Parallel park +1.8m?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Bod on 2 Dec 2009 12:55 Harry Bloomfield wrote: > 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. > I have to agree, it is not possible, I think he should cut down on his drink. Bod
From: Harry Bloomfield on 2 Dec 2009 13:00 It happens that Mike formulated : > 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. Ray said one foot back and front - two feet in total, so a little more than you understood. Of course it is possible to get a car into and out of a spot with a very small gap, but the smaller the gap, the more time it takes. 1m allows me to get in or out, with a minimum of shuffling back and forth, but neither I nor anyone else could do it in my car in one move - assuming of course they were used to the car. I do this around six to ten times per day. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Silk on 2 Dec 2009 13:01 On 02/12/2009 17:52, Harry Bloomfield wrote: > 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. > No, I think you'll find I was right. I was talking about the total space required to park the car is the diagonal dimension plus the wriggle room.
From: Harry Bloomfield on 2 Dec 2009 13:01 Conor explained on 01/12/2009 : > BULLSHIT. Completely and utterly impossible. Don't need to drive it - > basic mathematics can prove it. Well I try to be a little more gentle with my comments, but when you are right, you're right :D -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Silk on 2 Dec 2009 13:02
On 02/12/2009 17:55, Bod wrote: > Harry Bloomfield wrote: >> 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. >> > > I have to agree, it is not possible, I think he should cut down on his > drink. You can get into a space "smaller" than the car if you drink enough. ;-) |