ABS or no ABS?

[homeforsummer]

Fixed.

99% of brakes are capable of locking up the wheels in a panic stop situation. Better brakes won't do anything for your panic stopping distance. Tires will.

Agreed, but all things being equal a set of great brakes are an excellent safety feature, ABS or no ABS.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I assumed by "better brakes" you simply meant upgrading the pads and lines or something. Obviously entirely replacing your braking system with a better unit will help, especially with feel, but it's also out of the budget for most people.

I was just making the point that tires stop the car, not brakes.

 

[Keef]

No amount of ABS or great pedal feel is every going to stop a car quicker than its tires will allow. Having good-performing tires is definitely a better safety net than ABS, or any other passive aid. Every single decision you or your car makes must go through the tires.

 

[CSLACR]

No amount of ABS or great pedal feel is every going to stop a car quicker than its tires will allow. Having good-performing tires is definitely a better safety net than ABS, or any other passive aid. Every single decision you or your car makes must go through the tires.

Better tires in what conditions?
There are no tires that are the best in more than one road condition.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Better tires in what conditions?
There are no tires that are the best in more than one road condition.

Summer tires are going to be the best overall tire in most conditions. Winter tires will be the best in the snow. Not that hard to figure out. Even with all seasons, there's still better performing tires within their own category.

Also, your statement about airbags being intended for people without seat belts is just flat wrong. They are actually intended to work along with a seatbelt. Without the belt, you'd probably end up with a few broken bones.

 

[Tornado]

Without the belt, you'd probably end up with a few broken bones.

I'd have to assume that that would be the best case scenario, even

 

[Keef]

Summer tires are going to be the best overall tire in most conditions. Winter tires will be the best in the snow. Not that hard to figure out. Even with all seasons, there's still better performing tires within their own category.

To be more specific, summer tires will work far better than anything else in wet or dry conditions above about 40 degrees or so. The compound of winter tires is designed specifically to stay grippy below these temperatures where winter weather like snow starts to fall, or in cold winter rain.

As a general rule, all-season tires don't excel in any conditions. The only reason for their use is longevity, and it's a bad reason at that.

Better tires in what conditions?
There are no tires that are the best in more than one road condition.

Don't try to argue with the fact that every input you or your car makes must reach the ground through the tires alone. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. Therefore, the most important safety upgrade you can possibly do to your car is to use the best performing tires possible for the driving conditions. Two sets of tires is great; three is even better. Living in Ohio, it would be ideal to have a high-performance summer tire during the months of May through October, a fairly average summer with a lower ideal operating temperature for Spring and Fall months, and a winter tire for everything from December through February.

 

[homeforsummer]

I assumed by "better brakes" you simply meant upgrading the pads and lines or something. Obviously entirely replacing your braking system with a better unit will help, especially with feel, but it's also out of the budget for most people.

A little from column A, a little from column B. Provided the tyres are up to scratch then upgrading your pads, lines etc will help, and a manufacturer fitting more effective brakes in the first place will too - naturally some cars don't have the best possible brakes for cost reasons so you can really appreciate when a manufacturer has fit some serious stoppers to a car.

I was just making the point that tires stop the car, not brakes.

Agreed. If brakes are like-for-like, then the car with more grip from the tyres will stop sooner.

 

[Keef]

Agreed. If brakes are like-for-like, then the car with more grip from the tyres will stop sooner.

I think you're underestimating the power that brakes generate. If two cars are the same, but one has my brakes while the one one has flimsy single-piston floaters and rubber lines and no feel, neither of them will stop any quicker than the other if they have crappy tires. Both sets of brakes will be able to lock pretty much anything up. If they don't, you're not kicking the pedal hard enough.

 

[TheBook]

I think you're underestimating the power that brakes generate. If two cars are the same, but one has my brakes while the one one has flimsy single-piston floaters and rubber lines and no feel, neither of them will stop any quicker than the other if they have crappy tires. Both sets of brakes will be able to lock pretty much anything up. If they don't, you're not kicking the pedal hard enough.

Single-piston floaters up front + drums in the back + rubber lines + Falken Azenis = impossible to lock the brakes in the dry. I've tried it.

 

[Keef]

Time for some maintenance, including better pads.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think you're underestimating the power that brakes generate. If two cars are the same, but one has my brakes while the one one has flimsy single-piston floaters and rubber lines and no feel, neither of them will stop any quicker than the other if they have crappy tires. Both sets of brakes will be able to lock pretty much anything up. If they don't, you're not kicking the pedal hard enough.

That's why I said "all things being equal" On good tyres, a set of brakes that exploit the tyres' grip to the maximum are better than a set of brakes that don't. And some cars have brakes that can exploit that grip better than others, like for like. That's why Porsches, for example, almost invariably stop better than anything else on the road (from what I've read), even a base Boxster.

For example, a Boxster probably doesn't have tyres any different to say, a BMW Z4 (conjecture - I don't have any figures. Edit: Actually I do - Autocar magazine road test figures - Boxster 60-0, 2.6 seconds. Z4, 2.8 seconds), but it can come to a halt quicker.

 

[Keef]

That's why I said "all things being equal" On good tyres, a set of brakes that exploit the tyres' grip to the maximum are better than a set of brakes that don't. And some cars have brakes that can exploit that grip better than others, like for like. That's why Porsches, for example, almost invariably stop better than anything else on the road (from what I've read), even a base Boxster.

The reason rear-engined and mid-engined cars typically brake better than front-engined cars is because of weigh transfer. Most of a 911's weight is in the rear. It transfers forward under braking just like any other car. But since, let's say, a front-engined sports car with a 50/50 balance may transfer forward to 80/20, a 911's 40/60 distribution will transfer to 70/30. The tires' grip potential is more evenly distributed between both ends. Obviously 4 wheels absorbing the braking force is more effective than only two, and that is why a 911's more even weight distribution between all four tires under straight-line braking contributes to better stopping distances.

Some reasons to increase a brake's size would be for heat absorbtion - more mass absorbs more heat - and a larger rotor area upon which larger pads can clamp. But none of that matters unless these more powerful, fade-resistant brakes can get their clamping force to the ground through grippy tires.

EDIT: Car and Driver ran a test last month comparing the GT3 to the Cayman R. Despite a 220 pound weight disadvantage carried by the GT3, it still braked in a shorter distance than the Cayman R. One reason is it's 6% more rearward weight bias, which means both axles are able to brake 3% harder than the Cayman R.

 

[posimosh]

Yeah a few broken bones... In your neck... Which will cause breathing and blood pressure problems because you will be dead! You may get lucky and walk away from the accident like those who fly through a window to escape a burning car because they didn't have their seatbelt on when airbags are deployed. Normally I would quote and point to statistics on this matter, however this is not the kind of info car makers allow to freely get out. Go ask a highway patrol officer (not a beat cop, they are mostly useless and hopelessly Ill-informed) about this, and they will plead with you to always wear a seatbelt...
Ralph Nader wrote the original legislation to make lap and shoulder belts mandatory in cars. A regulation that has saved more drivers than any other safety advancement since the invention of the automobile. <---little known fact.

 

[Keef]

Ralph Nader wrote the original legislation to make lap and shoulder belts mandatory in cars. A regulation that has saved more drivers than any other safety advancement since the invention of the automobile. <---little known fact.

The law has done nothing to save lives, and in fact has accomplished nothing besides increased revenue for law enforcement agencies.

What has actually saved lives is people wearing seatbelts. If you think the government dictating how I use my own property is a good thing then I suggest you go to the Opinions forum, to the Human Rights thread, and you can explain how it is you're allowed to indirectly tell me how I use my own property.

 

[CSLACR]

Don't try to argue with the fact that every input you or your car makes must reach the ground through the tires alone. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. Therefore, the most important safety upgrade you can possibly do to your car is to use the best performing tires possible for the driving conditions. Two sets of tires is great; three is even better. Living in Ohio, it would be ideal to have a high-performance summer tire during the months of May through October, a fairly average summer with a lower ideal operating temperature for Spring and Fall months, and a winter tire for everything from December through February.

I was unaware I was arguing anything.

To be more specific, summer tires will work far better than anything else in wet or dry conditions

Wuuuuut?
I thought tires designed for driving in the rain would do better in the rain than "summer tires".

 

[Keef]

I thought tires designed for driving in the rain would do better in the rain than "summer tires".

Summer tires are designed to work in conditions you might find in summer, such as dry, rain, and generally warm to hot weather. The evacuation of rain water is a very important aspect of summer tire compound and tread design, if you've never noticed. Stop watching so much Formula One.

 

[Tornado]

For example, a Boxster probably doesn't have tyres any different to say, a BMW Z4 (conjecture - I don't have any figures. Edit: Actually I do - Autocar magazine road test figures - Boxster 60-0, 2.6 seconds. Z4, 2.8 seconds), but it can come to a halt quicker.

That's not all things being equal.

 

[Eric.]

Wuuuuut?
I thought tires designed for driving in the rain would do better in the rain than "summer tires".

Name a non R-compound "rain tire". I feel way more confident in my Dunlop Star Spec (Extreme Performance Summer Tire) evacuating water than the no-name all seasons I have for the same car.

Edit: Actually, at the last autocross, the two fastest cars were the two running slicks. And it had been pouring down rain for hours that morning and still rained off and on at the event. So to a point, if its not standing water, slicks can even perform the best.

 

[posimosh]

The law has done nothing to save lives, and in fact has accomplished nothing besides increased revenue for law enforcement agencies.

What has actually saved lives is people wearing seatbelts. If you think the government dictating how I use my own property is a good thing then I suggest you go to the Opinions forum, to the Human Rights thread, and you can explain how it is you're allowed to indirectly tell me how I use my own property.

That is what I said. The auto industry dragged it's feet for two decades before Ralph Nader, when he was in the Nixon administration, wrote the legislation compelling the auto makers to put safety belts in cars. Its pretty obvious that you read up til you saw the name "Ralph Nader" then replied with some of the same old tired libertarian talking points about personal property. I do have to thank you for reiterating my point further in the post about the fact that seatbelts save lives. I'm not here to debate the politics of this except to say that as the market leader, the US mandated safetybelts in cars sold after a certain point in the mid-70s, and to say that if it were up to the auto industry, who are mandated by law to maximize profits, there would be no seatbelts in cars sold today because developing restraints for cars and implementing these restraints costs money, money that could be profit. Move to Somalia if you don't want the government to "get in the way".

 

[Keef]

That is what I said.

No it's not.

A regulation that has saved more drivers...

I do have to thank you for reiterating my point further in the post about the fact that seatbelts save lives.

As quoted above, you didn't say seatbelts save lives. You said the regulation (the law) saved lives. I'm not here to argue politics, I'm here to make sure you keep your story straight, which you didn't.

 

[Tornado]

if it were up to the auto industry, who are mandated by law to maximize profits, there would be no seatbelts in cars sold today

 

[Joel]

It's absurd to think there'd be no seatbelts in cars today. Think of the profit that could be made from having the only car on the market with seatbelts and airbags.

 

[posimosh]

My point: you can't wear seatbelts if they aren't there. It is not free will to wear seatbelts if they aren't effective or if they are not installed. My first two cars were from the late sixties and early seventies. Both did not have shoulder belts and the one from the late sixties had lap belts that were reinstalled because the first ones broke only when they were reinstalled and when I pulled thelap belt tight the whole belt came off in my hand. Cont...

 

[homeforsummer]

The reason rear-engined and mid-engined cars typically brake better than front-engined cars is because of weigh transfer. Most of a 911's weight is in the rear. It transfers forward under braking just like any other car. But since, let's say, a front-engined sports car with a 50/50 balance may transfer forward to 80/20, a 911's 40/60 distribution will transfer to 70/30. The tires' grip potential is more evenly distributed between both ends. Obviously 4 wheels absorbing the braking force is more effective than only two, and that is why a 911's more even weight distribution between all four tires under straight-line braking contributes to better stopping distances.

Some reasons to increase a brake's size would be for heat absorbtion - more mass absorbs more heat - and a larger rotor area upon which larger pads can clamp. But none of that matters unless these more powerful, fade-resistant brakes can get their clamping force to the ground through grippy tires.

EDIT: Car and Driver ran a test last month comparing the GT3 to the Cayman R. Despite a 220 pound weight disadvantage carried by the GT3, it still braked in a shorter distance than the Cayman R. One reason is it's 6% more rearward weight bias, which means both axles are able to brake 3% harder than the Cayman R.

Then explain how Autocar have timed the front engine, front drive Audi A1 at 2.1 seconds for the 60-0?

Don't really, I'm just joshing (about you having to explain it, that is - they genuinely have timed that car with that time over that distance...). It does wipe the floor with many other lightweight small hatchbacks. But I do get where you're coming from. Worth also mentioning that damper rates can play a part in that weight transfer, and they're also important for braking performance.

and to say that if it were up to the auto industry, who are mandated by law to maximize profits, there would be no seatbelts in cars sold today because developing restraints for cars and implementing these restraints costs money, money that could be profit.

Rather than the huge losses that they'd start seeing from lawsuits when everyone started dying in their vehicles, right?

 

[Eric.]

Not the manufacturers fault for dying in a car wreck. However it would be their fault if a safety system failed.

 

[Keef]

Rather than the huge losses that they'd start seeing from lawsuits when everyone started dying in their vehicles, right?

It's very difficult to explain the idea of a free market and how it takes care of everything in due time, because people inevitably ask for hard evidence of this. That's a problem, because there isn't any. Truly free markets simply do not exist today, if they ever have, because the idea of self-governance and personal responsibility is absolutely terrifying to most of us humans. Unless you examine a black market out of context, then maybe that's as close you'll get to an example of free markets at work.

Don't you all love how I weasel some libertarian jargon into pretty much everything I say? I swear, sometimes I annoy myself.

 

[posimosh]

Indeed... But back to the original point, if your car has an airbag, please wear a seatbelt because not doing so can leave you paralyzed or dead.

 

[homeforsummer]

And if your car doesn't have an airbag, then certainly wear your seatbelt, unless you like headbutting hard objects at 50g.

Not the manufacturers fault for dying in a car wreck. However it would be their fault if a safety system failed.

Okay, let me rephrase:

Which manufacturer would fold first and start offering safety systems again when they realised that everyone was dying in their vehicles? It's a trick question: Government regulation or not, no manufacturer is willing to save a few quid removing safety systems if it means all their customers start dying in crashes and those crashing in a competitor's car stay alive. Lawsuits may not be involved but it's commercial suicide regardless.

 

[Crispy]

How did we go from ABS to seatbelts and airbags?