A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Simultaneous Application of Gas and Brake Pedals



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 22nd 05, 08:24 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Simultaneous Application of Gas and Brake Pedals

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Now look at a modern car. The brake and accelerator pedal have
> little or no difference in height. Is is entirely possible for
> the right foot to press on both pedals at the same time.


The heavy duty floor mat (Mopar brand, which I use in the winter) in
my 300M tends to creep forward and up against the center console -
which means it gets up and behind (and to the right) of the
accelerator pedal. This reduces the amount of foot-space to the
immediate right of the accelerator pedal and moves the right foot a
little to the left instead of being centered on the accelerator
pedal. I've found that in this position I brush against the *back* of
the brake pedal when pulling back on the gas.

All in all I'd have to agree that there should be more spacing between
the gas and brake pedal.

But I think that it's a manditory design criteria that the brake
system of any car is supposed to be able to over-power the engine in
all situations. Back in the days when you had a spring that pulled
back on the throttle plate, if that spring broke you could have WOT
(wide-open-throttle). I can't imagine the braks system of any car not
being able to stop the wheels from turing - even in that situation.
Ads
  #2  
Old January 23rd 05, 04:38 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake
pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually
move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty
of smoke from the spinning rear tires!


  #3  
Old January 23rd 05, 05:01 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:38:54 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:

>
>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake
>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually
>move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty
>of smoke from the spinning rear tires!
>

And if it had been front wheel drive?
That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have
antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to
keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to
overwork them anyway) and now we have cars with more horsepower than
the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and
the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load.

So, yes, there are MANY cars on the road today that would have a hard
time restraining the engine with the brakes even well below full
throttle.
  #4  
Old January 23rd 05, 06:18 AM
Scott Ehardt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote in message
...
> And if it had been front wheel drive?


Isn't more braking power put to the front wheels of a car due to the weight
distribution properties during stoping? I don't know the ratios, though.

> That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have
> antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to
> keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to
> overwork them anyway)


How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or
dissipation.

> and now we have cars with more horsepower than
> the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and
> the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load.


Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses
stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving.

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com


  #5  
Old January 23rd 05, 06:23 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake
> pressure I could place on the brake pedal.


Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with 300
horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners.
  #6  
Old January 23rd 05, 06:44 AM
aarcuda69062
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
"Scott Ehardt" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > And if it had been front wheel drive?

>
> Isn't more braking power put to the front wheels of a car due to the weight
> distribution properties during stoping? I don't know the ratios, though.


Yup, the ratios are appx 85/15 for FWD and appx 60/40 for RWD

> > That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have
> > antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to
> > keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to
> > overwork them anyway)

>
> How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or
> dissipation.
>
> > and now we have cars with more horsepower than
> > the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and
> > the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load.

>
> Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses
> stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving.


Correct, there is a vacuum check valve in the booster inlet that
should prevent the vacuum from dumping out when the engine is
under load. It usually takes between 8 and 10 (and sometimes
more) pedal pumps to deplete the stored vacuum in a brake booster
with the engine not running.
  #7  
Old January 23rd 05, 07:33 AM
James Goforth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well said.
I would also submit that this mysterious sudden application of
throttle is likely only reported in cars with automatic transmissions,
since the resultant crash would probably be avoided if one foot was on
the clutch--i.e. the person backing up (in this case) and experiencing a
sudden racing of the engine would instinctively stomp the clutch and get
the vehicle stopped, perhaps more slowly since some of the pressure is
on the throttle as well as of the brake...you get the idea.

Then the driver would look down and realize what was happening, and
take their foot off the accelerator, hence there'd be no accident to
leave them all dazed, confused, and fully convinced that the "engine
just raced unexpectedly" --since after an ordeal like that many people
are often somewhat traumatized and don't really have a clear idea what
the hell just happened.
Just my 2=E7.

BTW I'm new to this forum, very interesting & informative.

  #8  
Old January 23rd 05, 02:15 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:38:54 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake
>>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually
>>move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty
>>of smoke from the spinning rear tires!
>>

>
> And if it had been front wheel drive?
> That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have
> antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to
> keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to
> overwork them anyway) and now we have cars with more horsepower than
> the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and
> the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load.


Horsepower doesn't matter much in this case, it is torque that matters
and only a few cars today have torque ratings above the muscle cars of
the 60s.


> So, yes, there are MANY cars on the road today that would have a hard
> time restraining the engine with the brakes even well below full
> throttle.


I guess it depends on how you define many. I don't think any four
cylinders and probably precious few V-6s can do this. Sure, the large
V-8s probably can generate enough torque to overcome the brakes on the
drive wheels, but I'd have to try it to be sure.

The logic that suggests that few cars can do this is simple. Look at
how long it takes (in time, not distance) to accelerate a car to 60 MPH.
That tells you how fast energy is being put into the motion of the
car. Most cars take 6 or more seconds. Now look at how long it takes
to stop the same car from 60 MPH. It will often be half this time or
less. This tells you that you can remove that same amount of energy
with the braks about twice as fast (or more in most cars) as you can put
it in with the engine. This gives you a rough suggestion that the
brakes are substantially more powerful than the engine.

Now, of course, you have to factor in that the engine is working on
typically only two wheels and thus may be wheel spin limited initially,
but that only applies to cars that are fairly high performance. The
brakes are working on all four wheels, however, mostly on the front due
to weight transfer. Even so, I'll bet that only a few vehicles have
engines with sufficient torque to overcome the brakes on even two
wheels, and certainly won't overcome all four as the Audi proponents
originally claimed.

Keep in mind that most torque convertors stall at less than 2,000 RPM so
you can't consider the engines peak torque, but must look at the
torque available at whatever the stall RPM is for that car's TC. This
will typically be much less than the peak torque.



Matt
  #9  
Old January 23rd 05, 07:20 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with
> 300 horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners.


300 HP not necessarily at the wheels. Even 300HP was exaggerated.

Drum brakes are more efficient (hydraulically speaking) at braking
than disk brakes. Way more surface area too. But more prone to fade
(which does not come into play in the current context).
  #10  
Old January 24th 05, 05:45 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:01 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> And if it had been front wheel drive?

>
>Isn't more braking power put to the front wheels of a car due to the weight
>distribution properties during stoping? I don't know the ratios, though.
>
>> That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have
>> antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to
>> keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to
>> overwork them anyway)

>
>How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or
>dissipation.
>


No, but because antilock brakeswork smoother if they don't lock in the
first place, manufacturers tend to install smaller less effective
brakes on cars with antilock as standard.
>> and now we have cars with more horsepower than
>> the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and
>> the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load.

>
>Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses
>stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.