|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2014 14:51:56 GMT
Yeah, younger drivers *tend* to take more risks. Partly because they don't have the same sense of mortality as older drivers and partly because they have less experience and as such don't always calculate the true risks well. That said older drivers can be just as bad, if not worse as they tend to pick up bad habits - such as holding the wheel the wrong way or going too fast on the 'well this hasn't hurt me before' principle. The difference with older drivers being 'safer' may be connected to them having been more likely to have had an accident at some point, and having kids - both of which can bring mortality home to them and result in more defensive driving. And as I said before idiots will continue to be idiots regardless of age or the car they are driving. Unless or until they have a wake up call, which often means ending up in hospital. And even then your real idiot will put the blame on someone else, refusing to accept that they were doing anything wrong. Police hear a lot of such excuses from those they have stopped for speeding. Insurance companies hear even more from those claiming for damages. A British comedian called Jasper Carrot used to (and might still) collect insurance claim forms. Some of his favourites included; I reversed out of the drive and hit the number 42 bus. The bus was five minutes early. I drove into my neighbours drive and hit a tree I don't possess. I saw this slow moving, sad faced pedestrian as he bounced off the hood of my car. The man didn't know which way to turn, so I hit him. The man tried to move out of the way, I had to swerve several times before I hit him. yes. we get those claim form lists, here, too. they don't necessarily show the people trying to shift the blame so much as people being bad at communication. essentially, idiots will be idiots up to the abilities of their vehicle. That noes not necessarily mean they think to themselves, "This car has airbags, so I can survive a 20% higher energy collision." They say, "ha, my speedometer goes up to 130. that means I can go faster here"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 29, 2014 7:43:26 GMT
You forget Car parks.... the number of times I have got back into my car and found someone passing the car has moved the mirror?...
Hmmm... The car its self on its own is not inherently safer, as that is down to the driver, however, it is more survivable should it be in an accident situation, and in some cases, ABS, better tyres, better brake discs, it is more capable of missing that one tree in the whole road in the first place....Stab, or ESP, can keep a car on the road should you get a wiggle after a blown tyre or patch of ice, better suspension can stop you kangaroo'ing over bumps, .... I think we have the situation where the cars will drive faster anyway because they are made better, and the safety features have kept up?....
This is being taken seriously by some research guys who are thinking of introducing certain feedback to make the driver aware he is pushing it.
Statistics show new young drivers are almost guaranteed to be in a serious KSI at least once in the first 5 years of driving. And how they whine about having to pay for insurance....
I have 10 yrs NCD on my insurance, and my kids have been told I will NOT risk that by putting them on my insurance. Nor do they get the keys to my car... Its the only one I have, and if they crash it, they cant replace it.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 29, 2014 13:09:02 GMT
The faster you are going the less effective safety features become, since the amount of energy they have to deal with increases. This is an engineering and to some degree cost issue - even a Formula 1 cars, which have some of the most advanced safety equipment available for vehicles, will not allow a driver to walk away from a crash that involves hitting a wall at 150 mph.
The problem is that the more equipment you add to the car, the greater its weight and therefore the more energy the equipment has to deal with and the less effective that equipment will be. Such weight also lowers the performance of the vehicle, especially in terms of economy and acceleration. Acceleration is an oft overlooked factor in regards safety, but can be important in avoiding trouble.
So we could design and build a vehicle that had every bit of safety equipment money can buy, and which technically would be the safest vehicle in the world. But it would be large, heavy, slow expensive to buy and even more expensive to run. It also wouldn't really be safe for anyone else on the road because if it hit anything else it would be like being hit by a tank. And it wouldn't allow you to survive coming off the road at a 100 mph and rolling over. (People can and have survived accidents like this, but more from luck than because of the vehicles safety equipment.
I know that some modern engines, and certainly electric/hybrid ones, are starting to be fitted with artificial speakers to duplicate the sound of the engine. This is for two reasons. First the driver can't always hear the engine, and therefore isn't always aware of when they are over revving it. Secondly the engines are so quiet pedestrians often don't hear them - especially electric cars in car parks. So engine noises are starting to be added so pedestrians have some warning when such cars are moving. I know from my own experiences that it can be impossible to hear an electric or some hybrid cars moving even if you happen to be standing next to them in a quiet car park. I picked up the noise of gravel crunching under the tires, and only realised it was a car backing out of a space after a few seconds and turning around to see it backing out - and it still took me a few more seconds to realise what was going on. Had I been walking across the parking lot it would have been very easy for me to have walked behind it and been run over before I realised the danger.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2014 15:09:06 GMT
people are already expressing a desire for custom "engine" noises for these electrics. the first choice seems to be the sound of George Jetson's car.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 30, 2014 16:21:50 GMT
I have an older (2000) GM mini-van that has ABS. It is so bad in winter that it makes the vehicle too unsafe to even use on snow or ice. After I got in a minor accident that never should have happened, I did some testing on snow covered roads with the ABS working and with it disabled. I found that the stopping distance can increase by a whopping 4X with the ABS active. I realize that all ABS is not created equal. I have a 2003 Ford that also has ABS and it differently helps stopping distance, even on snow and ice. The difference is that the Ford only applies ABS to the wheel that is slipping while the GM applies ABS to all wheels even if only one is slipping. ABS has definitely changed and grown over the years. drove an old 80s work truck that basically had a linkage on the rear suspension - if the rear end started to lift, it reduced the bias to the back brakes - and they called it rear anti-lock. That's what my car has built in. We call it "Brake Force (or Balance) Regulator". It makes sure, the rear wheels can brake as hard as they can without locking the rear wheels first. Cars without have a brake balance of 80:20 to do the trick so the rear wheels won't do much to help braking. With the regulator, you have a much better braking performance, especially with payload. It also works driving backwards making the rear wheels lock first. This helps stopping your car when you lost traction and start to slide down the hill again. The original ABS just worked the main brake circuit just as a driver could do. As soon as a wheel locks, it eases all the brake pressure increasing the braking distance dramatically! Those "Sputter Brakes" became illegal in the EU real quickly. The next generation ABS has 3 brake circuits, front left, front right and rear. This is the option my car could have. First it makes sure that the rear wheels won't lock without affecting the front wheels so it's a good substitute for the brake balance regulator. Without acceleration sensors, it just unlocks wheels which can be bad depending on the situation. The modern state of the art ABS systems come with ESP. The "Electronic Stabilization PROGRAM" works the ABS system and has acceleration sensors so the system can feel the deceleration to maximize it. Those systems come with a separate brake circuit for each wheel and almost always decrease the brake distance. It also simulates a differential lock so you have much more traction driving up hills. The Problem of the ESP however is, that it will interfere with your driving. Especially while drifting, the car won't follow the path you choose with your skill. So ESP is real bad for a rally. It also can and often will kill your momentum climbing steep snowy hills. Also it prevents that you can "burn through" flash ice to get your car moving.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 30, 2014 16:31:59 GMT
not necessarily, since this system paid no attention whatsoever to the actual braking performance. going backwards, if the front wheels locked, you would lose weight transfer, so it would reduce rear braking.
my brother's Corrado had electronic traction control. it really tried it's hardest on ice - but there's only so much you can do when there isn't any traction. he really wanted to get an AWD model, but they stopped importing them before it became available.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 30, 2014 23:09:37 GMT
not necessarily, since this system paid no attention whatsoever to the actual braking performance. going backwards, if the front wheels locked, you would lose weight transfer, so it would reduce rear braking. my brother's Corrado had electronic traction control. it really tried it's hardest on ice - but there's only so much you can do when there isn't any traction. he really wanted to get an AWD model, but they stopped importing them before it became available. An ordinary AWD will put engine power to the two most slippery wheels while an RWD or FWD will put the engine power to one. So if you have an FWD with ESP, you have the same amount of driven wheels as with an ordinary AWD without ESP. In a true 4x4, you can lock the differentials which gives you 4 real driven wheels.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 1:15:35 GMT
not necessarily, since this system paid no attention whatsoever to the actual braking performance. going backwards, if the front wheels locked, you would lose weight transfer, so it would reduce rear braking. my brother's Corrado had electronic traction control. it really tried it's hardest on ice - but there's only so much you can do when there isn't any traction. he really wanted to get an AWD model, but they stopped importing them before it became available. An ordinary AWD will put engine power to the two most slippery wheels while an RWD or FWD will put the engine power to one. So if you have an FWD with ESP, you have the same amount of driven wheels as with an ordinary AWD without ESP. In a true 4x4, you can lock the differentials which gives you 4 real driven wheels. but not necessarily in the same place as an AWD. and the AWD would most likely have has traction control as well. I can't see them removing the traction control just because they put in AWD. and no, in a 4WD you can't lock the diffs unless you also get a model with diff locks. some have Positraction diffs or other brands of limited slip, but 4WD does not automatically mean diff locks. in fact, my parents old Jeep had AWD and diff locks. (Quadratrac, for the old timers, here)
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 31, 2014 15:40:55 GMT
An ordinary AWD will put engine power to the two most slippery wheels while an RWD or FWD will put the engine power to one. So if you have an FWD with ESP, you have the same amount of driven wheels as with an ordinary AWD without ESP. In a true 4x4, you can lock the differentials which gives you 4 real driven wheels. but not necessarily in the same place as an AWD. and the AWD would most likely have has traction control as well. I can't see them removing the traction control just because they put in AWD. and no, in a 4WD you can't lock the diffs unless you also get a model with diff locks. some have Positraction diffs or other brands of limited slip, but 4WD does not automatically mean diff locks. in fact, my parents old Jeep had AWD and diff locks. (Quadratrac, for the old timers, here) AS far as I know, the difference between 4x4 and AWD is that an AWD can adapt to all differences in running speeds of all wheels "forever" while a 4x4 must have the same average speed on all axis, it's lacking a free running differential which would make it like a 2WD vehicle. That's why a 4x4 breaks on asphalt but is superior on dirt. The VW Syncro has the front wheels in an ordinary FDW configuration and uses a torque converter to put some torque on the rear axis. While this keeps you going when the front wheels loose their grip on snow or dirt, it can throw you out of a turn wehn the front wheels loose traction and then the car will first under-steer and then over-steer. This can be very nasty so they limited the amount of torque on the RWD part making it useless most of the time. A Quattro drive can be used in 50:50 configuration just fine if you know how to handle this. The only advantage of the Syncro is that it is relative cheap and never breaks down.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 15:48:33 GMT
but not necessarily in the same place as an AWD. and the AWD would most likely have has traction control as well. I can't see them removing the traction control just because they put in AWD. and no, in a 4WD you can't lock the diffs unless you also get a model with diff locks. some have Positraction diffs or other brands of limited slip, but 4WD does not automatically mean diff locks. in fact, my parents old Jeep had AWD and diff locks. (Quadratrac, for the old timers, here) AS far as I know, the difference between 4x4 and AWD is that an AWD can adapt to all differences in running speeds of all wheels "forever" while a 4x4 must have the same average speed on all axis, it's lacking a free running differential which would make it like a 2WD vehicle. That's why a 4x4 breaks on asphalt but is superior on dirt. The VW Syncro has the front wheels in an ordinary FDW configuration and uses a torque converter to put some torque on the rear axis. While this keeps you going when the front wheels loose their grip on snow or dirt, it can throw you out of a turn wehn the front wheels loose traction and then the car will first under-steer and then over-steer. This can be very nasty so they limited the amount of torque on the RWD part making it useless most of the time. A Quattro drive can be used in 50:50 configuration just fine if you know how to handle this. The only advantage of the Syncro is that it is relative cheap and never breaks down. AWD had a center differential as well as the axle differentials. any or all of these may be limited slip. 4WD has a center gearbox that has some degree of "slack" in it, but will eventually bind if one axle is consistently turning faster than the other. this results in wheel scrub more often than breakage; but the most common result is difficulty in shifting back to 2WD mode. my truck is 4WD with a locking front diff (or no front diff - I'm not completely sure) and positraction in the rear. this means that there WILL be wheel scrub in the front unless I am driving perfectly straight. my Jeep has open diffs both front and rear - that means it is demonstrated to be possible to bury the right front and left rear tires, and leave it balanced between the right front and left rear.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 31, 2014 17:21:45 GMT
my truck is 4WD with a locking front diff (or no front diff - I'm not completely sure) and positraction in the rear. this means that there WILL be wheel scrub in the front unless I am driving perfectly straight. my Jeep has open diffs both front and rear - that means it is demonstrated to be possible to bury the right front and left rear tires, and leave it balanced between the right front and left rear. The Bundeswehr 4x4 vehicles usually ended up in our shop with lots of damage when someone used 4x4 on asphalt. The on the light "1-ton" Unimog, this often resulted to weird noises in the wheels afterwards. As you can see, the drive shafts are way above the center of the wheels: Attachment DeletedThere are two cogs inside the wheels which are full of tiny metal bits after driving 4x4 on asphalt. On the larger ones (e.g. 30-ton class), it's usually a cardan joint that snaps in half. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 17:30:11 GMT
my truck is 4WD with a locking front diff (or no front diff - I'm not completely sure) and positraction in the rear. this means that there WILL be wheel scrub in the front unless I am driving perfectly straight. my Jeep has open diffs both front and rear - that means it is demonstrated to be possible to bury the right front and left rear tires, and leave it balanced between the right front and left rear. The Bundeswehr 4x4 vehicles usually ended up in our shop with lots of damage when someone used 4x4 on asphalt. The on the light "1-ton" Unimog, this often resulted to weird noises in the wheels afterwards. As you can see, the drive shafts are way above the center of the wheels: View AttachmentThere are two cogs inside the wheels which are full of tiny metal bits after driving 4x4 on asphalt. On the larger ones (e.g. 30-ton class), it's usually a cardan joint that snaps in half. View AttachmentThat's the weakness of heavier vehicles. better static traction can be as much of a curse as a blessing, and the more powerful they are, the harder it is to make the drivetrain strong enough to withstand he abuse. a couple of the firefighters have Toyotas they they have modified for off road driving by permanently locking the diffs, and you can hear the tires objecting from a quarter mile away.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 31, 2014 21:02:38 GMT
and you can hear the tires objecting from a quarter mile away. This is part of military driving training. Don't use the 4x4 mode nor the engine brake when trying to sneak through areas where enemies might be present. Those very crude diesel powered trucks we used to have when I served the Bundeswehr made "your ears fall off" at medium engine RPM. I always wondered what's the "camouflage 0" setting for the lights is good for when you can hear the vehicle over miles distance. To conceal your presence from aircrafts which can't hear you, #1 is sufficient. The German military vehicles have the common light systems as civilian vehicles and additional 4 camouflage settings: 0: Nothing at all (Illegal without a war) 1: Differential cross only (Nicknamed "To the enemy") 2: Carmouflage headlights only (Nicknamed "Running away from enemy") 3: Carmouflage headlights, tail lights, stop lights and differential cross (Nicknamed "Victory Parade") And as far as I know, the US military vehicles don't have a setting like our #2
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 21:19:12 GMT
and you can hear the tires objecting from a quarter mile away. This is part of military driving training. Don't use the 4x4 mode nor the engine brake when trying to sneak through areas where enemies might be present. Those very crude diesel powered trucks we used to have when I served the Bundeswehr made "your ears fall off" at medium engine RPM. I always wondered what's the "camouflage 0" setting for the lights is good for when you can hear the vehicle over miles distance. To conceal your presence from aircrafts which can't hear you, #1 is sufficient. The German military vehicles have the common light systems as civilian vehicles and additional 4 camouflage settings: 0: Nothing at all (Illegal without a war) 1: Differential cross only (Nicknamed "To the enemy") 2: Carmouflage headlights only (Nicknamed "Running away from enemy") 3: Carmouflage headlights, tail lights, stop lights and differential cross (Nicknamed "Victory Parade") And as far as I know, the US military vehicles don't have a setting like our #2 I'm not sure. on our HMMWV, we only have the lights on or the whole thing shut off. I haven't driven it enough to start playing with the switches. I know our air ambulance service uses light amplification instead of lights, and our military might as well. on my quick attack engine, forgetting to turn the lights on has the same effect as #2, because it only turns on the daytime running lights, and not the marker lights.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 31, 2014 21:39:34 GMT
This is part of military driving training. Don't use the 4x4 mode nor the engine brake when trying to sneak through areas where enemies might be present. Those very crude diesel powered trucks we used to have when I served the Bundeswehr made "your ears fall off" at medium engine RPM. I always wondered what's the "camouflage 0" setting for the lights is good for when you can hear the vehicle over miles distance. To conceal your presence from aircrafts which can't hear you, #1 is sufficient. The German military vehicles have the common light systems as civilian vehicles and additional 4 camouflage settings: 0: Nothing at all (Illegal without a war) 1: Differential cross only (Nicknamed "To the enemy") 2: Carmouflage headlights only (Nicknamed "Running away from enemy") 3: Carmouflage headlights, tail lights, stop lights and differential cross (Nicknamed "Victory Parade") And as far as I know, the US military vehicles don't have a setting like our #2 I'm not sure. on our HMMWV, we only have the lights on or the whole thing shut off. I haven't driven it enough to start playing with the switches. I know our air ambulance service uses light amplification instead of lights, and our military might as well. on my quick attack engine, forgetting to turn the lights on has the same effect as #2, because it only turns on the daytime running lights, and not the marker lights. The running lights are extra and won't work in any camouflage setting. The rotary light switch is: T3-T2-T1-T0-0-1-2 T3 to T0 are the camouflage ("Tarnung") settings, 0 is like "off" on any ordinary vehicle (stop lights), 1 is parking lights and 2 is running lights. In any camouflage setting, the "civilian lights" are off. T2 activates the small camouflage headlights beneath the bumper while disabling everything else, including the tail lights. This is used to be able to drive quickly because you can actually see something ahead of you but there is no lights you can see from behind the vehicle. That's why it'Äs nicknamed "running away from enemy". In T1 mode, the vehicle only signals towards following vehicles but doesn't illuminate anything in front. So T1 is used when the enemy is in front of you and T2 when behind you. T3 activates both ends including the additional 15mm stop lights and is meant for driving in safe zones.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 21:49:50 GMT
the HMMWV has a three switch cluster. I think one is the headlights and the other is the rest of the lights, but I am not sure. my understanding is that when HMMWVs are deployed, they simply install the camouflage headlights in place of the regular headlights.
I refer to daytime running lights as forward lighting that is always on when the truck is running, and marker lights as the rest of the lights intended to help be seen.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 31, 2014 22:09:54 GMT
the HMMWV has a three switch cluster. I think one is the headlights and the other is the rest of the lights, but I am not sure. my understanding is that when HMMWVs are deployed, they simply install the camouflage headlights in place of the regular headlights. I refer to daytime running lights as forward lighting that is always on when the truck is running, and marker lights as the rest of the lights intended to help be seen. We don't have running lights - or at least we didn't used to have. All cars sold for a few years now have to have running lights, usually just a bunch of white LEDs in the headlights. They tried to change the law that you either had to turn on your low beams all the time or you could retrofit additional running lights. Fortunately, they discarded that law and the new law is that new vehicles have to have built in automatic running lights and you don't have to retrofit or waste a lot of power with the common headlights. I always switch on the low beams while driving all times. I did that long before the government came up with that idea. I would love to retrofit those running lights but there is no way to install them on my car without tampering with the aerodynamics or making them look real ugly. The only solution would be to install "fancy" headlights with integrated running lights but the original ones have a much better light at night.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2014 22:15:06 GMT
we started with "safety corridors" that required drivers to turn on their headlights for visibility. then carmakers started building cars with daytime running lights; and I don't think we have ever had a law requiring them - like we have a law requiring every vehicle built in the 80s or later to have a brake light at the top middle of the back. (except commercial trucks - I think they consider the brake lights already being at eye level to be enough; but they do have them on motorhomes)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 2, 2014 12:55:56 GMT
A quick diversion on that.... "Locked", as in, they always turn at the same rate... Try getting a Land-Rover with locked diff on soft-road (Not quite knobbly off road) tyres to Corner on a slippery surface with locked diffs..... More chance nailing water to the ceiling.
Locked diffs are for going up or down steep slippery slopes where a wheel may lift and loose traction. I much prefer a limited slip diff to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 2, 2014 13:02:43 GMT
"Running lights"... I now have some. Ok, so, they are extras added to the dim as a tock-H lamp sidelight bulbs, I have a row of LED's under the headlights, in the grill where I could add "Fog" spots, and they are Ice-Blue (Bright white slightly tinged blue) in colour.... Not enough to dazzle, but enough to be seen 500yds away in dusky light. I use them at all times. Reason being, "See and BE seen", I am an Ex-Biker (No such thing as an Ex?...) who has had one too many "Smidsy" excuses in the past?.... You SEE a vehicle with lights on in the day time before you see one without...?... I claim a myth. I will post it in Transport, cars with lights on get seen first..... I say plausible at Minimum, but I would prefer this to be CONFIRMED by as many people as possible, 'cos I personally think its too good to be passed by?... Edit, Thread Created, citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/924/vehicles-lights-on-get-first
|
|