using clutch to control car speed going down steep hill

[lauda]

I'm assuming quite a few of the people in this thread have never seen one of these:



I'm struggling to understand how anyone can think that selecting a lower gear and going down a hill on neither the throttle nor the brakes (but using the brakes if you do start to pick up unwanted speed) puts more wear on any component than taking a higher gear and driving all the way down the hill on the brakes.

[IntriguedUser]

What? Neutral and going down a hill with your foot on the brake, that's horrible driving.

I feel completely out of touch/control with the car coasting, dangerous too imo

[wst]

lauda said:

I'm struggling to understand how anyone can think that selecting a lower gear and going down a hill on neither the throttle nor the brakes (but using the brakes if you do start to pick up unwanted speed) puts more wear on any component than taking a higher gear and driving all the way down the hill on the brakes.

...I don't think anyone said that being in a lower gear with the clutch engaged wears anything faster, but the way OP phrased it "using the clutch to control car speed" sounds like they're riding the clutch to stop their car accelerating downhill. It also sounds like in any adverse situation they cack themselves and dip the clutch, which is why their car is going faster downhill than they intend and the only way I can think of that using the clutch to slow down (rather than using the gears - as people seem to be interpreting it) makes any sort of sense.

OP, I have no idea how you passed your test if you were dipping the clutch going around corners, so I'm assuming you weren't doing so when you learned and took the test. That means I'm assuming you weren't stalling every time you reached a corner when taking the test. Where did this new habit come from?

[glazbagun]

lauda said:

I'm struggling to understand how anyone can think that selecting a lower gear and going down a hill on neither the throttle nor the brakes (but using the brakes if you do start to pick up unwanted speed) puts more wear on any component than taking a higher gear and driving all the way down the hill on the brakes.

Strange isn't it. A 1.0 litre can shove 75hp through the drivetrain all day without any trouble. Letting the car move the engine at 30MPH must be a fraction of what it's built for.

[lostkiwi]

glazbagun said:

Strange isn't it. A 1.0 litre can shove 75hp through the drivetrain all day without any trouble. Letting the car move the engine at 30MPH must be a fraction of what it's built for.

Exactly this. We will happily chick all the horsepower we have available into the transmission yet bulk at using the transmission to slow our vehicle because it will wear it out. Really?

[lauda]

doogz said:

I don't think there's any doubt that by utilising engine braking, you're putting more strain on the transmission, specifically the clutch. A trivial amount, perhaps but it will happen.

More strain than, perhaps, accelerating away from a standstill? Which I'm sure we all do far more often than driving down steep hills. If anyone is worrying that much about wear and tear on components, I'd suggest leaving the car in the garage and taking the bus instead.

[surveyor]

Surely its school holiday syndrome?

[paintman]

There's a few theory test sites online which ask questions, give alternative answers & then mark it. Those I've found for going downhill have using a lower gear as one of the answers plus three others. Having played with them, the only correct answer allowed is the using a lower gear one.

[lauda]

doogz said:

lauda said:

More strain than, perhaps, accelerating away from a standstill? Which I'm sure we all do far more often than driving down steep hills. If anyone is worrying that much about wear and tear on components, I'd suggest leaving the car in the garage and taking the bus instead.

Of course, pulling away from a start, especially the way my mother in law does it, is going to wear the friction plates more than a bit of gentle downhill engine braking. I was just commenting that it clearly does happen, as lauda was saying he was struggling to understand.

And I'm still struggling a bit with some of the logic here

My original comment was in response to certain posts which suggested that it is better to use your brakes and no engine braking in order to minimise component wear.

The type of component wear that you'd get from some gentle downhill engine breaking is probably far less 'abnormal' compared to normal driving than going downhill for any length of time on the brakes. I appreciate that all types of driving will result in wear and tear but I actually think that using engine braking is the most efficient technique for this circumstance.

[ehonda]

In this thread the OP says he hasn't driven a car since passing his test and prefers automatics http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

OP - Did you pass your test in an auto?

[DJP]

PositronicRay said:

Welcome to the 1950's

This^^.

Using gears to slow the car is an archaic method from the days when brakes suffered badly from fade.

Modern brakes don't fade (at least not to that extent).

As above: Gears to go, brakes to slow.

Unless you're driving a classic car don't slow down with the gears.

[Moonhawk]

PositronicRay said:

Use brakes, cars behind will see the brake lights.
Brakes are cheaper and easier to replace than clutchs and gearboxs.

They also fade and fail much faster under prolonged heavy loading - which is why the highway code (as well as road signage) specifically advises to select a low gear when going down a steep hill.

[lauda]

DJP said:

Unless you're driving a classic car don't slow down with the gears.

It's not about slowing down though, is it? It's about not accruing unwanted speed when going down a hill.

[DottyMR2]

There is a staggering number of people on here that don't understand how a clutch works, or their drivetrain.

Also, please don't feed the school holidays troll. The first post I give 6/10, it could have been a genuine post. The second though I'm afraid gets a disappointing 2/10. You had quite a few people, you had them, then it all went to st with what is obviously a troll post. On the whole, a very sub par performance.

[Stickyfinger]

Just total Drivel.....simple as that.

(AH 3000Bj8 and ACTIVA V6 owner)

DJP said:

This^^.

Using gears to slow the car is an archaic method from the days when brakes suffered badly from fade.

Modern brakes don't fade (at least not to that extent).

As above: Gears to go, brakes to slow.

Unless you're driving a classic car don't slow down with the gears.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Wednesday 29th July 11:31

[lauda]

doogz said:

lauda said:

And I'm still struggling a bit with some of the logic here

My original comment was in response to certain posts which suggested that it is better to use your brakes and no engine braking in order to minimise component wear.

The type of component wear that you'd get from some gentle downhill engine breaking is probably far less 'abnormal' compared to normal driving than going downhill for any length of time on the brakes. I appreciate that all types of driving will result in wear and tear but I actually think that using engine braking is the most efficient technique for this circumstance.

The amount of component wear on the clutch will be higher, if you're using it to keep the speed down, than it would be if you weren't. I'm not suggesting it's not the best way to drive down a hill, but you can't understand that engine braking puts more wear on the drivetrain than not using engine braking?

If you read what I've actually written, I don't think you'll find that I've suggested anywhere that using engine braking puts no wear on the drivetrain, or less wear than not using engine braking.

What I am saying is that relative to the additional wear that driving down a hill with your brakes on puts on those brakes, the additional wear to the drivetrain by using engine braking is less.

[lauda]

doogz said:

lauda said:

If you read what I've actually written, I don't think you'll find that I've suggested anywhere that using engine braking puts no wear on the drivetrain, or less wear than not using engine braking.

lauda said:

I'm struggling to understand how anyone can think that selecting a lower gear and going down a hill on neither the throttle nor the brakes (but using the brakes if you do start to pick up unwanted speed) puts more wear on any component than taking a higher gear and driving all the way down the hill on the brakes.

That's what it sounded like, it's why I commented. That's not what you meant. Fair enough.

Ok, I appreciate that we're getting a bit pedantic here but I'll clarify the intention of my earlier post that you've quoted. I intended to say that I didn't think that going downhill in a lower gear and not using the brakes resulted in more overall component wear than a higher gear and using the brakes.

Clearly both will result in wear, using the lower gear will result in more drivetrain wear than using a higher gear and the brakes. But, the additional brake wear of the higher gear/brakes method is greater than the additional wear of the lower gear/no brakes method.

I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject now!

[DonkeyApple]

Slushbox said:

"I am scared of stalling car so on downhill or on sharp turns I leave my foot off the gas and press full clutch and use little bit brake to slow down the car. If I am in 3rd gear and if there is a sharp turn then I use clutch and break to slow down and then speed up again without changing a gear."

1) It's 'brake' not 'break.' De-clutching on turns and downhill is a seriously bad habit.


2) Consider taking a PassPlus course, or booking another hour with an instructor to polish up your technique.

Or contact your local IAM group for free 'observation' at the slight risk of dealing with someone who looks and sounds like your Dad.

https://www.gov.uk/pass-plus/overview

Edited by Slushbox on Wednesday 29th July 08:36

Paid for from the refund that his original instructor should give the poor lad.

[DonkeyApple]

lauda said:

I'm assuming quite a few of the people in this thread have never seen one of these:



I'm struggling to understand how anyone can think that selecting a lower gear and going down a hill on neither the throttle nor the brakes (but using the brakes if you do start to pick up unwanted speed) puts more wear on any component than taking a higher gear and driving all the way down the hill on the brakes.

I'm not sure that is entirely what they meant. I assumed they were referring to the all too common and somewhat silly habit some 'specialist' road users have of using the gearbox as a singular braking device. Obviously while the user is pretending to be a racing driver they are knackering their drive train and braking with just two of the four wheels with the very obvious negative consequences.

I didn't get the impression that people were saying that using engine braking as part of the means to keep the car speed under better control on a long descent. That was my reading of it.

[xxChrisxx]

Lauda outlined quite a specific scenario. Down hill, in gear, clutch engaged.

doogz said:

I don't think there's any doubt that by utilising engine braking, you're putting more strain on the transmission, specifically the clutch. A trivial amount, perhaps but it will happen.

doogz said:

The amount of component wear on the clutch will be higher, if you're using it to keep the speed down, than it would be if you weren't?

Not that I like to get involved in these type of things, but in response you've made a specific claim against the clutch. I'm just very curious as to your reasoning to why you think the clutch would wear?

Edited by xxChrisxx on Wednesday 29th July 12:48