On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:10:09 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> > Because it doesn't make sense.
>>
>> You just claim it doesn't and don't even back your claim up. But even if
>> it didn't it would merely be a wrong view and no justification at all
>> for childish namecalling.
>
> I've had this discussion with so many people and so many times, and the
> factsw are out there, if you actually cared about the subject you'd have
> educated yourself on it by now instead of merely trying to "win" an
> argument.

I have studied the subject (ABS) quite dilligently and the facts are
indeed there, they just don't support your views. If this was the mid-90s
you would have been partly correct. A perfect driver was able to
outperform many ABS systems back then under lab conditions. ABS has
improved vastly over the years and the chance of you outperforming ABS
today under real life conditions is just about zero. And calling me a
dumbass for pointing this just shows how little confidence you have in
your own argumentation.

>> > Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will
>> > start relating to you like an adult.
>>
>> I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number
>> of names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are
>> calling me just because you happen not to like my opinion.
>
> Your "opinion" happens to be wrong, when it comes to ABS.

No, it is merely not as outdated as yours. And even if it was wrong a
clear thinking adult would just explain his views instead of refusing to
explain anything and calling the 'opponent' names like a thirdgrader.

>> > I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the
>> > ABS enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test
>> > surfaces - isn't good enough for you? Too bad.
>>
>> It might be good enough, but your mere claim that you have said
>> experience is not. Also, even if you had the experience I would still
>> want to see an explanation, why this is so, which - if you actually
>> were a test engineer at an auto manufacturer - you would have a good
>> explanation for.
>
> It's real easy. When you brake on a split mu surface the high mu side
> will tend to make the vehicle rotate in that direction. Rather than
> force the driver to use steering input to correct, the ABS will dump
> pressure on the high mu side to the point that braking is effectively
> limited to little more than that offered by the low mu surface. Whereas
> without ABS, if the low mu side is ice or wet, smooth concrete there's
> really no problem just letting the low mu wheels lock and using lots of
> steering input to keep the vehicle pointed in the direction you want to
> go.

And if you misjudge the traction on the high mu surface and one of your
wheels on the high mu side locks up you are going to lose control. The
same happens if the low mu side suddenly gains traction or if the high mu
side loses traction. Or if you run into a pothole or any other kind of
small obstacle on the low mu side. In all these cases the ABS car is going
to continue going straight, whereas our crash test dummy Nagel is going to
be wrapped around a tree or smashed right into the obstacle he was trying
so hard to avoid.

Also modern ABS systems have improved vastly since you ('NDA probably
already expired') 'tested' ABS on a test track.

> Doesn't require a whole lot of skill, just reflexes fast enough to
> turn the steering wheel in the correct manner.

It requires a lot of skill to even judge the high mu surface good enough
to be sure not to lose control. And if one of my mentioned conditions
occurs (of course the test track all your claimed experience centers on
this is not going to be the case, but real life is not like your smooth
and predictable test track) you are going to wreck. Not even reflexes will
save you if you suddenly get grip on both sides with heavy steering input
on the front axle being applied. You will simply run off the road very
hard and very probably hit something harder than the cones you are using
on the test track.

>> As things are you claim you are an 'insider' like any number of usenet
>> denizens and are unable to back it up.
>>
> I really am not sure how far my NDA goes. I imagine it's expired by
> now, but I don't really know.

Guess what? I don't care. Your test track conditions don't apply to real
life and as your test apparently was many years back not even your
experience back then does carry any significance to judge today's ABS.

> I don't claim to be an "expert" - as I really only spent about six
> months working directly with ABS systems. But I do have experience that
> most people don't have, and lots more behind-the-wheel experience
> actually USING it than 95% of the public. (well, I hope. It would scare
> me to discover that a significant amount of people use their ABS every
> day...)

If what you say is true (which I doubt, but let's say it is) you worked on
ABS systems many years ago under nonrealistic (i.e. predictable) test
track conditions. In other words: Your 'experience' is worth nothing. And
thanks, I have enough experience with ABS to have a very good idea how it
works and where its limitations are.

>> Now go ahead and corroborate your claim. Models of the cars, what
>> happened, explanation. Can't wait...
>
> See above. Seen this behavior first in Dodge vans back when I was
> driving shuttle vans to get through college, would have been about
> 1993-1994 or so.

Oh my, driving crappy minivans surely qualifies you...

> All the drivers experienced what felt like near total brake failure
> when stopping on patchy ice, and lobbied the powers that be to not order
> ABS on any new vans as we felt it was unsafe.

I have plenty of experience with ABS both ABS and non-ABS (driving in
Austria a lot, where they prefer packed snow to salting the roads) and I
clearly prefer ABS even under these conditions, although I will readily
admit that having a truly horrible car with a truly horrible ABS like an
old Chrysler Minivan might change that.

> Things were much improved by then, don't get me wrong, but decisions
> were made, both customer driven and NHTSA driven, that sacrificed
> ultimate stopping distance for "idiot-proof" stability, thus making it
> easy for someone who actually had experience driving in low-traction
> conditions to "beat" the ABS. This held true for just about every
> American truck-based vehicle platform as of 4-5 years ago. Didn't have
> much experience with cars, but they tended to be intrinsically more
> stable due to better suspension geometry, so they were able to be tuned
> a little more aggressively.

In other words, you really only have experience with a few horrible
minivans under heavily unrealistic conditions. I didn't even suspect it
was _that_ bad.

> See, I didn't even bring up gravel or loose snow... (that's what you
> were expecting me to say, wasn't it?)

No, it wasn't. What I expected was exactly what you said, that you have a
bit of experience under controlled conditions with antiquated ABS systems
in truly terrible cars like ancient Dodge minivans.

Chris