peterm:
I’m in the ‘lost the will to live’ club.
It’s like watching an old Terrier refusing to let go of a cuddly toy, the Terrier has forgotten why it wanted the toy in the first place but it sure as hell ain’t letting anybody else have it. 
Will this still be an ongoing thread when we are all driving DUAL CLUTCH gearboxes such as the new Volvo?
I ride bikes - I have virtually no choice but to carry out sequential gear changes. Yes I can ‘block change’ after a fashion but it makes a right ■■■■■■■■ of it. So I am used to gears to slow and tend to drive most vehicles that way. When making progress it is essential I use both gears and brakes.
I think carryfast has hit the nail on the head with his last post - there are three trains of thought and in most cases either idea is fine. Of course back in the day there was only one way because braking systems and gearboxes dictated this. Now we have improved both brakes and gearboxes we have more options to chose from and this is what some are finding difficult to accept. Now we have choices.
I work with 2 different LGV driver Training schools and both teach all three methods trying to teach the drivers to select the most appropriate method. I do however believe that in most cases in ordinary every day driving and in the majority of cases - brakes to slow then block change is an appropriate method for a modern vehicle. We do however need to ensure the drive understands other methods and knows when to employ them. Perhaps they should be tested on this.
We have to remember that during the current test they aren’t fully loaded and flying around at speed negotiating steep downhill sections of road - therefore brakes to slow is probably the way to go.
This will possibly be a never ending thread as there isn’t a single correct answer.
Inconveniently for the argument, in the days before service buses were fitted with retarders to assist the slowing of the vehicle when braking, bus drivers just didn’t start changing down through the gears every time someone rang the bell for the next stop. If they had done so then the service timekeeping would have been worse than it already was. Anyone who has driven a Volvo Olympian with a worn Voith transmission will know just how fiercely it can engage a lower gear when the retarder is working. I agree that service bus brakes require relining far more frequently than those in a lorry and also that they run consistently hotter. This is why the largest bus companies and the lining manufacturers devoted so much time and effort into research and testing of materials at higher temperatures.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have heard VoSA testers or other fitters commenting upon someone else’s problem with low brake readings, with the advice that getting some heat into the linings would show a marked improvement if everything else had been tried. It does not therefore follow that a driver should be aiming to keep the brakes as near to stone cold as possible.
Downhill, roundabouts and in-town driving are different scenarios, they are not all answered by the same mantra. I just cannot see anyone approaching roundabouts changing down through practically every gear in a Foden 12 speed 'box; nor for that matter with a Fuller. Every situation is different, the fewer gears in the gearbox the higher proportion of those gears might be chosen. Conversely I can’t see that any sensible driver is going to still be in overdrive, with the accompanying bucking and hunting from a protesting vehicle, when only 20/30 yards from a roundabout.
Returning to the era of constant mesh gearboxes, there would also have been particular gears which were especially difficult to select on the over-run and which one would have wished to avoid needing to make that change.
However disregarding anything to do with the vehicle, changing down through a limited number of gears when approaching a roundabout allows a competent driver time to ‘plan’ how to negotiate the roundabout with reference to other vehicles.
In spite of and because of the above, I support the Old School argument and am concerned about what new drivers are being taught.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Janos:
I agree Cav, for any situation, there is the correct gear. It is not the act of changing the gear down that you should use for braking effect, but being in the right one at the right time. Whether that is exiting a corner in a race car with maximum acceleration, or easing a truck down a steep descent so the engine is neither over revving or at risk of running away due to excessive foot brake use because it is in too high a gear and descending too fast.Exactly the point I was trying to make about entering roundabouts. Using the gears to slow; and slowing to use the gears (ie to be in the correct gear for any given situation) are two separate, but related issues.
Block changing is everything. Sequential changing for the sake of it is nonsense. Entering any hazard in the appropriate gear means planning ahead, block-changing if necessary and slowing in time to be in that appropriate gear - and if that means using the gears to slow down, so be it. Robert
Firstly block changing is generally mutually exclusive with engine braking in being all about sole use of brakes in order to bring the vehicle down to a speed which will allow selection of a gear to move away under acceleration with.
While vice versa there’s no way of creating a gears to slow regime without that involving mainly,if not exclusively,sequential,or at least progressive,downshifting on the approach in all cases.
It is difficult to understand any realistic situation in which the idea of gears to slow could possibly fit in with block changed downshifts in its usual meaning which by definition means a gearshift only intended for pulling away with not over run.
Nonsense CF! I’m talking about block changing in conjuction with use of a secondary braking system. And even if I were not, it would be the same! When years ago the butterfly choke in my Scania exhaust sheered off going down the mountains in Greece fully-laden, what do you think I did? Yes, block-changed down the box (in conjunction with the service brakes) so that I could trickle down in a suitable low gear - which is how driving was done in lorries without exhaust brakes anyway in those days. Robert 
hiya…there a part of the A53 Buxton Leek where you drop down hill for maybe 3 miles, i used to change
down maybe 3 gears and use the exhauster. after the 3 miles is up you almost stop, get into 2nd gear
as you have a downhill 1in 6 for 2 miles on you front door…over the top you go and
as the revs build up you change up still dabing the brake. after 300 yards your doing say 40 mph. a third
of the way down this hill theres a junction… 2/3rds of the way down if you loose the truck(as i have done
years ago) you can reach 80 mph without touching anything…now your saying don’t down change.■■?
if you don’t know this hill you’d go over the top at 60mph brakes on fire with the possibilty of a school
bus pulling out in front halfway down the hill…when your on Cat Tor you use the gears to slow down
believe me.the only lorry ive come over that hill with thats 100% safe was a guy big J with a telmar
retarder…30 mph from top to bottom
.
shep532:
I do however believe that in most cases in ordinary every day driving and in the majority of cases - brakes to slow then block change is an appropriate method for a modern vehicle.
At my company you’d be in the office for extra training and a slap on the wrist if you drove like that.
I see no reason not to employ maximum use of engine braking in modern vehicles, it’s what its designed for and it’s wear free.
why the clip he’s not block changing thats the patten for a 10 speed fuller 3 and 4 are on the
back of the gate 1st 2nd and 5th are forward. handy because the stick isn’t touching your leg in top
.
All gear changes are sequential and all gear changes are progressive. We need a new word!
I think we’ve probably done this thread to death! Happy Easter one and all. Robert
.
.
cav551:
reAnyone who has driven a Volvo Olympian with a worn Voith transmission will know just how fiercely it can engage a lower gear when the retarder is working.
In spite of and because of the above, I support the Old School argument and am concerned about what new drivers are being taught.
Tell me about it. I’ve driven a few MAN buses in Brisbane and they were new with Voith 4 speed with retarders. You couldn’t adjust the retarder and it must have been full on all the time. Bloody embarrassing when you’re throwing bodies about all over the bus.
cav551:
Inconveniently for the argument, in the days before service buses were fitted with retarders to assist the slowing of the vehicle when braking, bus drivers just didn’t start changing down through the gears every time someone rang the bell for the next stop. If they had done so then the service timekeeping would have been worse than it already was. Anyone who has driven a Volvo Olympian with a worn Voith transmission will know just how fiercely it can engage a lower gear when the retarder is working. I agree that service bus brakes require relining far more frequently than those in a lorry and also that they run consistently hotter. This is why the largest bus companies and the lining manufacturers devoted so much time and effort into research and testing of materials at higher temperatures.I have lost count of the number of times that I have heard VoSA testers or other fitters commenting upon someone else’s problem with low brake readings, with the advice that getting some heat into the linings would show a marked improvement if everything else had been tried. It does not therefore follow that a driver should be aiming to keep the brakes as near to stone cold as possible.
Downhill, roundabouts and in-town driving are different scenarios, they are not all answered by the same mantra. I just cannot see anyone approaching roundabouts changing down through practically every gear in a Foden 12 speed 'box; nor for that matter with a Fuller. Every situation is different, the fewer gears in the gearbox the higher proportion of those gears might be chosen. Conversely I can’t see that any sensible driver is going to still be in overdrive, with the accompanying bucking and hunting from a protesting vehicle, when only 20/30 yards from a roundabout.
Returning to the era of constant mesh gearboxes, there would also have been particular gears which were especially difficult to select on the over-run and which one would have wished to avoid needing to make that change.
However disregarding anything to do with the vehicle, changing down through a limited number of gears when approaching a roundabout allows a competent driver time to ‘plan’ how to negotiate the roundabout with reference to other vehicles.
In spite of and because of the above, I support the Old School argument and am concerned about what new drivers are being taught.
I think you have hit on the real answer for it here. I believe that VOSA and the major truck brake manufacturers became concerned that modern electronic braking and auxiliary systems were so good a directing brake force that brakes on some axles, particularly trailers, were underused and therefore would underperform significantly in an emergency stop event.
I can’t find the link now but I definitely read the minutes of some meeting they had where they concluded that greater use of service brakes would be promoted through the driving test system in an effort to keep average brake temperatures warmer.
.
albion1971:
Just back from Australia a few days ago and before you all ask we had a wonderful time. Been reading through some of the threads since I have been away and one that caught my interest was one about the use of brakes in an LGV.It seems that some were trying to blame the training companies for teaching trainees to drive using the gears to go brakes to slow method. As a qualified Instructor of cars lorries and coaches for nearly twenty years and an LGV driver for another twenty I can honestly say some have got their facts wrong.
For one thing the majority of LGV Instructors are ex LGV drivers so why would they be saying such a thing unless they are not properly qualified of course.
The only time I have heard of an instructor using that phrase is during car training.
Secondly the LGV test is the same as a car test. It is a basic test that teaches you the minimum requirements to pass the test. It is then up to the individual to gain experience and to learn more driving skills something some do not bother with.
Most professional training companies will have theory lessons in a classroom which will include use of brakes including how an air brake system works.As I have said many times before I think the LGV test needs to be a lot more involved to help drivers cope in the real world but as we know it is all about time and money.
Not the fault of the training companies.It is the system that is at fault.
Well,yes…
But you wouldnt pass a HGV Test in Austria,if you dont know how an Air-Break works. There are Oil-Breaks you need to know as well.and in each Lorry is a Toolkit and you supposed to do small Road-side repairs.
And no,you dont hit the road if a Bulp is not doing,as you swap it against a Spare bulp if you will not pay a Fine.
4 weeks,ruffly driving school,or 2 Weeks in College. plus First aid Course before Test.
I had to do an air brake test in Canada, you have to run through a series of checks to make sure the system is functioning correctly, but the driving test part of it doesn’t require much in the way of proving you can use them properly, well, except for not crashing into anything [emoji38]
Terry T:
shep532:
I do however believe that in most cases in ordinary every day driving and in the majority of cases - brakes to slow then block change is an appropriate method for a modern vehicle.At my company you’d be in the office for extra training and a slap on the wrist if you drove like that.
I see no reason not to employ maximum use of engine braking in modern vehicles, it’s what its designed for and it’s wear free.
maximum engine braking is only available on the other side of the green band - usually indicated in blue on the rev counter. Exhaust brakes are poor at lower revs. With sufficient forward planning the driver won’t need maximum engine braking and can leave the vehicle in a high gear until a lower one is needed. He should also be able to avoid the use of the brakes.
When speed needs to be scrubbed off quicker due to poor forward planning then yes - get it down the gears and utilise max engine and exhaust braking. Don’t forget that every gear change is wear on clutch and gearbox components in the same way brakes wear but are relatively easy and low cost to replace compared to a clutch.
I said in most cases in ordinary driving brakes to slow is ok with today’s vehicles. Ordinary driving for me is advanced observation and planning meaning I hopefully need neither brakes nor massive engine braking.
I’ve had enough of this thread now so my last comment is that drivers should know which method to use and when. Sometimes on end sometimes another.
Carryfast:
albion1971:
Just back from Australia a few days ago and before you all ask we had a wonderful time. Been reading through some of the threads since I have been away and one that caught my interest was one about the use of brakes in an LGV.It seems that some were trying to blame the training companies for teaching trainees to drive using the gears to go brakes to slow method. As a qualified Instructor of cars lorries and coaches for nearly twenty years and an LGV driver for another twenty I can honestly say some have got their facts wrong.
For one thing the majority of LGV Instructors are ex LGV drivers so why would they be saying such a thing unless they are not properly qualified of course.
The only time I have heard of an instructor using that phrase is during car training.
Secondly the LGV test is the same as a car test.Firstly I think some of the previous comments by ROG would suggest that at least he for one doesn’t agree with you.While my own experience of the training regime went along similar lines even more than 30 years ago to the point where I just ignored the instructions in that regard of brakes and block change only on the approach on test.Meanwhile just using your ears as a retired driver tells anyone that the idea of sequential downshifts on the basis of gears to slow brakes to stop is a thing of the distant past in terms of the instinctive basis required and instilled from the point of instruction.
Meanwhile your own sentence seems to contradict the idea of people being taught how to drive a truck from day 1.Bearing in mind that I’ve always driven a car the same way in that regard at least anyway.
youtube.com/watch?v=8hKKzOHRTPY
0.56-1.20
2.10-
That video was taken a few miles away from where I live. Hatfield woodhouse [emoji1]
shep532:
When speed needs to be scrubbed off quicker due to poor forward planning then yes - get it down the gears and utilise max engine and exhaust braking. Don’t forget that every gear change is wear on clutch and gearbox components in the same way brakes wear but are relatively easy and low cost to replace compared to a clutch.I said in most cases in ordinary driving brakes to slow is ok with today’s vehicles. Ordinary driving for me is advanced observation and planning meaning I hopefully need neither brakes nor massive engine braking.
Yes, a clutch or gearbox might be harder and more expensive to change but the fact so many companies insist on maximum engine brake usage suggests to me that the frequency of required clutch/box changes is sufficiently lower than brake changes to warrant that policy.