Only one EV charger at home?!...

[SteveW]

On 15/06/2023 15:27, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <u6ev8h$de4l$3@dont-email.me>, jon <jon@nospam.cn> writes
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:18:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <op.16jxwashbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:



\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic
which wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a
minor
road   has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has
caught   out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t
find   any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)
But if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid
one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west.
Apparently this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a
long time ago and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound
has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-gr
eat-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning into the
same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning car has priority
over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole
of   AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which
catches out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that
nothing will by turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to
cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws
will   only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to
ignore
any   rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights
- even   when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at
pedestrian   crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a
vehicle on the   side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Tell that to the cyclists of today - they won\'t believe you!

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to
turn   left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the   rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings   and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its
left.

Hopefully the cyclist will see you left indicator

There are occasions when you night need to be well out into the road in
order to do a sharp left turn - but usually not so far out that another
motor vehicle has room to squeeze in between you and the kerb. Even if
there WAS room, it would be a damned silly driver who ignored your left
turn indicator, and squeezed in on your left, intending to go straight on.

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the driver\'s
intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation to pass on
the left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver fails to spot
him. Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on the driver if an
accident occurs.

Yes. It should simply be illegal to pass a left indicating vehicle on
the left - just as the passing driver/rider is held responsible for
accidents when overtaking right-turning vehicles on the right.

 

[Fredxx]

On 15/06/2023 16:23, SteveW wrote:

On 15/06/2023 03:53, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:04:52 +0100, NY wrote:

I;m not sure who hates cyclists more: car/lorry drivers or pedestrians.
I remember I was out for a walk with a friend on the Ridgeway Path which
is an off-road route which is open to walkers, cyclists and horse
riders. We were walking two abreast, but if I heard a cyclist coming up
behind me or saw one coming towards me, I tried to move behind my friend
so as to create a gap for the cyclist to pass. Almost every cyclist
passed as wide and slow as possible. And yet my friend started yelling
at me: \"Why are you making it easy for them? Don\'t let them come past.
They can stay behind us.\" It was a very strange bloody-minded reaction:
I saw a side to her that I\'d never seen before in the several years I\'d
known her. I could understand it if the cyclists had been riding
dangerously fast/close to us, but I didn\'t see any of that. But you get
that: groups of people who walk n-abreast across the whole width of the
track or the pavement alongside a road, and moan if anyone coming
towards then (even another pedestrian) wants to get past.

The pedestrians and bike riders get along pretty well around here.
Even on
the single track for MTBs there is very little conflict. I usually hear
them coming and get out of the way.

There is one trail where I\'ve been waiting for a conflict. It leads up a
gulch with a small creek and is steep in parts so a bicyclist can get
up a
good speed on the downhill run. It is also frequented by black bears.
Someday I expect to see a bear coming off the trail riding a bike.

The worst feature are what are know locally as bulb-outs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension

\"Poorly designed curb extensions can pose a hazard to cyclists, as they
force cyclists from their position at the road side (or in a roadside
bike
lane) into the narrowed gap. \"

All of ours are poorly designed afaik.

Some, but only some, of ours do have a bike lane that goes straight
through.

Some get filled in at a later date creating quite a pinchpoint:
https://ibb.co/BsbhRvV

 

[Fredxx]

On 15/06/2023 09:10, Tim+ wrote:

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 16:53, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:54:16 +0100, NY wrote:

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even
when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian
crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the
side that it is indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark
roads so as to *force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and
therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which
wants to go straight ahead.

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations
of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual
campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

https://www.kxlh.com/news/missoula-county/missoula-in-motion-offering-
free-bike-lights

The city has created a lot of bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian/bike
trails. I\'ve gotten wimpier about riding in traffic with age so I
appreciate them. What I don\'t appreciate is people riding on sidewalks
with a perfectly good bike lane available.

The problem is when a dedicated off-road cycle track exists (eg a
pavement/sidewalk that is marked with a white line and icons for
pedestrian and bicycle) but cyclists still insist on using the road,
making it harder for faster vehicles to get past them. When I was on a
cruise that went to Amsterdam, we went on a coach tour and the guide
pointed out how many roads had a segregated cycle track alongside the
road, and she said that in the Netherlands it is the law that cyclists
must use a cycle track and not a road if a track exists. We could do
with that law here.


In the Netherlands where such dedicated tracks exist they are generally of
a much higher quality than the ones here in the UK. Cyclists will
generally use whichever route is fastest, safest or most convenient. Often
dedicated cycle paths here here are none of those. A common problem with
simple painted lanes at the side of roads is that they accumulate all the
debris and broken glass etc swept aside from the main traffic lanes.
They’ve been designed to demote cyclists to second class road users and to
keep them out of the way of cars.

My experience and talking to councillors is that their primary purpose
is in traffic calming.

Most councillors don\'t cycle and many would fail a re-test.

A well designed and maintained cycle path is a joy to use. Sadly they’re
few and far between. We need properly designed and maintained lanes
*before* any change in the law.

 

[NY]

\"jon\" <jon@nospam.cn> wrote in message news:u6ev8h$de4l$3@dont-email.me...

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

Was it \"reminding\"? Isn\'t it more a case of changing the law so what was
previously forbidden or very strongly discouraged now becomes legal and
encouraged?

And at junctions there is often a cycle lane on the left which cars etc are
forbidden to use. In its absence, a car would position itself close to the
kerb and would block a cyclist from overtaking on that side: if it wants to
overtake so it can go straight on, it must do it on the right - ie the side
*opposite* to the direction that the car is turning. Once I turn on my
indicator, all vehicles should immediately be prohibited from overtaking on
the side.

The rule about cyclists overtaking on the left to go straight on having
priority over cars wanting to turn left has got to be the worst rule every
devised in the highway code. It is a lethal one and I hope after a few years
of cyclists being injured/killed it gets reversed, rather like the building
of motorways with no hard shoulder. It should never be necessary for a
driver to check over his left shoulder or in his left mirror that it is safe
to turn, because he should always be allowed to position himself so it
becomes a \"can never happen\" situation.

If I\'m in a queue of traffic and not close to a junction where I want to
turn left, I will generally leave a gap for cyclists to overtake on the
left, but if I am turning left I will move as far left as the law allows to
block a cyclist behind me overtaking. He can damn well wait, just like all
the cars have to.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its
left.

Hopefully the cyclist will see your left indicator

And then ignore it and claim that it is all the driver\'s fault that they
were hit. The correct statement in the HC should be \"NEVER overtake any
vehicle on the side which it is indicating to turn; only overtake it on the
opposite side\".


If I am cycling in a queue of stop-start traffic, I stay where I am in the
queue - I am *patient* as I would be in a car. If I\'m really in a hurry of
the queue is stationary for a long time, I will dismount and walk my bike
round the junction or over the pedestrian crossing. But I will not try to
squeeze through a gap on the left.

I tend to position myself half way between left and right of the lane if the
traffic is moving so slowly that I can keep up with the car in front. That
way I am directly in front of the driver behind me and central in the
rear-view mirror of the car ahead. Once the car ahead starts to go faster
than I can manage, I move as far left as I can without endangering myself by
hitting drain covers or being too close to the kerb. That\'s the best of both
worlds: make myself as visible as possible while I\'m going slowly and then
move over to make it as easy as possible for cars to overtake once the
traffic outpaces me.


I tend to avoid riding two abreast. Until my wife and I got intercom
helmets, we\'d ride side by side so we could talk - but only when there was
nothing behind. Now we have the helmets, that\'s no longer necessary: we can
talk while remaining in single file.

 

[NY]

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VeH$aKJ7+xikFwpU@brattleho.plus.com...

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the driver\'s
intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation to pass on the
left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver fails to spot him.
Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on the driver if an
accident occurs.

And that is wrong in my opinion. Every case should be judged on its merits.
Any law which deems the larger vehicle to be to blame, regardless of the
circumstances, is by definition a Bad Law.

 

[NY]

\"SteveW\" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:u6fak6$eigp$6@dont-email.me...

Yes. It should simply be illegal to pass a left indicating vehicle on the
left - just as the passing driver/rider is held responsible for accidents
when overtaking right-turning vehicles on the right.

I worked with a Muslim guy. I overheard him on the phone to his insurance
company describing the circumstances of an accident that he had been
involved with. His opinion was evidently different to the insurance
company\'s and he was getting very annoyed. After he\'d finished, he asked my
opinion. The car in front of him was indicating to turn right but there was
a queue of traffic in the side road that it was turning into so it couldn\'t
turn. And my colleague thought that this meant that it was OK for him to
overtake that car in order to go straight on. The inevitable happened: as he
started to overtake, the queue cleared and the car in front turned...

The gist of my colleague\'s argument seemed to be that he was Muslim, in
Muslim countries it was allowed to overtake in that situation, and any rule
here in the UK that was not in his favour was clearly anti-Islamic ;-)

 

[Bob F]

On 6/15/2023 12:08 PM, NY wrote:

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VeH$aKJ7+xikFwpU@brattleho.plus.com...

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the
driver\'s intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation
to pass on the left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver
fails to spot him. Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on
the driver if an accident occurs.

And that is wrong in my opinion. Every case should be judged on its
merits. Any law which deems the larger vehicle to be to blame,
regardless of the circumstances, is by definition a Bad Law.

And any law that requires a driver to yield to traffic already in a lane
he will be crossing is by definition a good law.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:07:37 +1000, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/15/2023 12:08 PM, NY wrote:
\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VeH$aKJ7+xikFwpU@brattleho.plus.com...

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the
driver\'s intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation
to pass on the left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver
fails to spot him. Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on
the driver if an accident occurs.
And that is wrong in my opinion. Every case should be judged on its
merits. Any law which deems the larger vehicle to be to blame,
regardless of the circumstances, is by definition a Bad Law.

And any law that requires a driver to yield to traffic already in a lane
he will be crossing is by definition a good law.

The driver isnt crossing a lane in the situation being discussed.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/06/2023 20:08, NY wrote:

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VeH$aKJ7+xikFwpU@brattleho.plus.com...

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the
driver\'s intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation
to pass on the left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver
fails to spot him. Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on
the driver if an accident occurs.

And that is wrong in my opinion. Every case should be judged on its
merits. Any law which deems the larger vehicle to be to blame,
regardless of the circumstances, is by definition a Bad Law.

But all vans are white, and so by definition, must be wrong, even when
turning Hard Left...

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

 

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 08:56:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
\"This is just a hunch, but I\'m betting you\'re kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

 

[JNugent]

On 31/05/2023 10:34 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:54:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/04/2023 20:52, Skid Marks wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I have \'jane\' - my tomtom navigator in my smart phone. God she nags if
I don\'t go her way.

Give her a sex change and she\'ll be less verbose.

I am not sure if there is a male voice. I am not sure I would want one.

Satnavs have loads of voices.  Trouble is most are American, that
grating pompous I know everything voice.

I took my Garmin device (with American maps) to the USA a few years ago
(before smart phones did the same thing).

American friends fell about laughing when they heard the instructions
given in a very proper English accent .

 

[Peeler]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 01:10:32 +0100, JNugent, another demented, notorious,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:

I took my Garmin device (with American maps) to the USA a few years ago
(before smart phones did the same thing).

The retarded unwashed troll effectively took you for a ride again. All it
takes for the idiot is make some idiotic or hair-raising statement and get
you senile assholes to come doddering along and gladly feed him, every
single time!

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:00:59 +0100, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.15zhd1dgmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
CK1@nospam.com> writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:07:18 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

On 19/04/2023 14:07, Theo wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-19 14:12, Theo wrote:
That\'s called \'one pedal driving\', and on many EVs you can adjust the
retardation (regen) in a number of steps from coasting through to quite
aggressive braking. Coasting is more like a regular transmission
where you
have to use the brake pedal, whereas with higher levels you can drive with
accelerator alone.

By \"regular transmission\" you mean \"automatic\"?

Most cars here have a manual transmission, and on those the (gasoline)
car brakes somewhat when the accelerator pedal is released. We use that
to maintain the speed when going down long slopes, instead of using the
brake. If we need more brake action, we shift to a lower gear.

Both. With a manual transmission you get some degree of engine braking, but
you coast if you open the clutch. Without actively changing down gear the
amount of engine braking is not massive - if you purely let off the
accelerator doing 70mph on a flat road in top gear you don\'t get very much
retardation.

It is possible to change down for more, but the engine isn\'t happy about it
unless you match revs first, so in general it\'s easier to use the brakes.

Engine braking is not something you\'d do around town or on a regular
motorway unless you\'re in a hilly area, so most people don\'t use it very
often.

Many of us were taught to change down through the gears and use engine
braking for almost all stops, including around town.

I was, in 1997. I stopped doing that as soon as I passed the test.
Braking is much more controllable. Engine braking is all or nothing,
completely unsuitable for gracefully changing speed.

That\'s only because you don\'t know how to do it properly.

Why learn to do something complicated when you have a simple easy to control brake pedal sat right in front of you?

And no, it\'s not controllable. You have a choice of a couple of gears to engine brake. Unless you toast the clutch, you only have two choices of engine braking quantity.

Think about the erson behind you seeing a car lurching about with no
brakelights.

They soon learn not to drive too close to you.

Ah, you\'re one of those. Leave massive gaps big enough for a bus to get into. I love people like you, I can cut in front easily.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 21:00:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

In article <u5ihg6$139l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2023 3:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <op.15zhd1dgmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
CK1@nospam.com> writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:07:18 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk
wrote:

On 19/04/2023 14:07, Theo wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-19 14:12, Theo wrote:
That\'s called \'one pedal driving\', and on many EVs you can adjust the
retardation (regen) in a number of steps from coasting through to
quite
aggressive braking. Coasting is more like a regular transmission
where you
have to use the brake pedal, whereas with higher levels you can
drive with
accelerator alone.

By \"regular transmission\" you mean \"automatic\"?

Most cars here have a manual transmission, and on those the (gasoline)
car brakes somewhat when the accelerator pedal is released. We use
that
to maintain the speed when going down long slopes, instead of using
the
brake. If we need more brake action, we shift to a lower gear.

Both. With a manual transmission you get some degree of engine
braking, but
you coast if you open the clutch. Without actively changing down
gear the
amount of engine braking is not massive - if you purely let off the
accelerator doing 70mph on a flat road in top gear you don\'t get
very much
retardation.

It is possible to change down for more, but the engine isn\'t happy
about it
unless you match revs first, so in general it\'s easier to use the
brakes.

Engine braking is not something you\'d do around town or on a regular
motorway unless you\'re in a hilly area, so most people don\'t use it
very
often.

Many of us were taught to change down through the gears and use engine
braking for almost all stops, including around town.

I was, in 1997. I stopped doing that as soon as I passed the test.
Braking is much more controllable. Engine braking is all or nothing,
completely unsuitable for gracefully changing speed.

That\'s only because you don\'t know how to do it properly.

Think about the erson behind you seeing a car lurching about with no
brakelights.

They soon learn not to drive too close to you.

These days they
tend to rely on brakes and just change down to whatever gear they expect
to need as the set off or speed up again.

A much more sensible idea.

The best idea is to compromise with a sensible mixture of gear-changing
and braking.

After I used engine braking as I stopped at his motorcycle shop, the
owner told me that brake shoes were way cheaper than engine,
transmission and clutch repairs.

I had a friend who changed gear to get engine breaking, His engine broke!

I smashed the inside of my engine by overtaking in second when I thought I was in third. Would you beleive Renault hadn\'t invented the rev limiter by 1993?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 19:24:28 +0100, nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 10:26:26 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/4/2023 3:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <op.15zhd1dgmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
CK1@nospam.com> writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:07:18 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk
wrote:

On 19/04/2023 14:07, Theo wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-19 14:12, Theo wrote:
That\'s called \'one pedal driving\', and on many EVs you can adjust
the retardation (regen) in a number of steps from coasting through
to quite aggressive braking. Coasting is more like a regular
transmission where you have to use the brake pedal, whereas with
higher levels you can drive with accelerator alone.

By \"regular transmission\" you mean \"automatic\"?

Most cars here have a manual transmission, and on those the
(gasoline)
car brakes somewhat when the accelerator pedal is released. We use
that to maintain the speed when going down long slopes, instead of
using the brake. If we need more brake action, we shift to a lower
gear.

Both. With a manual transmission you get some degree of engine
braking, but you coast if you open the clutch. Without actively
changing down gear the amount of engine braking is not massive - if
you purely let off the accelerator doing 70mph on a flat road in top
gear you don\'t get very much retardation.

It is possible to change down for more, but the engine isn\'t happy
about it unless you match revs first, so in general it\'s easier to
use the brakes.

Engine braking is not something you\'d do around town or on a regular
motorway unless you\'re in a hilly area, so most people don\'t use it
very often.

Many of us were taught to change down through the gears and use
engine braking for almost all stops, including around town.

I was, in 1997. I stopped doing that as soon as I passed the test.
Braking is much more controllable. Engine braking is all or nothing,
completely unsuitable for gracefully changing speed.

That\'s only because you don\'t know how to do it properly.

Think about the erson behind you seeing a car lurching about with no
brakelights.

They soon learn not to drive too close to you.

These days they tend to rely on brakes and just change down to
whatever gear they expect to need as the set off or speed up again.

A much more sensible idea.

The best idea is to compromise with a sensible mixture of gear-changing
and braking.

After I used engine braking as I stopped at his motorcycle shop, the
owner told me that brake shoes were way cheaper than engine,
transmission and clutch repairs.

It\'s all old-hat anyway. The cars of the future, and a lot of them now,
use regenerative braking. Which is another new skill to learn.

Mine may be a bit elderly, but the level of regen available depends on
battery temperature and level of charge. Ideal for energy use
minimisation is to not use the brake pedal at all except to hold when
stopped, which means slowing down earlier when it\'s cold or you are
starting out with a full battery.

There\'s no skill to learn, the whole point is it\'s automated. All you need to know is the harder you brake the less of it goes into your battery. So as has always been the case in any vehicle, to save money drive smoothly, for fun drive roughly.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 01:36:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 04/06/2023 19:24, nib wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 10:26:26 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/4/2023 3:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <op.15zhd1dgmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
CK1@nospam.com> writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:07:18 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk
wrote:

On 19/04/2023 14:07, Theo wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-19 14:12, Theo wrote:
That\'s called \'one pedal driving\', and on many EVs you can adjust
the retardation (regen) in a number of steps from coasting through
to quite aggressive braking. Coasting is more like a regular
transmission where you have to use the brake pedal, whereas with
higher levels you can drive with accelerator alone.

By \"regular transmission\" you mean \"automatic\"?

Most cars here have a manual transmission, and on those the
(gasoline)
car brakes somewhat when the accelerator pedal is released. We use
that to maintain the speed when going down long slopes, instead of
using the brake. If we need more brake action, we shift to a lower
gear.

Both. With a manual transmission you get some degree of engine
braking, but you coast if you open the clutch. Without actively
changing down gear the amount of engine braking is not massive - if
you purely let off the accelerator doing 70mph on a flat road in top
gear you don\'t get very much retardation.

It is possible to change down for more, but the engine isn\'t happy
about it unless you match revs first, so in general it\'s easier to
use the brakes.

Engine braking is not something you\'d do around town or on a regular
motorway unless you\'re in a hilly area, so most people don\'t use it
very often.

Many of us were taught to change down through the gears and use
engine braking for almost all stops, including around town.

I was, in 1997. I stopped doing that as soon as I passed the test.
Braking is much more controllable. Engine braking is all or nothing,
completely unsuitable for gracefully changing speed.

That\'s only because you don\'t know how to do it properly.

Think about the erson behind you seeing a car lurching about with no
brakelights.

They soon learn not to drive too close to you.

These days they tend to rely on brakes and just change down to
whatever gear they expect to need as the set off or speed up again.

A much more sensible idea.

The best idea is to compromise with a sensible mixture of gear-changing
and braking.

After I used engine braking as I stopped at his motorcycle shop, the
owner told me that brake shoes were way cheaper than engine,
transmission and clutch repairs.

It\'s all old-hat anyway. The cars of the future, and a lot of them now,
use regenerative braking. Which is another new skill to learn.

Mine may be a bit elderly, but the level of regen available depends on
battery temperature and level of charge. Ideal for energy use
minimisation is to not use the brake pedal at all except to hold when
stopped, which means slowing down earlier when it\'s cold or you are
starting out with a full battery.

nib

I use lift and coast, if I am not in a hurry.

Boring.

> Very little engine braking on an auto.

I find they\'re identical to manuals. Why would they be any different?

The challenge is for the cruise control, set to 30mph, to
just cut in as you pass the 30 limit sign...

Why the fuck would you limit yourself to what a number on a sign says?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:38:48 +0100, nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 10:19:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/06/2023 09:59, NY wrote:
\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsp.153ltwommvhs6z@ryzen.home...

Start stop is pointless, it saves fuck all petrol to turn the engine
off for a minute.

I think the energy saving (or lack of it!) is not the only reason for
using start/stop. It also saves cars sitting in queues of traffic (eg
at lights) with their engines giving out exhaust fumes while the engine
is idling. So it\'s partly an anti-pollution thing.

I wonder how long the engine has to be turned off and then restarted,
for it to produce less exhaust / use less fuel than leaving the engine
idling. Bearing in mind the energy used by the battery to restart the
engine, and the fuel needed to replace this energy in the battery.

Doesn\'t take a lot to start an engine. Less than a second at about 200A,
so 2.4kW seconds.

Or about 0.6 watt hours. Working on 10KWh per litre of fuel, very
roughly, that\'s around, 0.06cc of fuel equivalent to restart the car.

Sources suggest an idling car engine uses \'up to 2 litres per hour\' so
lets say an average of one litre per hour.

How long does it take to use 0.06cc? = 0.06 x 3.6 seconds. about 0.2
seconds.

Which suggests that given a decent warm fast starting engine it is
ALWAYS worth while cutting the engine when halted.

The downside is that it may not restart, or take time to do it. Not
having the engine running in a hybrid situation is what gives them great
fuel economy in urban situations, along with regenerative braking.

Makes them no better on a long run tho...

There\'s some theoretical benefit on a long run too. If the engine\'s
powerful enough for hills and acceleration it might not be working at
anything like full power when cruising, it might be better to run the
engine at its most efficient for bit, powering car and charging, then run
on electric only for a bit.

Our PHEV does that. Whether it helps much on mi/gal I haven\'t decided!

You can also have a smaller engine, and for the small times you want massive acceleration to overtake, you use the motor aswell.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 09:59:56 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsp.153ltwommvhs6z@ryzen.home...

Start stop is pointless, it saves fuck all petrol to turn the engine off
for a minute.

I think the energy saving (or lack of it!) is not the only reason for using
start/stop. It also saves cars sitting in queues of traffic (eg at lights)
with their engines giving out exhaust fumes while the engine is idling. So
it\'s partly an anti-pollution thing.

I like the smell of exhaust fumes. I also love the diesel fumes smell in train stations.

I wonder how long the engine has to be turned off and then restarted, for it
to produce less exhaust / use less fuel than leaving the engine idling.
Bearing in mind the energy used by the battery to restart the engine, and
the fuel needed to replace this energy in the battery.

They also never think of the environmental cost of making the extra stuff. You need a bigger battery, it will wear out quicker. Your starter will wear out quicker.

Same goes for gas boilers. They made this combi shit, but the boilers don\'t last so long.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:12:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 06/06/2023 13:12, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2023-04-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not arf as uneasy as power assisted brakes that lose power assistance.

I had a manual XJS once. The brakes were fed not by vacuum, but by an
electric pump.

I was just coasting to a halt in my drive when I switched the engine
off. The brakes vanished.

That\'s a symptom of a broken brake booster check valve.

No, its a symptom of electrically boosted brakes and power steering with
the ignition off.

There is no \'brake booster\' as such.

I\'m surprised cars are allowed to be designed like that.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:12:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 06/06/2023 13:12, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2023-04-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not arf as uneasy as power assisted brakes that lose power assistance.

I had a manual XJS once. The brakes were fed not by vacuum, but by an
electric pump.

I was just coasting to a halt in my drive when I switched the engine
off. The brakes vanished.

That\'s a symptom of a broken brake booster check valve.

No, its a symptom of electrically boosted brakes and power steering with
the ignition off.

There is no \'brake booster\' as such.

I\'m surprised cars are allowed to be designed like that.