Hate to admit it, but I'm 100% with you on that Crashton - as regards ASC. l also agree with MotorOn's "...very beneficial system for the average coffee drinking cell phone chatting makeup applying person..."

While I rarely use the cell while driving, and haven't worn makeup since this one Halloween in 1986 (what a doozy...), I still want DSC "on" while I'm simply tooling around. Why? Despite training, practice, and extreme diligence, sometimes evasive maneuvers are needed, and DSC helps in the majorityof those cases. The *only* time I've found DSC intrusive is when accelerating on low traction surfaces (and that's the ASC part!). I remember to turn it off then. Otherwise, I'll take the guardian angel. But that's my preference. If you're more in control with it off, by all means turn it off!

Crashton: Here's the reason we agree (sometimes vehemently) on this: the "acceleration on low traction surfaces" part is ASC. If that's all I had, I'd also leave it off ALL the time. That part's less than useless with a trained throttle foot, especially with LSD (which, thankfully, I have). The DSC really is kind of magical if you get it really crossed up...

 

I think the Good Doctor missed a point: The programming on the knock sensor and on ABS is pretty straightforward and very limited. Think automatic wipers: Is it raining? Yes. Turn on. Has it stopped? Yes. Turn off.
The knock sensor is the same; responds to basically one input: knock. ABS, also: wheelspin.
The DCS/ACS programming is radically different. They are responding to multiple inputs and making value judgements based on same. The
response(s) is/are a result of what the programmer has decided the system should do based on test information from the testing department. It is one of programming's weak spots: you can't write code to cover every situation, and you can't program experience into the system. As soon as the conditions are outside of the coding, the car gets stupid; it can't learn. It will do the same stupid thing over and over, whereas (hopefully) we won't.
And please note, I am not saying they don't have their place, and in certain situations can and will respond faster and better than I. But then again, if it's doing all the work, how will I learn?
There ya go: all $0.02 worth.

 

Exactly.................don't preach about the shortcomings of a system w/o even having it. You hate the TRACTION CONTROL....period.

 

Yea...............you could do that, NOT. Even the best of drivers are caught in ACCIDENTS. There is no human way of avoiding the kind of situation depicted in the video. Only by allowing the DSC to contribute to you regaining control are you going to be able to avoid an accident. How would you overcome an understeering situation in the split second it would take for you to avoid this problem.........?

 

Hmmmmmm...............I don't remember this being a track day question? Who cares what you could do on a track with experienced drivers. That is under very controlled situations, unlike those found in real life on the trip to the movies at night.

 

Funny, I thought the same thing when I saw you.

 

I've driven a friends MINI with DSC over an extended range of twisty back roads on a very rainy day. I found it very intrusive. That's just me, you love it. Viva la difference.

 

+1

 

I'm not going to debate hypotheticals with you it'll just run round and round in circles
Ok that video, a car performing at/near the cars limits, hauling around a track, car preforming at/near it's limits. One plays to the "what if" crowd the other plays to here are the hard numbers, analyze as you see fit. Oh and these numbers are the same system on a different chasis, haven't seen a test with the MINI itself though.

 

 

What about it was intrusive?

 

This is not a hypothetical question...........How would you attempt to do what the DSC can do in the avoidance manuever?

 

I'm not sure if you will always be able to turn it off or not, but I'm pretty our government has mandated stability control be standard within a few years.

Also, some tall, ugly and uncomfortable headrest by 2009.
More expensive cars will have active headrest that jump into position as you crash.

 

it's like saying that you don't want a seat belt because it's uncomfortable.

What many are saying is they don't want the benefit that these systems HAVE PROVEN to deliver because of what's not quite right in the system that's in our cars. If you really want to make an informed decision, do some freakin' reading on what these systems do well, and what they don't. OVERALL, they provide lots of benefit to the driving public. And one doesn't need to just think about what one's individual preferences are, do some reading on studies that have actuall statistical analysis from enough drivers and years of implementation to be able to derive some valid conculsions, not just the BS pontifications that show up in threads like this. What we have here is anticdotes. What you should make your descions on is real data.

Crashton, sure the A series is a tippy car, but the exact same physics that is so appearent in the A series affects every single car on the road. It's just as the center of gravity gets lower, and the wheel base wider and longer, it takes more of an event to intiate roll over. But as far as I"m aware, there is no magic ratio at which cars no longer can roll over!

But Scottinbend, I think we just have to give up here. There are many that will choose to belive what they will choose to, and will choose to ignore the obvious questions here (like how can one make sure one never overdrives the situation when you don't know what the situation is?) They'll never see it the way we see it, and they'll be perfectly happy thinking about it the way they choose to. Life will go on. The best news one might be able to read into it is that it provides a bit of bias to removal of these genes from the pool!

Matt

 

FWIW, phase in of manditory systems starts in 2009, and has to be complete across the board by 2013.... But anyway, here's an interesting abstract...

"This article describes the recommendation to require electronic stability control (ESC) in vehicles through a federal mandate in the United States, to be phased in beginning with 2009 models. It is estimated that such a measure could prevent as many as 10,000 fatal crashes per year by aiding drivers in controlling their vehicles in high-speed situations. Although the phase-in of ESC would be required on 30 percent of 2009 models and required on all by 2013, some point out that ESC will be standard on 48 percent of 2007 models anyway, so swifter, stricter regulations can be implemented. It is also estimated that ESC has the potential to reduce the risk of single vehicle crashes by 40 percent in its current state."

Here's the reference....
"Go Ahead and Require ESC, Institute and Others Tell Regulators "
Available from UC Berkeley Transportation Library through interlibrary loan or document delivery
Order Document: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ITSL/services.html
getting the refs it a bit tought from the interface, but this is a great place to learn about what's up in transportation....
http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/index.do

Matt

 

Think I'll offer an opposing pov to the Doctor and Scott--
Having practiced an entire track day on worn out Yokos---for those that are thinking about doing a track day with worn out tires--no they are not slicks when the tread is gone(lol), I got a ton of practice with throttle steering. Combined with around 15 Autocross days that I've done, I'm pretty comfortable with driving my MINI hard, and to the edge of the traction envelope, DSC is on full time OFF for me...except when I'm driving in uncertain areas--say curvy mountain areas in the wet, etc...

Atleast here in California, around town, and my 45 mile daily commute, DSC is a hindrance because like as MarkD says...it affects the power delivery under hard acceleration.

And this was true on both my 2003 Cooper with DSC and my current 2005 MCS with DSC.

In the past week, I was nearly hit by a 5 gallon bucket that flew out of a pickup truck, and a few weeks prior, caught myself swerving at fairly high speed to avoid a dog on the freeway..and in both instances, I reacted quickly and safely and in full control--thanks to my driving experience--all without DSC. I couldn't say that someone else in the same situation would be as lucky.

DSC is great for many people, but like smoking, or wearing seatbelts, or wearing a motorcycle helmet, or having unprotected sex..come on, it's a personal decision. If you decide to to take your chances blindly then don't be surprised by the resulting consequences.

Richard

 

This makes sense, we can agree to disagree.

But then there is this......

Doc, are you wishing harm to those that disagree with you?? I'm kind of surprised at that comment. I thought you were a better person than that. I stand corrected.

 

I don't actually wish harm to those that choose to disagree, but one can't hide from the stats. If one wants to not take advantage of safety systems, the odds are undeniable. If one doesn't take advantage of proven safety systems, then the chance that one will die in preventable events increase.


I do apologize that the humor missed it's mark.

Matt

ps, there is something that I do stand by though. This isn't a subjective item for discussion, like what shade of purple is the best. There are objective numbers on this one. To form an opinion without knowing them is just an act of willfull ignorance. Where it does get subjective is in a system that is programmed to err to the side of safety and not performance, one can make a subjective value statement that weights the intrusiveness on wet roads vs the provided safety. That's fine. But to say that the system doesn't increase safety is just wrong. To say that one can do everything the systems can do in the time they can do it is wrong too. What is really missing from the Mini debate is the percentages of times where they increase safety vs the number of times they decrease it based on our systems particular programming. Even I admit this is a bit of an area where there are unknowns.

 

I hate to see these DSC discussions go down the tube. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of Crashton's main points is that it is unwise to blindly rely on something like DSC to always save the day. I don't necessarily share Crashton's general dislike of DSC since I don't have it and can't comment one way or the other. I totally agree that it can and is a lifesaver - particularly when unexpected things happen. But getting a false sense of security that you can overcook things when conditions are really dicey & that DSC will always save your hide is a mistake.

 

Well if we're going to go by the odds, hurry up and get in your Cessna because you're safer flying.

It's a calculated risk, for some people thats ok, and some people prefer "an overbearing nanny" in the car.

Suprises me how contentous the response to people saying DSC has a dark side (ASC) and some people feel safer without it is. Much the same arguement can be made about how you should drive and SUV so you can be seen, and you're nuts to drive a car for fun it should be A to B only so you're not putting yourself at undo risk. And modding a car to go faster is pure lunacy because you never need to go faster than 55mph.

 

C'mon crash and motor........we are all waiting for your answers to my questions.

 

Oh well. Guess the best we can hope for is that people see those that offer only guess's as to the benefits/drawbacks of the system as being on the fringe.

 

As much as I hate where these DSC battles go, I have to chime in and say that I have to agree with the good Doctor on this one. Noone can argue the validity of the ability of the DSC system to do what it says it will do. It is made to protect those of us who aren't exactly sure what will happen if we get put in that split-second instance of near-danger. The facts back up the proof that the system works. Now, whether or not you like it in regards to your normal daily driving experience is subjective. There have certainly been times where I wanted to slide around a curve a little only to feel the car hold me back with a heavy hand. Yes, it sucked, and yes, had I wanted to slide it around a little, I could turn the DSC off, but the truth is, if I am put in a dangerous situation, I want everything in my arsenal to keep me safe. Yes, I feel I am a good, competent driver who could handle it, but when things happen that fast, who knows? That's where the DSC comes in.
If you don't like that way your MINI drives with it on, and you know beyond the shadow of a doubt you could drive safely out of a situation like Richard said he did, great! Turn it off. If not, you have no choice but to keep it on. I have heard story after story enough to say it WILL save your butt.

 

Take your pick of definitions, its a hypothetical debate, and I'm not going to engage in a arguement of circles, you're looking for me to respond to "thats impossible because I said so" about a video that if 100% fictional instance with narration written by a private company to sell their product, I'd like to keep the discussion above that of how special palo uber is, know those threads eitherdie out or get locked.
Exactly, a subjective descion! And respect for those who choose differently! I applaud you!

 

If that's the arguement, it's straw man construction at it's worst. Fact is that DSC system can respond to traction changes before a human can, and they can change forces on a per wheel basis, in a way that no human can. To overdrive because there's a nanny isn't what this is about. He also makes the point (misguided I think) time after time that by driving within the limits of what's prudent, that the need for the system is mitigated, yet never addresses the reality that the road surface isn't maintained well, or what the possibility of a non-uniform patch of ice or oil (or whatever) will do to rapidly change what is prudent into what is dangerous.
The arguement that one ough to just do what's safest is spurious as well, in that one can look at the benefits to driving risk taking the same driving one normally does with and without the system, and look at the marginal benefit that these systems deliver.
Those that quote the demonstrated lack of benefit TO LAP TIMES in the hands of EXPERT DRIVERS are missing the point as well, in that they aren't designed to reduce lap times, but are desinged to increase safety.

I did post a link to an on-line database of more nerdy articles on vehicle systems than anyone (including me) would ever care to read, so that those who actually want to make a data driven decision can get data that is more objective than those that give stories or opionions. I don't see that as a thread going to hell.

Matt