|
Post by c64 on Jan 8, 2014 13:49:35 GMT
The reason I was doing all the "You have it wrong" was on the size of the steering wheel they had on the remote rig, and how much correction they were getting for a small turn on that wheel. There is a reason why you get such a big wheel on a bus... you need to make a LOT of movement to get a small correction, otherwise, same as they did, you get the tail wagging the dog. In all systems I have ever played with to remote-control a vehicle, the larger the movement on the controller to get a smaller correction on the vehicle, the better the control. That depends on the setup of the controller. On a Playstation or any other Gamepad, you can control a Bus, Truck or whatever just fine using those tiny, little joysticks or even those on/off directional buttons. Also look in racing semi trucks how tiny their steering wheels are, they often use common car steering wheels or even the smaller racing version! Also look at Formula 1 cars, they control the vehicle with less than ½ rev per direction! The trick is that you just don't turn the bus around 180° while driving fast. The faster you go, the smaller the adjustments the simulated vehicle in a video game does when you move the stick. So you can make a remote which moves the big steering wheel in the bus a quarter turn when you do a full turn on the small wheel. All you need to do is to use a 10-turn potentiometer on the remote so you can do minor adjustments on the big wheel or turn the little wheel 5 times to perform a 3 point turn. This would have been a much better solution to the problem. Or just like in a video game, the faster the vehicle drives, the smaller the steering angle you do with your tiny little stick. Even better would have been force feedback. You don't drive and calculate your steering wheel movements in degrees! The human brain simply can't do that. You drive by forces. The harder you need to turn, the more force you apply to your muscles turning the wheel. The brain controls the muscles by making them contract more or less hard and the only feedback the brain receives is also a force, the effort to move. While driving a real vehicle, the "closed-loop servo system" of the human works by adding strain on the muscles and receive a feedback mostly over the strain of the wrists and various g-forces directly or indirectly felt. You simply feel how hard the front wheels are forced off a straight course. If you can't feel this, you have a great problem! That's the whole deal of PC/console steering wheels, simulating the effort to steer the wheels by using springs, bungee cords or even a sophisticated electronic force feedback system. There was nothing wrong in using the smaller wheel, their mistake was to use a common 270° potentiometer translating into the full revolution range of the bus steering system. There were two easy solutions. First of all, they could have make their -135° to +135° of their control potentiometer translate into the same or smaller movement of the bus steering wheel. This is more than enough for minor corrections but not enough to maneuver the bus to its starting position. The easy solution would have been to add resistors narrowing down the electrical range of the potentiometer which could be bypassed for maneuvering the bus. The second solution would be what the rather simple video games usually did and use a logarithmic model for the input. The further you turn the remote wheel, the greater the amplification of the movement sent to the vehicle. Small movements around the center position will cause tiny movements in the bus steering system which become larger and larger the more your remote is off the center position. That way you have a very fine control around the center and you can still turn the steering system to the maximum. But unfortunately, there is a big technical challenge. You simply can't buy logarithmic potentiometers which start their logarithmic behavior in their center position and are logarithmic in both directions from the center. That would require a computer to translate everything. What the Mythbusters used was a simple analogue RC-model system where the voltage drop over a resistor (stick potentiometer) is translated into a PWM signal sent to the receiver which simply feeds the PWM into servo motors which have to figure out how to behave them self. There is no simple way to add a logarithmic steering without a special custom made potentiometer or using a very special servo motor which does the conversion. What you can do to make a sophisticated remote control which does the logarithmic translation is using a Laptop with a game controller or steering wheel, program it to generate the proper PWM signals (e.g. on the printer port) and then feed the computer generated remote signal into the trainee jack of a teacher/trainee RC remote. But the problem seemed to be that they didn't anticipate that they would need such a system and this system isn't something you can do in a last minute fix.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2014 14:25:10 GMT
the other reason for the big wheel on a bus or truck is they didn't usedta have any sort of power assist. thus they needed a big lever to be able to do low speed maneuvers. the parade engine just has Armstrong steering. (the more you drive it, the stronger your arms get) T23 had air assist steering, and while doing the cone course, to get signed off on it, I ran it out of air. (and it certainly wasn't from pedaling the brakes too much)
I think for that purpose, I favor the "two remote settings" option: you throw the switch one way and the remote makes large adjustments to position the bus. you throw it the other way, and the remote makes small corrections for running the actual test.
of course, I like the "real driving action" control they made for the refinement best of all.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 9, 2014 13:34:55 GMT
A Bus has a smaller turning circle than an F1 car. That's true, but while making the bus drive straight, you only need a fraction of the turning circle so they could have had translated a big movement of the remote into a small movement on the steering wheel of the bus. You need a light touch, much lighter than many people expect, you make a small correction and WAIT... its not instant. That's correct. Especially since the remote control sends the actual position of its wheel and the big, slow motor in the bus needs a lot of time to reach this position. So you get the impression that you didn't turn your remote wheel far enough and turn it further which makes the motor in the bus keep turning after reaching the first position you had dialed in. Remote controlled heavy construction equipment comes in two flavors. Either you have buttons to make the steering work left/right or the steering motor speeds up the more the actual position is further off the set point. This either allows you to stop the steering system in the position where the machine makes the correct movement and keep it there by simply releasing the button or the time delay until the steering reaches your position dialed in on the remote. In case of very heavy construction machinery, the button method is much more common since those buttons usually work simple hydraulic valves. Also everything that really needs precision and instant stop has buttons for two speeds at max. Usually you press a button to make the function of the machine "crawl" and press it all the way to move fast - while "fast" is usually somewhere around 3mph for traction motors. There are several reasons for the remote control. You don't save any time or costs since you need the full attention of an operator anyway. The main reasons are safety since you don't need to be inside a trench with the machine and health since you don't breath all the dust it kicks up and you can be far away from the 109dB (or more) noise those things emit. Also touching those machines for long periods can cause tendinitis. BTW, "Force feedback" is useless in R/C. By the time the signal has got back to the controller, and been translated into feedback, its redundant, that moment has already passed, several feet ago. If the vehicle would be on the moon, perhaps. Radio waves travel with almost the speed of light. The radio link back won't take any noticeable time. The car "drive by wire" technology highly depends on force feedback since as I explained earlier, a human controls a vehicle by feeling the effort doing something. You need to feel the resistance and forces caused by the steered wheels in order to control a vehicle with precision. Without any force feedback, controlling a vehicle is like walking on sleeping limbs. The muscle control works just fine but without any real feedback, you simply can't run without falling down. Seriously?... someone mentioned alternatives by means of swapping the barometer for a pallet of duct tape, I expanded on that, please do try to keep up with the conversation before you correct others?... Well, the task is measuring the height of a building using a barometer and not "something you traded in for". Mentioning a trade is ok and good fun, but extending the particular trade may confuse and is not the point of the task from the story.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 10, 2014 10:30:15 GMT
Or just stick a BIGGER steering wheel on the existing rig.... Doing that actually works, its a simpler fix, and it adheres to "KISS" principals. Having a bigger wheel in front of you makes the human mind turn it slower. That added to the fact that a larger movement of the wheel circumference where you are holding it makes a smaller increment of steering, you actually build that buffer of human reaction movement to actual steering input that makes for smaller swings from side to side.... Dont know why, but its something we do without thinking.
Actual feedback versus Force feedback.
Actual feedback is encouraged in a lot of precision driven vehicles, they change the steering dynamics to encourage the actual sensations you get on the wheel, and in some cases, they actually amplify it as well.
Force feedback, where there is no actual physical link, and the vehicle senses "the bump" then sends a signal to the force generators to create sensations in the wheel, suffers lag, in processing time.
For example, I have experience in Game coding, using a force feedback steering system for a driving simulator.
You have two sets of code to work on, to get what you want to experience to the "Driver" One is the Visual on screen display, the other is the steering input and feedback. You cant get the processors to do both at the same time.... even with multi-core processors. If you do the Visual first, then the steering feedback, you get lag. If you "Time" the steering feedback to be sent just ahead of the Visual, it arrives "At the same time", because you have allowed for that lag between signal sent and feedback received through the wheel?... That gets, from all accounts, the better response from drivers as "It feels almost genuine".... Almost is about the best you can get, in that it IS a simulation, and you cant get any better than that....
This is why Force Feedback through a remote control is a waste of time... its all reactive, its inherently all in lag to real time, and it just can NOT be predictive to get the timing right.
Part of my disability is lack of nerve feedback in my legs. Nerve damage in my back, the signals dont get up my spine. You can walk this way, it just takes practise. You have to learn to walk again, using Visual clues. But mostly, you have to walk consciously... as in, I have to think about walking... I can, however, "feel" my feet.... Which is why I can still drive. I drive literally through the soles of my feet?....(But not my heels) To me, it always feels as though I am walking on just the tips of my toes. But Heck, I am Walking here, thats one stage better than a wheelchair innit?...
Thankfully, Big Trucks need Big Feet, their aint nowt dainty about the footwork required in a Big truck, its taken for granted you will have HUGE lumps of steel toecap'ed thick boots on whilst driving one. Many have armour plating in the footwell to protect delicate parts of truck in front of your feet.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 10, 2014 13:57:34 GMT
You have two sets of code to work on, to get what you want to experience to the "Driver" One is the Visual on screen display, the other is the steering input and feedback. You cant get the processors to do both at the same time.... even with multi-core processors. If you do the Visual first, then the steering feedback, you get lag. In a drive by wire vehicle, there is a separate circuitry doing the feedback. And the delay is only a few microseconds for the processor and a millisecond or two for the actuators. Anything less than 20ms can't be noticed by the human brain. That's why MPEG Television works fine, the size difference between the video and auto containers cause a jitter of ±12 ms so audio and video have a shifting delay between them - and still you can't notice. Even worse are dubbed movies where the lip movement can't really match to the words. You also don't notice this. I can, however, "feel" my feet.... Which is why I can still drive. I drive literally through the soles of my feet?....(But not my heels) To me, it always feels as though I am walking on just the tips of my toes. But Heck, I am Walking here, thats one stage better than a wheelchair innit?... I think I know how you feel. My left knee doesn’t give any proper sensoric response other than pain when it moves. So I don't know the exact position of my left foot when I drive. (I also can't stand on a ladder or any shaky ground without having at least one hand on something stationary to check my balance). Driving my car, I just kick the foot up until it hits the plastic cover above the clutch pedal and then depress the pedal on the rod to the actual pedal feeling the pressure with my toes. Of course, this didn't work well in the race car I had built. First I had installed a very strong spring to the pedal but that wasn't good enough. Since the clutch is operated by brake fluid, I installed an ABS block with a micro processor which adds an intense feedback on the pedal and corrects the hydraulic pressure to the clutch. It also kicks the foot up when done shifting so I didn't had to pull up the foot which causes pain when done too often. If you are familiar with micro processors, I can give you the system. You just need to alter the parameters for operating the clutch and the intensity of the feedback. This system also allows you to keep your foot on the pedal all the time since it ignores resting the foot and waits for you to increase the pressure suddenly to release the pedal lock. It should work in all cars with a brake fluid operated clutch hydraulic by adapting the parameters for the pressure points.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 10, 2014 15:21:41 GMT
one of the grand annoyances of the old ladder truck was that they had the pedals shifted to the right, brake and throttle on the right) for some obscure reason. It was not uncommon to find yourself with the corner of your boot overlapping onto the brake pedal. the cure was to sit with your right leg thrown out to the side an extra ten degrees or so.
the grand annoyance of our reserve engine is that the mechanics have not bothered to keep the brakes in proper tune. someone decided to name the truck "spongebob" because it is yellow and square, but I tell everybody it is named after the brake pedal.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 10, 2014 18:15:30 GMT
one of the grand annoyances of the old ladder truck was that they had the pedals shifted to the right, brake and throttle on the right) for some obscure reason. It was not uncommon to find yourself with the corner of your boot overlapping onto the brake pedal. the cure was to sit with your right leg thrown out to the side an extra ten degrees or so. the grand annoyance of our reserve engine is that the mechanics have not bothered to keep the brakes in proper tune. someone decided to name the truck "spongebob" because it is yellow and square, but I tell everybody it is named after the brake pedal. Well, it wasn't that uncommon to have the brake pedal far on the right side. You need room for the brake cylinder and if the steering wheel column is more vertical as was pretty common for big trucks, there simply wasn't any room. Especially farming tractors had the most difficult pedal layouts for technical reasons. I had this tractor in the older "iron-pig" version The clutch bell which also houses the steering gears was huge! The clutch was a horizontal lever you kicked forwards almost as far as the start of the actual engine making your foot arc out to the left real far. The brake pedals had bigger plates on them and the accelerator wasn't a "button" you could step on, it was a horizontal narrow bar right in front of the twin brake levers you operated with the edge of your boot tip. To make things worse, you hat to put your heel on the huge PTO wheel which turns freely when declutched so your foot keeps "slipping" forwards and backwards. But this diesel engine wasn't that powerful so you used the accelerator "digitally" most of the time anyway. Even if this is a commercial for the latest Deutz Tractor versions from 1955, you can still see the old "Iron-Pig" at 3:00, the version I had. Although I never used the engine as a vacuum pump for a milking machine. Anyway, more suggestions how to measure a buildings height by using a barometer?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2014 1:04:50 GMT
one of the grand annoyances of the old ladder truck was that they had the pedals shifted to the right, brake and throttle on the right) for some obscure reason. It was not uncommon to find yourself with the corner of your boot overlapping onto the brake pedal. the cure was to sit with your right leg thrown out to the side an extra ten degrees or so. the grand annoyance of our reserve engine is that the mechanics have not bothered to keep the brakes in proper tune. someone decided to name the truck "spongebob" because it is yellow and square, but I tell everybody it is named after the brake pedal. Well, it wasn't that uncommon to have the brake pedal far on the right side. You need room for the brake cylinder and if the steering wheel column is more vertical as was pretty common for big trucks, there simply wasn't any room. Especially farming tractors had the most difficult pedal layouts for technical reasons. I had this tractor in the older "iron-pig" version The clutch bell which also houses the steering gears was huge! The clutch was a horizontal lever you kicked forwards almost as far as the start of the actual engine making your foot arc out to the left real far. The brake pedals had bigger plates on them and the accelerator wasn't a "button" you could step on, it was a horizontal narrow bar right in front of the twin brake levers you operated with the edge of your boot tip. To make things worse, you hat to put your heel on the huge PTO wheel which turns freely when declutched so your foot keeps "slipping" forwards and backwards. But this diesel engine wasn't that powerful so you used the accelerator "digitally" most of the time anyway. Even if this is a commercial for the latest Deutz Tractor versions from 1955, you can still see the old "Iron-Pig" at 3:00, the version I had. Although I never used the engine as a vacuum pump for a milking machine. Anyway, more suggestions how to measure a buildings height by using a barometer? that's pretty similar to US tractor designs, and it's pretty typical to use a hand throttle for tractors - some of our equipment now, just has a switch for the throttle - it's either idle or run with no in between. but imagine now, driving a truck with the brake where the throttle normally is, and the throttle that much further to the outside.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 11, 2014 13:22:06 GMT
Anyway, more suggestions how to measure a buildings height by using a barometer? that's pretty similar to US tractor designs, and it's pretty typical to use a hand throttle for tractors - some of our equipment now, just has a switch for the throttle - it's either idle or run with no in between. but imagine now, driving a truck with the brake where the throttle normally is, and the throttle that much further to the outside. [/quote] Those tractors also had a "Hand throttle". Especially the "iron-pig" version had one, you need it when using the PTO wheel mounted right in front of the accelerator pedal. I found a video of one which was almost the version I had. Same engine, similar controls (but more modern pedals) but smaller rear section, mine had much bigger rear wheels but the front half with the engine is identical. You can see the ridiculous clutch pedal which is shorter in this version and the position of the PTO wheel which is more to the rear since the rear wheels of the tractor are smaller. 1. Close the decompression lever. "No compression" for killing the engine, "half compression" for Dynastarter or crank start option and "full compression" for real starter (later models like this) and normal operation. 2. Ignition key (or screwdriver ) inserting it enables horn, glow plugs and turn signals, in later models it also enables the starter. Turning the key switches on the lights. All tractor keys are the same, also it's not required to drive the tractor at all! 3. "Hand throttle" set pretty high to help starting the engine. 4. Glow the engine until the "glow supervisor" glows, too. Can also double as a cigarette lighter. 5. Start the engine. Modern construction machines and many tractors (Especially John Deer) use a diesel engine with a turbo charger optimized for a very narrow RPM range. This boosts the efficiency while making the turbo system very simple and cheap. The fixed engine RPM then needs to be adapted by hydraulics or other forms of "variomatic" systems. Comparing an asphalt roller from the 70s to a modern one, the modern one has an engine less than half as big but about 10 times more power!
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 13, 2014 15:20:40 GMT
but imagine now, driving a truck with the brake where the throttle normally is, and the throttle that much further to the outside.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 13, 2014 15:32:34 GMT
but imagine now, driving a truck with the brake where the throttle normally is, and the throttle that much further to the outside. it's an impressive bit of machinery, but I am not sure what it has to do with awkward pedal positions.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 13, 2014 19:25:15 GMT
it's an impressive bit of machinery, but I am not sure what it has to do with awkward pedal positions.[/quote] If you watch the starting process carefully, you can see that the accelerator is the center pedal. Some early racing cars used this configuration because you had to operate the accelerator and the brake at the same time so you had to reach the accelerator with both feet. Not sure if "Brutus" has to be operated that way or it's just a retro gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 15, 2014 9:55:26 GMT
In the beginning, no one had set the standard, so pedals can be where ever you want them. The pedal arrangement of the Model T ford has a gear change. Hold in for first, let go for second, or something like that?... In some older cars, the accelerator is on the steering wheel. I have driven cars where the gear change is outside the main body. What has this to do with Barometers?... I had the exchange for the one we broke in the boot......
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2014 15:22:41 GMT
In the beginning, no one had set the standard, so pedals can be where ever you want them. The pedal arrangement of the Model T ford has a gear change. Hold in for first, let go for second, or something like that?... In some older cars, the accelerator is on the steering wheel. I have driven cars where the gear change is outside the main body. What has this to do with Barometers?... I had the exchange for the one we broke in the boot...... the throttle AND the ignition timing were controlled from the steering column on the model T. as I recall from schematics, there were three gear change pedals. three pedals and a lever, in fact. www.modeltcentral.com/transmission_animation.htmlthe pedals were low, reverse, and brake and the lever was park low and high. so for park you'd have the lever back. for low you'd hold the low pedal and the lever at midpoint for reverse you'd hold the reverse pedal and the lever at midpoint to go from low to high, you'd release the low pedal and let the lever fully forward. for brakes, you EITHER press the low pedal halfway OR pull the lever to midpoint, and press the brake pedal. (to stop - just slowing you would decrease throttle and apply brake gently)
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 15, 2014 15:57:45 GMT
In the beginning, no one had set the standard, so pedals can be where ever you want them. The pedal arrangement of the Model T ford has a gear change. Hold in for first, let go for second, or something like that?... In some older cars, the accelerator is on the steering wheel. I have driven cars where the gear change is outside the main body. What has this to do with Barometers?... I had the exchange for the one we broke in the boot...... The Model T was very logical. You worked the gearbox with your feet and did the rest with your hands. That simple! One pedal to shift gears (1th and 2th gear), one for the brake also installed inside the gearbox and one for the reverse gear which is independent from the other gears. Throttle and ignition timing are located on top of the steering wheel to be operated by hand. Those are the two levers Stan always keeps messing with when Ollie bends down behind the car… The "ergonomic" configuration we are used to nowadays was made up by Chevrolet. Along with a real ignition key, they were not afraid to add more complex and expensive machinery to create the virtual H-shaped gear configuration, detach the brakes from the pedal and work the throttle by a pedal. They also moved the gearbox out of the drivers cabin and installed brakes on the wheels so there was no reason to keep the old direct pedals anyway. This was then copied by other motor-companies but was never made into a standard. But nobody dares to make a common consumer car which is operated differently.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2014 16:08:26 GMT
In the beginning, no one had set the standard, so pedals can be where ever you want them. The pedal arrangement of the Model T ford has a gear change. Hold in for first, let go for second, or something like that?... In some older cars, the accelerator is on the steering wheel. I have driven cars where the gear change is outside the main body. What has this to do with Barometers?... I had the exchange for the one we broke in the boot...... The Model T was very logical. You worked the gearbox with your feet and did the rest with your hands. That simple! One pedal to shift gears (1th and 2th gear), one for the brake also installed inside the gearbox and one for the reverse gear which is independent from the other gears. Throttle and ignition timing are located on top of the steering wheel to be operated by hand. Those are the two levers Stan always keeps messing with when Ollie bends down behind the car… The "ergonomic" configuration we are used to nowadays was made up by Chevrolet. Along with a real ignition key, they were not afraid to add more complex and expensive machinery to create the virtual H-shaped gear configuration, detach the brakes from the pedal and work the throttle by a pedal. They also moved the gearbox out of the drivers cabin and installed brakes on the wheels so there was no reason to keep the old direct pedals anyway. This was then copied by other motor-companies but was never made into a standard. But nobody dares to make a common consumer car which is operated differently. make yourself a car where the foot controls are reversed and see how well it sells. there's a reason why unspoken standards come into being.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2014 16:24:18 GMT
it's an impressive bit of machinery, but I am not sure what it has to do with awkward pedal positions. If you watch the starting process carefully, you can see that the accelerator is the center pedal. Some early racing cars used this configuration because you had to operate the accelerator and the brake at the same time so you had to reach the accelerator with both feet. Not sure if "Brutus" has to be operated that way or it's just a retro gimmick.[/quote] why do you have to reach the accelerator with both feet to be able to operate the throttle and brake at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 15, 2014 16:56:27 GMT
it's an impressive bit of machinery, but I am not sure what it has to do with awkward pedal positions. If you watch the starting process carefully, you can see that the accelerator is the center pedal. Some early racing cars used this configuration because you had to operate the accelerator and the brake at the same time so you had to reach the accelerator with both feet. Not sure if "Brutus" has to be operated that way or it's just a retro gimmick. why do you have to reach the accelerator with both feet to be able to operate the throttle and brake at the same time?[/quote] In case of an non-synchronized or claw-synchronized gearbox, you need the accelerator to sync gears, the clutch is useless to shift gears. So in order to shift down while braking, you need the accelerator to change gears - but you still need the clutch with accelerator to start moving or clutch with brake to stop. Also in racing it is still important to work the brake and accelerator within a split second so you work accelerator and brake with both feet changing the gears with skill and no clutch. That's what the tiptronic or sequential gear shifters are for - no need to have a clutch in the first place. But until the late 70s, you sometimes needed a car with the accelerator and brake swapped in case of a fully manual car. This was pretty common for touring cars. I once had driven one in a convoy. This drives you nuts, especially because it also had the reverse gear where the 1th gear should be. This isn't a feature to wiggle the car out of snow or mud, this makes the 2th and 3th gear face each other and this comes in handy when power sliding around tight corners.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2014 3:57:50 GMT
If you watch the starting process carefully, you can see that the accelerator is the center pedal. Some early racing cars used this configuration because you had to operate the accelerator and the brake at the same time so you had to reach the accelerator with both feet. Not sure if "Brutus" has to be operated that way or it's just a retro gimmick. why do you have to reach the accelerator with both feet to be able to operate the throttle and brake at the same time? In case of an non-synchronized or claw-synchronized gearbox, you need the accelerator to sync gears, the clutch is useless to shift gears. So in order to shift down while braking, you need the accelerator to change gears - but you still need the clutch with accelerator to start moving or clutch with brake to stop. Also in racing it is still important to work the brake and accelerator within a split second so you work accelerator and brake with both feet changing the gears with skill and no clutch. That's what the tiptronic or sequential gear shifters are for - no need to have a clutch in the first place. But until the late 70s, you sometimes needed a car with the accelerator and brake swapped in case of a fully manual car. This was pretty common for touring cars. I once had driven one in a convoy. This drives you nuts, especially because it also had the reverse gear where the 1th gear should be. This isn't a feature to wiggle the car out of snow or mud, this makes the 2th and 3th gear face each other and this comes in handy when power sliding around tight corners.[/quote] you forget what sort of truck I know how to drive: Attachment DeletedI ask again, why do you need to use two feet to operate the throttle and brake at the same time? and reverse where low should be is nothing special - it's normal for a 3-speed. it lets you have a simple "H" pattern, instead of having goofy offset shift gates.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 16, 2014 8:01:35 GMT
He wasnt joking when he said I would need an engineering degree to drive the thing then?.... Thats too complicated..... Yet they sold in the thousands?...
|
|