<VV> Rookie Driver

Frank DuVal corvairduval at cox.net
Sat Dec 2 00:42:23 EST 2006


Thoughts? I've got lots of them, and some may even be right. It's the 
knowing which that  is difficult. ggggg

Brakes are designed to stop the car. They are wearing while stopping, 
but are cheap and easy to replace.

Engine compression alone will not stop a car in any reasonable time. You 
will still have to use the brakes for a full stop. The clutch is in wear 
mode everytime you step on it. Actually two times for eveytime you step 
on it, just not as much wear on the downward cycle. And if you double 
clutch to save wear on sychronizers, that is four wear times per shift.

That brings up the other point I was making, it is not just the clutch 
face that is wearing. The synchronizers wear most on downshifts. Also in 
spirited downshifting, wear is accelerated on U-joints, ring & pinion 
gears, etc. Not to mention the clutch cable and pulleys.

I think transmission synchronizers are the real expensive and difficult 
parts to replace because of downshifting.

Frank DuVal



Norm Witte wrote:

>I had a thought on this item of conventional wisdom.  It's true that the brakes are cheaper and easier to replace.  However, brakes are always in a wear mode except when competely disingaged or when the car is stopped.  The clutch, on the other hand, is only in a wear mode when slipping.  Once you have downshifted, you are using engine compression, not the clutch or the brakes to decelerate.  You are adding shifts, so from that standpoint you are increasing wear on the clutch, but I hardly think you would wear out the clutch that way.  Thouughts?
>
>--
>  
>
>  
>


More information about the VirtualVairs mailing list