|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 14, 2016 5:32:07 GMT
Except we dont have f150's here in UK... well, not that many as want to get them "dirty".....
Most of the commesnts I read were sort of "Only one working and 50 others stood there watching?...."
Well, yeah, its trange how [sarcasm=on] if you want someone to tell you haw to do the jib, just start working, and the crowd will contain at least one expert who is quite willing to tell you how you should do that..."[sarcasm=off---for now?..]
There was one "I could have pulled it out with my pickup", but that was quickly drowned out by the "That low-loader didnt hang about"....
I think they were a little impressed by the way he reversed in at a reasonable pace?... I suspect they dont realise that we spend a reasonable amount of the "interesting" part of our lives in reverse, so can reverse a trailer faster that they can work out which way to swing the wheel?.. pushing back a 60ft trailer is easier than a caravan, if you have spent a year or two experiencing that every day at least twice and three times an hour in the yard?..
There is a reason why reverse gear has a high-low ratio on it, its for for use, not just for show?.., we DO use the 2nd gear in reverse at times.
Plus, its a Volvo badge on the front of that low loader truck... therefore probably a F-16, "My favourite truck", so its built for easy handling.
Perhaps some people dont know how to reverse then?.,
Maybe some dont know how to drive forward.
As for extracting the driver.
I did spend [best part of]an hour once with one driver who did a 360 on ice in a 7.5 tonner... trying to persuade him to let go of the wheel?.. his hands were gripping it with vice like grip, he wasnt letting go, he had gone an impressive shade of white, and all he could say was "Just missed the f[deleted]ing wall, just misses it, went right past me window it did.." over and over.
That video, the bridge collapsed underneath the truck...
He hadnt counted on the load being over the max weight of the bridge.
Most of the time getting it out was getting permission to turn off the overhead power to get a crane in.
Then probably transferring the load.
Then checking the remains of the bridge wouldnt collapse further by pulling the truck, hence now you gotta get a crane, crane hire isnt instantaneous, transport crane, "unpack" it, on solid ground, it takes a while...
Maybe a one-day job, but then again, "special circumstances", we dont know what other limitations there were on the site.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 14, 2016 13:31:25 GMT
Except we dont have f150's here in UK... well, not that many as want to get them "dirty"..... Most of the commesnts I read were sort of "Only one working and 50 others stood there watching?...." Well, yeah, its trange how [sarcasm=on] if you want someone to tell you haw to do the jib, just start working, and the crowd will contain at least one expert who is quite willing to tell you how you should do that..."[sarcasm=off---for now?..] There was one "I could have pulled it out with my pickup", but that was quickly drowned out by the "That low-loader didnt hang about".... I think they were a little impressed by the way he reversed in at a reasonable pace?... I suspect they dont realise that we spend a reasonable amount of the "interesting" part of our lives in reverse, so can reverse a trailer faster that they can work out which way to swing the wheel?.. pushing back a 60ft trailer is easier than a caravan, if you have spent a year or two experiencing that every day at least twice and three times an hour in the yard?.. There is a reason why reverse gear has a high-low ratio on it, its for for use, not just for show?.., we DO use the 2nd gear in reverse at times. Plus, its a Volvo badge on the front of that low loader truck... therefore probably a F-16, "My favourite truck", so its built for easy handling. Perhaps some people dont know how to reverse then?., Maybe some dont know how to drive forward. As for extracting the driver. I did spend [best part of]an hour once with one driver who did a 360 on ice in a 7.5 tonner... trying to persuade him to let go of the wheel?.. his hands were gripping it with vice like grip, he wasnt letting go, he had gone an impressive shade of white, and all he could say was "Just missed the f[deleted]ing wall, just misses it, went right past me window it did.." over and over. That video, the bridge collapsed underneath the truck... He hadnt counted on the load being over the max weight of the bridge. Most of the time getting it out was getting permission to turn off the overhead power to get a crane in. Then probably transferring the load. Then checking the remains of the bridge wouldnt collapse further by pulling the truck, hence now you gotta get a crane, crane hire isnt instantaneous, transport crane, "unpack" it, on solid ground, it takes a while... Maybe a one-day job, but then again, "special circumstances", we dont know what other limitations there were on the site. to loop you in on the nomenclature, an F-150 is a half-ton class pickup - which has about the same cargo rating as one of your Transits. - less than the new mercedes van. yet there are a lot of people who buy one and think they have a truck. I definitely agree with you about the bystanders thinking they can do it better. reminds me of one wreck where we stopped up the road to let the wrecker hook up - I was the early warning flagger, and a guy told me he was a professional flagger and he could get traffic through a lot quicker. I told him traffic was blocked because we were using the entire road to get the mess cleared quicker. big difference between flagging for a crash and flagging for a construction zone - and I've noticed that 75% of construction zones have moments where they unnecessarily boggle things up - with the crash, our goal is to make the obstruction go away as quickly as we can, and if we can cut the obstruction time in half by closing the road, we'll do it. about two minutes later - which I knew was coming - they opened the road. but yes, if it isn't leaking nasties, and isn't blocking traffic, then why risk things by rushing? so you take the time, coordinate the shutdown of the power lines, get the right crane for the job, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 15, 2016 6:44:37 GMT
I have driven one... The American, not the UK version...
Apart from the fact the wheel "was on the wrong bloody side", its no more than what we call a pickup truck here in UK, ok, a sizeable one, about the size of a small transit van as you say, but, it aint no big thang.
I found them extremely "plastic", to be honest, we build the transit van to a better finish, and probably more robust quality than the f150 I drove.
I preferred the Toyota "Hilux" type pickup that was obviously built to last.
Dont care if the Ford has more HP, if it aint got the ability to lay it down reliably. Day after day after day...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 15, 2016 14:53:54 GMT
I have driven one... The American, not the UK version... Apart from the fact the wheel "was on the wrong bloody side", its no more than what we call a pickup truck here in UK, ok, a sizeable one, about the size of a small transit van as you say, but, it aint no big thang. I found them extremely "plastic", to be honest, we build the transit van to a better finish, and probably more robust quality than the f150 I drove. I preferred the Toyota "Hilux" type pickup that was obviously built to last. Dont care if the Ford has more HP, if it aint got the ability to lay it down reliably. Day after day after day... I've always found small Fords to have an artificially bulked-up plastic feel. they've gotten a bit better over the years, and the Explorer Interceptor I test drove as a candidate for our duty officer vehicle was actually rather nice. that said, my quick attack went in to my own mechanic for turbocharger service - he has a machine specifically for cleaning Ford Power Stroke turbochargers - and he said a cleaning a year, and it will last for quite a while. if it sits idling, it fouls the variable pitch turbocharger with carbon. addendum: we have a Transit Connect for a people carrier (which I believe you have over there to compare) and the footwell slopes down towards the pedals - which means there is really only one foot position available. not nice on long trips. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 16, 2016 6:44:51 GMT
Maybe they build them different here?..
I dont do much small van work these days, the old Transits were built as the legend goes from the drivers seat outwards, as they decided that the drivers seat was the most important part, so to put in an uncomfortable pedal arrangement, why would they do that?..
The "Connect" series of vans is smaller than I have ever wanted to drive since my old Escort van back in the 80's 90's... so no I dont know the pedal hole that well?.
But I will look out for that.
As for a turbo that requires cleaning once a year... isnt that sort of a sign of bad design?.
The old Transit vans I used to drive that had gone as far as Turbo were always a side of "rickety" that you dont get anywhere else, but a kind of rickety that you are almost used to, and didnt mind that much.
They were still reliable.
I have had one or two where they have gone round the clock more times than mickeys right hand, still drive well, its just that the rest of it has sort of given out by over wear...
We scrapped a van in my early years as driver after three years.
"Its only three years old"
Yeah, but it had done half a million miles in those three years.... all of them over bumpy roads with maximum weight and a LOT of wear?..
I pointed to my own car, which was a "bit worse for wear", my car [was at that time] 12 years old, its done less than a fifth of that mileage, and you keep telling me I should get a new one?..
Van wear goes on mileage, not age, and half a million mile is "enough" for any vehicle on UK roads, in all weathers, all traffic, and one single careful driver.
Yeah one of them was careful.... the rest were bloody lunatics?..
I went on holiday one time, two weeks, when I came back, the van I was driving had its back door hanging off and the drivers seat was soaking wet through.
The "Spare" driver had backed up to a loading bay too fast and ripped the back door off, and left it outside with the window open in a rainstorm..
He had done more damage in two weeks than I had done in the whole of my last 12 months driving the thing?..
It had to be sent back for replacement, it was a lease hire van, and I wasnt driving it like that.
I dont drive ANYTHING where the back door is held shut with a piece of string?.
The seat?.. I could have had that out and replaced within half an hour with the seat from the "spare" in the yard.
As it was, I drove the spare until the damaged van was dealt with..
It was a flatback, but I know rope-and-sheet...
I have always had a "soft spot" for Ford Transits... [its a peat bog in Derbyshire...]
They drive well, are comfortable on long distance, and not too noisy at motorway speeds.
Take the same engine and gearbox on their rival the LDV, and it screams its backside off at anything over 40mph?...
The LDV has smaller drive wheels, I dont thing they changed the gear ratio at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 16, 2016 7:36:20 GMT
Maybe they build them different here?.. I dont do much small van work these days, the old Transits were built as the legend goes from the drivers seat outwards, as they decided that the drivers seat was the most important part, so to put in an uncomfortable pedal arrangement, why would they do that?.. The "Connect" series of vans is smaller than I have ever wanted to drive since my old Escort van back in the 80's 90's... so no I dont know the pedal hole that well?. But I will look out for that. As for a turbo that requires cleaning once a year... isnt that sort of a sign of bad design?. The old Transit vans I used to drive that had gone as far as Turbo were always a side of "rickety" that you dont get anywhere else, but a kind of rickety that you are almost used to, and didnt mind that much. They were still reliable. I have had one or two where they have gone round the clock more times than mickeys right hand, still drive well, its just that the rest of it has sort of given out by over wear... We scrapped a van in my early years as driver after three years. "Its only three years old" Yeah, but it had done half a million miles in those three years.... all of them over bumpy roads with maximum weight and a LOT of wear?.. I pointed to my own car, which was a "bit worse for wear", my car [was at that time] 12 years old, its done less than a fifth of that mileage, and you keep telling me I should get a new one?.. Van wear goes on mileage, not age, and half a million mile is "enough" for any vehicle on UK roads, in all weathers, all traffic, and one single careful driver. Yeah one of them was careful.... the rest were bloody lunatics?.. I went on holiday one time, two weeks, when I came back, the van I was driving had its back door hanging off and the drivers seat was soaking wet through. The "Spare" driver had backed up to a loading bay too fast and ripped the back door off, and left it outside with the window open in a rainstorm.. He had done more damage in two weeks than I had done in the whole of my last 12 months driving the thing?.. It had to be sent back for replacement, it was a lease hire van, and I wasnt driving it like that. I dont drive ANYTHING where the back door is held shut with a piece of string?. The seat?.. I could have had that out and replaced within half an hour with the seat from the "spare" in the yard. As it was, I drove the spare until the damaged van was dealt with.. It was a flatback, but I know rope-and-sheet... I have always had a "soft spot" for Ford Transits... [its a peat bog in Derbyshire...] They drive well, are comfortable on long distance, and not too noisy at motorway speeds. Take the same engine and gearbox on their rival the LDV, and it screams its backside off at anything over 40mph?... The LDV has smaller drive wheels, I dont thing they changed the gear ratio at all. our transit connect comes from over there.  built in Turkey and Romania. and they get a bit whiny at highway speed. as for the turbo, yes, it's a known design flaw - they can't idle. if it's not howling, it's not happy - builds up creosote on the variable pitch mechanism. the cure, if you drive something that sits and idles is periodically cleaning the turbo. the prevention is to work it hard. this is a chassis that has less than 20,000 miles on it. it already blew one turbo, before they found out about the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 16, 2016 10:30:56 GMT
The Ford Transit connect is a new vehicle a small van based on the focus chassis I belive.
The Ford Transit Silverdragon is talking of is more like a GMC van.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 16, 2016 10:50:13 GMT
The Ford Transit connect is a new vehicle a small van based on the focus chassis I belive. The Ford Transit Silverdragon is talking of is more like a GMC van. right, ford just changed from their Econoline series vans to the Transit here. the transit connect is on the focus platform. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 17, 2016 4:11:00 GMT
The original transit was a van that drove like a car, and very well at that, being it had the grunt when empty to keep up with most of the cars on the road at that time.
Having a van that drove like a car, cornered well, at 'reasonable' speed, so you didnt have to slow down to a crawl at every bend in the road (like some USA Bikes have to?... heh heh...) was a bit of a turning point in transport.
13 MILLION different derivations available.... and thats just the build, not including colour choices...
If you can think of it, they can build it, as long as it isnt a goldfish bowl on the steering wheel type of silly idea?.
You want a jack-up platform for a cherry picker to deal with broken street-lights?.. they can do that.
You want it flat-back with a 2-bench crew cab?.. they can do that.
You want it extra length to take three or even four standard pallets?.. they can do that.
You want it dual side door and a lift-hatch back door with a ramp to load bikes?.. that can be done, I have even seen one used as a horse transport van.
Except you wont be getting a Clydesdale in there (The big heavy plough horse thing...)
They also come front wheel drive for low floors as well, no back axle, independent suspension...
And of course they can float.
You all saw the hover-van?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 17, 2016 14:44:59 GMT
The original transit was a van that drove like a car, and very well at that, being it had the grunt when empty to keep up with most of the cars on the road at that time. Having a van that drove like a car, cornered well, at 'reasonable' speed, so you didnt have to slow down to a crawl at every bend in the road (like some USA Bikes have to?... heh heh...) was a bit of a turning point in transport. 13 MILLION different derivations available.... and thats just the build, not including colour choices... If you can think of it, they can build it, as long as it isnt a goldfish bowl on the steering wheel type of silly idea?. You want a jack-up platform for a cherry picker to deal with broken street-lights?.. they can do that. You want it flat-back with a 2-bench crew cab?.. they can do that. You want it extra length to take three or even four standard pallets?.. they can do that. You want it dual side door and a lift-hatch back door with a ramp to load bikes?.. that can be done, I have even seen one used as a horse transport van. Except you wont be getting a Clydesdale in there (The big heavy plough horse thing...) They also come front wheel drive for low floors as well, no back axle, independent suspension... And of course they can float. You all saw the hover-van?... similar principle on our light truck chassis model, only deeper in the roots. no front drive option, but huge variety of rear drive options - our vans and pickups are built on the same chassis, and you can get both varieties either finished or as a cab-and-chassis with or without a back wall in the cab. most of our small motorhomes are built on light truck cab and chassis with a van or pickup cab.  of which our differentiation between camper van and motorhome is whether it uses the van bodywork or not. it is only a camper van if the outside still looks significantly like a van. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 18, 2016 8:21:15 GMT
We have no borders between the two terms, other than motor-home is generally accepted for the bigger ones, the ones over the bracket of a general sub 2.3ton car licence.
The Van was designed to be driven by car licence holders, back when 7.5 ton was the highest end of weight restrictions.
Its still the upper end in its smallest derivation...
I believe they did the licence restriction to take into consideration an ability to drive the smaller versions of the transit.
But as soon as you get dualy wheel double wheel back axle weight or the long body transits, you now need the old class three additional weight allowance.
On that score.
Something I learnt today...
American "Big rig" 18 wheelers are all dual drive?...
Or at least "most" of them are designed twin axle and dual drive to both back axles....
Even though you lot dont do hills as mush as we do, and find a 10% grade steep, and you have the same weight restrictions of about 40-45 ton in general transport....
Europe wide, if its a dual-drive twin back axle, its one that I would be driving for STGO oversize and overweight loads.
May of our twin axle'd trucks have the ability to lift an axle if the load is light as well, this allows less tyre wear, less scrubbing on corners, and an easier ride.
How do you do that on dual drive?.. having an optional weight issue of the dual drive adds weight anyway, to have the ability to split the drive to allow one axle to idle, thats an extra lump of gearbox?.
Or do you not have a lift-able axle?.
So some more questions about USA trucks.
Dem's BIG.
If the general gross weight limit is about 44 ton, the same as uk, hows that work?.
If your Cab unit weighs in at twice what a european cab-over day cab weighs in at, [or more for your motor-home tramping cabs...] thats sort of says your loads can not be as heavy?... the limit is a combined weight thing to allow bridge and roads to be constructed lighter, and to stop heavy loads tearing up the tarmac at speed... stgo loads go slower so less wear on the hardware roadside.
So are your loads generally a ton or two less than equivalent UK loads to compensate for your monster cabs?..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 18, 2016 14:04:33 GMT
We have no borders between the two terms, other than motor-home is generally accepted for the bigger ones, the ones over the bracket of a general sub 2.3ton car licence. The Van was designed to be driven by car licence holders, back when 7.5 ton was the highest end of weight restrictions. Its still the upper end in its smallest derivation... I believe they did the licence restriction to take into consideration an ability to drive the smaller versions of the transit. But as soon as you get dualy wheel double wheel back axle weight or the long body transits, you now need the old class three additional weight allowance. On that score. Something I learnt today... American "Big rig" 18 wheelers are all dual drive?... Or at least "most" of them are designed twin axle and dual drive to both back axles.... Even though you lot dont do hills as mush as we do, and find a 10% grade steep, and you have the same weight restrictions of about 40-45 ton in general transport.... Europe wide, if its a dual-drive twin back axle, its one that I would be driving for STGO oversize and overweight loads. May of our twin axle'd trucks have the ability to lift an axle if the load is light as well, this allows less tyre wear, less scrubbing on corners, and an easier ride. How do you do that on dual drive?.. having an optional weight issue of the dual drive adds weight anyway, to have the ability to split the drive to allow one axle to idle, thats an extra lump of gearbox?. Or do you not have a lift-able axle?. So some more questions about USA trucks. Dem's BIG. If the general gross weight limit is about 44 ton, the same as uk, hows that work?. If your Cab unit weighs in at twice what a european cab-over day cab weighs in at, [or more for your motor-home tramping cabs...] thats sort of says your loads can not be as heavy?... the limit is a combined weight thing to allow bridge and roads to be constructed lighter, and to stop heavy loads tearing up the tarmac at speed... stgo loads go slower so less wear on the hardware roadside. So are your loads generally a ton or two less than equivalent UK loads to compensate for your monster cabs?.. our common semi tractor configurations are single rear axle, dual rear axle, and dual rear axle with tag axle. the tag axle models can lift the tag axle. the tandem axle models have a take-off between the front and rear axle. (normal driving is with it disengaged, but it gets engaged for extra traction) max load here is rated by axle and tire, with the max weight before a permit is required being 80,000#. permitted loads go up to 105,500. some states complicate by adding wheelbase restrictions, where the longer your trailer (measured to the bogey), the more weight you can have per axle. It is getting pretty common for our heavy load trailers to run three axles and a tag axle. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jul 18, 2016 20:14:55 GMT
Maybe they build them different here?.. I dont do much small van work these days, the old Transits were built as the legend goes from the drivers seat outwards, as they decided that the drivers seat was the most important part, so to put in an uncomfortable pedal arrangement, why would they do that?.. The "Connect" series of vans is smaller than I have ever wanted to drive since my old Escort van back in the 80's 90's... so no I dont know the pedal hole that well?. But I will look out for that. One thing to keep in mind is driver location. With the US being left hand drive, your left foot commonly is right next to the front left wheel well. If you are driving an automatic transmission, it is very common to rest your foot on the the wheel well. However, with the UK being right hand drive, your right foot will be next to the wheel well. Your right foot spend the majority of its time between the gas and break pedal. There is no need for a spot to rest it. That could at least part of the differance in design mentality. what works in the US does not necessarily apply though out the world and vise versa. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 19, 2016 8:28:57 GMT
So if you have the dual axle, that isnt the "Tag axle", which I am presuming means you can tag it in or out and lift it in the same way we have over here, if its a solid dual axle thats "always on the floor" than it always has the ability to be 4wd/2wd configuration [or 8wd/4wd if dual tyres per wheel...]
Over here, if you have both drive axles driving, you have to specify that in ordering the truck, because those are sort of reserved for heavy haul (over 40 ton) ... most of our wagons are only a single driven axle.
Those out there in the wild that are Dual drive axles are mostly owned by owner drivers who have that extra drive because the have the extra licence to do stgo and may be called on to do that at any time.. so why not have that truck... even if you only doing light haul, you need the extra grunt in a larger engine and extra grip of dual drive, even if that is only needed one say a month, its still work you would not otherwise get.
And oversize/heavy/difficult loads pay well.
Which is why I am able to work only part time for full time wages... I actually enjoy and delight in the more difficult loads?..
I know, I am "strange" in the head... maybe its just I enjoy a challenge.
But we dont need the extra driven axle(Or its weight) in our daily deliveries.
And we have hills steeper than the American nightmare.... I know you have them in some parts of USA, its just we have them "Everywhere" over here... except maybe Holland?..
Weight limits.
On an 18 wheeler, its 44 ton.
The weight limits may change on axle configuration, in that, if you have more than 18 wheel, the soft ground you are about to go over may be able to take the weight spread out more over more wheels.
If you have the wider single tyre that does the same weight as the dual tyre wheels, and more of them, you can get a better load distribution...
Of course its LB/PSI issue, more square inch in contact with the ground the more weight gets distributed.
But that is only over certain bridges that have an "Axle weight" limit... otherwise, its a blanket 44 ton on the whole country.
Over that weight, they know us STGO educated guys [we do a course to get that licence] will check "certain" maps for bridges known to not be able to take such weights in any configuration and avoid them in route planning.
We also get to see maps that state will take the weight if your running multiple axles that otherwise are not in general distribution for sub-50 ton licences?..
However you have to get "permission" to cross some bridges with escort and road closed so other traffic doesnt make the total loading over weight.
My own car has a foot rest built in to the footwell alongside the clutch pedal for the very same reasons...
Modern trucks have the same thing, they supply foot rests to keep that bloody drivers foot off the clutch.
Or a bloody strong spring in it that makes the pedal a foot rest, because you have to almost stand on it to use it.
Your american trucks favour all manual gearboxes.
Us europeans are gradually getting into the semi-automatic trucks.
Strange how its the polar opposite of what cars are?.. we still favour all manual cars in europe...
The semi-automatic box that we are getting into has full automatic or manual decisions on it, so we can hold a gear when needed, but the automatic change makes it a lot easier in manual mode in that we just "Push the button" for the next cog....
Doesnt matter how much we all brag "Aint missed a cog in months", there isnt a driver I know who hasnt done a cherry up when they miss the cog in manual box cant recover and have to stop and start all over again...
Yeah we all get cherry red in frustration and embarrassment, because that usually happens in front of a crowd?...
So secretly we all definitely like and are on favour of a box that can swap 12, 14, 18 or more cogs without error every time.
The pedals are still in the same order, go right, stop middle or left, noise reduction far left (clutch for gear stick), the selector may be on a different side, but its usually the same order with 1st [or crawler] being forward and left on the same truck irrespective of where the driving seat is put.
I have driven continental right hand drive.
I found it [un]surprisingly easy....
The surprise was I dint ever get confused on certain bits being on the wrong side.
Unsurprisingly I found my left hand leaving the wheel now and again when subconsciously my mind said time to change gear before I consciously remember to be on the other side...
I did find I was looking for bigger gaps though until I get used to the idea of the bulk of the vehicle being on my right.
Right foot problems?... we have them when we get into the realms of auto speed adjust and cruise control.
Where DO you put the foot?...
Rest it on the brake "just in case"?..
If I use CC, I have the foot on the throttle, lightly.
I know any pressure will cancel the CC and give me full manual until I press resume...
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 19, 2016 12:40:22 GMT
I've never driven a vehicle with a cruise control that would cancel by stepping on the gas pedal. Only the break.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 19, 2016 16:18:56 GMT
over here, the biggest reason for adding tires is to add weight distribution. as I said, our tandem axles all have selective drive, and it is normal to have the second axle disengaged.
it is entirely possible the Transit Connect was designed for right hand drive, and so the fact the left hand drive footwell doesn't give you anything but the one footrest (the inside of the wheelwell) to rest your unused foot on was unintended.
we're getting more and more "shiftless" trucks over here, too. better transmission management controllers have made "stomp and steer" driving more reliable and adaptive.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 21, 2016 7:26:20 GMT
I've never driven a vehicle with a cruise control that would cancel by stepping on the gas pedal. Only the break. Seriously?.. OK, Maybe its just heavy haul that do that... But then again, we do use the engine up here in the obese end of the heavy trucks to slow down a lot, so the accelerator is just as important as brake?.. As in, blip-throttle-swap-down-a-cog and then brake if needed when you see something in the distance like another truck that may cause you to slow down.... But then again, we dont steam up to where we need to slow down at full thrutch anyway like "Some" twit in a beamer may have done. So Trucks have an interrupt on both brake and throttle, and its a manual select "resume" that isnt easy to accidentally knock either. Well the ones I have driven, that have it, do anyway. Personally I dont like too much use of CC, it tends to allow me a false sense of security. Except VERY long distance on an empty motorway. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 21, 2016 14:17:00 GMT
I've never driven a vehicle with a cruise control that would cancel by stepping on the gas pedal. Only the break. Seriously?.. OK, Maybe its just heavy haul that do that... But then again, we do use the engine up here in the obese end of the heavy trucks to slow down a lot, so the accelerator is just as important as brake?.. As in, blip-throttle-swap-down-a-cog and then brake if needed when you see something in the distance like another truck that may cause you to slow down.... But then again, we dont steam up to where we need to slow down at full thrutch anyway like "Some" twit in a beamer may have done. So Trucks have an interrupt on both brake and throttle, and its a manual select "resume" that isnt easy to accidentally knock either. Well the ones I have driven, that have it, do anyway. Personally I dont like too much use of CC, it tends to allow me a false sense of security. Except VERY long distance on an empty motorway. I've never tested it on my tender, which is the only big machine I drive with cruise. all the smaller ones only cancel on the brake - the throttle just overruns it, and it picks up where it left off when you step off. my tender takes two button presses to engage it, and I don't think it has resume. it also does not play well with the retarded transmission. between the two it tries to micromanage your speed and drives with one foot on the gas and one on the brake. (solution being to turn off the transmission retarder, since cruise isn't adaptive enough for hilly roads anyway) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 27, 2016 3:29:37 GMT
we were talking about the footwell design in the Transit Connect. I was wondering if it was a low seat giving the perception of a sloped footwell, but nope. Attachment Deletedthere's a sharp slope down directly in front of the seat, and then it drops a good two or three inches from there to the area under the pedals. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 27, 2016 6:59:38 GMT
we were talking about the footwell design in the Transit Connect. I was wondering if it was a low seat giving the perception of a sloped footwell, but nope. View Attachmentthere's a sharp slope down directly in front of the seat, and then it drops a good two or three inches from there to the area under the pedals. 1, why are your pedals in the passenger side....  2, yeah, that looks a bit awkward. I understand that the seat may be put on a higher platform than the pedals, but why the slope, when a few bends would have made it a flat area where the feet would sit when not on the pedals. As in my own car, the seat is sat on a "cross member" of the body and the pedal area footwell is lower than the seat, but, importantly, its bloody FLAT down there, and doesnt slope in an uncomfortable way. In truth, the part behind the pedals, starts to slope UPWARDS to join the firewall?... In most vans and light trucks I have driven, the footwell is flat as it can be. I cant see a reason for that sort of shape. |
|
