Growing up, a friends dad would use this as a ‘feature’ on his Datsun to move the car out of traffic when it wouldn’t restart.
Put it in first, release the clutch, crank the starter, and move the car out of the way.
In hindsight, stalling while crossing railroad tracks, like quicksand, is a much less common danger in adulthood than I was lead to believe as a younger person.
I was born in 1980 and it seemed people would get stuck in quicksand on tv regularly when I was a kid, but it seems a kind of danger that has almost disappeared from the collective narrative.
Why was it popular before? Why isn't it anymore? This baffles me.
Most quicksand I'm aware of is in tidal flats [0] [1] and it really is dangerous to take a short cut over them. Come to think of it, most normal sand I encounter is in tidal flats, too.
[0] https://www.98fm.com/news/north-dublin-beaches-quicksand-war...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/southend-on-sea-deadly-...
¹ yes I know soil is not sand
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldust [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkholderia_pseudomallei
Television moved on to lava in the interest of progress.
TV Tropes suggests the idea whilst even existing in fiction for hundred of years before TV, is now "discredited".
---
Personally I prefer more interesting madcap cultural theories. Here's one from the top of my head:
Quicksand refers to anxiety about the natural world from an increasingly urbanised and ecologically disconnected population. Or maybe Quicksand represents an increasing urban populations attitude towards nature. It represents the opposite of a safe, technology, capitalist, consumerist industrial world of the post WW2 era. Nature was literally seen as hostile. Nature can make a person stuck, capture them, and kill them. It's allied with getting lost in the woods stories, a trope which emphasizes both physical and existential disorientation in the face of nature's indifference
Quicksand on TV existed throughout the early ecological hippy inspired new age of the late 20th century but the seeds were being sown. This changed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as we witnessed the convergence of environmental concerns (e.g. plastic bags, straws, global warming) with the logic of neoliberal capitalism, together with an increase in bureaucratic management on behalf of people. Nature is not scary but something to be protected from harm. Nature is reconfigured from a place of danger to a place of stewardship. Avatar, the movie represents the change the most.
Thus, the role of cities and technology as agents of death and destruction have changed. It is not nature that entraps or destroys, but rather the infrastructures of urbanization, capitalism, and technological progress. Ironically this valorisation of nature is happening at the same time as increasingly technological manipulation of the rural environment - mechanisation of farming, house building, terraforming, weather modification. Nature is no longer wild, is not even tame, it's another resource to be shaped and used.
Quicksand not only is discredited as being inaccurate, it's ideologically impossible for nature to be dangerous anymore.
They did note that it’s only good for manual cars. Automatics were not standard in the UK in the 80s.
All from memory, so might be mangling the details :-)
*Or could have been the Australian version.
But I came really close to getting in trouble with a 1948 Chevy pickup. I backed it into my grandfather's garage, and then found out that it was a bit too far forward to be able to close the door. So I turned the ignition on, put it in reverse, and touched the starter.
Unfortunately, the engine caught with that brief touch of the starter, leaving me frantically stabbing for the clutch before I pushed through the back of the garage...
Fortunately, it idled very slowly, and I had (of course) given it no gas.
Did it many times when a starter or battery died; just need a bit of a hill or a good push.
I did a 3000km road trip with it. Lol
I suppose that a 1980s Corolla was the last car I drift-started, though.
In a traditional automatic with a hydraulic torque converter between the engine and the gearing, you've got a problem: most transmissions use hydraulic pressure to actuate the gear selection, and hydraulic pressure is typically developed by turning of the input shaft. Some older automatics had a secondary pump to develop hydraulic pressure from turning of the output shaft. In those cars, you could select first gear, turn the ignition to run, and if you got it moving fast enough, it would develop pressure, actuate first gear, and then the transmission could turn the engine and off you were. Some references suggest pushing in neutral and selecting first when ready to start. References say you need to get up to about 15-25 mph for that; my VW Vanagon which shares the same engine type as the 914 (and is therefore a rear-engine sports car) can start the engine from a much slower roll; the speedometer rests at 10 mph, so who knows how fast I'm going, but probably walking speed.
Depends; what's lighting up the field coils in the alternator? A generator, which probably went out of cars in the '60s, sure. But something has to power the parts that create the magnetic field in an alternator, and if the battery's dead...
On top of the fact that the coils on top of the plugs these days are more finicky about the amount of power they receive. A battery with 11.5V probably isn't going to cut it. And as you point out, the ECM may want a healthy 12V, too.
I would hedge the original statement and say you could push start a newer manual transmission car, but don't count on it. Even as far back as 1999, I had a Honda VFR motorcycle that could not be push-started until its battery had some juice in it, for the reasons stated above.
On the basis of this experience, I'm not convinced the alternator actually comes into play in a typical push start. It's usually roll the car, clutch out, lurch and fire, clutch back in and let the engine get to a stable idle. At no point is the engine spinning fast enough to create much electricity with the alternator until after it's actually running. Provided the alternator is working in the first place, of course.
As an aside, in all of the vehicles where I've lost the alternator, the first warning sign has been the radio having a shit fit. I have never once seen the idiot light come on for a bad alternator, which really calls its utility into question.
I switched to an auto a few years back for reasons (UK, still not super popular here), and once or twice I've had the car cut out on me at speed, in traffic; had it been a manual, I could have just restarted it while moving, but it forces you to be stopped, foot on the brake and in park before you can push the button to start it.
Worth trying to start it in neutral? It might be checking neutral or park and foot on the brake, which you could probably do while still moving.
EDIT: The display specifically says "shift to park" if I try.
Probably safer not to introduce electricity to gasoline…
Ooookay. I've never even heard third-hand stories of an electric fuel pump lighting the gasoline on fire, if that's what you're getting at, and I was a professional mechanic at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator#By_excitation
I do wonder how much current that requires, though. In a pinch, could a duct-taped string of AAs be enough to get you going?
You learn the same lesson (2nd gear starts) with motorcycles, which have much smaller batteries and fragile charging systems so the need to push-start is unfortunately common.
Then I realise in my consideration for the lady to guide her off the bike, I hadn't actually turned the ignition key off and the headlight had drained the battery.
Now a 2006 GSXR1000 idles in first gear at about 20km/hr (~12-14mph?). And a 100m quick-waddle found 1st no good for bump starting due to compression lockup...
Thankfully we'd stopped on a ridgeline and only another 300m away was the descent which allowed me to get to 40kmhr for a second gear bump start.
2nd gear lesson learned about this bike.
Date saved.
My CX-5 even has a wireless-pushbutton start, not a physical-key-in-the-ignition start, but I've still been able to roll-start it when the battery is too dead to crank the starter motor but still has enough juice for the electronics (lowest I've seen is ~8v if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on that).
The process is pretty much the same: put the car's ignition into the "ON" position (in my case, press the pushbutton twice without touching the pedals -- once to ACC mode, then once to move from ACC to ON), then it's the same as normal: clutch-in, shift to your preferred gear, get rolling, and pop the clutch. Engine computer sees "oh, looks like the engine's spinning, let's add gas and spark" and you're good to go.
Anecdotally, I've seen the described behavior of the engine computer ("detects spinning and adds gas/spark, even if the initial motion wasn't from the starter motor") on automatic transmission vehicles, too. On a 2008 Chevrolet, I found that if you revved the engine up a bit (for inertia), turned the key to OFF, then quickly turned the key back to ON (without turning all the way to START), the engine computer will catch it and keep it running.