Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

>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.
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.

>
>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.

>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.

>+-----------------------------------------+
>| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
>| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
>| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
>+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:kt6s425o1ov8vp2t1kbfjfk3hha4kig90s@4ax.com...
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:33:04 GMT, "DervMan"
> <dervman@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Buy an extra set of wheels and switch between winter tires
>>> and summer tires. You will have all the traction control you
>>> need.
>
>> No, it's *not* the same thing.
>
>>>> Stability Control
>
>>> Not sure if I would like that or not.
>
>> Have you tried it? The best systems are the ones that allow
>> some sideways movement *cough* and bring you back into line
>> gently and without slapping your wrists.
>
> It's the implementation of some of these systems that I'm
> not sure about.
>
> Ideally, I'd like for the car to wait for some slippage to
> occur before taking action. If it automatically jumps in
> based on settings from the factory and OE tires, shocks,
> suspension, etc., I think that could be undesirable.

That's the only way it can work. It's based on an ECU and a bunch of
sensors.

> If it waited for an error condition to occur, then you could
> upgrade various things to improve cornering ability, and the
> system wouldn't cut you off based upon the abilities of the
> stock setup.

Erm... well yes. Stability protection cannot assume you're using standard
suspension and tyres on a dry road surface. If you replace your tyres for
el cheapo ones, it doesn't need to be told, it figures it out by itself. :-)

Try this page on my website: www.dervman.com/eskid.htm (I think that's the
direct link).

>>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>
>>> How is this different from ABS?
>
>> EBD takes over where the rear brake force valve left off. It
>> compensates for weight in the car and allows greater rear
>> braking effort, which can and does shorten stopping
>> distances.
>
> News you can use. I didn't know where it focused most of
> its efforts.
>
>> One of the great compromises in car design is how to set up
>> the brakes. For optimum braking, the valve that reduces rear
>> braking effort should be set such that all four wheels are
>> at the point of locking up at the same time with the same
>> pedal effort from the driver.
>
>> Manual systems are set up to be close to this (with a margin
>> for error) when the car is one up, with some standardised
>> conditions such as weather, tyre design and pressure. When
>> you're five up plus luggage, the rear wheels could be braked
>> rather more so.
>
>> EBD takes care of this for you. It also takes care of
>> unusual pressure differences, say, a front tyre being low in
>> pressure and / or a rear being unusually high in pressure.
>
> Thanks for this analysis!

<grins>

Goodo!

>>>> Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>
>>> If you mean something that helps you slam on the brakes, I'l
>>> pass. I don't need a computer to second guess how much brake
>>> pressure I want to apply.
>
>> No, it doesn't quite work like this. They are set up very
>> well. It monitors what you're doing and if it thinks you
>> really mean to stop quicker than you are doing so, it takes
>> over.
>
> What I have read is that in emergency braking situations,
> the average / untrained driver starts out by first not
> applying enough pedal pressure (underbraking) and then
> later in the stopping sequence when they're really scared
> they overcompensate in the other direction (overbraking).

Spot on. Experienced drivers do it to. It's very hard to apply the right
amount of pressure when faced with a "oh-oh" situation...

> Ideally you would like optimal braking from start to finish
> of the braking event.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mn9ry
>
> The vehicle has sensors to determine the emergency braking
> situation, and boosts breaking effort at the front end of
> the event for the shortest possible stopping distance.
>
>> DRL
>
>>> Turn your headlights on.
>
>> Different bulbs, different reflectors...
>
> And the wife gets an $11 insurance discount every six months
> for having DRL on her Subaru ...

Hehehehe. Nice.

>>>> 4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>
>>> Surprised that Honda is still using drum brakes on the
>>> Accord. Anyway, I don't think these add much to safety.
>
>> That may depend on where you live and how the car is driven.
>> Driven five up in hilly terrain I can see how you'd want the
>> greatest safety margin possible.
>
>>>> Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative
>>>> few thousand extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>> I can see their use. Personally, I'd get somebody else to
>> pay for them, and I'd buy the car used.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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.

Traction control is the same. You can still wheelspin with traction
control.

Those cars I've driven with stability protection, they vary. BMWs allow
some oversteery antics. Mercedes don't. But you can still skid off the
road.

Airbags? This Accord (waves to Accord sat outside the house) has four
airbags (and a broken SRS module but that's something else). My last
machine was written off (www.dervman.com/kd57.htm) and the airbags were not
needed, thus not used. They sat in their housing for nearly five years and
when the car was lunched into a roll then hit the kerb, they didn't
deploy...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:kt6s425o1ov8vp2t1kbfjfk3hha4kig90s@4ax.com...
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:33:04 GMT, "DervMan"
> <dervman@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Buy an extra set of wheels and switch between winter tires
>>> and summer tires. You will have all the traction control you
>>> need.
>
>> No, it's *not* the same thing.
>
>>>> Stability Control
>
>>> Not sure if I would like that or not.
>
>> Have you tried it? The best systems are the ones that allow
>> some sideways movement *cough* and bring you back into line
>> gently and without slapping your wrists.
>
> It's the implementation of some of these systems that I'm
> not sure about.
>
> Ideally, I'd like for the car to wait for some slippage to
> occur before taking action. If it automatically jumps in
> based on settings from the factory and OE tires, shocks,
> suspension, etc., I think that could be undesirable.

That's the only way it can work. It's based on an ECU and a bunch of
sensors.

> If it waited for an error condition to occur, then you could
> upgrade various things to improve cornering ability, and the
> system wouldn't cut you off based upon the abilities of the
> stock setup.

Erm... well yes. Stability protection cannot assume you're using standard
suspension and tyres on a dry road surface. If you replace your tyres for
el cheapo ones, it doesn't need to be told, it figures it out by itself. :-)

Try this page on my website: www.dervman.com/eskid.htm (I think that's the
direct link).

>>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>
>>> How is this different from ABS?
>
>> EBD takes over where the rear brake force valve left off. It
>> compensates for weight in the car and allows greater rear
>> braking effort, which can and does shorten stopping
>> distances.
>
> News you can use. I didn't know where it focused most of
> its efforts.
>
>> One of the great compromises in car design is how to set up
>> the brakes. For optimum braking, the valve that reduces rear
>> braking effort should be set such that all four wheels are
>> at the point of locking up at the same time with the same
>> pedal effort from the driver.
>
>> Manual systems are set up to be close to this (with a margin
>> for error) when the car is one up, with some standardised
>> conditions such as weather, tyre design and pressure. When
>> you're five up plus luggage, the rear wheels could be braked
>> rather more so.
>
>> EBD takes care of this for you. It also takes care of
>> unusual pressure differences, say, a front tyre being low in
>> pressure and / or a rear being unusually high in pressure.
>
> Thanks for this analysis!

<grins>

Goodo!

>>>> Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>
>>> If you mean something that helps you slam on the brakes, I'l
>>> pass. I don't need a computer to second guess how much brake
>>> pressure I want to apply.
>
>> No, it doesn't quite work like this. They are set up very
>> well. It monitors what you're doing and if it thinks you
>> really mean to stop quicker than you are doing so, it takes
>> over.
>
> What I have read is that in emergency braking situations,
> the average / untrained driver starts out by first not
> applying enough pedal pressure (underbraking) and then
> later in the stopping sequence when they're really scared
> they overcompensate in the other direction (overbraking).

Spot on. Experienced drivers do it to. It's very hard to apply the right
amount of pressure when faced with a "oh-oh" situation...

> Ideally you would like optimal braking from start to finish
> of the braking event.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mn9ry
>
> The vehicle has sensors to determine the emergency braking
> situation, and boosts breaking effort at the front end of
> the event for the shortest possible stopping distance.
>
>> DRL
>
>>> Turn your headlights on.
>
>> Different bulbs, different reflectors...
>
> And the wife gets an $11 insurance discount every six months
> for having DRL on her Subaru ...

Hehehehe. Nice.

>>>> 4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>
>>> Surprised that Honda is still using drum brakes on the
>>> Accord. Anyway, I don't think these add much to safety.
>
>> That may depend on where you live and how the car is driven.
>> Driven five up in hilly terrain I can see how you'd want the
>> greatest safety margin possible.
>
>>>> Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative
>>>> few thousand extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>> I can see their use. Personally, I'd get somebody else to
>> pay for them, and I'd buy the car used.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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.

Traction control is the same. You can still wheelspin with traction
control.

Those cars I've driven with stability protection, they vary. BMWs allow
some oversteery antics. Mercedes don't. But you can still skid off the
road.

Airbags? This Accord (waves to Accord sat outside the house) has four
airbags (and a broken SRS module but that's something else). My last
machine was written off (www.dervman.com/kd57.htm) and the airbags were not
needed, thus not used. They sat in their housing for nearly five years and
when the car was lunched into a roll then hit the kerb, they didn't
deploy...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:kt6s425o1ov8vp2t1kbfjfk3hha4kig90s@4ax.com...
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:33:04 GMT, "DervMan"
> <dervman@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Buy an extra set of wheels and switch between winter tires
>>> and summer tires. You will have all the traction control you
>>> need.
>
>> No, it's *not* the same thing.
>
>>>> Stability Control
>
>>> Not sure if I would like that or not.
>
>> Have you tried it? The best systems are the ones that allow
>> some sideways movement *cough* and bring you back into line
>> gently and without slapping your wrists.
>
> It's the implementation of some of these systems that I'm
> not sure about.
>
> Ideally, I'd like for the car to wait for some slippage to
> occur before taking action. If it automatically jumps in
> based on settings from the factory and OE tires, shocks,
> suspension, etc., I think that could be undesirable.

That's the only way it can work. It's based on an ECU and a bunch of
sensors.

> If it waited for an error condition to occur, then you could
> upgrade various things to improve cornering ability, and the
> system wouldn't cut you off based upon the abilities of the
> stock setup.

Erm... well yes. Stability protection cannot assume you're using standard
suspension and tyres on a dry road surface. If you replace your tyres for
el cheapo ones, it doesn't need to be told, it figures it out by itself. :-)

Try this page on my website: www.dervman.com/eskid.htm (I think that's the
direct link).

>>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution
>
>>> How is this different from ABS?
>
>> EBD takes over where the rear brake force valve left off. It
>> compensates for weight in the car and allows greater rear
>> braking effort, which can and does shorten stopping
>> distances.
>
> News you can use. I didn't know where it focused most of
> its efforts.
>
>> One of the great compromises in car design is how to set up
>> the brakes. For optimum braking, the valve that reduces rear
>> braking effort should be set such that all four wheels are
>> at the point of locking up at the same time with the same
>> pedal effort from the driver.
>
>> Manual systems are set up to be close to this (with a margin
>> for error) when the car is one up, with some standardised
>> conditions such as weather, tyre design and pressure. When
>> you're five up plus luggage, the rear wheels could be braked
>> rather more so.
>
>> EBD takes care of this for you. It also takes care of
>> unusual pressure differences, say, a front tyre being low in
>> pressure and / or a rear being unusually high in pressure.
>
> Thanks for this analysis!

<grins>

Goodo!

>>>> Emergency Brake Assist, and also,
>
>>> If you mean something that helps you slam on the brakes, I'l
>>> pass. I don't need a computer to second guess how much brake
>>> pressure I want to apply.
>
>> No, it doesn't quite work like this. They are set up very
>> well. It monitors what you're doing and if it thinks you
>> really mean to stop quicker than you are doing so, it takes
>> over.
>
> What I have read is that in emergency braking situations,
> the average / untrained driver starts out by first not
> applying enough pedal pressure (underbraking) and then
> later in the stopping sequence when they're really scared
> they overcompensate in the other direction (overbraking).

Spot on. Experienced drivers do it to. It's very hard to apply the right
amount of pressure when faced with a "oh-oh" situation...

> Ideally you would like optimal braking from start to finish
> of the braking event.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mn9ry
>
> The vehicle has sensors to determine the emergency braking
> situation, and boosts breaking effort at the front end of
> the event for the shortest possible stopping distance.
>
>> DRL
>
>>> Turn your headlights on.
>
>> Different bulbs, different reflectors...
>
> And the wife gets an $11 insurance discount every six months
> for having DRL on her Subaru ...

Hehehehe. Nice.

>>>> 4-wheel disk brakes (items not available on my '05 LX)
>
>>> Surprised that Honda is still using drum brakes on the
>>> Accord. Anyway, I don't think these add much to safety.
>
>> That may depend on where you live and how the car is driven.
>> Driven five up in hilly terrain I can see how you'd want the
>> greatest safety margin possible.
>
>>>> Would anyone else buy these safety features for a relative
>>>> few thousand extra dollars, or am I alone in this?
>
>> I can see their use. Personally, I'd get somebody else to
>> pay for them, and I'd buy the car used.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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.

Traction control is the same. You can still wheelspin with traction
control.

Those cars I've driven with stability protection, they vary. BMWs allow
some oversteery antics. Mercedes don't. But you can still skid off the
road.

Airbags? This Accord (waves to Accord sat outside the house) has four
airbags (and a broken SRS module but that's something else). My last
machine was written off (www.dervman.com/kd57.htm) and the airbags were not
needed, thus not used. They sat in their housing for nearly five years and
when the car was lunched into a roll then hit the kerb, they didn't
deploy...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"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.

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.

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.

>>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?

>>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.

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...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"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.

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.

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.

>>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?

>>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.

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...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

"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.

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.

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.

>>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?

>>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.

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...

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

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.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

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.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

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.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

>
>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. 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.

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'. 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, 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.

Dangerous? I should cocoa.

>
>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%. 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.

>
>>>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. 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.
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.

>
>>>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. 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.

>
>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.

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

>
>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. 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.

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'. 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, 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.

Dangerous? I should cocoa.

>
>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%. 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.

>
>>>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. 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.
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.

>
>>>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. 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.

>
>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.

Re: Make it easier to get safety features.
 

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.

>
>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. 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.

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'. 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, 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.

Dangerous? I should cocoa.

>
>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%. 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.

>
>>>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. 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.
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.

>
>>>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. 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.

>
>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.

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

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