dmitri

The original was closed because one or two posts? If people are slandering warn them, don't spoil it for the rest of us.

ABS only matters once the tire locks up. If you threshold break, that is use as much force possible without locking the brakes, then ABS is useless. Threshold breaking is MUCH better than sliding to a stop, or pulsing your breaks 20 times a second.

ABS is good for ICE, or when you panic. But you're normally gonna eat it anyway if you panic, because you realize you won't be able to come to a stop in time.

You shouldn't hate ABS because it makes your pedal feel funny, or like it because you "brake shorter distances" because both are bs.

-dp

jrv2000

yeah, no one cares. The truth of the matter is that ABS has caused less accidents, and you can think whatever you want, but in an emergency situation, you are not going to be as efficient at pumping your brakes as the computer in your car. Peace

mfbenson

If you're using threshold braking, you aren't using the ABS anyway - ABS doesn't kick in until you're past the threshold (assuming you haven't modified the wheels, the tires, the center of gravity on the car, etc).

I don't understand why people are alarmed about someone hating ABS. Comments like "What are you doing using your ABS so much anyway?" confuse me. Last I checked there weren't any laws against "stopping too quickly".

Besides, if you really want to skid the tires, there's always the e-brake...

MesSCIah

Sorry I started this.......really, I am.......

Nobody here is going to convince me that I should love ABS. I don't really care how they actually work..... I have been driving in crappy weather for 10 years now and i just don't like them. Noise has nothing to do with it. Call me crazy, that's fine.....I am just giving you my opinion. When was the last time you has an ice storm in Cali? There are other states where it's not nice and sunny all the time.

kaypee

Wrong.

http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/antilock.htm#4

Sorry I'm late to the game and I missed on everyone calling me stupid. BUT: the proof that ABS decreases accidents is not there. ABS brakes are as safe as non-ABS brakes. And I have the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety backing me up.

Somnambulated

As per the original question posted in the original version of this thread: No, no, you cannot buy a Scion tC without ABS.

Fixtion

When i need to stop in a rush. Foot and Hand brake for me! :D

niguels

Hey kaypee, look what I quoted from your source...

"5. Why aren't car antilocks reducing crashes as expected?
No one knows for sure why their test performance hasn't translated into a significant reduction in real-world crashes. A possible reason is that the average motorist rarely experiences total loss of vehicle control, which antilocks are designed to prevent. There's also evidence that many car owners don't know how to use antilock brakes effectively. An Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.8 Another possibility is that some motorists may drive less cautiously because they believe antilocks allow them to brake better."

So.........

Perhaps the problem itself is not the brakes but the way people uses them.

If you read carefully the study on ABS brakes was not done analytically by comparing real sttoping distances. It was done comparing insurance claims, that by the way includes the factor of a human operator.

A system cannot be deemed useless because somebody does not know how to use it properly, right?

just my 2 cents

kaypee

What concerns me is that they did a study in 95/96, then in 98, then in 2001. If there is a learning curve, then after 5 years or so some people should have become familiar with ABS enough to see a gradual decrease in the amount of accidents from the ABS test group, starting from 98, then to 2001. But if levels stay the same then you wonder if people will ever learn how to use ABS to the point where it becomes effective.

Yes, before people start saying ABS is completely useless there needs to be a through qualitative analysis on why ABS doesn't work, which no one seems to have done yet. I'm suspecting that in real world conditions, the extra stopping power is not used frequently because people don't have enough time to judge correctly whether they should do a more gradual (and comfortable) stop or to slam the brakes when the car in front of them suddenly slows. Thus, reaction time would have much more to do with preventing accidents than stopping power.

What I'm saying is ABS has nowhere the safety impact of other safety equipment or designs: seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, etc., and if someone bashes them, it's not automatically "stupid."

jrv2000

Straight from your link.

"The federal studies of effects of antilocks on passenger vehicle crashes found positive effects on wet roads and negative effects for run-off-road crashes. These two opposite results cancel each other. Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them. Again, the net result was little effect on overall crash risk. In a study done for auto manufacturers, Failure Analysis Associates reported a net beneficial effect of antilocks on nonfatal crashes but no effect on fatal crashes."

They basically judged the results by canceled out the positive results with negative results elsewhere. b/c it had negetive effects off road, where no one will be driving with a tC, they canceled out the benefit they found on wet pavement. The GM researcher reported that cars with anti lock were less likely to rear end other cars, which tells me that they can stop in shorter distances than non anti lock cars. They again canceled out this positive because these cars were more likely to get rear ended.( b/c anti lock cars can stop faster than non anti lock cars at the same speed)This study talks about a net result of no benefit, while in actuality, on the road driving with ABS is greatly improved.

empleh

weird, i actually think ABS is a good thing. i'm no expert, but whenever i read a test, cars with ABS brakes stop faster. ie, in one of sports compact cars ultimate street car challenge, a old datsun (light car) without ABS brakes, and very sticky tires, stopped in the longest time of the bunch. and in the bunch was a skyline, a very heavy car, with ABS brakes.

anywhoo, what i think is funny, is that people are complaining about the scions having ABS brakes, why? if you are so good at drving, that you can stop better than ABS, and are complaining, then why didn't you get a real sports car? i guess it's a money thing...but why complain about something making life easier?

hahaitzskippy

ahhhh ABS is comin standard in almost all cars now a days.


askin the dealer to take out your ABS is impossible.



and professional race car drivers all have ABS.


weird how there are people who hate ABS...

striker79

i completely missed the original thread so I'm gonna assume a few things(sorry if i screw some stuff up).OK my guess is someone hates abs because they either feel it hinders there driving ability or they thing they can break faster with out it......umm no.I worked for BMW as a tech when the smg trans in the m3 came out and everyone complained and cried about how they could shift faster or they lost some sort of joy in pushing a clutch in and manually switching gears as if it added a few more points onto the scale of fun(for me being able to control which gear I'm in is good enough).So i was a little hesitant when the first few came rolling into the stealership,i had questions like how the f do you get it into drive and reverse :oops: once i figured that i out i headed out for post delivery inspection(pdi) test drive and was amazed at how much i didn't care about the loss of a clutch pedal or ability to keep both hands on the wheel and up shift or down shift at will.OK i kinda went off on a tangent there but my point is things like abs and in my experience idrive on BMW's can be hindrance for some and godsends to others,it's all in how you use your vehicle but for the most part abs works(assuming people don't pump the pedal) and take the time to learn how the system works and doesn't work.OK thats all i got for now sorry if i completely missed the original point.

Nox

I have to add something here because everyone here is comparing abs to stopping distance, the purpose of abs...ANTI LOCK BRAKES is not to stop the vehicle sooner, it is to steer over slippery surfaces to avoid an accident, so when you turn the wheel you dont slide. before abs was in most cars, when I was younger it was common knowlege to pump the brakes to avoid brake lockage. the stopping distance may be affected by abs however the main purpose is to retain steering ability and avoid slippage.

niguels

Good point Nox, that is true.

Also, lets keep this discussion at a high level without calling others "stupid". I know I commited a mistake with the first thread and I apologized everybody. Every one's opinion should be respected. The whole idea for the forum is to have a constructive discussion and have fun with it.

Sorry for being long ;)

kaypee

Ok, usually I'd not quote so much, but you really made serious errors in reading and comprehension.

1. "They basically judged the results by canceled out the positive results with negative results elsewhere. b/c it had negetive effects off road, "

not off road. run-off-road. To run off a road, you have to be on a road in the first place.

2. "The GM researcher reported that cars with anti lock were less likely to rear end other cars, which tells me that they can stop in shorter distances than non anti lock cars."

Which has already been proven in test conditions (on the track). Yet, we drive our cars in the real world, not on tracks, and in the real world we shift fender damage from the front to back. The extra ABS stopping power doesn't amount to much.

3. "This study talks about a net result of no benefit, while in actuality, on the road driving with ABS is greatly improved"

First off, there's the whole off-road run-off-road business. Also nowhere in the entire page was the word "greatly" used.

4. "canceled out the benefit they found on wet pavement."

There was no benefit on wet pavement in the insurance institute survey: "Because antilocks should make the most difference on wet and slippery roads, researchers also studied insurance claims experience in 29 northern states during winter months. Even here they found no difference in the frequency of insurance claims for vehicles with and without antilock brakes" The two surveys disagreed here, and its hard to tell which one is closer to the truth unless you get copies of both survey reports and analyze the methodology.

So lesson is: if they said "the impact was negligible," they meant the impact was negligible.

jrv2000

I know what i read, although i might have interpreted it differently.

1. "There was no benefit on wet pavement in the insurance institute survey"

I dont care what the insurance institute says. in my opinion, there research methods are completely bizzare. (Why would you look at insurance claims that are indirectly connected to anti lock when you could perform direct tests instead? There are too many variables in their test.)I already quoted in my last post that "The federal studies of effects of antilocks on passenger vehicle crashes found positive effects on wet roads".

2. "not off road. run-off-road. To run off a road, you have to be on a road in the first place."

I know what it said, but the way that i interpreted this, was that the anti lock brakes failed to be beneficial off road(once the car was actually off the pavement, and onto dirt or whatever).

3. "we shift fender damage from the front to back"

I dont know what this means, so if you could clarify, i could comment on this

"So lesson is: find a study that doesn't research "insurance claims for vehicles with and without antilock brakes" :D

komik

In my nine cars, I have only twice locked the wheels in a non-abs car on wet roads. Both times I was able to pump the brakes and come to a safe stop. (This was also when I only had a permit and less driving experience.) In my cars with ABS, (especially the tC) I have found myself more likely to hit something / lose control of the vehicle when the ABS kicked in. On my way to work every morning there is a bump 15 feet before the street I turn on to get to my office. In my Acura I never once had the ABS kick in while slowing down and going over the bump. This occurs frequently in my tC and causes the car not to slow down as quickly as it does without the ABS.

When I AutoX'd my tC yesterday, the ABS kicked in once. I lost control of the car and it started to skid sideways towards a line of cones. The rest of the time I had no problem maneuvering around corners while jamming on the brakes. Only when the ABS comes on in my tC do I have problems stopping/steering. This is my reason for disliking the ABS in this car. I may not be opposed to it all together, but at least the sensitivity of the sensors and when it comes on.

MesSCIah

Do all test that you read show the the stats in snow? Ice.....slush? Most likely not. Probably because they are usually "tested" on a track somewhere where it is sunny all day, sort of like LA...

I think it's funny how some people don't get the concept of bad weather.

jrv2000

Its not that we dont get the concept of bad weather, its that none of us drive in it so it is irrelevent to us. I do agree that ABS can increase stopping distances in snow, ice, slush, and gravel conditions. But on all other surfaces, (well atleast on the surfaces Idrive on daily in Cali.) wet/dry cement/asphault, oil slick roads, etc. ABS decreases stopping distances.

If you want to take a look at a true study on ABS, go to this site. You will need Adobe Acrobat.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...T4FinalRpt.pdf