So, doctorchris, drivers of 'knackered old vans' should go at 50 all the time to avoid inconveniencing anal types who are trying not to touch the pedals for as long as possible, like children trying not to tread on the gaps between paving stones?
Since when was trying to get a move on in a 'knackered old van' on an inconveniently hilly bit of motorway a 'childish game'?
A bit more respect for 'knackered old vans' and their 'knackered old drivers' if you don't mind.
Set your CC at 85 and only the Astras and Sprinters will be impeding your stately imperial progress.
:o{
|
You missed my point. If these vehicles cannot cope with 70mph uphill then they are dangerous nuisances doing 80mph+ downhill, and exceeding the legal speed limit. I don't have CC, I have a Panda 4x4, max speed 90mph, I want to cruise at a constant, legal 70 mph and don't want these vans trying to creep past me on the flat, pull in too close, only for me to have to overtake them on the next incline.
I can't imagine that their travelling at 80 mph for short distances makes a scrap of difference to their journey times but it sure annoys me.
|
Of course I understood you perfectly dc. If you insist on driving at the same average speed as these knackered old vans, but without the same spread owing to your vehicle's superior performance, they are bound to annoy you by passing you downhill and then falling back uphill.
The solution for you is to go faster. Or, if you must, slower.
Whether you want to or not has nothing to do with it. If you don't like knackered old vans buzzing round your ears, go faster than them. Or slower.
See? Easy.
|
|
|
|
>behind to play their childish game
Eh? I suggest you have a drive of one of these beasts. Many vehicles are unable to maintain the speed limit on uphill stretches. I'm sure you'd complain even more if (on a single carriageway road) they kept to the same speed on the downhill stretches.
Interestnig the numbers who use CC. I don't have it, but am perfectly capable of maintaining a steady speed whilst being able to look out ahead too.
|
A little CC envy creeping in here perhaps. Those that can get to grips with this danged new fangled technology find it quite useful I'm sure. It takes a bit of that unconcious competitiveness out of the equation when driving - as noted by those who found themselves or others speeding up when overtaken etc. & or trying to catch-up with the next car in front all the time.
Knackered vans? I'm sure there's a very good case for taking them of the road altogether. They tend to make up for their deficiencies by tailgating on declines & hogging lane 3 on inclines, holding everyone else up!
|
There's no problem with the technology. I haven't driven far in this country with CC switched on, but I would expect (unless on an empty or nearly empty motorway) to have to override the thing often, as I did in France.
One of the things CC does to annoy me is to back off down hills, when as any fule kno a steady throttle opening allowing speed to creep up downhill is more satisfying and quicker actually, without being especially extravagant on fuel.
I suppose judicious use of this device may give an intelligent driver a couple of MPG, at the cost of a couple of mph. But it seems a fussy and annoying thing to me in practice, so far at least.
And by the way, what is all this 'knackered old van' fascism?
Edited by Lud on 23/10/2007 at 16:54
|
The beauty of CC is, as the name suggests, is the ability to maintain a set speed. So in summer when I was travelling from Glasgow to Dover, CC was set at 76mph (GPS speed). By doing that I did not need to worry bout speed cameras, indeed was able to cruise past them whilst everyone else think they need to slow down to 60mph!
Remember its not unknown for cameras to be at the bottom of hills where you will have increased your speed with normal driving. Its also not unknown to be caught speeding because you had accelerated to overtake someone. Thus the reason for crawling past at +1mph if need be, still keeps me within the speed tolerance level.
Without Cruise, I have in the past found myself speeding on this journey, possibly up to the ton in places. This year I found the journey a lot more relaxing as I was not watching out for cameras and police instead of watching the road. And although it took longer than normal, fuel consumption was better and I didn't need to arrive any earlier anyway!
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
Edited by BobbyG on 23/10/2007 at 17:04
|
Lud
I suspect CC makes for thirsty cars. I've only once ever driven a car with him, and didn't much like his style on our busy roads, he was forever too fast or too slow. When faced with an incline, he would put his foot down hard, which goes against all sensible economical driving style.
Sensible economical driving style does involve slowing down a little on steep hills.
|
|
|
|
One of the things CC does to annoy me is to back off down hills..
Agreed. In fact in a couple of cars with CC I've had, actually dropped a gear trying to slow down on v. steep declines! The new 'distronic' types with a widget to allow for unfettered 'econo-cruising' downhill would be nice..
And by the way, what is all this 'knackered old van' fascism?
Ha ha..no not really, I was just being mischievous & a bit TiCH ;)
|
I've found that on average Cruise is more economical than non-c, if you just want to keep the same speed, and it involves a lot less hassle than driving the car over long distances!
One thing I would say is that how economical it is depends on the type of CC you have.
I had a "manual" (ie non-electric) after market version fitted to a Vectra and then to a Fabia and that varied its speed by 1/2mph either side of the set speed - also it did not drive with the throttle "off" when going downhill. My latest car, another Fabia Estate, has the factory fitted version and the difference is noticable - if I am going downhill the throttle is off and the computer tells me I am using no fuel, just like I would do if I was driving it myself.
Going back to the speed - I am another that tends to drive at 65/66 on our busy motorways, its a lot less hassle and contantly slowing/speeding up when trying to drive at 70/75!
|
|
|
|
One of the things CC does to annoy me is to back off down hills when as any fule kno a steady throttle opening allowing speed to creep up downhill is more satisfying and quicker actually without being especially extravagant on fuel.
On most systems you can apply a bit of throttle to gain some speed and then back off to the set speed without doing anything else. This can throw you if you drive faster for a while and then try to slow down - I wish european cars has a CC on indicator as US cars do.
I suspect CC would annoy you more if it let your speed creep up and you got nicked for speeding - hiding at the bottom of the hill near my house is Scamera vans favourite spot.
|
only time I have ever had CC was on an old Austin 1100 - broke the accelerator cable whilst some distance from home. Bodged roadside repair using the choke cable which was the pull and twist to lock type. Result manual throttle with locking mechanism.
New cable installed the following morning but was an interesting drive home.
Back on topic now -- I find on motorway journeys that I pay only cursory attention to my speed. If in heavy but fast moving traffic I leave a comfortable gap ahead of me and regulate my speed to maintain it which CC cannot do.
On clear motorways I tend to cruise at 2,500 - 3,000 rpm and that equates to between 60-80 most of the time depending on gradients.
|
My experience of using CC with a Toyota in the USA leads me to suspect it is no use on long steepish 'downgrades'. The force of gravity overcame the CC attempts to slow down and the speed crept up necessitating a manual 'down shift'.
Doncha love US English.
|
Interesting thread. I'm not that good at keeping to a specific speed on the motorway. Like some others, I vary my speed quite a bit according to traffic.
I don't have cruise control myself, but have driven a few hired cars with it in France and the USA - and when I have a car with cruise, I do tend to use it, and keep pretty well to speed. I like it, but agree with others that in hilly territory, it is not so good - and in such circumstances I tend to turn it off.
I'm just back from the USA, and one thing I noticed there was that on interstates and other 4-lane highways, almost everybody is driving on cruise control. Furthermore, almost everyone has their cruise control set at about the same speed - usually somewhere between 65 and 70 mph. As a result, one can drive for miles without overtaking or being overtaken. And, as BobbyG has noticed, a lot of the overtaking is not exactly swift. It makes for a relaxing drive, though some people might find it rather boring.
|
|
|
|
" This can throw you if you drive faster for a while and then try to slow down - I wish european cars has a CC on indicator as US cars do."
That's interesting. My last five cars have all had cruise (couldn't be without it) and I've driven a similar number of others with cruise over the last ten years or so - and not one of them hasn't had a "cruise on" indicator of some sort.
|
VAG cars I've driven have a "cruise on" indicator - a small speedo with an arrow pointing to the dial. Symbol is in yellow and housed in the speedo along with high beam, traction off etc etc.
The problem with CC on hills is they can't anticipate, so at the bottom of a steep hill it slows slightly before applying gas to maintain speed. Being human I can apply the gas before it's required and maintain speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the late 70's I drove a Ford A series with a seriously heavy body and dismal aerodynamics. OK, it was new but may as well have been 20 years old and the company's Bedford was much faster. I know what "slow van " means but back then I just drove at the speed it could manage, kept to the speed limit, avoided annoying other road users and still managed my deliveries on time.
|
|
|
|
|
