Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Oh my Gosh!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Oh my Gosh!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Oh my Gosh!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Never, NEVER back down a steep hill in neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Use Reverse and let the engine do most of the braking for you!
If you have rear drum brakes, you have almost NO braking action on the rears
when backing in neutral so the fronts will do well over 90% of the braking.
The front wheels will lock very easily and you will loose all steering
control and the front end might easily slide sideways.
If you are in 4-hi or 4-lo with a part-time system, as in a TJ, YJ, or CJ,
at least all 4 wheels will have braking action because the front and rear
axels are locked together, but the front brakes will be doing almost ALL of
the braking, even on the back wheels. The front brake action will be
transmitted through the drivetrain to the rear axel. The rear drums will be
doing almost nothing. Still, you have MUCH LESS vehicle control when in
neutral or with the clutch depressed.
Tom
"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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Bill speechless! That's a first!
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Bill speechless! That's a first!
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
Bill speechless! That's a first!
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
:)
Tom
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vq5pmkcob72o15@corp.supernews.com...
> Sheesh, my logic is so simple that Bill is speechless ...
>
>
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FA2E2F8.5F3AFF36@***.net...
> >
> > --
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
With the old Rennix MPI from 87-90 or so (XJ or MJ), if you stall the
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
With the old Rennix MPI from 87-90 or so (XJ or MJ), if you stall the
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
With the old Rennix MPI from 87-90 or so (XJ or MJ), if you stall the
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
engine the computer will have everything wide open so that the engine
races to 2000-2500 RPM when it catches after a stall. THAT will get
your attention in this case!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:25:52 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if it was Josh or Travis that said they decided that R sent
> them down the hill with too much speed. I'm with you, the brakes should have
> keep things managable while the trans was set in R, if there was still more
> speed than one would have liked, then the Idle Speed must be too high.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
> news:20031031170243.12300.00001401@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > In article <b102b6e4.0310311331.1c8451eb@posting.google.com >,
> spam_box@ev1.net
> > (Joshua Nelson) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not trying to argue with you, but this wasn't an option.
> >
> > You're not reading his post correcty.
> >
> > I have a
> > >V8 and 4.10 gear ratio, and when it's in 4-low and a low gear such as
> > >reverse, not to mention a downhill incline, there is no way the brakes
> > >can apply enough stopping power to stall the engine.
> >
> > If that is the case you should have had enough engine compression braking
> to
> > safely back down, feathering the brake pedal just to augment the
> compression
> > braking.
> >
> > The torque
> > >simply overpowers the brakes. I can't help but suspect that this is
> > >the case for many others here as well, since a lot of folks have quite
> > >powerful engines.
> >
> > You may want to have your brakes looked at. Remember, acceleration is
> optional,
> > stopping is not.
> >
> > Your CJ8 might be too much machine to learn to 'wheel on. Better stick
> with
> > that TJ 4-popper.
> > * * *
> > Matt Macchiarolo
> > www.townpeddler.com
> > www.wolverine4wd.org
> > http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who was it that said I didn't need lockers...?
In article <nPudne7ZC7RWnj6iRVn-vQ@gbronline.com>, "mabar"
<mabar@NOSPAMgbronline.com> writes:
>Bill speechless! That's a first!
>
>:)
>
>Tom
He didn't even utter "Real Jeep..."
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
<mabar@NOSPAMgbronline.com> writes:
>Bill speechless! That's a first!
>
>:)
>
>Tom
He didn't even utter "Real Jeep..."
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html