Sudden brake failure in mk3 VW Golf
moriarte
I wonder if anyone could comment on this?
A few months ago the brakes suddenly stopped working on VW Golf. I
pressed the brake pedal and had no response; the pedal was loose and
was depressed to the floor quite easily without any sensation of the
car braking. I tried the pedal several times over several hundred
yards and had the same lack of result. There was no revving noise to
suggest the wrong pedal was being depressed, and I had time to take my
foot on and off the pedal several times to check I was pressing the
right one. The brakes had previously been working, having stopped at
numerous sets of traffic lights previously.
Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a set
traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due care
etc. The police supposedly tested the cars brakes and found no
'mechanical' failure. However, I wonder if what I experienced was some
sort of partial failure due to an intermittent electrical fault.
Unfortunately the car has now been scrapped as the police assured me
that if I did not hear within 6 weeks I would not be prosecuted; in
fact it has taken 6 months.
I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake failure
was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like some
explanation of what might have happened.
MrCheerful
"moriarte" <eliz...@basilisk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1170936461.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Had the car had all its servicing? including regular brake fluid changes?
It is quite possible to suddenly lose the brakes as a result of seal failure
caused by rust, caused by lack of fluid changes, it is also possible that
the pedal could feel ok again later when cold, particularly on a modern car
where the engine compartment gets very hot in use.
I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake failure by an
intermittent electrical fault.
Driving in very heavy rain can cause the brakes to fail till they dry out
again.
OR: If the wheels are locked up it can feel very like the car speeds up as
you rush toward an object, so perhaps it was driver error, were you on the
phone at the time?
Why did you not use the handbrake?
Mrcheerful
moriarte
> Had the car had all its servicing? including regular brake fluid changes?
> It is quite possible to suddenly lose the brakes as a result of seal failure
> caused by rust, caused by lack of fluid changes, it is also possible that
> the pedal could feel ok again later when cold, particularly on a modern car
> where the engine compartment gets very hot in use.
> I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake failure by an
> intermittent electrical fault.
It had had full MOT about 3 weeks previously.
> OR: If the wheels are locked up it can feel very like the car speeds up as
> you rush toward an object, so perhaps it was driver error, were you on the
> phone at the time?
No, I don't possess one. I had to borrow one from a policewoman to
call my husband. I was also awake at the time ;-) I have a clean
record, with no accidents in 20 years of driving until this event.
> Why did you not use the handbrake?
I did; I couldn't pull it hard enough with one hand to get any braking
effect from it though. I have been told since this isn't a good thing
to do as it can cause the car to spin. The police report said the
handbrake was applied when the car was examined, although it wasn't
relevant anyway.
The only other thing I can think of is about 5 mins after I started my
journey, I noticed the handbrake light was on and checked and found it
wasn't fully in the down position. The brakes were functioning after I
noticed this though.
Adrian
they were saying :
> On 8 Feb, 12:24, "MrCheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake
>> failure by an intermittent electrical fault.
Nor am I.
> It had had full MOT about 3 weeks previously.
>> Why did you not use the handbrake?
> I did; I couldn't pull it hard enough with one hand to get any braking
> effect from it though.
Sounds like it shouldn't have passed the MOT, then.
> I have been told since this isn't a good thing to do as it can cause the
> car to spin.
If you pull it on hard enough to lock the rear wheels, and you're not
travelling in a straight line, then, yes, it can, if you don't know how to
control it.
MrCheerful
> On 8 Feb, 12:24, "MrCheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Had the car had all its servicing? including regular brake fluid
>> changes?
>> It is quite possible to suddenly lose the brakes as a result of seal
>> failure
>> caused by rust, caused by lack of fluid changes, it is also possible that
>> the pedal could feel ok again later when cold, particularly on a modern
>> car
>> where the engine compartment gets very hot in use.
>> I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake failure by an
>> intermittent electrical fault.
>
> It had had full MOT about 3 weeks previously.
So you don't know any service history for the car, particularly brake fluid
changes?
An MoT is not a full service or service history.
You had a quarter mile to stop and didn't, if the car was not faulty, then
it is down to you.
Mrcheerful
Adrian
were saying :
> Driving in very heavy rain can cause the brakes to fail till they dry
> out again.
Which would happen almost as soon as you apply them.
Adrian
they were saying :
> A few months ago the brakes suddenly stopped working on VW Golf. I
> pressed the brake pedal and had no response; the pedal was loose and
> was depressed to the floor quite easily without any sensation of the
> car braking. I tried the pedal several times over several hundred
> yards and had the same lack of result.
> Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a set
> traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due care
> etc.
Good.
> I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake failure
> was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like some
> explanation of what might have happened.
Your car experienced a failure, almost certainly due to poor maintenance,
and you crashed because you didn't know what to do. Luckily, nobody was
injured.
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot
> Hi,
> I wonder if anyone could comment on this?
>
*Sniff sniff*
What's that smell?
Si
moriarte
know what the configuration of the brakes is on a Mk3 Golf - do the
handbrake and footbrake use the same brake fluid?
Having done a bit of research it seems that if the brake fluid has not
been replaced for a while, it can absorb moisture, which means it can
boil at a lower temperature. I have read that leaving the handbrake
lightly applied can lead to heating up the brake fluid. If the fluid
boils you get compressible vapour which greatly reduces the
effectiveness of the footbrake.
Peter Spikings
> On 8 Feb, 12:24, "MrCheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Had the car had all its servicing? including regular brake fluid changes?
> > It is quite possible to suddenly lose the brakes as a result of seal failure
> > caused by rust, caused by lack of fluid changes, it is also possible that
> > the pedal could feel ok again later when cold, particularly on a modern car
> > where the engine compartment gets very hot in use.
> > I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake failure by an
> > intermittent electrical fault.
>
> It had had full MOT about 3 weeks previously.
Was it serviced though?
> > OR: If the wheels are locked up it can feel very like the car speeds up as
> > you rush toward an object, so perhaps it was driver error, were you on the
> > phone at the time?
>
> No, I don't possess one. I had to borrow one from a policewoman to
> call my husband. I was also awake at the time ;-) I have a clean
> record, with no accidents in 20 years of driving until this event.
>
> > Why did you not use the handbrake?
> I did; I couldn't pull it hard enough with one hand to get any braking
> effect from it though. I have been told since this isn't a good thing
> to do as it can cause the car to spin. The police report said the
> handbrake was applied when the car was examined, although it wasn't
> relevant anyway.
Yes, you can cause a spin if you apply it too hard. What I'd do in this
situation is apply the handbrake as hard as I dared, easing off if I
needed to steer, and shove the car into a very low gear (1st for up to
30mph, 2nd for up to 50 etc) and use the clutch as a brake.
> The only other thing I can think of is about 5 mins after I started my
> journey, I noticed the handbrake light was on and checked and found it
> wasn't fully in the down position. The brakes were functioning after I
> noticed this though.
Did the light go out after you made sure the handbrake as fully down?
It's not a "handbrake light", it's a brake warning light. How come it
took you 5 minutes to realise you had a red light on the dashboard? The
other reason it could have been on is that you had a brake fluid leak
but that would have been discovered when the police tested it.
moriarte
> Was it serviced though?
No, I don't think it was. It wasn't our usual garage. It had been
regularly serviced previously, I will check the brake fluid
replacement
> Did the light go out after you made sure the handbrake as fully down?
> It's not a "handbrake light", it's a brake warning light. How come it
> took you 5 minutes to realise you had a red light on the dashboard? The
> other reason it could have been on is that you had a brake fluid leak
> but that would have been discovered when the police tested it.
Yes, it went off.
Brian
dragging slightly earlier on could have caused the brake fluid to boil.
Handbrakes are normally cable operated, and do not use the brake fluid at
all. However, the minimum requirement of a handbrake is very low, and they
are almost worse than useless at slowing the vehicle if at any speed. This
could be made worse if the brake shoes were overheated by being left on,
they get glazed, and lose their friction.
If the vehicle is not an automatic, you should change to a lower gear and
use the engine to slow you down, as well as use the handbrake. I realise it
doesn't help now to say this though.
Did the police warn you at the time that you might face prosecution? They
must normally do so within 2 weeks.
Brian
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D187BAB49C4ad...@204.153.244.170...
> moriarte (eliz...@basilisk.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
> > A few months ago the brakes suddenly stopped working on VW Golf. I
> > pressed the brake pedal and had no response; the pedal was loose and
> > was depressed to the floor quite easily without any sensation of the
> > car braking. I tried the pedal several times over several hundred
> > yards and had the same lack of result.
>
> > Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a set
> > traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due care
> > etc.
>
> Good.
Thus speaks Mr Perfect.
> > I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake failure
> > was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like some
> > explanation of what might have happened.
>
> Your car experienced a failure, almost certainly due to poor maintenance,
> and you crashed because you didn't know what to do.
Again, Mr Perfect, who would always know what to do in all eventualities,
especially when blessed with hindsight.
Brian
"Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot" <uf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce-dnXbnLqlhvlbY...@pipex.net...
Peter Spikings
Do they have to warn you within 2 weeks for any prosecution? I know
that's the rule for speeding tickets...
Peter Spikings
> On 8 Feb, 13:24, Peter Spikings <p...@spikings.com> wrote:
>
> > Was it serviced though?
> No, I don't think it was. It wasn't our usual garage. It had been
> regularly serviced previously, I will check the brake fluid
> replacement
>
That needs doing every two years.
Mental note: Must change fluid in wife's car!
Adrian
were saying :
>> > Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a
>> > set traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due
>> > care etc.
>> Good.
> Thus speaks Mr Perfect.
>> > I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake
>> > failure was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like
>> > some explanation of what might have happened.
>> Your car experienced a failure, almost certainly due to poor
>> maintenance, and you crashed because you didn't know what to do.
> Again, Mr Perfect, who would always know what to do in all
> eventualities, especially when blessed with hindsight.
Can I remind you of the "several hundred yards" line in there?
Can I also ask you what YOUR reaction would be if you were stationary at
lights and hit by somebody who claimed their brakes had failed?
Adrian
they were saying :
> Pursuing the engaged hand-brake as a contributory factor, does anyone
> know what the configuration of the brakes is on a Mk3 Golf - do the
> handbrake and footbrake use the same brake fluid?
Handbrakes don't use fluid - just cables.
> Having done a bit of research it seems that if the brake fluid has not
> been replaced for a while, it can absorb moisture, which means it can
> boil at a lower temperature. I have read that leaving the handbrake
> lightly applied can lead to heating up the brake fluid.
It'll heat the rear shoes, which may in turn heat the fluid in the rear
brake lines. It won't do anything to the front brakes.
> If the fluid boils you get compressible vapour which greatly reduces the
> effectiveness of the footbrake.
REDUCES THE EFFECTIVENESS. Pumping the brake, as you say you were, will get
them working again, as you compress the steam in the fluid.
Adrian
they were saying :
>> Did the police warn you at the time that you might face prosecution?
>> They must normally do so within 2 weeks.
> Do they have to warn you within 2 weeks for any prosecution? I know
> that's the rule for speeding tickets...
The notice of intention to prosecute must be posted within two weeks from a
camera. If the OP was spoken to by a plod at the scene, then there's a six
months statute of limitation on actually starting proceedings, AIUI.
David Taylor
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D187BAB49C4ad...@204.153.244.170...
>> moriarte (eliz...@basilisk.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying :
>>
>> > A few months ago the brakes suddenly stopped working on VW Golf. I
>> > pressed the brake pedal and had no response; the pedal was loose and
>> > was depressed to the floor quite easily without any sensation of the
>> > car braking. I tried the pedal several times over several hundred
>> > yards and had the same lack of result.
>>
>> > Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a set
>> > traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due care
>> > etc.
>>
>> Good.
>
> Thus speaks Mr Perfect.
No, someone capable of stopping their car without brakes "over several
hundred yards". Not perfect, merely acceptable.
>> > I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake failure
>> > was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like some
>> > explanation of what might have happened.
>>
>> Your car experienced a failure, almost certainly due to poor maintenance,
>> and you crashed because you didn't know what to do.
>
> Again, Mr Perfect, who would always know what to do in all eventualities,
> especially when blessed with hindsight.
Again, not perfect, just someone with adequate skill to be allowed on the
road.
I wholeheartedly support the prosecution of drivers who plow in to the
back of a queue of traffic after having "several hundred yards" to stop
using the clutch, handbrake, or if necessary (and empty of pedestrians),
kerb.
--
David Taylor
shazzbat
has been scrapped, we'll never know for sure. You did the right thing in
attempting to stop by using the handbrake: this will not cause a spin unless
you were doing something stupid like still driving the front wheels or
trying to do a boy racer handbrake turn; or as in the case of some Citroens,
the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving vehicle,
it's meant to keep a stationary vehicle from moving off unintentionally. The
handbrake warning light warned you to put the handbrake fully down, and you
did, therefore the light was doing its job.
The stuff you've read about brake fluid boiling and causing brake fade is
IMHO a red herring in this instance. If you were driving hard, repeatedly
braking fiercely for bends etc, or towing a loaded trailer down a bendy
winding hill, then maybe, but nothing in your posts suggests this may be
relevant.
Steve
Adrian
much like they were saying :
> You did the right thing in attempting to stop by using the handbrake:
> this will not cause a spin unless you were doing something stupid like
> still driving the front wheels ...; or as in the case of some Citroens,
> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
Sorry, are you suggesting that's MORE likely to spin the car?
Either of those are far LESS likely to spin the car by using the handbrake
for retardation.
Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
Tim Downie
> journey, I noticed the handbrake light was on and checked and found it
> wasn't fully in the down position. The brakes were functioning after I
> noticed this though.
Sounds like you boiled your brake fluid.
The delay in it having an effect may be due to the time required for "heat
soak", i.e. the time taken for the heat to diffuse through your pads &
pistons to your brake fluid.
This would certainly explain why the police didn't find anything wrong
afterwards.
Tim
>
moriarte
wrote:
> Sounds like you boiled your brake fluid.
>
> The delay in it having an effect may be due to the time required for "heat
> soak", i.e. the time taken for the heat to diffuse through your pads &
> pistons to your brake fluid.
>
> This would certainly explain why the police didn't find anything wrong
> afterwards.
>
> Tim
Thanks for that. I've checked and the brake fluid was last checked 13
months previously, and certainly hadn't been changed for at least 2
years.
Willy Eckerslyke
> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
trying to avoid crashing?
Nobody suggested pulling the bonnet release to increase drag either.
Chris Bartram
brake failure because of water was a Mini with all drums, and
fortunately, I tested the brakes straight after the flood. They took
some time with left-foot braking to dry out though.
Chris Bartram
Wouldn't make much difference if it were....
bucket
Oh yeah, that'll help!!! Adding lack of brake servo assistance to failing
hydraulics.
--
bucket
Adrian
>> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
> Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
> trying to avoid crashing?
Oh, Pur-leeeeze! Quote... "several hundred yards", "traffic lights".
Brake.
No brakes.
Fuck. Definitely no brakes. Arse.
Handbrake. FUCK. Nothing much there.
Shove the friggin' hazard lights on, turn the ignition off, leave it in
gear, watch the damn thing stop fairly bloody quickly.
As for the steering - I don't seem to recall the OP stating that she was
descending the friggin' Stelvio pass...
Or, indeed, doing 120 down the A1 towards Scotch Corner in a shed of a 318
"with a stuck throttle, ossifer"...
Adrian
were saying :
>> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
> Oh yeah, that'll help!!! Adding lack of brake servo assistance to
> failing hydraulics.
Ummm, lack of servo...? Relevance...?
Remind me what the problem was in the first place...?
Ian Johnston
> You almost certainly had a faulty brake master cylinder, but since the car
> has been scrapped, we'll never know for sure. You did the right thing in
> attempting to stop by using the handbrake: this will not cause a spin unless
> you were doing something stupid like still driving the front wheels or
> trying to do a boy racer handbrake turn; or as in the case of some Citroens,
> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
On almost all cars the braking force is mainly at the front anyway.
> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
> vehicle...
Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not just
assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the handbrake
left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
Ian
Ian Johnston
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>
> Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
> trying to avoid crashing?
Given a choice between a) having brake lights and b) avoiding someone ...
Ian
Adrian
like they were saying :
>>> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>> Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
>> trying to avoid crashing?
> Given a choice between a) having brake lights and b) avoiding someone ...
Brake lights still work with the key in the first position, anyway. The
position where the steering lock doesn't come on...
Adrian
like they were saying :
>> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
>> vehicle...
> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not
> just assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the
> handbrake left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
<wild guess> You've never owned a CX.
David Taylor
It will indeed.
> Adding lack of brake servo assistance to failing hydraulics.
It'll replace "non functioning brakes" with "engine braking".
What, precisely, do you expect the servo to assist when the brakes aren't
slowing the car down at all?
--
David Taylor
David Taylor
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>
> Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
> trying to avoid crashing?
I certainly would sacrifice my brake lights to avoid plowing into a
queue of cars in front of me. Wouldn't you?
As for steering, it didn't do much good in the situation being discussed,
did it? The car still drove straight into the back of the cars in front.
Plus, my steering wheel is still connected to my wheels, even when I
turn off the ignition.
> Nobody suggested pulling the bonnet release to increase drag either.
At low speeds wind resistance is negligible. All bonnets have
safety catches to prevent that happening. The driver's forward vision
_is_ more important than displaying brake lights to the rear, or having
vacuum assisted (but non functional) brakes or even power steering.
--
David Taylor
Chris Bartram
power assistance unless you dipped the clutch. Evin if you dipped the
clutch, you'd have non-assisted steering (this of course assumes the car
had PAS fitted). The PAS pump is engine driven, and you're using the
engine as a brake because its turned off, so the engine, and the pump,
are turning. IIRC Mk3 brake lights will work without ignition too, but
who cares?
Chris Bartram
shazzbat
> much like they were saying :
>
>> You did the right thing in attempting to stop by using the handbrake:
>> this will not cause a spin unless you were doing something stupid like
>> still driving the front wheels ...; or as in the case of some Citroens,
>> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
>
> Sorry, are you suggesting that's MORE likely to spin the car?
>
> Either of those are far LESS likely to spin the car by using the handbrake
> for retardation.
>
>
overtakes front.
But back to reality for a moment. Am I the only one who gets the gist from
the OP that this was fairly undemanding urban/suburban driving, rather than
giving it welly and trying to do tricks?
shazzbat
"Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5311nfF...@mid.individual.net...
Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but it's
still a parking brake.
Point of information 2. If you lose all the service brakes on *any* car all
you have left is the handbrake. Sorry, parking brake.
Point of information 3 It's a golf.
Steve
David Taylor
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D19547A7AA3ad...@204.153.244.170...
>> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying :
>>
>>> You did the right thing in attempting to stop by using the handbrake:
>>> this will not cause a spin unless you were doing something stupid like
>>> still driving the front wheels ...; or as in the case of some Citroens,
>>> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
>>
>> Sorry, are you suggesting that's MORE likely to spin the car?
>>
>> Either of those are far LESS likely to spin the car by using the handbrake
>> for retardation.
>>
>>
> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear isn't? Rear
> overtakes front.
Errr... no. Front end is braking, so if there's any turning going on
it'll lose grip first and understeer.
You do realise that when you press the footbrake, the vast majority
of braking effort is going to be from the front (either because, like me,
you've got rear drums and/or there will be a pressure reducing valve)?
This is to prevent the REAR wheels locking up (resulting in massive
oversteer and the car spinning)
> But back to reality for a moment. Am I the only one who gets the gist from
> the OP that this was fairly undemanding urban/suburban driving, rather than
> giving it welly and trying to do tricks?
Yes. Yet somehow they were unable to come to a stop in "several hundred
yards". Hence, careless driving charge.
--
David Taylor
Adrian
much like they were saying :
> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear
> isn't? Rear overtakes front.
Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike, then.
Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a minute...
The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking - especially on
a hydraulic Cit with the front handbrake, where the rears do very little
unless there's a load in the back. It's very common for the rear brake
calipers to be seized because of lack of use. Free 'em up, MOT it, ignore
'em until next year.
On a CX the rear brake pads are about a quarter of the size of the fronts,
and last quite literally *forever*.
> But back to reality for a moment. Am I the only one who gets the gist
> from the OP that this was fairly undemanding urban/suburban driving,
> rather than giving it welly and trying to do tricks?
Oh, absolutely. Clearly stated as "several hundred yards", probably 30
limit.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but
> it's still a parking brake.
And it still has to meet a certain standard of retardation to pass the MOT.
> Point of information 2. If you lose all the service brakes on *any*
> car all you have left is the handbrake. Sorry, parking brake.
On a Golf, if the engine stops, you lose servo but still have brakes. The
pedal will be heavy, but they'll work.
On a hydraulic Cit, if the engine stops, you lose the hydraulic pump and -
eventually, but with a flat accumulator sphere it won't be long - steering
assistance, suspension and finally ALL brakes completely. There will be
NOTHING there, because the pedal isn't generating pressure as on a normal
car. It's merely opening a valve to allow pressure through.
Cicero
===============================
Just a thought......
I think that most cars would simply roll to a stop (when drive is removed)
on the average urban road unless it happened to be a sustained slope. I
think just a little bit of handbrake assistance would suffice to stop
completely.
Anyone who has tried pushing a broken-down car will be aware of the
difficulty of keeping it moving even on what appears to be a level road.
Cic.
--
================================
Testing UBUNTU Linux
Everything working so far
================================
Coyoteboy
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
IIRC If you "boil your fluid" the gas remains out of suspension and
would be evident upon testing as a super-spongey pedal.
HTH
Adrian
they were saying :
> IIRC If you "boil your fluid" the gas remains out of suspension and
> would be evident upon testing as a super-spongey pedal.
No, as it cools down again they go fine again.
Mike G
"shazzbat" <shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eqfl9p$60e$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:5311nfF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:29:49 +0000, shazzbat wrote:
>>
>>> You almost certainly had a faulty brake master cylinder, but since the
>>> car
>>> has been scrapped, we'll never know for sure. You did the right thing in
>>> attempting to stop by using the handbrake: this will not cause a spin
>>> unless
>>> you were doing something stupid like still driving the front wheels or
>>> trying to do a boy racer handbrake turn; or as in the case of some
>>> Citroens,
>>> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
>>
>> On almost all cars the braking force is mainly at the front anyway.
>>
>>> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
>>> vehicle...
>>
>> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
>> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not just
>> assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the
>> handbrake
>> left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
>
> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
> brake,
It is now, but at one time it was also known as an emergency brake.
On many modern cars it's incapable of holding a car on more than a gentle
slope. As for effectively stopping a moving car, most are far too
inneficient.
My '96 auto BMW E39 passed an MOT only a couple of weeks ago. The h/brake
performance is pathetic. It can only just hold the car in 'Drive' at
tickover.
Mike.
Coyoteboy
> Coyoteboy (coyotebo...@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
Not boiled brakes then - if you actually boil the fluid it will not re-
absorb the gas. If it cools down and goes fine again it was just brake
fade or the rubber pipes expanding, often mistaken for boiled brakes.
It takes A LOT to boil brake fluid - even with 4 year old fluid and a
jammed, at 70mph, on fire, caliper I didnt experience fluid boiling
with DOT3 in a citroen AX GT. Fluid boiling is the territory of rally/
race vehicles, not passenger cars IMO.
Adrian
they were saying :
>> No, as it cools down again they go fine again.
> Not boiled brakes then
I cracked the bleed nipple open and steam came out...
> - if you actually boil the fluid it will not re-absorb the gas.
Of course it will.
What's the gas? Steam from heated water absorbed in old brake fluid.
What happens to steam as it cools? It turns back to water.
What happens to water and brake fluid? It mixes...
> Fluid boiling is the territory of rally/race vehicles, not passenger cars
In my case, it was due to M25 traffic and the 4x4's brakes being 50/50 LHM
and muddy water...
shazzbat
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear
>> isn't? Rear overtakes front.
>
> Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike, then.
> Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a minute...
Well I rode both for many years, so maybe my grasp of basic physics isn't so
bad according to your criteria.
Fuck me, have you read the OP, or the rest of the thread?
>
> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
Yes, when the brakes are working. What we're talking about here is handbrake
*only*, remember? The OP said the footbrake wasn't working, remember? She
was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of the golf, the rear
handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to bring the vehicle to a halt
front end first. However, on the front handbraked Citroen, the opposite
applies,or will tend to.
If you read the OP's posts, and mine carefully you will see that I was
referring to what she had been told, ie that applying the (rear) handbrake
when the footbrake was not working at all was likely to cause a spin, which
is bollocks.
Before lecturing on basic physics it would be best to master basic reading,
no?
Steve
Conor
says...
> Adrian wrote:
>
> > Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>
> Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
> trying to avoid crashing?
>
>
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
Conor
THERE'S NO FUCKING BRAKES TO ASSIST WITH, DUMBASS.
Conor
>
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D19547A7AA3ad...@204.153.244.170...
> > shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> > much like they were saying :
> >
> >> You did the right thing in attempting to stop by using the handbrake:
> >> this will not cause a spin unless you were doing something stupid like
> >> still driving the front wheels ...; or as in the case of some Citroens,
> >> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
> >
> > Sorry, are you suggesting that's MORE likely to spin the car?
> >
> > Either of those are far LESS likely to spin the car by using the handbrake
> > for retardation.
> >
> >
> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear isn't? Rear
> overtakes front.
>
as to be virtually worthless.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike,
>> then. Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a
>> minute...
> Well I rode both for many years, so maybe my grasp of basic physics
> isn't so bad according to your criteria.
How'd you pass a bike test without using the front brake for the
majority of braking?
> Fuck me, have you read the OP, or the rest of the thread?
One of us has...
>> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
> Yes, when the brakes are working. What we're talking about here is
> handbrake *only*, remember? The OP said the footbrake wasn't working,
> remember? She was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of
> the golf, the rear handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to
> bring the vehicle to a halt front end first. However, on the front
> handbraked Citroen, the opposite applies,or will tend to.
Bollocks. You're seriously trying to claim that using front brakes only
- which is what a front handbrake does - will somehow cause the vehicle
to swap ends? EVEN if it does lock the front wheels in a turn, all
that'll happen is a nice bit of safe understeer into a barrier.
> If you read the OP's posts, and mine carefully you will see that I was
> referring to what she had been told, ie that applying the (rear)
> handbrake when the footbrake was not working at all was likely to
> cause a spin, which is bollocks.
Have you ever heard of a handbrake turn? How'd you think that works?
The handbrake is used to lock the rear wheels. If the steering is then
turned, the back swings out, since there's little grip to locked wheels,
so little to prevent them moving sideways.
> Before lecturing on basic physics it would be best to master basic
> reading, no?
Indeed. That'll be why I said earlier in this thread that the handbrake
WON'T cause the car to spin, if you're travelling in a straight line.
Yet you seem to be telling me *I* haven't read the thread...
shazzbat
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
>> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but
>> it's still a parking brake.
>
> And it still has to meet a certain standard of retardation to pass the
> MOT.
It's not tested by retardation of turning wheels. It's tested by attempting
to turn the wheels when the handbrake is applied. A bit like a parked
vehicle, wouldn't you say? It's to make sure the brake can hold the vehicle
on for instance a slope. It's also a very low standard compared to a service
brake.
>
>> Point of information 2. If you lose all the service brakes on *any*
>> car all you have left is the handbrake. Sorry, parking brake.
>
> On a Golf, if the engine stops, you lose servo but still have brakes. The
> pedal will be heavy, but they'll work.
I didn't say if the engine stops, remember? I said if all braking is lost
which is what the OP said happened, remember?
>
> On a hydraulic Cit, if the engine stops, you lose the hydraulic pump and -
> eventually, but with a flat accumulator sphere it won't be long - steering
> assistance, suspension and finally ALL brakes completely. There will be
> NOTHING there, because the pedal isn't generating pressure as on a normal
> car. It's merely opening a valve to allow pressure through.
So the parking brake will be the only brake available, which is what I said,
remember?
Steve
bucket
"Conor" <conor....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2035957bf...@news.karoo.co.uk...
> In article <12smju3...@corp.supernews.com>, bucket says...
> >
> > "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns98D19547A7AA3ad...@204.153.244.170...
> > > shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> > > much like they were saying :
> > >
> > > > You did the right thing in attempting to stop by using the
handbrake:
> > > > this will not cause a spin unless you were doing something stupid
like
> > > > still driving the front wheels ...; or as in the case of some
Citroens,
> > > > the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
> > >
> > > Sorry, are you suggesting that's MORE likely to spin the car?
> > >
> > > Either of those are far LESS likely to spin the car by using the
handbrake
> > > for retardation.
> > >
> > > Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
> >
> > Oh yeah, that'll help!!! Adding lack of brake servo assistance to
failing
> > hydraulics.
>
> THERE'S NO FUCKING BRAKES TO ASSIST WITH, DUMBASS.
There could be at any time. Why write off any chance of braking recovery
when there is zero need to switch off ignition. What a daft option when
anyone can use engine braking with engine running by shifting into first.
--
bucket
shazzbat
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike,
>>> then. Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a
>>> minute...
>
>> Well I rode both for many years, so maybe my grasp of basic physics
>> isn't so bad according to your criteria.
>
> How'd you pass a bike test without using the front brake for the
> majority of braking?
I did use the front brake for most braking. However, my brajkes were
working. Unlik the OP's remember?
>
>> Fuck me, have you read the OP, or the rest of the thread?
>
> One of us has...
But it isn't you....
>
>>> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
>
>> Yes, when the brakes are working. What we're talking about here is
>> handbrake *only*, remember? The OP said the footbrake wasn't working,
>> remember? She was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of
>> the golf, the rear handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to
>> bring the vehicle to a halt front end first. However, on the front
>> handbraked Citroen, the opposite applies,or will tend to.
>
> Bollocks. You're seriously trying to claim that using front brakes only
> - which is what a front handbrake does - will somehow cause the vehicle
> to swap ends? EVEN if it does lock the front wheels in a turn, all
> that'll happen is a nice bit of safe understeer into a barrier.
If you're lucky. However, the OP has a golf, remember?
>
>> If you read the OP's posts, and mine carefully you will see that I was
>> referring to what she had been told, ie that applying the (rear)
>> handbrake when the footbrake was not working at all was likely to
>> cause a spin, which is bollocks.
>
> Have you ever heard of a handbrake turn? How'd you think that works?
> The handbrake is used to lock the rear wheels. If the steering is then
> turned, the back swings out, since there's little grip to locked wheels,
> so little to prevent them moving sideways.
We're not talking about a handbrake turn, remember? we're talking about a
golf trying to stop by using the handbrake, remember? This is a totally
different matter, and whilst the OP has not stated what speed was involved,
I doubt very much if it was sufficient to come anywhere near enough to be
thinking abbout handbrake turns, given that she has already had several
attempts at stopping, and it is reasonable to assume her foot has been off
the throttle. I also doubt if she was applying any great steering input with
the one hand not using the handbrake.
>
>
> Yet you seem to be telling me *I* haven't read the thread...
Well, you certainly seem not to have grasped the point about the OP's car
trying to stop. What I said was that doing so by pulling the handbrake on
would not cause a spin as she had been told. Even if the car wasn't in a
straight line, the rear brake even though it is not very effective, is going
to cause it to 'hang' straight.
Steve
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> Yet you seem to be telling me *I* haven't read the thread...
> Well, you certainly seem not to have grasped the point about the OP's
> car trying to stop. What I said was that doing so by pulling the
> handbrake on would not cause a spin as she had been told.
So we're agreed on that, then? Great.
Shame that wasn't the bit you took exception to me questioning...
Let me remind you - I queried your assertion that a front handbrake would
make the car _more_ likely to spin. To be completely accurate, I asked if
that was what you meant - and you went off on one...
> Even if the car wasn't in a straight line, the rear brake even though
> it is not very effective, is going to cause it to 'hang' straight.
You've never had back brakes lock, have you? I have. A car with a very
light back end where some numpty had removed a load-limiting valve from the
rear brakes. On a wet roundabout. Entertaining. For "looking-through-the-
side-window-in-direction-of-travel-at-artic" values of "entertaining"...
David Taylor
> news:Xns98D1B1EB0B317ad...@204.153.244.170...
>> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying :
>>
>>> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear
>>> isn't? Rear overtakes front.
>>
>> Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike, then.
>> Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a minute...
>
> Well I rode both for many years, so maybe my grasp of basic physics isn't so
> bad according to your criteria.
In the case of a bike, you could be right -- the rear wheel could
lift off the ground and then overtake the front, if it got pushed out.
> Fuck me, have you read the OP, or the rest of the thread?
>>
>> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
>
> Yes, when the brakes are working.
When the brakes are working, the rear end doesn't attempt to overtake
the front, does it?
> What we're talking about here is handbrake *only*, remember?
> The OP said the footbrake wasn't working, remember?
So _less_ braking available.
> She was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of the golf, the
> rear handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to bring the vehicle to a
> halt front end first.
At low speed, in a straight line, yes. At high speed, with any significant
amount of steering, absolutely not. Do you know what a handbrake turn is?
> However, on the front handbraked Citroen, the opposite applies,
> or will tend to.
The opposite will indeed apply, but you've got it the wrong way round.
If you manage to brake traction with the front wheels by braking too hard,
the car will just keep going straight on.
> If you read the OP's posts, and mine carefully you will see that I was
> referring to what she had been told, ie that applying the (rear) handbrake
> when the footbrake was not working at all was likely to cause a spin, which
> is bollocks.
No, applying the handbrake is the best way to get the car to spin, but
with some care it is entirely possible to use it to gently bring
the car to a stop (if it is at all effective at the speed you're going).
> Before lecturing on basic physics it would be best to master basic reading,
> no?
His reading appears to be fine. Your physics still seems to be in need
of attention.
--
David Taylor
David Taylor
> On 8 Feb, 18:43, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Coyoteboy (coyotebo...@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying :
>>
>> > IIRC If you "boil your fluid" the gas remains out of suspension and
>> > would be evident upon testing as a super-spongey pedal.
>>
>> No, as it cools down again they go fine again.
>
> Not boiled brakes then - if you actually boil the fluid it will not re-
> absorb the gas.
No, it won't reabsorb the gas and be fine, the gas will turn into a liquid
as it cools and be fine. (FSVO fine, it may not quite have the same
performance as unboiled fluid, I don't know).
--
David Taylor
David Taylor
> trying to stop. What I said was that doing so by pulling the handbrake on
> would not cause a spin as she had been told. Even if the car wasn't in a
> straight line, the rear brake even though it is not very effective, is going
> to cause it to 'hang' straight.
What you said was a car with a handbrake operating the front wheels was
more likely to spin than a car with a handbrake operating the rear
wheels. It isn't.
--
David Taylor
Autolycus
>
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D1B267190E2ad...@204.153.244.170...
>> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily,
>> sounding
>> much like they were saying :
>>
>>> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the
>>> Parking
>>> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but
>>> it's still a parking brake.
>>
>> And it still has to meet a certain standard of retardation to pass
>> the MOT.
>
> It's not tested by retardation of turning wheels. It's tested by
> attempting to turn the wheels when the handbrake is applied.
On every MoT I've watched over the last 40 years, the wheels have been
turning when the handbrake was tested - whether by driving along with a
Tapley meter on the floor, or on a rolling brake tester. I know there
used to be provision for testing on a 1 in 4 slope, but I've never seen
reference to a 1 in 6 (or whatever) slope to test cars with dual circuit
primary brakes.
--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. feb...@mainbeam.co.uk)***
shazzbat
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Yet you seem to be telling me *I* haven't read the thread...
>
>> Well, you certainly seem not to have grasped the point about the OP's
>> car trying to stop. What I said was that doing so by pulling the
>> handbrake on would not cause a spin as she had been told.
>
> So we're agreed on that, then? Great.
>
> Shame that wasn't the bit you took exception to me questioning...
>
> Let me remind you - I queried your assertion that a front handbrake would
> make the car _more_ likely to spin.
I stand by that in certain circumstances, although obviously it is not
relevant to this instance. I merely used it for illustration to the OP.
To be completely accurate, I asked if
> that was what you meant - and you went off on one...
>
>> Even if the car wasn't in a straight line, the rear brake even though
>> it is not very effective, is going to cause it to 'hang' straight.
>
> You've never had back brakes lock, have you?
Yes I have, but it's not relevant here.
I have. A car with a very
> light back end where some numpty had removed a load-limiting valve from
> the
> rear brakes. On a wet roundabout. Entertaining. For "looking-through-the-
> side-window-in-direction-of-travel-at-artic" values of "entertaining"...
We're talking about a golf trying to stop at the lights, remember? With the
service brake not working. The OP has not said that the road was dry and
straight, but she has not mentioned any extreme circumstance other than the
brake failure. No mention of ice or rain or bends or steep slope or high
speed.
In my first post in this thread [1] I made two primary assertions. 1 That
the most likely cause of the original problem was a faulty master cylinder,
and 2, that her attempt to stop the car by using the handbrake was the
correct thing to do in this circumstance. I stand by both. All the rest is a
distraction.
[1] Timed at 1429 on my screen, just for reference.
Steve
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> Let me remind you - I queried your assertion that a front handbrake
>> would make the car _more_ likely to spin.
> I stand by that in certain circumstances
True. If, for example, the car is travelling backwards.
> 2, that her attempt to stop the car by using the handbrake was the
> correct thing to do in this circumstance.
Shame the OP stated that she tried that and it didn't do anything...
Stu
news:Xns98D1D502A443Fad...@204.153.244.170:
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Yet you seem to be telling me *I* haven't read the thread...
>
>> Well, you certainly seem not to have grasped the point about the OP's
>> car trying to stop. What I said was that doing so by pulling the
>> handbrake on would not cause a spin as she had been told.
>
> So we're agreed on that, then? Great.
>
> Shame that wasn't the bit you took exception to me questioning...
>
> Let me remind you - I queried your assertion that a front handbrake
> would make the car _more_ likely to spin. To be completely accurate, I
> asked if that was what you meant - and you went off on one...
<pedant mode> AFAICS, either brakes - front or rear, will increase the
likelihood of a spin, assuming that the vehicle isn't travelling in a
perfectly straight line. <end pedant mode> I'm quite happy to be
corrected on this, 'cos I ain't no professor of physics :-)
This, of course, does not apply to modern vehicles with ESP fitted,
where the individual wheel brakes are utilised in order to neutralize
some of the lateral force and maintain forward motion. I've attended I
demonstration of this and I have to say it's bloody good. I fully agree
with Thatcham's stance that all mass producing manufacturers should fit
it as standard to all models produced. The downside is that less
talented drivers may become dependent upon it, and this is when dangers
could arise in the event of a system failure.
>
>> Even if the car wasn't in a straight line, the rear brake even though
>> it is not very effective, is going to cause it to 'hang' straight.
>
> You've never had back brakes lock, have you? I have. A car with a very
> light back end where some numpty had removed a load-limiting valve
> from the rear brakes. On a wet roundabout. Entertaining. For
> "looking-through-the- side-window-in-direction-of-travel-at-artic"
> values of "entertaining"...
>
Absolutely. Anyone who's had occasion to practice handbrake turns
*cough* will understand that the main objective is to get enough force
on the brakes to lock them. Once this is achieved, surprisingly little
steering lock is required to initiate the swapping of ends ;-)
Stu
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
shazzbat
"David Taylor" <david...@yadt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnesn4q3.2r...@outcold.yadt.co.uk...
> On 2007-02-08, shazzbat <shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D1B1EB0B317ad...@204.153.244.170...
>>> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
>>> much like they were saying :
>>>
>>>> Wrong. A front hand brake? The front end is braking and the rear
>>>> isn't? Rear overtakes front.
>>>
>>> Fuck me, you'd better not ever try riding a bicycle or motorbike, then.
>>> Your tenuous grasp of basic physics'd have you off in a minute...
>>
>> Well I rode both for many years, so maybe my grasp of basic physics isn't
>> so
>> bad according to your criteria.
>
> In the case of a bike, you could be right -- the rear wheel could
> lift off the ground and then overtake the front, if it got pushed out.
>
>> Fuck me, have you read the OP, or the rest of the thread?
>>>
>>> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
>>
>> Yes, when the brakes are working.
>
> When the brakes are working, the rear end doesn't attempt to overtake
> the front, does it?
No, because all the brakes are working.
>
>> What we're talking about here is handbrake *only*, remember?
>> The OP said the footbrake wasn't working, remember?
>
> So _less_ braking available.
>
>> She was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of the golf, the
>> rear handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to bring the vehicle to
>> a
>> halt front end first.
>
> At low speed, in a straight line, yes.
Which is what we're talking about there.
At high speed, with any significant
> amount of steering, absolutely not. Do you know what a handbrake turn is?
Yes, it's irrelevant to this case. Did the OP mention high speed or
significant amount of steering? I don't think so. We're talking about a golf
trying to stop at the lights.
>
>> However, on the front handbraked Citroen, the opposite applies,
>> or will tend to.
>
> The opposite will indeed apply, but you've got it the wrong way round.
> If you manage to brake traction with the front wheels by braking too hard,
> the car will just keep going straight on.
>
>> If you read the OP's posts, and mine carefully you will see that I was
>> referring to what she had been told, ie that applying the (rear)
>> handbrake
>> when the footbrake was not working at all was likely to cause a spin,
>> which
>> is bollocks.
>
> No, applying the handbrake is the best way to get the car to spin, but
But not in this case. We're talking about a car rolling forwards, gently
decelerating, and applying the handbrake. That is not going to cause a spin.
> with some care it is entirely possible to use it to gently bring
> the car to a stop (if it is at all effective at the speed you're going).
>
>> Before lecturing on basic physics it would be best to master basic
>> reading,
>> no?
>
> His reading appears to be fine. Your physics still seems to be in need
> of attention.
I would argue that it is your appreciation of the OP's situation that is
lacking.
Steve
shazzbat
> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Let me remind you - I queried your assertion that a front handbrake
>>> would make the car _more_ likely to spin.
>
>> I stand by that in certain circumstances
>
> True. If, for example, the car is travelling backwards.
So if the car is travelling backwards and the front end is stopping and the
rear not, how does that make it spin, where does the turning force come
from?
>
>> 2, that her attempt to stop the car by using the handbrake was the
>> correct thing to do in this circumstance.
>
> Shame the OP stated that she tried that and it didn't do anything...
It is indeed a shame, but that doesn't alter the fact it was the right thing
to do. I suspect she was simply unable to apply a sufficient amount of
force.
Steve
Brian
"Mike G" <met...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45cb7165$0$8748$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
on an automatic? Are there any Mk3 Golf autos about?
Ian Johnston
> Ian Johnston (ian.g...@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
>>> vehicle...
>
>> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
>> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not
>> just assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the
>> handbrake left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
>
> <wild guess> You've never owned a CX.
Not yet. And I didn't say "Only on a DS...". Mind you, real powerd braking
systems have mushrooms. Pedals are for wimps.
Ian
shazzbat
"Autolycus" <mar...@mainbeam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eqg4sk$pa9$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "shazzbat" <shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eqg0sl$b6j$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D1B267190E2ad...@204.153.244.170...
>>> shazzbat (shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
>>> much like they were saying :
>>>
>>>> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
>>>> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but
>>>> it's still a parking brake.
>>>
>>> And it still has to meet a certain standard of retardation to pass the
>>> MOT.
>>
>> It's not tested by retardation of turning wheels. It's tested by
>> attempting to turn the wheels when the handbrake is applied.
>
> On every MoT I've watched over the last 40 years, the wheels have been
> turning when the handbrake was tested - whether by driving along with a
> Tapley meter on the floor, or on a rolling brake tester.
with my cargo, the rear service brake was tested first, then the parking
brake applied, and he tried to turn the rollers. It twisted the chassis and
the whole truck rocked violently.
It doesn't alter my point though,the handbrake is designed for parking.
Steve
Ian Johnston
> "Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:5311nfF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:29:49 +0000, shazzbat wrote:
>>> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
>>> vehicle...
>>
>> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
>> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not just
>> assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the handbrake
>> left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
>
> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but it's
> still a parking brake.
On some cars, yes. On a DS it's the emergency brake as well, and it is
designed to slow the car if the powered system fails.
> Point of information 2. If you lose all the service brakes on *any* car
> all you have left is the handbrake. Sorry, parking brake.
Not quite. If you lose the assist on almost all cars - if the engine
conks out, say - then the foot brake will still work. It will take more
effort with the feet, but it will still stop the car.
On the DS the foot control is simply a hydraulic valve (actually it's a
bloody complicated hydraulic valve which also distributes front/read
braking according to loading) so if the engine goes then after about
five full applications the accumulators is flat and you need the
emergencybrake. Which is a handbrake on manual DS's and ID's and a
footbrake on semi-automatics, by the way.
> Point of
> information 3 It's a golf.
Then you should have written "The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking
ability for a moving golf..." and not "The handbrake isn't meant to
provide braking ability for a moving vehicle..."
Ian
Ian Johnston
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D1B267190E2ad...@204.153.244.170...
>> And it still has to meet a certain standard of retardation to pass the
>> MOT.
>
> It's not tested by retardation of turning wheels. It's tested by attempting
> to turn the wheels when the handbrake is applied.
Then every MOT station I have used for as long as I can remember has been
doing it wrong. Turning wheels, every one of them.
Ian
Ian Stirling
>
> "shazzbat" <shaz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> "Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:5311nfF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:29:49 +0000, shazzbat wrote:
>>>
>>>> car
>>>> has been scrapped, we'll never know for sure. You did the right thing in
>>>> attempting to stop by using the handbrake: this will not cause a spin
>>>> unless
>>>> you were doing something stupid like still driving the front wheels or
>>>> trying to do a boy racer handbrake turn; or as in the case of some
>>>> Citroens,
>>>> the handbrake operates the front wheels rather than the rear.
>>>
>>> On almost all cars the braking force is mainly at the front anyway.
>>>
>>>> vehicle...
>>>
>>> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
>>> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not just
>>> assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the
>>> handbrake
>>> left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
>>
>> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
>> brake,
>
> On many modern cars it's incapable of holding a car on more than a gentle
> slope. As for effectively stopping a moving car, most are far too
> inneficient.
The Bugatti Veyron handbrake has a completely seperate ABS system, to
safely bring the car to a hault.
I suspect nobody here has one though.
Ian Stirling
> On 8 Feb, 12:24, "MrCheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Had the car had all its servicing? including regular brake fluid changes?
>> It is quite possible to suddenly lose the brakes as a result of seal failure
>> caused by rust, caused by lack of fluid changes, it is also possible that
>> the pedal could feel ok again later when cold, particularly on a modern car
>> where the engine compartment gets very hot in use.
>> I am not aware of any car that can have complete brake failure by an
>> intermittent electrical fault.
>
> It had had full MOT about 3 weeks previously.
>
>> OR: If the wheels are locked up it can feel very like the car speeds up as
>> you rush toward an object, so perhaps it was driver error, were you on the
>> phone at the time?
>
> No, I don't possess one. I had to borrow one from a policewoman to
> call my husband. I was also awake at the time ;-) I have a clean
> record, with no accidents in 20 years of driving until this event.
>
>> Why did you not use the handbrake?
> I did; I couldn't pull it hard enough with one hand to get any braking
> effect from it though. I have been told since this isn't a good thing
> to do as it can cause the car to spin. The police report said the
> handbrake was applied when the car was examined, although it wasn't
> relevant anyway.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is about 5 mins after I started my
> journey, I noticed the handbrake light was on and checked and found it
> wasn't fully in the down position. The brakes were functioning after I
> noticed this though.
The brakes and handbrakes are almost completely seperate systems, only
having common points at the brake shoes/drums that the handbrake
actuaytes.
If you had caused the rear brakes to fade, due to overheating, due to
the handbrake being partially on, you would still have had some braking
or even most from the pedal.
The handbrake may however not have been as effective as it might
otherwise have been.
shazzbat
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:06:03 +0000, shazzbat wrote:
>
>> "Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:5311nfF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:29:49 +0000, shazzbat wrote:
>
>>>> The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
>>>> vehicle...
>>>
>>> Point of Information. On the Citroen DS the handbrake /is/ intended to
>>> stop a moving vehicle. The hydraulic brakes are fully powered, not just
>>> assisted, so if something goes wrong with them you only have the
>>> handbrake
>>> left. Hence bloody powerful handbrake.
>>
>> Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
>> brake, a opposed to a service brake. It may be bloody powerful, but it's
>> still a parking brake.
>
> On some cars, yes. On a DS it's the emergency brake as well, and it is
> designed to slow the car if the powered system fails.
>
>> Point of information 2. If you lose all the service brakes on *any* car
>> all you have left is the handbrake. Sorry, parking brake.
>
> Not quite. If you lose the assist on almost all cars - if the engine
> conks out, say - then the foot brake will still work. It will take more
> effort with the feet, but it will still stop the car.
You're the second one to say that. I didn't say lose the assist, I said lose
the service brake, like the OP stated.
>
> On the DS the foot control is simply a hydraulic valve (actually it's a
> bloody complicated hydraulic valve which also distributes front/read
> braking according to loading) so if the engine goes then after about
> five full applications the accumulators is flat and you need the
> emergencybrake. Which is a handbrake on manual DS's and ID's and a
> footbrake on semi-automatics, by the way.
>
>> Point of
>> information 3 It's a golf.
>
> Then you should have written "The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking
> ability for a moving golf..." and not "The handbrake isn't meant to
> provide braking ability for a moving vehicle..."
Why? The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
vehicle, whether it's a golf or not. It's a parking brake. It can be used in
an emergency for an attempt at retardation, hopefully more succesful than
the OP, but it's still a parking brake. I mentioned " it's a golf" in an
attempt to get back to the real world as in the OPs problem, but it applies
generally.
Citroen will have put a "bloody powerful" handbrake on the DS because they
know they're indeep shit if/when the hydraulics fail, and they're covering
their backs.
Steve
Charles C.
> Hi,
> I wonder if anyone could comment on this?
>
> A few months ago the brakes suddenly stopped working on VW Golf. I
> pressed the brake pedal and had no response; the pedal was loose and
> was depressed to the floor quite easily without any sensation of the
> car braking. I tried the pedal several times over several hundred
> yards and had the same lack of result. There was no revving noise to
> suggest the wrong pedal was being depressed, and I had time to take my
> foot on and off the pedal several times to check I was pressing the
> right one. The brakes had previously been working, having stopped at
> numerous sets of traffic lights previously.
>
> Unfortunately I ended up ploughing into a queue of vehicles at a set
> traffic lights and am being summonsed for driving without due care
> etc. The police supposedly tested the cars brakes and found no
> 'mechanical' failure. However, I wonder if what I experienced was some
> sort of partial failure due to an intermittent electrical fault.
> Unfortunately the car has now been scrapped as the police assured me
> that if I did not hear within 6 weeks I would not be prosecuted; in
> fact it has taken 6 months.
>
> I am quite anxious about this, as to experience sudden brake failure
> was quite frightening and for my own peace of mind I'd like some
> explanation of what might have happened.
>
Hi,
You hinted at the problem in one of your messages.
If the fluid has not been changed regularly it will collect water. If
for any reason your brakes become warm/hot (as by having the handbrake
on) the water will evaporate and become steam. At that moment your
brakes have air in them and they will not work. Period. Within 20-30
minutes they can cool down enough to feel normal again.
Regards
Charles
PS. It happened to me because of a seized brake and this is how I
grasped the importance of fluid changes.
--
Please remove _removeme_ to reply.
Mike G
"Brian" <blecn...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:cDNyh.2224$s47...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net..
.
>> > Point of information 1 The handbrake is correctly known as the Parking
>> > brake,
>>
>> It is now, but at one time it was also known as an emergency brake.
>> On many modern cars it's incapable of holding a car on more than a gentle
>> slope. As for effectively stopping a moving car, most are far too
>> inneficient.
>> My '96 auto BMW E39 passed an MOT only a couple of weeks ago. The h/brake
>> performance is pathetic. It can only just hold the car in 'Drive' at
>> tickover.
>> Mike.
>>
> Perhaps you can clarify something for me. How much engine braking do you
> get
> on an automatic?
TBH I notice little difference in normal driving between a manual in top
gear, and an auto.
Of course you'll get more engine braking in a manual if you change down, but
then you can do the same in an auto to get a similar effect if you wish.
Personally I don't think engine braking is an issue worth considering. The
only disadvantage of an auto IMO, is that overall they can use 5-10% more
fuel.
The advantages, especially in the sort of stop-start motoring that is common
in cities these days, more than makes up for the slight increase in fuel
consumption, but having said that, the urban fuel figures for an auto, can
be better than those of the similar engined manual version.
>Are there any Mk3 Golf autos about?
I've seen a Mk3 1.8GLX auto advertised, so unless it's a mistake it would
appear they are available.
Mike.
Ian Johnston
> Yes, when the brakes are working. What we're talking about here is handbrake
> *only*, remember? The OP said the footbrake wasn't working, remember? She
> was pulling on the handbrake, remember? In the case of the golf, the rear
> handbrake, feeble though it may be, is going to bring the vehicle to a halt
> front end first. However, on the front handbraked Citroen, the opposite
> applies,or will tend to.
So, let me get this right. You reckon that ...
1) Using the footbrake, which does almost all of the braking at the front,
is fine but that
2) Using a front emergency brake will instantly cause disaster, especially
3) In a Citroen, despite the evidence of those of us who own Citroens?
As a matter of interest, have you done many handbrake turns?
Ian
Ian Johnston
> So if the car is travelling backwards and the front end is stopping and the
> rear not, how does that make it spin, where does the turning force come
> from?
You have some rather odd ideas about the effect of accelerating and
decelerating forces on cars. Which end on high performance cars is driven?
Which end does the braking?
Ian
Ian Johnston
> Rubbish. Rear brakes provide so little assistance under normal braking
> as to be virtually worthless.
A friend of mine has an Alfa Spider 2000. A couple of years back, the MOT
tester discovered that the rear brakes weren't working. Not just "jammed"
not working but "disconnected" not working. There was no hydraulic pipe to
the rear brake system.
He had been driving it like that for ten years and never encountered the
uncontrolled spinning which Mr Shazzbat is so sure must happen with front
only braking.
Ian
PS It had also passed ten MOT's in that time, of course, in various
places, which shows how assiduous MOT testers are about the special
procedures for cars with limited slip differentials ...
Ian Johnston
> "Ian Johnston" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:531o5pF1...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Not quite. If you lose the assist on almost all cars - if the engine
>> conks out, say - then the foot brake will still work. It will take more
>> effort with the feet, but it will still stop the car.
>
>
> You're the second one to say that. I didn't say lose the assist, I said lose
> the service brake, like the OP stated.
However, you also said that the handbrake isn't designed to slow awn
from speed. Which is wrong, because on some cars it is.
>> Then you should have written "The handbrake isn't meant to provide
>> braking ability for a moving golf..." and not "The handbrake isn't
>> meant to provide braking ability for a moving vehicle..."
>
> Why? The handbrake isn't meant to provide braking ability for a moving
> vehicle, whether it's a golf or not. It's a parking brake. ...
How many times do how many people have to tell you? On hydraulic Citroens
the emergency brake /IS/ meant to provide braking ability for a moving
vehicle.
> Citroen will have put a "bloody powerful" handbrake on the DS because
> they know they're indeep shit if/when the hydraulics fail, and they're
> covering their backs.
Precisely. On the DS the handbrakes are a pair of massive cable-operated
calipers working on the front disks. They are far, far bigger than a mere
parking brake.
Ian
Ian Johnston
> You are right. I was thinking of truck test, I know when I used to go in
> with my cargo...
Bing!
<FX: Lightbulb goes on above my head>
Ian
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> When the brakes are working, the rear end doesn't attempt to overtake
>> the front, does it?
> No, because all the brakes are working.
<points to many personal experiences with rear brakes not working, already
mentioned>
Adrian
were saying :
> Perhaps you can clarify something for me. How much engine braking do
> you get on an automatic?
Slightly less than a manual, unless you use the lower-gear ranges to pull
it down. Or turn the engine off.
> Are there any Mk3 Golf autos about?
Unfortunately, plenty.
Adrian
like they were saying :
>> Rubbish. Rear brakes provide so little assistance under normal
>> braking as to be virtually worthless.
> A friend of mine has an Alfa Spider 2000. A couple of years back, the
> MOT tester discovered that the rear brakes weren't working. Not just
> "jammed" not working but "disconnected" not working. There was no
> hydraulic pipe to the rear brake system.
I bought a GSA with only one rear disk _fitted_ a few years ago...
Willy Eckerslyke
> Ian Johnston (ian.g...@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>>>Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>
>>>Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
>>>trying to avoid crashing?
>
>>Given a choice between a) having brake lights and b) avoiding someone ...
>
> Brake lights still work with the key in the first position, anyway. The
> position where the steering lock doesn't come on...
You don't seem to be taking the op's previously demonstrated driving
skills into account. Tell her to switch off the ignition and I wouldn't
be at all surprised if she removed the key and put it in her handbag,
then looked up to see where she'd got to. At which point, she makes a
small correction to the steering, it locks at an angle and she's heading
for the central reservation...
Willy Eckerslyke
> On 2007-02-08, Willy Eckerslyke <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Nobody suggested pulling the bonnet release to increase drag either.
> At low speeds wind resistance is negligible.
Oh FFS, you thought I was being serious?
Willy Eckerslyke
> In article <53118mF...@mid.individual.net>, Willy Eckerslyke
> says...
>
>>Adrian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nobody's yet mentioned just turning the ignition off, either.
>>
>>Great idea, after all, who needs steering or brake lights when they're
>>trying to avoid crashing?
>>
>>Nobody suggested pulling the bonnet release to increase drag either.
>>
>
> Stupid cunt. Turning the engine off doesn't stop you steering.
'Course it does, you daft twat. How are you going to reach for the key
and turn the wheel at the same time without spilling your coffee? Don't
you know nuffink?
Paul Cummins
tooma...@gmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
> The front brakes do the *vast* majority of work in braking -
> especially on a hydraulic Cit with the front handbrake, where the
> rears do very little unless there's a load in the back. It's very
> common for the rear brake calipers to be seized because of lack of
> use. Free 'em up, MOT it, ignore 'em until next year.
>
> On a CX the rear brake pads are about a quarter of the size of the
> fronts, and last quite literally *forever*.
The Kawasaki ER5 has 240mm twin ventilated discs at the front. It has
a tiny drum at the rear.
between 75 and 100% of braking is from the front wheels.
--
Paul Cummins
**FREE** mobile phones, with FREE line rental
http://www.gstgroup.co.uk/
Stuffed
"bucket" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12sn2cb...@corp.supernews.com...
> There could be at any time. Why write off any chance of braking recovery
> when there is zero need to switch off ignition. What a daft option when
> anyone can use engine braking with engine running by shifting into first.
Do you know much about the general workings of a car?
Turning the engine off but leaving the car in gear will not only give
excellent engine braking, but in the miraculous event of the OPs brakes
suddenly working again, there'd be more than a little vacuum, meaning the
servo would assist well enough.
Though anyone who finds their brakes aren't working _several hundred yards_
before impact and still manages to shunt into the traffic ahead needs to not
have a licence. Obviously the OP figured it was better to write off as many
cars as possible through her inabilities, than just her own.
David Taylor
> "Conor" <conor....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2035957bf...@news.karoo.co.uk...
>>
>> THERE'S NO FUCKING BRAKES TO ASSIST WITH, DUMBASS.
>
> There could be at any time.
Highly unlikely. And they'd be unnecessary to stop with, given the
VASTLY INCREASED engine braking provided by a non-running engine.
> Why write off any chance of braking recovery
> when there is zero need to switch off ignition.
Because it's the best way to stop the car, and there's no need for a braking
recovery, at least in the situation described.
> What a daft option when
> anyone can use engine braking with engine running by shifting into first.
However, the engine will brake much better when it's not driving the
car...
--
David Taylor
David Taylor
--
David Taylor
Peter Spikings
> However, the engine will brake much better when it's not driving the
> car...
>
What's the difference between foot off accelerator in first and engine
off in first? Not challenging, just asking as I can't see one offhand.
Ian Johnston
Very little. And in some modern fuel injection systems which, as I
understand it, cut off all fuel on the overrun, no difference at all.
Ian
Willy Eckerslyke
>>Why write off any chance of braking recovery
>>when there is zero need to switch off ignition.
>
> Because it's the best way to stop the car, and there's no need for a braking
> recovery, at least in the situation described.
Perhaps I'm doing the op an injustice, but from my reading of the
situation, she was not especially mechanically able and in a panic.
Telling her to switch off the ignition would have led to her fumbling
about with a very real risk of turning the key too far and pulling it
out, locking the steering. With that level of risk, I absolutely can't
agree that it would be the best way for her to stop the car.
David Taylor
Because it's in first, the gearing makes it easy for the engine to
speed up (or slow down) the car. If you've _no brakes_ and you're
trying to stop on even a gentle slope, you'll find it hard without
turning off the engine.
It will behave very similarly down to idling speed, though.
--
David Taylor
bucket
"Stuffed" <tal...@rse.non> wrote in message
news:eqhjro$lar$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "bucket" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:12sn2cb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > There could be at any time. Why write off any chance of braking recovery
> > when there is zero need to switch off ignition. What a daft option when
> > anyone can use engine braking with engine running by shifting into
first.
>
> Do you know much about the general workings of a car?
>
> Turning the engine off but leaving the car in gear will not only give
> excellent engine braking, but in the miraculous event of the OPs brakes
> suddenly working again, there'd be more than a little vacuum, meaning the
> servo would assist well enough.
Yeah, we all know about the vacuum left in the servo yadda, yadda, yadda
(well done to you for pointing out the stark staringly obvious we all know
and didn't feel we needed to tell each other), but here is no point turning
off ignition and not a good idea for the average "just-about-able-to-drive"
motorist. Many, but not all cars can end up with the steering lock on (we
have had this debate before, not again - please) and then there is the heavy
steering and as I said lack of servo if brakes recover. First gear will
brake you safely to a few miles an hour and its not good advise to turn off
engine. The thinking here is totally black and white. The brakes have
stopped working, therefore they have permanently failed (obviously not true
as the police found no mechanical problems with the car). In my experience,
nowt is certain and its quiet likely the brakes would recover and far from
"miraculous". If my brakes failed the last think I would want is the
controls suddenly becomming heavy and unfamiliar by turning off the
ignition, just at the moment I need all the help I can get.
However, I strongly suspect the OP is of the school that you just press
harder if they don't stop you, no pumping or easing off pedal in case its a
wheel slid she didn't realise was happening. These days a car would have to
be a massive pile of junk to have brake failure. I drive around in 15-20
year old vehicles and never had any hint of the car or van not stopping in
30 years. Even some serious piles of rust I drove in my teens never hinted
at failing. My guess is she was slidding and the "few hundred years" is not
an accurate assessment of the distance.
--
bucket
David Taylor
With no functioning brakes (either footbrake or handbrake) as we
were told, it is the _only_ way to stop the car without running into
something.
Are you arguing she was better to drive into the back of a queue of
traffic rather than turn off the engine and either stop or potentially
still drive into a queue of traffic?
--
David Taylor
Duncan Wood
But if you're in gear you'll still have servo brake assist & powre
steering, whatever position the keys in. Unless the throttles jammed open
though you'll get negligibly more engine braking.
Willy Eckerslyke
> Are you arguing she was better to drive into the back of a queue of
> traffic rather than turn off the engine and either stop or potentially
> still drive into a queue of traffic?
No, I'm considering the even greater danger of her heading across the
road into oncoming traffic.