Re: Braking in New Handbrake shoes and Disks

If you're saying you live in a flat part of the world, I'm not surprised you find the handbrake ok.

For some strange "cultural" reason people here in the US are very adverse to using the hand brake. (They even call it the parking brake. Sheesh.)

My own wife (American) freaks out when I used it to hold her car on the ramp to move out of the underground garage in our building. She feels more comfortable if I hold the car using the clutch! It doesn't make sense.

Then there were my grad school roommates not being too fond on me using the handbrake to park the car at an angle when we got a lot of snow around...

Handbrake turns. :-) I can do these in a deserted wet carpark with two fingers on my other car, but nothing on the E39. And it's not down to the DSC, either.

Jeff, you forgot something - you don't HAVE a manual transmission 2-ton car that develops over 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm.

Actually, I wasn't saying anything about my life being less simple because of the need to use the handbrake - it's actually SIMPLER, because of the handbrake.

I hold my car with the BRAKES. I take my foot off the brake and place it on the gas, and go. What's the big deal?

Yes I do. Well, I don't know what the weight is, but the trans is a 5 spd. I also drive a Jeep with a manual trans, and I stall it on VERY steep hills, and I have never used the manual brake as a hill holder. Ever. I am not even sure the manual brake on my Jeep works, but I don't care that it works or not, I never use it.

It is not a good method and it doesn't work in all circumstances, like extreme or slippery slopes.

Isn't the "manual brake" in a Jeep a footbrake?

So what is the 5-speed manual that you say is an equivalent 2-ton car?

The "manual brake" on the Jeep is most certainly foot operated to set it, and has a lever to pull to release it.

I don't recall the weight discussion that you started. I said I have a manual transmission in my BMW, and that I never use the hand brake as a hill holder. You suggested that because I never use the hand brake then I must be driving an automatic. Not only to I not drive an automatic on the street, I also do not drive an automatic offroad. No matter where I do not drive an automatic, I do not use the hand brake as a hill holder.

BTW, The Parking Brake in the BMW is well suited for this activity, I just don't use it. The Jeep's parking brake is not well suited for this, but I suspect that is more a function of my particular modified Jeep than it is of the brake itself - the release lever is in a very cramped location next to the roll cage.

The point isn't the configuration of the brake, the point is that I never use any brake other than the one operated by the brake pedal to hold my car on a hill.

Not a 540 specifically, but my father was in car business when I was learning to drive, and I have driven just about every American Muscle Car that ever came out of Detroit, and I have never found a case where I had to use the parking brakes to hold the car in place while I was changing state from stationary to being in motion. Only once in my life has my vehicle rolled back and into the car behind, and in this case the car behind was within 3 inches of me.

I played with using the parking brake to hold a car, and I attempted to show my daughter the technique as an alternative to the method I actually use, and my method works better for me and her than using the parking brake as a hill holder.

My mistake, you said I don't have a two ton car with a manual transmission, I read that to mean you must have though that I drive an automatic. I do have a two ton car with a manual transmission, and I have owned some with

Fine. Bring yours over and I'll drive it.

I can always shift into N and free up the clutch foot to work the brake, so it is silly to suggest that it is impossible. It might not be easy, and it might take talent, but it aint impossible. I obviously HAVE the talent because I can work the brakes and clutch to keep my car where it belongs already.

As a matter of full disclosure, I have the M50 motor. I have no idea what this does to the comparison, but I suspect not very much.

"Jeff Strickland" wrote

In US form, the M50B25 (like the one in my '91 525i) makes 189HP@5900rpm and 181ft-lb@4700rpm. I believe that the 280, above, is a typo, or is the metric newton-meters figure (and the 440 figure has to be wrong, too.)

Floyd

I'm amazed such practices are allowed in your driving test. Using the handbrake as a 'hill' holder' on a manual is near universally the way taught round the world as the safest way - or at least it is for all I've asked. Perhaps readers of this group from other countries might comment? I'm not saying alternative methods can be developed - as with many things after passing the test = but this doesn't make them the safest way for all.

I'll enter the fray as a newbie to the group - have an '05 330Ci on the ship coming to the West Coast of U.S.

I've never used hand brake as a hill holder. Am 62, license since 15. Driven everything from MG's, Jags, Jeeps, Buicks, almost you name. I've never so much as nudge a vehicle behind me. I know this is only an anecdotal data point.

Perhaps, the hand brake business is easier for those just learning to drive and so the "approved" method for some license exams?

Oh, should add I'm not a flatlander. At present reside in hilly Seattle, WA. Driven many, many times in San Francisco, which also is known for its hills. I typically get well beyond 100K miles before any clutch work. Last car, and Audi Quattro, had 185K miles on the clock when clutch was replaced. Disk was still fine, it was the "fingers", essentially its pressure plate release that went bad.

HTH

- Jon

Before the days of ECU controlled idle speed, you'd stall most cars - well certainly something like an MG - on a steep hill if the idle speed was set correctly buy holding it on the clutch. Unless you 'heel and towed' it to increase the idle speed. Which to me seemed like hard work - given you'd a convenient hand operated brake that would easily hold the car on near any hill.

I grew up and learned to drive in Barcelona, Spain. The canonical way to start in an uphill is using the handbrake as well, although many people don't use it with varying success. My own mother, not the adventurous type at all when it comes to driving, religiously uses the handbrake method to get in motion in the many really steep streets around their place in the city.

As I mentioned before, I've been living in the US for a while and people here don't know how to use their handbrake, Even in places like San Francisco where it works well. The fact that most cars are automatics is largely the explanation, IMHO.

Jeff, the M50 design was used in 2.0 to 2.5 L motors. The M52 design was used for engines with 2.0 to 2.8 L displacement. I suspect your E36 was a 2.5 L model. IMO, it's one of BMW's best engines.

But you're right though. This is moot to Fred.

What may be more relevant, at least to Fred, is the comparison of M52 and M62 engines. He is trying to point out an error in my previous gut-feel ballpark assertion that the M62 engine would be putting out at least twice the torque of an engine in any regular E36 in a hill start

- just a technical point, not really at the core of our debate.

Here's my answer:

I looked up the torque curves for the latest M52 engine - the one in the E39 528i - so it is likely identical to the one in the latest E36. I also looked up the M62 engine's torque curve. I'm not sure if it's the one with VANOS - it shouldn't be because that engine is the M62 TU. Anyway, here's what I found:

ENGINE Nm @ 1,000 rpm @ 2000 rpm @3000 rpm

---------------------------------------------------------------- M52B28 ~125 215 260 M62VB44LEV ~295 ~390 ~420

RATIO 2.36 x 1.81 x 1.62 x

Fred seems to have quoted maximum engine performance figures for the respective engines. That's not relevant to our debate because neither of us would use our engines at that level for starting on a hill.

What is relevant is each engine's performance between 0 to 3000 RPM, the figures I actually suggested in my earlier message. As you see, the torque curve differences of the two engines between 1,000 RPM and

vehicle

So your car slid back more than 3 inches, right? Does that mean you often roll back 3 inches on a hill start and not have an accident because the cars behind were otherwise farther than 3 inches from your rear bumper?

That's terrible Jeff. You would never have passed a proper driving test. You can't roll backwards at all on a hill start in a test. People who live in hilly locations where people have to test in a manual transmission car will tell you that.

Did it not occur to you that you would have not slid into that car if you had applied your handbrake?

Be careful about teaching your children how to drive.

It is often better to have them learn from a good professional instructor. A parent's self-esteem often gets in the way when teaching a child. Doesn't happen in every case but it can confuse the task.

mistaken.

transmission,

advantage

It's not HP Jeff. It's torque. What matters at low speeds is torque, not HP. Unlike what Fred quoted, it's also not peak torque but low-end torque that is relevant here.

And it was important to include the words "manual transmission" because it would be a non-issue if my car had an automatic transmission. Get it?

Normally I am happy to let people try my cars but if you are in the habit of slipping the clutch unnecessarily then I'd probably decline, I'm sure you'll understand.

talent

Sorry Jeff, I was wrong about this point. You're right. Actually, if the foot brake pedal is not too far off at an odd location, it should be easy to use.