[s-cars] Re: driving ability vs ABS, EDL, DSP, 4-WD, etc

[CyberPoet]

The problem with your statement is it doesn't take into account the
extremely obvious: an accident averted early due to driver perception
and training is safer than an accident barely averted, is safer than an
accident survived. I have no disagreement with the concept that the
cars' response systems are improving from generation to generation (and
certain combinations may be more capable than a human at producing one
specific behavior), albeit in numerous vehicle models this can be a
response to poor engineering in other subsystems rather than just a
generalized improvement (specific example: Mercedes A class models, and
specifically years 1 thru 3 of the release of this vehicle-platform).
One of the reasons I like Audi's greatly is because I believe that
their technical systems are not strictly compensations for bad
structural-bias engineering but pure driver aids.

But this still denies my basic premise forwarded in that first
paragraph: that the reason that such systems are systems are prevalent
is that more drivers are apt to require such systems because of an
inherent lack of skill, and manufacturers are apt to integrate them to
help protect primarily the manufacturer against lawsuits (and an
attempt to keep their car's total cost of ownership down by preventing
skyrocketing insurance rates, which reflects on sales). A good driver
would provide himself/herself adequate braking distance and even when
distance is minimized would know how to avoid losing control by not
locking up the brakes (ABS). I heartily endorse ABS because it is a
generally a non-invasive system. But ABS skid marks are on every
American highway I've driven on (left in dry weather with no adverse
conditions), showing that people routinely brake at absolute maximum
power in order to try to avoid accidents that they could have avoided
as well by changing their following distance, location compared to
other traffic, and/or having some perception about what traffic ahead
of them was doing (watching more than just the car directly in front of
them).

The same concept can be extended to every add-in system manufactured:
traction control, drift sensors, variable wheel braking, et cetera. A
properly trained driver will not activate those systems regularly
simply by the nature of his/her driving habits (unless they are
intentionally attempting to), rather than integrating them in their
driving expectations (or, moreover, being blind to the fact that their
driving patterns regularly require these assistants to help avert
disaster).

When you have catastrophic brake failure, and pumping the pedal yields
no results, what do you do?
When you have to brake as hard as possible to avoid a logjam, is your
mind strictly on braking at full force (and possibly bracing against
impact), or are you also looking for where to steer your car as an
over-run area that is safer?
When your FWD/RWD car starts to skew, slide, drift on ice or wet
pavement, how do you regain that control without endangering those
about you in traffic?
When you are cruising on the highway at 60 or 130 mph and the car
suddenly starts pulling progressively more to the left with each
passing second, what is the right course of action to bring the car to
a halt without loss of control?

These are things which the typical American driver has never been
taught, tested on, or expected to know. This is not to say German
drivers never have accidents, or that safety systems have no place in
automotive engineering -- that was not the premise.

=-= Marc Glasgow


On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 11:03 PM, QSHIPQ at aol.com wrote:

> Marc:
> I enjoyed your dissertation, but I don't agree with it.  You can read
> thru a
> plethora of SAE and technical papers and see that traction control
> with LSD
> IS better already than any "certified" driver in the *majority* of
> situations
> one finds on the street.  The game is time to distance, the winners
> are the
> computers (damn them).  The summary in Autotech 95 C498/30/14 shows
> how the
> win in torque is evolving:
>
> "* Limited Slip differentials can proportion, but cannot limit
> *  Engine TCS + Open differentials can limit, but cannot proportion.
> *  Brake TCS + OPen differentials, Brake TCS + Torsens, and Engine TCS+
> Torsen, are capable of both proportioning and limiting"
>
> "  The superior system (to reduce time to distance) incorporates BOTH
> proportioning and limiting."
>
> Right now, the Keith Maddocks of the world are getting close to
> crossing the
> torsen with EDL, add Engine TCS to that combo, I doubt anyone will be
> able to
> claim superiority with any other system.  The unfortunate kicker for
> those of
> us with more "creative" driving methods...  TCS and EDL and drive by
> wire
> aren't friendly to left foot braking techniques.  Darn!  Then again,
> haldex
> Gen II differential is adding an interesting twist to the party, as is
> the
> torsen center differential lock.
>
> There's better out there than the lockers, it's coming, even subaru
> will have
> the cockpit variable lockup diffs on the new WRX.  Don't blame it on
> the
> drivers, faster/better computers make smarter tractive systems.
> Smarter than
> many drivers already, in most instances.  I keep driving the new ones
> and
> finding the flaws, but the Keith's of the world are trying hard to
> boot me
> from my lockers....  No question in my mind they will succeed....
>
> My .02
>
> Scott Justusson
> 1985 FJ1387 big block