Electronic Nannys in Cars

In reply to irish44j:

I got a ride in the 2014 S class:

has radar cruise control brake assist for city collision mitigation 3D cameras that act as sensors to keep you within the lane

you literraly dont need to touch the brake or gas or steering wheel when stuck in stop and go traffic...

There are more crazy things but the base grade is what I got a ride in and it starts at 95k.

Rhetorical question (it's all about the money): Why don't carmakers get it right mechanically first (LSDs, brake proportioning, actual suspension tuning, maybe speccing decent tires) BEFORE they bring in the nannies?

What do you mean? There aren't really any modern cars that don't handle safely to begin with. It's not like a fighter plane that's humanly impossible to operate without computer assistance. Most cars have totally benign handling. An LSD actually makes a car easier to lose control of. What you're talking about with suspension tuning, LSD, better tires... just sounds like you want the manufacturers to build in higher performance in the first place.

They already do that... on sporty cars.OEMs are not going to try to turn every model into a sporty car when the 'improvements' all cost money and would be unappreciated or straight up disliked by the majority of car buyers.

Vigo wrote: It's not like a fighter plane that's humanly impossible to operate without computer assistance.

Most aren't like that, only the Eurofighter, Rafale, and B2 Spirit that I know of...you can bet the SU37 and SU47 are too.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Our newest (F-35s and F-22s) are also rather dynamically unstable too IIRC. It's what makes them so maneuverable but also requires a computer monitoring and adjusting things to keep them going where you want them to go.

In reply to Ashyukun:

And the F-117A.......

Vigo wrote: Stanger Missile: THANK YOU!! It makes me happy that when the manufacturers didn't give you a button, you ran 2 wires and MADE YOUR OWN. It really bothers me that people complain and complain about stuff that is really easy to get around. I respect and acknowledge the caveat that it also defeats things you wish it didnt, but frankly most people dont GET TO make that complaint because they dont even try hard enough to get that far. They just complain.

I agree. I'm frustrated when I open another copy of C&D to find "stability control inhibited" in their test notes; all they need is a fuse puller! I've found a reverse J-turn usually does the trick as well as it confuses the system and shuts itself down.

bradyzq wrote: I hate electronic nannies that bandaid over bad mechanical design. Rhetorical question (it's all about the money): Why don't carmakers get it right mechanically first (LSDs, brake proportioning, actual suspension tuning, maybe speccing decent tires) BEFORE they bring in the nannies?

Because working the brakes via the ABS for traction control and LSD function is cheaper than installing an actual LSD and big sticky tires. Fancy diff's that lock and unlock via computer control are another thing all together.

Also "e-diffs" are pretty much maintenance free, they only wear on the brake pads a bit.

Gearheadotaku wrote:

bradyzq wrote: I hate electronic nannies that bandaid over bad mechanical design. Rhetorical question (it's all about the money): Why don't carmakers get it right mechanically first (LSDs, brake proportioning, actual suspension tuning, maybe speccing decent tires) BEFORE they bring in the nannies?

Because working the brakes via the ABS for traction control and LSD function is cheaper than installing an actual LSD and big sticky tires. Fancy diff's that lock and unlock via computer control are another thing all together. Most average drivers don't really know/care about this stuff, so the "hard parts" (and expense) are saved for higher end cars.

Don't you hate it when you try to edit a post and accidentally quote yourself instead?

Driving nannies? I used to get royally pissed at the auto door locks on the Old Man's then new 04 Super Duty.

Appleseed wrote: Driving nannies? I used to get royally pissed at the auto door locks on the Old Man's then new 04 Super Duty.

Or the automatic seatbelts on the early 90's Japanese cars.

wspohn wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: I hate all this nanny stuff. Finding a newer car means finding ways to disable all of it.

If you go one more setting and switch it all off, and you are not on a track, you are an idiot and will likely end up picking weeds out of the grille. At least that is what we have seen many times from 'real men' that do this in the Solstice/Sky community. As a long time race driver, I often use competition mode when on a road with no friction issues (water, ice) but would never remove all safety measures unless I was on a circuit.

I also own a Solstice GXP Coupe and I think this is nonsense. It's a quick car and all, but you make it sound like some unmanageable beast with the TC switched off....come on...

The ABS in the SeX is awesome. Very unintrusive and works great for auto-x. The TCS/ESC on the other hand is an absolute pain in the ass. Now that snow is on the ground, the first thing do after starting the car is turning it off. Then I put on my seatbelt.

Seriously, in slow speed situations, it will literally kill the engine. When I turn into my driveway off my gravel road, if there's enough lateral slip as 'm turning in in second gear, it will activate the TCS/ESC at the same time and bring the car to a dead, non-running stop if I can't get on the brakes fast enough.

I know not all TCS/ESC's are like this, but this one sucks donkey balls.

Cotton wrote:

wspohn wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: I hate all this nanny stuff. Finding a newer car means finding ways to disable all of it.

If you go one more setting and switch it all off, and you are not on a track, you are an idiot and will likely end up picking weeds out of the grille. At least that is what we have seen many times from 'real men' that do this in the Solstice/Sky community. As a long time race driver, I often use competition mode when on a road with no friction issues (water, ice) but would never remove all safety measures unless I was on a circuit.

I also own a Solstice GXP Coupe and I think this is nonsense. It's a quick car and all, but you make it sound like some unmanageable beast with the TC switched off....come on...

Wow, I missed this somewhere, wspohn, you realize that stability control can cause some pretty impressive accidents don't you?.....especially when you have a driver who knows how to correct things(the ecu doesn't like being told you're better than it is and tries to kill you instead). I don't trust the Stability/Traction/Antilocks/etc with my safety....and I've been fine.

My advice mirrors that of teh Arnold......."Stop being such a Bob Costas"

I like the Lexus (?) commercial that shows how the car is able to sense accidents two cars ahead (not sure how that works). The ridiculous part is, in the commercial, when the car senses an accident two cars ahead so it creates a sound and puts a warning on the dash.

So, what does the driver do in this "impending collision" situation? Looks down at the dash (taking eyes off the road obviously) to see what the warning is!!!! Well, I certainly hope the car has some sort of auto-braking, because it has successfully distracted the driver from safely doing it!!!

Meh, I solved the nanny problem the easy way. The last three vehicles I bought were a '94, a '88 and a '85. The only nanny on any of them is ABS of the E24 and it doesn't work. Hell, they barely have EFI.

As far as the rest of the slobs on the road, give them everything. They aren't paying attention to start with.

ShadowSix wrote: What kind of car was this? I didn't realize we were at this technological point yet. I've been saying for years that the sooner we get self-driving cars the better. My Google smartphone isn't perfect, but I trust it a lot further than I trust the serial nose picker/text messager in the next lane.

In the pantheon of bad drivers, I would rank text messagers as worse than nose pickers.

Not all cars are 'blessed' with adjustable/defeatable 'safety' systems. The newer stuff seems to be getting better, but the early systems really tick me off. Couldn't tell you how many times the brake pedal on an early ABS system sunk to the floor on a rough road, TCS killed momentum and bogged down in the snow, or stability control decided I should go straight instead of making the desired turn.....

All I ask for is an 'Off" switch. How did we survive until these systems came along? Did everyone crash into the nearest ditch at the first sign of rain? How long before your state safety inspection includes verification that these systems are working properly? Open your wallets....

All I ask for is an 'Off" switch

Make one. The dumb, early systems you are talking about... are dumb. Just put a switch on their power or ground and you probably wont even get a CEL when you flip it back on.

A fuse puller won't cut it on some cars. Example: Traction control or stability control cause you to foam at the mouth. Must disable it before crimes are committed.

SO, you pull a fuse or 3. Hmm, Seems wheel speed sensors need to be deactivated for this to work, which means you lose ABS. Hmmm, no biggie, you can drive fine without ABS. But now you realize that the ABS was also acting as the brake proportioning valve and you now have a car with E36 M3ty brake balance, which you now have to endure if you want the traction control disabled.

Sux.

ABS systems arent allowed to be the primary brake proportioning device. I'm 98% certain that is literally against the law.

Now, that's not to say that a modern car with electronic brake force distribution won't have better-balanced limit-braking with abs than without, but as far as i can tell, threads about people wanting to turn computers off are NEVER about making things perform at their peak. They're about control!

Just to take a roll call, who here has enabled "dynod mode" on newer Chrysler/MB vehicles? Its something to do with cycling the key/holding buttons, but it disables everything.

Vigo wrote: ABS systems arent allowed to be the primary brake proportioning device. I'm 98% certain that is literally against the law. Now, that's not to say that a modern car with electronic brake force distribution won't have better-balanced limit-braking with abs than without, but as far as i can tell, threads about people wanting to turn computers off are NEVER about making things perform at their peak. They're about control!

every fwd car that i've ever had an ABS fuse blow on has resulted in simultaneous 4 wheel lockup when the brakes are applied on ice or gravel. i haven't been able to find any proportioning valves of any kind on any of my Cavaliers (97, 98, 04) or my 2001 Grand Prix GTP. i did have an ABS fuse pop on my 94 Caprice cop car once, but it still stopped nice and predictably- but it also had an actual for reals prop valve that looked just like every GM rwd car and truck built from the late 60's to the mid 90's with a split brake system.

my 95 Neon "race car" is a factory non ABS car, and it has what looks to be proportioning valves screwed into the ports on the master cylinder where the rear brake lines hook up.

Newer ABS systems I can usually live with, It's TCS and stability control that really inspire my hatred. Hopefully when I own one of these cars, unplugging the yaw sensor will fix the stability issue.

Ashyukun wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Our newest (F-35s and F-22s) are also rather dynamically unstable too IIRC. It's what makes them so maneuverable but also requires a computer monitoring and adjusting things to keep them going where you want them to go.

IIRC the F-16 was like this. It's why so many crashed early on.