Is engine braking good or bad?
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
Hooli said:
Do you know, it can take me miles to realise that the car in front has non-functional brake lights because they only serve to confirm what you can see rather than being a primary indication.
Yes I've noticed that too. Infact, I usually need to wait for the car in front to come to a halt before I can safely conclude that they are braking but there are no brake lights, unless of course they perform an extremely rapid deceleration.I would still much rather the red lights came on though so that I get instant notification rather than waiting until I realise we're closing, and I'd still rather make sure my red lights come on incase the person behind is a bit too slow in realising what's going on. I just don't want my pride and joy shunted!
In the opposite scenario of the OP: engine braking is good when it avoids constant brake light illumination and thus allows the brake lights to serve as a warning when actual slowing is required. A lot of AD folk get hung up on the control aspects of engine braking and forget about the signals.
I say this after (a few years ago) stacking my mountain bike into the back of some Hyundai nastiness for precisely this reason. The old chap ahead of me was descending a hill with continuous braking. A car then appeared coming up the hill, and he braked to a stop, obviously without a change in signals. I didn't anticipate this quickly enough, locked both wheels, and a minor collision occured.
My fault of course, but I could have been better assisted.
I say this after (a few years ago) stacking my mountain bike into the back of some Hyundai nastiness for precisely this reason. The old chap ahead of me was descending a hill with continuous braking. A car then appeared coming up the hill, and he braked to a stop, obviously without a change in signals. I didn't anticipate this quickly enough, locked both wheels, and a minor collision occured.
My fault of course, but I could have been better assisted.
trashbat said:
In the opposite scenario of the OP: engine braking is good when it avoids constant brake light illumination and thus allows the brake lights to serve as a warning when actual slowing is required. A lot of AD folk get hung up on the control aspects of engine braking and forget about the signals.
I say this after (a few years ago) stacking my mountain bike into the back of some Hyundai nastiness for precisely this reason. The old chap ahead of me was descending a hill with continuous braking. A car then appeared coming up the hill, and he braked to a stop, obviously without a change in signals. I didn't anticipate this quickly enough, locked both wheels, and a minor collision occured.
My fault of course, but I could have been better assisted.
I say this after (a few years ago) stacking my mountain bike into the back of some Hyundai nastiness for precisely this reason. The old chap ahead of me was descending a hill with continuous braking. A car then appeared coming up the hill, and he braked to a stop, obviously without a change in signals. I didn't anticipate this quickly enough, locked both wheels, and a minor collision occured.
My fault of course, but I could have been better assisted.
Unfortunately (in my experience) many drivers are terrified of the prospect of actually hearing the engine revs; to them it means using lots of fuel or the engine will explode so they keep the revs low and don't give any consideration to the value of brake lights (as stangely enough, do some here).trashbat said:
I described that incident to one of my IAM observers and he said he'd never thought of it before!
It's certainly something I've thought of before.Say slowing down on the motorway for a queue of slow traffic. I'll be on the brakes, but try to come off them gently and into engine braking once it's clear the car behind is aware I'm slowing and is slowing itself. So that should we need to come to a more sudden stop the car behind will again see brake lights and hopefully react more quickly than if I had stayed showing brake lights all the time.
I learned to drive in the sixties and we were taught to go down through the gears when slowing down or coming to a stop.
When I did my IAM pre-test runs I was told that this should not be done nowadays. Also I was told it was cheaper to reline breaks than renew clutch etc etc.
I explained that as an ex sales rep I used to travel 50k plus a year and never had clutch or gearbox issues.
I was then told quite firmly that I should not use the gears the way I had been!
When I did my IAM pre-test runs I was told that this should not be done nowadays. Also I was told it was cheaper to reline breaks than renew clutch etc etc.
I explained that as an ex sales rep I used to travel 50k plus a year and never had clutch or gearbox issues.
I was then told quite firmly that I should not use the gears the way I had been!
There is a thinking that changing down through intermediate gears is unnecessary in the approach to a hazard.
It is a waste of energy and you could be concentrating on the road and having two hands on the wheel etc. if your not a millionaire and don't like having your car in the garage it's a lot more mechanically sympathetic.
It is a waste of energy and you could be concentrating on the road and having two hands on the wheel etc. if your not a millionaire and don't like having your car in the garage it's a lot more mechanically sympathetic.
jbsportstech said:
There is a thinking that changing down through intermediate gears is unnecessary in the approach to a hazard.
It is a waste of energy and you could be concentrating on the road and having two hands on the wheel etc. if your not a millionaire and don't like having your car in the garage it's a lot more mechanically sympathetic.
But as long as you're not a complete oaf, the damage is negligible (you hear of stories of cars going 200,000 miles+ on original gearboxes, sometimes clutches). And as mentioned, with practice gears changes become a muscle memory so don't distract the driver excessively.It is a waste of energy and you could be concentrating on the road and having two hands on the wheel etc. if your not a millionaire and don't like having your car in the garage it's a lot more mechanically sympathetic.
james_gt3rs said:
But as long as you're not a complete oaf, the damage is negligible (you hear of stories of cars going 200,000 miles+ on original gearboxes, sometimes clutches). And as mentioned, with practice gears changes become a muscle memory so don't distract the driver excessively.
I would think those people have been practising what I describe to get 200k out of a clutch, I know a hpc chap with a brace of e30s and he got 200k on the original clutch but he rev matches, heels and toes and does not change down unnecessarily. When he arrives at a hazard he selects the gear he needs to continue on his way.However I seem to be unlucky as 3 out of 4 cars I have bought in the last few years have needed new clutches. Had my st one go at 54k not unusual mk3 mondo petrol go at 75k and focus Cmax at 74k. I practice he aforementioned bu it seems in some cases people who don't are wearing out clutches fast. Certainly the cmax and Mondeo I had only owned for weeks.
Edited by jbsportstech on Tuesday 8th January 13:49
Use of engine braking does not harm to the gearbox or clutch - it places less load on them than hard acceleration, does not dazzle following traffic, and in conditions of reduced grip will maintain vehicle stability, whereas braking can have the opposite effect.
Our current cars - Golf TDI and BMW Z3 2.8 - have needed any clutch attention, even after 180,000 and 120,000 miles respectively.
The ethos of advanced driving is supposed to be the use of your brain in conjunction with what you see, and doing whatever is necessary - Roadcraft advises that the basic 'System' shouold be modified to suit the conditions. Many of the IAM faithful make fools of themselves by issuing blanket statements such as 'Brakes are for stopping and gears are for going,' that only third gear shoud be used in 30 mph zones in order to stick to the speed limit, and that no part of one's vehicle must ever cross the middle of the road. None of these considerations should be carved in stone, but provided for the guidance of wise men - and the obedience of fools!
It's like the VOSA driving test requirement to ALWAYS park in neutral, which can often result in the car running away as the calipers cool down - the MINI is one such car. It makes a FWD car easier to tow away, but is hardly conducive to safety.
I was lucky enough to have an IAM observer who was an ex-traffic officer, and who worked by Roadcraft rather than the IAM book.
Our current cars - Golf TDI and BMW Z3 2.8 - have needed any clutch attention, even after 180,000 and 120,000 miles respectively.
The ethos of advanced driving is supposed to be the use of your brain in conjunction with what you see, and doing whatever is necessary - Roadcraft advises that the basic 'System' shouold be modified to suit the conditions. Many of the IAM faithful make fools of themselves by issuing blanket statements such as 'Brakes are for stopping and gears are for going,' that only third gear shoud be used in 30 mph zones in order to stick to the speed limit, and that no part of one's vehicle must ever cross the middle of the road. None of these considerations should be carved in stone, but provided for the guidance of wise men - and the obedience of fools!
It's like the VOSA driving test requirement to ALWAYS park in neutral, which can often result in the car running away as the calipers cool down - the MINI is one such car. It makes a FWD car easier to tow away, but is hardly conducive to safety.
I was lucky enough to have an IAM observer who was an ex-traffic officer, and who worked by Roadcraft rather than the IAM book.
Edited by Promethius on Friday 11th January 11:49
Promethius said:
It's like the VOSA driving test requirement to ALWAYS park in neutral, which can often result in the car running away as the calipers cool down - the MINI is one such car. It makes a FWD car easier to tow away, but is hardly conducive to safety.
That would be interesting in a SAAB.Changing down on the approach to a hazard depends on many factors, not least the car. Our Golf TDI will hapily pull it 35 mph/1000 rpm sixth gear at a litle over 40 mph, but on the approach to anything requiring a lower speed, it makes sense to be in the gear required before reaching it, generally meaning 6th to 4th or 3rd.
The decision to change down depends on changing traffic conditions and potential hazards too. There is no hard and fast rule - it's up to the driver's anticipation and judgement.
Changing down in advance is a lot better than sorting the gearbox out when you come to rest.
The decision to change down depends on changing traffic conditions and potential hazards too. There is no hard and fast rule - it's up to the driver's anticipation and judgement.
Changing down in advance is a lot better than sorting the gearbox out when you come to rest.
Promethius said:
It's like the VOSA driving test requirement to ALWAYS park in neutral, which can often result in the car running away as the calipers cool down - the MINI is one such car. It makes a FWD car easier to tow away, but is hardly conducive to safety.
I didn't know they did driving tests, I thought they tested vehicles? The DSA do driving tests & I've never heard of them complaining about cars being parked in gear. Then again a candidate for their tests is unlikely to be parked anywhere other than at the start & at the end of the test. At the start they are required to ensure the vehicle is put in neutral & the handbrake is on before starting the engine and i've never heard of anyone failing because it had been in gear previously?Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff