From: DavidR on
"Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote
> "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message

>> My last carb car would chug up surpringly steep slopes at 300rpm. Much
>> easier to deal with than an electronic engine.
>
> What car was that?

Peugeot 405. BX was similar. The nice thing was that when going along in a
slow traffic, the speed could be checked by touching the brake without
constantly having to dip the clutch. It would be more pleasant if electronic
engines had a means of switching off the feedback. (4.5mph with a diesel
engine is often annoyingly high)

> I've never driven a petrol-engined car that would even
> *idle* at less than about 600-700 rpm without faltering and stalling, let
> alone one that would do this with any mechanical load.

There is different flywheel effect between pure idle and being in gear
connected to the car's mass.

Reducing idle speed needs the throttle wound back. Loading it down does
not - or necessarily reduce the aiflow because the power to the wheels
should roughly balance the reduced engine frictional loss.



From: Ed Chilada on
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:41:45 +0100, ChelseaTractorMan
<mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:32:21 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
><harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Such as not allowing more of a worthwhile gap to develop ahead of you.
>>Such as pulling forward too quickly.
>
>10 seconds is quite a long time in a rush hour queue.

Indeed it is. If everyone were doing that just think of the effect
that would have on the back of the queue.

From: Harry Bloomfield on
Ed Chilada pretended :
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:41:45 +0100, ChelseaTractorMan
> <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:32:21 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
>> <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Such as not allowing more of a worthwhile gap to develop ahead of you.
>>> Such as pulling forward too quickly.
>>
>> 10 seconds is quite a long time in a rush hour queue.
>
> Indeed it is. If everyone were doing that just think of the effect
> that would have on the back of the queue.

No it would not, all that is needed is one driver leaving one gap, then
you get a worthwhile improvement in distance covered per move forward.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


From: Martyn H on
On 29 Apr, 22:09, Ed Chilada <nos...(a)nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:54:47 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
>
> <harry.m1...(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >Ed Chilada wrote :
> >> In very slow stop-start motorway traffic, putting your handbrake
> >> on/off and your car in and out of neutral every 10 seconds would get
> >> old very quickly.
>
> >If you are stopping and starting every 10 seconds then you are doing
> >something very silly!
>
> Such as?

being one of the fools who feels that they have to behave like sheep
or cattle being driven intoa press in such matters rather than waiting
for a reasonable gap ( or the order of 10s of metters to open up and
then moving up )
From: Ed Chilada on
On Tue, 4 May 2010 00:02:27 -0700 (PDT), Martyn H
<martyn.hodson(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 29 Apr, 22:09, Ed Chilada <nos...(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:54:47 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
>>
>> <harry.m1...(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Ed Chilada wrote :
>> >> In very slow stop-start motorway traffic, putting your handbrake
>> >> on/off and your car in and out of neutral every 10 seconds would get
>> >> old very quickly.
>>
>> >If you are stopping and starting every 10 seconds then you are doing
>> >something very silly!
>>
>> Such as?
>
>being one of the fools who feels that they have to behave like sheep
>or cattle being driven intoa press in such matters rather than waiting
>for a reasonable gap ( or the order of 10s of metters to open up and
>then moving up )

And what would happen to the rear of the queue if everyone decided to
wait for a "reasonable" gap before bothering to move forward?