Because you can drive out of a skid. If you’re in neutral the only control you have is brakes and they won’t help you when you’ve already started skidding. Also, engine braking is better in snow and ice then using the brakes; less chance to skid.
Glad to see a more realistic approach then, it does make more sense. Guessing they still go with that push pull steering thing though eh?
Oh, congragulations btw dude, it is such a liberation having your wheels! Nice one.
That’s true, but if you’ve planned ahead, you’ll be able to take out at least some of the rhinos with your remote-controlled top-mounted turret cannon, thus making the eventual collision somewhat less dramatic.
If you are in a skid you don’t want to be braking at all, engine or otherwise, it just serves to prolong the skid. You want all available traction to be free for the tires to regain grip.
FWIW, I learnt to drive in New Zealand, and was taught to engine brake (changing down through gears) as well as using the conventional brakes.
Then again, I also learnt to drive a manual, which seems to be a somewhat unusual skill over here- most people have automatic transmissions. The funny thing is that when I was growing up in NZ, automatic transmission was for old ladies, and anyone who was anyone drove a manual. The thing was, automatics weren’t all that common (most cars were manuals), so most people learned to drive a manual out of necessity. Over here in Australia, it’s the opposite- most cars seem to be automatics, with manuals being noticeably less common.
If engine braking was bad on clutches and transmissions, 18 wheelers would have been in big trouble a long time ago.
I know some one who would wear out 2 rear tires at $160 a pop every 3-4 months due to incorrect shift / clutch work.
I pulled mobile homes back in the day with a 283 cu in V-8 and a little 4 speed box in the truck. Never lost the clutch or transmission. Up to 14 X 70’s with all the maneuvering necessary in all phases of mobile home work from set up to long haul transport. Same truck and engine and trans for over 10 years.
It is not the what, it is the how…
This quote surprised me the most (having seen this debate many times on these boards).
In the US, the “parking brake” as it’s more commonly called here, is generally released soon after the engine is started, and not touched again until one is about to exit the vehicle.* It sounds like you Brits are taught to engage it at every red light.
-
- P-brake use to avoid rolling backwards when starting on a hill with a manual transmission is taught. WRC-style handbrake turns generally do not come up on drivers’ license tests.
That’s what I read it as the first time as well. I think what rocksolid meant is that you should always use the hand/parking/emergency brake when parking, as opposed to leaving the car in gear and counting on the tranny to keep it in place.
It’s best practice to engage the handbrake at traffic lights. Although you will be hard pressed to come across those who would consistently do this twelve months after passing their test.
It’s more common to see people resting with there foot on the brake when the car is on a gradient pointing downwards and on the clutch biting point when pointing upwards. This would only be for very temporary (a couple of seconds) lulls in movement. Otherwise the handbrake is deployed.
I believe thats it seen as un-necesarily risky to go from stopped with your foot on the brake, to engage the clutch, switch gears and then press the accellerator to reach the biting point while the car could move in either direction.
First off, I engine brake on curvy downhill runs because of a lifetime habit, and because it’s “good form”. Frankly, though, for the average modern passenger car it probably doesn’t matter much. Brake materials and design have become hugely better in the last couple decades, and the brakes can take it. Another point which hasn’t been brought up here is that most cars are now front wheel drive. When considering engine braking as a control issue, remember that your average modern car is braking the front wheels, not the rear, when engine braking. At sane speeds, this is not going to be an issue, but if you’re pretending to be driving a formula one racer, having your front end braked while the rear is slewing around is not necessarily a good idea. Critics of FWD have always pointed to its dangerous characteristics in skids. It may actually be best that the average person just use the brakes if they feel like it.
Back to the original question - downshifting to slow down before coming to a stoplight: This doesn’t really put any wear on the clutch plate (unless you’re really doing it wrong), but it IS going to cause wear to the throwout bearing and the synchromesh. You have two things going on: One, you are disengaging the clutch, which is spinning, via a lever which is not spinning - therefore there has to be a bearing that allows one part to spin while the other is stationary. Two, you are mating two parts which are spinning at different rates, and unless you are double-clutching, friction is what is allowing these two parts to come to the same speed of rotation so that they can engage. Friction means wear. The throwout bearing and synchros will fail eventually, so it stands to reason that they have X number of gearshifts of life in them. The sooner you hit that number, the sooner they will fail. These components are built to last, so you’ll probably still get a lot of life out of them either way. So if there were some compelling reason to downshift at stoplights, it might be worth it. However, there really ISN’T any compelling reason to do so. I agree with the “brakes are cheaper than clutches/transmissions” sentiment.
No, that G was too WA. As a rule front-wheel skids are caused by too much acceleration when turning, and letting the wheels rotate at their own speed is the way to get out of it. If you’re going to front-wheel skid while coasting you’d do it under power.
I was always taught (1979, updated 1990) to select neutral and apply handbrake while stationary - the safest option if you get shunted for any reason. I remember a ladyfriend of mine sniffing at me over this - she was an exponent of the more “expedient” school of declutching and using the footbrake, and derided me as someone who’d take half a minute to get away from the lights. In fact, if you’re well-drilled, to go clutch-out/first gear/handbrake off/clutch to biting takes less time to do than to say.
When decelerating, I don’t advocate engaging lower gear at much higher a road speed that you’d have used while accelerating, and certainly not being rough with the clutch - with a modern gearbox you need only declutch and maybe give the engine a momentary blip to change gear smooth as silk, and the clutch wear is minimal. Like I say, years of driving stick like that and never a clutch burnout.
Hmmm… I usually take the opposite tack from your lady friend. Rather than asking how a given action hurts, I would ask how it helps. And if I couldn’t come up with a satisfactory answer as to how setting my parking brake is accomplishing anything, then I wouldn’t bother to do so.
Brakes aren’t designed to handle continuous heavy loads for long periods without overheating; transmissions/engines are. Or so the mechanic said.
Not to be nit picky, but when that comment was made, we where talking about slowing down for a red light or exiting the freeway. That hardly constitutes 'heavy loads for long periods." Of course if you are trying to go down a steep hill with a trailer on your hitch and you have to ride the brakes the whole way, that’s different. I’m not a mechanic (as in I haven’t seen as many cars as a mechanic has), but I’ve never seen brakes (on a CAR) fail under normal circumstances*. Besides look at an automatic car. They don’t have any problems with their brakes when slowing down, even going down a hill, even while still in gear with engine still pushing a little.
*I did see a video once of a car whose brakes caught fire, but he was driving REALLY fast, and I’m guessing there was either something wrong with them or he was riding them.
Congratulations! For those that aren’t aware, the U.K. driving test is a real bitch.
As for the OP, if you use gearbox / engine braking, you’ll get a little kick each time unless you downshift at exactly the right time. The acme, of course, as casdave notes, is to anticipate sufficiently ahead so as to come off the accelerator and use a minimum of braking.
If you have access to a driving game you can demonstrate the difference for yourself: try driving a car in manual and see where you have to brake for the corners with and without engine braking. In Codemasters’ game TOCA Race Driver 3, you can actually see on the HUD the damage done if you don’t do it right.
BTW
I’ve been in a very similar situation, sitting at a roundabout in first gear with the clutch down when I saw a vehicle in my rearview mirror that was not stopping. There was no time to escape.
I’m inclined to slightly agree, in fact the expression “steering response will be affected particularly on bends and corners” is almost bizarre in its redundancy - steering on corners, eh? Whatever will they think of next? - I always try to limit my steering activities to straight sections of road.
Coasting with the clutch depressed, when you’re not actually intending to stop - for example when you’re going down a hill and intending to drive straight on up the other side without - can very significantly increase fuel efficiency. I understand that there can be situations when this might not be a great idea, but there are a wjhole load of others where it doesn’t actually adversely affect safety at all.
You’re keeping the car stationary so that it won’t roll if there is a slight gradient and won’t get pushed into traffic in the event you’re shunted from behind, and you’re not inconveniencing the driver behind you with your brake lights.
Mind you, for all of this being such a boy scout about handbrake discipline at red lights, I typically steered with one hand, and that resting on my leg. 
I thought I was the most polite person in the world, but this just never even occured to me.
I tend to look quite far ahead when I drive. If I need to stop or slow down, I press down the clutch and brake, shift into neutral and let out the clutch. And I just leave it in neutral until I need to accelerate again, whether it’s a stoplight, stop sign, or just downshifting for a corner.
I’ve heard the argument that I should have the car in gear to save time in case I have to speed up to avoid an accident. I can see the point, in theory, but in my experience, I’ve never seen a case where it would have made a difference. I keep a pretty good eye out when I drive, and not much unexpectedly happens from the rear or the sides that I need to get away from; and there’s a very short delay while I shift into gear and let off the clutch.
So far it’s worked out well for me. Even that yellow light where I decided to stop and the semi behind me was going for it.
Say I’m going 55mph and need to turn onto another road. I signal and take my foot off the gas well in advance of my turn. Unlike many vehicles with automatic transmissions, taking your foot off the gas slows you down. Then when I’m slowed down to 40 or so I’ll downshift to 4th (smoothly, matching engine RPM with the transmission), brake a bit, downshift to 2nd, brake more, do the turn.
Being in neutural while trying to slow down makes no sense to me. It wears out the brakes faster and if you’re going to brake why not leave it in gear anyway to let engine braking help you?
BTW, my credentials are I drove a 1990 Mustang GT to 150,000 miles on the original clutch, and my 1998 Contour is up to 185,000 miles on the original clutch.