Irwell is correct. Manual transmissions are best.
Student Mechanic
transmission & clutch AND FWD, the driver is able to "test" the
available traction by momentarily "goosing" the throttle in the
gear choosen. If the tach jumps, he knows friction is limited
and has a feel to what degree it is limited by how much throttle
he has to apply to break the driving wheel loose. This is all
possible by the fact that the engine-clutch-transmission-final
drive is a solid drive train in a fixed gear. With an automatic
transmission power plant, the situation is different: If the
driver attempts this procedure in Drive, the transmission will
likely downshift and the tach jump, whether or not traction is
broken, rendering the test meaningless. If the driver manually
selects a lower gear, the transmission may still downshift and
if it doesn't, torque converter slippage will still cause the
rpm to jump, whether or not traction is broken. Since vehicle
speeds are low on snow & ice, torque converter lockup is not an
issue; there is never the solid drive train needed to validate
the technique described.
Another indisputable advantage of conventional gearshift is
engine braking. If one drives up and down through the gears,
motorcycle-style, which is the correct way, brakes are seldom
needed above 30 mph. Yes, this shifting technique may sound like
extra driver workload, but it's correct because the car should
always be in a gear that allows for instant acceleration. It's
true people used to coast down in 3rd and when stopped, shift
into 1st, but that was the lazy man's way of driving. Shifting
up and then down through the gears does cost more wear on the
synchronizers and using the engine as a brake does cost more
engine wear and fuel, but the gain is less brake wear and the
safety of being able to power out of an emergency situation. If
you disagree, then you can freewheel by depressing the clutch
and coasting all you want to emulate the behavior of modern
automatics. Anti-freewheeling is still on the lawbooks, but
since modern automatics do it, I suppose you all with stick-
shifts can get away with it if that's your choice.
Student Mechanic, age 17
Kevin Bottorff
news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au:
Sorry to pop your bubble, but clutches and trannys are much more
expensive than brakes, so the recamended is to use the brakes not the
downshift. KB
Paul in Houston TX
Interesting and thought provoking ideas.
Personally I hate stick shifts and hope I never have to drive
one again.
Typical Houston traffic is one hour each way. Stop and go.
Keep it in second gear or shift several hundred times per trip.
Not a good choice.
Snow is not bad to drive on. It has traction.
However, imagine a driver taking his foot off the gas in a lower
gear on a stick shift on glare ice? It would mean instant loss
of control to the drive wheels = crash!
Many cars nowadays have traction control.
They won't let you spin the wheels to test traction.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Good call, BUT. ALL cars with traction control allow you to over-ride
it.
I like standard transmissions on "fun" cars and for towing trailers.
For anything else, I like automatics.
Different horses for different courses.
Paul in Houston TX
Ah yes, I forgot about that button.
I know what you mean about the fun cars and towing.
My vettes and pickups had sticks as well as the
larger farm trucks.
And the semi's that I drove for several years.
Sheldon
"Student Mechanic" <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au...
Rather than hit the gas to test traction I tap the brakes. Works much
better than the gas. And while many of your observations are true, using
your brakes is much better than using engine braking. As you noted, you
will wear the brakes more, but that is considerably cheaper than engine and
transmission wear. Think about a racing car. While they may downshift into
a corner, this is merely to get into a lower gear to accelerate out of it.
They are using their brakes to slow, not the engine.
As for automatics vs. manual transmissions, there are many advantages to a
manual, but on ice and snow backing off the throttle with a manual may cause
the drive wheels to skid as they back off, losing traction. An automatic
will normally freewheel in top gear if you lift your foot off the throttle.
And with today's modern transmissions and exotic setups, there is no
advantage to a manual transmission. While some cars with a manual may give
you better mileage, even race cars use exotic automatics with dual automatic
clutches and paddle shifters.
You make some good points, but if you step on the gas in a Corvette
(automatic) it will go very quickly where it's aimed, regardless of the gear
you were in when you started.
I have a Porsche 911 and a Ford Escape. While the Porsche is a lot of fun
to drive, and having the engine behind the drive wheels makes it an
admirable winter car, I'll take the automatic Escape in the ice and snow
every time.
Peter Hill
<kevyN...@netins.net> wrote:
>Student Mechanic <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote in
>news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au:
>
>> Let us take the case of driving on snow or ice. With a standard
>> transmission & clutch AND FWD, the driver is able to "test" the
>> available traction by momentarily "goosing" the throttle in the
>> gear choosen. If the tach jumps, he knows friction is limited
>> and has a feel to what degree it is limited by how much throttle
>> he has to apply to break the driving wheel loose. This is all
>> possible by the fact that the engine-clutch-transmission-final
>> drive is a solid drive train in a fixed gear. With an automatic
>> transmission power plant, the situation is different: If the
>> driver attempts this procedure in Drive, the transmission will
>> likely downshift and the tach jump, whether or not traction is
>> broken, rendering the test meaningless. If the driver manually
>> selects a lower gear, the transmission may still downshift and
>> if it doesn't, torque converter slippage will still cause the
>> rpm to jump, whether or not traction is broken. Since vehicle
>> speeds are low on snow & ice, torque converter lockup is not an
>> issue; there is never the solid drive train needed to validate
>> the technique described.
How do people that have vehicles without tacho's test available
traction?
But without lockup the auto torque converter multiplies the engine
torque fed to the gearbox. It's then multiplied by the gear ratio. The
higher torque at driven wheels means it's easier to lose grip with an
auto. Owners manual says auto should start in 2nd on slippery roads
(though 1st should be used for deep snow).
Just because you have an auto it doesn't mean disengage brain. Nor
does it mean you never need to move the stick out of "D".
When stationary at lights etc apply the parking brake, put the trans
in N and take your foot of the brake. It saves fuel, brake light bulbs
and the eyeballs of the person behind you.
>> Another indisputable advantage of conventional gearshift is
>> engine braking. If one drives up and down through the gears,
>> motorcycle-style, which is the correct way, brakes are seldom
>> needed above 30 mph. Yes, this shifting technique may sound like
>> extra driver workload, but it's correct because the car should
>> always be in a gear that allows for instant acceleration. It's
>> true people used to coast down in 3rd and when stopped, shift
>> into 1st, but that was the lazy man's way of driving. Shifting
>> up and then down through the gears does cost more wear on the
>> synchronizers and using the engine as a brake does cost more
>> engine wear and fuel, but the gain is less brake wear and the
>> safety of being able to power out of an emergency situation. If
>> you disagree, then you can freewheel by depressing the clutch
>> and coasting all you want to emulate the behavior of modern
>> automatics. Anti-freewheeling is still on the lawbooks, but
>> since modern automatics do it, I suppose you all with stick-
>> shifts can get away with it if that's your choice.
>>
>> Student Mechanic, age 17
>
> Sorry to pop your bubble, but clutches and trannys are much more
>expensive than brakes, so the recamended is to use the brakes not the
>downshift. KB
Engine braking is not clutch braking, you don't wear the clutch or
trans on downshift for engine braking any more than you do on any
other shift. Mostly it's simply "lifting off" and doesn't need a
downshift.
Engine braking is available on autos, so long as the trans pump is
running. I have a 4 speed auto, switching the overdrive off uses the
auto box clutches/brake to downshift to 3rd and gives more engine
braking. If that isn't enough (eg steep hill in 30mph limit) I put the
drive into 2nd. (read your Nissan owners manual - "driving with
automatic transmission", I'm sure the Ford manuals will have something
similar)
On all electronic fuel injected engines engine braking costs nothing
in fuel. The throttle body has an "idle" switch for the closed
position. This is used to cut all fuel if engine speed is above the
controlled idle speed range (typically idle +150rpm). It's vital that
the foot is lifted off throttle pedal completely and not held open a
crack. From the late 80's many carb engines had an overrun fuel shut
off solenoid on the carb as part of the emissions package (though they
were nothing but trouble).
I've got a pair of 1993 200SX RS13U, what the USA would know as a
240SX hatchback but fitted with CA18DET 170bhp 1800cc turbo engine.
One stick, one auto, both have cone filters, the manual has a 2 3/4"
turbo back stainless exhaust, the auto a cat and unipart small bore
exhaust. The auto has averaged 23mpg (19.1 US MPG) over 9390miles. The
stick has done 28.7mpg (23.9 US mpg) over 7840miles. Much as I like
the kickdown I can't afford to run the auto, it's going to be
converted to manual.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
hls
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> And with today's modern transmissions and exotic setups, there is no
> advantage to a manual transmission.
I mostly agree. The advantage to a common manual is that usually
it is cheaper to rebuild than an automatic, and it can be done in most
any little town by the local "Mike the mechanic".
I dont totally agree with using brakes only, particularly in the mountain
driving. I got into trouble doing that many years ago in Colorado,
heated my discs to red heat, had the fluid boiling in the calipers, etc
Scary... Ever since that I use even the automatic
in a lower gear and use brakes as needed. Wont work, of course, if
your auto is in a freewheeling mode. Mine are shiftable.
Early in my career, I worked for an oilfield service company in Houston
in the technical group. We towed large lab trailers all over the USA to
service certain projects. We started with a high performance Chevy
station wagon with standard shift. We blew several engines, trannies,
clutches, etc. Finally we bought a station wagon with a large V8 (no
high performance however) and a C6 tranny. We never had any problems
at all with that one. Replaced it with a Chrysler product of similar setup
and again had no problems. (Note: The problem originally was not the
Chevy...it was the hi-po engine and standard tranny).
Things are not always as they seem.
Ed Pawlowski
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:KuudnZ9vKMgiirbQ...@giganews.com...
>
> "Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> And with today's modern transmissions and exotic setups, there is no
>> advantage to a manual transmission.
>
> I mostly agree. The advantage to a common manual is that usually
> it is cheaper to rebuild than an automatic, and it can be done in most
> any little town by the local "Mike the mechanic".
> I dont totally agree with using brakes only, particularly in the mountain
> driving. I got into trouble doing that many years ago in Colorado,
> heated my discs to red heat, had the fluid boiling in the calipers, etc
> Scary...
Standard is more fun to drive with a sporty car on the back roads with some
twists and turns and ups and downs. Other than that, give me an automatic,
especially in traffic.
The brakes are cheaper mantra only goes so far. On a long steep grade, I'm
downshifting rather than rely on hot brakes. I've never had a mechanical
problem (engine or trans) from doing so, therefore I see no reason not to do
it.
Sheldon
> I dont totally agree with using brakes only, particularly in the mountain
> driving. I got into trouble doing that many years ago in Colorado,
> heated my discs to red heat, had the fluid boiling in the calipers, etc
> Scary... Ever since that I use even the automatic
> in a lower gear and use brakes as needed. Wont work, of course, if
> your auto is in a freewheeling mode. Mine are shiftable.
Excellent point, and a good place to use engine braking. However, people
who don't use their brakes and rapidly downshift approaching a light or stop
sign, instead of using the brakes drive me nuts. Race cars, that have to go
full braking into a turn, often turn the discs cherry red. But, they use
disc, pad and fluid compositions that can take it. Not very good for normal
driving, however.
Have to be careful dropping into a lower gear on ice.
John Henderson
> Let us take the case of driving on snow or ice. With a standard
> transmission & clutch AND FWD, the driver is able to "test" the
> available traction by momentarily "goosing" the throttle in the
> gear choosen. If the tach jumps, he knows friction is limited
> and has a feel to what degree it is limited by how much throttle
> he has to apply to break the driving wheel loose.
I agree with most of what you say.
I regularly drive both automatics and manuals, and regard
automatics as an abomination. There's just too little driver
control over the power going to the wheels at any instant.
I was an active motor-sport competitor up to a point several
decades ago, and learned to rely on having very fine control
over power transmission at the wheels. How can you possibly
control a car (without ABS) at "the edge" if you've got such
little control over gear change points and the resultant power
at the wheels?
Very, very occasionally, other drivers in normal traffic might
create a situation where such fine control is desirable.
I'll also make the point that engine braking is arguably safer
because it gives other drivers (especially those following) much
more time to react to your speed changes. While it's possible
to use brakes conservatively, most drivers get into the habit
of braking late and heavily - a habit which those who use
engine braking never fall into.
On the subject of traction under power, it's worth noting a very
useful variation.
In many situations, it's actually much more effective appling
"lumpy" power than smooth power. When applying smooth power,
once you reach the point of losing traction then traction is
lost and that's that. You must back off and try again, which
takes time and concentration.
By continually pumping the accelerator, within a certain range
in a lowish gear, you regularly reach maximum possible traction,
and then spin the wheels to "clean" the underneath road
surface.
To those who doubt the effectiveness of this method, I simply say
"try it" - you'll find many situations where the improvement in
overall traction is simply amazing. It often means the
difference between being stuck and being able to move forwards.
John
Dick Cheney
"Student Mechanic" <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au...
> Let us take the case of driving on snow or ice. With a standard
> transmission & clutch AND FWD, the driver is able to "test" the
> available traction by momentarily "goosing" the throttle in the
> gear choosen.
I drove in Idaho for 34 years and this is completely wrong.
An automatic will prevent loss of traction in many cases,
especially when you try to use "engine braking" to slow down
on ice. It keeps your wheels from spinning when you are just
starting to move too. Overall, I would say an automatic is much
better than a manual on slick roads.
> Student Mechanic, age 17
You might turn out to be a good mechanic but some of your ideas
about driving and automatics and such went out the window decades
ago.
I do hope you become a good wrench, dealership shops and independents
alike need good people.
Bjorn
> "Student Mechanic" <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
Driving on ice it is good to have ESP (Electronic Stability Program)
or under different name DSC (Dynamic Stability Control), VSA (Vehicle
Stability Assist) or VSC (Vehicle Stability Control)
It is coming more and more and even in small vehicles.
In big cars motor brakes are usually better than brakes on the wheels.
Ed Pawlowski
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote
> Driving on ice it is good to have ESP (Electronic Stability Program)
> or under different name DSC (Dynamic Stability Control), VSA (Vehicle
> Stability Assist) or VSC (Vehicle Stability Control)
>
> It is coming more and more and even in small vehicles.
Mandatory on 2012 models so yes, you will see more of it.
Sheldon
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:743a2b0e-c354-4d10...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
How about using your brain instead of building a car that does everything
for you? My favorite is when your brakes automatically engage when you get
too close to what's in front of you. If you are that sleepy you shouldn't
be driving. Seriously, while many of these systems are a godsend to
drivers, you can't expect the car to correct all your stupid mistakes.
Hell, you don't even have to learn to parallel park anymore. It's very cool
technology, but...
Ed Pawlowski
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote
>
> Driving on ice it is good to have ESP (Electronic Stability Program)
> or under different name DSC (Dynamic Stability Control), VSA (Vehicle
> Stability Assist) or VSC (Vehicle Stability Control)
>
> How about using your brain instead of building a car that does everything
> for you? My favorite is when your brakes automatically engage when you
> get too close to what's in front of you. If you are that sleepy you
> shouldn't be driving. Seriously, while many of these systems are a
> godsend to drivers, you can't expect the car to correct all your stupid
> mistakes. Hell, you don't even have to learn to parallel park anymore.
> It's very cool technology, but...
No matter how good you are, it is possible to have a moment of distraction
or a circumstance beyond control. That is when ESC is nice to have.
Nothing is a substitute for using the brain, but stuff happens. I like to
have it there and hope I never need it.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
I agree.With these high-tech cars the driver is just along for the
ride and the driver gets complacent (and stupid). If the system has a
problem, the driver is totally incapable of handling the vehicle, and
a minor issue becomes a major incident.
I have a car with all-speed traction control and antilock brakes, and
one with no "driver aids" at all. I prefer the "no aids" car.
I've driven all kinds of cars ranging drom a 1928 model up to current
- in all kinds of conditions from tropical/primitive to extreme
winter/major highway - and have also driven competetively.
I'll take the simple car for just about any driving.
I've also wrenched on the same range of cars - and I'll take the
simple ones for
maintainability/repairability/affordability/reliability as well.
I was almost litterally driving circles around most complex cars today
after a good snowfall with my simple PT Cruiser on snows.
Bjorn
There are new systems coming which sense the vehicle is about to hit
something and stop the car automatically.
There are also automatic systems available that let vehicles drive
safely without the driver.
Often it is the driver who causes most accidents so it is good to take
him out of the equation as much as possible.
dr_jeff
> On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <shel...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bjorn"<gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:743a2b0e-c354-4d10...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 12 Jan, 03:13, "Dick Cheney"<DickChe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Student Mechanic"<remai...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au...
>>
>>>>> Let us take the case of driving on snow or ice. With a standard
Where do you buy one? Even Google doesn't sell them, yet.
> Often it is the driver who causes most accidents so it is good to take
> him out of the equation as much as possible.
True. And, think about the mobility this would give to kids (say above
age 12), blind, disabled and elderly people. My dad would be able park
his car without creating a hole the wall.
Jeff
Bjorn
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/prius/googles-driverless-car-the-next-alternative-vehicle.html
The technique of collision prevention has been tested for a long time.
You even have machines in lot of peoples homes now doing cleaning
like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5kbfZ6MPnU
Irwell
Even the fly by wire jet-planes have pilot override systems,
they even work, sometimes.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
Hey, I work with COMPUTERS now, and they crash every bit as often as
cars - and even without a "driver"
cl...@snyder.on.ca
At this point it is only "adaptive cruise control"
Peter Hill
wrote:
>On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
>There are new systems coming which sense the vehicle is about to hit
>something and stop the car automatically.
Yeah, works really well, like the Merc system, drive car out of shed
in to fog and ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYY7OfQ4-5A
Volvo's system don't even work on a good day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
It will never get sold in the USA because everyone is gonna sue the
ass off them for every accident they have! You know like the guy that
went to make a cup of coffee in the back of his RV because it had
"cruise control". Coming soon to an interstate off ramp near you, "I
didn't touch the brake because it has auto brake!!"
Bjorn
You are the driver - figure
Bjorn
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:16:01 -0800 (PST), Bjorn <gos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
> >There are new systems coming which sense the vehicle is about to hit
> >something and stop the car automatically.
>
> Yeah, works really well, like the Merc system, drive car out of shed
>
> Volvo's system don't even work on a good day.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
>
> It will never get sold in the USA because everyone is gonna sue the
> ass off them for every accident they have! You know like the guy that
> went to make a cup of coffee in the back of his RV because it had
> "cruise control". Coming soon to an interstate off ramp near you, "I
> didn't touch the brake because it has auto brake!!"
> --
> Peter Hill
> Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
> Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
> Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
a fishing rod is a stick with worm on each end.
Computers and cars are unreliable but the driver is a lot more
unreliable.
99% of all accidents are directly related to driver error
dr_jeff
Yet it is not in production for the general population.
Jeff
dr_jeff
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:16:01 -0800 (PST), Bjorn wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <shel...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bjorn"<gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:743a2b0e-c354-4d10...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 12 Jan, 03:13, "Dick Cheney"<DickChe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Student Mechanic"<remai...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:3G0RY9WG4055...@reece.net.au...
>>>
>>>>>> Let us take the case of driving on snow or ice. With a standard
You're confusing concepts. Fly-by-wire means that the information that
goes from the controls to the engines, flaps, etc., is transferred
electronically rather than mechanically. Letting a vehicle drive by
itself is not fly(or drive)-by-wire, but completely automated. Those are
different concepts.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
You are NOT the driver on an unattended server. They still crash
occaisionally. Not as often as a "manned" workstation, but they are
still not "foolproof"
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>On Jan 13, 6:38 pm, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:16:01 -0800 (PST), Bjorn <gos...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
>> >There are new systems coming which sense the vehicle is about to hit
>> >something and stop the car automatically.
>>
>> Yeah, works really well, like the Merc system, drive car out of shed
>> in to fog and ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYY7OfQ4-5A
>>
>> Volvo's system don't even work on a good day.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
>>
>> It will never get sold in the USA because everyone is gonna sue the
>> ass off them for every accident they have! You know like the guy that
>> went to make a cup of coffee in the back of his RV because it had
>> "cruise control". Coming soon to an interstate off ramp near you, "I
>> didn't touch the brake because it has auto brake!!"
>> --
>> Peter Hill
>> Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
>> Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
>> Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
>
>
>a fishing rod is a stick with worm on each end.
Or a sucker on the fat end.
Peter Hill
>On 1/13/11 11:40 AM, Irwell wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:16:01 -0800 (PST), Bjorn wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jan, 03:19, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:02:09 -0700, "Sheldon"
>>> There are also automatic systems available that let vehicles drive
>>> safely without the driver.
>>>
>>> Often it is the driver who causes most accidents so it is good to take
>>> him out of the equation as much as possible.
>>
>> Even the fly by wire jet-planes have pilot override systems,
>> they even work, sometimes.
>
>You're confusing concepts. Fly-by-wire means that the information that
>goes from the controls to the engines, flaps, etc., is transferred
>electronically rather than mechanically. Letting a vehicle drive by
>itself is not fly(or drive)-by-wire, but completely automated. Those are
>different concepts.
Even small light general aviation aircraft such as Cessna 172 have
"Auto pilot". This will maintain a heading and altitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
Large civil airliners have "auto land" but it can only cope with
normal fair conditions and isn't an extreme event like car collision
avoidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
Aircraft collision avoidance is a whole lot of other equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_collision_avoidance_system
Many boats including sail boats can maintain a course without
intervention. A simple windvane wil do most of the work (until the
wind changes).
http://www.selfsteer.com/windvaneVAutopilot/index.php
None of it has to be "fly by wire".
dr_jeff
None of these are completely automated, except, perhaps the auto land.
And, then, only for a relatively simple task compared with driving a
car. Processing all the information about where you are and things going
on around you (like pedestrians and other vehicles) is far more
complicated than you imagine.
Jeff
Sheldon
>
> Computers and cars are unreliable but the driver is a lot more
> unreliable.
> 99% of all accidents are directly related to driver error
Probably a lot closer to 100%. I think a lot of this boils down to people
who want to climb into a car and have it follow a wire imbedded in the road
all the way to their destination, and people who love to drive.
Bjorn
This is actually something that is tested and implemented.
It is a cheap and reliable way to set up a driverless public
transport.
It is possible to use current roads and you can actually put
electricity in the road or above it for electrical vehicles.
The electrical vehicles do not need to get electricity all the time so
the grid does not need to be connected all the time.
This system works really well and may be seen in ever more places as
time goes by.
hls
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7fa5d28f-8467-41c9-
This system works really well and may be seen in ever more places as
time goes by.
********
Where, exactly, is such a system in current public use??
I have seen such concepts in semitechnical magazines (Like Popular
Science) for years, but never saw one actually commercially and
publicly deployed.
Ed Pawlowski
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:HL6dnVIaYKmK5qnQ...@giganews.com...
I saw something recently where GM was building a section of road, maybe a
test track. Of course, they were talking about this in 1965 too.
Construction is a bit slow, I guess.
Sheldon
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snetnospam.net> wrote in message
news:cIydnWxYdsVEUanQ...@giganews.com...
I've seen experiments done on test tracks, and the system works extremely
well. I think the problem is how to wake up the driver when you get to the
end of the wire, and how many cocktails have the occupants of the car had
during the wired trip. Seems to me you could easily place a wire in one
lane of many interstate highways. Your car follows the wire, and you
disconnect when you get off the interstate.
All this said, I think this idea was scrapped with the advent of GPS. I
think very soon, you will see cars that can get from point A to point B
without a driver. Until then, it's still up to the nut behind the wheel to
get the car from one place to another.
Peter Hill
http://www.car-addicts.com/videos/sartre-project
Assholes.
1: They can only go as fast as the lead vehicle. As you see that will
be a truck. Dunno about USA but in EU trucks over 3,500Kg have lower
speed limits on all roads.
2: They are all nose to tail so on single carrigeways it won't ever be
possible to overtake the assholes road train.
Bjorn
Peter Hill
wrote:
>On 19 Jan, 22:35, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article3067585.ece
>http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080707/154383/
No one is going to be converting my 200SX RS13U in to a train.
The driver up front has to drive for them all. So when he makes a
sudden exit from the M-way without indicating or decoupling from 2nd
car in line, they all follow him. That one would be really good at
some limited access junctions where it's miles to the next junction
they can all turn round at. Just make sure you have something adequate
to run away in.
Key in that destination is London but ignore the sat nav "Please do a
U turn..Please do a U turn..Please do a U turn." and take them all to
Barnsley!
Bjorn
You do not tie the vehicles together.
Every vehicle has its own computer and uses the wire above to get
electricity and charges batteries while driving.
When there is a need to leave the grid the batteries are used.
hls
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e32d5c90-464e-
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article3067585.ece
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080707/154383/
That is no answer to my challenge. These are not in public use, as
I stipulated in my post.
AFAIK there is still no system that I know of that meets your claims:
" This is actually something that is tested and implemented.
It is a cheap and reliable way to set up a driverless public
transport."
It may be in tests but it is not publicly implemented.
Bjorn
> "Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e32d5c90-464e-
>
>
> That is no answer to my challenge. These are not in public use, as
> I stipulated in my post.
>
> AFAIK there is still no system that I know of that meets your claims:
> " This is actually something that is tested and implemented.
> It is a cheap and reliable way to set up a driverless public
> transport."
>
> It may be in tests but it is not publicly implemented.
Everything about electrical vehicles and new way of utilizing new
technology is very small at the moment.
The realization that the price of oil is going up and up is creating
interest and necessity for alternative solutions.
We have been sleeping on the guard for too long so the alternatives
have only recently become a real solution.
It may/will take quite some time and most probably years to get things
started.
The sooner the prices of oil go up the sooner the alternatives come.
In Europe the trains have been increasingly popular the last 20 to 30
years and public transport in general has gotten better.
The next step is being tested in various places and in many cases it
is a combination of ordinary trains combined with other kind of
transport.
Interestingly the waterways have been making a comback as well because
they are very economical where they are possible.
Making driverless vehicles and letting them do transport has been
around for decades but usually not often mixed with other kind of
traffic because other kind of traffic is often used by incompetent
drivers.
Using technology from trains and having lines above vehicles is being
tested and works well.
Using lines above the vehicles can be set up much more quickly than
setting out train tracks so that is a real alternative already with or
without a driver involved just to replace dependency on oil.
The reason for why Europe has began this road to get off oil so long
ago is partly because they had the good fortune to tax oil and thus
pointed ordinary people in the right direction.
Because the general trend to go electric is so recent it will
unfortunately take quite a long time to make any real impact.
The big producers of vehicles have also muddied the water by insisting
on continuing using oil by producing hybrids and calling them
electrics.
By setting out lines above the roads it would be easy to get the
trucks going on the roads like trains and it would get us faster off
oil.