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

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

Marc:
comments inserted.
In a message dated 1/10/2003 11:09:08 AM Central Standard Time,
thecyberpoet at cyberpoet.net writes:



>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.

I'll disagree with you there.  The torsen is the prime example, put in
because the diff locks weren't used by the driver, and hence stuck on/off
when not/needed.  It's downside is the sudden shifting of torque during turns
close to the limit of adhesion (intentional or not, it could care less).  You
can't TRAIN for a torsen, the variables are too numerous.  Second, is the
deletion of the ABS lockout switch.  There are instances where ABS should be
locked out (gravel and snow).  Can't, used to be able to, not now.

>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).

I'll completely disagree with you here.  Lot's of high performance autos with
state of the art systems.  Where we lost was in the switch to these systems
without a shutoff.  Audi started that way with deleting the Gen II lockers,
and the ABS switch.  Maybe the switch to programmable Haldex Gen II Diff will
allow some tweekers to change that.

>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).

Reality ck, I live in Chicago.  Even if YOU are good, that requires a
consensus all around you.  Locking up the brakes can happen to the BEST of
the BEST, trained or not trained.  Ask any professional driver, they'd prefer
them (ABS).  They were attempted to be used in F1 then banned.  Pretty much
banned in all motorsport.  Why?  Cuz it creates an unfair advantage.

 >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).

Bad ABS?  How do you know the skids you are looking at are ABS skids?  How
bout all the cars that didn't have them?  ABS by definition is activated
impending lockup.  Some of the crappier braking systems and algorithums allow
skid before engagement, but even the crappiest ones are better than leg press
max.  Again, you can only control what you have in front of you to some
extent, what's behind, beside, and opposite you is out of your control.
Leave enough room here in Chicago, someone takes it.

>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).

Ideal vs reality.  Improperly trained drivers CAN'T activate these systems
regularly without shutting them down (heat).

>When you have catastrophic brake failure, and pumping the pedal yields
>...

Marc

>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.

I'm an advocate of training, especially quattro drivers, as the "quattro
advantage" is usually considered an eticket to defying the laws of physics.
Part of that education (these lists specifically) is understanding WHAT the
devices in the car are capable of doing, and NOT doing.  The torsen is not
capable of differentiating between a turn and traction, they present the same
argument to the device.  When that results in the transfer of 56% engine
torque at the limit of adhesion, training doesn't do you a bit of good.

This has nothing to do with German drivers or US drivers, maybe their
abilities.  Those would include training and awareness.  How that gets better
across any pond, sounds incredulus. Especially in the context of the center
differential.

My .02

Scott Justusson
aka Torsen Boy