If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:43:56 -0700, N8N wrote: > > > > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:10:09 -0700, N8N wrote: > >> > >> > 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 No, it is merely not as outdated as yours.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 have not called you a third grader yet, but you certainly seem to reason > > like one. > > No, I merely don't share your opinion. And unlike you I dont claim that > 'experience' gathered a decade ago with some Dodge Minivan on some > nameless test track under controlled conditions is the pinnacle of ABS > knowledge. > > I suggest you stop your dumb namecalling and start behaving like an adult. Pot, kettle, black. > > > >> > 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 point is, you don't have to get anywhere near locking up the wheels > > on the high mu side to outbrake the ABS. > > That depends on the difference in mu. Your testbed conditions 'one side > perfect traction, one side almost zero, are unrealistic to put it mildly. Happens all the time where I grew up in the winter (western PA) > > >> The same happens if the low mu side suddenly gains traction > > > > Why? You'll just stop faster. > > You would if you weren't using 'lots of steering input' to one side to > counteract the torque created by two wheels exerting a force on the car > and the other two not counteracting this force. In reality the car will > all of sudden follow the heavy steering input and you consequently will > either run off the road (if the left side was slick and you were steering > to the left to counteract that force or into oncoming traffic (if the > right side was slick. Or you could just steer to correct and everything will be OK. > > >> or if the high mu side loses traction. > > > > Why? You'll just slide straight ahead. > > Try it under real world conditions and you will find that this is not the > case. How? Doesn't make sense. Physics says if all four wheels are sliding, the vehicle will continue straight ahead. If the road is crowned enough, it might slide a little bit off to the right, but that's about it. Personal experience corroborates this theory. Now if you have an unusual case where you have, say, glare ice on the shoulder and dry asphalt on the road, and a driver is half on the road and hits the brakes *so* hard that the dry asphalt side locks up then yes, he may spin, but that's clearly a case of significant dumbass on the part of the driver and trivial for an aware driver to avoid. > > >> Or if you run into a pothole or any other kind of small obstacle on the > >> low mu side. > > > > Why? > > Because the sudden jolt will usually upset the car enough to induce a spin. Ummm.... no. > > >> 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. > >> > > Have you ever DONE any of these maneuvers in a real, live car? > > I have experimented quite a bit with ABS, yes. So why do your experiences seem to indicate that cars are such fragile, twitchy beasts that spin off into the weeds at the slightest provocation when you try to do a high-G stop without ABS when *my* experience with larger, truck-based vehicles which are even harder to control says that it's really no big deal if you train yourself to react appropriately to a few situations and stay sharp and pay attention. > > > Do you have any clue what the heck you're talking about? > > Yes, and apparently I have more clue than you do. > > >> Also modern ABS systems have improved vastly since you ('NDA probably > >> already expired') 'tested' ABS on a test track. > > > > Since I was working on prototype vehicles, my experience is actually > > only a couple years behind. Maybe 2-3 at most. > > 'Experience' from a test track with controlled conditions in a freaking > minivan. Great. (shakes head) again, read for comprehension, you blithering idiot. That's not anywhere near what I said. In fact, I can honestly say that I have never in my entire life driven a minivan that I can recall, with or without ABS. > > >> > 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. > > > > Absolute balls. A 16-year old can be taught to do it in a couple hours. > > ... for your controlled conditions. And if the conditions change within a > few feet, which they freqiently do in real life, said 16 year old will > kill himself and others. It's a wonder I managed to make it to school every day, what with driving a (gasp) SUV (a real one, IHC Scout II) with (gasp) no ABS on (gasp) unplowed, unsalted roads! > > >> 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. > > > > Balls. > > No, just the simple truth, which of course you don't want to hear. After > all you like to see yourself as such a super expert and hearing that your > expertise is theoretical if that is not what you want. > > Btw, you indeed have balls to try to pass off your 'test track experience' > with a minivan as experience. Read for comprehension. > > >> Not even reflexes will save you if you suddenly get grip on both > >> sides with heavy steering input on the front axle being applied. > > > > Explain. Straightening out the steering wheel would seem to solve the > > problem quite nicely, > > Only if you can do so in the fraction of a second you have until your > steering input has turned the car beyond the point of no return. Which is really not that difficult, once you have had the experience of doing it a few times under controlled conditions. > > > which would seem to be a reflexive maneuver (since the first feedback > > the driver would receive would be the nose of the vehicle suddenly > > starting to turn in the direction of the steering input.) > > In other words, you have never tried it? You should, it might actually > enlighten you. Done it many times. It's really not that difficult. It takes precisely as much awareness as cranking the wheel over to compensate for the split mu in the first place. > > >> 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. > >> > > Odd that that hasn't happened yet, then, isn't it? > > You were lucky so far. Yeah, I apparently am the luckiest human on the face of the earth. > > >> > 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. > > > > Obviously. It's clear you just want to "be right" and don't really care > > about educating yourself at all. > > No, I just don't care about your NDA and even less about your attempt to > pass yourself off as an expert because you supposedly have signed one. > > >> 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. > >> > > Balls. > > No, just the plain naked and very ugly truth. Why, do you think the car > companies log millions of miles on real roads under real conditions and > let pros handle the cars out there? Because test track experience counts > for nothing in real life conditions. Test tracks make it possible to study > isolated factors but they are unable to sufficiently simulate real world > situations, which is why Chrysler like all the other manufacturers goes to > Canada or Scandinavia to test their prototypes under real conditions > before they are put into production. Or places like Michigan's upper peninsula, perhaps? > > >> 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. > >> > > If you had a "very good idea" of how it worked you wouldn't be arguing > > with me, because I have enought experience to authoritatively state that > > I am right and you are wrong. > > In other words you are stomping your foot and claiming you are right. > Unfortunately you are not and I sincerely hope that your arrogance and > lack of real world experience will not cost someone their life. It won't, unlike your apparent complete lack of poor-weather driving skill. > > > I was also apparently right when I stated that even if I explained my > > statements in detail that you wouldn't accept the explanations. > > I never accept wrong explanations. You don't accept anything you don't agree with. > > [whine ... yammer ...] > > >> 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. > > > > That's not what I said at all. I said "every American truck-based > > platform" meaning at that time I'd driven just about all of them. Read > > for comprehension, idiot. > > My bad. But all the worse for you at the same time. Trucks do not behave > like normal cars, especially not concerning brake performance and brake > handling. Yes, they are actually harder to control than car-based platforms due to their front suspension geometry differences necessitated by the typical 4WD truck front end design. > And yes, I have ample experience with truck braking under > limited traction conditions, both with and without ABS. Then why can't I detect any glimmer of having learned from that experience from your posts? > > In other words: You have no experience worth a damn (no real world > experience, no car experience, no real world car experience) but you > assume you are the expert in this field because you have signed a NDA. > > You know, Nate, I always thought you were an ok guy, but what you really > turned out to be Id rather not say, because then you would accuse me of > namecalling... > > Chris It's clear from this latest post of yours that you know absolutely squat about poor weather driving and that anything you say from this point on can be safely ignored. Not that everyone didn't have a sneaking suspicion that that was the case already... nate |
Ads |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:02:25 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> C.H. wrote: > >> The Mazda RX8 is the most overrated POS out there. > > Car and Driver liked it a lot. Car and Driver is the most overrated magazine. >> STI and Evo may be ok for travelling gnomes. Terrible ergos. The Evo is >> known for massive reliability problems to boot. And neither can touch >> the GTO performance wise. > > In a straight line only. I'd like to see your GTO trying to keep up with > them on a mountain road or on wet pavement. I wont even mention ice or > snow. > > And 400 hp / 6 liters = 66.7 which is hardly impressive. The Nissan G35 > has 280 hp / 3.5 liters = 80. The stupidest ever ratio mentioned in terms of performance is hp/liter. The GTO outperforms the G35 by a very large margin, which is what counts. Chris |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote:
> The stupidest ever ratio mentioned in terms of performance is hp/liter. > > The GTO outperforms the G35 by a very large margin, which is what counts. The GTO engine is large but primitive (2 valves per cylinder, fixed valve timing). Imagine what a 4 valves/cyl, variable valve timing design would have gotten out of a 6 liter capacity. |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
So, are you actually saying that you don't know the difference between being
"visable" and being "conspicious"? Interesting. Maybe one of your own example from a few day ago will help. Let's give it a shot. I had a question I had asked you a few days back. You snipped it out without answering. It was about the Corvette and a Nissan 380 you had mentioned having observed coming over a bridge side by side in difficult lighting/viewing conditions. In that example you had stated that the Corvette was "more visable" compared to the 380 since the Corvette had DRL's. But yet when asked, you failed to answer the question of why the DRLs actually mattered since obviously you were able to see both of the vehicles clearly enough to be able to determine make and model (which is far more detail then needed for avoidance situations, etc.). In other words, both vehicles must have been "visable" for you to have done that...making a paradox out of your statement. It begged the question...How is one more visable (because it had DRLs) when you were able to described both vehicles in equal detail? (which may explain why you didn't answer it) Now, I don't expect a answer to that (now old) question. However this example of *yours* demonstrates that someting is either visable, or it is not. There isn't a in between. The only difference is if something is more "conspicious" or not. O object that is very hard to see, is still "visable", it just is not "conspicious". Someone may not see it, even though it is visable if one knew where to look. DRL's are intended to aid in making objects more "conspicuous" to draw attention to objects that are visable, but might not otherwise be noticed without such "conspicuity aids" like DRLs. So in your example, the theory is that the Corvette would be more conspicous, therefore more likely to be seen, even though BOTH vehicles were clearly "visable". I doubt this helped, but I tried. Now in dense fog, DRLs/headlamps don't make the vehicle "visable" at all. Under those conditions, one can only see the lights, not the vehicle. The lights provide a visual queue that a vehicle exists, but the vehicle itself often isn't visable until it's much closer. |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
Probably not as much as you think. Ford was getting 265 HP out of the 2
Valve fixed valve timing 4.6L Mustang GT Engine. The three valve GT engine with variable timing gets only 300. The 4 valve version got 320. Given the absurd complication of some Japanese engines, they are have very poor power outputs - particularly at lower rpms when you actually need the power to use them as street cars. The 3.8L 2 Valve, push rod V-6 GM sells its larger front wheel drive cars is an amazing engine. WIthout all the cool stuff the Japanese love, it produces good power and good gas mileage numbers. I don't expect to see Buick LaSabres winning any races againt G35s, but I also don't see many Buick owners complaining about the power or gas mileage. Many people buy things becasue they sound cool and don't know or even care if the cool sounding stuff is needed (or even useful). Latest proof of this is the success of the latest Chrysler "Hemi." Nobody seems to know or care that the engine is not really a "Hemi" (at least in the way a 426 Hemi was a hemi) or that it is second rate compared to the GM Corevette engine or that even Chrysler enginers admit the deisgn chossen is an inferior choice when it comes to meeting emmission and fuel economy requirements. Just saying hemi is cool and is selling cars. The Japanese figured this out long ago. That is why their cars lead the world in marginally useful but cool sounding stuff. Particualrly in Japan it is irrelevant whether the stuff actually improves performance. Most of the people who buy cars with variable valve timing or rear wheel steering, or whatever will never come close to utilizing the potential of a 1960 Falcon, much less a 2005 G35. Ed |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Ed White wrote:
> Probably not as much as you think. Ford was getting 265 HP out of the 2 > Valve fixed valve timing 4.6L Mustang GT Engine. The three valve GT > engine with variable timing gets only 300. The 4 valve version got 320. That's significant. > Nobody seems to know or care that the engine is not really a "Hemi" (at least > in the way a 426 Hemi was a hemi) What do you mean? |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed White" > wrote
> Probably not as much as you think. Ford was getting 265 HP out of the 2 > Valve fixed valve timing 4.6L Mustang GT Engine. The three valve GT > engine with variable timing gets only 300. The 4 valve version got 320. > Given the absurd complication of some Japanese engines, they are have > very poor power outputs - particularly at lower rpms when you actually > need the power to use them as street cars. You're confusing torque with power, Ed. > The 3.8L 2 Valve, push rod V-6 GM sells its larger front wheel drive > cars is an amazing engine. WIthout all the cool stuff the Japanese > love, it produces good power and good gas mileage numbers. I don't > expect to see Buick LaSabres winning any races againt G35s, but I also > don't see many Buick owners complaining about the power or gas mileage. There's a reason that this is the case: the US market is by far the larges, and GM (especially, but also Chrysler and to a lesser degree Ford) has been able to engineer their US engines specifically for US conditions, and especially for the EPA mileage tests. Manufacturers (Toyota, Honda, BMW, MB, etc.) don't have that luxury and have to meet EU and other standards and especially conditions. Take a Buick over to Europe and you'd end up with lower mileage and performance in their tests and conditions. GM has long had different engines in Europe than in the US for exactly this reason. However, now that they're losing market share in both places, I expect that they will have to go the route that Ford did many years ago in sharing engines. Floyd |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:14:45 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> C.H. wrote: > >> The stupidest ever ratio mentioned in terms of performance is hp/liter. >> >> The GTO outperforms the G35 by a very large margin, which is what >> counts. > > The GTO engine is large but primitive (2 valves per cylinder, fixed valve > timing). Who cares whether it is primitive? It is very powerful and has a very nice torque curve, which makes it a pleasure to drive. It gets good fuel mileage for its performance. It needs little maintenance in comparison to your japanese rpm-wonders. No belt to replace for several hundred bucks every 40000 miles. Plus in case something breaks it is comparatively cheap to repair. > Imagine what a 4 valves/cyl, variable valve timing design would have > gotten out of a 6 liter capacity. The GTO has enough power as it is. Making an engine more complicated just so you can reduce displacement is only useful in markets that tax displacement. And gimmicks like variable valve timing are only necessary with small high-revving four- or six-bangers because their torque curves look extremely ugly without it. Face it, your thing for tiny engines with all kinds of technical gimmicks is due to your admiration for the gimmicks, not the performance or driveability of the engine. Chris |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:32:10 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> Ed White wrote: >> Probably not as much as you think. Ford was getting 265 HP out of the 2 >> Valve fixed valve timing 4.6L Mustang GT Engine. The three valve GT >> engine with variable timing gets only 300. The 4 valve version got 320. > > That's significant. And the 4.6 is much more expensive than the old 302 without the corresponding gains in performance. Not to mention the underperforming N/A Cobra engine... 35 horsepower more for this degree of added complexity is ridiculous. >> Nobody seems to know or care that the engine is not really a "Hemi" >> (at least in the way a 426 Hemi was a hemi) > > What do you mean? The current hemis don't have true hemispherical combustion chambers. They still do perform very nicely. Chris |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:34:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> So, are you actually saying that you don't know the difference between > being "visable" and being "conspicious"? Interesting. There is no difference, both don't exist. > Maybe one of your own example from a few day ago will help. Let's give it > a shot. > > I had a question I had asked you a few days back. You snipped it out > without answering. It was about the Corvette and a Nissan 380 you had > mentioned having observed coming over a bridge side by side in difficult > lighting/viewing conditions. There is no Nissan 380. > In that example you had stated that the Corvette was "more visable" > compared to the 380 since the Corvette had DRL's. But yet when asked, > you failed to answer the question of why the DRLs actually mattered > since obviously you were able to see both of the vehicles clearly enough > to be able to determine make and model (which is far more detail then > needed for avoidance situations, etc.). You won't believe it, they eventually came closer. The make and model of the Corvette were obvious even as it crested the rise, its amber DRLs make it very distinctive. The Z I only recognized when it was significantly closer. > It begged the question...How is one more visable (because it had DRLs) > when you were able to described both vehicles in equal detail? (which > may explain why you didn't answer it) See above. And clean up your spelling before lecturing me on language. > Now in dense fog, DRLs/headlamps don't make the vehicle "visable" at > all. Under those conditions, one can only see the lights, not the > vehicle. The lights provide a visual queue that a vehicle exists, but > the vehicle itself often isn't visable until it's much closer. Who cares? You know it's there unlike the non-DRL vehicle which you can't see until it is much closer like you just stated yourself. IOW you blew a nice fat hole into your own case again. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option | ls_dot1 | Chrysler | 11 | May 26th 05 01:49 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |