If you've read the engine oil bible, there's a section in there that talks about how many miles is the "best" distance between oil changes. It's not really about the miles, but more about the conditions. In general, if you live in the mid latitudes where the weather is temperate, two oil changes a year should be what you're looking for. One in the spring, and one just before winter sets in.
Why do I say this?
The life of the oil in your engine is not solely dependent on the number of miles driven. It's more complex than that and includes these factors:
Number of cold starts (more condensation in a cold engine)
Ambient temperature (how long before warm enough to stop serious condensation)
Effectiveness of crank case scavenging
State of wear of the engine (piston blow-by multiplies the problem)
Accuracy of carburation during warm-up period (extra gook produced)
Distance travelled
An average family car will do around 14,000 miles per year and about 2/3 of that will fall in the March - November period. All that distance will have been done at reasonable temperatures, including long distance runs during vacations and good weather. During the November to March period it may accumulate only 2 or 3 thousand miles, all low temperature starts and mostly short runs.
Hence why I say to do two oil changes a year - one after the winter months, and one after the summer months. I find this to be better advice than saying 'do it every x thousand miles' because if you own a car that does 5 miles a day on your commute, it could take a couple of years to get to 'x', meaning you've gone through two hot and two cold seasons without an oil change. Generally speaking, that's not the best thing for your engine.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
Understanding what's important and what isn't when you're driving.
I saw an advert from Subaru recently that was promoting their idea for driver aids, arguing that a second pair of eyes is always safer. And they're right - if your passenger sees something you've missed, they can alert you to it. If that passenger happens to be a drone car, or radar, Subaru argue this is a good thing. I'm not getting into that debate again, but the point is that they advertised this using a worrying phrase. Specifically this: "what if you need to read an urgent text message?"
Well then you pull over and you read it. Because I'm not sure about you, but last time I looked, no text message was more important or urgent than the actual safe driving of the vehicle you're in. And this is a problem today - too many people treat driving as the "second" thing they do when they're in a car.
It's amazing and appalling to see how many people just don't understand that they're piloting a two-ton weapon. When you're doing that, the act of driving should be the all-encompassing primary function. There shouldn't be a distraction that prevents you from being able to hold focus and concentrate on what you're doing. Looking down at a text (or worse, replying) is the same as cleaning the trigger of a loaded gun whilst it's pointing at your best friend.
Worryingly, rather than try to educate people about this, Subaru are suggesting that they have the answer with a system that monitors the inside of the car - "EyeSight PreCollision Throttle Management". In short - if the car thinks you're distracted, it reduces throttle input. ie. to the car behind, you just slowed down with no brake lights. For you as the driver, your car just took control away from you without notice. (of course, if you're texting, you wouldn't notice anyway). This is in addition to its forward-looking radar and other tech they want to introduce. All to compensate for a population unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.
Here's a fun thought experiment for you: 26% of all wrecks in the US are now attributable to phone use - either talking or texting. That's a considerable number of dead and injured people as a result of drivers who didn't understand that there's no such thing as an "urgent" phone call or text when you're driving.
So why is it that when 13 people died over the course of 10 years, because of a sketchy ignition switch, we force GM to have the most expensive recall in motoring history. Yet when thousands of people die every year because of distracted driving, we're wholly unwilling to address the problem?
That's messed up.
Source : 26% of wrecks involve phone use
Well then you pull over and you read it. Because I'm not sure about you, but last time I looked, no text message was more important or urgent than the actual safe driving of the vehicle you're in. And this is a problem today - too many people treat driving as the "second" thing they do when they're in a car.
It's amazing and appalling to see how many people just don't understand that they're piloting a two-ton weapon. When you're doing that, the act of driving should be the all-encompassing primary function. There shouldn't be a distraction that prevents you from being able to hold focus and concentrate on what you're doing. Looking down at a text (or worse, replying) is the same as cleaning the trigger of a loaded gun whilst it's pointing at your best friend.
Worryingly, rather than try to educate people about this, Subaru are suggesting that they have the answer with a system that monitors the inside of the car - "EyeSight PreCollision Throttle Management". In short - if the car thinks you're distracted, it reduces throttle input. ie. to the car behind, you just slowed down with no brake lights. For you as the driver, your car just took control away from you without notice. (of course, if you're texting, you wouldn't notice anyway). This is in addition to its forward-looking radar and other tech they want to introduce. All to compensate for a population unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.
Here's a fun thought experiment for you: 26% of all wrecks in the US are now attributable to phone use - either talking or texting. That's a considerable number of dead and injured people as a result of drivers who didn't understand that there's no such thing as an "urgent" phone call or text when you're driving.
So why is it that when 13 people died over the course of 10 years, because of a sketchy ignition switch, we force GM to have the most expensive recall in motoring history. Yet when thousands of people die every year because of distracted driving, we're wholly unwilling to address the problem?
That's messed up.
Source : 26% of wrecks involve phone use
Monday, May 5, 2014
Travelling without cars
This is a car blog, right, so why am I writing today about travelling without cars? Simple. As much as I love cars and everything to do with them, I'm not daft enough to think they're the be-all and end-all of transportation. We just returned from a vacation in Europe and for sure, there are cities and entire countries where you really don't need a car (as a visitor). That's an important distinction; there are obviously times when a car is the only option. But if you're travelling, think twice about renting a car.
For example we spent a week in London. I can tell you it's utterly pointless to rent a car there. You'd be spending stupid money in congestion charges and parking charges, and you'd spend your entire time sitting still in traffic. Instead, grab yourself an Oyster card (public transit pre-paid card) and use the buses and tube. It's so much easier. Heck - the centre of London really isn't that big - you can walk a lot of it without any issue if the weather cooperates.
We also spent time in the Netherlands - all over the country. This country invested in public transport in a big way thirty years ago and today, as a visitor at least, there's literally nowhere in the country I can't get to without public transport. They have a pre-paid public transit card too - called the OV Kaart (openbaar vervoer = public transport). We toured the entire country visiting friends and tourist attractions without once wishing we had a car. The trains are punctual, clean and efficient. The trams and buses equally so.
So consider it next time you travel - do you really need to rent a car?
For example we spent a week in London. I can tell you it's utterly pointless to rent a car there. You'd be spending stupid money in congestion charges and parking charges, and you'd spend your entire time sitting still in traffic. Instead, grab yourself an Oyster card (public transit pre-paid card) and use the buses and tube. It's so much easier. Heck - the centre of London really isn't that big - you can walk a lot of it without any issue if the weather cooperates.
We also spent time in the Netherlands - all over the country. This country invested in public transport in a big way thirty years ago and today, as a visitor at least, there's literally nowhere in the country I can't get to without public transport. They have a pre-paid public transit card too - called the OV Kaart (openbaar vervoer = public transport). We toured the entire country visiting friends and tourist attractions without once wishing we had a car. The trains are punctual, clean and efficient. The trams and buses equally so.
So consider it next time you travel - do you really need to rent a car?
Monday, April 28, 2014
Correctly using the parking brake.
The parking brake in your car is just that - a parking brake. Not a handbrake. Not an e-brake. Not an emergency brake. In fact, in the event of an emergency, the last control in the car that you want to touch is the parking brake. Locking the rear wheels at any speed will result in a spin.
When I moved to the US I was appalled at how many people (read : it seems to be everyone) don't know the most basic things about the parking brake. Like why you use it when you're stopped at an intersection.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I'll tell you why - if someone rear-ends you at an intersection, and you only have your foot on the regular brake, two things will happen. (1) you will jerk your foot off the brake because of the rear impact, which means that (2) you will either run into the car in front, or worse - roll into the intersection into oncoming or crossing traffic.
However - if you have the parking brake on, your foot coming off the brakes makes no difference, and the distance you will be pushed will be considerably reduced, and as an added bonus, you won't roll anywhere.
When I moved to the US and had to sit a driving test, the examiner thought I was bit funny in the head to use the parking brake at every intersection, until I explained the above to him, at which point he said "I'd never heard of that before." And he was not only a driving instructor - he was a tester/examiner! Explains a lot about how people drive around here.
I went on to explain to him why I always waited to turn across traffic with my wheels straight too. It's the same principal. If someone runs into you from behind, and your wheels are turned, you'll be shunted across the road into oncoming traffic. At least if the wheels are straight you'll go more or less straight ahead. Again - total confusion from the examiner.
Here's another tip for automatic gearboxes - the pawl that drops into the notch on the outside of the main clutch housing when you put the car in "Park" is not very strong. Not really strong enough to keep the car stationary on anything other than level ground. Sure - you just throw the car in "park" when on hills and everywhere, but that is slowly eating away the edge of that notch and one day, the parking pawl will slip out and your car will take off with the gear shifter firmly in "P". So here's the tip : use the parking brake every time your park - it reduces the chances of the "P" setting in the gearbox giving up on you one day.
What's worrying about all this was illustrated when we went to a 'new owners' evening at the dealership where we bought our car. It was one of those freebies to explain the nuances of that particular brand, with free drinks and snacks, in the hope that we'd buy accessories or something. Anyway, one driver asked "when should I use the emergency brake?" (aagh - it's not a fucking EMERGENCY brake!) The "expert" from the dealership said - verbatim - "Never - I don't know why they even bother putting them in cars any more."
When I moved to the US I was appalled at how many people (read : it seems to be everyone) don't know the most basic things about the parking brake. Like why you use it when you're stopped at an intersection.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I'll tell you why - if someone rear-ends you at an intersection, and you only have your foot on the regular brake, two things will happen. (1) you will jerk your foot off the brake because of the rear impact, which means that (2) you will either run into the car in front, or worse - roll into the intersection into oncoming or crossing traffic.
However - if you have the parking brake on, your foot coming off the brakes makes no difference, and the distance you will be pushed will be considerably reduced, and as an added bonus, you won't roll anywhere.
When I moved to the US and had to sit a driving test, the examiner thought I was bit funny in the head to use the parking brake at every intersection, until I explained the above to him, at which point he said "I'd never heard of that before." And he was not only a driving instructor - he was a tester/examiner! Explains a lot about how people drive around here.
I went on to explain to him why I always waited to turn across traffic with my wheels straight too. It's the same principal. If someone runs into you from behind, and your wheels are turned, you'll be shunted across the road into oncoming traffic. At least if the wheels are straight you'll go more or less straight ahead. Again - total confusion from the examiner.
Here's another tip for automatic gearboxes - the pawl that drops into the notch on the outside of the main clutch housing when you put the car in "Park" is not very strong. Not really strong enough to keep the car stationary on anything other than level ground. Sure - you just throw the car in "park" when on hills and everywhere, but that is slowly eating away the edge of that notch and one day, the parking pawl will slip out and your car will take off with the gear shifter firmly in "P". So here's the tip : use the parking brake every time your park - it reduces the chances of the "P" setting in the gearbox giving up on you one day.
What's worrying about all this was illustrated when we went to a 'new owners' evening at the dealership where we bought our car. It was one of those freebies to explain the nuances of that particular brand, with free drinks and snacks, in the hope that we'd buy accessories or something. Anyway, one driver asked "when should I use the emergency brake?" (aagh - it's not a fucking EMERGENCY brake!) The "expert" from the dealership said - verbatim - "Never - I don't know why they even bother putting them in cars any more."
Monday, April 21, 2014
Faster really is safer.
From Auto Express recently:
MOTORING groups have backed a Danish report which claims that increasing speed limits is safer – but there are question marks over whether it could be easily implemented in the UK.
The study, carried out over two years by the Danish Road Directorate, looked at how driver behaviour and accident rates changed when speed limits were raised on single-carriageway rural roads and motorways.
One of the key findings was that after raising limits on two-way rural roads from 50mph to 56mph, accidents fell, due to a drop in the speed differential between the fastest and the slowest drivers, resulting in less overtaking. While the slowest drivers increased speeds, the fastest 15 per cent were found to be driving 1mph slower on average.
On sections of motorways where the limit was raised from 68mph to 80mph nine years ago, fatalities also fell.
A spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers told Auto Express: "The research would seem to suggest that we are going the wrong way in the UK. This has proven that deaths and accidents have fallen despite limits increasing."
A Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) spokesman said the research raised interesting questions. "A key element isn't just the risk of the crash that is proportional to travelling speed for a given road, but the risk of injury should a collision occur." The Association of Chief Police Officers would not comment.
This isn't the first time a study like this has been published. There have been plenty of trials of increased speed limits where accident rates have fallen. The reason is simple : people are already driving quickly. Often quicker than the current limits dictate. Occasionally they'll come across people who are doing the limit - and it's that differential that causes the problem. The quicker person wants to get past - normally meaning an overtake. The more impatient they get, the more likely they'll do something silly, and the greater the liklihood of an accident. So what happens when the speed limit is raised? Those already travelling quicker will tend to stay at the same speeds they used to, whilst those who like to travel exactly at the limit will go quicker - to the new higher limit - thus reducing the differential in speed between them and everyone else.
I'm all for higher speed limits - the trend in the UK to keep slowing people down is clearly not working (see my post a few months back about how slower limits cause more accidents). And remember - the educated motorist understands that speed doesn't kill. It's the inappropriate use of speed that can amplify the end result of an accident.
MOTORING groups have backed a Danish report which claims that increasing speed limits is safer – but there are question marks over whether it could be easily implemented in the UK.
The study, carried out over two years by the Danish Road Directorate, looked at how driver behaviour and accident rates changed when speed limits were raised on single-carriageway rural roads and motorways.
One of the key findings was that after raising limits on two-way rural roads from 50mph to 56mph, accidents fell, due to a drop in the speed differential between the fastest and the slowest drivers, resulting in less overtaking. While the slowest drivers increased speeds, the fastest 15 per cent were found to be driving 1mph slower on average.
On sections of motorways where the limit was raised from 68mph to 80mph nine years ago, fatalities also fell.
A spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers told Auto Express: "The research would seem to suggest that we are going the wrong way in the UK. This has proven that deaths and accidents have fallen despite limits increasing."
A Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) spokesman said the research raised interesting questions. "A key element isn't just the risk of the crash that is proportional to travelling speed for a given road, but the risk of injury should a collision occur." The Association of Chief Police Officers would not comment.
This isn't the first time a study like this has been published. There have been plenty of trials of increased speed limits where accident rates have fallen. The reason is simple : people are already driving quickly. Often quicker than the current limits dictate. Occasionally they'll come across people who are doing the limit - and it's that differential that causes the problem. The quicker person wants to get past - normally meaning an overtake. The more impatient they get, the more likely they'll do something silly, and the greater the liklihood of an accident. So what happens when the speed limit is raised? Those already travelling quicker will tend to stay at the same speeds they used to, whilst those who like to travel exactly at the limit will go quicker - to the new higher limit - thus reducing the differential in speed between them and everyone else.
I'm all for higher speed limits - the trend in the UK to keep slowing people down is clearly not working (see my post a few months back about how slower limits cause more accidents). And remember - the educated motorist understands that speed doesn't kill. It's the inappropriate use of speed that can amplify the end result of an accident.
Monday, April 14, 2014
FIA and this year's F1 races
I'm a big Formula 1 fan but what I'm not a fan of is the constant meddling by the FIA. The most obvious evidence of this is the engine change this year - Renault lobbied the FIA for 'greener' engines this year which is how we ended up with the V6 turbo monstrosity they're racing with now. In a quirk of karma, Renault are the engine suppliers having the most difficulty with this regulation change. Frankly this is total nonsense. Since when was the cutting edge of motorsport supposed to be 'green' or 'fuel efficient'? That's a pointless exercise. The only way for F1 to be green is to disband the organisation and not race at all.
But there are dozens of other changes - slight aero tweaks here and there, the new penalty points system, the inability of the stewards to ever make the right decision. These are all things we could do without in F1 but I suspect they're here to stay.
One thing I think should have been done better is the 'safety' regulation surrounding the new lower noses. It seems the FIA didn't give any consideration to 'submarining' - where in the event of a crash, the lower nose now acts like a giant scoop, forcing its way under the other car. We've already seen two good crashes caused by this new design (most notably in Bahrain where Esteban Gutierrez was flipped over like a pancake). I don't see how this design is making anything any safer.
One thing you can be sure of though - teams on the losing end of new regulations are always the first to complain. Right now, McLaren, Renault, Red Bull and Ferrari are all very vocal about regulation changes, whilst the head of Mercedes (Toto Wolff) is quite happy with everything as it stands, and can't figure out what all the fuss is about. After all, Mercedes are getting awesome race results right now. Contrast this to a couple of years ago when Mercedes were complaining about Red Bull's blown rear diffuser, and they couldn't get the speed to compete, and you realise that it's always one big merry-go-round.
But there are dozens of other changes - slight aero tweaks here and there, the new penalty points system, the inability of the stewards to ever make the right decision. These are all things we could do without in F1 but I suspect they're here to stay.
One thing I think should have been done better is the 'safety' regulation surrounding the new lower noses. It seems the FIA didn't give any consideration to 'submarining' - where in the event of a crash, the lower nose now acts like a giant scoop, forcing its way under the other car. We've already seen two good crashes caused by this new design (most notably in Bahrain where Esteban Gutierrez was flipped over like a pancake). I don't see how this design is making anything any safer.
One thing you can be sure of though - teams on the losing end of new regulations are always the first to complain. Right now, McLaren, Renault, Red Bull and Ferrari are all very vocal about regulation changes, whilst the head of Mercedes (Toto Wolff) is quite happy with everything as it stands, and can't figure out what all the fuss is about. After all, Mercedes are getting awesome race results right now. Contrast this to a couple of years ago when Mercedes were complaining about Red Bull's blown rear diffuser, and they couldn't get the speed to compete, and you realise that it's always one big merry-go-round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)