[warmachine428]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

I am not sure what you mean by let the clutch go; let the car roll due to insufficient clutch engagement and then use the lower resistance of the moving car to move on ? Works okey if you are on a slight down hill but if you are uphill (car rolls backwards a complete no no) or if you are on a steep down hill (car moves too fast forward) not recommended at all. Often it is very difficult to tell whether you are uphill or down hill even for cyclist (See ghost climb) let alone for some one inside a car. So that technique is risky

Yup (letting the car roll a little when the traffic starts to move), but yes as you said on an uphill road the car tends to move backwards so being a new driver , I tend to hold the brake and slowly bring the clutch to the biting point as to let the car move slowly while again slowly letting go of the brake . With the duster Ive found that doing this works but stalls the car pretty quickly so I often find myself over revving the car in the process of switching the car on again and making it move .

If I could get some advice on this it would help a lot. Although my clutch control is fine , on uphill roads I often myself lost and frustrated with the car stalling .

[NG_EV]

Originally Posted by warmachine428

I tend to hold the brake and slowly bring the clutch to the biting point as to let the car move slowly while again slowly letting go of the brake.

Hi! Welcome to the forum. Do you use the hand brake or the foot brake? What I do is use the hand brake to hold the car, then use the clutch and accelerator combo to get the bite, then letting go of the hand brake slowly once I am sure that the car will move only in the intended direction. This way you have maximum control on the rpm.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by warmachine428

Yup (letting the car roll a little when the traffic starts to move), but yes as you said on an uphill road the car tends to move backwards so being a new driver , I tend to hold the brake and slowly bring the clutch to the biting point as to let the car move slowly while again slowly letting go of the brake . With the duster Ive found that doing this works but stalls the car pretty quickly so I often find myself over revving the car in the process of switching the car on again and making it move .

If I could get some advice on this it would help a lot. Although my clutch control is fine , on uphill roads I often myself lost and frustrated with the car stalling .

By brake I guess you mean foot brake. Try using your hand brake as well releasing it slowly as your car gathers momentum. What is the advantage ? If you are slipping backwards you can pull the hand brake to avoid slipping and do not have to move the foot from the accelerator.

There is an related point when starting off. I always release the hand brake the last. So the steps are. (Assuming the hand brake is already engaged)

0. Press the foot brake
1. Press the clutch and start the car
2. Slot into first gear
3. Left hand on to the engaged handbrake (do not disengage till step 4) move right foot to accelerator (hand brake prevents any roll back)
4. Slowly release the clutch till biting point in the process release the hand brake with the right foot slowly depressing the accelerator as needed.

There are couple of advantages.

1. You will never forget to release the handbrake and drive on (as this is a crucial part
of your get going routine).

2. If the car stalls there is no roll back as you can quickly engage the hand brake. The foot brakes are often less effective in a stalled car.

[warmachine428]

Originally Posted by NG_EV

Hi! Welcome to the forum. Do you use the hand brake or the foot brake? What I do is use the hand brake to hold the car, then use the clutch and accelerator combo to get the bite, then letting go of the hand brake slowly once I am sure that the car will move only in the intended direction. This way you have maximum control on the rpm.

I generally use the foot brake but this is something new that Ive seen being suggested so might go to an abandoned area or something to try this technique , If I get the hang of it will make sure to update

Originally Posted by electric_eel

By brake I guess you mean foot brake. Try using your hand brake as well releasing it slowly as your car gathers momentum. What is the advantage ? If you are slipping backwards you can pull the hand brake to avoid slipping and do not have to move the foot from the accelerator.
...

Would love to try this method especially if it helps me get over this cycle of stalling , Thanks for the really helpful advice and will update you how it goes

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by warmachine428

If I could get some advice on this it would help a lot.

The answer is rev enough but not too much.

Sorry, but it is that simple!

I don't think anyone has mentioned this key part of the hill start routine:

You raise the revs and engage the clutch until the front of the car starts to lift a little. The engine will have enough power to take the car forward as you completely release the clutch and brake.

This brake/revs/clutch balance is different for every car and every gradient. It becomes automatic, but now, yes, you do have to think about it and practice a lot.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The answer is rev enough but not too much.

Sorry, but it is that simple!

I don't think anyone has mentioned this key part of the hill start routine:

You raise the revs and engage the clutch until the front of the car starts to lift a little. The engine will have enough power to take the car forward as you completely release the clutch and brake.

This brake/revs/clutch balance is different for every car and every gradient. It becomes automatic, but now, yes, you do have to think about it and practice a lot.

My house is on a slope and every other day I see Learner cars trying this out. The instructor asks Learner to stop the car right in the middle of the incline and then asks them to move on.

My wife still gives me the evil eye when she is reminded of how I taught her this

[electric_eel]

I am sure you all have heard of the two second rule: When following a car one should leave a gap which is at least the distance you would cover in 2 seconds (at the current speed). Even a novice knows that one needs to increase the following distance as you increase the speed. But by how much. If we go by the 2 sec rule, then we should increase it linearly, i.e every doubling of speed should mean we double the following distance. The 2 sec rule seems to suggest that when the brake of a car at 50 Kmph is slammed it will keep going for about 2 secs till it stops and in the process goes twice the distance that a car at 25 kmph would go before it stops. Sounds good ? I don't think so

Let us see the physics involved. I am going to assume that there is a fixed bound F on the braking force available to us at all speeds. What this means is that the negative acceleration (or deceleration) provided by the brakes is constant say A ( kmph lost per second). To stop a car moving at speed V this will require time V/A sec. Which means the stopping time is proportional to V. It is the stopping time that in increasing linearly. The result is that the stopping distance increases as the square of the speed. To be exact the distance to stop is given by 1/2 v t where v is the speed and t is the stopping time (which we just saw increases linearly with v). When we double the speed we need to double our stopping time and consequently the stopping distance becomes 4 times.

So am I proving the two sec rule wrong ? Yes. But more importantly I am disputing the fact that there can be any k-sec rule of this kind that works for all speeds. The thing I find problematic with the 2 sec rule is not the number 2. After all if you are not happy with 2 sec rule we can put it as 10-sec rule. Rather it promotes the false idea that stopping distance only grows proportional to speed where as it grows at a much higher rate (namely quadratic or proportional to the square of the speed).

Epilogue

Unfortunately many of the drivers think that with experience their reflexes are so good that they can always tailgate by keeping a very small distance. It is a common sight on our highways where cars just bunch up trying to overtake those slow moving trucks and in the process drive at a distance which they would normally do in bumper to bumper traffic. Also how many times have we heard something like "The cars acceleration is good that one can easily close the gap when the signal turns green" when discussing an exciting new car. Well one is not supposed to "close the gap" as one accelerates rather one should be enlarging the gaps.

In the calculation above I have taken the reaction time to be 0, or equivalently infinite reflex. Incorporating the reaction time only worsens the situation. So next time you drive, do not close the gap rather follow social distancing and increase the gap when starting off from a signal.

[NomadSK]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

So am I proving the two sec rule wrong ? Yes. But more importantly I am disputing the fact that there can be any k-sec rule of this kind that works for all speeds. The thing I find problematic with the 2 sec rule is not the number 2. After all if you are not happy with 2 sec rule we can put it as 10-sec rule. Rather it promotes the false idea that stopping distance only grows proportional to speed where as it grows at a much higher rate (namely quadratic or proportional to the square of the speed).

So you made me scratch my head. Your analogy is correct as long as you are comparing it with the fixed object with zero velocity. But the 2-second rule or whatever second rule is with respect to the relative speed of the vehicle being followed. It’s a thumb rule at any relative speed (technically which should be zero) have the tailing and following car.

Let’s assume Car A is being followed by Car B both are at 100Kmph with a gap of 2 seconds, assuming 0 lapse in reaction time, theoretically which ain’t possible though. So when Car A applies the brakes, Car B also does it. If car A stops in X distance so would Car B, keeping the gap constant. Change the speed to 120/140, the gap distance would also increase accordingly. Hence there’s no flaw in the 2-sec thumb rule. Now it’s the matter of reaction time that’s why a 2 second rule comes in picture, Which is absolutely fine irrespective of the speeds. Only problem I can see is, if car A comes to an abrupt halt (0 speed in 0m distance) by colliding with a rigid concrete wall, then your logic of 2 second being insufficient holds good. That’s not an ideal scenario though.

Generally it’s a rule in normal driving conditions, adverse weather conditions will require more time frame (gap) for safe driving.

We have been told to count either this 1001 1002 or say “only a fool breaks the two-second rule” to keep a 2 second gap during our defensive driving classes, which is almost equivalent to 2 seconds. Also, It’s similar to one vehicle-length for every 8 km/h of the current speed. So at 80Kmph, you are 10 car lengths away from the following car.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

So next time you drive, do not close the gap rather follow social distancing and increase the gap when starting off from a signal.

Sorry, but you missed the point of the two second rule. It is exactly as NomadSK points out, it is about relative speeds.

Jeroen

[tilt]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

I am sure you all have heard of the two second rule: When following a car one should leave a gap which is at least the distance you would cover in 2 seconds (at the current speed). Even a novice knows that one needs to increase the following distance as you increase the speed. But by how much. If we go by the 2 sec rule, then we should increase it linearly, i.e every doubling of speed should mean we double the following distance. *SNIP*

Er... I believe you're conflating distance with time. The two seconds is time and is not supposed to be calculated into a distance.

if you maintain a minimum two seconds gap from he vehicle in front, the distance automagically varies based on your speed; and therefore there is no need for me to exercise my remaining few brain-cells doing urgent maths.

Cheers

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

My wife still gives me the evil eye when she is reminded of how I taught her this

My dad taught my mum how to drive before I was born, but the family story goes that he would got her to stop on a slope, got out of the car and fumbled around, got back in, and told her, "Your favourite hat is behind the rear wheel. Now drive off without dropping back!"



I'm innumerate. I mentioned earlier that I found it extremely difficult to memorise the table of stopping distances for my British driving test (there was no separate theory test then, the examiner would ask a few questions during the test, and one would be a stopping distance).

But it is simpler than all the stuff that has subsequently come into this conversation! It looks like the simple rules of thumb have been made very not simple. So guys, just get this:



There. Life made simple

[RunGaDa]

It’s very easy to judge having driven many years. But when it comes to teaching how to drive it becomes very tough. There’s no rule or rhyme in India particularly when it comes to driving in traffic, open roads, highways or inside a township.
The teaching is what I find difficult.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by RunGaDa

It’s very easy to judge having driven many years. But when it comes to teaching how to drive it becomes very tough. ... The teaching is what I find difficult.

This is why it should not be done by mums, dads, brothers, uncles. This is why it should be done by experienced instructors. they should be able to tech the rules, the rights, the wrongs, the how-it-really-is.

They do exist. One needs a paper with so many signatures against so many lesson dates, when taking the test. I'm sure that for millions, the signature was the closest they actually got to real lessons. I took the lessons when I wanted to drive in India: I needed that introduction. The guy was good: I could see that he wanted his students to be better drivers.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

My dad taught my mum how to drive before I was born, but the family story goes that he would got her to stop on a slope, got out of the car and fumbled around, got back in, and told her, "Your favourite hat is behind the rear wheel. Now drive off without dropping back!"

Oh man! That is one effective way to get the car not roll backwards

Regarding driving schools, I feel sad when I see learner school cars without side mirrors, not using indicators, merging onto main road without stop-look-go.

I still remember as a kid when my father used to drive us to my mother's home town far away, we used to come to a T junction and there used to a big bright red sign that said "STOP-LOOK-GO". As a kid learning to read those simple words imprinted itself on my mind.

[Redex]

Is this still Team-Bhp ? Road rules in India? The only rule in India is to get to the front by any means !!!

More seriously though.
Lane changing mirrors and indicators. If you intend to change to the right-hand lane to overtake a slower moving vehicle use the "M.S.M." method.

M. for mirrors. The first step is to check the following traffic. Use all mirrors to confirm that the right lane is clear and has a space you can move into.

S. for Signal. Use the right hand indicator to show you are changing lanes, still checking your mirrors.

M. for Manouvere. Assuming the road is still clear begin your manouvere into the right-hand lane, making a smooth transition from lane to lane.

When you have passed the slower moving vehicles, repeat the process changing back to the left lane.

Allow plenty of space. Do not make any sudden changes of direction or speed. Keep an eye out for any "filtering" 2 wheelers.

Don't sit in your lane with the indicator on, waiting for a gap. This confuses other motorists because they think you are about to change lane, or that you have not cancelled your indicator.