Why turn off the "nannies" with normal driving?

[GnyaTek]

I don't see this discussion really going anywhere anytime soon as both sides of the discussion are absolutely set in their opinions and won't be swayed.

However, I'd toss out this tidbit. If a person has disabled their ST/TC and then is involved in an accident that is deemed their fault that may have been prevented or mitigated by leaving the safety devices active instead, I would expect that they could be held criminally negligent by their actions.

As full disclosure, I turn nannies off only when I specifically am wanting the wheels to spin/slide ... generally at the track.

I have had nannies kick in once on autocross circuit where sliding was grounds for disqualification. I felt the back slip and instinctively corrected manually as the systems kicked in generating an overcorrection... so I understand ...

However, the overcorrection isn't so severe as to cause a major catastrophy, especially when the systems a few other times when I did not anticipate loss of traction kicked in and worked perfectly. I am also one that is used to driving RWD vehicles prior to all the safeties (ST/TC/ABS etc). I think it is important to know how to drive the vehicles and know how to sense when the systems are working and adjust to that (re-learning new habits). Also it is important to know how the vehicle handles and how to correct for slides when systems are not operating ... but the best way is in a training course to teach the habits to correct and deal with slides and out of control situations ... not just turning off the safeties and going with it.


The above discussion points won't sway folks opinions as I mentioned at the start ... folks opinions are firmly made up on both sides of the discussion. Hopefully this thread will fade away as I don't think it is going to go anywhere positive. Doubt it will get locked, but perhaps it will just go away .... but that is perhaps mostly blind optimism on my part :wink:

I certainly hope that all folks here drive safely and never become a part of the statistics used for either side of the arguement in the future.

[jd10013]

Originally Posted by Mutant Racer

I read last week that fatal accidents have declined over the years until recently. The article didn't cite any specific reasons or even speculate as to why but one group hit hardest by it were teens. I think it was a nation wide study.

you are correct, teen accident and fatality rates have risen significantly recently. all other rates have declined. some of that is due to people driving less due to the price of gas, the recession, and not having a job to drive to.

[jd10013]

Originally Posted by thahemp

My point only slightly intersects with Norm's points. They DO rob you of the opportunity to experience certain situations.

and to an extent you are correct. what people are trying to say is that on public roads, with other cars and other people, is not the place to be gaining that experience by driving with the safety features off. there are many skills and experiences we've lost because of technology, but it is almost always for the better. when was the last time you started a fire by rubbing sticks together? and because of that, if you were stranded in the wilderness without a lighter or matches you most likely die. see what I'm getting at, that's the kind of arguments norm is making. what we loose is outweighed by what we gain.

[thahemp]

Originally Posted by jd10013

and to an extent you are correct. what people are trying to say is that on public roads, with other cars and other people, is not the place to be gaining that experience by driving with the safety features off. there are many skills and experiences we've lost because of technology, but it is almost always for the better. when was the last time you started a fire by rubbing sticks together? and because of that, if you were stranded in the wilderness without a lighter or matches you most likely die. see what I'm getting at, that's the kind of arguments norm is making. what we loose is outweighed by what we gain.

I'm a smoker, so I would have a lighter.

I don't agree that it's almost always for the better. In actuality, I think the way in which people accept technology is scary. I love creating technology (electrical engineer here). I love utilizing technology. I'll be damned though if I'm going to be fully dependent on technology. Relying on technology to survive is dangerous. You're basically putting your well-being in the hands of programmers from wherever and sensor manufacturers from <insert country here>. That is Norm's point. Yeah... 1 in a million is probably about right. How many lives do you have? Is 1/1000000 a bet you're willing to take? Someone always wins the lottery, and they're always surprised when it happens.

I suppose in the end, you're responsible for your own survival. You have your methods, I have mine. In all honesty, I never turn ST off. It takes too long, and it really doesn't interfere with my daily driving. TC on the other hand, goes off 1st thing when I get in the car. For whatever reason, it causes my car to act stupid when I downshift to 2nd, apply the brakes, and turn onto a cross street. ABS kicks in and I experience a bit of understeer. It's not a big deal, I just don't like not being in control.

I know you have a good point. I hope you realize that. I'm just dissatisfied with the state of things these days. Your argument is a manifestation of everything that is wrong with our society. I can't hope to actually make anyone here more responsible. That's just not how things work. My point of view has been recorded for posterity's sake!

[suplex]

I didn't read through every post so I don't know if anyone has said this or not, but I ONLY turn off the traction controls when it's beautiful sun shining weather with bone dry roads. If it's rained, at all, in the last three days then no...I leave the controls on (so mostly only in the summertime do I ever turn them off), but when you have that really perfect summer weather day, I like them off because I don't feel the car hesitate like it can with them on. If it looks like it might rain all of a sudden...it's a button push away and they're on. You don't even have to hold it down, just a tap and that's it.

I also feel, that due to the car not being hesitant when the controls are off, that you probably get better gas mileage.

[GnyaTek]

Originally Posted by suplex

I also feel, that due to the car not being hesitant when the controls are off, that you probably get better gas mileage.

Pretty sure that that is all psychological. The systems are passive, so the only loss of power or hesitation is if the systems become active due to slip. But, the feeling of "taking the nannies off" and driving may just be making it seem more responsive, quicker shifting, etc.

For folks earlier that have said they thought it shifted quicker, if they have an automatic and they are also dropping it down to "M" ... the shift points ARE more aggressive there and the vehicle starts off in 1st gear instead of 2nd (when in "D"). Not saying that this is happening, but two separate conditions may be causing the feel .. it might not be a cause/effect relation.

Car can easily slip in dry conditions. In fact, every time that I have had slipage or had systems kick in ... it was dry (most times it was cold also, and the summer tires don't grip well wet or dry below around 45 degrees). Each time systems activated I was pushing the limits and was not surprised that they activated.

Regardless ... enjoy the drive and feel, but try to be safe!

As for stating you think you might get better gas mileage ... please don't post things like that unsubstantiated ... a bunch of folks will start disabling safety devices based on unsubstantiated claims and folks could get hurt in an attempt to save money as gas prices climb.

[thahemp]

Originally Posted by GnyaTek

As for stating you think you might get better gas mileage ... please don't post things like that unsubstantiated ... a bunch of folks will start disabling safety devices based on unsubstantiated claims and folks could get hurt in an attempt to save money as gas prices climb.

[Micawber]

Originally Posted by suplex

I didn't read through every post so I don't know if anyone has said this or not, but I ONLY turn off the traction controls when it's beautiful sun shining weather with bone dry roads. If it's rained, at all, in the last three days then no...I leave the controls on (so mostly only in the summertime do I ever turn them off), but when you have that really perfect summer weather day, I like them off ...

Interesting. I'm just the opposite. If the roads are bare, dry, and warm then it's not very likely that I'll be breaking traction. If the roads are snow covered, wet, or just cold enough to maybe get frosty, etc. then I want to feel how much traction I have. I feel safer when I know whats going on instead of guessing how much traction there is.

I don't know anything about the ZL1 wreck pictured here earlier except what I've read here but I wonder: If that driver had not been using traction control, maybe he would have realized ahead of time that he didn't have the traction to drive the way he did.

When I feel the back end slip, and it happens pretty easily with these cars, it's only by a bit because I'm not trying to make it spin and I correct it easily. I then know to back off even more. When the back end does slip around a bit, I hear the brakes banging as the ST kicks in. The brakes are being applied unnecessarily because the car is not out of control, so I shut the system off. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by suplex

I also feel, that due to the car not being hesitant when the controls are off, that you probably get better gas mileage.

I hope that jd understands that even I can't get on board with that statement.

The only way that it could possibly be true would be if you're intentionally operating to make the systems activate, in which case you'd lose mpg by however much brake application was being invoked by TC or ST. Seems to me that under that kind of driving, you wouldn't be having the least concern for how much fuel you were in fact wasting.

Originally Posted by jd10013

from wiki:

Numerous studies around the world confirm that ESC is highly effective in helping the driver maintain control of the car, thereby saving lives and reducing the severity of crashes.[23] In the fall of 2004 in the U.S., the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration confirmed the international studies, releasing results of a field study in the U.S. of ESC effectiveness. The NHTSA in United States concluded that ESC reduces crashes by 35%.

Now consider the population from which that data was taken. A 35% reduction in crashes cannot necessarily be more uniformly distributed than the bell curve of the driving population skill level that it was taken from. Though you've put some numbers up that I suppose I could use (individually, 35% fewer than zero over 40 years times two drivers is . . . still zero).

Additionally, Sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with stability control are involved in 67% fewer accidents than SUVs without the system.

Here's where I see things the same way that you do.

That SUVs are relatively better off with ESC left on doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't have the slightest problem suggesting that the drivers of these vehicles (and light trucks and crossovers as well) keep their stability control systems on if in fact they're even defeatable. The 'Smart' car might not even be sale-able without it. Part of this is recognizing that such vehicles are inherently at a dynamic disadvantage relative to cars like either yours or mine. And part is due to differences in the way people who prefer SUVs in particular and wouldn't ever buy a Camaro or a Mustang approach driving compared to you and me.

I wish I could find the video where an 18-wheeler was fitted with a system. Now that was impressive.

You see, I'm not knee-jerk opposed to these systems, and I can identify that they're more important for some vehicles than others. That NHTSA study only confirms what takes only a brief engineering-oriented glance to conclude.

Maybe where we differ comes from my use of "leaving the systems active" as being synonymous with its electronics being active even though the ultimate mechanical outputs (brake and throttle control) are not being "adjusted". Apparently you thought I was trying to convince people that ST was actively intervening mechanically on a fulltime basis, which I absolutely did not intend. Sorry if I confused you.


I've also been an engineer for most of my adult life, and I think engineers naturally tend to be resistant to the "do this simply because I say so" approach. No matter who is saying it. In the day job, this falls under "healthy skepticism" or "hasn't passed sanity check yet". Accusations such as the one I'm not going to talk about any longer are like waving red flags in front of a snorting bull, for which demonstrable proof is required.


jd - you should try to read the articles posted in the online version of "Brake & Front End" magazine (I get to read the print version on a monthly basis). The fact that an automotive repair periodical frequently addresses both the description of and the troubleshooting/repair procedures for these systems is pretty good evidence that sooner or later a few people right here within the Camaro5 community will find themselves briefly without these systems. What I care about at that point is that those people not suddenly find themselves fresh out of talent as well as out of electronic assistance. Ideally, they'd be driving not to need either, ever, but we all know that over the driving population as a whole that's a pipe dream.

I don't think you're grasping the enormity of the calibration task involved, or the likelihood that there may well be enough conservatism in the programming to occasionally make the system step in when it really isn't necessary. I suggest you try to "error-trap" a spreadsheet containing a macro/menu structure such that the proper error message is displayed regardless of the type or sequence of data input errors if you think it's easy. I'd bet that when you start finding the "fix" for some errors causing wrong messages to show up for other errors, you'd end up defaulting many situations to some generic instruction and calling it done.

When you come right down to it, ST programming is much the same thing, where the "errors" being trapped are sensor inputs outside the programmed limits causing the proper ST decision . . . only that the error-trapping more complex and far less tolerant of unconservative errors. I doubt it to be possible to anticipate every possible driving scenario, hence the conservative thing to do when in doubt is activate the ST.

But don't try to make it out that they don't work

It's not as black-and-white as you're trying to make it sound. Sometimes they won't work properly. Not very often (a point that I keep insisting on to all the acknowledgement of talking to a fence post) still does not mean never. You're just as free to insist that they'll never go inop as I am to note that there is a finite chance that they will. So I do hope you never have to cope with an emergency situation with your ST unavailable for any reason. I really do hope that you're that fortunate.


Norm

[Doubleblank]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Between that and the obvious liability concerns is why you can't find aftermarket "nanny systems" to backfit to your 1st/2nd/3rd gen F-body. As far as I know, you can't even buy a user-calibratable ABS system.


Norm

Just an FYI Norm, Bosch does make an ABS controller with 9 preset maps the driver can select which adjusts sensitivty etc, 2 user programable maps and an off position (Bosch ABS M4). As we all know, good drivers can go faster around a race track with a slightly out of control car. We use them on our race cars. If they weren't so damn expensive, I'd consider adding one to my Camaro which I track alot.

[Norm Peterson]

That's an interesting development.

Last I knew, the lead mechanical engineer working at one of the entities serving the upper-echelon hot rod/pro-touring market was saying that Bosch wouldn't sell them at all, let alone in any form of individual user tuning capability out of their house. But they'd do individual calibrations themselves for some truly eye-opening fee.

Maybe that was for cars intended to see street duty rather than those strictly "for off road use only".


Norm

[Doubleblank]

IIRC, Bosch wants about $8,000 for the controller and about the same for "installation support".....ie programming and over-the-phone support during racing. I think we budgeted about $15k for an install into a Boss302R. I have heard they have made it into a few high end personal cars ...... but that's just through the grapevine.

[mel1]

With a tune and cold air, if I even roll into the throttle and floor it, I still fish tail even with traction control on. On a back road, I turned everything off and did a standstill tire roast with everything off.....even with very light throttle roll. From now on, I only turn things off at the track......and yes, I'm a wuss I don't have deep pockets to be fixing crap I tore up because of my own actions...

[Norm Peterson]

mel - I would not call you a 'wuss'. Careless or given to doing things on impulse, perhaps.

I would suggest that
(a) your tune is too aggressive for some of your street driving,
(b) either your self-discipline or your throttle modulation skills still need work, and

(c) by actively relying on TC and ST like this, you're unintentionally teaching yourself at least one bad habit that'll hang you out to dry if the safety systems in your car ever go inop.

You already know what turning them off can be like, now just consider them being unavailable for some electrical or mechanical reason that you didn't happen to notice. Being surprised when you're expecting TC and ST to step in (but can't) would not help your situation.


It's past time you dialed back the driving that is most likely causing your car's TC or ST lights to flash.


Norm