PerKr

Speaking as a designer/mechanical engineer... Basic engineering knowledge combined with CAD and FEA gets you a very long way when it comes to getting the design right structurally. Seat of the pants does not. Add CFD and you should be getting a good picture of most of the important stuff. Real world testing is useful to verify this "theoretical" data and find unforeseen issues. Even then, all the CAD, FEA, CFD and physical testing in the world will not help if one makes the wrong mistakes.

--------
Re the discussion on price vs ME vs FE platforms... I am no fan of the corvette going ME. But I don't see any technical reason why a ME platform would cost any more than a FE platform. However, I do see it changing how it's viewed and how it appeals to people. While some people want it to be all out performance it's quite possible that it will appeal to far less people which in turn must result in a higher pricetag, as does extra attention to detail that might be required when it starts being compared more directly with cars like the Audi R8, Lamborghini Huracan, Ferrari 488... Not to mention that with this big of a change there is a huge opportunity for GM to raise prices and point to it being mid-engined to justify it.

FAUEE

Correct, it applies the brakes on selective corners of the car to create the desired movement. Or in some cases, undesired.

Tom400CFI

I may be mistaken, but I thought you said a car won't over ride driver's inputs -no specifics....so that is what I was speaking to. Cars have over ridded driver's intent since the advent of ABS. It only gets more so, with more tech. But I hear what you're saying.



The C7 has electric power assist. It can't entirely "take over", but could certainly influence in the wrong way.

Same with the E-diff

Same with the EBCM.

Like I said earlier, there were already reports of the EBCM activating on early C6's causing issues. IDK....I know that cars can and do interfere with what *I* want the MF'ers to do. So....Would a C5, 6, or 7 cause ME to crash? IDK....but I'm not interested in finding out. I already know that they interfere enough to soil the driving experience for me.


.

MatthewMiller

So you're saying there are documented cases where someone was just driving along in a traffic lane and a Corvette suddenly applied differential braking that caused them to swerve into the adjacent lane and hit other cars? Again, if that's really happened I would have expected major national news coverage and a NHTSA-mandated recall. Because that would indeed be a major problem.


I did, and wasn't being specific enough. That's why I tried to correct in the sentence you quoted. I should have added a "Sorry for my lack of clarity" with that, though.

Quote:

Cars have over ridded driver's intent since the advent of ABS. It only gets more so, with more tech. But I hear what you're saying.

ABS is a good example of the opposite. The fact is that drivers have been overriding their own intents since the automobile was invented. Braking is the perfect example: a driver intends to stop very quickly and retain steering control in order to avoid an accident, but locks up the brakes instead and therefore doesn't stop as quickly as the car is capable of and also loses steering ability in the process. He has the accident he intended to avoid, even though the car was capable of avoiding it. ABS is designed to allow the driver to accomplish what he intended: stop as short as possible and retain steering ability.

Quote:

The C7 has electric power assist. It can't entirely "take over", but could certainly influence in the wrong way.

It can't because it no capabilities to create steering inputs of its own. It is only set up to augment the steering force the driver is already creating, to reduce the steering effort. IOW, it's no different than hydraulic steering. It simply can't turn a car by itself. More germane to the original claim, it can't prevent a driver from turning the steering wheel to change lanes in an emergency.

There are plenty of new cars where the steering can become active, which was the origin of this discussion. Any car that can self-park or help an inattentive driver stay in his lane has active steering. However, they obviously aren't set up to prevent someone from making an emergency lane change. The car is smart enough to understand the difference between that and Snoozy Texterson gradually drifting out of his lane due to inattention. I simply don't believe that such an override has ever happened. Again, if it had, we all would have heard about it and there would have been a massive recall. Just look how big the news story was of the one autonomous car that hit the pedestrian!

Quote:

Same with the E-diff

Both are examples again of systems designed to help the driver accomplish his intent, not override it. This does assume the driver's intent to is stay in control. If you're intent is to do donuts in an empty parking lot, then yes these could be intrusive (although from my second-hand experience, I think the e-diff could actually help you do that too!). I do agree that in some cases the EBCM can make the car less fun and edgy in the name of safety. In cars where all of that can't be turned off, then I disagree with the implementation (note that a C7 doesn't seem to have that problem AFAICT). But these systems will never make a car unsafe, which was the point being debated. Let's put it this way: we live in an age where a stock Corvette with 750hp is just a down payment away. I do not want the average buyer to have access to that car without the nannies! The C8 may be pushing four-digit power. There's no way any manufacturer or any government would ever let cars like this be sold to the public without the safety systems we're discussing.

FAUEE

You would think so, but reality is the incidents were just minor sideswiped, or people hitting guardrails if anything. It's been documented on the forum a few times, but it's also. Not exactly easy to prove "officer I swear the car swerved, not me". And typically it occurs when the car is showing a "service active handling" message.

Like I said, it happened to me, but I steered against it and had space. At the time I had just bought the car, and the battery wasnt fully charged - c6s dont like batteries with a weak charge.

Tom400CFI

That's just bad driving. A GOOD driver can out brake ABS (been proven many times -even more so on dirt and snow surfaces. But if ABS intervenes, it takes away from the driver's intent...and lengthens stopping distances. Shitty.

The rest of this, is splitting hairs. You think a car "can't"...I've seen that it "can".


.

MatthewMiller

If a good driver could outbrake ABS, then it wouldn't ever be used in racing. And yet in every professional race series that allows ABS, every single car is equipped with it. This included F1 before it was outlawed in 1994, which is the top tier of drivers in the world in the top tier of road racing vehicles in the world. One of the few classes that still allows ABS today is GT Daytona in IMSA. And again, every single GTD car is equipped with ABS because nobody would ever give away such a massive advantage in performance, accident avoidance, and tire preservation. So no, this just isn't true in the real world. The same is true of traction control, BTW: in any racing class where it's allowed, every car uses it (again, this included F1 until it was banned about 10 years ago).

There's no splitting hairs here. There was a very specific claim that if a child runs out in front of a modern car with active lane correction, then the car will prevent an emergency swerve from the driver and "kill that little boy." I've pointed out that this is simply not the case: no vehicle would ever be designed to prevent an emergency maneuver like that. All the discussion about ABS, TC, and stability control is all related to the original assertion that active nannies cause death and destruction. However, these systems have been out there for at least a decade now, and it's very clear that they not only don't cause death and destruction - they prevent it. That is their entire raison d'etre. Like it or not, we are heading toward an era of autonomous vehicles, in large part because human operators have proven to be almost unbelievably bad at controlling them. When that changeover happens, the accident and casualty rates will plunge. I don't mean they will be cut in half, I mean they'll be reduced by a factor of 100 or 1000. That's how much better automatic systems are and will be at controlling vehicles than humans.

Tom400CFI

Matt...I'm shocked, that you would make the claim that you're making. We (humans) already know that well driven non-ABS will handily out-stop ABS....and more-so in inclement conditions. A very quick search brought up these and there are more. First one, look at 2:00 minutes:



On snow/ice:


Took me about 20 seconds to find ^those^. There are more. This is what I would call, "common knowledge"...especially for someone as smart and well read as you are.



Matt....It totally IS true in real life, for a good driver; someone who knows how to handle a car. I live @7050' elevation, I get ~400" of snow/year at my house. My neighborhood is STEEP. I can tell you straight up, that there are MANY days where ABS engaging going down my snow-covered roads could or would result in an accident (over-shooting the "T" at the bottom, or running into traffic at that same "T"; gaining speed as car "ABS's" down hill and overshooting turn at bottom, vs. not, w/o ABS). I could invite you here, and prove it to you (show you) over and over and over. On some of our cars w/overly sensitive ABS, I bypass it in the winter, which prevents accidents for both my wife and I. We can both DRIVE a vehicle.

And TC?? Come ON, man! I know that you know better than to make this claim! (?) Take virtually any newish car (that has TC) to a drag track with a GOOD driver. Launch it w/the TC, on, look at the results. Launching it with excellent driving, no TC....TC OFF will smoke TC, every single time. How do I know? I've ran TC equipped cars (C6, CTS-V, C4, M3) at the drag track and they totally suck *** and fall on their faces w/TC on...you go nowhere, when the light turns green.

Ever get stuck in the snow? Try to get unstuck w/TC on. CAN'T DO IT. Why? Car overrides drivers intent, you get no tq to the wheel. Better yet, try this Matt; drive up a STEEP, snow covered hill in a car w/TC on. Car won't do it. Turn TC off, use your brain...you go right up. I could invite you here, and prove it to you (show you) over and over and over. It's totally repeatable, totally predictable. Car won't go up hill in snow w/TC on. Turn it off...we go right up. In fact, at one point our CTS-V had an issue with the TPMS...which prevented you (us) from turning TC and AH off. We couldn't get home in the snow. Car wouldn't do it w/TC on. You know how freakin' frustrating that is?? Had to leave the car road side until they plowed, then I removed the TPMS system entirely. Problem solved. Car motored right up the hills here in snow, for 9 years after that...TC/AH all off, of course.



Well, you're flat out wrong. I've driven vehicles where the ABS did exactly what you're saying "can't happen"...it happened, and there was an accident. No little boys were hurt, thankfully. I wasn't specifically addressing "little boys", however, I was addressing "They don't override the driver's intent"



This part, you're right; automatic control is going to be way, WAY better than "the averaged duff" driving. Never said otherwise. That claim, which is unfortunately true, is totally different that this claim, which is totally untrue:
I've now provided multiple examples of where driver nannies most certainly DO override a (Good) driver's intent and CAN cause an accident that could otherwise have been prevented. For the average duff who's on their cell phone, doing makeup, don't know how to drive a car in the first place and they're only a living "lump" behind a steering wheel, yes, over all the safeties are a benefit for those people.

Tom400CFI

Go to ~3:50. What happens?


Start at 2:00.

Then FF to ~4:20 and watch. As Randy Probst says, threshold braking is: "IT'S THE MOST POWERFUL WAY TO STOP A CAR". -and he goes on to show use stopping distances for a threshold braking event vs. ABS. Of course the threshold event is shorter.



Since you brought up "Why wouldn't it be used in racing"? Why would it (if it can be in a given class)? Randy Probst explained the benefits of ABS on the track (which I agree with this WHEN the ABS system is not too intrusive/aggressive). If a system is there to "catch" or help you after you've gone beyond the tires' limits, it could help. If it engages too early, it's not helping, it's hurting (as in my snow-covered neighborhood). Also, when you're on the track you're probably driving 8/10's or more, you're brain's capacity is being mostly used; not many drivers can drive 10/10ths' and also fully exploit all of the functions of the car at the same time; ABS could help at times. Could. But then...who's winning the race? The driver? Or a computer? I'd rather see what the DRIVERS can do. Anyway, finally, all of that stuff is totally configurable/tuneable and not likely tuned AT ALL like that found in a street car, where it is far more aggressive/intrusive -and there is nothing you can do about it (can't tune/Taylor it). Apples and oranges, racing ABS/vs. Street.

In short, saying "Why wouldn't it be used in racing", is NOT building a case for nannies on the street. It's NOT building a case that "They don't override the driver's intent" because I've shown that they most definitely do. As things become more automated drivers absolutely cede control to the car/mfg and there is nothing we can do about it....other than keep older cars and some actual driving skill to use when necessary. As you cede control to the car, there is absolutely the possibility that a malfunction could happen and affect driver control....especially for the "average duff" who can barely manage a car in the first place. I would think that saying otherwise about a man-made, electro/mechanical device is a naive and reckless statement.


.

Tom400CFI

I was thinking about this some more. Although I didn't address the "little boy" earlier, I was thinking about this thread and ^this^ real world scenario as I was folding laundry. IF a kid, mom...whoever, came out in the road under these circumstances, w/ABS, there is no F'n way we'd stop w/ABS engaging. Car won't do it. Rather, the car actually accelerates down the hill as the ABS goes berserk, trying to manage things. Disable the ABS and suddenly, the car is totally drivable again. You can stop on this same hill, in the same snow. Could you avoid the "little boy"? You sure could -b/c in these conditions, I'll start down the hill at a crawl...just barely moving, and maintain that pace for the duration of the hill. Easy to manage. W/ABS, I start out the same way, but about 10-20' into the descent, the ABS kicks in, and "I'm out"; It's a roller coaster ride from there on as the ABS goes ape-****, and the car gains speeds that would make it impossible to stop no matter what method you care to try. So....


IDK. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but driver aids most certainly CAN intervene in a way the that handicaps a good driver -ways that "override the driver's intent"...Once the system intervenes....the driver isn't driving anymore; a system is. And that's not even considering the possibility of a malfunction.

drcook

Explain the abomination of an turbo intake manifold GM put on the 04.5 and 05 Duramax diesels. Or the fact that the cooling system was 33% too little. Both corrected in the 2006 model year Duramax. Looked good on the computer I guess, but if the person who did it had any real world experience they would have seen the shortcomings.

GM lost many false advertising lawsuits because the trucks would not do what they were claimed/advertised to do.

Garrett Turbochargers had to redesign the mouthpiece for them. The rest of the fix was to double the size of the transmission cooler, add 33% more volume to the radiator and increase the fan size from 18 to 21 inches along with dropping the compression ratio just a bit, all of which were employed in model year 2006 which turned into one of the better releases of the Duramax from a power to mileage to performance aspect.

Family circumstances at the time prevented us from getting on the lawsuit train, you had to join the lawsuits before the warranty ran out. My truck was one of the overheaters. Luckily some bright mechanic, seat of the pants type of people figured out what GM's highly trained engineers could not.

I did a lot of reading the various forums (like this, just truck related) and pieced together the different approaches and fixed my truck for less than what the depreciation loss would have been had we sold it and passed on the problem to someone else.

Part of the fix was to retrofit the entire 06 air assy, from airbox to turbocharger and have the system reprogrammed which I did. The part in my truck says Garrett on it plain as can be.

I plumbed an extra radiator in behind the bumper to add the capacity, added a trans cooler double in size, changed the hot and cold side pipes going to from the turbo through the charge air cooler, which I also replaced with a better one from Banks. The extra little radiator increases cooling capacity just about 33%.

One of the diesel related magazines ran a feature on how to take the entire front bulkhead, radiator, trans cooler, fan and shroud, charge air cooler (intercooler) from the 06's and retrofit those, but it was exorbitantly expensive.

I fixed my truck to where it doesn't overheat pulling 8000 lbs on flat ground when the outside temps are in the 90's. Of course the truck was rated to pull 13,000 lbs.

Another time when I was younger and working on a major project involved in Reagan's military build up that broke the back of the Soviet Union. I was deeply involved in helping keep you all safe. There was one particular part that the engineers told the floor to machine in a particular way. There was a 50% scrap rate. I was asked to get involved and took them to 2 out of 100 loss rate because I understood how metal reacted to being cut. They didn't. All their theory and education didn't involve what happens when you actually cut metal. Another critical component of the guidance systems was shorting out during tuning. Once again I did those.

All the BEST engineers that I worked with there (it was a major defense contractor) had spent some time actually working with hands on experience some time in their career.

They could understand when you told them how the metal was behaving in relationship to their design where the ones that had never cut/worked with metal had no basis of understanding, only education and theory.

Or how the electronics were shorting out due to the way the metal was machined. The design was great, but it had to be executed just right in order to function.

You see that in the Corvettes we all are enthusiasts of. The engineers that got involved in the race car programs transferred the hands on knowledge into the engineering process to make the cars better and better.

The tire companies do that all the time. If you follow Nascar or F1, or other racing venues where tires are critical, there are lots of times when they have to use real world feedback (read that tire failures on lots of cars during the race) to correct what engineering said should work.

There is nothing like a human being actually having some kind of hands on experience to greatly enhance what they do for living. Just has to do with how our big brains work.

I realize that this is a story that I have repeated, it is just one example of how issues crop up. There is a show on TV that talks about engineering disasters. Looks good on a paper or a CAD screen, but in real life, fails.

MatthewMiller

Tom, I'm not sure how to approach my reply here. It's clear that you're very invested in certain that are true, but only true within an incredibly narrow scope. They have nearly zero pertinence to any person driving on public roads.

First thing I would say is that your experiences with ABS are not at all what I've found. Every car I've ever driven in the snow works quite well with ABS, including my 96 C4 that is replete with the infamous "ice mode." If you were referring to only one vehicle, I'd go so far as to say that it sounds like your ABS is malfunctioning. But you reference multiple vehicles, so...I guess I'll have to take your word for it. And I don't have an explanation.

Going back - again - to the little kid running in front of the car...Again, that example was specifically referencing active steering, not ABS. And again I challenge anyone to show me documented cases of accidents that happened because active steering prevented a driver from executing an emergency lane change. Drcook also mentioned some C6s with active handling unexpectedly engaging a brake that caused the car to swerve unexpectedly. A quick search reveals that GM actually recalled those car. IOW, it was faulty. That's hardly a litmus test for the worth and risk of an active system on a car! When it isn't malfunctioning, it works fine and doesn't cause wrecks. When it does malfunction, it's like any malfunctioning part: it can cause problems. A blowout mid corner, a failed suspension part, and engine that stalls just as you pull out in traffic - all can cause wrecks. It doesn't mean the concept is dangerous. Again, I'll state categorically that active handling has prevented about eleventy-billion more wrecks than it's caused.

As for ABS and stopping distances, yes there are times when a production car's ABS can be beaten...by a trained driver in a controlled and scripted condition. There are two reasons for that. First, there are no surprises and 100% of a driver's concentration can be focused on the task of perfect threshold braking. Second, production-car ABS is intentionally tuned conservative, so that it intervenes a bit early and stays a bit shy of the actual threshold. The reason for this is that it allows more positive steering control and lessens the chance of swapping ends, both of which are far more important for the average driver in a panic situation than a couple extra feet of stopping distance. OTOH, a true race-oriented system is better at stopping short, and assumes that the race driver on a controlled close course will manage the steering inputs more adroitly than 99% of street drivers. If you take the average stopping distances of the best race drivers in the world over the course of a race or qualifying session and compare that with the average of the same car equipped with racing ABS, the ABS will win. Again, there is zero chance that any driver or team would use ABS on a race car if it caused slower lap times. If you think that Senna would have let it be used on his F1 car if it was proven to slow his times...well, you and I both know that would never have happened. The fact is, race-based ABS results both in better lap times over a race and better tire life; and again, it is used 100% of the time it is allowed in a racing class - nobody would ever go without it. Nobody ever has. If it helped Senna, it helps everybody.

And that's on a close, controlled race course where drivers have very little concentrate on besides getting their lines and braking perfect. An autocross or race is track is much less taxing on any driver's attention than public roads. Even really good race drivers will have trouble accurately threshold braking in an emergency situation on the street. Any of them would admit that to you. I'm talking about drivers who are an order of magnitude better at all of this than you or I. People like Pobst. I'm confident you could take a survey of them an none of them are driving around the street with ABS intentionally disabled! I guarantee you that I'm not, and I'm still better at all of this than 99.9% of the rest of the drivers on the road with me. No, ABS won't cause someone to hit the little boy in Drcook's example. Quite the opposite: instead of locking the brakes in a panic, like almost all driver would do, it will allow someone to slow aggressively while retaining steering control and allowing the driver to swerve and avoid the kid. That part about retaining steering control is key. It's the main reason ABS was adopted by the auto industry. And when I talk about overriding a driver's intentions, I'm saying that any driver's intention in such an emergency is to stop very quickly while retaining full control of the vehicle. That's something that almost never happened prior to ABS. ABS never overrides that unless it's malfunctioning. And again, if ABS were causing all kinds of accidents, it wouldn't be used. There is just a massive body of evidence that says you're wrong: ABS accomplishes exactly what it is designed to do. And in the videos you posted, the Aussie guy and Pobst both agree with that.

drcook

We all will have instances of where these devices fail. It is the nature of mechanical devices to have failures. While manufacturing quality control has gotten better, statistically, there are going to be failures. You just don't want to be one of the statistics.

I worked with a guy that bought a new van. It was a one in a million where the ABS components failed and his wife rear-ended a car on Ohio Rt 8. She was trying to apply the brakes and the ABS unit prevented them from working correctly.

I believe I mentioned it, the ABS was malfunctioning on my 04.5 Duramax while it was still under warranty. Coming to a stop, such as at a light, at the last moment, it would release and let the truck jump forward a couple feet. At least I have a habit of stopping far enough back that it didn't cause an accident. It was determined a little bit of corrosion in the front hubs was sending a false signal.

As far as stopping, I learned how to drive in NE Ohio winters.I learned to pump the brake, long before ABS came on the scene. I also learned something that was forgotten when the majority of cars came with auto trans. If you want to stop in the snow/ice in an auto equipped car, stick it in neutral and get the torque off the wheels. It will surprise you how much quicker and easier it will be to come to a stop.

Tom400CFI

I mostly agree. I don't think that driving down a snow covered hill is a "incredibly narrow scope". It was ONE example to illustrate my point. But driving down snowy hills...People do it all the time. Youtube "icy hill"...or "slick hill". Know how many cars I watch ABS the **** out of themselves, down my hill...then put their car in the ditch or up against the snowbank, to stop? Tons. Countless. It's a source of entertainment for this dick head. BUT, it was it was stated that these features can't/won't interfere with a driver. That the notion is "preposterous" I believe it was stated. That ain't true and I've shown multiple examples of how it can and does. Relevant to the general public? Most likely not, although I can still think of some examples of how ABS could actually cause an accident for the average duff.

I find it completely unacceptable when I can't get the vehicle I'm driving to do what I want it to do....and I know that it should be able to do "it". I won't own a vehicle like that...or I'll change something to get it to perform, as I have with ABS in our cars/trucks and the TPMS in the V.

Tom400CFI

Matt....I think that was the entire point of this conversation. I actually mentioned the C6 thing...someone else did too. That is a point that I was attempting to make, which is why I repeatedly stated that "and that's without a malfunction" -or something like that. I was showing examples of where electronic driving aids can interfere with the driver...and that was w/o any "malfunction". I perceived from DrCook, and others that they felt that systems CAN malfunction and cause a crash. Since they're electro/hydraulic/mechanical systems, designed, built and programmed by humans...I totally agree. To think other wise, to say it's "preposterous"...is preposterous, IMO.

As for ABS and stopping distances, yes there are times when a production car's ABS can be beaten...by a trained driver in a controlled and scripted condition.[/quote]Or a snowy hill.


I'm sure. But AGAIN, apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure this thread is/was talking about street cars. You brought "race" into the conversation, not me...and you did it to anecdotally "prove" that "it's better". It's a totally unrealistic comparison, and you admit that by recognizing the differences between a street/OEM system and a race one. Did you know that in MotoGP, they program the each track into the software system? Each TRACK. I've read that the rider can hold the throttle WOT entirely, and the system will still de-throttle, cut timing/etc such that the rider can negotiate the entire track. That is cool/amazing etc. I have no doubt that it helps those riders....but it has nothing to do with the street cars that we are talking about.



1st part. When it gets warm, how about we conduct a test?
2nd part, Actually, there is data that shows ABS hasn't increased driver safety. But none of that matters either. I never tried to claim that ABS is a threat to the general public's safety. If I did, please quote where I said that or anything like it, so that I can correct it. YOU said, Driver aids will never override driver intent. That ain't true and I used ABS as ONE example of how it most certainly can and does. You don't need to convince me that the average duff is better off with driving aids; most people aren't even really DRIVING their cars! OF course they need all the help they can get. Autonomous cars can't come soon enoguh b/c people in general, are already done driving.


.

Tom400CFI

^THIS^! See? Some people still DO know how to drive/handle a car. That is using your head, and THAT is how you keep out of trouble. Providing that you car lets you do it.

EDIT...that's weird; The "Thanks's" are gone...replaced by "likes". (?)


.

confab

Frankly, the active stuff scares me. ABS can almost be considered passive and it is designed to fail safe. During a panic stop it basically pumps the brakes far faster than any human ever could, and I haven't noticed a loss of control I wouldn't have experienced anyway. If anything, the vehicle is more controllable.

But when they start talking about turning complete morons into competent drivers with active technology, I get a little concerned.

In practice:

1) There's always one more moron, or a much bigger and more robust moron, than you originally counted on.

2) Many people don't properly perform basic service their vehicles NOW. Forget the nuances of active tech, they still need to learn to check their brake, steering and transmission fluids.. Our roads aren't filled with F1 cars, perfectly maintained by the best technicians in the world.

3) This stuff sounds expensive to maintain.

4) I don't trust active tech more than I trust my own decisions, and if it insists on overriding my inputs I think it is only fair for the tech to assume some of the legal and financial liability for that decision. Statistics are great, as far as they go.. But even one in 5 occurrences happen regularly. As a legal standard, that is right out, IMO.

confab

No kidding.. What's with the "likes"

"Thanks for a helpful post" is a much higher standard than a "like"

pacoW

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When a deer jumps out in front of my teenage drivers, or my wife no way the human beats the ABS in that kind of panic stop. As much as I could try and practice with them and instruct them all I really care about is mash the pedal as hard as they can, keep the wheel strait, do not swerve off the road, hit the deer if you have to but stay on the road. Could I beat ABS in that situation, probably not. Could I beat ABS at a track day on Pocono raceway? Probably.

Tom400CFI

This debate could go on forever. I've had an elk jump out in front of me, winter, so (as stated earlier), I had my ABS disabled. It was dusk, I was going ~60 mph, I hammered the brakes right to the limit (didn't lock them), killed a ton of speed, but could see I was still going to hit the thing. Then swerved at the last minute, still braking but with a slight lift to accommodate the steering action... and went around the Elk. Wife and a friend in the car both couldn't believe we'd missed the Elk. They both remarked that they'd have hit the Elk, no doubt. I guess I don't know if I "Beat ABS" in that moment....but I did pretty good with out it. I felt that I had failry well maximized the available traction in that moment, and I didn't wish ABS had been active. A few years later, I was on a different road, summer time at night, same vehicle, ABS functional. A cow ambled out in to the road....I hit the brakes and it started ABS'ing line a ****. I plowed that cow so hard...there was cow **** all over my truck...even in the bed. IDK if I could have done better in that situation w/o ABS. I think I could have done a little better...but I'm confident that I'd have still plowed that poor sucker, either way.

Only way to tell is back to back tests....which I think would be a LOT of fun to try. It would be super enlightening.

But wives and kids' driving skills wasn't the topic of debate. The topic being debated was: Do they "override the driver's intent" and could they malfunction could actually cause an accident -they being electronic driver aids.


.