LJK Setright

[UK6]

Dear Forum,
The late Setright's hypothesis of reduced braking distance through left foot braking has,I believe, some merit. Recall, most, if not all, competition go karts use this system. Using basic physics formula we can see that if there is a 0.2 sec time advantage to apply braking force to a vehicle travelling initially at a constant speed of 100km/hr, then using s=vt, the vehicle in question displaces itself approximately 4.8metres (~15')over this short time frame. Clearly, if one hasn't allowed sufficient safe space between fellow travellers, then under emergency braking situations an "extra" car length (15') could be of significant use!

As an aside, engineers may suggest that the brakes would have to work a bit harder under left foot conditions as there would be a tendency for most drivers to leave the power on for a split second during an emergency braking event.

In closing, irrespective of the argument for left foot braking, I believe that the roads would be much safer if more was done to ban the use of mobile telephones and loud music in cockpits. How many distracted drivers have you endured/avoided this week?

Brett B.

[Nick Challacombe]

Totally agree, I have to use an Automatic now on all my cars as I do not
have a left leg,
the only use for the left leg in my 407 is waving it around trying to find
the dip switch at
night.!
Nick
P.s. when I did have two legs I still only drove with my right leg.

[jimfoz]

I thought it was dangerous and confusing to use the left foot at all driving an automatic, especially if you had the cruise control operating. My left foot is only ever used to operate the clutch on a manual car, but never the brake.

[UK6]

Braking by Hand
I believe that most physiology books point out that humans have a quicker
hand reaction time vs foot reaction time. If so, then why don't we build
modern cars with motorcycle type brake actuation or indeed take up Mr
Setright's suggestion of a side mounted control column (joystick) which
could be used for steering and braking?

Re confusion, if we were brought up on the above system, we no doubt would
wonder how we coped with anything other than what we had come to learn and
use instinctively!

Brett

[Rubbond]

I couldn't agree more.
Cruise control is fine if driving on a deserted highway in the States, just
to avoid speeding tickets, but in any kind of traffic, I find it gives a
feeling as if one is sitting on the back of a motorcycle. Totally without
control, even at the same speed one would normally be driving, with one foot
hovering over the brake pedal (right foot of course). I've just discovered
that tapping the "reset" knob on the steering wheel gives a slighly less
pronounced jolt than using the brake pedal.
I don't think cruise control actually saves fuel, slowing down going
downhill, and then accelerating like mad up a slight incline.
Like ABS, it just adds weight to the car, cost, and more things to go wrong.
For a decent sized car, I don't think that mileage has actually improved
since the 1930's, due mainly to weight increase, but I stand to be corrected
on this.
Just me being grumpy again.
Andrew.

[Bellerophon]

Following on from the last email which suggested that fuel consumption was
not much better because the weight of cars had increased, I can tell you
that it has.
I fitted one of Derek Hughes overdrive conversions to my 401, mainly due to
running on motorways where I wanted to bring down the engine revs. This
was one of the best things I have done to the car and which has brought down
the fuel consumption to nearer 30 mpg. and with no loss of performance.

Now as far as a modern car is concerned I bought a SAAB sportwagon with a
turbo charged 1.9 Alpha Romeo diesel engine of 150 bhp. This is the first
time I have bought a diesel and can only say that I am more than pleased as
on a run it will return 60 mpg and local driving just under 50 mpg.
My regards,
Bellerophon

[Ashley James]

I have a Mike Robinson overdrive on my 400 and it does 25-28 mpg
cruising at 70-80 mph, yet my heavy old 2L V6 Auto Rover does about 35
mpg.
More to the point a now dated Rover 25 with a 1.6 engines has a
similar performance to a 410 and also does 35-40 mpg.
Ash

[Markus Berzborn]

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

Following on from the last email which suggested that fuel consumption was
not much better because the weight of cars had increased, I can tell you
that it has.

Fuel consumption has certainly improved a lot over the last years.
You just have to compare cars which are really comparable - such as different generations of a model line of the same company.
Take the Mercedes E class, for example, which I am quite familiar with.
A modern E class diesel is much more efficient than it predecessors from the seventies or even eighties and at the same time vastly superior in terms of performance, speed etc.

On the other hand, fuel consumption has in fact developped into a kind of fetish for some people that really puts me off. Just as this CO2 nonsense.

Kind regards,
Markus

[Markus Berzborn]

Originally Posted by UK6

I believe that most physiology books point out that humans have a quicker hand reaction time vs foot reaction time. If so, then why don't we build modern cars with motorcycle type brake actuation or indeed take up Mr Setright's suggestion of a side mounted control column (joystick) which could be used for steering and braking?

You can get such systems installed, if you wish.
They have been offered for handicapped persons for many years now, and they work.

Kind regards,
Markus

[Rubbond]

Pleased to hear about your overdrive conversion. All cars in fact should
have that!
My point was just weight increase over the years.
21 km per litre on diesel by the way sounds marvellous for a (relatively
heavy) Saab. Are you sure?
My wife has a petrol engined Saab 900, but I don't think gets better than 8
km per litre.
With best regards,
Andrew.

[Bellerophon]

Andrew, I have had SAAB's for over 30 years up until now all petrol so yes
the fuel consumption was not marvelous and the further you go back with a
SAAB the thicker the gauge of metal they used. However, the new one has a
large amount of plastic parts including an under pan to help it slide through
the air better, this the old models did not have.
The consumption figures are accurate as I have the mpg permanently
displayed on the dash, which is interesting when you go up or down a hill to see
the changes, (the diesel is twice as good as the petrol) also tends to make
you less heavy with ones right foot.
My regards,
Bellerophon