Reversing into parking spaces saves money

Vico1612

http://www.rte.ie/motors/2008/0728/parking.html

walshy123

plus its easier.

with a front lsd it is the only option!!

T-Maxx

In theory, yes, maybe.

The fact is though that the vast majority of people I've witnessed trying to reverse into a parking space can not get it first-time-right even if their lives depended on it. The number of times they have to forwards and backwards before they eventually manage to get the car between the lines puts a definite end to this theory.

snowman707

If you are doing your's weeks shopping especially for the savages in this household , it is better to have the boot outside for easy ascees, any other time I reverse in.

Our man in Havana

Drive in and drive out ftw! What is this reverse gear you speak of?

Steve

snowman707 wrote: »

If you are doing your's weeks shopping especially for the savages in this household , it is better to have the boot outside for easy ascees, any other time I reverse in.

Reversing in = boot closer to front door = less walking to unload the shopping.

Steve

Bond-007 wrote: »

Drive in and drive out ftw! What is this reverse gear you speak of?

We don't all live in southfork...:P

Mr. Presentable

T-Maxx wrote: »

In theory, yes, maybe.

The fact is though that the vast majority of people I've witnessed trying to reverse into a parking space can not get it first-time-right even if their lives depended on it. The number of times they have to forwards and backwards before they eventually manage to get the car between the lines puts a definite end to this theory.

And I am among them. I always reverse in and yet only about one time in five am I happy with my position. Still beats trying to reverse out!

Wishbone Ash

T-Maxx wrote: »

In theory, yes, maybe.

The fact is though that the vast majority of people I've witnessed trying to reverse into a parking space can not get it first-time-right even if their lives depended on it. The number of times they have to forwards and backwards before they eventually manage to get the car between the lines puts a definite end to this theory.

You're missing the essential point - the engine would already be warm and would therefore use much less fuel.

The same people would probably make several attempts to reverse out of a spot but would be doing so on a cold engine and therefore use much more fuel.

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You're missing the essential point - the engine would already be warm and would therefore use much less fuel.

The same people would probably make several attempts to reverse out of a spot but would be doing so on a cold engine and therefore use much more fuel.

It depends on your driveway.
If it faces uphill (as mine does) then you'd use less reversing out.

juke

snowman707 wrote: »

If you are doing your's weeks shopping especially for the savages in this household , it is better to have the boot outside for easy ascees, any other time I reverse in.

SteveC wrote: »

Reversing in = boot closer to front door = less walking to unload the shopping.

I think snowman means at the supermarket.....access to boot with the trolley and all that....:rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

SteveC wrote: »

It depends on your driveway.
If it faces uphill (as mine does) then you'd use less reversing out.

Presumably any type of scientific study would have to be done on a level surface.



That reminds me of a Garda neighbour of ours back in the 1970s who used to push his car out of the garage every morning and then let it run down hill before starting it to save fuel. Money was tight and petrol was scarce then but I never thought it was worth putting one's back out!

Sam Kade

T-Maxx wrote: »

In theory, yes, maybe.

The fact is though that the vast majority of people I've witnessed trying to reverse into a parking space can not get it first-time-right even if their lives depended on it. The number of times they have to forwards and backwards before they eventually manage to get the car between the lines puts a definite end to this theory.

Are you one of those people?

GrumPy

nipplenuts wrote: »

And I am among them. I always reverse in and yet only about one time in five am I happy with my position. Still beats trying to reverse out!

Interesting logic

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That reminds me of a Garda neighbour of ours back in the 1970s who used to push his car out of the garage every morning and then let it run down hill before starting it to save fuel. Money was tight and petrol was scarce then but I never thought it was worth putting one's back out!

Happy times...
I had an uncle who owned a Renault 12 which was devoid of both reverse gear and a starter motor.
Strategic parking became something of an art form...

Wishbone Ash

SteveC wrote: »

Happy times...
I had an uncle who owned a Renault 12 which was devoid of both reverse gear and a starter motor.
Strategic parking became something of an art form...

....or those who used to disconnect the battery each night and charge it in the house and reconnect it each morning!

nipplenuts wrote:

And I am among them. I always reverse in and yet only about one time in five am I happy with my position.

Does you vehicle not have side morrors?

Mr. Presentable

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

....

Does you vehicle not have side mirrors?

Haha. It does. My problem is always when coming in from a right angle. I seldom get it exactly right.

Mr. Presentable

GrumPy wrote: »

Interesting logic

My point being that driving out of a space is safer than reversing out

Steve

nipplenuts wrote: »

My point being that driving out of a space is safer than reversing out

Totally depends on location.

Where I live there's a constant stream of kids and toddlers on the path in the evening and therefore it's safer to drive in than reverse in. They're not there in the morning so etc...

You can't generalise about that.

Rovi

SteveC wrote: »

Happy times...
I had an uncle who owned a Renault 12 which was devoid of both reverse gear and a starter motor.
Strategic parking became something of an art form...

The Land-Rover driver's dilemma:
"Do I park at the bottom of the hill and trust the starter, or at the top of the hill and trust the handbrake?"

wil

Bond-007 wrote: »

Drive in and drive out ftw! What is this reverse gear you speak of?

Reliant or Peel P50 ?

www.bbc.co.uk/isleofman/content/articles/2007/11/01/peel_p50_feature.shtml


(Southfork my derriere:p)

Our man in Havana

I has an aversion to reversing. I will cruise around until I can find a drive in drive out space. Or if one is not available simply drive in. I find it easier to reverse out.

wet-paint

How is reversing out when cold less efficient than driving forward out when cold?

THat's the agrument of the article, isn't it? And I can't see the logic.

Barr

wet-paint wrote: »

How is reversing out when cold less efficient than driving forward out when cold?

THat's the agrument of the article, isn't it? And I can't see the logic.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing , it does not make much sense

L1011

wet-paint wrote: »

How is reversing out when cold less efficient than driving forward out when cold?

THat's the agrument of the article, isn't it? And I can't see the logic.

Single reversing gear not as good as being able to go through different ratio forward gears? I guess...

ninty9er

What he said ^^

Esel

Assume it takes a couple of manoeuvres to reverse out, rather than a single one to drive out. The saving becomes more obvious if you have to turn your car around before you can drive away. Performing this manoeuvre with a warm engine is much more fuel-efficient than with a cold one.

wet-paint

MYOB wrote: »

Single reversing gear not as good as being able to go through different ratio forward gears? I guess...

THe single reversing gear is not as good at what? Moving the car? You're doing two to four miles an hour for maybe twenty feet before engaging first, as opposed to putting it into first straight away, yet they claim a MASSIVE difference? It sounds and indeed reads like total horse sh1te.

esel wrote: »

Assume it takes a couple of manoeuvres to reverse out, rather than a single one to drive out. The saving becomes more obvious if you have to turn your car around before you can drive away. Performing this manoeuvre with a warm engine is much more fuel-efficient than with a cold one.

So it has more to do with the ineptitude of the driver than to do with the efficiency of the gears?

Now that I can believe.

L1011

wet-paint wrote: »

THe single reversing gear is not as good at what? Moving the car? You're doing two to four miles an hour for maybe twenty feet before engaging first, as opposed to putting it into first straight away, yet they claim a MASSIVE difference? It sounds and indeed reads like total horse sh1te.

Its not as efficient, it requires the engine to run harder while its still cold, versus being able to control the revs with the forward gears.

wet-paint

Wow, now I'm totally confused. I'll just leave it. How does putting it in reverse require the engine to run harder from cold than putting it in first?

You control the revs of the car with the acelerator, not the different forward gears. For moving out of a space it's not as if you'll use anything but first?

Esel

wet-paint wrote: »

So it has more to do with the ineptitude of the driver than to do with the efficiency of the gears?

You quoted my post, but did you read it? Read this part again:

"The saving becomes more obvious if you have to turn your car around before you can drive away. Performing this manoeuvre with a warm engine is much more fuel-efficient than with a cold one."

L1011

wet-paint wrote: »

Wow, now I'm totally confused. I'll just leave it. How does putting it in reverse require the engine to run harder from cold than putting it in first?

You control the revs of the car with the acelerator, not the different forward gears. For moving out of a space it's not as if you'll use anything but first?

You have *one* reverse gear at a fixed ratio - as such you have no granularity of control over engine speed as you do with a 5/6 ratio gearbox.