Live fast, die young, leave a rattletrap corpse

Dear Tom and Ray:

My son is driving a 2001 Chrysler Concorde, and it's now on its last
leg. He drives fast -- he just got a speeding ticket for going 96 mph!
He goes to college out of state, and it's a long, boring drive home;
that's the excuse I got for the ticket. He also told me that's not the
fastest he's driven! He's always in a hurry -- jackrabbit starts and
last-second braking. Does the way he drives affect the longevity of
the engine? I'm pretty sure it does. I want him to understand how to
make a car last.

--Richard

RAY: We actually DON'T want him to understand what makes a car last,
Richard. It's guys like him who keep us in business at the garage and
allow us to buy a bigger boat every spring.

TOM: Of course the way he drives affects the longevity of the car. In
fact, it can affect the longevity of everything -- including him!

RAY: We wrote a pamphlet called "Ten Ways You May be Ruining Your Car
Without Even Knowing It" (Send $4.75 -- check or money order -- to
Ruin, P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475). And guess what's No. 1
on our list? Driving like your son does!

TOM: Right. You slam on the gas pedal and stress everything down the
line: the pistons, the connecting rods, the crankshaft, the
transmission, the differential, then the axles and the wheels. And
once the car takes off, you not only stress the suspension parts, but
you're also loosening up the welds that hold the car together and
hastening the day when your car becomes the proverbial bucket of
bolts.

RAY: In the pamphlet, we use this analogy: Imagine that you're walking
down the street and you need to turn around and walk in the other
direction.

TOM: Which approach will harm you less: stopping, turning around and
then starting to walk the other way?

RAY: Or getting slammed by an NFL linebacker and jolted suddenly into
moving in the other direction?

TOM: They both get the job done, but if it were your body, which would
you prefer, 50 times a day?

RAY: So you need to drill some sense into this kid, Richard -- first,
for his own safety and the safety of others who have to share the road
with him. And second, for the longevity of his car. In our experience,
nothing helps drive home a point like having to pay the cost of one's
own stupidity.

TOM: You mean like my alimony payments?

RAY: Exactly. That's one example. But when a young driver has to pay
for his own repair bills, his own insurance (including the surcharges
he generates with speeding tickets) and his own replacement car once
he destroys the one he's got, he may suddenly get religion.

TOM: After his second brake job in six months and a transmission
failure or two, he might eventually ask you if he can read that little
pamphlet one more time. Good luck, Richard. And if nothing else, slow
him down.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/today...-son-slow-down
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> Dear Tom and Ray:
>
> My son is driving a 2001 Chrysler Concorde, and it's now on its last
> leg. He drives fast -- he just got a speeding ticket for going 96 mph!
> He goes to college out of state, and it's a long, boring drive home;
> that's the excuse I got for the ticket. He also told me that's not the
> fastest he's driven! He's always in a hurry -- jackrabbit starts and
> last-second braking. Does the way he drives affect the longevity of
> the engine? I'm pretty sure it does. I want him to understand how to
> make a car last.
>
> --Richard
>
> RAY: We actually DON'T want him to understand what makes a car last,
> Richard. It's guys like him who keep us in business at the garage and
> allow us to buy a bigger boat every spring.
>
> TOM: Of course the way he drives affects the longevity of the car. In
> fact, it can affect the longevity of everything -- including him!
>
> RAY: We wrote a pamphlet called "Ten Ways You May be Ruining Your Car
> Without Even Knowing It" (Send $4.75 -- check or money order -- to
> Ruin, P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475). And guess what's No. 1
> on our list? Driving like your son does!
>
> TOM: Right. You slam on the gas pedal and stress everything down the
> line: the pistons, the connecting rods, the crankshaft, the
> transmission, the differential, then the axles and the wheels. And
> once the car takes off, you not only stress the suspension parts, but
> you're also loosening up the welds that hold the car together and
> hastening the day when your car becomes the proverbial bucket of
> bolts.
>
> RAY: In the pamphlet, we use this analogy: Imagine that you're walking
> down the street and you need to turn around and walk in the other
> direction.
>
> TOM: Which approach will harm you less: stopping, turning around and
> then starting to walk the other way?
>
> RAY: Or getting slammed by an NFL linebacker and jolted suddenly into
> moving in the other direction?
>
> TOM: They both get the job done, but if it were your body, which would
> you prefer, 50 times a day?
>
> RAY: So you need to drill some sense into this kid, Richard -- first,
> for his own safety and the safety of others who have to share the road
> with him. And second, for the longevity of his car. In our experience,
> nothing helps drive home a point like having to pay the cost of one's
> own stupidity.
>
> TOM: You mean like my alimony payments?
>
> RAY: Exactly. That's one example. But when a young driver has to pay
> for his own repair bills, his own insurance (including the surcharges
> he generates with speeding tickets) and his own replacement car once
> he destroys the one he's got, he may suddenly get religion.
>
> TOM: After his second brake job in six months and a transmission
> failure or two, he might eventually ask you if he can read that little
> pamphlet one more time. Good luck, Richard. And if nothing else, slow
> him down.
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/today...-son-slow-down
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Except their analogy is nonsense.

Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
rotating parts at higher RPM. This is particularly true when the car in
question is an automatic with a fluid clutch.

And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
maximum "stress the suspension parts"?

I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...

....and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
its original engine. The only major component replace in the drivetrain
has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.

I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
more prematurely.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On 2012-07-07, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
>,
> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> Dear Tom and Ray:
>>
>> My son is driving a 2001 Chrysler Concorde, and it's now on its last
>> leg. He drives fast -- he just got a speeding ticket for going 96 mph!
>> He goes to college out of state, and it's a long, boring drive home;
>> that's the excuse I got for the ticket. He also told me that's not the
>> fastest he's driven! He's always in a hurry -- jackrabbit starts and
>> last-second braking. Does the way he drives affect the longevity of
>> the engine? I'm pretty sure it does. I want him to understand how to
>> make a car last.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>> RAY: We actually DON'T want him to understand what makes a car last,
>> Richard. It's guys like him who keep us in business at the garage and
>> allow us to buy a bigger boat every spring.
>>
>> TOM: Of course the way he drives affects the longevity of the car. In
>> fact, it can affect the longevity of everything -- including him!
>>
>> RAY: We wrote a pamphlet called "Ten Ways You May be Ruining Your Car
>> Without Even Knowing It" (Send $4.75 -- check or money order -- to
>> Ruin, P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475). And guess what's No. 1
>> on our list? Driving like your son does!
>>
>> TOM: Right. You slam on the gas pedal and stress everything down the
>> line: the pistons, the connecting rods, the crankshaft, the
>> transmission, the differential, then the axles and the wheels. And
>> once the car takes off, you not only stress the suspension parts, but
>> you're also loosening up the welds that hold the car together and
>> hastening the day when your car becomes the proverbial bucket of
>> bolts.
>>
>> RAY: In the pamphlet, we use this analogy: Imagine that you're walking
>> down the street and you need to turn around and walk in the other
>> direction.
>>
>> TOM: Which approach will harm you less: stopping, turning around and
>> then starting to walk the other way?
>>
>> RAY: Or getting slammed by an NFL linebacker and jolted suddenly into
>> moving in the other direction?
>>
>> TOM: They both get the job done, but if it were your body, which would
>> you prefer, 50 times a day?
>>
>> RAY: So you need to drill some sense into this kid, Richard -- first,
>> for his own safety and the safety of others who have to share the road
>> with him. And second, for the longevity of his car. In our experience,
>> nothing helps drive home a point like having to pay the cost of one's
>> own stupidity.
>>
>> TOM: You mean like my alimony payments?
>>
>> RAY: Exactly. That's one example. But when a young driver has to pay
>> for his own repair bills, his own insurance (including the surcharges
>> he generates with speeding tickets) and his own replacement car once
>> he destroys the one he's got, he may suddenly get religion.

>> TOM: After his second brake job in six months and a transmission
>> failure or two, he might eventually ask you if he can read that little
>> pamphlet one more time. Good luck, Richard. And if nothing else, slow
>> him down.
>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/today...-son-slow-down
>> -----
>>
>> - gpsman

> Except their analogy is nonsense.
>
> Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
> an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
> rotating parts at higher RPM. This is particularly true when the car in
> question is an automatic with a fluid clutch.
>
> And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
> maximum "stress the suspension parts"?
>
> I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
>
> ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
> its original engine. The only major component replace in the drivetrain
> has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
> aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
> it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
> was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.
>
> I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
> items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
> more prematurely.

The sort of advice that gpstroll has sought fit to repeat is why I can
out accelerate a lot of drivers on my bicycle. Not to mention the
endless traffic congestion because people refuse to accelerate.

My experience over the long haul is also completely opposite to what
these guys are saying.

The kind of abuse required to actually break a car that is well cared
for and free of manufacturing and design defects is above and beyond
what was described by the person writing in.

Now like most 'advice' like this there probably was a time back when,
say 1925 when it might have mattered. When a drivetrain component was
designed well enough or made of materials good enough or had lubrication
good enough to hold up. However in the modern era with proper testing
and warranties and the like it simply does not apply.

If this kid's car breaks it's going to break because it's been treated
like crap such that it's not even a dozen years old and is already 'on
it's last legs'.

On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> Except their analogy is nonsense.

Uh huh...

> Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
> an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
> rotating parts at higher RPM.

Sooo... load is not a factor...

> This is particularly true when the car in
> question is an automatic with a fluid clutch.

....until your next sentence where load appears so that it may be
dampened.

It's Sunday, I gotta go down to the dragstrip and tell the fellers
their cars most often break coming off the line is mere coincidence.

> And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
> maximum "stress the suspension parts"?

Hitting potholes at 10 mph or 40 mph = no difference to the
suspension?

> I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...

"Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? You're pushing what, a tad better
than 100 hp?

"Year" is kind of a moron measurement of vehicle wear, but that's all
we got so let's go with it.

Assuming a paltry 12,000 miles per year we can guesstimate your car
has at least 240,000 miles.

You probably drive a little more than granny, if for no other reason
than to keep your driving expertise sharp, so we can assume 15,000 per
year and guesstimate this rig has 300.000 miles.

> ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
> its original engine.

You must be the best driver in the whole wide world.

> The only major component replace in the drivetrain
> has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
> aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
> it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
> was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.

False premise. Single cause fallacy.

What principle of physics prevented your hard launches from
contributing "nothing" to the failure? How did you determine same
post-failure?

Or are you purporting to know something you have no method of
learning?

> I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
> items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
> more prematurely.

U-joints, tie rods, A-arms, shocks, springs... can't can be
distinguished from new, huh?
-----

- gpsman

On 07/08/2012 02:17 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2012-07-07, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> gpsman > wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Tom and Ray:
>>>
>>> My son is driving a 2001 Chrysler Concorde, and it's now on its last
>>> leg. He drives fast -- he just got a speeding ticket for going 96 mph!
>>> He goes to college out of state, and it's a long, boring drive home;
>>> that's the excuse I got for the ticket. He also told me that's not the
>>> fastest he's driven! He's always in a hurry -- jackrabbit starts and
>>> last-second braking. Does the way he drives affect the longevity of
>>> the engine? I'm pretty sure it does. I want him to understand how to
>>> make a car last.
>>>
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>> RAY: We actually DON'T want him to understand what makes a car last,
>>> Richard. It's guys like him who keep us in business at the garage and
>>> allow us to buy a bigger boat every spring.
>>>
>>> TOM: Of course the way he drives affects the longevity of the car. In
>>> fact, it can affect the longevity of everything -- including him!
>>>
>>> RAY: We wrote a pamphlet called "Ten Ways You May be Ruining Your Car
>>> Without Even Knowing It" (Send $4.75 -- check or money order -- to
>>> Ruin, P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475). And guess what's No. 1
>>> on our list? Driving like your son does!
>>>
>>> TOM: Right. You slam on the gas pedal and stress everything down the
>>> line: the pistons, the connecting rods, the crankshaft, the
>>> transmission, the differential, then the axles and the wheels. And
>>> once the car takes off, you not only stress the suspension parts, but
>>> you're also loosening up the welds that hold the car together and
>>> hastening the day when your car becomes the proverbial bucket of
>>> bolts.
>>>
>>> RAY: In the pamphlet, we use this analogy: Imagine that you're walking
>>> down the street and you need to turn around and walk in the other
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> TOM: Which approach will harm you less: stopping, turning around and
>>> then starting to walk the other way?
>>>
>>> RAY: Or getting slammed by an NFL linebacker and jolted suddenly into
>>> moving in the other direction?
>>>
>>> TOM: They both get the job done, but if it were your body, which would
>>> you prefer, 50 times a day?
>>>
>>> RAY: So you need to drill some sense into this kid, Richard -- first,
>>> for his own safety and the safety of others who have to share the road
>>> with him. And second, for the longevity of his car. In our experience,
>>> nothing helps drive home a point like having to pay the cost of one's
>>> own stupidity.
>>>
>>> TOM: You mean like my alimony payments?
>>>
>>> RAY: Exactly. That's one example. But when a young driver has to pay
>>> for his own repair bills, his own insurance (including the surcharges
>>> he generates with speeding tickets) and his own replacement car once
>>> he destroys the one he's got, he may suddenly get religion.
>
>>> TOM: After his second brake job in six months and a transmission
>>> failure or two, he might eventually ask you if he can read that little
>>> pamphlet one more time. Good luck, Richard. And if nothing else, slow
>>> him down.
>>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/today...-son-slow-down
>>> -----
>>>
>>> - gpsman
>
>> Except their analogy is nonsense.
>>
>> Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
>> an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
>> rotating parts at higher RPM. This is particularly true when the car in
>> question is an automatic with a fluid clutch.
>>
>> And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
>> maximum "stress the suspension parts"?
>>
>> I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
>>
>> ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
>> its original engine. The only major component replace in the drivetrain
>> has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
>> aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
>> it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
>> was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.
>>
>> I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
>> items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
>> more prematurely.
>
> The sort of advice that gpstroll has sought fit to repeat is why I can
> out accelerate a lot of drivers on my bicycle. Not to mention the
> endless traffic congestion because people refuse to accelerate.
>
> My experience over the long haul is also completely opposite to what
> these guys are saying.
>
> The kind of abuse required to actually break a car that is well cared
> for and free of manufacturing and design defects is above and beyond
> what was described by the person writing in.
>
> Now like most 'advice' like this there probably was a time back when,
> say 1925 when it might have mattered. When a drivetrain component was
> designed well enough or made of materials good enough or had lubrication
> good enough to hold up. However in the modern era with proper testing
> and warranties and the like it simply does not apply.
>
> If this kid's car breaks it's going to break because it's been treated
> like crap such that it's not even a dozen years old and is already 'on
> it's last legs'.
>

Well, there's some truth to the advice... but really will only affect
things like tires, brakes, clutch, etc. that you were going to replace
anyway (assuming a well maintained vehicle.) If you drive the snot out
of it, those things *will* wear more quickly. The actual whirly bits of
the engine and transmission might also wear slightly more quickly, as
they'll be more often subjected to loads close to the design maximum,
but honestly, most people don't keep vehicles long enough to wear out
either the engine or transmission no matter how hard the vehicle is
used. However if it is actually true that driving a car hard - not
racing hard, just street hard - can cause the suspension components and
body welds to fail more quickly - or at all - that's not a ringing
endorsement of any particular vehicle. In fact, if that were true of a
particular vehicle, I think that that's a vehicle that I'd want to avoid
purchasing.

I also don't think that I'd want to be riding with someone who engages
in "last-second braking" but that's not out of concern for the
mechanical health of the vehicle, but for other reasons having to do
with not wanting to be delayed by having run into another vehicle and/or
worse.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > Except their analogy is nonsense.
>
> Uh huh...
>
> > Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
> > an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
> > rotating parts at higher RPM.
>
> Sooo... load is not a factor...

Once again "translating" my words into something I didn't say.

Load is a factor, but the forces at low rpm and full throttle "load" are
LESS than the forces at high rpm.
>
> > This is particularly true when the car in
> > question is an automatic with a fluid clutch.
>
> ...until your next sentence where load appears so that it may be
> dampened.
>
> It's Sunday, I gotta go down to the dragstrip and tell the fellers
> their cars most often break coming off the line is mere coincidence.

Drag cars are running in a very different regime. And you'll have to
show me any actual stats that show that your statement about when they
break is anything but pulled from your ass.

>
> > And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
> > maximum "stress the suspension parts"?
>
> Hitting potholes at 10 mph or 40 mph = no difference to the
> suspension?

What has that got to do with it? Nothing is the answer.

Hitting potholes a N mph is the same whether you accelerated quickly or
slowly. The article clearly tries to paint the very act of accelerating
as having a wear effect on the suspension...

....and that's nonsense.

>
> > I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
>
> "Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? You're pushing what, a tad better
> than 100 hp?

About.

>
> "Year" is kind of a moron measurement of vehicle wear, but that's all
> we got so let's go with it.
>
> Assuming a paltry 12,000 miles per year we can guesstimate your car
> has at least 240,000 miles.
>
> You probably drive a little more than granny, if for no other reason
> than to keep your driving expertise sharp, so we can assume 15,000 per
> year and guesstimate this rig has 300.000 miles.
>
> > ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
> > its original engine.
>
> You must be the best driver in the whole wide world.

Nope. It's merely a point of data.

>
> > The only major component replace in the drivetrain
> > has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
> > aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
> > it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
> > was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.
>
> False premise. Single cause fallacy.

Not false. Known fact.

>
> What principle of physics prevented your hard launches from
> contributing "nothing" to the failure? How did you determine same
> post-failure?

Because the launch only gets "hard" after the clutch is fully hooked up
and not slippping.

>
> Or are you purporting to know something you have no method of
> learning?
>
> > I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
> > items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
> > more prematurely.
>
> U-joints, tie rods, A-arms, shocks, springs... can't can be
> distinguished from new, huh?

I'm sure they can, but they've been inspected and with the exception of
the shocks which are a wear item, they are all in fine condition.

But let's get to the core of this:

You're a dick about this kind of stuff.

Accelerating hard is well within the design tolerances of a reasonably
well constructed modern automobile.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jul 8, 8:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> > > Except their analogy is nonsense.
>
> > Uh huh...
>
> > > Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
> > > an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
> > > rotating parts at higher RPM.
>
> > Sooo... load is not a factor...
>
> Once again "translating" my words into something I didn't say.

No, just pointing out you didn't factor the load.

> Load is a factor, but the forces at low rpm and full throttle "load" are
> LESS than the forces at high rpm.

It's not linear. Off the line the engine has more work; low rpm/high
load. At higher rpm the engine is working in its torque range.

> > It's Sunday, I gotta go down to the dragstrip and tell the fellers
> > their cars most often break coming off the line is mere coincidence.
>
> Drag cars are running in a very different regime.

Never been to a drag strip, have you?

Your premise is false. People race any ****ing thing they can get
through Safety. The principle of damage from hard starts is no
different between your car and a top fuel dragster.

> And you'll have to
> show me any actual stats that show that your statement about when they
> break is anything but pulled from your ass.

Go to a drag strip, or catch one on TV. Cars let go at every stage
but by far most often start coming apart in the first 100 feet.

> > > And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
> > > maximum "stress the suspension parts"?
>
> > Hitting potholes at 10 mph or 40 mph = no difference to the
> > suspension?
>
> What has that got to do with it? Nothing is the answer.
>
> Hitting potholes a N mph is the same whether you accelerated quickly or
> slowly.

Man, you cannot follow a premise for 2 seconds.

Non sequitur. The factor is not elapsed time to N.

> The article clearly tries to paint the very act of accelerating
> as having a wear effect on the suspension...
>
> ...and that's nonsense.

More movement = more wear. You seem to have forgotten all about axle
wrap.

> > > I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
>
> > "Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? *You're pushing what, a tad better
> > than 100 hp?
>
> About.

So, sporty.

> > "Year" is kind of a moron measurement of vehicle wear, but that's all
> > we got so let's go with it.
>
> > Assuming a paltry 12,000 miles per year we can guesstimate your car
> > has at least 240,000 miles.
>
> > You probably drive a little more than granny, if for no other reason
> > than to keep your driving expertise sharp, so we can assume 15,000 per
> > year and guesstimate this rig has 300.000 miles.
>
> > > ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
> > > its original engine.
>
> > You must be the best driver in the whole wide world.
>
> Nope. It's merely a point of data.

Bull**** is not data.

> > > The only major component replace in the drivetrain
> > > has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
> > > aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
> > > it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
> > > was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.
>
> > False premise. *Single cause fallacy.
>
> Not false. Known fact.

You have no method to have learned that. Correlation does not imply
causation.

> > What principle of physics prevented your hard launches from
> > contributing "nothing" to the failure? *How did you determine same
> > post-failure?
>
> Because the launch only gets "hard" after the clutch is fully hooked up
> and not slippping.

Huh? Your hard launches actually are not hard launches because you
deliberately slip the clutch? And that's not hard on the clutch?

> > Or are you purporting to know something you have no method of
> > learning?
>
> > > I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
> > > items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
> > > more prematurely.
>
> > U-joints, tie rods, A-arms, shocks, springs... can't can be
> > distinguished from new, huh?
>
> I'm sure they can, but they've been inspected and with the exception of
> the shocks which are a wear item, they are all in fine condition.

After 200,000+ "pretty hard" miles? You're delusional if you expect
anyone to believe that.

> But let's get to the core of this:
>
> You're a dick about this kind of stuff.

Stop proposing preposterous **** and see if that helps.

> Accelerating hard is well within the design tolerances of a reasonably
> well constructed modern automobile.

Straw man. The premise is it accelerates wear.

This is the co There is no free lunch.

Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
thinking.
-----

- gpsman

On Jul 8, 7:30*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> > > > Except their analogy is nonsense.
>

<snip>

> > > > I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
>
> > > "Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? *You're pushing what, a tad better
> > > than 100 hp?
>
> > About.
>
> So, sporty.
>
>
>

Curious. You decide what is a sports car by how much HP is under the
hood? How juvenile.

Harry K

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 8, 8:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > > > Except their analogy is nonsense.
> >
> > > Uh huh...
> >
> > > > Opening the throttle suddenly at low speeds is not really a problem for
> > > > an engine that will see much greater forces from the inertia of the
> > > > rotating parts at higher RPM.
> >
> > > Sooo... load is not a factor...
> >
> > Once again "translating" my words into something I didn't say.
>
> No, just pointing out you didn't factor the load.

Incorrect.

>
> > Load is a factor, but the forces at low rpm and full throttle "load" are
> > LESS than the forces at high rpm.
>
> It's not linear. Off the line the engine has more work; low rpm/high
> load. At higher rpm the engine is working in its torque range.

Where it can produce higher forces than it can when it is out its torque
range. That's precisely what the torque range tells you.

>
> > > It's Sunday, I gotta go down to the dragstrip and tell the fellers
> > > their cars most often break coming off the line is mere coincidence.
> >
> > Drag cars are running in a very different regime.
>
> Never been to a drag strip, have you?

Have you?

>
> Your premise is false. People race any ****ing thing they can get
> through Safety. The principle of damage from hard starts is no
> different between your car and a top fuel dragster.

LOL

>
> > And you'll have to
> > show me any actual stats that show that your statement about when they
> > break is anything but pulled from your ass.
>
> Go to a drag strip, or catch one on TV. Cars let go at every stage
> but by far most often start coming apart in the first 100 feet.

You mean where they've gone from a standing start to over 100mph and
many RPM?

>
> > > > And then they go even farther afield. How does accelerating at the cars
> > > > maximum "stress the suspension parts"?
> >
> > > Hitting potholes at 10 mph or 40 mph = no difference to the
> > > suspension?
> >
> > What has that got to do with it? Nothing is the answer.
> >
> > Hitting potholes a N mph is the same whether you accelerated quickly or
> > slowly.
>
> Man, you cannot follow a premise for 2 seconds.
>
> Non sequitur. The factor is not elapsed time to N.

This whole diversion of yours is non sequitur. The article discussed
what accelerating hard supposedly did to a suspension, not what going
over road irregularities faster does.

>
> > The article clearly tries to paint the very act of accelerating
> > as having a wear effect on the suspension...
> >
> > ...and that's nonsense.
>
> More movement = more wear. You seem to have forgotten all about axle
> wrap.

Which doesn't occur in any modern car almost all of which no longer use
leaf spring suspensions...

>
> > > > I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
> >
> > > "Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? *You're pushing what, a tad better
> > > than 100 hp?
> >
> > About.
>
> So, sporty.

Nope. Sports cars are not defined by how many horsepower they have. The
MGB was a sports car, the Lotus Elan S1 was a sports car..

>
> > > "Year" is kind of a moron measurement of vehicle wear, but that's all
> > > we got so let's go with it.
> >
> > > Assuming a paltry 12,000 miles per year we can guesstimate your car
> > > has at least 240,000 miles.
> >
> > > You probably drive a little more than granny, if for no other reason
> > > than to keep your driving expertise sharp, so we can assume 15,000 per
> > > year and guesstimate this rig has 300.000 miles.
> >
> > > > ...and it still has its original transmission, original differential,
> > > > its original engine.
> >
> > > You must be the best driver in the whole wide world.
> >
> > Nope. It's merely a point of data.
>
> Bull**** is not data.

Nope. It's fact. And facts are data.

>
> > > > The only major component replace in the drivetrain
> > > > has been the clutch, and its failure had nothing to do with being too
> > > > aggressive off the line and everything to do with deliberately slipping
> > > > it because I foolishly failed to have a simple, inexpensive problem that
> > > > was causing a misfire diagnosed and corrected.
> >
> > > False premise. *Single cause fallacy.
> >
> > Not false. Known fact.
>
> You have no method to have learned that. Correlation does not imply
> causation.

LOL

>
> > > What principle of physics prevented your hard launches from
> > > contributing "nothing" to the failure? *How did you determine same
> > > post-failure?
> >
> > Because the launch only gets "hard" after the clutch is fully hooked up
> > and not slippping.
>
> Huh? Your hard launches actually are not hard launches because you
> deliberately slip the clutch? And that's not hard on the clutch?

At the outset of every launch--hard or soft--one must slip the clutch
for a brief time on a car with a standard gearbox. But once that brief
period is done, a hard launch is no more wearing of the clutch than a
soft one.

>
> > > Or are you purporting to know something you have no method of
> > > learning?
> >
> > > > I've naturally replaced brake pads and even rotors, but those are wear
> > > > items. Even the clutch itself is a wear item; I just wore it out rather
> > > > more prematurely.
> >
> > > U-joints, tie rods, A-arms, shocks, springs... can't can be
> > > distinguished from new, huh?
> >
> > I'm sure they can, but they've been inspected and with the exception of
> > the shocks which are a wear item, they are all in fine condition.
>
> After 200,000+ "pretty hard" miles? You're delusional if you expect
> anyone to believe that.

LOL

If they weren't, they wouldn't still be on the car.

>
> > But let's get to the core of this:
> >
> > You're a dick about this kind of stuff.
>
> Stop proposing preposterous **** and see if that helps.

LOL

Like that acceleration is hard on the suspension because you then hit a
theoretical pothole at greater speed?

"Correlation is not causation": remember that line?

>
> > Accelerating hard is well within the design tolerances of a reasonably
> > well constructed modern automobile.
>
> Straw man. The premise is it accelerates wear.

No. The premise was that it causes much greater wear.

>
> This is the co There is no free lunch.

Every revolution your engine does causes wear, but well-designed
mechanical system do no wear substantially more when used within their
design limits.

>
> Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
> no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
> thinking.

That's not my premise.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article
>,
Harry K > wrote:

> On Jul 8, 7:30*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 8:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 7, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Except their analogy is nonsense.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > I have driven my sports car pretty hard for more than 20 years...
> >
> > > > "Sports" car... or "sporty" car...? *You're pushing what, a tad better
> > > > than 100 hp?
> >
> > > About.
> >
> > So, sporty.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Curious. You decide what is a sports car by how much HP is under the
> hood? How juvenile.
>
> Harry K

Ah... ...but he's a "DRIVER"!

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."