Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions here. Do you actually
know of any cars the were thrown "under the wheels of a truck" by ABS?
I have to comment that the ABS in your '89 Celica can't be all bad.
After all, you're still alive! ;^)
Let's face it, nothing's perfect. ABS tries to make the car stop in
a straight line, that's all. The driver still has the ultimate
responsibility.
CR
Paul Hunt wrote:
> But the pulsing does involve releasing as soon as it starts to lock, and
> reapplying as soon as it is rotating freely. Thus over time one wheel
> could easily be applying much less retardation to the car than the
> other. Unless you are saying that the modulation is applied to *both*
> wheels equally. But I was under the impression that 4-channel ABS,
> which is pretty-well universal now and has been for some time, controls
> each wheel independently. My 89 Celica has independent hydraulic lines
> from the actuator to each brake, but it isn't clear that they are
> controlled fully independently or not. The manual does state "The
> function of the ABS is to maintain directional stability and vehicle
> steerability on most road conditions". Note 'directional stability'. It
> seems that any system that throws you under the wheels of a truck as
> soon as you get a bit of ice under one wheel is fundamentally flawed.
> Mind you, I've always thought the concept was flawed anyway. the manual
> also states "Enables steering round an obstacle ... even when panic
> braking". Anyone who is 'panic' braking is unlikely to have the
> presence of mind to steer round something that has suddenly appeared in
> front of them. I hate the bloody thing.
>
> PaulH.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> The answer is that ABS pulses the brake application instead of just
>> releasing the brake on the wheel with lesser traction.
>>
>>> So what *does* stop ABS throwing your car into a ditch or under a
>>> truck if one front wheel has grip and the other doesn't?
|