the unnecessary usage of j-brakes, why????

Banks has an exhaust brake for Cummins Rams & PowerStroke Fords.

 

When I'm coming into a residential area my jakes are off. When I'm on a NON hilly highway my jakes are off if there's houses next to the road. If you are at least 150ft away from the road then my jakes are on. It's that simple.

I remember as a kid living next to a major highway where trucks always ran morning, noon and night. I grew accustomed to the noise and maybe that's why I drive today.

Also, a lot of the newbie drivers were probably taught to constantly run their jakes. It doesn't make the driver a bad person just misinformed.

 

My personal prefrance is to not use them unless they are absolutely needed. For instance as Portland mentioned the section of I40. I just recently went through there on my way to Calexico with 43200 in the box. Needless to say I lowered my gears and used my jake here and there. There is no right or wrong here in my oppinion, simply a matter of prefrance and respect for others when it doesnt impose a saftey issue as Kcorey stated previously. Just my 2 cents.

Iceratt

 

When I'm runnin thru places like Greenwich CT, nothing gives me more smiles than gettin right up behind some rich lady yackin on her cell in a Range Rover and hittin the jake. Yea, I run straight pipes too.

 

When I was driving for Stevens, they didn't let drivers with less that two years experience even have trucks with jakes in them. they expected you to learn to drive without them. In my opinion it's pretty stupid to take a saftey feature away from a newbie driver.
Hubby drives with them on all the time, I tend to only leave them on when I'm running in mountainous terrain, but will occasionaly kick them in on a flat if I need the extra oomph in my stopping power.

 

new drivers should learn to drive without them, they are not meant to stop the truck but just to slow the truck on mountainous terrain to help the brakes , if a driver misjudges his speed coming off they are there to assist as a safety valve to reestablish control and was never designed to be used as part of the normal brake system, needing the jake on all the time or on flat land is just abuse and not what the system was meant for!

 

Bri 7 says:

Yes, I agree that new drivers should learn to go down a mountain without an engine retarder, but to remove the option altogether just to teach a lesson is, in my opinion, very irresposible. Stevens has had many trucks burn up due to brakes overheating and catching fire, resulting in the deaths of drivers and other motorists, when a jake would have prevented that from happening.
I am aware that jakes are not part of the normal breaking system (i'm using "jakes" as shorthand slang for any sort of engine retarder), but if you have a tool, why shouldn't you use it?
For example, if some lady driving a minivan full of kids pulls into my lane then hits her brakes, that extra help slowing from the jake might be the difference between a near miss and a tragedy.
And yes, they may not have been intended for some of the ways they are used, but then if the human race never used things in ways they wern't designed for, we'd still be sitting in caves banging rocks together. And heaven forbid we should chip them into tools, someone might cut themselves on the peices.

 

I just have to say that as a driver there is no worse feeling than having trouble or not being able to control your decent down a hill. Another uneasy feeling to say the least is being 2 miles in on a 10 mile grade, seeing smoke in the glow of the clearance lights and feeling the pedal getting closer to the floor with every mile. Its a feeling I to this day haven't got used to. Any help I can get stopping 2 20,000lb pups is welcome.