Is it normal to roll back on hills?

[mnx]

Hill Hold is useful in a manual transmission car because you don't have three feet (clutch, brake and gas), but with the Model S the number of pedals matches the number of feet, so all you have to do is hold the brake while you press the "gas".

Manuals don't even need it. That's what the handbrake is for.

 

[mknox]

Yeah so the car can beep at you for holding two pedals. No thanks. Hill hold please. Most cars have it now, super easy fix.

I've gotten pretty good at releasing the brake just as I press the "gas", but I agree... that beep is annoying. I wish there was a way to turn that off.

 

[ElSupreme]

Hill Hold is useful in a manual transmission car because you don't have three feet (clutch, brake and gas), but with the Model S the number of pedals matches the number of feet, so all you have to do is hold the brake while you press the "gas".

Manuals don't even need it. That's what the handbrake is for.

Or putting your toe (left ball of foot really) on the brake, and heel (right edge of lower foot really) on the gas. Left foot is for clutch only. Even in the Model S.

If by odd you mean awesome, yes.

If you want "faux hill hold", you can try Creep which gives you almost what you want some of the time.

And yes I think the car in 'neutral' without pedal input is awesome as well.

 

[GlennAlanBerry]

If you are used to a manual transmission, then holding yourself in place on a hill with the brake, and then quickly switching to the accelerator (without rolling backwards) is pretty easy. I guess a lot of people are just more used to automatic transmissions.

 

[Owner]

I think I agree with brianman on this one. I think hill hold would be easy if the car's computer computer was somehow linked to some elevation sensors. The car would need to know that rear wheels are lower in height than the front wheels. I doubt that is already built into the car. But if it is, someone on this forum might know! Maybe related to traction control??

I had a friend who skis with an altimeter, which always seemed a little overkill to me. I don't think they are extremely accurate. And for a car are we talking about a 5' difference?

Also I'm wondering if there are any potential liability issues? Was it Audi that had the lurching cars many years ago?

May be a 'nice to have' but now I'm thinking if I do spend a day driving through San Francisco proper, I should probably put creep on and all will be fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by contaygious
Hill hold ... super easy fix.

Disagree. It might prove to be, but we don't know that yet.

 

[mknox]

I think hill hold would be easy if the car's computer computer was somehow linked to some elevation sensors. The car would need to know that rear wheels are lower in height than the front wheels. I doubt that is already built into the car. But if it is, someone on this forum might know! Maybe related to traction control??

I don't think it would need to be that fancy. Just have the car detect when the wheels are turning backwards and the car is in Drive. If so, cinch the brakes until the accelerator is pressed.

 

[jerry33]

I don't think it would need to be that fancy. Just have the car detect when the wheels are turning backwards and the car is in Drive. If so, cinch the brakes until the accelerator is pressed.

I use that behaviour all the time to avoid shifting when parking in my driveway.

 

[CalDreamin]

I don't think it would need to be that fancy. Just have the car detect when the wheels are turning backwards and the car is in Drive. If so, cinch the brakes until the accelerator is pressed.

Agreed. Either the braking approach, or else apply enough power to keep the car from rolling backwards. No elevation sensors are needed.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Agreed. Either the braking approach, or else apply enough power to keep the car from rolling backwards. No elevation sensors are needed.

This. "Drive = Not Reverse".

It's funny people thinking of creep as a standard feature, because for an AT it's really just the result of the car wasting fuel by idling.

 

[Owner]

Hadn't thought of that. Clearly there is some sort of detectors that can gauge speed, so when that goes negative in drive. Sounds much easier this way.

I don't think it would need to be that fancy. Just have the car detect when the wheels are turning backwards and the car is in Drive. If so, cinch the brakes until the accelerator is pressed.

 

[ColinM]

Easiest fix - just move to Illinois where we would say, "What's a hill?".

 

[mknox]

I use that behaviour all the time to avoid shifting when parking in my driveway.

Actually, now that you mention it, so do I. Sometimes it is handy to roll back a bit without having to shift. Well, I guess it will have to be a switchable option then :biggrin:

 

[ElSupreme]

I believe that most 'hill hold' algorithms use speed and brake application time. They engage the 'hill hold' brake when you are on the brake for > n-seconds and the car is a zero speed. The brake disengages when you attempt to start moving again, or after ~5 seconds of not pressing the brake.

 

[neroden]

Actually, now that you mention it, so do I. Sometimes it is handy to roll back a bit without having to shift. Well, I guess it will have to be a switchable option then :biggrin:

Yeah, I've done that. I'm actually not sure whether it's good for the car to go backwards in "drive", though. I've occasionally smelled something after doing so, although I assumed it was just some smell from outside the car.

 

[William13]

My car will roll back when I try to park on a ice slick hill as I go from brake to park. This is due to only back tires having parking brake. This can be alarming/dangerous if not anticipated.

 

[Puyallup Bill]

I have a 2013 five-speed manual Jetta right now and it does not rollback on hills but automatically activates the brakes appropriately. It works quite well. If this basic sedan can have this feature I expect Tesla to have it as well. Or it's really just a coat hook trick.

Well, I for one, would rather have the missing coat hooks (and grab handles) than a hill holder.

Gee, I remember that back in '49 the Nash had a hill holder, and they were not alone.

 

[InTheShadows]

After driving stick for years I like that it rolls back. It gives it that sporty feel of you have to still have nimble feet to get the job done. We have some huge hills so we are used to getting from the brake to the "gas" and having to coordinate that with the clutch, only now there is no clutch to work. I hate the creep feature and only used it once in the test drive car because the specialist insisted. If there were a hill holder feature I would turn it off, despite my stick shift golf having it.

 

[InTheShadows]

Yeah, I've done that. I'm actually not sure whether it's good for the car to go backwards in "drive", though. I've occasionally smelled something after doing so, although I assumed it was just some smell from outside the car.

Shouldn't be a problem, as I understand it there is no reverse gear, the motor just spins backwards.

 

[caddieo]

Easiest fix - just move to Illinois where we would say, "What's a hill?".

The last time I checked, Chicago was in Illinois.

 

[Atebit]

Lexus/Toyota hybrids have this sort of manual hill assist. You engage it by continuing to push & hold the brake pedal beyond the "normal" full pedal travel for a second or so after coming to a stop. This elicits a single "bing" sound & a flashing dash indication that you're in hill hold mode. You can then remove your foot from the brake.

When you're ready to start moving again, simply use the accelerator as usual. The car smoothly disengages the brakes & begins accelerating. You can also disengage this mode by pressing & releasing the brake pedal again. I think it also auto-disengages after a long period with a multi-"bing" warning.

So, effectively the same pedal two-step described on this thread but only having to momentarily use one foot.