Re: Braking in New Handbrake shoes and Disks

For which you need three feet for the car to be totally under control. Or a means of operating two pedals with one foot - which isn't always possible on every vehicle.

Of course it's easy with an auto. And perhaps with large torquey engines. But with a low powered car, most would stall without the use of the handbrake.

Despite our earlier unpleasantries, I must say your home town is quite nice. My oldest daughter lived there for a couple years between undergrad and grad school and we ended up buying a flat along Travessera de Dalt. Haven't been back since 2003, but have to be in Italy this fall and my wife's demand is we set aside time to visit Barcelona. I am looking forward to spending some time there again.

As for your following comment...........

...............it's nonsense :^)

I would suggest that as a practical matter, driving in city streets, the torque and weight and control issues would be pretty much moot. That is, I can't imagine - without actually sitting in the driver seat - that I would personally use a different technique in my driving style at a standing start on a hill.

I don't think the "blunt force momentum" would be significantly different to the extent that it would cause me to change my behavior and style. Certainly, on a closed course in balls-to-the-walls racing, the differences would be huge, but when trying to get the car moving in traffic without damaging the nose of the car I was driving or the car immediately behind, I am not sure how the blunt force would come into play.

I hold my car with my right foot on the brake pedal. When my turn to proceed comes along, I let the clutch out just a little so that it just begins to grab but not drag the motor down to stall speed, then I take my foot from the brake and apply the gas and proceed to release the clutch so that my car rolls up the hill. I never even begin to do any of this until I am sure that I can proceed, this prevents protracted periods - or any period - of using the clutch to keep my car stationary. If I don't want the car to move, I apply the brakes.

If I felt the need to use the parking brake as a hill holder, though, it would easily perform that task. The entire discussion arose out of my suggestion that the parking brake is intended to keep a stationary car at rest, it is not designed for nor does it function well to bring a moving car to a stand still. Whether or not I use the parking brake as a hill holder says nothing about whether or not it can actually perform that task. As a hill holder, the parking brake would be called upon to keep a stationary car at rest, which is precisely what I maintain it can do.

Ooops... my bad. That is a bit high isn't it. ;-) Yes the web site I was quoting the specs from was in nM not ft/lbs.

-Fred W

No, LESS than 3 inches. The car behind was "within 3 inches", that means closer. The car stopped too close to me. And, it was when I was first driving, and I can start my car on a hill today without rolling at all.

Cars had no handbrake at the time. American cars never had hand brakes until they started appearing in the last 15 years or so.

You are full of s*it.

I get it completely. It is you that can't drive without a crutch. You said that I must not drive a manual, and I assumed you thought I drove an automatic. That was my mistake, it appears that your point was the weight and the power, not the transmission.

The only driver that I ever rode with that used his handbrake on a hill also thought he had to depress the clutch at freeway speeds before he could use the brake. He thought the motor would stall unless the clutch was used. He also didn't believe that if he simply took his foot off the gas earlier, he could avoid using the brakes in most cases.

I don't slip the clutch. My clutch is original with 210,000 miles on it. I am quite sure that I use it properly.

It would be easy in theory, difficult in practice because the hand operated brake is much easier to modulate and set to the right level, and it is easier to release for the same reasons.

Beside all of that, I don't do it. I don't need to do it.

No need to get testy, Michael. Let's try and maintain just a touch of civility in these pedantic discussions, eh? If your point was the 8 cylinder had more torque at low rpm you should have just said so. But that wasn't what you said, and hence my input pertaining to peak torque output, which is what is generally what is specified about an engine.

But to get back to the point of your discussion, I do see your point about the weight, but I fail to understand why a car with higher torque would be *harder* to start moving on an uphill stop. If anything an engine with higher torque would be better at this, no?

-Fred W

In fairness to our Euro friends though, their perspective in many cases is premised upon the reality that they can get some pretty weak-willed cars, and it will matter to them in greater degree than it does us, here in "chaotic" America, how weight and torque affect their driving techniques (in this case moving up a hill from a standing start). Also, there seems to be a homogenous aspect to how everyone in say, Britain, drives, because they all have to pass some pretty rigorous testing to gain a license )I have a friend I dive with who's daughter applied to take the test and was given a testing date 13 or 14 months later). While here in the states we'll let any blind-as-a-bat idiot behind the wheel as easily as we will a superb driver, like me. Couple that with 50 different driving test across the land and you end up with more of Michael's "chaos" :^)

I tend to agree with you Jeff. I don't use my handbrake for holding the car still while I move to accelerate up a hill either. Nor do I think these guys who are proponents of this technique actually need to employ it. They can negotiate a hill without this crutch if they want to. More than likley I think this about driving in a manner that saves wear on certain auto components. And my individual experience is that Americans are more "brutes" to their cars than most people around the world.

Jeff, what I said was that it is harder to stop a heavier car that has been thrusted forward by a more powerful engine than it is to stop a lighter car moved forward by a smaller engine. Small, light cars are easier to control. The difference is critical when you maneuver the bigger heavier (EXPENSIVE) vehicle in tight places - you need to adopt a finer touch.

I know people can feather the clutch and throttle to start on a hill. Some people don't think it's a big deal to use the clutch in such a fashion. However you can't do that successfully under the situations I pointed out. Why don't you go on Lombard Street and see if you can avoid rolling back 3 or more inches without using a handbrake? I was in a German town called Erlangen last Fall and the ramp to the small old-fashioned hotel's indoor parking lot was about the Lombard Street grade or a bit steeper. A person can probably get vertigo just looking down that ramp. When I reached the bottom I found the door wouldn't open. I was in a 6-speed manual Mercedes SLK and it had just been drizzling. Luckily the car had a good handbrake. The SLK wasn't heavy but it was brand new and the metal garage door was inches from the hood. A very similar situation happened to me in my 540 at a downtown condo in Toronto a few years ago.

Finally, if you had used the handbrake you would never have bumped the guy behind.

Fred, sorry if I sounded testy but even you may find it irksome if other people interject in a mistaken fashion and seemingly throw the discussion off in a tangent.

You may have missed the part where I told Jeff "...Jeff, you forgot something - you don't HAVE a manual transmission 2-ton car that develops over 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm.". So you see, my point was that, in the example of my car, it does have way more torque at low revs. And as I will explain below, that can present a different sort of problem in hill-starts.

As for the issue of more torque being an aid in hill starting - I agree. However, just starting on a hill wasn't what I was discussing - controlling the car after it starts WAS.

What I said was that BECAUSE a torquey engine would accelerate a heavier mass like the 540 in an aggressive manner, it makes it more awkward when you are pointing up on a hill with the car in front not that far away. Unless you feather the clutch or the handbrake, you'd have to stomp on the foot brake to avoid bumping the car in front.

The 540 has a fussy clutch release action and you have to sort of "prime it" with some revs to get a smooth release and even more so as the grade on a hill adds resistance to the drivetrain (on level or declined ground you can easily start in 2nd).

So, if you are only using the foot brake, the car will tend to lunge forward in such situations unless you feather the clutch or the handbrake. If you want to feather the clutch in such a heavy car then your right foot must dart for the throttle, making a smooth take-off even harder. IMO, trying to "suspend" a heavy car with a torquey engine mid-way on a steep hill is a very bad and unnecessary thing to do. It's much better to wear the handbrake lining.

And in addition ...as Jeff has himself admitted (when you mis-time swapping the footbrake for the throttle) your car can roll back too far and bump the guy behind. It is quite annoying to have someone in front bump your car just because they insist on not using the handbrake. While hill-starts are not the regimen in many towns, taking too many such liberties do add to the likeliness of "road rage".

For what little it's worth, I agree 100% with Jeff about using the service brake rather than the parking brake to start the car on a hill. I, too, have driven any number of cars (and even some trucks) with manual transmissions. I've yet to resort to using the parking brake in practice, though I have tried it to see what you're all on about.

I use heel-and-toe to avoid going backward. I've taught several others how. Nobody seems to have had much difficulty learning it so far. (As a side note, heel-and-toe is such a useful thing to know that I cannot imagine life without it. I consider it a basic driving skill.)

It does not take exceptional skill or require more clutch slip to start a car on a hill using heel-and-toe.

It does prevent the car from rolling backward on any grade when moving off (I taught my son how on the steepest hill I could find).

JRE

Jeff Strickland wrote:

As Jeff said, our standard is that the car not move back a whit when starting on a hill. The examiner cares not how you do this. My guess is that a reasonable examiner in the UK would likewise not care. Why not ask one? You're a lot closer to them than I am.

I have also seen several German drivers heel-and-toe to start on a hill without using the parking brake.

I have of course seen any number of sloppy drivers go backward when starting on a hill, and have no clue whether how they are trying to avoid it though I have found this much more prevalent in the USA than I have seen in the UK, Germany, France, or even Canada.

By the way, I looked at the MOT rules of the road on their website and don't find anything about *how* one controls the car in this situation. Our rules are much the same (except for that little matter of driving on the correct--er, right--side of the road).

JRE

I too use it on a manual. Of course it's more either side of the right foot, than heel and tow. But not all vehicles have the pedals suitably positioned, and not all people have suitable feet. ;-)

And I'd not agree anyone can learn how to do it safely. Therefore agree with the UK way of teaching - and insisting - a learner driver can and does use the handbrake for hill starts - even with an auto. If they subsequently - after gaining experience - decide to learn how to 'heel and tow' that's fine by me.

No, I was stating that correct use of the handbrake is part of the UK test. This also means engaging it whenever the car comes to rest - even in a traffic queue.

I'm sure they do. But I'm willing to bet not on their driving test. Many learners have enough trouble with simple clutch control - let alone trying to operate three pedals with two feet.

Heh heh - the dreaded spool cheekier at work again...

....or at the bottom of a hill.

Which probably explains why most of the people here who don't understand that a person can acquire the skill to move any car, with any weight or power levels, up a hill and in control, without ever engaging the parking brake, are not American.

If you guys are taught to put the brake on everytime the cars stops, then it would seem natural for you to rely on the handbrake when negotiating an incline from standing start.

And facing either way.

Perhaps all the vehicles sold outside the UK have pedals suitable for operating with two feet by everyone? If so, how do you explain the large Renault van I recently drove which it was impossible to heel and toe on - the pedals were too widely spaced and in such a place that didn't allow me

- at least - to pivot my foot sufficiently. And the handbrake in a near impossible place for the driver to use - obviously left over from LHD.

The only practical way so to start off on a steep hill without rolling back was to get the passenger to operate the parking brake, or to hold it on the clutch all the time.