Date: 25 Jun 2001 18:48:07 GMT From: ack <acknopsamnet> Subject: Re: New Saab, old story.
KeithG <noonenopsaml.com> wrote: > Please do not continue to spread disinformation about ABS. ABS works, > period. If it was not an advantage, why is it outlawed in just about every > racing series? AFAIK, because traction control and ABS use the same sensors and it would be too easy to "hide" T/C. > It is worth the money it costs and it is worth the money it > costs to fix it. It has saved my car a few times and it has saved my dad's > life. What is not worth it is the junky Kelsey Hayes 1 channel ABS on most > older GM trucks (says ABS on the tailgate). Also a number of early systems > which were copies of the Bosch did not work well at all, requiring a lot of > pedal effort and DID increase stopping distances (i.e. early GM systems). I > recently did a defensive driving course and under controlled situations, I > was able to almost get the same braking distance without ABS as with, but > with much more concentration (Honda Accord). It took quite a bit of practice > to achieve this and I would not trust myself to perform in this manner on > the road. The recent insurance company statistics say that ABS-equipped cars are more likely to be involved in an accident. As a former auto salesperson, I can tell you why: Most people pull their feet off the brake when it begins pulsing, no matter how well-coached they are. > As for straight tracking of your '86 Saab, the stopping distance > was with locked tires which is no where as short as with ABS or pumping the > pedal. No argument will suffice to prove otherwise. Simple physics. I think the original poster was saying that proper tires are more of an asset to poor-weather braking than ABS. He is right. Combine poor or worn tires with ABS, and you get a car that won't slow at all, since the tires will not grip well enough to permit brake pressue.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
