Make it easier to get safety features.
04-26-2006 | 01:27 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:hius421ras11hijnqq0f1qleun9bf4g7m1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:07:55 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Try this page on my website: www.dervman.com/eskid.htm (I think
>> that's the direct link).
>
> Nice clear explanation. Thanks.
>
>>> Well, here's an interesting discovery for me. Beginning in 2007,
>>> Honda includes so many of these features standard that the single
>>> "VS" (vehicle stability / traction) option for $650 gets you
>>> EVERYTHING.
>
> (should have said '07 TOYOTA)
>
>>> I'm going to post a Camrey LE vs Honda EX comparison because for
>>> the money, if safety is important, I think it's provocative.
>
>> Yes, but for 99% of drivers, 99% of the time, airbags, stability
>> protection, ABS, EBD and EBA is additional weight and cost.
>> Sure, when needed it's great.
>
> Like fire insurance ...
>
> It's got everything to do with how risk-averse you are, how lucky
> you feel, how often you do stupid things on the road, etc.
To a degree... or perhaps how much stupidity you see on the roads instead,
heh.
> I'm only too happy to make a modest investment that might one day
> save me from my own stupidity, and just as happy when those same
> safety systems are never employed.
>
> I'm especially happy to have them so that I can also be protected
> from the stupidity of other drivers, too distracted by cell
> phones to stop for stop signs or traffic signals.
>
> A few years ago I was driving around Providence in a 25 MPH zone
> and approaching an intersection where the cross street traffic
> had to stop and I did not.
>
> Just before I entered the intersection a driver flashed thru it from my
> left doing at least 45 MPH. The 1990 van I was driving had NO airbags
> and would not have been able to avoid the accident if I had gotten there
> a couple of seconds sooner. If the situation repeats itself and I'm not
> so lucky next time, I REALLY want the extra protection!
>
>> I can only think of one occasion when ABS was genuinely useful in
>> helping me avoid something under heavy braking. It doesn't help
>> me stop, it allows some steering control when braking hard ...
>> but it doesn't prevent a skid if you brake and steer at the same
>> time.
>
> The first car I had with 4-wheel disc and ABS was a Nissan
> NX-2000. It was a cute little red car, and occasionally my wife
> drove it. One day a truck blew through an intersection and she
> had to stand on the brakes and swerve all over the place to avoid
> being hit. But she did it, largely because of that hammering
> under the brake pedal combined with the excellent maneuverability
> of that little sports car.
>
>> Traction control is the same. You can still wheelspin with
>> traction control.
>
> The fool is always greater than the proof.
*cough*
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:hius421ras11hijnqq0f1qleun9bf4g7m1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:07:55 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Try this page on my website: www.dervman.com/eskid.htm (I think
>> that's the direct link).
>
> Nice clear explanation. Thanks.
>
>>> Well, here's an interesting discovery for me. Beginning in 2007,
>>> Honda includes so many of these features standard that the single
>>> "VS" (vehicle stability / traction) option for $650 gets you
>>> EVERYTHING.
>
> (should have said '07 TOYOTA)
>
>>> I'm going to post a Camrey LE vs Honda EX comparison because for
>>> the money, if safety is important, I think it's provocative.
>
>> Yes, but for 99% of drivers, 99% of the time, airbags, stability
>> protection, ABS, EBD and EBA is additional weight and cost.
>> Sure, when needed it's great.
>
> Like fire insurance ...
>
> It's got everything to do with how risk-averse you are, how lucky
> you feel, how often you do stupid things on the road, etc.
To a degree... or perhaps how much stupidity you see on the roads instead,
heh.
> I'm only too happy to make a modest investment that might one day
> save me from my own stupidity, and just as happy when those same
> safety systems are never employed.
>
> I'm especially happy to have them so that I can also be protected
> from the stupidity of other drivers, too distracted by cell
> phones to stop for stop signs or traffic signals.
>
> A few years ago I was driving around Providence in a 25 MPH zone
> and approaching an intersection where the cross street traffic
> had to stop and I did not.
>
> Just before I entered the intersection a driver flashed thru it from my
> left doing at least 45 MPH. The 1990 van I was driving had NO airbags
> and would not have been able to avoid the accident if I had gotten there
> a couple of seconds sooner. If the situation repeats itself and I'm not
> so lucky next time, I REALLY want the extra protection!
>
>> I can only think of one occasion when ABS was genuinely useful in
>> helping me avoid something under heavy braking. It doesn't help
>> me stop, it allows some steering control when braking hard ...
>> but it doesn't prevent a skid if you brake and steer at the same
>> time.
>
> The first car I had with 4-wheel disc and ABS was a Nissan
> NX-2000. It was a cute little red car, and occasionally my wife
> drove it. One day a truck blew through an intersection and she
> had to stand on the brakes and swerve all over the place to avoid
> being hit. But she did it, largely because of that hammering
> under the brake pedal combined with the excellent maneuverability
> of that little sports car.
>
>> Traction control is the same. You can still wheelspin with
>> traction control.
>
> The fool is always greater than the proof.
*cough*
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
04-26-2006 | 01:41 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
04-26-2006 | 01:41 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
04-26-2006 | 01:41 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:37ts4296fdt7tvptn21b92j6vgnun5ko4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:08:09 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>news:v4gs421l3tgn2r5ass8kkj4t6uip1vd7p8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
>>> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that if you want really good safety features with a Honda,
>>>>you've got to go out and spend big bucks for a bunch of stuff you may
>>>>not want or need, and I think this is unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>>I've got an '05 Accord LX, which I like, but it seems that the best
>>>>safety features aren't available unless you drop the big change for the
>>>>EX 6-cyl.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to get an EX i4 with:
>>>>
>>>>Traction Control
>>>
>>> ive had this in a van for the last 5 months. Might be ust chrysler's
>>> system, but it doesn't work too well for me, still get a loud tyre
>>> squeal if I floor it to merge traffic. Nowadays I just turn it off
>>> when I start the car.
>>
>>Some systems are designed to prevent oversteer in corners, but nothing can
>>overcome the basic laws of phsyics. For the system to work you have to
>>skid
>>a little, that's how it spots you're skidding. Some tyres make a louder
>>racket than others.
>>
>>>>Stability Control
>>>>Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>>>>Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>>>
>>> i HATE this. Teach proper braking practice, not compensate for driver
>>> inadequacy. i remember a few news stories from the UK a few years
>>> back, where these kicked in uneqpectedly. guy tapped hi brakes because
>>> he saw a speed camera ahead, just to chek his speed (as we all do) and
>>> the thing did an emergency stop, causing a 3 car accident (car was
>>> turning at the time). There were another case or two as well.
>>
>>The system is not triggered if you "tap the brakes." If you aggressively
>>punch the pedal then it triggers, but as soon as you lift off, it lets go
>>too. It uses a certain element of logic too, working on what your other
>>controls are doing, what they've just been doing, how much force and how
>>hard you push the pedal, so on and so forth.
>
> thats the point. it was a system fault. Wouldn't, couldn't happen with
> standard brakes, can with the EBA stuff. THATS the point.
EBA doesn't do it. Period. It would not be allowed to be used if it caused
accidents like this.
Imagine the law suits?
>>Tapping the brake pedal doesn't trigger it. You have to jack on the
>>anchors
>>with lots of force.
>>
>>Actually if the guy was an idiot and was hammering along then punched the
>>pedal, he caused the crash in conjunction with the other chuffs behind.
>>
>>> Until the car can sense the situation around it (not easy or
>>> praticable) it should NOT have overriding command of motive systems.
>>> Thats just plain common sense.
>>
>>It doesn't. It augments what the driver does.
>
> read what you just said. It augments. how does it know it needs
> augmenting. can it see why you're slowing? no, it can't.
You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother with power assisted steering and
servo-assisted brakes. These also augment the driver control input in
*exactly* the same way.
> Right below
> this you yourself say how you can fool these systems. If they can be
> triggered into reacting inappropriately, why would you call that a
> safety system.
No, they're not acting inappropriately. They're doing what they're
designed. But they are unable to bend the laws of phsyics. If I barrel
into Silverstone's Maggots at 95 mph, brake hard as the road drops, the back
end will waggle. It'll usually break away. The stability protection is of
limited use when the rear wheels are not in proper contact with the tarmac.
> We have a driver, a control system that samples the data all arond the
> vehicle 9or is supposed to) and makes edcisions based on whats going
> on around the vehicular unit. Is the car dong the same? if not, how
> can it tell if the braking force needs 'augmenting'.
That's where the fuzzy logic is involved. It's 2FC/2, i.e., very clever
stuff. But it works from what the driver does. See my other comment about
power assisted steering.
> Friend of mine
> was involved with the Darpa grand challenge. one of the problems they
> faced was braking - getting the braking force suitable for the
> enviroment. it all depends on how far you have to stop, if you intend
> to stop or just slow down, is avoidance needed, what surface you're
> on, how you're loaded. no car on the market can tell any of that. It
> could tell the mass you're carrying, but is that load in the back a
> wardrobe, or half a tank of tropical fish, or 10 8ft sheets of
> plastic. Are you stoping because there's a child just run out, you've
> just spotted a cop with a radar gun, or the lights you were hoping to
> make just turned red. Is it rainy, there snow, or sand on the road. If
> it can't tell, how can it adapt. I could be braking, be just shy of
> the braking limit for the conditions, but EBA thinks I meant to break
> harder,
No.
In isolation it doesn't work this way *unless* you're on a racing circuit
and you know exactly how much pressure to apply and when, thus you can thump
the pedal to achieve maximum retardation and you do it very quickly.
On the road, only fools thump the brake pedal without wishing to stop in a
hurry. It knows the difference between quick and firm rolling on the
pressure and a sudden thump. That's what the system spots. Most fools
quickly learn that if they thump the pedal of a car with EBA it stops
quicker than they *first* anticipated.
The first time one drives a new car, we learn stuff about it. Say it has a
quicker steering rack. We may oversteer the first one or two corners. Then
we learn. It's precisely the same with *any* situation.
First time I triggered the ABS in our Ka was a learning experience. Second
time I knew what to expect.
> so it presses harder, oops lockup, now thats the ABS kicking
> in, thats longer stopping, less control, all for a system that think
> sit knows better.
Herein is precisely why the driver in the circumstances needs to be educated
or at least try it.
As for the stopping distance and control argument, stopping distances are
slightly longer with the ABS humming away than a skilled driver without ABS
in ideal circumstances. I don't know of any driver than can hold a car at
the point just before lock up in an emergency situation such as the ones
you've described.
> Dangerous? I should cocoa.
No more so than servo assisted brakes. Nothing an experiment can't get
over. I don't understand your concerns. It is as though you don't want to
learn about these new fangled power brakes and what not...
>>I've played with all sorts of electronic systems. Some can be fooled
>>pretty
>>easily. Accelerate hard then brake firmly and the Mercedes EBA is
>>triggered. Tapping the brakes doesn't trigger it.
>
> not when its working 100%.
No manufacturer allows a system such as this that doesn't work to go on
production machines.
> If you've lpayed with electronic systems,
> you shoud know they're some of the most tempramental and fragile
> things out there. They're also good at going wrong and giving no hint
> of it until its too late.
EBA fails safe. It deactivates. That and a whole bunch of warning lights.
>>>>DRL
>>>
>>> see your headlight switch - wire the first stop, so it'll also be
>>> triggered by the ignition. if key's at II, lights are on - much better
>>> than that stupid way saturn has of working off the handbrake -
>>> friend's vue has its DRL going off every time he stops 9its a manual,
>>> and he is n a hilly area, and drives properly, with handbrakes at
>>> lights etc) volvo did it right years ago. if you use your regular
>>> lights for daytime running, you don't need all the lights and
>>> reflectors etc. just run from the ignition.
>>
>>One problem with this solution is power consumption, which in turn is
>>linked
>>to fuel consumption. Running 110 watts of bulb uses up more than running
>>24
>>watts of bulb and does make an appreciable difference to motion lotion.
>>Thanks to the wonders of carbon credits, every part mile per gallon is
>>starting to count.
>>
>>And the other issue of wearing out the wretched things. How many Volvos
>>do
>>you see with one headlight working?
>
> Great, you assume the headlight bulbs are the ones used.
Ermmmm they are on the Volvo S60...
> not so, I
> said the firststop. in the Us, thats the orange 'running lights', as
> you should know the volvos in the UK used those small 11W sidelights.
Nope.
> dipped beam is the 55W elements, which are the second stop on the
> headlight rocker. As a brit, i'm sure you appreciate the difference
> between them - turn your lights on, turn the ignition off, and take
> your keys out - should just be your sidelights that are left on.
Ooooh I live in the UK, yeah, but being British...? That's something else.
>>>>4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>>>>
>>>>But it looks like I'd have to also end up paying for XM radio, dual zone
>>>>climate control, glass roof, etc., etc ... whether I need them or not.
>>>>
>>>>I think the revamped i4 has plenty of horsepower for most dedicated
>>>>stick drivers, unless you happen to be hauling a carload of large adults
>>>>or something.
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>>>
>>> i wouldn't. I've not even a big ABS fan. i guess the problems is that
>>> mostly these featurse are not set up as 'emergency' but as
>>> 'cautionary'. So they're on be default, and set to activate much too
>>> soon. Of course, there are SOMe safety features I'd love to see
>>> introduced into the UK thats been standard elsewhere for years. REAR
>>> fog lights, for instance. Oh, and seperation of brake and turning
>>> signals. removal of turning signals from being buried in with
>>> headlights (see certain neons, and current crown-vics for instance.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite 9in fact, quite the opopsite) but i
>>> do know where technology should not be substituted for driver
>>> shortcommings. instead of whacking more tech on, hold the drivers to a
>>> higher standard.
>>
>>I agree, but I suspect we both know it's not going to be possible to
>>achieve
>>this.
>>
>>As for ABS, two sides of the coin. On the one hand, yeah it keeps you
>>pointing in the right direction when you stand on the brakes. On the
>>other,
>>there are idiots that believe it shortens their stopping distance and thus
>>tailgate and drive too fast.
>
> nope, doesn't keep you opointing in any direction.
In the absence of steering input, ABS keeps you pointing in the right
direction because no locked wheel or prolonged change in braking effort from
one or more tyres causes a yaw action.
www.dervman.com/ttwg.htm
> it just increases
> the chance that you will be able to steer. in many cases, ABS won't
> stop you sliding at all. in some, it'll actualy make you spin.
Only if the driver cannot control the car. And that's why we have so many
stability control applications out there...
>>Way too many British people don't have the foggiest on how to use high
>>visibility lights (front fog, rear fog lamps). Some idiots put
>>*everything*
>>on either to look cool or at the merest hint of rain. Other chumps keep
>>everything off until it's dark...
>
> again, as I said, don't use technology to compensate for stupidity.
> The only way to beat that is education.
Agreed. Except even the stupid get driving licences.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
07-06-2006 | 02:46 AM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
DervMan wrote:
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
07-06-2006 | 02:46 AM
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
DervMan wrote:
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
07-06-2006 | 02:46 AM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
DervMan wrote:
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
07-06-2006 | 02:46 AM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
DervMan wrote:
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CqednZlkYcxz8NfZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>John Horner wrote:
>>
>>>The SE is a pretty nice unit. I test drove one a few days ago. The new
>>>Camry nose is damn ugly,
>>
>>i think that has to do with "pedestrian safety", big in europe.
>
>
> I still maintain that PAR would be much prettier... pedestrian avoidance
> radar... :-)
Pah, let's just use the low tech cowcatcher. Worked on the RR's for decades.
07-06-2006 | 02:48 AM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
07-06-2006 | 02:48 AM
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
07-06-2006 | 02:48 AM
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
07-06-2006 | 02:48 AM
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:01:28 -0400, Charles Lasitter
> <spoof@address.com> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative few thousand
>>extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>
> I'm happy with my ABS, wish I didn't have to shell out for air bags,
> and not entirely convinced on some of the other hifalutin features.
>
> Marketing-wise, it's hard for a manufacturer to put safety features on
> just the high-zoot models, so they put them on only the high-zoot
> marques instead. Until stuff gets really cheap like ABS has.
>
> I'd also like back the $50 or so it costs me for the cruise control,
> which I've never used and probably never will, and really, who does?
I do, a lot, I have trouble keeping my speed down on certain roads,
e.g., Palisades Interstate Parkway, so I engage cruise control at a
speed low enough to skate by the troopers whenever possible.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GTCz-Roger
dodge
0
08-03-2011 11:39 AM
anthonyabdul
Miscellaneous Stuff For Sale
0
05-28-2005 12:31 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)