What he said!

On 09 Dec 2003 07:02 PM, Lon Stowell posted the following:
> Roughly 12/9/03 18:39, Mike Romain's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Del, the makers even state ABS has a longer braking distance.
>
> Cite?
>
>>
>> There isn't any debate on that issue, do a google search.
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
<snip>

>> Same for air bags. Ever wonder why they are designed to stop an
>> adult with no seat belt on? To compensate for fools on the roads.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

What he said!

On 09 Dec 2003 07:02 PM, Lon Stowell posted the following:
> Roughly 12/9/03 18:39, Mike Romain's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Del, the makers even state ABS has a longer braking distance.
>
> Cite?
>
>>
>> There isn't any debate on that issue, do a google search.
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
<snip>

>> Same for air bags. Ever wonder why they are designed to stop an
>> adult with no seat belt on? To compensate for fools on the roads.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

What he said!

On 09 Dec 2003 07:02 PM, Lon Stowell posted the following:
> Roughly 12/9/03 18:39, Mike Romain's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Del, the makers even state ABS has a longer braking distance.
>
> Cite?
>
>>
>> There isn't any debate on that issue, do a google search.
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
<snip>

>> Same for air bags. Ever wonder why they are designed to stop an
>> adult with no seat belt on? To compensate for fools on the roads.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

Del, I like to just check one thing for me. You said: "all 4 wheels at
the point of maximum braking." I'd like you to crawl under your TJ and
tell me how many brake lines are connected to your rear axle, then tell
me how your ABS could release one locked wheel without releasing maybe
the only other wheel with traction.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Del Rawlins wrote:
>
> If road conditions are such that you can melt rubber, then you are right,
> there isn't much point to ABS. It is when the roads are nasty, icy,
> sloppy, and wet that ABS comes into play. I'm sure you see those
> conditions frequently down there in California. What ABS can do, that
> no human being is capable of, is simultaneously keeping all 4 wheels at
> the point of maximum braking. The best you and I can manage, is to keep
> the wheel with the least grip from locking up, which means that the
> other 3 are not braking to their greatest potential.
>
> I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say here. It sounds as
> if you have found a statistic and are then making up your own
> assumptions about the cause. Even accepting at face value that ABS
> equipped rigs are involved in 30% more fatal crashes, it could easily be
> explained by the inability of the driver to corrrectly operate ABS
> equipped brakes. It could also mean that the drivers felt that they
> could drive too fast for conditions because they had ABS. I personally
> believe that these two explanations are far more plausible than what you
> are describing, based on my experience with ABS.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

Del, I like to just check one thing for me. You said: "all 4 wheels at
the point of maximum braking." I'd like you to crawl under your TJ and
tell me how many brake lines are connected to your rear axle, then tell
me how your ABS could release one locked wheel without releasing maybe
the only other wheel with traction.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Del Rawlins wrote:
>
> If road conditions are such that you can melt rubber, then you are right,
> there isn't much point to ABS. It is when the roads are nasty, icy,
> sloppy, and wet that ABS comes into play. I'm sure you see those
> conditions frequently down there in California. What ABS can do, that
> no human being is capable of, is simultaneously keeping all 4 wheels at
> the point of maximum braking. The best you and I can manage, is to keep
> the wheel with the least grip from locking up, which means that the
> other 3 are not braking to their greatest potential.
>
> I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say here. It sounds as
> if you have found a statistic and are then making up your own
> assumptions about the cause. Even accepting at face value that ABS
> equipped rigs are involved in 30% more fatal crashes, it could easily be
> explained by the inability of the driver to corrrectly operate ABS
> equipped brakes. It could also mean that the drivers felt that they
> could drive too fast for conditions because they had ABS. I personally
> believe that these two explanations are far more plausible than what you
> are describing, based on my experience with ABS.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

Del, I like to just check one thing for me. You said: "all 4 wheels at
the point of maximum braking." I'd like you to crawl under your TJ and
tell me how many brake lines are connected to your rear axle, then tell
me how your ABS could release one locked wheel without releasing maybe
the only other wheel with traction.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Del Rawlins wrote:
>
> If road conditions are such that you can melt rubber, then you are right,
> there isn't much point to ABS. It is when the roads are nasty, icy,
> sloppy, and wet that ABS comes into play. I'm sure you see those
> conditions frequently down there in California. What ABS can do, that
> no human being is capable of, is simultaneously keeping all 4 wheels at
> the point of maximum braking. The best you and I can manage, is to keep
> the wheel with the least grip from locking up, which means that the
> other 3 are not braking to their greatest potential.
>
> I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say here. It sounds as
> if you have found a statistic and are then making up your own
> assumptions about the cause. Even accepting at face value that ABS
> equipped rigs are involved in 30% more fatal crashes, it could easily be
> explained by the inability of the driver to corrrectly operate ABS
> equipped brakes. It could also mean that the drivers felt that they
> could drive too fast for conditions because they had ABS. I personally
> believe that these two explanations are far more plausible than what you
> are describing, based on my experience with ABS.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

That test has a big time flaw, it uses the same vehicle and simply
disconnects the ABS for the comparison tests, completely destroying the
fine tuning engineering, about the same thing as disconnect the power
brakes and saying that's the way regular brakes perform, if you think
they do than turn off your engine and coat down a hill.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon Stowell wrote:
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
>
> The purpose of the study was to determine if situations and
> or conditions occur where ABS equipped vehicles do not perform
> as well as vehicles without ABS.
>
> "For most maneuvers, on most surfaces, ABS-assisted stops
> yielded distances shorter than those made with the ABS
> disabled. The one exception was on loose gravel where
> stopping distances increased by an average of 27.2
> percent overall. [as you've noted many times, not a
> good idea offroad]. Additionally the vehicular stability
> observed during testing was almost always superior with
> ABS. For the cases in which instability was observed,
> ABS was not deemed responsible for its occurrence."
>
> All of the tests were conducted in the same vehicle with and
> without ABS, to avoid differences in basic vehicle stability.
>
> Without ABS, a professional driver was used to implement
> threshhold braking, with instrumentation to ensure that
> at no time was more than one wheel locked during this
> threshhold, aka, "best effort" braking. In every test
> on dry concrete, the ABS beat this driver in every vehicle
> tested. On wet Jennite with laden vehicles, the ABS beat
> the human every time. Only on wet Jennite with lightly
> loaded vehicles was the human able to beat ABS in one
> test out of 8. Same results on wet asphalt, an expert
> human beat the ABS only in 1 or 8 tests and only when
> the vehicle is lightly loaded. ABS and heavy load
> beat the human every time. And on wet grass. On
> gravel, the human beat the heck out of ABS, light or
> heavy load.
>
> Full wheel locked panic stops didn't do so good...although
> for most drivers they are still better than trying to use
> threshhold braking due to lack of experience.
>
> Same paper notes that crash databases clearly show that although
> 4 wheel ABS has produced some safety benefit, the net result
> from those crash statistics clearly indicates that these
> benefits in practice are far lower than predicted from
> engineering data and testing. e.g. single vehicle
> fatal crashes on wet roads were reduced 24% on ABS
> equipped vehicles, but the overall incidence of fatal
> single vehicle crashes increased 28% with ABS. And the
> safety ***** as well as the engineers that designed the
> systems wanted to know why. [Obviously none of them have
> ever driven in a Silicon Valley commute with a few soccer
> moms glued to their asses.]
>
> Nothing wrong with ABS. Problem is just the drivers don't
> engage it, end up sawing at the wheel, or think it is a
> magical get out of jail free card to allow excessive speed
> for conditions or following too closely.
>
> Well, almost nothing. Not entirely sure how the ABS would
> know the vehicle was on gravel all by its own inputs, but
> with input from the shock absorbers it easily should be
> able to figure out that it is best disabled.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
> --
> Fan of the dumbest team in America.

 

That test has a big time flaw, it uses the same vehicle and simply
disconnects the ABS for the comparison tests, completely destroying the
fine tuning engineering, about the same thing as disconnect the power
brakes and saying that's the way regular brakes perform, if you think
they do than turn off your engine and coat down a hill.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon Stowell wrote:
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
>
> The purpose of the study was to determine if situations and
> or conditions occur where ABS equipped vehicles do not perform
> as well as vehicles without ABS.
>
> "For most maneuvers, on most surfaces, ABS-assisted stops
> yielded distances shorter than those made with the ABS
> disabled. The one exception was on loose gravel where
> stopping distances increased by an average of 27.2
> percent overall. [as you've noted many times, not a
> good idea offroad]. Additionally the vehicular stability
> observed during testing was almost always superior with
> ABS. For the cases in which instability was observed,
> ABS was not deemed responsible for its occurrence."
>
> All of the tests were conducted in the same vehicle with and
> without ABS, to avoid differences in basic vehicle stability.
>
> Without ABS, a professional driver was used to implement
> threshhold braking, with instrumentation to ensure that
> at no time was more than one wheel locked during this
> threshhold, aka, "best effort" braking. In every test
> on dry concrete, the ABS beat this driver in every vehicle
> tested. On wet Jennite with laden vehicles, the ABS beat
> the human every time. Only on wet Jennite with lightly
> loaded vehicles was the human able to beat ABS in one
> test out of 8. Same results on wet asphalt, an expert
> human beat the ABS only in 1 or 8 tests and only when
> the vehicle is lightly loaded. ABS and heavy load
> beat the human every time. And on wet grass. On
> gravel, the human beat the heck out of ABS, light or
> heavy load.
>
> Full wheel locked panic stops didn't do so good...although
> for most drivers they are still better than trying to use
> threshhold braking due to lack of experience.
>
> Same paper notes that crash databases clearly show that although
> 4 wheel ABS has produced some safety benefit, the net result
> from those crash statistics clearly indicates that these
> benefits in practice are far lower than predicted from
> engineering data and testing. e.g. single vehicle
> fatal crashes on wet roads were reduced 24% on ABS
> equipped vehicles, but the overall incidence of fatal
> single vehicle crashes increased 28% with ABS. And the
> safety ***** as well as the engineers that designed the
> systems wanted to know why. [Obviously none of them have
> ever driven in a Silicon Valley commute with a few soccer
> moms glued to their asses.]
>
> Nothing wrong with ABS. Problem is just the drivers don't
> engage it, end up sawing at the wheel, or think it is a
> magical get out of jail free card to allow excessive speed
> for conditions or following too closely.
>
> Well, almost nothing. Not entirely sure how the ABS would
> know the vehicle was on gravel all by its own inputs, but
> with input from the shock absorbers it easily should be
> able to figure out that it is best disabled.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
> --
> Fan of the dumbest team in America.

 

That test has a big time flaw, it uses the same vehicle and simply
disconnects the ABS for the comparison tests, completely destroying the
fine tuning engineering, about the same thing as disconnect the power
brakes and saying that's the way regular brakes perform, if you think
they do than turn off your engine and coat down a hill.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon Stowell wrote:
>
> Well, I did. And up coughed a paper from the Society of
> Automotive Engineers, SAE 1999-01-1287.
>
> The purpose of the study was to determine if situations and
> or conditions occur where ABS equipped vehicles do not perform
> as well as vehicles without ABS.
>
> "For most maneuvers, on most surfaces, ABS-assisted stops
> yielded distances shorter than those made with the ABS
> disabled. The one exception was on loose gravel where
> stopping distances increased by an average of 27.2
> percent overall. [as you've noted many times, not a
> good idea offroad]. Additionally the vehicular stability
> observed during testing was almost always superior with
> ABS. For the cases in which instability was observed,
> ABS was not deemed responsible for its occurrence."
>
> All of the tests were conducted in the same vehicle with and
> without ABS, to avoid differences in basic vehicle stability.
>
> Without ABS, a professional driver was used to implement
> threshhold braking, with instrumentation to ensure that
> at no time was more than one wheel locked during this
> threshhold, aka, "best effort" braking. In every test
> on dry concrete, the ABS beat this driver in every vehicle
> tested. On wet Jennite with laden vehicles, the ABS beat
> the human every time. Only on wet Jennite with lightly
> loaded vehicles was the human able to beat ABS in one
> test out of 8. Same results on wet asphalt, an expert
> human beat the ABS only in 1 or 8 tests and only when
> the vehicle is lightly loaded. ABS and heavy load
> beat the human every time. And on wet grass. On
> gravel, the human beat the heck out of ABS, light or
> heavy load.
>
> Full wheel locked panic stops didn't do so good...although
> for most drivers they are still better than trying to use
> threshhold braking due to lack of experience.
>
> Same paper notes that crash databases clearly show that although
> 4 wheel ABS has produced some safety benefit, the net result
> from those crash statistics clearly indicates that these
> benefits in practice are far lower than predicted from
> engineering data and testing. e.g. single vehicle
> fatal crashes on wet roads were reduced 24% on ABS
> equipped vehicles, but the overall incidence of fatal
> single vehicle crashes increased 28% with ABS. And the
> safety ***** as well as the engineers that designed the
> systems wanted to know why. [Obviously none of them have
> ever driven in a Silicon Valley commute with a few soccer
> moms glued to their asses.]
>
> Nothing wrong with ABS. Problem is just the drivers don't
> engage it, end up sawing at the wheel, or think it is a
> magical get out of jail free card to allow excessive speed
> for conditions or following too closely.
>
> Well, almost nothing. Not entirely sure how the ABS would
> know the vehicle was on gravel all by its own inputs, but
> with input from the shock absorbers it easily should be
> able to figure out that it is best disabled.
>
> To kill a few small women and kids to save those too stupid to
> buckle up.
>
> --
> Fan of the dumbest team in America.

 

On 09 Dec 2003 08:42 PM, L.W.(?ill) ------ III posted the following:
> That test has a big time flaw, it uses the same vehicle and
> simply disconnects the ABS for the comparison tests, completely
> destroying the fine tuning engineering, about the same thing as
> disconnect the power brakes and saying that's the way regular brakes
> perform, if you think they do than turn off your engine and coat down
> a hill.

The ABS is designed to revert to a standard braking system when it is
disabled. It is nothing like disconnecting the power brakes. The
vacuum booster is unrelated to the ABS and what you have, in effect, is
a big expensive version of the proportioning valve in a non ABS rig. I
drove my former truck around for a couple weeks like this until the
dealer could replace an ABS wheel sensor and there was no adverse impact
on normal brake action except that there was no ABS.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/