|
The Door Frame posted:I saw a weird commercial at work today, apparently Nissan is marketing some sort of emergency braking technology that makes you stop distance shorter than any other car. I guess the fact that ABS increases stopping distance finally got to the public, and there's a demand for regular braking systems now. I don't know if the anti-ABS system or the idea that regular brakes are an innovation is actually the Terrible Car Stuff, but I got some weird looks for chuckling at a commercial of a guy almost hitting a small child with his car. Only older rear-only ABS increased stopping distances. Modern four-wheel ABS reduces braking distances on everything except gravel. Page 4: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Only older rear-only ABS increased stopping distances. Modern four-wheel ABS reduces braking distances on everything except gravel. Page 4: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182 But that's compared to full lockup, right? I thought "perfect" threshold braking would be shorter than ABS distances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
amenenema posted:But that's compared to full lockup, right? I thought "perfect" threshold braking would be shorter than ABS distances. I think the point is in an emergency I doubt you'll be thinking too much about your braking technique, remember that these 'innovations' exist to cater for the many and the many are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
amenenema posted:But that's compared to full lockup, right? I thought "perfect" threshold braking would be shorter than ABS distances. I believe in that NHTSA test they weren't locking the brakes, but I'm not sure - they mention about "expert drivers" but god knows what that implies. At any rate, passenger car grade (this varies too, but assume something like a Camry) ABS compared to something with the brake bias optimized... yes, true it will be shorter, but good luck with that in the real world. "Perfect" threshold braking is hard even in ideal circumstances, and brake bias is usually screwed up from optimal by the manufacturer with the idea of making the fronts lock up first with a healthy margin for error. Speaking as a roadrace guy, if I could affordably and within-my-class-rules-legally put in an ABS system that would do what I want, I would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that if ABS wasn't a massive advantage in racing it wouldn't be banned virtually everywhere. Ditto traction control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
I can't believe people still argue that because the braking distance vs a perfect driver in ideal conditions is slightly worse, ABS is a bad idea. In an emergency 99.999999% of people that think of braking will just push the brakes hard. ABS will prevent those people locking up. I wish it was mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:I'm of the opinion that if ABS wasn't a massive advantage in racing it wouldn't be banned virtually everywhere. Ditto traction control. It's legal in GT3 because it makes the cars a lot easier to drive for the amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:It's legal in GT3 because it makes the cars a lot easier to drive for the amateurs. Isn't also legal in LMP1 because of the speeds involved, especially at Sarthe (namely Mulsanne straight to the Mulsanne corner)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
I just wish ABS wasn't so expensive to repair. "oh the sensor broke? well that'll be $800 please." (to be fair, a good chunk of the cost is the rust belt tax because they have to go in with a jackhammer to get anything unfastened)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
RE ABS Chat: http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets9.html Although the quality of individual ABS systems may vary quite a bit (some of the cheaper systems can be somewhat crude) I have yet to encounter an ABS system that didn't ultimately make the car faster. Even if it weighs 50+ pounds and makes your engine bay all ugly, you will be faster with it there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The problem with ABS most of us we're seeing can come in edge cases. Split mu is one - say you have one tire on gravel, the computer can see this and reduce braking power to the other side, or in racing you have a tire in the air, which means the car won't wander but also means it's not braking as hard as it could. Ice mode is another - you have stickier tires than the thing is programmed for (or many other situations) and it thinks you're locking up all 4 tires so reduces braking a lot. Specific tuning of things may be too conservative, usually on overreacting into ice mode. And the (relatively low) rate that most production units pulse at can actually destroy brake rotors because it acts more as a series of impacts, which hot cast iron rotors don't like. But that's really mostly "you're using production poo poo for racing" issues. Also, looking at the LMP1 and P2 regs at least, "No device or system is permitted between the mastercylinders and the callipers."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
20+ years ago F1 cars and Group C cars both utilized it. The F1 cars that had electronic aids absolutely annihilated the cars that didn't have them, and by 1993 (right before they were banned) virtually every car on the grid had some form of electronic assistance, be it Active Suspension, Traction Control, or ABS. The top cars usually had all 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
High downforce cars are the best case for racing ABS. In any severe braking zone, you're going from able to brake at 5ish G to 1.5ish. As an engineer, the driver-aids-era cars are fascinating, but I can kind of see why they went away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I'm sort of sad CVTs are banned in F1. Yeah, everyone hates the "most automatic of automatics" because they're not a manual or whatever reason, but they're here to stay, and having some top end development may help them get over their reported fragility issues right now. (and yes, CVTs are faster than manuals/sequentials, that's why they got banned)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
iospace posted:I'm sort of sad CVTs are banned in F1. Yeah, everyone hates the "most automatic of automatics" because they're not a manual or whatever reason, but they're here to stay, and having some top end development may help them get over their reported fragility issues right now. Get out of here with that heresy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Winglets showed up in a big way in MotoGP this year, and they're banned for next year. At first I was annoyed because after seeing what F1 can do with aerodynamics I wanted to see if bikes could get in on that too. But then I read an article about how Honda developed an "aerodynamically perfect" bike back in the 80's or 90's but they scrapped it because riders were unable to do more than a few laps before muscle fatigue made them unable to force the bike into corners. And then was like "hmm maybe technology for technology's sake isn't always the best option." I like the idea of F1 trying to keep driver skill as a focus, but I also like the idea of packing every feature imaginable into the cars and seeing what kind of speeds are possible. I don't know how you can have both though. Maybe when the F1: Self Driving Cars series starts up we can have the no holds barred technology race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Winglets showed up in a big way in MotoGP this year, and they're banned for next year. At first I was annoyed because after seeing what F1 can do with aerodynamics I wanted to see if bikes could get in on that too. But then I read an article about how Honda developed an "aerodynamically perfect" bike back in the 80's or 90's but they scrapped it because riders were unable to do more than a few laps before muscle fatigue made them unable to force the bike into corners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtCl8lLgnTY The future!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
PT Cruisers and HHRs are great because they are ugly rear end cars I don't mind people murdering for their drivetrains, and a beat up rusty granny-DUI K-car with a 2.4L turbo engine is something I want to see.glynnenstein posted:Only older rear-only ABS increased stopping distances. Modern four-wheel ABS reduces braking distances on everything except gravel. Page 4: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182 The specific example I can think of is the many times my stupid Foresters have slid me into a loving intersection due to a few inches of hardpack slush on a steep hill, even with studded tires, because they freaked the gently caress out and reduced brake force to near zero when I needed the wheels to lock and dig through the crap to asphalt. I almost got nailed by cross traffic and I've been debating disabling the ABS entirely since then. Oh, it loves to kick in and freak the hell out if I'm braking hard and hit a pothole with one tire, too. I had a friend almost go over a cliff because his jeep's ABS kicked in and prevented his tires from digging into a steep dirt hill once, too. He disabled his ABS and had no problem the next time he ran that trail, he just hit the brakes a little harder, let the tires slide till they dug in, and stopped well short. Smooth pavement, wet or dry, it works pretty well. Gravel, dirt, mud, snow, ice, or potholed pavement? Forget about it. xzzy posted:I just wish ABS wasn't so expensive to repair. It's pretty cheap if you do it yourself, at least till the rusty bolt holding the sensor to the knuckle snaps and now you're boned. kastein fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Also, as I have mentioned on here before, there is a particularly unenjoyable failure mode with ABS where it thinks a wheel's locked, and so decided that one doesn't need the caliper to be applied. ABS is really good in most situations, but there are situations where it won't be what you need. However, there are plenty of "safety" features that can gently caress off, starting with throttle cut on footbrake or handbrake application. Quite capable of making that decision myself, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
iospace posted:I'm sort of sad CVTs are banned in F1. Yeah, everyone hates the "most automatic of automatics" because they're not a manual or whatever reason, but they're here to stay, and having some top end development may help them get over their reported fragility issues right now. Williams tested one and it was banned virtually immediately. Human Grand Prix fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
iospace posted:Isn't also legal in LMP1 because of the speeds involved, especially at Sarthe (namely Mulsanne straight to the Mulsanne corner)? Not as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Get out of here with that heresy. Human Grand Prix posted:Williams tested one and it was banned virtually immediately. Pretty much. The ability to "lock" the engine at the top of the power band and then adjust the gear ratios is a bit too powerful. Right now one of the other problems CVTs face, aside from the fragility I mentioned is they're not as efficient in terms of power transfer, but makes up for it with always having the most optimal gear ratio no matter what (unless you're somehow at the two extremes).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
I've posted about this in SAS before, but at uni we once got a talk from Patrick Head. He talked a little bit about his dream F1 car that was this active suspension, CVT & GPS equipped monster that knew where it was on track and could adjust the suspension accordingly, giving it proactive instead of reactive suspension. Sadly the FIA banned everything and it would have undoubtedly been a snooze fest to watch, but I love the idea of an F1 car pogo-sticking itself up in the air wacky races style to get over bumps and things.  iospace posted:Isn't also legal in LMP1 because of the speeds involved, especially at Sarthe (namely Mulsanne straight to the Mulsanne corner)? the FIA posted:Anti-lock braking systems You can have traction control though, but not chrome plated suspension arms because the FIA hate bling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Ugh god, no to racing CVTs please. It's bad enough listening to those snowmobile engine powered Formula 500 cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Any situation involving engineers and the FIA boils down to the epitome of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
If engineers got their poo poo together we'd have a race series without the restriction of rules or human drivers. It would technically sound awesome but we'd find some way to gently caress it up and make it boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Any situation involving engineers and the FIA boils down to the epitome of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" sooner or later. Yeah it's very rare they'll disqualify a car once it's run unless it's something blatantly in contravention of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Ugh god, no to racing CVTs please. It's bad enough listening to those snowmobile engine powered Formula 500 cars. Says the person with the RADL tag  Speaking of engine sound, I got a leak in my mid-pipe. The good news is it's not affecting my emissions equipment. The bad news is it drones like hell on the freeway and it'll probably attract the attention of my perpetually bored local cops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
iospace posted:Says the person with the RADL tag
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:At least rotaries change speeds. F500s just went one constant tone no matter what and I'm glad they're being replaced by sportbike motors now or something. Ah, I thought you were bitching about the fact that all the major racing series are moving away from NA V8s (or bigger) which is a very common complaint over in the Worst Thread. iospace fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
ALL F1 CARS SHOULD HAVE LS7 ENGINES IN THEM BROOOM BROOM
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Uh, electric engines. Most efficient power transfer possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
iospace posted:Isn't also legal in LMP1 because of the speeds involved, especially at Sarthe (namely Mulsanne straight to the Mulsanne corner)? Mulsanne Straight isn't as fast as it used to be. Fast enough for Mark Webber though, probably. I actually met him in a bar about five years ago and asked him about that incident, and he said the first time it happened, he basically knew, for a fact, that he was going to die, and that it was entirely his fault. The second time it happened he went "oh hey maybe it wasn't me". The third time it happened he was ready to punch to team director who decided to send Dumbreck back out; the third flip was much worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Uh, electric engines. Most efficient power transfer possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlxZs2-gICc&t=25s
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Uh, electric engines. Most efficient power transfer possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPaggopePqA It's just not right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
iospace posted:Ah, I thought you were bitching about the fact that all the major racing series are moving away from NA V8s (or bigger) which is a very common complaint over in the Worst Thread. Nah; just saying the one example I know of that involves roadrace cars with CVTs sound awful on a level unbeknownst to most mortal souls. The Door Frame posted:Uh, electric engines. Most efficient power transfer possible ... define "most efficient". Because lol electricity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Winglets showed up in a big way in MotoGP this year, and they're banned for next year. At first I was annoyed because after seeing what F1 can do with aerodynamics I wanted to see if bikes could get in on that too. But then I read an article about how Honda developed an "aerodynamically perfect" bike back in the 80's or 90's but they scrapped it because riders were unable to do more than a few laps before muscle fatigue made them unable to force the bike into corners. The winglets have been interesting. They went to spec electronics this year which are much simpler than most factories had, so the anti-wheelie (which cuts power, basically) controls weren't as robust. The winglets keep the nose down without cutting engine power. It works really, really well for Ducati, but according to the riders the winglets make it much, much harder to make the bike change direction.  The manufacturers voted them out. Ducati protested, but Honda basically said "Look, we own several wind tunnels. Do you really think you can outspend us on this?" and there they went. Of course, now that Ducati (and Honda and Yamaha, who sport winglets sometimes now, too) have figured out how cool aero is, I'm sure they'll just incorporate all this poo poo into the fairings next year and it'll probably cost 100x what the drat winglets cost to develop. I love the idea of a real, pure, unrestricted prototype racing series, but I also like watching interesting racing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I would be entirely cool with MotoGP being run on naked bikes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Gay Nudist Dad posted:
They already addressed that, teams aren't allowed to have bulges and ducting either if I read the rules right. It will keep MotoGP one of the better man vs machine series out there but on the other hand they're never going to see the advances F1 has if they never adopt aero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
IPCRESS posted:I would be entirely cool with MotoGP being run on naked bikes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 05:27
|
|
