brake retarders prohibited

[Rich Ulrich]

I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.

Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
"Brake retarders prohibited
within city limits."

It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.

Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?

Googling tells me
Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying
“Jake Brake Prohibition” in 1996.

- which is fewer words, and even more obscure.

- Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
"engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
the noise.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Mike Barnes]

Rich Ulrich wrote:
> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>
> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> "Brake retarders prohibited
> within city limits."
>
> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>
> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?

Yes, I know what it means - but only from driving in the USA. I've never
seen such signs in the UK, or anywhere else in the world come to that.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Peter Moylan]

There are signs on Australian roads about engine braking, but they don't
talk about retarding the brakes.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Ross]

I can't tell if you're discussing the specific form of words used,
or the general idea of trying to restrict engine braking.
Signs saying, e.g. "Heavy Vehicles Please No Engine Brakes Next X km."
are not uncommon in NZ, especially on roads leading down into a town.
As you might guess from the "please", they actually have no legal force.
It's just local councils asking truck drivers to be considerate.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11031446

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:30:03 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>
> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> "Brake retarders prohibited
> within city limits."
>
> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>
> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>
> Googling tells me
> Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying

> ?Jake Brake Prohibition? in 1996.

>
> - which is fewer words, and even more obscure.
>
> - Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
> "engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
> the noise.

It's even more obscure here. I live mid-way up a steep hill from a
valley. As I mentioned some time ago, there's a sign at each hilltop,
"Noise Limit 90 Decibles[sic]". I had to ask someone what that meant,
but it was indeed about the "jake brake" or engine brake used by
truckers.

A busy two-lane highway runs perhaps 250 feet from my bedroom. I've
never seen any indication that the noise limit is enforced. The
trucks aren't quite loud enough to wake me, but they sometimes make
it hard to fall asleep, and they're quite plainly audible two miles
away, at the other hilltop.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Adam Funk]

I don't think I've ever seen the signs, but I've heard about them
(with the explanation) on _Car Talk_.


--
I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love.
Though I'm poor, I am free.
When I grow I shall fight; for this land I shall die.
May the sun never set. --- The Kinks

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-05-25 11:34:10 +0200, Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> said:

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>
>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>
>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>
>> Yes, I know what it means - but only from driving in the USA. I've never
>> seen such signs in the UK, or anywhere else in the world come to that.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Barnes
>> Cheshire, England
>
> I can't tell if you're discussing the specific form of words used,
> or the general idea of trying to restrict engine braking.

I've never come across such signs. In the contrary, the ones I see tend
to say "Use your engine braking".

> Signs saying, e.g. "Heavy Vehicles Please No Engine Brakes Next X km."
> are not uncommon in NZ, especially on roads leading down into a town.
> As you might guess from the "please", they actually have no legal force.
> It's just local councils asking truck drivers to be considerate.
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11031446

--
>

athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Never heard of those expressions, but the Car Talk guys explained that going
down a steep hill you ought to put the transmission in a lowish gear, since
that restricts the wheels from turning very freely and obviates standing on
the brake pedal.

[Wayne Brown]

"No Jake Brakes" signs are common in small towns in Alabama. I too
was puzzled by them until a few years ago when I looked them up online.

If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
used there. It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
unexpectedly in the vicinity.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Isn't there a conflict between what is nice and what is safe? Which
would a quiet little town prefer: a lorry running out of control down a
steep hill into a crowd of people waiting for their children to come
out of school, or an unpleasant din?

> It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
> and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
> unexpectedly in the vicinity.


--

athel

[Richard Heathfield]

On 25/05/16 17:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2016-05-25 16:18:27 +0200, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> said:

<snip>

>> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
>> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
>> used there.
>
> Isn't there a conflict between what is nice and what is safe? Which
> would a quiet little town prefer: a lorry running out of control down a
> steep hill into a crowd of people waiting for their children to come out
> of school, or an unpleasant din?

If I'm not vewy, vewy quiet, I might accidentally answer that one out loud.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ni4c7j$n96$3...@dont-email.me>,

Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>"No Jake Brakes" signs are common in small towns in Alabama. I too
>was puzzled by them until a few years ago when I looked them up online.

The company (Jacobs) that owns the trademark "Jake Brake" likes to
send legal threats to the places that erect such signs. Usually they
are successful in getting the signs changed, once they point out that
not every Jake Brake brand device is that sort of engine brake, and
that they probably mean to prohibit loud engine brakes of all brands,
not just theirs.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Whiskers]

On 2016-05-25, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2016-05-25 11:34:10 +0200, Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> said:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>>
>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>> within city limits."
>>>>
>>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.

Surely anything to do with the brakes should be mentioned at the peak of
the slope not the bottom, where it's too late? What is a 'brake
retarder' anyway and why would anyone want to retard brakes?

>>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>>
>>> Yes, I know what it means - but only from driving in the USA. I've never
>>> seen such signs in the UK, or anywhere else in the world come to that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Barnes
>>> Cheshire, England
>>
>> I can't tell if you're discussing the specific form of words used,
>> or the general idea of trying to restrict engine braking.
>
> I've never come across such signs. In the contrary, the ones I see tend
> to say "Use your engine braking".
>
>> Signs saying, e.g. "Heavy Vehicles Please No Engine Brakes Next X km."
>> are not uncommon in NZ, especially on roads leading down into a town.
>> As you might guess from the "please", they actually have no legal force.
>> It's just local councils asking truck drivers to be considerate.
>>
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11031446

In the UK it's common to see 'engage low gear now' or 'low gear for X
miles' in hilly places. Engine braking is a lot more reliable than
using friction brakes for long periods or distances (although modern
power-assisted disc brakes are a lot better than older braking systems).

A 'retarder' fitted to a vehicle means, to me, something that stores up
some of the energy otherwise wasted as heat when braking and converts it
into mechanical energy for accelerating the vehicle later; London buses
are often fitted with such things, as are electric and 'hybrid' vehicles
of all sorts. Their operation is usually automatic and not within the
driver's control to disable, as far as I know.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Whiskers]

It sounds as though Alabama trucks are built differently from British
lorries. Perhaps the legislation in some places permits inadequate
sound insulation.

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <MPG.31af3e9d6...@news.individual.net>,
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...

>
> It's even more obscure here. I live mid-way up a steep hill from a
> valley. As I mentioned some time ago, there's a sign at each hilltop,
> "Noise Limit 90 Decibles[sic]".
>

Were there any suggestions on how the driver should carry out the
necessary measurement?

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <ni4nia$18at$2...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
wol...@bimajority.org says...

>
> In article <ni4c7j$n96$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"No Jake Brakes" signs are common in small towns in Alabama. I too
> >was puzzled by them until a few years ago when I looked them up online.
>
> The company (Jacobs) that owns the trademark "Jake Brake" likes to
> send legal threats to the places that erect such signs. Usually they
> are successful in getting the signs changed, once they point out that
> not every Jake Brake brand device is that sort of engine brake, and
> that they probably mean to prohibit loud engine brakes of all brands,
> not just theirs.
>

Perahps they should develope a device which produces less noise, and
then sue for defamation.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Often, no. The road might be restricted access, or a
business loop that avoids redential reas, but still
be close enough to wake up God and Country.

ANMcC

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:27 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown wrote:
> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
> used there. It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
> and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
> unexpectedly in the vicinity.
>

It's no picnic hearing them from 250 feet away every few minutes, let
me tell you.

[Stan Brown]

On the sign? Of course not. I'd assume it's covered in driver
training school, though, as I've already posted, most trucks ignore
the law in this regard.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com>,

Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:

> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>
> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> "Brake retarders prohibited
> within city limits."

There used to be signs in California that said "No Jake Brakes". These
confused me until I learned that these use engine compression to slow or
stop a vehicle, usually a large truck. Using a Jake brake makes noise
and the air is released.

I enjoyed a bit of joy when I saw the signs afterwards since I had
specialist knowledge. Now though, the signs say "No Engine Braking"
rather than the original phrase, and my knowledge is for naught.

I suppose they could have changed the wording to make it clearer, but I
assume truck drivers knew what it meant.

>
> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>
> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>
> Googling tells me
> Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying
> “Jake Brake Prohibition” in 1996.
>
> - which is fewer words, and even more obscure.
>
> - Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
> "engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
> the noise.

--

charles

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com>,
> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
> >
> > Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> > "Brake retarders prohibited
> > within city limits."
>
> There used to be signs in California that said "No Jake Brakes". These
> confused me until I learned that these use engine compression to slow or
> stop a vehicle, usually a large truck. Using a Jake brake makes noise
> and the air is released.
>
> I enjoyed a bit of joy when I saw the signs afterwards since I had
> specialist knowledge. Now though, the signs say "No Engine Braking"
> rather than the original phrase, and my knowledge is for naught.
>
> I suppose they could have changed the wording to make it clearer, but I
> assume truck drivers knew what it meant.

Actually, they madeit a hell of a lot less clear;
"engine breaking" can also refer to downshifting
with the foot off the gas.
ANMcC

[Rich Ulrich]

On 25 May 2016 17:50:32 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-05-25, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-25 11:34:10 +0200, Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> said:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>>> within city limits."
>>>>>
>>>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>
>Surely anything to do with the brakes should be mentioned at the peak of
>the slope not the bottom, where it's too late?

Yes, the sign being at the bottom of the hill is one source of
puzzlement. The sign is placed facing uphill, so that you see
it when you reach the bottom of the hill. Are truck drivers
supposed to read signs, in town, three blocks ahead?

Maybe they figure they will prevent repeat-violators by
inducing guilt. But this is Negley Hill where it meets Fifth,
which is the base of one of the steepest hills in Pittsburgh,
and it certainly does not have much commercial traffic that
I have ever seen.

Google-view confirms that it was there as early as November,
2015. I have not been back to see if there is any sign at the
top of the hill.

> What is a 'brake
>retarder' anyway and why would anyone want to retard brakes?
>

I wonder where that name came from, for describing "engine
braking". Anyway, the folks who live nearby want to avoid
the noise. And this is a 3-block, steep hill, in a residential area -
not a 3-mile decline in the mountains where engine-braking is
prevents overheating of the brakes.

As to the noise that is being prevented -- I seem to recall a phrase
from my own teen years, "racking your pipes", which described
the intentional use of engine braking, in-town, in order to make
a lot of noise. That was like being a noisy motorcyclist,
intentionallly, but using a pickup truck instead of a cycle. I had
no luck in finding any mention of this in a few minutes of searching.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Robert Bannister]

I thought every car driver knew that, but what interested me was whether
engine braking is actually louder than engine straining? I would have
expected trucks using their lower gears to slog uphill would have been
just as loud as those using engine braking downhill.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

Got it. It's when it starts that it's bothersome. I used to find it was
the road trains changing gear that woke me up, not the steady noise of
their 17th or whatever gear they were using to take them up the slight
slope out of town.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 12:53 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/05/16 17:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2016-05-25 16:18:27 +0200, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
>>> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
>>> used there.
>>
>> Isn't there a conflict between what is nice and what is safe? Which
>> would a quiet little town prefer: a lorry running out of control down a
>> steep hill into a crowd of people waiting for their children to come out
>> of school, or an unpleasant din?
>
> If I'm not vewy, vewy quiet, I might accidentally answer that one out loud.
>

I hope you've got your gear on.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:25:25 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich....@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 25 May 2016 17:50:32 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2016-05-25, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-25 11:34:10 +0200, Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> said:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>>>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>>>> within city limits."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>>>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>>>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>
>>Surely anything to do with the brakes should be mentioned at the peak of
>>the slope not the bottom, where it's too late?
>
>Yes, the sign being at the bottom of the hill is one source of
>puzzlement. The sign is placed facing uphill, so that you see
>it when you reach the bottom of the hill. Are truck drivers
>supposed to read signs, in town, three blocks ahead?

Is this the only hill? Saying it's at the bottom of the hill
indicates to me that the sign is placed between two hills. If there
is a sign on the road before it rises to the first hill, then it makes
sense to have a sign at the start of each hill. It's to inform the
driver before he gets busy dealing with going downhill in a big rig.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's pretty unusual to find a stick shift (standard shift) Up Here, so the
occasion wouldn't normally arise. I don't know whether they have a unit on
it in Driver's Ed, because in NYC the driving age was 18 (younger drivers
weren't supposed to cross the border into the city) so we didn't have high
school Driver's Ed at all. (And I doubt Mother Ruth would have wasted time
and resources on it anyway if it were a possibility.)

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/25/16 11:50 AM, Whiskers wrote:
...

> A 'retarder' fitted to a vehicle means, to me, something that stores up
> some of the energy otherwise wasted as heat when braking and converts it
> into mechanical energy for accelerating the vehicle later; London buses
> are often fitted with such things, as are electric and 'hybrid' vehicles
> of all sorts. Their operation is usually automatic and not within the
> driver's control to disable, as far as I know.

The name I know for that is "regenerative brakes".

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/24/16 10:30 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>
> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> "Brake retarders prohibited
> within city limits."
>
> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
> hill that I regularly drive on.

...

How can you live in Pittsburgh and drive regularly on only one hill?

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 8:55:22 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 5/25/16 11:50 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> ...
>
> > A 'retarder' fitted to a vehicle means, to me, something that stores up
> > some of the energy otherwise wasted as heat when braking and converts it
> > into mechanical energy for accelerating the vehicle later; London buses
> > are often fitted with such things, as are electric and 'hybrid' vehicles
> > of all sorts. Their operation is usually automatic and not within the
> > driver's control to disable, as far as I know.
>
> The name I know for that is "regenerative brakes".
>

Ditto. A surprising number are hydraulic rather than electric,
at least among "vocational" trucks.
ANMcC

[Snidely]

Peter T. Daniels speculated:

If you have a modern automatic, you have multiple gears lower than 'D'
(drive). However, the transmission may not let you shift down if
you're going too fast for the intended gear, or may shift back up.

Even with a stick shift, you may not be able to get into gear if you're
trying to shift into too low a gear for your speed. And being in
neutral is worse than being in high.

I did some training on a school bus (14-18 passenger size) with an
automatic, and the lack of sacrafice in the transmission was discussed
as I descended a steep hill. (Residential area, narrow streets, and
frequent stop signs -- no runaway.)

That bus had hydraulic brakes, which are subject to overheating ...
which reduces their grip. Bigger buses and big rigs (semi's) use air
brakes, which in addition to overheating ... have a limited supply of
air at any given time, and braking uses it faster than the compressor
compresses. Hence our previous discussion of runaway truck ramps.
(Before a long downhill on a highway, there will often be a "brake
check area" where the truckers are supposed to inspect the brake
rigging and to make sure that their tanks are full.)

I believe there's an example on Cajon Pass at
11 S 455633.60 m E 3799082.90 m N
(I think this route does /not/ have a brake test area, but you've just
left Victorville, so there's no trouble finding a place to check your
rig.)
(Note: there's a panaramio photo for that area labelled "The 15".)


Over on I-5 ("The Five" to the Southrons), here's a picture of a
runaway truck ramp between Lebec and Grapevine:
<URL:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/108249176?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com>
There are multiple places to stop at the top, so no brake check area
here.

(At the top of Conejo Pass on the 101, there's a truck scales, and
Thousand Oaks is just behind you.)

Over on SR60, east of Moreno Valley, there's this view:
<URL:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/108249176?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com>
and I /think/ the yellow sign says "brake check area", but I was
expecting a green sign, with an arrow under the words.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[charles]

In article <41b09bbd-dcff-4df6...@googlegroups.com>,

Engine breaking can also occur if you change down a gear when going too
fast. Happened to a friend of mine,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Snidely]

Snidely used thar keyboard to writen:

Resorting to image search:

<URL:http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter6/images/figure_86.jpg>
<URL:http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter6/images/figure_89.jpg>
<URL:https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1203/529005392_68a93b4c88_z.jpg?zz=1>
<URL:http://www.newslincolncounty.com/archives/26389>


I think the NB brake check area at Siskyou Summit is
10 T 532920.36 m E 4659408.67 m N
or 42°05'05.62" N 122°36'02.14" W

and southbound at
42°03'42.99" N 122°36'22.25" W

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Snidely]

Robert Bannister is guilty of <dqn6vv...@mid.individual.net> as of
5/25/2016 7:57:00 PM

No way, ho-say!
<URL:https://youtu.be/pHTrEwRk0MU?t=325>
slog uphill is a steady growl, compression down is bang-bang-bang.

[Snidely]

Just this Thursday, Snidely explained that ...

T=842 is also good.

-d

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[Snidely]

Remember Thursday, when Snidely asked plainitively:

This is also helpful:
<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRLOyWKxmk>

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Katy Jennison]

On 26/05/2016 09:11, charles wrote:
> In article <41b09bbd-dcff-4df6...@googlegroups.com>,
> <ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com>, Rich Ulrich
>>> <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>>
>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said, "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>> within city limits."
>>>
>>> There used to be signs in California that said "No Jake Brakes". These
>>> confused me until I learned that these use engine compression to slow
>>> or stop a vehicle, usually a large truck. Using a Jake brake makes
>>> noise and the air is released.
>>>
>>> I enjoyed a bit of joy when I saw the signs afterwards since I had
>>> specialist knowledge. Now though, the signs say "No Engine Braking"
>>> rather than the original phrase, and my knowledge is for naught.
>>>
>>> I suppose they could have changed the wording to make it clearer, but I
>>> assume truck drivers knew what it meant.
>

>> Actually, they made it a hell of a lot less clear; "engine breaking" can

>> also refer to downshifting with the foot off the gas. ANMcC
>
> Engine breaking can also occur if you change down a gear when going too
> fast. Happened to a friend of mine,
>

Could also be a possible consequence of failing to brake at all.

--
Katy Jennison

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I was hoping that his Mummy knew that he was playing with her computer.


--
athel

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-05-26, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On 5/25/16 11:50 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> ...
>
>> A 'retarder' fitted to a vehicle means, to me, something that stores up
>> some of the energy otherwise wasted as heat when braking and converts it
>> into mechanical energy for accelerating the vehicle later; London buses
>> are often fitted with such things, as are electric and 'hybrid' vehicles
>> of all sorts. Their operation is usually automatic and not within the
>> driver's control to disable, as far as I know.
>
> The name I know for that is "regenerative brakes".

We have a hybrid car & the regenerative stuff doesn't seem to make any
noise. I understand that electrically assisted bikes also recharge
that way now.


--
If hard data were the filtering criterion you could fit the entire
contents of the Internet on a floppy disk. --- Cecil Adams

[Richard Heathfield]

Yes, all right, fair comment. Perhaps a haiku will make up for it:

Never tell bad jokes
Unless you have the comfort
Of a winter coat.

(Or perhaps it won't. As someone once said: "Composing a rhyme/Of
seventeen syllables/Is very diffic.")

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Mike Barnes]

Ross wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:

>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>

>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>
>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>

>> Yes, I know what it means - but only from driving in the USA. I've never
>> seen such signs in the UK, or anywhere else in the world come to that.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Barnes
>> Cheshire, England
>
> I can't tell if you're discussing the specific form of words used,
> or the general idea of trying to restrict engine braking.

Speaking for myself as opposed the thread in general, I was deliberately
leaving that point unresolved. I've seen seen signs in the USA about
"engine braking" and "jake brakes", and no signs elsewhere (though from
what other poster write, they clearly exist) regardless of terminology.

Regarding the term "brake retarders", it clearly exists, but it makes no
sense to me. The brakes retard at the same rate as the rest of the vehicle.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Mike Barnes]

Sam Plusnet wrote:
> In article <ni4nia$18at$2...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> wol...@bimajority.org says...
>>
>> In article <ni4c7j$n96$3...@dont-email.me>,

>> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "No Jake Brakes" signs are common in small towns in Alabama. I too
>>> was puzzled by them until a few years ago when I looked them up online.
>>

>> The company (Jacobs) that owns the trademark "Jake Brake" likes to
>> send legal threats to the places that erect such signs. Usually they
>> are successful in getting the signs changed, once they point out that
>> not every Jake Brake brand device is that sort of engine brake, and
>> that they probably mean to prohibit loud engine brakes of all brands,
>> not just theirs.
>>
> Perahps they should develope a device which produces less noise, and
> then sue for defamation.

AIUI it's possible to reduce the noise level by fitting a [BrE:
silencer; AmE: muffler] on the air inlet. But that costs money.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-05-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 10:57:07 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:

>> I thought every car driver knew that, but what interested me was whether
>> engine braking is actually louder than engine straining? I would have
>> expected trucks using their lower gears to slog uphill would have been
>> just as loud as those using engine braking downhill.
>
> It's pretty unusual to find a stick shift (standard shift) Up Here, so the
> occasion wouldn't normally arise.

Manual transmissions are still popular in Europe (incl. UK), but I
don't think there's any good reason for that any longer. People have
traditionally claimed they are more fuel-efficient, but automatics
have improved a lot since the 1940s (I think --- is that right?), &
manuals are efficient only if driven by people who know how to use
them efficiently & take care to do so; I get the impression the people
who really like manual transmissions enjoy going vroom-vroom so waste
a lot of fuel.

> I don't know whether they have a unit on
> it in Driver's Ed, because in NYC the driving age was 18 (younger drivers
> weren't supposed to cross the border into the city) so we didn't have high
> school Driver's Ed at all. (And I doubt Mother Ruth would have wasted time
> and resources on it anyway if it were a possibility.)

The driving age in NYC was different from the rest of NY state, or
from NJ?


--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. --- Bucky Katt

[Whiskers]

On 2016-05-26, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:31:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> In article <MPG.31af3e9d6...@news.individual.net>,
>> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>> >
>> > It's even more obscure here. I live mid-way up a steep hill from a
>> > valley. As I mentioned some time ago, there's a sign at each hilltop,
>> > "Noise Limit 90 Decibles[sic]".
>> >
>>
>> Were there any suggestions on how the driver should carry out the
>> necessary measurement?
>
> On the sign? Of course not. I'd assume it's covered in driver
> training school, though, as I've already posted, most trucks ignore
> the law in this regard.

As it stands, the sign is meaningless (even if the spelling is
corrected). Actual regulations would have to go into considerable
detail about what is measured and how and where. Decibels aren't units
of measurement, they're ratios of power levels of something. Vehicle
noise levels are usually controlled by the design construction and
maintenance of the vehicle and aren't something the driver has much to
do with apart from reporting faults or getting them fixed.

One way to describe what "90dB(A)" sounds like is to say 'a lorry'.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Whiskers]

On 2016-05-26, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:27 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown wrote:
>> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
>> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them

>> used there. It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
>> and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
>> unexpectedly in the vicinity.
>>
>

> It's no picnic hearing them from 250 feet away every few minutes, let
> me tell you.

A clear case of atrocious design or maintenance; there should be
adequate sound insulation or 'silencers' installed. I don't think I've
ever heard such a noise from any vehicle in the UK.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/26/16 7:17 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2016-05-26, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:31:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <MPG.31af3e9d6...@news.individual.net>,
>>> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>>>
>>>> It's even more obscure here. I live mid-way up a steep hill from a
>>>> valley. As I mentioned some time ago, there's a sign at each hilltop,
>>>> "Noise Limit 90 Decibles[sic]".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Were there any suggestions on how the driver should carry out the
>>> necessary measurement?
>>
>> On the sign? Of course not. I'd assume it's covered in driver
>> training school, though, as I've already posted, most trucks ignore
>> the law in this regard.
>
> As it stands, the sign is meaningless (even if the spelling is
> corrected). Actual regulations would have to go into considerable
> detail about what is measured and how and where.

True, though not necessarily measured by the driver.

> Decibels aren't units
> of measurement, they're ratios of power levels of something.

I think the sign would be understood as referring to dB(A), as you say
below.

> Vehicle
> noise levels are usually controlled by the design construction and
> maintenance of the vehicle and aren't something the driver has much to
> do with apart from reporting faults or getting them fixed.

Yes, so the driver is legally responsible, just as if the headlights are
improperly aimed. Likewise the driver is responsible for speeding
regardless of whether and how well the speedometer works.

> One way to describe what "90dB(A)" sounds like is to say 'a lorry'.

--

[Jerry Friedman]

That makes me wonder why I've never seen a sign "Brake or break". The
first few Ghits are about easily confused words, but "Brake or Break" is
also the name of a game for Android.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Adam Funk skrev:

> We have a hybrid car & the regenerative stuff doesn't seem to make any
> noise.

My guess is that mere motorbreaking would be insufficient to hold
a large truck with a heavy load on a hill, so they have added a
special gadget that does a better job. Whether the noise is
unavoidable, or the thing has been built by the same sort of
people who would change the exhaust on a motorbike to make it
into a plague for other people, I cannot say.

Here you can see the driver flip a switch at 0:19 and the noise
begins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocMoTOVn6Q

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Whiskers skrev:

> As it stands, the sign is meaningless (even if the spelling is
> corrected). Actual regulations would have to go into considerable
> detail about what is measured and how and where. Decibels aren't units
> of measurement, they're ratios of power levels of something.

True, but noise is always given as a pure number of decibels. I
presume that there is some standard noise level to compare with.

> Vehicle noise levels are usually controlled by the design
> construction and maintenance of the vehicle and aren't
> something the driver has much to do with apart from reporting
> faults or getting them fixed.

The driver can abstain from flipping the noise switch (which
activates the extra brake function).

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnnkdupl.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

My impression is that it's a safety feature - braking with engine
compression won't result in a brake failure that's possible with
standard shoe (and disk?) brakes. The design is on purpose and there is
no problem with maintenance.

There is a problem with the sound Jake brakes produce (as evidenced by
Stan) which is why the towns or areas put up signs. Some signs just
reduce the prohibition to certain hours during the day, usually at night
when people are sleeping, others prohibit them all the time.

It's when truckers done comply that there's a problem, but that's the
same for every law or prohibition, yes?

--
cgared

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Whiskers skrev:

> A clear case of atrocious design or maintenance; there should be
> adequate sound insulation or 'silencers' installed. I don't think I've
> ever heard such a noise from any vehicle in the UK.

Judging from the video that I linked to in another message,
neither have I.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Charles Bishop]

In article <mn.d0477e05095f2285.127094@snitoo>,

This runaway ramp used to be on the right hand side of the road, but a
while back (years ago now) I noticed it was on the left hand side of the
two lane northbound side of I-5, which meant that a runaway semi would
have to cross over another traffic lane to reach the ramp. I think the
difference (from memory) is that the new one terminated on a slope
which allowed for dumping kinetic energy easier.

The highway is divided in its trip through the mountains, sometimes with
a quarter mile or more separating the north and southbound lanes.

>
> (At the top of Conejo Pass on the 101, there's a truck scales, and
> Thousand Oaks is just behind you.)
>
> Over on SR60, east of Moreno Valley, there's this view:
> <URL:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/108249176?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.c
> om>
> and I /think/ the yellow sign says "brake check area", but I was
> expecting a green sign, with an arrow under the words.
>

--
charles

[Whiskers]

Research suggests there are some diesel engines which don't provide a
lot of 'engine braking' on a closed throttle because of the way the
throttle limits only the fuel injected and not the air. Such engines
can be adapted to eject the air taken in while the throttle is closed (a
'Jake brake' being one brand of such an adaptation) so that the engine
can act as a more effective brake, in a similar way to a petrol engine
with carburettors. The ejected air comes out as high pressure bursts in
time with the cylinders' firing sequence. It seems that the driver can
have independent control of the 'Jake brake' or equivalent, rather than
having it come into operation automatically.

Quite why anyone thought it would be OK to adapt an engine in that way
without providing enough 'silencers' or sound insulation to keep the
noise down, I have yet to discover; but apparently it does happen. I
can only suppose that there is a great big hole in the legislation in
some places, and that it corresponds with an equally large deficit in
the social responsibility of some vehicle operators.

All the diesels I've driven must have been too primitive or too
sophisticated to need any special adaptation for engine braking. They
just do it. Quietly. Which is just as well in the UK as excessively
noisy vehicles can be (and are) impounded. And also why it makes no
sense at all to forbid 'engine braking' as such.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <41b09bbd-dcff-4df6...@googlegroups.com>,

ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > In article <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com>,

> > Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
> > >
> > > Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
> > > "Brake retarders prohibited
> > > within city limits."
> >

> > There used to be signs in California that said "No Jake Brakes". These
> > confused me until I learned that these use engine compression to slow or
> > stop a vehicle, usually a large truck. Using a Jake brake makes noise
> > and the air is released.
> >
> > I enjoyed a bit of joy when I saw the signs afterwards since I had
> > specialist knowledge. Now though, the signs say "No Engine Braking"
> > rather than the original phrase, and my knowledge is for naught.
> >
> > I suppose they could have changed the wording to make it clearer, but I
> > assume truck drivers knew what it meant.
>

> Actually, they madeit a hell of a lot less clear;

> "engine breaking" can also refer to downshifting
> with the foot off the gas.
> ANMcC

I may have misremembered the sign. I have a minion in the area and will
find out.

--
charles

[Peter T. Daniels]

From _everywhere_. The adjacent NY counties are Westchester and Nassau.

I don't know whether the rule is still in effect. I haven't driven across the
Hudson since the toll went beyond $6. (It's now $16 [inbound only].

[Whiskers]

Except when they fall off. (Happened to me once when I was a kid on a
pedal cycle that I hadn't quite serviced properly).

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7d9j1dx...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>Manual transmissions are still popular in Europe (incl. UK), but I
>don't think there's any good reason for that any longer. People have
>traditionally claimed they are more fuel-efficient, but automatics
>have improved a lot since the 1940s (I think --- is that right?),

Yes. The manual version of my car has very slightly worse efficiency,
according to the specifications.

Having the ability to control the gear ratio manually seems to me to
be about as useful as being able to control the brakes on each wheel
individually.

-- Richard

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:43:22 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2016-05-25 11:34:10 +0200, Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> said:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:54:48 PM UTC+12, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>>
>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>> within city limits."
>>>>
>>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>>
>>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>>
>>> Yes, I know what it means - but only from driving in the USA. I've never
>>> seen such signs in the UK, or anywhere else in the world come to that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Barnes
>>> Cheshire, England
>>
>> I can't tell if you're discussing the specific form of words used,
>> or the general idea of trying to restrict engine braking.
>

> I've never come across such signs. In the contrary, the ones I see tend
> to say "Use your engine braking".

Engine braking and brake retarders are not the same thing. I believe a brake retarder slows the vehicle by blocking the exhaust. Buses used to have them (and may still do) in the UK. The bus I saw using it gave off black smoke when the retarder was released - which is more likely what the signage is trying to prevent. The bus driver I knew told me he often used to it slow down without the brake lights coming on if he was driving over the speed limit and saw a policeman.

There is no way they'd disallow engine braking, a heavy vehicle could not be expected to use only it's normal brakes on a long steep hill, they'd overheat which could be dangerous.

>> Signs saying, e.g. "Heavy Vehicles Please No Engine Brakes Next X km."
>> are not uncommon in NZ, especially on roads leading down into a town.
>> As you might guess from the "please", they actually have no legal force.
>> It's just local councils asking truck drivers to be considerate.
>>
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11031446

--
Does a pedometer detect child molesters?

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 1:17:54 AM UTC-7, charles wrote:
> In article <41b09bbd-dcff-4df6...@googlegroups.com>,
> <ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > > In article <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com>, Rich Ulrich

> > > <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
> > > >
> > > > Today, I noticed a road sign that said, "Brake retarders prohibited
> > > > within city limits."
> > >

> > > There used to be signs in California that said "No Jake Brakes". These
> > > confused me until I learned that these use engine compression to slow
> > > or stop a vehicle, usually a large truck. Using a Jake brake makes
> > > noise and the air is released.
> > >
> > > I enjoyed a bit of joy when I saw the signs afterwards since I had
> > > specialist knowledge. Now though, the signs say "No Engine Braking"
> > > rather than the original phrase, and my knowledge is for naught.
> > >
> > > I suppose they could have changed the wording to make it clearer, but I
> > > assume truck drivers knew what it meant.
>
> > Actually, they madeit a hell of a lot less clear; "engine breaking" can
> > also refer to downshifting with the foot off the gas. ANMcC
>

> Engine breaking can also occur if you change down a gear when going too
> fast. Happened to a friend of mine,
>

Furfu. Everyone's a cricket.

AN "Reminder. Activate Agent again..." McC

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Nahh, I bet you got it right. It's just that "engine braking"
usually means, at least in my NorthEasterly Americanistani,
using a fuel-starved engine to help slow the vehicle. Jake
brakes are a different animule.

ANMcC

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

This describes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_brake

A compression release engine brake, frequently called a Jake brake
or Jacobs brake, is an engine braking mechanism installed on some
diesel engines.

With the engine in gear, the movement of the vehicle causes air in the
cylinder (of a diesel engine) to be compressed. When the engine is
running normally fuel is then injected into the hot compressed air and
the piston is pushed by the burning fuel. When used for braking, instead
of injecting fuel the compressed air in the cylinder is released through
the exhaust valve. The effect is that the movement of the vehicle is
slowed because of the energy used in compressing the air in the cylinder
without that energy then being returned to the crankshaft as it would be
if the exhaust valves were not opened.

Presumably the release of the compressed air from the cylinder(s) is
noisy.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

But much more useful than being able to steer each wheel independently.

Fortunately that is not a feature provided on the average road vehicle.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 21:58:30 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 5/24/16 10:30 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>
>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>> within city limits."
>>
>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>> hill that I regularly drive on.

>...
>
>How can you live in Pittsburgh and drive regularly on only one hill?

I don't get out much.

Okay, there is a second /precipitous/ hill that I visit regularly
when I am a passenger. Among routes I take every month,
those are the only two hills which are steep enough to have feet.

Should I have written,
steep enough to have foots
steep enough to have "foots"
(reword to avoid the choice)?

For the plural of foot, what do mountain climbers say?

--
Rich Ulrich

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 23:34:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

me>
>>Yes, the sign being at the bottom of the hill is one source of
>>puzzlement. The sign is placed facing uphill, so that you see
>>it when you reach the bottom of the hill. Are truck drivers
>>supposed to read signs, in town, three blocks ahead?
>
>Is this the only hill? Saying it's at the bottom of the hill
>indicates to me that the sign is placed between two hills.

? I don't see that, at all. There is a hill that rises from what
was a seabed in ancient times. Should I have said "foot of the hill",
or would that mislead the same way?


> If there
>is a sign on the road before it rises to the first hill, then it makes
>sense to have a sign at the start of each hill. It's to inform the
>driver before he gets busy dealing with going downhill in a big rig.

As I tried to say, you see the sign as you reach the bottom of
the hill. It is across the (flat) intersection, on the left side of
the street. It is slightly askew, so that it faces directly (I think)
at drivers who have stopped at the light at the bottom of the hill.

From that angle of placement, it might also be readable to an
east-bound driver on Fifth.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <7d9j1dx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>Manual transmissions are still popular in Europe (incl. UK), but I
>don't think there's any good reason for that any longer. People have
>traditionally claimed they are more fuel-efficient, but automatics
>have improved a lot since the 1940s (I think --- is that right?)

Yes, especially now that torque converters are less common; better
clutches make for more efficient power transmission.

>manuals are efficient only if driven by people who know how to use
>them efficiently & take care to do so; I get the impression the people
>who really like manual transmissions enjoy going vroom-vroom so waste
>a lot of fuel.

A lot of modern supercars are hybrids. You'll often see a rear-engine
car with an electric motor to drive the front wheels, for better
acceleration, and the engine driving the rear wheels through a
dual-clutch automatic. (Some of these can be efficient enough to avoid
the US "gas guzzler tax".) I've seen a number of reviews of these
sorts of cars where the reviewer says that for track work you're
better off with the autobox.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <slrnnke1bp.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

>Quite why anyone thought it would be OK to adapt an engine in that way
>without providing enough 'silencers' or sound insulation to keep the
>noise down, I have yet to discover; but apparently it does happen.

The most common occupation in about half of all US states is "truck
driver". They are a large, well-funded lobby.

[charles]

In article <ni6u9p$cr7$2...@news.albasani.net>,

sounds like the signs in some pubs, particularly those with low beams:
"Duck or Grouse"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 21:57:00 in article <dqn6vv...@mid.individual.net> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 25/05/2016 9:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:30:05 AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>

>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only

>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>
>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>>

>>> Googling tells me
>>> Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying
>>> “Jake Brake Prohibition” in 1996.
>>>
>>> - which is fewer words, and even more obscure.
>>>
>>> - Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
>>> "engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
>>> the noise.
>>
>> Never heard of those expressions, but the Car Talk guys explained that going
>> down a steep hill you ought to put the transmission in a lowish gear, since
>> that restricts the wheels from turning very freely and obviates standing on
>> the brake pedal.
>>
>

> I thought every car driver knew that, but what interested me was whether
> engine braking is actually louder than engine straining? I would have
> expected trucks using their lower gears to slog uphill would have been
> just as loud as those using engine braking downhill.

The sort of engine braking those signs are talking about is much, much,
much louder. You're talking about using a lower gear to let the drag
from the engine slow the vehicle, but that's not what the signs mean
when they prohibit engine brakes or jake brakes. From Wikipedia:

A compression release brake, or jake brake, this is the type
of brake most commonly confused with real engine braking; it
is used mainly in large diesel trucks and works by opening the
exhaust valves at the top of the compression stroke, resulting in
adiabatic expansion of the compressed air, so the large amount
of energy stored in that compressed air is not returned to the
crankshaft, but is released into the atmosphere.

Normally during the compression stroke, energy is used as the
upward-traveling piston compresses air in the cylinder; the
compressed air then acts as a compressed spring and pushes the
piston back down. However, with the jake brake in operation,
the compressed air is suddenly released just before the piston
begins its downward travel. (This sudden release of compressed
air creates audible sound waves similar to the expanding gases
escaping from the muzzle of a firearm.) Having lost the energy
stored within the compressed air, there is no 'spring back' from
it so the engine must expend yet more energy pulling the piston
back down again.

This type of brake is banned or restricted in many locations where
people live because it creates a sound loud enough to disturb the
peace, including waking people at night. It is very effective
however, and creates immense amounts of braking force which
significantly extends friction brake life - A 565 hp (421 kW)
diesel engine can produce up to 600 hp (450 kW) of braking power.

Notice in particular what it says about "...audible sound waves
similar to the expanding gases escaping from the muzzle of a firearm."
That's what I meant earlier when I compared the sound to the firing
of a machine gun.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:21:59 AM UTC-7, Wayne Brown wrote:

[...]

> Notice in particular what it says about "...audible sound waves
> similar to the expanding gases escaping from the muzzle of a firearm."
> That's what I meant earlier when I compared the sound to the firing
> of a machine gun.

One of the videos I did /not/ link to was the Jacobs Manuf b-roll of
how a Jake Brake works. It shows up in the related items list
of what I did link to, for the curious. Short animation of normal and braking.
(How the control is done is not shown).

Hidden in that video is the comment that with "modern emission controls",
the sound is almost indistinguishable from normal operation,
so perhaps Whiskers wasn't being merely snooty.

/dps "nor sooty"

[Whiskers]

On 2016-05-26, Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnnke1bp.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quite why anyone thought it would be OK to adapt an engine in that way
>>without providing enough 'silencers' or sound insulation to keep the
>>noise down, I have yet to discover; but apparently it does happen.
>
> The most common occupation in about half of all US states is "truck
> driver". They are a large, well-funded lobby.
>
> -GAWollman

How common is impaired hearing among those communities?

[Whiskers]

I would expect it to be in the same ball-park as the noise from the
exhaust ports under acceleration, so logically the holes it comes out of
should be fitted with something comparable to the silencers on the
exhaust system. If the exhaust system doubles as the 'compression
release' conduit then that should achieve some effective silencing; if
the compression release is vented through some other orifice then that
orifice needs its own silencer.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:18:17 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>Notice in particular what it says about "...audible sound waves
>similar to the expanding gases escaping from the muzzle of a firearm."
>That's what I meant earlier when I compared the sound to the firing
>of a machine gun.

Modern bullets start out traveling faster than the speed of sound,
so that part of what you hear is "sonic boom". How much of the
total noise is the sonic boom and how much is the explosion?

Here is what curiosity led me to, building on my knowledge that High
Explosives meet a definition of having a burn-rate that is faster
than the speed of sound.

Modern ammunition uses high explosives, and modern ammo
in a modern rifle produces muzzle-velocities (...Wikip...) that
reach nearly Mach 4. And I think it the velocity is Mach 2 for
pistols. (Is that so, or is that just for high-powered pistols?)

It seems that the effectiveness of /silencers/ should be limited
to muffling the explosive blast, not the bullet's boom. I suppose,
if the bullet itself makes a loud sound, that could be why TV/movie
killers sometimes murder their victims by shooting through a pillow.

Gunpowder is a "low explosive" because its burning spreads
more slowly than sound. Wikip tells me that the muzzle velocities
of "black powder muskets" range from 390 fps to 1200 fps --
faster than sound, at this upper end, so the weapons took
advantage of long barrels to optimize the time for acceleration.

Is that trans-sonic maximum something that was typical, or
would that be only for special weapons?

--
Rich Ulrich

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

No, that's a considerable oversimplification.

High explosives detonate; that is to say, the molecule
falls apart almost instantaneously, causing the
molecule next door to do so also. Picture a very fast
3d newton's cradle. The speed this occurs at is...
considerable. 20,000 feet per second ain't unheard
of at all. Shock waves faster than the speed of
sound -in the material being blasted- cause shattering.
Some high explosives are actually endothermic, IMS.

Low explosives deflagrate -burn real fast. Much of
their power comes from the expansion of burnt gases.
They push more than shatter.

(Car nuts will distinguish this between ignition
and knocking/pinging)

Some low explosives become high explosives if heavily
confined during ignition, but you really don't want
a proper high explosive for a propellant in a firearm.
This was, and probably is, a very common type of
booby-trap, a cartridge filled with plastic explosive
and a suitable primer will put parts of the weapon
into the firer.

ANMcC

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <7d9j1dx...@news.ducksburg.com>, a24...@ducksburg.com
says...

> Manual transmissions are still popular in Europe (incl. UK), but I
> don't think there's any good reason for that any longer. People have
> traditionally claimed they are more fuel-efficient, but automatics

> have improved a lot since the 1940s (I think --- is that right?), &

> manuals are efficient only if driven by people who know how to use
> them efficiently & take care to do so; I get the impression the people
> who really like manual transmissions enjoy going vroom-vroom so waste
> a lot of fuel.
>
>

I think that a manual gearbox is cheaper to build, more reliable and
cheaper to repair.

[Whiskers]

<sniff>

> /dps "nor sooty"

<cough> <oops>

[Charles Bishop]

In article <MPG.31b17b0...@news.plus.net>,

Possibly, but Click and Clack on Car Talk, 10s of years ago, said much
the same thing, there wasn't much difference in reliability between the
two, but there might be a difference in initial cost. I think the
difference in my truck was $1000 out of $22,000 over all. I've put in
one new clutch already, but I taught my son to drive a stick in the
truck.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <40c24003-14b5-4681...@googlegroups.com>,
ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:

[snip]

>
> Furfu. Everyone's a cricket.

Shirley, it's "furrfu"

>
> AN "Reminder. Activate Agent again..." McC

chrles, Rewash memory cells

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:08:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <40c24003-14b5-4681...@googlegroups.com>,
> ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Furfu. Everyone's a cricket.
>
>
> Shirley, it's "furrfu"

Hey, I don't neet ROT13 to milepp things,
I can do it in the clear.

> >
> > AN "Reminder. Activate Agent again..." McC
>
> chrles, Rewash memory cells

AN "nahh, I think it's the rinse cycle" McC

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Normal exhaust gases are pushed out of the cylinder by the motion of the
piston. That takes a measurable time. The "compression release"
arrangement opens the cylinder to instantaneously release air that has
been compressed. It is close to "explosive" release. It might be
difficult to provide a silencer that could handle such a release. There
is also the point that if the silencer impedes the outflow of air from
the cylinder it will reduce the braking effect.

[bill van]

In article <3c8ekb17a5g6fc69d...@4ax.com>,

I've never heard it pluralized, except in the form of "foothills" which
is one of the more common geographical terms in Alberta. Calgary
sometimes bills itself as "the foothills city"; the 70 km or so to the
west of the city consists almost entirely of the foothills of the Rocky
Mountains.
--
bill

[bill van]

In article <slrnnkejjn.2...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20160390

... Finally it was deduced that the occupational conditions of truck
drivers may have bilateral, symmetrical harmful effect on hearing
threshold sense in all frequencies mainly in frequency of 4000 Hz, so
health surveillance programs such as education and periodic medical
examinations are emphasized for pre-diagnosing and prevention of any
possible impairment and an urgent need to take up some interventions
such as better maintenance of roads, automobile industry efforts to
reduce the noise level emission of vehicles and reducing number of
working hours per day of drivers are highlighted to improve the harmful
working conditions of truck drivers.

(Not the clearest piece of abstract writing I've ever seen.)
--
bill

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 9:48 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Adam Funk skrev:
>
>> We have a hybrid car & the regenerative stuff doesn't seem to make any
>> noise.
>
> My guess is that mere motorbreaking would be insufficient to hold
> a large truck with a heavy load on a hill, so they have added a
> special gadget that does a better job. Whether the noise is
> unavoidable, or the thing has been built by the same sort of
> people who would change the exhaust on a motorbike to make it
> into a plague for other people, I cannot say.
>
> Here you can see the driver flip a switch at 0:19 and the noise
> begins.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocMoTOVn6Q
>
Don't they have laws about maximum noise emission?

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 11:50 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 10:57:07 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 25/05/2016 9:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:30:05 AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
>>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>>> within city limits."
>>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only

>>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?

>>>> Googling tells me
>>>> Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying
>>>> “Jake Brake Prohibition” in 1996.
>>>> - which is fewer words, and even more obscure.
>>>> - Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
>>>> "engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
>>>> the noise.
>>> Never heard of those expressions, but the Car Talk guys explained that going
>>> down a steep hill you ought to put the transmission in a lowish gear, since
>>> that restricts the wheels from turning very freely and obviates standing on
>>> the brake pedal.
>>
>> I thought every car driver knew that, but what interested me was whether
>> engine braking is actually louder than engine straining? I would have
>> expected trucks using their lower gears to slog uphill would have been
>> just as loud as those using engine braking downhill.
>

> It's pretty unusual to find a stick shift (standard shift) Up Here, so the
> occasion wouldn't normally arise. I don't know whether they have a unit on
> it in Driver's Ed, because in NYC the driving age was 18 (younger drivers
> weren't supposed to cross the border into the city) so we didn't have high
> school Driver's Ed at all. (And I doubt Mother Ruth would have wasted time
> and resources on it anyway if it were a possibility.)
>
I'm not sure I follow the above. If you're saying all trucks around your
way have automatic gear shifts, I can't see how that affects the noise
they make in low gear going uphill. Also, I have never seen an automatic
gear box where you can't select a low gear and this is what you use on a
very long, steep hill. Most cars have one or two low gear positions and
I imagine a truck would too. However, I was thinking of big trucks that
have 20 or more gears usually in two or four interconnected gear boxes,
and those are always stick shift.

I don't know who Mother Ruth is. Google only knows Ruth Neave of the UK
who tortured her son.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 10:58 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <7d9j1dx...@news.ducksburg.com>,

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> Manual transmissions are still popular in Europe (incl. UK), but I
>> don't think there's any good reason for that any longer. People have
>> traditionally claimed they are more fuel-efficient, but automatics
>> have improved a lot since the 1940s (I think --- is that right?),
>

> Yes. The manual version of my car has very slightly worse efficiency,
> according to the specifications.
>
> Having the ability to control the gear ratio manually seems to me to
> be about as useful as being able to control the brakes on each wheel
> individually.

What I've never understood is why some people, mainly men, actually
prefer manual. This seems to take car driving back almost to the age of
steam for me.

[Robert Bannister]

I've never owned a car that needed its gearbox repairing. Are you
talking about the 1940s or earlier?

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 4:42 PM, Snidely wrote:
> Robert Bannister is guilty of <dqn6vv...@mid.individual.net> as of
> 5/25/2016 7:57:00 PM

> No way, ho-say!
> <URL:https://youtu.be/pHTrEwRk0MU?t=325>
> slog uphill is a steady growl, compression down is bang-bang-bang.

Yes. I didn't realise what they were. Can't say I've noticed such things
here, but I can't believe they don't exist.

[Robert Bannister]

Normal engine noise would be worse than that if we didn't have mufflers.
Why isn't there some kind of legislation?

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 9:53 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <slrnnkdupl.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-26, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:27 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown wrote:
>>>> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
>>>> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
>>>> used there. It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
>>>> and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
>>>> unexpectedly in the vicinity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's no picnic hearing them from 250 feet away every few minutes, let
>>> me tell you.
>>
>> A clear case of atrocious design or maintenance; there should be
>> adequate sound insulation or 'silencers' installed. I don't think I've
>> ever heard such a noise from any vehicle in the UK.
>
> My impression is that it's a safety feature - braking with engine
> compression won't result in a brake failure that's possible with
> standard shoe (and disk?) brakes. The design is on purpose and there is
> no problem with maintenance.
>
> There is a problem with the sound Jake brakes produce (as evidenced by
> Stan) which is why the towns or areas put up signs. Some signs just
> reduce the prohibition to certain hours during the day, usually at night
> when people are sleeping, others prohibit them all the time.
>
> It's when truckers done comply that there's a problem, but that's the
> same for every law or prohibition, yes?
>

You only have to stop and fine a few dozen trucks every day for a week
and the problem goes away. It's not like they're sneaking past.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/05/2016 10:59 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 25/05/2016 10:18 PM, Wayne Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:30:03 in article
>> <ut9akbd7l0ogd9bnn...@4ax.com> Rich Ulrich

>> <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>
>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>> hill that I regularly drive on. But I had never seen it before, and
>>> I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it.
>>>
>>> Is this something that is known to anyone who is not either a
>>> trucker, or who drives in Pennsylvania?
>>>
>>> Googling tells me
>>> Pennsylvania started allowing municipalities to post signs saying
>>> “Jake Brake Prohibition” in 1996.
>>>
>>> - which is fewer words, and even more obscure.
>>>
>>> - Apparently, diesel trucks can be prohibited from using their
>>> "engine braking" (as available from Jake Brakes) because of
>>> the noise.
>>

>> "No Jake Brakes" signs are common in small towns in Alabama. I too
>> was puzzled by them until a few years ago when I looked them up online.

>>
>> If you're ever next to a truck on the road and the driver uses his
>> engine brake you'll understand why quiet little towns don't want them
>> used there. It's happened to me a few times. The noise is very loud
>> and startling, rather like a jackhammer or machine gun starting up
>> unexpectedly in the vicinity.
>>
>

> Got it. It's when it starts that it's bothersome. I used to find it was
> the road trains changing gear that woke me up, not the steady noise of
> their 17th or whatever gear they were using to take them up the slight
> slope out of town.
>
I see now that we are talking about unmuffled compression release
brakes, so I was mistaken.

[bill van]

In article <dqpogg...@mid.individual.net>,

It takes it back to the age of fun for me. I've previously owned two
manual shifters: a VW Beetle and an early Mini. Both were zippier than
your average automatic. The driver gets a better feel for the road and
is actively involved in the driving, rather than being tempted to nod
off or grab a cell phone and check emails.

I now own a Subaru Forester, bought because it has high seats that are
easy for my wife to swivel into and out of from and to her wheelchair,
and it has cargo space in the back that her folded wheelchair just fits
into. My last car was close to the ground and in the city, I would
always be behind a vehicle that I couldn't see over or around. Now I can
look over top of more than half the vehicles on the road.

For my own purposes, I decided to buy a manual shift Subaru rather than
an automatic and that has worked out nicely. It was a little cheaper,
which helped. It has the quickest acceleration of any car I've owned and
is excellent on the highway; passing power galore. I do a little of the
vroom-vroom shifting thing sometimes just for fun, though I'm not a
driver who takes chances. But I'm very happy to be driving a vehicle
that is fun to operate.
--
bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

I said nothing at all about trucks in my response to a paragraph beginning
"I thought every car driver knew that."

> way have automatic gear shifts, I can't see how that affects the noise
> they make in low gear going uphill. Also, I have never seen an automatic
> gear box where you can't select a low gear and this is what you use on a
> very long, steep hill. Most cars have one or two low gear positions and
> I imagine a truck would too. However, I was thinking of big trucks that
> have 20 or more gears usually in two or four interconnected gear boxes,
> and those are always stick shift.
>
> I don't know who Mother Ruth is. Google only knows Ruth Neave of the UK
> who tortured her son.

You don't read my messages? Or, you didn't read the thread about how Canada
counts its school grades?

[bill van]

In article <dqpp6n...@mid.individual.net>,

As someone else has pointed out, the trucking and associated
transportation industries are extremely powerful lobbyers. Politicians
who propose such things may find their careers shortened.
--
bill

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/26/16 7:51 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Whiskers skrev:
>
>> As it stands, the sign is meaningless (even if the spelling is
>> corrected). Actual regulations would have to go into considerable
>> detail about what is measured and how and where. Decibels aren't units
>> of measurement, they're ratios of power levels of something.
>
> True, but noise is always given as a pure number of decibels. I
> presume that there is some standard noise level to compare with.
...

The one I know about it 10^-12 W/m^2. Apparently, as Whiskers pointed
out, there's also the question of how to match the frequency response of
the ear.

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Jerry Friedman]

It makes sense if abstract writing is to writing what abstract painting
is to painting, except that I like some abstract painting.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/26/16 10:30 AM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 21:58:30 -0600, Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> On 5/24/16 10:30 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>
>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>> hill that I regularly drive on.

>> ...
>>
>> How can you live in Pittsburgh and drive regularly on only one hill?
>
> I don't get out much.
>
> Okay, there is a second /precipitous/ hill that I visit regularly
> when I am a passenger. Among routes I take every month,
> those are the only two hills which are steep enough to have feet.
>
> Should I have written,
> steep enough to have foots
> steep enough to have "foots"
> (reword to avoid the choice)?

I like "feet".

> For the plural of foot, what do mountain climbers say?

That I don't know.

[RH Draney]

On 5/26/2016 7:26 PM, bill van wrote:
> In article <dqpogg...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>> What I've never understood is why some people, mainly men, actually
>> prefer manual. This seems to take car driving back almost to the age of
>> steam for me.
>
> It takes it back to the age of fun for me. I've previously owned two
> manual shifters: a VW Beetle and an early Mini. Both were zippier than
> your average automatic. The driver gets a better feel for the road and
> is actively involved in the driving, rather than being tempted to nod
> off or grab a cell phone and check emails.

When they replaced the tiller with a steering wheel, that was the thin
end of the wedge....

That, and getting shed of bud vases....r

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-May-27 14:14, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 5/26/16 7:51 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Whiskers skrev:
>>
>>> As it stands, the sign is meaningless (even if the spelling is
>>> corrected). Actual regulations would have to go into considerable
>>> detail about what is measured and how and where. Decibels aren't units
>>> of measurement, they're ratios of power levels of something.
>>
>> True, but noise is always given as a pure number of decibels. I
>> presume that there is some standard noise level to compare with.
> ...
>
> The one I know about it 10^-12 W/m^2. Apparently, as Whiskers pointed
> out, there's also the question of how to match the frequency response of
> the ear.

For the latter, you use something called A-weighting, which is a
standard for frequency-dependent weighting of noise data. I had never
heard of it until I had to design a system for measuring mining noise,
but it's easily googlable.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Mike Barnes]

There are dozens of everyday road problems that you'd think could be
solved with a similar approach. But it doesn't happen, not round here
anyway. I suspect that one obstacle is that there's nothing in it for
the police force. Also the route to a solution involves an "initiative",
endless meetings, and costings that involve fully-trained police
officers at sky-high hourly rates.

[Mike Barnes]

Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 21:58:30 -0600, Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/16 10:30 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> I do all my driving, basically, within Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> Today, I noticed a road sign that said,
>>> "Brake retarders prohibited
>>> within city limits."
>>>
>>> It is probably relevant that the sign was at the foot of the only
>>> hill that I regularly drive on.
>> ...
>>
>> How can you live in Pittsburgh and drive regularly on only one hill?
>
> I don't get out much.
>
> Okay, there is a second /precipitous/ hill that I visit regularly
> when I am a passenger. Among routes I take every month,
> those are the only two hills which are steep enough to have feet.
>
> Should I have written,
> steep enough to have foots
> steep enough to have "foots"
> (reword to avoid the choice)?
>

> For the plural of foot, what do mountain climbers say?

Around here, "metres".

But "steep enough to have [foot|feet]" means nothing at all to me. Is it
an Americanism? A road sign reference, perhaps? What does it mean?

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-May-26 18:11, Snidely wrote:
>
> Over on I-5 ("The Five" to the Southrons), here's a picture of a runaway
> truck ramp between Lebec and Grapevine:
> <URL:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/108249176?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com>
>
> There are multiple places to stop at the top, so no brake check area here.

The one I used to see when driving to Sydney used a steeper ramp:

<URL:http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Freeways/F3/kevin_noble_04.jpg>

It narrows towards the top. A truck would get stuck in the wedge between
rock walls, to stop it from rolling back. As you can see the freeway is
going downhill fairly steeply, so that a runaway truck would be going
pretty fast at that point. What is not obvious from the picture is the
strong left curve of the road before the safety ramp, which always left
me wondering how easy it would be to steer into the ramp at speed.

The photo is from some years ago. Newer safety ramps are less steep -- I
even know of one west of here that goes downhill -- and rely on covering
the roadway with the sort of material that would slow the truck by, in
effect, getting its wheels bogged.