Wrecks / electronic stability control

Anything off-topic

Moderators: Eric@PPE, James B., flyingpolarbear, Dev

PSWired
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:12 pm
Location: Annapolis, MD 1995 GMC Yukon, 6L80e, E85 5.3

Wrecks / electronic stability control

Post by PSWired »

Today on my way home from work I saw the exact same type of accident happen a few hundred feet in front of me that I've seen two other times in the last year or so. On the capital beltway (10 lanes at this point) an 18 wheeler was changing lanes to the right, going about 70 MPH. At the same time, a saturn began to change lanes into the same lane the 18 wheeler was on its way into. As soon as the saturn realized the 18 wheeler was in the way, the driver freaked out and lost control of the car trying to get back into the lane it was in previously. Overcompensating, the driver then skidded right into the truck's fuel tank. It was lucky that the tank didn't leak (it was caved in big time) and that the saturn hit the tank instead of ending up under the trailer.

Since the average driver doesn't know how to manage oversteer and understeer, or even know the limits of their car, I think it's time for mandatory electronic stability control on new cars. It would have prevented this accident and the two others that I saw just like it. It's cheap, it can be disabled for those who know what they're doing, and it's effective.

On another note, I was one of only two people who actually stopped to make sure everyone was okay. This was rush hour, so there were literally hundreds of cars passing the crash scene as it occurred. I guess people are just too busy.

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Post by saturnstyl »

Its already standard on everything I work on, and has been since 1999. Since it utilizes existing hardware with the addition of a few minor items and some software, its really cheap to add.

endo
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: Portland/Beaverton, OR; Truck: 2004 GMC ECSB 4WD
Contact:

Post by endo »

Think it's pretty much becoming standard on everything...even Chevy trucks have it across the board now as standard equipment. As I understand it, it actually has a significant effect on accident rates. Would prefer it not be a law, as that probably means a lot of nonsense with it (i.e., you cannot turn it off, or that manufacturers would be liable if you could).

I want stability control+traction control on my next vehicle, but am still annoyed that some systems (e.g., in a 2001 ML 430) will cut acceleration to about 10% of what's possible in snow. Safety isn't always achieved by slowing down.

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Post by saturnstyl »

You need to disable it in the snow. It doesn't turn off the system, but it reduces the throttle intervention and allows more wheelspin.

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

I'd thought that they made stability control by a certain year on all vehicles a requirement at the same time they did the tire pressure monitoring, as a result of the Exploder/Firecrap debacle. Don't know what year it was to go into effect, but it should be pretty soon.

I see stability control as making things worse, not better, knowing people as I do. Every winter, I see 4x4s and FWDs on the side of the road, with the 4x4s on their sides. The same ones I see on their sides are the same ones that had just passed me going 80+MPH on icy, snowy roads not long before, right on the ass of someone else. "Oh my truck's a 4x4, it'll handle snow like it's not there." "Oh my car has stability control, there's no way I can wreck it."

Marty
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: So. Cal. .... '04 Tahoe / '03 MBZ S55 / '07 Charger

Post by Marty »

That's one of the things I cannot (under)stand:
1. If you lose traction, it holds the gear as throttle is increased. This creates huge wheel spin and overrides the Eaton locking differential.
2. If you jump out too fast on a right-hand turn, you may trip the yaw control; which reduces throttle input and may brake a wheel. So, a tight situation may just become tighter.

When in doubt, I turn it off. However, as I have said before, I wish the darn thing was wired opposite (ie. off / select on )

Makoi
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:18 am
Location: 2010 GMC Yukon Denali

Post by Makoi »

Volvo (and some others) are on the right track with collision avoidance systems, as well as stability control. If the electronics can be designed to eliminate 99% of the "idiot doesn't know how to drive" factor, cars can be made from much lighter materials and fuel economy will go way up.

Why Ford wants to peddle Volvo..... I don't really understand. I'm seeing lots of new Volvo's on the streets here in Metro Detroit. Is this just local?

PSWired
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:12 pm
Location: Annapolis, MD 1995 GMC Yukon, 6L80e, E85 5.3

Post by PSWired »

Marty wrote:That's one of the things I cannot (under)stand:
1. If you lose traction, it holds the gear as throttle is increased. This creates huge wheel spin and overrides the Eaton locking differential.
2. If you jump out too fast on a right-hand turn, you may trip the yaw control; which reduces throttle input and may brake a wheel. So, a tight situation may just become tighter.

When in doubt, I turn it off. However, as I have said before, I wish the darn thing was wired opposite (ie. off / select on )
1. This is probably done to avoid the torque spike that occurs during an upshift. If you're right at the traction boundary, an upshift will be just enough to break traction again.

2. Don't know about the GM ones, but some of the other manufacturers are pretty aggressive with their throttle limiting in RWD cars where putting a lot of power into a turn could cause oversteer. I find it obnoxious but never felt like it was making the situation worse in terms of keeping control of the car.

PSWired
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:12 pm
Location: Annapolis, MD 1995 GMC Yukon, 6L80e, E85 5.3

Post by PSWired »

Speeder wrote:I'd thought that they made stability control by a certain year on all vehicles a requirement at the same time they did the tire pressure monitoring, as a result of the Exploder/Firecrap debacle. Don't know what year it was to go into effect, but it should be pretty soon.

I see stability control as making things worse, not better, knowing people as I do. Every winter, I see 4x4s and FWDs on the side of the road, with the 4x4s on their sides. The same ones I see on their sides are the same ones that had just passed me going 80+MPH on icy, snowy roads not long before, right on the ass of someone else. "Oh my truck's a 4x4, it'll handle snow like it's not there." "Oh my car has stability control, there's no way I can wreck it."
Hey look:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31520/118/

Required for 2012, all Toyotas have by 2009, all GM by 2010.

Agreed that it could lead to overconfidence, but the same thing was said about ABS when it was introduced, and that didn't turn out to be a big problem.

Marty
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: So. Cal. .... '04 Tahoe / '03 MBZ S55 / '07 Charger

Post by Marty »

Actually the ABS installed by GM was a big headache for many local LEO's. The original Kelsey-Hayes system (is) was terrible for not braking at all when weight was transferred forward during an emergency application.

Bent1
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 12:00 am
Location: SF Bayarea CA 1996 K3500/Sub/7.4L

Post by Bent1 »

In reading this thread, it dawns that we are trying to protect folks who have
no clue doing whatever they are 'trying' to do.

Okay, Big Brother and for the good of mankind has some place, but how far
do/should we go?

Air bag in the steering wheel, okay with that. Side air bags, okay with that.
Seat belts, then shoulder belts

ABS, okay with that

Traction control, kinda sorta okay with that...meaning all of these things are
kinda sorta a good thing, but they also allow too many folks who have no
business going as fast as these things allow them to.

Really a misnomer 'allow' them to go faster...

Plus vehicles today are soooooo quiet and sooooo quick and sooooo fast
and at such an affordable price. Ditto going up that food chain of more
money, more 'car' that would have been competitive on the track just
a couple decades ago....now being driven by idiots (yeah, am not patient
with these types).

A bit arrogance 'here', as we 'boy racers' learned the HOW2's of sliding
sideways and survived to tell 'us' about it...the 'normal' folks have no
clue and are just 'wannabes' with the money to buy a fast/quick vehicle...

Pete, same out here on the West Coast...lots more Volvo's/Saab's showing
up and of course the bean counter management decision is purely based on 'their'
bottom line....which I suspect is to get as much cash flow to fuel 'their'
golden parachutes for when they get canned for mismanagement...

Sad too, as they were beginning to be of interest to this old boy racer...

battmain
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by battmain »

As long as we can disable it, I'm all for allowing it on the cars for those people. As an example, it's always interesting to watch newbies to the track. They turn in early for a corner then run of road at the exit. They will do everything to stay on the pavement. Enough to crash, yet all they had to do was drive the car in the grass and gently get back on the road.

Why would I want to disable it? Recently, the rainy season started here. It hadn't rained in months. I have a favorite corner that is close to the office. It was wet. I wanted to have some fun. I did. I got my fix. I'm sure people where thinking I was crazy, but a controlled 4 wheel drift in the truck is nothing. I was seriously sideways on purpose. IF there as no way to disable it, I am positive that I would not purchase that particular model. I can tell you that it is annoying to have power suppressed, when you want it. Maybe that's what they mean by power currupts? :lol: Imagine James trying to do a burnout, on purpose, then have the traction nanny squawk. I'm sure he would be annoyed. Right James? :evil:

PSWired
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:12 pm
Location: Annapolis, MD 1995 GMC Yukon, 6L80e, E85 5.3

Post by PSWired »

Bent1 wrote:In reading this thread, it dawns that we are trying to protect folks who have
no clue doing whatever they are 'trying' to do.

Okay, Big Brother and for the good of mankind has some place, but how far
do/should we go?

Air bag in the steering wheel, okay with that. Side air bags, okay with that.
Seat belts, then shoulder belts

ABS, okay with that

Traction control, kinda sorta okay with that...meaning all of these things are
kinda sorta a good thing, but they also allow too many folks who have no
business going as fast as these things allow them to.

Really a misnomer 'allow' them to go faster...

Plus vehicles today are soooooo quiet and sooooo quick and sooooo fast
and at such an affordable price. Ditto going up that food chain of more
money, more 'car' that would have been competitive on the track just
a couple decades ago....now being driven by idiots (yeah, am not patient
with these types).

A bit arrogance 'here', as we 'boy racers' learned the HOW2's of sliding
sideways and survived to tell 'us' about it...the 'normal' folks have no
clue and are just 'wannabes' with the money to buy a fast/quick vehicle...

Pete, same out here on the West Coast...lots more Volvo's/Saab's showing
up and of course the bean counter management decision is purely based on 'their'
bottom line....which I suspect is to get as much cash flow to fuel 'their'
golden parachutes for when they get canned for mismanagement...

Sad too, as they were beginning to be of interest to this old boy racer...
My take on this is that government intervention is justified in cases where others are doing harm to me, and preventing that harm would not place an undue burden on anyone else. So if the standard issue bozo out there can't control his/her car, I think it's perfectly justifiable to require them to have an electronic system that will control it for them, provided that system does not restrict the abilities of those who actually know what they're doing. Of course the REAL solution to this problem is to fix the dang driver testing system. But we all know how well that will go over.

Bent1
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 12:00 am
Location: SF Bayarea CA 1996 K3500/Sub/7.4L

Post by Bent1 »

Bozo is right and it is a circular discussion on 'them'

I'll take the position that sure, put in the stuff to make it safer for 'us'
around them, but remember they are *BOZO's*, so they will then be
'able' to push it even faster and riskier, therefore become yet another
level of danger to 'us'...

Not arguing with you, just that this topic touches a sore point in that
I see ever more of these idiots pushing the limits and not allowing
Darwin to take it's toll...then the catch 22 that they 'will' take out
innocents along the way...

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

battmain wrote:but a controlled 4 wheel drift in the truck is nothing
Funny, but I'd have considered it a total failure if I went around a corner sideways. I know there's people that like sliding around corners, but for me perfection is achieved when I go through the twisties at high speeds, with no wheel noise, tracking perfectly between the white lines as though I were going 10MPH instead of 60-80MPH. My most favorite thing in the world is to hit hard corners in something that shouldn't handle well with a sports car on my butt when we go in, and a half mile or more between us when I come out. Heh heh...

PSWired
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:12 pm
Location: Annapolis, MD 1995 GMC Yukon, 6L80e, E85 5.3

Post by PSWired »

Bent1 wrote:Bozo is right and it is a circular discussion on 'them'

I'll take the position that sure, put in the stuff to make it safer for 'us'
around them, but remember they are *BOZO's*, so they will then be
'able' to push it even faster and riskier, therefore become yet another
level of danger to 'us'...

Not arguing with you, just that this topic touches a sore point in that
I see ever more of these idiots pushing the limits and not allowing
Darwin to take it's toll...then the catch 22 that they 'will' take out
innocents along the way...
What happens when only the stupid ones breed and the smart ones stop having kids? I don't know but this movie has been recommended to me a few times: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

And yes, natural selection's ability to "clean house" is being severely altered by our modern society. On the other hand, we're able to make advances much more easily with our modern culture than before. Maybe it all balances out?

battmain
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by battmain »

Speeder wrote:
battmain wrote:but a controlled 4 wheel drift in the truck is nothing
Funny, but I'd have considered it a total failure if I went around a corner sideways. I know there's people that like sliding around corners, but for me perfection is achieved when I go through the twisties at high speeds, with no wheel noise, tracking perfectly between the white lines as though I were going 10MPH instead of 60-80MPH. My most favorite thing in the world is to hit hard corners in something that shouldn't handle well with a sports car on my butt when we go in, and a half mile or more between us when I come out. Heh heh...
But I can do that proper corner thing too. And do it all the time in the truck. :)

On the track when following a similar car, you can see big time what a tiny slide does to the distance between you and them. It's just that sometimes you need a hit. Just a little tiny one. I admit it. I'm an adrenaline junkie.

Heh, now that I think about it, it works the opposite way on the road for the tailgaters. I have no problems wagging the tail a bit in the wet to get them to back off. Imagine the traction nanny kicking in at that time and the truck suddenly slowing... :P :o

daddy_dandy
Posts: 1944
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:56 am
Location: buy me a beer

Post by daddy_dandy »

PSWired wrote: What happens when only the stupid ones breed and the smart ones stop having kids? I don't know but this movie has been recommended to me a few times: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

And yes, natural selection's ability to "clean house" is being severely altered by our modern society. On the other hand, we're able to make advances much more easily with our modern culture than before. Maybe it all balances out?
Eh, I'm a big Judge fan. I completely understand and agree with the message of the movie but I hated it. Thought it was terrible. Funny though, every person I've commented to about it looks at me like I'm crazy. IMHO, if you're gonna invest the time into it, enjoy some green first.

I don't really feel like our advances are balancing things out. With the way big brother aides the weak, our technological advances are really keeping them alive longer than they should be. It's a double whammy.

Bent1
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 12:00 am
Location: SF Bayarea CA 1996 K3500/Sub/7.4L

Post by Bent1 »

Makoi wrote:Volvo (and some others) are on the right track with collision avoidance systems, as well as stability control. If the electronics can be designed to eliminate 99% of the "idiot doesn't know how to drive" factor, cars can be made from much lighter materials and fuel economy will go way up.

Why Ford wants to peddle Volvo..... I don't really understand. I'm seeing lots of new Volvo's on the streets here in Metro Detroit. Is this just local?
Pete...you'll never make a good bean counter with that line of thinking... :(

You are looking at it from the 'product' point of view, whereas these bean counters
from a pure bottom line or stock price (finance) point of view.

From a product point of view, the product matters more than stock price...but the
stock price will follow a good product (they don't get this, and/or care...as it
takes too long and they might not get their bonuses).

From a finance point of view, the finances matters more because this will
sell for more than any other product division.

And the BIGGIE is that this will infuse more 'cash' to pay for their golden
parachutes for screwing up the company.
Last edited by Bent1 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bent1
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 12:00 am
Location: SF Bayarea CA 1996 K3500/Sub/7.4L

Post by Bent1 »

daddy_dandy wrote:
Eh, I'm a big Judge fan. I completely understand and agree with the message of the movie but I hated it. Thought it was terrible. Funny though, every person I've commented to about it looks at me like I'm crazy. IMHO, if you're gonna invest the time into it, enjoy some green first.

I don't really feel like our advances are balancing things out. With the way big brother aides the weak, our technological advances are really keeping them alive longer than they should be. It's a double whammy.
Not great acting by any means....just too close to the truth or potential future.

Anyone remember BurbanBoy?

Post Reply