People who charge into blind twisties assuming they'll be no traffic on them will need more than DSC to save their butts.

The notion that it's not possible to safely enjoy a sprited drive anywhere but on a race track is just silly. Some of you should really trade in your Minis for Volvos.

 

How bout charging into a blind twisty, completely planning to stay in your own lane? Cause there's a LOT of that at MOTD. And that's what I was doing when the F250 appeared. Just got a little more squirmy than usual on that particular corner - which I didn't plan for... and the point is, THAT HAPPENS sometimes...

 

Yep, that's exactly what I meant when I said stuff happens, and that's why I'll be keeping it on most (if not all) of the time.

 

any direct answers to several points from those that advocate not getting it or turning it off on the street...

1) How do you expect to do single wheel braking to do weight transfer to hold a line?
1a) And if your objective enough to admit you can't do it, why do you thing this technology and the performance envelope it can access isn't a good idea.

2) Do you own insurance? If yes, is it because you have to have it, or because you want to have it. And if the answer to is because you want to have it, why don't you want the additional safety protection from DSC systems?

3) Even great driving skill isn't going to make up for some events. And some of these events can be handled by DSC. What is the reason that you don't want that protection?

Mostly, I see opinion this, opinion that. Very few look at how the technology works, or what it can really do. Even fewer look at the actual results and reductions in traffic fatalities that these systems bring. So this means a lot of the decisions on getting the system are based on antecdotal evidence of this or that, or myths perpetuated by those that haven't taken the time to find out the details. It's sad, but that's the way most things are nowadays. Why let real data influence the decision?

Matt

 

return tomorrow night at 9pm for the final debate

 

DSC, or whatever it is called by different manufacturers, will soon be as standard as ABS. In a few years you won't be able to buy a car without it, and by then the statistics will show how useful it really is. So, buy it 1) because it is useful, and 2) because your resale value will be hurt if you don't have it.

 

I got DSC (on the R56 Cooper I ordered last Friday ) but I have no idea why....mostly for the button I think. I've been motoring for four years and I swear it's not needed...at least not where I live. If I was faced with snow, yes....but in a mild climate I think it's just better to drive sanely and keep one's foot out of it.

 

Heard on the news the other data the goverment is going to require DSC (or they called it ESC) as standard in 2012.

 

Don't you appreciate that this is exactly the same as saying "since I haven't had an accident in four years I don't need insurance?"

ESC is the generic term. All the others are brand names. Yes, in 2012 all passenger vehicles will have to have it. But not all stability controls are created equal. So we'll see how the implementations work out.

I actually came across the only reason I'd agree with for not getting it. If you can't afford the car with DSC, and can without, then get the car. If you can afford it, get it.

Matt

 

If you drive with your "foot out of it" DSC will never get in your way. However, it will be there for you when some idiot in an SUV forces you to take drastic evasive maneuvers. It will also prevent you from rolling back when starting on a hill. So, leave it on while driving sanely and it will add convenience and safety.

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

 

This debate has been going on since before I officially joined NAM. And this will be harsh, but it is perpetuated by those that insist on not understanding the system, statistics, or how cars work.

No matter how many time I or others point out the advantages of the system, the details are never really addressed by the detractors, but instead I hear BS like "I'm a good driver and don't need it".

Human nature, so predictable.

Matt

 

I've always thought the same thing. With ABS, I can understand someone not needing/wanting it if they've truly mastered threshold braking, but differential braking (varying the braking force from one side of the car to the other) is something that NO driver can do, no matter how talented.

 

Get it and forget about it till you go to the track. End of story...


Art

 

I can do differential braking with the e-brake. Works best on slick roads.

 

but can you do it on only one wheel?

That got me thinking of a ralley driving school in Florida. The video I saw showed all the newbies yanking on the e-brake to reall pitch the car hard for a hairpin. While watching the experts do it well was impressive, watching the newbies try was much more entertaining.

Matt

 

No it pulls both brakes.

I had a VW Beetle Rally car with steering brakes. An e brake for each rear wheel, it could turn on a dime & give you back change.

It takes practice to learn to use the e-brake effectively. Mostly it's knowing when & when not to use it.

 

I don't need a e-brake. I have it because it is standard. If DSC was standard.... end of discussion.

 

It's surprising how advanced farm tractors were even 50 year ago. Every one had an option for differential rear wheel braking. I never got a moving traffic violation with one of those tractors either.

 

when the top speed is something like 18 mph! Guess what else has independant wheel brakes? Some monster trucks! And independant front/rear steering too!

But no, I don't want to commute in one, except to drive over the ocational idiot driver. We have a few here in California!

Matt

 

Yeah, and you really wouldn't want to hit just one brake on a tractor going 20 miles an hour - pretty hairy move even with a seatbelt and roll-over protection.

On the other hand, you can plow a straight furrow yet only touch the steering wheel at the field ends.

 

I'll indulge your questions...

I've never said that it's not a good idea. I just don't want it interfering with my driving enjoyment when I don't need it. I have access to information that DSC has no clue about. I can look at the road ahead and know the conditions. I can turn into a corner and know that because it's a decreasing radius bend the yaw rate that I've set up on the rear end is perfect to bring me right to the apex where judicious application of power will settle the rear and launch me out of the corner.

If MINI will create a DSC system that will leave me alone to have my fun and not step in until it's actually needed I'll be happy to have it.

Yes, I own insurance. I'm required to have insurance but I have more than the minimum. I also have less than I could and I pass on some coverages depending on my view of the risks and benefits.

And once again, the issue isn't not wanting DSC, this issue is not wanting DSC that steps in at "Mrs. Grundy speeds," as Car & Driver put it.

And again, the answer is, give me a system that doesn't interfere with my driving enjoyment and I'll be happy to have it.

Your notion that you have a better understanding of this than those who disagree is amusing. This isn't an equation with only one right answer. It's a risk/benefit decision that differs depending on what you value. There are safer cars in the price range so MINI drivers have already by definition weighed the MINI's style and/or driving experience against a certain sacrifice in safety. To claim that your cost/benefit trade-offs are correct and mine aren't is nonsense.

I'm willing to take responsibility for controlling my vehicle manually for a little extra fun. Some folks bungee jump, some folks ride motorcycles, I turn off DSC.

 

I am not ordering DSC. Pay me at least $250 if anyone wants me to.

 

I used the money saved on not buying DSC to pay for my LSD. I'm very happy with my decision.

 

While I agree with what you say here in theory, I have yet to meet someone (maybe today has been it ) where a good value decision can be made because of incomplete understanding. The only people I've ever talked to who understand the details of these systems are engineers, mostly automotive.

But you can get the system on the earlier Minis "toned down" if you want. MTH does that. But I'm baffled at the R&T commets. Even before MTH I'd gotten onto the onset of four wheel drift without the system issueing a peep. It took practice, but I got there on some favorite turns. With MTH, but before adding a head, I could floor it through a water puddle in first or second, and the tires would break loose, but the torque reduction wasn't as severe, and the car would keep accelerating, but not just bouncing up to red-line. Since I added a head with more torque, I don't have the power cut that is unsafe and un-nerving, but now the revs climb a lot faster when I loose traction.

I guess I really do agree with one of the implications in your post, that is that the early new mini DSC/ATC whatever wasn't programmed optimally for driving pleasure, nor safety, fromw what I can see. But the tweaks that are available address most of the problems you've commented on, almost creating the system that you said you'd accept, admittedly at a higher overall price.

I was on the track at Spring Mountain for AMVIV. I keept forgetting to turn the DSC off. The only time it came on was when I wanted to burn rubber at a start! But while that track is windy, there's relatively new asphalt, so traction, even with front springs that are a lot stiffer than stock, on corner exits wasn't a problem....

But thank you. You are the very first (except for Crashton, who likes to answer with witty snippets, and is pretty good at it too!) who has ever stepped up to the plate. I guess that also supports my contention that most who make the decision not to buy don't have good answers to the questions, because they are those who don't know the details of the system. But to be a bit defensive and more accurate, I think, I don't think I said that ALL who don't buy it are unaware of the details. Here's a quote....
"Mostly, I see opinion this, opinion that. Very few look at how the technology works, or what it can really do. Even fewer look at the actual results and reductions in traffic fatalities that these systems bring. So this means a lot of the decisions on getting the system are based on antecdotal evidence of this or that, or myths perpetuated by those that haven't taken the time to find out the details."
Nowhere does it say all who decide not to get it...

Matt