversing > >> from there with just two moves including the last mentioned one. > >> > >> Now I reckon to be able to manage with just a fraction over 1m. The > >> way I do it is to drive nose first into the gap, back out again still > >> going forward, which gets my tail end already pointing towards the > >> kerb, reverse in then a bit of shuffling back and forth to get tight > >> up to the kerb - should the gap be tight. > > > > Not more shuffling! > > > > I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with > > no shuffling required. I get parallel to the front car, go full lock > > until I get a three quarter view of the rear car in the side mirror. I > > straighten up and then go opposite lock when I have a certain triangle > > visible through the side window (bottom of window and kirb. I then go > > opposite lock until straight with kirb. > > > > No shuffling is required and this method works for any car and driver. > > In that particular spot, once the individual has got used to it? Ray is bullshitting. Do the maths and it won't work for any car more than a few feet wide. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Silk on 2 Dec 2009 04:00 On 01/12/2009 23:12, Conor wrote: > Ray is bullshitting. Do the maths and it won't work for any car more > than a few feet wide. > Agreed up to a point. It's impossible to fit into a space in one move that's smaller than the diagonal dimension of the car plus the space required to move the car in - as you can't bring the front in without moving the car back. That would make the "foot either side" impossible. For a car 12' long and 6' wide, we can use Pythagoras to calculate that the diagonal would be the square root of 144 + 36 which happens to equal approximately 13.42'. So this would give us about 1.42' to play with plus the maneuvering room. I would say that the TV programme has probably got it about right, if you add up the dimensions required, the room to maneuver and a bit extra to allow for the fact that you can't see every inch. I would consider myself pretty good at parallel parking as I have to do a lot of it, but I'm not Superman and I'm guessing neither is Ray. It would be interesting to take a tape measure along to one of these "foot either side" maneuvers and measure it.
From: Mike on 2 Dec 2009 10:00 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:00:17 +0000, Silk <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On 01/12/2009 23:12, Conor wrote: > >> Ray is bullshitting. Do the maths and it won't work for any car more >> than a few feet wide. >> > >Agreed up to a point. It's impossible to fit into a space in one move >that's smaller than the diagonal dimension of the car plus the space >required to move the car in - as you can't bring the front in without >moving the car back. That would make the "foot either side" impossible. > >For a car 12' long and 6' wide, we can use Pythagoras to calculate that >the diagonal would be the square root of 144 + 36 which happens to equal >approximately 13.42'. So this would give us about 1.42' to play with >plus the maneuvering room. I would say that the TV programme has >probably got it about right, if you add up the dimensions required, the >room to maneuver and a bit extra to allow for the fact that you can't >see every inch. > >I would consider myself pretty good at parallel parking as I have to do >a lot of it, but I'm not Superman and I'm guessing neither is Ray. It >would be interesting to take a tape measure along to one of these "foot >either side" maneuvers and measure it. I'd doubt the 1ft claims too, it's significantly smaller than a Rover 75 but I parked my Mini in what wasn't really a parking place many years ago. It took a while and when I'd finished the gap front and back was barely enough for two lower limbs positioned side by side - we checked! I'd guess about 12-14 inches in *total* although I'll admit to slightly nudging the cars front and back whilst getting in there. Wikipedia says the Mini is 120.1 inches long and 55.1 inches wide which gives a diagonal of 132 inches or 12 inches longer than the length of the car. Thankfully the other cars had dispersed before we had to struggle our way out of this 'impossible' parking place. The things you'll do when you are desperate to avoid paying for parking, or avoiding a parking ticket on yellow lines that were everywhere around. --
From: Harry Bloomfield on 2 Dec 2009 12:47 Ray Keattch submitted this idea : > Not more shuffling! > > I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with no > shuffling required. I get parallel to the front car, go full lock until I > get a three quarter view of the rear car in the side mirror. I straighten up > and then go opposite lock when I have a certain triangle visible through the > side window (bottom of window and kirb. I then go opposite lock until > straight with kirb. > > No shuffling is required and this method works for any car and driver. Sorry Ray, but I would suggest that is a physical impossibility. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Harry Bloomfield on 2 Dec 2009 12:52
Silk has brought this to us : > Agreed up to a point. It's impossible to fit into a space in one move that's > smaller than the diagonal dimension of the car plus the space required to > move the car in - as you can't bring the front in without moving the car > back. That would make the "foot either side" impossible. I think you meant the difference between the cars length and its diagonal length, plus a bit (a few inches) to allow for manouvering. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk |