auto or manual (1 Viewer)

[Pace_T]

In an automatic, as long as the car is in Drive, the car is trying to move forward isn't it? .. and thus, the brakes are holding the car back (ie. in use) in which case they are being worn isn't it?... that is my understanding of what 'worn' means when it comes to brakes. I'd respond to your analogy about push bikes but I don't really know how the brakes work in a push-bike; but I'm inclined to think the gravity would pull the bike downwards, the wheels would then be inclined to turn, but because the brakes are holding them, the wheels won't turn- in which case the force from the brake holding onto the wheel goes against the force of gravity?... that's just my guess; like I said, I don't really know how the brakes work in a push bike and just assumed it's similar to a car... Sorry for lack of paragraphs, I am using Firefox today and no matter how I try (and edit it), I can't seem to get it to take a new line. Do I need to use BR or something?

ur talking shit
when the wheels r in motion and u apply the brakes u wear them a fair bit as usual. but if the car is stationary then u hold the breaks to keep the car from moving then its doing wayyyyyy less amount of wear becoz the two surfaces arent exaclty slidingg

 

[Riviet]

I drive an auto and use the "overdrive" and the "2" gear (one below drive) a fair bit, especially when driving downhill, saves alot of braking. I have done the whole downhill bit of Fullers Road without using the brake at all.

 

[Shell]

lol i use the '2' gear too in my car, only when im going up steep hills coz it doesnt shift down automatically anymore.

 

[Jiga]

Your logic 'seremify007' sounds plausible, but it doesnt work exactly like that.

Brakes (which Im guessing you are referring to brake pads) wear due to the friction needed between the brake pad and the brake disc. If anything, the tendency for auto's to go forward will wear out the brake hydraulics as increased pressure is needed to keep the car still, but even then they dont tend to fail (Unless you have a leak!) so thats not a problem. It may also wear out the piston or the caliper. But these aernt usually a major problem. SO you are right in that it may wear the brakes in a general sense, but I dont think you meant all that other stuff?

take for example...youre on a push bike, and youre on a hill. you hold the brakes so your bike doesnt move...does it wear out your brakes?.

The two braking systems aernt exactly the same
I would guess from your response that you dont actually know what your talking about!

I drive an auto and use the "overdrive" and the "2" gear (one below drive) a fair bit, especially when driving downhill, saves alot of braking. I have done the whole downhill bit of Fullers Road without using the brake at all.

I have overdrive on always, and I believe this is how its meant to be used. As for the '2' gear yeah thats prity good, it does save the brake pads abit because having to stop a 1500kg car down a 45 degree hill does wear them out abit.... but you have to be careful, car manuals usually say what speeds they are designed for, I THINK its like max 40km/h for Low range or '1' and like 60km/h for '2'

 

[luscious-llama]

True to the letter :uhhuh:



This is how I personally view the use of manuals and auto's in cars, if you dont fit the category I think its pointless.... like having a manual in a shitbox small sedan or having an auto Lamborghini!! :


Performance Cars = Manual

Sporty Sedans = Semi-Auto

Family car or less = Auto


And after a while you get sick of manual anyway, my dad drove manual for like 20 years and never tried auto, as soon as he did..... doesnt buy manuals anymore!!! Autos are alot more pleasant to drive, so unless your fuly sik and need to do burnouts everywhere or are hardcore trying to drive your 70kw civic like a 300kw Clubsport, it is all you need.

Add in, if you live in a rural area for manuals

 

[Jiga]

Add in, if you live in a rural area for manuals

Ah yep, forgot that

The idea I was trying to show is that unless the car is designed for 'speed' (putting is crudely like that), its pointless having manual because your doing more work which a mechancial device can do for you! Just like why cars were invented in the first place to do what horses could do, but better

 

[seremify007]

ur talking shit
when the wheels r in motion and u apply the brakes u wear them a fair bit as usual. but if the car is stationary then u hold the breaks to keep the car from moving then its doing wayyyyyy less amount of wear becoz the two surfaces arent exaclty slidingg

Still counts as wear though doesn't it?

... and yes I'm aware it doesn't count as much- but it still counts.

On another note, I've heard some people switch to Neutral (in Automatics) at traffic lights also to conserve brakes... does that really work? My uncle always shifts to Neutral when we're stopped at traffic lights (but then in Malaysia, traffic lights in most areas only allow one direction of traffic to flow at a time with no sensors- so you can sit there waiting for 5mins...)~

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

The two braking systems aernt exactly the same
I would guess from your response that you dont actually know what your talking about!

no, actually, they are quite the same. (i talking about the disc brake system)
both have calipers that squeeze the brake pads together. the only difference is that one is hydraulically operated whilst bike brakes are forced together through cables.
and since the point of contact is with the brake pads, they dont wear when the rotor isnt in motion

 

[Jiga]

On another note, I've heard some people switch to Neutral (in Automatics) at traffic lights also to conserve brakes... does that really work? My uncle always shifts to Neutral when we're stopped at traffic lights (but then in Malaysia, traffic lights in most areas only allow one direction of traffic to flow at a time with no sensors- so you can sit there waiting for 5mins...)

Thats is just stupid and inconvenient, as established, brake pads dont wear because of auto's tendency to go forward. Other parts of the braking system Im sure are subjected to more pressure, but these things are designed for it and rarely fail.

no, actually, they are quite the same. (i talking about the disc brake system)
both have calipers that squeeze the brake pads together. the only difference is that one is hydraulically operated whilst bike brakes are forced together through cables.

AND contact is made directly onto the tyre AND contact is made between two rubber surfaces AND the hydraulic system is like 70% of the actual braking system in a car The VERY basics are the same, but the issue is alot more complicated then just that.

I agree that it doesnt wear the brake pads, thats qutie obvious. But when comparing other parts of the braking system of a car and whether they wear, you cant compare it to a bikes brakes because like what I said above, alot of crucial things are different, in addition to other considerations like the major differences in weight and power of the two forms

 

[DaddyK]

Who gives a fuck? The wear would be so minimal it wouldn't be an issue AT ALL.

 

[veterandoggy]

no, actually, they are quite the same. (i talking about the disc brake system)
both have calipers that squeeze the brake pads together. the only difference is that one is hydraulically operated whilst bike brakes are forced together through cables.
and since the point of contact is with the brake pads, they dont wear when the rotor isnt in motion

would it help you if i told you that an RTA representative replied in the Open Road to a reader saying that "people think that they are wearing their brakes out when the are on lights and hence slip the clutch, but in fact it doesnt wear the brakes and they just wear the clutch out instead"?

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

wait..are you backing me up?...
if so, why would it 'help me'? i already know this

 

[marchetta]

I'm female and I drive an automatic. My dad brought me brand new automatic car recently, so i'll be driving that around for a while. I don't think I would mind driving a manual either.

 

[veterandoggy]

wait..are you backing me up?...
if so, why would it 'help me'? i already know this

whoops! i think i was meant to quote seremify's post above yours

 

[luscious-llama]

Ah yep, forgot that

The idea I was trying to show is that unless the car is designed for 'speed' (putting is crudely like that), its pointless having manual because your doing more work which a mechancial device can do for you! Just like why cars were invented in the first place to do what horses could do, but better

Its okay I forgive you.
If anyone likes driving, drive around the vineyards around here....open road driving = bliss
Either manual or auto - for me, zee manual baby, it also gives me more "kudos" amongst my mates... all my guy friends drive manuals...none of my female friends do, BAHA...
Oh yeah, we don't own an auto either *shrugs*

 

[Pace_T]

yeah but autos are boring to drive

 

[Jiga]

You can still have fun in an auto.... its just more dangerous

 

[seremify007]

How is it more dangerous in an automatic? I think I'm missing the pt.

 

[transcendent]

manuals are a nuisance to drive.

 

[veterandoggy]

its more dangerous in auto cos there is no way to burn rubber except by putting it into neutral, giving it then sliding it into drive / L :burn: you can also talk on the phone without the hassle of moving the phone away from your mouth to the gear stick. ive once made my sister change gears for me, but i lost patience real quick. talk about slow learners...

when you drive manual long enough (to the stage where you try placing your left foot on the clutch when turning on an auto car) you dont even realise that you are changing gears. to me all i am doing is moving the gear stick up and down, i dont even realise moving it sideways from 2nd to 3rd, or from 3rd to 2nd. 5th gear doesnt count, but i still do it subconsciously.