BMW Accelerator jam car hits 135mph

In article >,
Huw > wrote:
> > Huw, with all respect, you need to do a bit of research. The
> > construction of a fluid flywheel and torque convertor *is* different.
> > Google will come up with the answer.
> >
> >> I am thinking specifically of ZF transaxles which had an option of
> >> with or without fluid flywheel aka low stall speed torque converter.
> >> On engines with a maximum rated speed of 2200 these things more or
> >> less lock up at 1100erpm which is a high idle. The primary purpose is
> >> to reduce wear on the primary dry traction clutch.
> >
> > I'm no expert on industrial equipment - this is a car group. But I've
> > owned car autos with both fluid flywheels

> A Lanchester?

Close. The first one was actually a BSA - but of course with a
pre-selector box, not auto.

Rolls Royce didn't use torque convertor autos until something like '68.
They had fluid flywheels. As did Mercedes.

> and torque convertors, and the

> > big difference is the FF acts more or less like a normal dry clutch in
> > that it has effectively no action once the car is moving.

> Yes, that type of coupling is certainly more of a clutch than a torque
> converter.

But your definition of a clutch is like a light switch? ;-)

> A TC is
> > obviously in action in all but the highest engine speeds. Of course
> > many autos lock it out under some circumstances since it's not the
> > most efficient way to provide torque multiplication.

> Almost all torque converters fitted to modern cars have a lock-out
> mechanism which, surprise-surprise, requires a CLUTCH to work.

But not an on/off switch. ;-)

BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and
Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear.

> LOL.

Didn't realise you were an AOL customer.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Huw > wrote:
>> > Huw, with all respect, you need to do a bit of research. The
>> > construction of a fluid flywheel and torque convertor *is* different.
>> > Google will come up with the answer.
>> >
>> >> I am thinking specifically of ZF transaxles which had an option of
>> >> with or without fluid flywheel aka low stall speed torque converter.
>> >> On engines with a maximum rated speed of 2200 these things more or
>> >> less lock up at 1100erpm which is a high idle. The primary purpose is
>> >> to reduce wear on the primary dry traction clutch.
>> >
>> > I'm no expert on industrial equipment - this is a car group. But I've
>> > owned car autos with both fluid flywheels
>
>> A Lanchester?
>
> Close. The first one was actually a BSA - but of course with a
> pre-selector box, not auto.
>
> Rolls Royce didn't use torque convertor autos until something like '68.
> They had fluid flywheels. As did Mercedes.
>
>> and torque convertors, and the
>
>> > big difference is the FF acts more or less like a normal dry clutch in
>> > that it has effectively no action once the car is moving.
>
>> Yes, that type of coupling is certainly more of a clutch than a torque
>> converter.
>
> But your definition of a clutch is like a light switch? ;-)
>
>> A TC is
>> > obviously in action in all but the highest engine speeds. Of course
>> > many autos lock it out under some circumstances since it's not the
>> > most efficient way to provide torque multiplication.
>
>> Almost all torque converters fitted to modern cars have a lock-out
>> mechanism which, surprise-surprise, requires a CLUTCH to work.
>
> But not an on/off switch. ;-)

Well yes actually. It is either engaged or disengaged with, in most cases, a
degree of softeness to the actuation or 'soft modulation'
designed in.

>
> BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and
> Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear.
>

Even these had an actual CLUTCH to lock the torque converter then.

Huw

In article >,
Huw > wrote:
> > BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and
> > Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear.

> Even these had an actual CLUTCH to lock the torque converter then.

So what? It still didn't operate like an on off switch. It modulated the
speed of lockup - same as you do with the clutch on a manual transmission
when starting from rest.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Emperor's New Widescreen > wrote:
> > A clutch like a torque convertor allows variable amounts of torque to be
> > transmited through it.
>
> A conventional clutch allows from zero to maximum of the engine torque to
> be transmitted.

> A torque convertor acts like a continuously variable
> gearbox and multiplies the torque by producing a lower rpm output than the
> engine.

As does a clutch, a clutch act as a torque convertor.
A torque convertor is just a posh word for a clutch,
cars with automatic transmissions are bought buy posh
people who are impressed with posh sounding words,
clutch sounds so common.


>
> --
> *Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Huw > wrote:
>> > BTW, the Borg-Warner DG box fitted to things like late '50s Rovers and
>> > Jaguars had a TC lock out clutch which only operated in top gear.
>
>> Even these had an actual CLUTCH to lock the torque converter then.
>
> So what? It still didn't operate like an on off switch. It modulated the
> speed of lockup - same as you do with the clutch on a manual transmission
> when starting from rest.
>

Yep. It modulates between the on and off position, neither of which is
possible with a torque converter without a separate clutch to facilitate.

Huw

so ur going technical on this?

then ur stupid!!!!
"chippy" > wrote in message
...
> John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> "Emperor's New Widescreen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >"John Smith" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> >>"chippy" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> >>> Bozo wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>>> Derek Potter wrote:
>> >>>> > > If the driver had turned the engine off, surly that would
>> have >>>> > > slowed down the car.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I expect there's a lock to stop you doing that. Might get some
>> >>>> > backfiring or summat - safety regs y'know.
>> > > > >
>> >>>> Either turn off the engine (not a good idea to turn it so far
>> that >>>> you lock the steering) or clutch in and select N. Engine
>> will go to >>>> the red line and make a lot of noise. Better than
>> crashing though.
>> > > >
>> >>> is there a clutch on an auto?
>> > >
>> > > No
>> >
>> > Oh yes there is!!
>>
>> Not on the on's I drive! Where?
>
> In the engine, the correct question would be, "does it have a clutch
> pedal".
>
> --
> wigwambam

"Emperor's New Widescreen" > wrote
>
> Yes as I have reached sufficient depth to final bury your arguement
> there is no need to dig futher!! (see below!!).
>
> http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/tor..._explained.htm
>
> "the sprag is a one-way mechanical *clutch* mounted on races and fits
> inside
> the stator" (pump, turbine, stator and cover are the four components of
> a torque convertor).
>
> I rest my case M'Lud.
>
> Better luck next time :O)
>

Actually it says that the stator contains a one way clutch, a sprag in fact.
All cars have a number of clutches. This does not mean that the car is a big
clutch any more than it means that just because a converter contains a
clutch or two, that it is actually a clutch in itself.

For Dave, the first sentence defining a converter describes it as a fluid
coupling device that also acts as a torque multiplier during initial
acceleration.

Never any mention of a converter being a clutch, which of course it is not
and if a converter allied to a conventional synchromesh gearbox there must
be an actual clutch in the driveline to allow disconnection during a
gearchange. While synchro boxes in conjunction with torque convertors are
not common in cars they are not uncommon per-se. In an automatic or
power-shift gearbox, there is of course no need to disconnect drive to
achieve a ratio change because the clutch is integral to the gearbox in that
it replaces a synchro unit in effect, whether in a constant mesh or
planetary unit. From this it should be obvious that it does not matter which
side of the converter a clutch is fitted, either on the input shaft or the
output.

Please do try again your widescreenness :-)

Huw