Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

> If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the vehicle
> can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> speed, and severe angles of slope.


Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.

Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

You are lucky to still have a Jeep.....

Even if the lowest gear is too fast, leave it in gear and use the
brakes.

As long as you are moving, you won't stall out and if you are going slow
enough to stall out, then dump the clutch and stop.

Reverse can be really snaky. If the front wheels lock up, they can
easily slide you sideways enough to flip.

If you are in gear, the front wheels can't lock up without all 4 locking
so your control stays with you.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Joshua Nelson wrote:
>
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

You are lucky to still have a Jeep.....

Even if the lowest gear is too fast, leave it in gear and use the
brakes.

As long as you are moving, you won't stall out and if you are going slow
enough to stall out, then dump the clutch and stop.

Reverse can be really snaky. If the front wheels lock up, they can
easily slide you sideways enough to flip.

If you are in gear, the front wheels can't lock up without all 4 locking
so your control stays with you.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Joshua Nelson wrote:
>
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

You are lucky to still have a Jeep.....

Even if the lowest gear is too fast, leave it in gear and use the
brakes.

As long as you are moving, you won't stall out and if you are going slow
enough to stall out, then dump the clutch and stop.

Reverse can be really snaky. If the front wheels lock up, they can
easily slide you sideways enough to flip.

If you are in gear, the front wheels can't lock up without all 4 locking
so your control stays with you.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Joshua Nelson wrote:
>
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

Joshua,
You did the right thing until you put it in neutral. Leave it in reverse
and lightly apply the brakes as needed to slow you down a bit. You stand a
much lower chance of locking up a wheel if you are in gear.
Any time you lock up a wheel or two with braking, you degrade your
controllability. You need to keep all your wheels turning.
You were also correct in not trying to turn around. That could have been
disastrous.

--
Jim
--
98 TJ SE
90 SJ GW
http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
"You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
enough..."
"4x4" in caps is "$X$"


"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

Joshua,
You did the right thing until you put it in neutral. Leave it in reverse
and lightly apply the brakes as needed to slow you down a bit. You stand a
much lower chance of locking up a wheel if you are in gear.
Any time you lock up a wheel or two with braking, you degrade your
controllability. You need to keep all your wheels turning.
You were also correct in not trying to turn around. That could have been
disastrous.

--
Jim
--
98 TJ SE
90 SJ GW
http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
"You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
enough..."
"4x4" in caps is "$X$"


"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

Joshua,
You did the right thing until you put it in neutral. Leave it in reverse
and lightly apply the brakes as needed to slow you down a bit. You stand a
much lower chance of locking up a wheel if you are in gear.
Any time you lock up a wheel or two with braking, you degrade your
controllability. You need to keep all your wheels turning.
You were also correct in not trying to turn around. That could have been
disastrous.

--
Jim
--
98 TJ SE
90 SJ GW
http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
"You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
enough..."
"4x4" in caps is "$X$"


"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs? I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
Yes, that's what I said. Of course, being there is a very important part of
this discussion because being there lets you experience a wealth of other
variables that make cut-and-dry statements impossible. Basically, my first
thing to do ALWAYS is to select the proper gear that will hold me back, and
allow me to feather the brakes to "fine tune" my decent. Sometimes I select
a gear that is too low, then I use a healthy application of the brakes while
shifting to the next gear that will give greater comfort and control while
allowing a slightly faster decent.

The general rule of thumb is that if you are not comfortable, you are also
not being safe. If you are being safe, your comfort levels will increase
dramatically. Be safe and comfortable, and you will live to tell the
stories.



> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs?

Pardon me for breaking your thought in two, or more. This is a good
question.

Yes, the same rules apply when backing down a hill. NEVER EVER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER expect to retain control of you
vehicle while backing down a hill and using the brakes. The front tires will
lock up and steering control will be lost. It is ALWAYS best if you must
back down a hill, to come to a full stop FIRST, and select Reverse, and
probably LO range. Do this even if the engine has stalled. Then start the
motor and back down in Reverse, If the motor won't start, then back down on
the starter motor at least until the vehicle is stabalized to the point that
you can walk away from it without concern that it is going to go places on
its own.

The brakes are intended to stop you while moving forward, they don't work
nearly as well in Reverse as in any of the forward gears. The front brakes
are metered to take 60% to 70% of the braking load while going forward, they
still take the brake pressures in R but the loads are shifted, making the
front brakes lock too soon.




I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

You need to make gearing adjustments if you can not go slow enough in R. My
CJ has a 6.69:1 first gear, and R is similar, maybe even lower, so I can
literally get out of my Jeep and walk down the hill faster than it will go
on the engine.

You would be better off keeping the trans in R, and ridiing the brakes to
the threshold of stalling the motor than shifting into N and using the
brakes exclusively.

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
Yes, that's what I said. Of course, being there is a very important part of
this discussion because being there lets you experience a wealth of other
variables that make cut-and-dry statements impossible. Basically, my first
thing to do ALWAYS is to select the proper gear that will hold me back, and
allow me to feather the brakes to "fine tune" my decent. Sometimes I select
a gear that is too low, then I use a healthy application of the brakes while
shifting to the next gear that will give greater comfort and control while
allowing a slightly faster decent.

The general rule of thumb is that if you are not comfortable, you are also
not being safe. If you are being safe, your comfort levels will increase
dramatically. Be safe and comfortable, and you will live to tell the
stories.



> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs?

Pardon me for breaking your thought in two, or more. This is a good
question.

Yes, the same rules apply when backing down a hill. NEVER EVER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER expect to retain control of you
vehicle while backing down a hill and using the brakes. The front tires will
lock up and steering control will be lost. It is ALWAYS best if you must
back down a hill, to come to a full stop FIRST, and select Reverse, and
probably LO range. Do this even if the engine has stalled. Then start the
motor and back down in Reverse, If the motor won't start, then back down on
the starter motor at least until the vehicle is stabalized to the point that
you can walk away from it without concern that it is going to go places on
its own.

The brakes are intended to stop you while moving forward, they don't work
nearly as well in Reverse as in any of the forward gears. The front brakes
are metered to take 60% to 70% of the braking load while going forward, they
still take the brake pressures in R but the loads are shifted, making the
front brakes lock too soon.




I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

You need to make gearing adjustments if you can not go slow enough in R. My
CJ has a 6.69:1 first gear, and R is similar, maybe even lower, so I can
literally get out of my Jeep and walk down the hill faster than it will go
on the engine.

You would be better off keeping the trans in R, and ridiing the brakes to
the threshold of stalling the motor than shifting into N and using the
brakes exclusively.

Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
 

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310310713.1cc73a15@posting.google.c om...
> > If you rely upon the brakes alone to regulate your speed, then the
vehicle
> > can quickly attain an uncontrollable attitude that can result in excess
> > speed, and severe angles of slope.
>
>
> Ok, so if I understand right, you are saying that brakes are worse
> than engine-braking because 1) Brakes are more likely to lock the
> tires up, and 2) When the tires are locked up, you can't steer.
>
Yes, that's what I said. Of course, being there is a very important part of
this discussion because being there lets you experience a wealth of other
variables that make cut-and-dry statements impossible. Basically, my first
thing to do ALWAYS is to select the proper gear that will hold me back, and
allow me to feather the brakes to "fine tune" my decent. Sometimes I select
a gear that is too low, then I use a healthy application of the brakes while
shifting to the next gear that will give greater comfort and control while
allowing a slightly faster decent.

The general rule of thumb is that if you are not comfortable, you are also
not being safe. If you are being safe, your comfort levels will increase
dramatically. Be safe and comfortable, and you will live to tell the
stories.



> Is the same risk present though if you are backing down a hill, and
> therefore most of the braking is being done by the back tires, which
> presumably are not used for steering on most rigs?

Pardon me for breaking your thought in two, or more. This is a good
question.

Yes, the same rules apply when backing down a hill. NEVER EVER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER expect to retain control of you
vehicle while backing down a hill and using the brakes. The front tires will
lock up and steering control will be lost. It is ALWAYS best if you must
back down a hill, to come to a full stop FIRST, and select Reverse, and
probably LO range. Do this even if the engine has stalled. Then start the
motor and back down in Reverse, If the motor won't start, then back down on
the starter motor at least until the vehicle is stabalized to the point that
you can walk away from it without concern that it is going to go places on
its own.

The brakes are intended to stop you while moving forward, they don't work
nearly as well in Reverse as in any of the forward gears. The front brakes
are metered to take 60% to 70% of the braking load while going forward, they
still take the brake pressures in R but the loads are shifted, making the
front brakes lock too soon.




I ask because that
> is the situation I had in mind when I posed the question. I was
> recently trying to climb a steep hill and came up to a 4' sheer rock
> embankment that I simply couldn't climb. So my only real option was
> to go back down the hill. Not wanting to risk turning around on the
> side of a steep hill, I decided to do it in reverse. Because the
> trail had lots of obstacles on either side and was kind of twisty,
> and visibility in reverse isn't that great, I found that the one gear
> available to me (reverse) was way too fast, even in 4-low... so I
> felt my only option was to put things in neutral and ride the brakes
> haltingly back down the hill. I did that successfully but there was
> definitely a pucker factor!

You need to make gearing adjustments if you can not go slow enough in R. My
CJ has a 6.69:1 first gear, and R is similar, maybe even lower, so I can
literally get out of my Jeep and walk down the hill faster than it will go
on the engine.

You would be better off keeping the trans in R, and ridiing the brakes to
the threshold of stalling the motor than shifting into N and using the
brakes exclusively.