There seem to be multiple topics going here. I figure it's 'cos we all now agree on the question of clutch life. And I'm finding this discussion quite interesting.
Stopping from 50km/h. I would be cruising in 3rd, hit the brakes and there would be no point downshifting because I wouldn't get the revs I need for the engine to help the brakes.
However, pulling up from 100km/h is a different story.
So I will, I'll find a road, try it (100-0) with engine braking and without and come back with the result. I will be surprised if using only the brakes stops it quicker, but I'm prepared to be wrong. I think engine braking will stop me quicker because when I'm hammering it up to a tight corner braking late, I downshift and instantly feel the extra stopping forces as I'm pushed against the seatbelt. But as I said, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to publicly admit it.
And racing drivers dont downshift sequentially simply to preserve their brakes otherwise they wouldn't do it in qualifying.
I understand that in a panic situation for the average driver, downshifting would be too much to ask. But I'm used to downshifting, I have a 20yo car with tiny pads... they need all the help they can get. So in the times I've been forced to stop quickly, it's instinctive for me to engine brake. It's particularly effective on gravel, 'cos it's so easy to lock the wheels when not using the engine.
Obviously if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll have to change my driving style.
FOR CRAPS SAKE!!! Racing car drivers use it because they want to keep the revs high for the exit of the corner and to prevent brake fade!!!
The idea of doing it gear by gear is to save having to hold the throttle down while you boot the revs right up from gear 5 to match the difference of gear 2.
ha ha ha, if you need to do it for brake fade, it means you haven't got enough braking capacity.
having the car in gear also assists chassis stability to some extent.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by TODA AU
Bookmarks