rec.autos.simulators

by **Eldre** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>Notice I said *decent* driving school :-) The one I went to in '84 took us
>out to a big, empty lot and let us practice various skid recovery
>techniques. It wasn't, however, a specialized performance school; it was
>the nationwide "Young Drivers of Canada" school, which supplements its
>program with an annual rally, where equal points are given for on-the-road
>defensive drivng technique and parking-lot autocross-style car handling
>skills. A bit better than the "parallel park and you're done" curriculum at
>a lot of North American schools.

>Stephen

Ok, I'll go along with that. The driving schools here DO leave a lot to be
desired. I still see WAY too many stupid drivers...

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **David R. Ericso** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> A manual car will give you more control over the engine, because
> you're in
> direct contact with it. You have to select when to shift gear and use
> the
> clutch to do so. However, all that gearing shifting and clutch
> pressing
> takes away from your overall control of the vehicle, because you're
> having
> to use one less hand on the wheel and you're having to concentrate on
> more
> than just the driving. An automatic gearbox removes the need for it.

I disagree with loss of overall control by only using one hand on the wheel.
Even when I drive our "automatic" mini-van, I find myself only using one hand
on the wheel. After 18+ years of driving manuals using one hand on the wheel,
I've found that driving with 2 hands on the wheel just feels unnatural now. I
have much better control of the wheel with one hand than with 2. I even only
use one hand on the wheel for racing sims/games. I'll sometimes try 2 hands
and I just feel like I'm always trying to overcorrect because my right hand
wants to do more than it should... go back to one (left) hand on the wheel and
I'm more precise and less constant jerking of the wheel.

IMHO you have more total control of the car with a manual over an automatic.
My personal preference is to be in control. This is why I always have to be
the driver, not a passenger. I was going crazy when my wife drove me home from
the hospital after out-patient wrist surgery recently. She just doesn't get
the fact that situational awareness (always knowing where every other car is
around you) is crucial to driving, and enhances the experience... :-)

Try this once... learn to drive a manual correctly, then take an American
muscle car (oh... say a Cobra Mustang) out for a test drive. First try one
with an automatic, then one with a manual... then report back which was a
better "driving" experience... ;-)

Dave

by **kevinga** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

You tell me where I can rent manual *** cars in US and they'll have a
happy customer for life.

My Honda CRX currently has 165,000 miles on the clock, on the original
*** *and clutch.* No problemo.

by **Eldre** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>I can understand that feeling. I feel the same way about motorcycles.
>How anybody can enjoy riding an automatic motorcycle (or scooter) is
>beyond me. It removes the fun from the bike. But, a car is an entirely
>different subject. The first car I drove was a manual, and I thought
>it couldn't get any better, until I tried an automatic and realised it
>was much more fun.

I've never ridden a motorcycle before, so I have no idea how difficult it would
be to learn. As least I don't have to worry about falling out of a CAR...<g>

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Chuck Kandle** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> > > I left foot brake and clutchless shift my manual street car all the
> time.
> > I
> > > NEVER use my right foot on the brake in an automatic.

> > You WHAT??? You shift in a manual transmission car without using the
> > clutch?
> > I bet you only drive rental cars

> You tell me where I can rent manual *** cars in US and they'll have a
> happy customer for life.

Not at Budget, that's for sure.

--
Chuck Kandler #70
K&S Racing
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at:
http://www.racesimcentral.net/;Come on & join the fun!

They'll call you names
And spit in your face,
But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

lol :)..i believe the triumph spitfire#s and herald had synchromesh as early
as 64...not on frist though..but dont quote me on that i know a 66spitfire
had them but not on first till 72 or something...

DP

>> Well more like the spitfire box was brand new and very tight...and my
>skills
>> were less advanced back then....But still spitfire boxs and totally
>> clutchless changes are hard, and the gears in a spitfire box do have
>> synchros my friend (even first on my specially built close ratio )...I
>tried

>The British had discovered synchromesh as long ago as 1967? :-) You would
>never know it with a MGB we had... crunch crunch crunch... where's ?*%$!
>first gear gone?

>> also i imagine that a classic race box use in a racing car would be
>rebuilt
>> after each race as when use in this manner they dont last 80,000miles do
>> they..even in a racers hands :)

>The straight-cut gears help a lot, but it's true they are rebuilt.

>Stephen

by **David Er** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I used to own a '64 Triumph TR-4a and it had synchros on all but first gear.
Loved the way that big ol' tractor motor pulled though so there wasn't much
need to be downshifting into first except at stop signs.

David

> lol :)..i believe the triumph spitfire#s and herald had synchromesh as
early
> as 64...not on frist though..but dont quote me on that i know a 66spitfire
> had them but not on first till 72 or something...

> DP

> >> Well more like the spitfire box was brand new and very tight...and my
> >skills
> >> were less advanced back then....But still spitfire boxs and totally
> >> clutchless changes are hard, and the gears in a spitfire box do have
> >> synchros my friend (even first on my specially built close ratio )...I
> >tried

> >The British had discovered synchromesh as long ago as 1967? :-) You
would
> >never know it with a MGB we had... crunch crunch crunch... where's ?*%$!
> >first gear gone?

> >> also i imagine that a classic race box use in a racing car would be
> >rebuilt
> >> after each race as when use in this manner they dont last 80,000miles
do
> >> they..even in a racers hands :)

> >The straight-cut gears help a lot, but it's true they are rebuilt.

> >Stephen

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

In hard driving and auto sucks..you need 5 gears to get the most from a
car..and need the gears to have full control..in auto you have no control
useless as i do when driving them you use the auto as a manual :)..you go to
over take someything and i drops you up a cog rright along side and your sat
there waiting for damn thing to pick up..very dangerous

If you plod along autos great, but for harder driving they suck and you lose
total control over your vehicle...The only time id use an auto is motorways
work..on A-Road runs they are ***y awful

:)
DP

>> Gimme a stick anyday. My son learned to drive an auto in school and
>> he had a hell of a time learning to drive a clutch stick combo. But he
>> finally got it figured out. This is one Yank who would never buy an
>> automatic....

>I still see no benefits of a manual car over an automatic.

>I'm not surprised your son found it difficult to drive a manual
>transmission
>vehicle. Why would he want to, after making the smart decision and
>driving
>an automatic before hand?

>> Ever try to stop at an icy/snow-covered intersection on a cold morning
>> when the auto***has the engine rpms sky high and the back wheels
>> spinning even with the brakes applied?

>No, because I'm a good driver. I know that if it's snowing, I
>shouldn't have
>the RPM's high at all.

>A manual car will give you more control over the engine, because
>you're in
>direct contact with it. You have to select when to shift gear and use
>the
>clutch to do so. However, all that gearing shifting and clutch
>pressing
>takes away from your overall control of the vehicle, because you're
>having
>to use one less hand on the wheel and you're having to concentrate on
>more
>than just the driving. An automatic gearbox removes the need for it.

>Alpha Omega

>ICQ: 70300233

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Yeah the 1500 sptifire motor had a weak bottom end..even in normal to
highish reving they would start knocking after maybe 60,000..but with trips
to redline even change they would start gently knocking at around 15,000 ro
20,000miles...but spitfires are a big mechano set..I did a engine out and
bearing change in 2 hours once (with the aid of a crane)..as with the
spitfire the huge bonnet just bolts off in 10mins leaving a very exposed and
open engine bay with no body panels just chassis :))...And the start engine
swap record i set with a friend, just exchanging one motor for a rebuilt and
ready lump was 1 3/4hours from driving into the garage to driving out..We
were very pround :)..

With my other spits i used the earlier Mk3 1300 motor these are simply
bulletproof..as they use a shorter stoke and less stress on bottom ends than
the 1500..Also the 1300 had just as much grunt with a few simply mods and
reved to 6500 not 5500 like 1500's...The Mk3 was the best motor for tuning
and hard driving...1500 were just weak and crap..a touring motor not one for
hard use..Unless you like bottom end bearing changes..:))

DP

>> But if you drive your cars hard maybe a box (sncyros) every 10,000miles
>aint
>> to bad..Hell the motor in my spitfire needed new bigends ever
>> 15,000miles..so mabye this could be added to the rountine maintence....:)

>Ouch! What did they use for bearings? Stilton cheese? I got 300,000km
out
>of the top and bottom end of a bulletproof Toyota twin-cam with frequent
>trips to the lofty range of the rev counter. The bottom end was based on
>their supercharged and formula atlantic motor. Likewise, the bottom end of
>my old GTi went 250,000 (we won't talk about the shitty head, but it gave
me
>an excuse to put in bigger valves). Again, the bottom end was designed for
>diesel duty, so very stout.

>Stephen

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Your total right buddy...anyone who says there is little different between a
manual and auto in respect to control the vechicle doesnt know there arse
from thier elbow....auto's relieve the driver of total control in many many
many road situations....I think they are dangerous especially in terms on
having less gears, less go and a box that has a mind of it own..

DP

>> A manual car will give you more control over the engine, because
>> you're in
>> direct contact with it. You have to select when to shift gear and use
>> the
>> clutch to do so. However, all that gearing shifting and clutch
>> pressing
>> takes away from your overall control of the vehicle, because you're
>> having
>> to use one less hand on the wheel and you're having to concentrate on
>> more
>> than just the driving. An automatic gearbox removes the need for it.

>I disagree with loss of overall control by only using one hand on the
wheel.
>Even when I drive our "automatic" mini-van, I find myself only using one
hand
>on the wheel. After 18+ years of driving manuals using one hand on the
wheel,
>I've found that driving with 2 hands on the wheel just feels unnatural now.
I
>have much better control of the wheel with one hand than with 2. I even
only
>use one hand on the wheel for racing sims/games. I'll sometimes try 2
hands
>and I just feel like I'm always trying to overcorrect because my right hand
>wants to do more than it should... go back to one (left) hand on the wheel
and
>I'm more precise and less constant jerking of the wheel.

>IMHO you have more total control of the car with a manual over an
automatic.
>My personal preference is to be in control. This is why I always have to
be
>the driver, not a passenger. I was going crazy when my wife drove me home
from
>the hospital after out-patient wrist surgery recently. She just doesn't
get
>the fact that situational awareness (always knowing where every other car
is
>around you) is crucial to driving, and enhances the experience... :-)

>Try this once... learn to drive a manual correctly, then take an American
>muscle car (oh... say a Cobra Mustang) out for a test drive. First try one
>with an automatic, then one with a manual... then report back which was a
>better "driving" experience... ;-)

>Dave

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

That means nothing...Crossing your hands isnt allowed in a test..but its
much safer than shuffling and all that crap..the control you have over a
vechicle using the "not" crossed hands schuffling technique is
appualing...First thing id did after passing my test was cross my hands..Ten
times more control...You ever tried correcting a large oversteer drift
schuffling your hands..:)) hello hedge bye bye car..

Not everything your taught in a driving test has relevance or is the best
way to control a car in the style with which you use it..

Auto's better than manuals...haha..Thats something my 80 year old granddad
would say as hes lost the coordination to drive <G> Anyway yeah autos leave
you in less control over your destiny on the roads in many situations..

>>Nonesense. Any competant instructor should rap the knuckles of anyone
>>resting their left foot on the brake pedal, or clutch in a manual.

>We're not supposed to rest our foot against the brake. It's supposed
>to sit on the floor, on the left of the break, where it can relaxe and
>make fun of the right foot, which is doing all the work. :-)

>>The only competant argument for not left foot braking an auto is that a
>>driver might get confused when switching back and forth from a manual.

>Nope. The best argument for right foot breaking is that it's much
>easier to use and is safer. Pretty good reasons, if you ask me.

>>I left foot brake and clutchless shift my manual street car all the time.
I
>>NEVER use my right foot on the brake in an automatic.

>If you had taken your automatic driving test in this country (UK),
>you'd have learnt that left foot breaking is wrong. You can not use it
>under test conditions.

>Alpha Omega

>ICQ: 70300233

by **Dave Powel** » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Yeah great motors a friends dad had one with a period shorrock supercharge
conversion :)..he used to be a sales rep for truimph, no need to downchanges
in that thing :)..If it would let you..

Truimph were the great innovators..the first 16v motor in the Dolly
sprint..Fuel injection on the TR6..(there's a mans car..have to wrestle
those, brutal handling :).Ive heard like a brick in porridge without mods
:) )and every use of sychromesh etc..Truimph made some great cars..My old
spitty's when the suspension was sorted and motor tuned for another 15-20bhp
were a pretty awesome tool on a twisty road, very playful..As a few morgan
plus 8's found out one day and the local GTi boys, much to my delight
beating those horrid spotty boys who think they can drive as they wheelspin
in town lots and have a nice stereo..PAH!:)..but thats another story..

DP

>I used to own a '64 Triumph TR-4a and it had synchros on all but first
gear.
>Loved the way that big ol' tractor motor pulled though so there wasn't much
>need to be downshifting into first except at stop signs.

>David

>> lol :)..i believe the triumph spitfire#s and herald had synchromesh as
>early
>> as 64...not on frist though..but dont quote me on that i know a
66spitfire
>> had them but not on first till 72 or something...

>> DP

>> >> Well more like the spitfire box was brand new and very tight...and my
>> >skills
>> >> were less advanced back then....But still spitfire boxs and totally
>> >> clutchless changes are hard, and the gears in a spitfire box do have
>> >> synchros my friend (even first on my specially built close ratio )...I
>> >tried

>> >The British had discovered synchromesh as long ago as 1967? :-) You
>would
>> >never know it with a MGB we had... crunch crunch crunch... where's ?*%$!
>> >first gear gone?

>> >> also i imagine that a classic race box use in a racing car would be
>> >rebuilt
>> >> after each race as when use in this manner they dont last 80,000miles
>do
>> >> they..even in a racers hands :)

>> >The straight-cut gears help a lot, but it's true they are rebuilt.

>> >Stephen

by J » Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:00:00

That's the straight road where they are turning the wheel all the time?

Jens

>It's a Hollywood thing.
>Havn't you ever seen them films where there are about 50 gear changes to the
>mile as a car drives down a road at constant speed <G>

>MS

---------------------------------------------

Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address

JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/
Racing simulation, esp. GPL
Logitech Wingman FF optimization
Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor
Radio controlled airplanes

by J » Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:00:00

1. Lower fuel consumption, important incountries where the fuel is about
1US$/ltr.
2. More power left, important in countries where it's very hot all the time
(air-cond full power all the time) and typical cars are about 1600 - 1800cc

Jens

<snip>
---------------------------------------------

Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address

JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/
Racing simulation, esp. GPL
Logitech Wingman FF optimization
Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor
Radio controlled airplanes

by **Ian** » Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:00:00

The "Shuffling" method is used to prevent people from driving so fast that
they have to cross their hands <G>

Auto's are for people who are too lazy to move a gear stick ;)

--
Ian Parker

==

rec.autos.simulators

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism

GPL and realism