Just like the one when the new C6 Corvette came out, and had 2 Jr High School Teenagers, going in opposite directions, passing each other in mid-air in the city! FCC made GM pull that Advertisement immediately! I now own a C6, and previously owned a C5, BOTH having Active Handling & Traction Control, with Speed Sensitive Steering at NO extra cost (of course it is extra, but built into the final price of the vehicle, but not so with any Ford or Chrysler)! I really like having all these features for regular driving! When in normal everyday driving, you NEVER know when someone will pull out in front of you, or you have to make a hasty maneuver, at speed in traffic (your not going to have time to think about turning these features ON)! Having these features, and having them turned ON, will help both experienced Drivers as well as inexperienced Drivers in preventing the vehicle from either spinning out of control, or flipping over on a Highway! They (FCC) are now talking about making "Active Handling" MANDATORY on all SUV's! This will save lives, wether anyone believes this or not, and for the "Purest", you CAN turn these features off or on whenever you want, I know, I do this all the time at the local Dragstrip whenever I Race my C6! All of these features should be on all "Performance Vehicles", and ALL SUV's, and will save lives, cut insurance, and give an inexperienced driver a feeling of security and more confidence! I also seen an special on TV 2 nights ago (I live in New Hampshire, and it was on 9/12/06), that showed you the difference between an SUV with "Active Handling" do the Slalom and one without doing it at the same speed (both at 60 mph, I believe)! The 2 SUV's tested, one with A/H did the Slalom without incident, the other without A/H, would have flipped over if not for the outrigger style wheels (Training Wheels if you like), and did spin out of control halfway through the Test, doing the same speed (wet Slalom)! Today (IMO) almost all women would prefer to have an SUV, over a Soccer Mom Van, and an SUV handles so differently then a Van, or car that they can get themselves into trouble so much faster then with a car. These devices keep them from flipping over in a quick reaction situation, causing injury or Death! Even if offered as an Option, I would STILL have these options, which Ford only offers "Traction Control" on certain vehicles not all, and on Chrysler's Viper with it's massive 500 HP V12, will not offer either, so you had better be an experienced driver to purchase this vehicle!!! My wife drove my slightly modified C6 one evening, coming Home from the Track, attempted to take a mild left turn going a lot faster then the car would allow us to feel (70+ mph), and I felt the rear end start to come around, then I felt the "Active Handling" engage and looked at the Driver Information Center and seen it light up that the A/H was working! This was her 1st time ever driving this car, not knowing how very fast it will go, and not being able to feel the road, and how fast your actually going, made a huge mistake and the car corrected this for her! YES, I will have these features on every vehicle I purchase, even IF I have to pay for them! If these features will save a Life, I want them ALL, even if they cost me $$$!!!!
Around here, SUV drivers already drive like untouchable morons, so the ad won't change anything. But it might lure some members of a certain demographic out of their little cars and into that soft roader, so they too can drive without a connection to reality.
Well, I can't ever tell anymore if it is real or video overlay, but that slide seemed very tame to me and with a good stablity control system it should be very drivable. Since research is showing that people won't learn about ESC on their own, maybe something that gets their attention is what the system needs.
I also saw the recent test on TV of ESC and hope many others did as well. For inexperienced drivers the system is a real life saver. Seems Ford will be first domestic co. to have it standard in 2009 with GM to follow in 2010.
Darwinism is great but this past weekend some econobox took on a Range Rover head on about 10 ft in front of me when the RR tried to make a left on a green arrow. Luckily the three folks in the RR were ok and I think the lady in the teal car was ok too, probably had at least a broken leg. Since they seem to want to take others with them I'll vote for safety systems that in some cases might keep others out of it, like my ability to avoid the accident and get out of the way so I could direct some traffic.
A Slip and Slide gushing with water at the top of a mountain looks tame to you? Man... you must be some party animal.
The question is not whether ESC is a good safety feature to have, but whether presenting it to an often ignorant public in the manner Hyundai did is irresponsible. I haven't been on a giant slip and slide lately, but I sure wouldn't be crazy enough to drive down a mountain on one... even with the miracle of ESC on my vehicle. :sick:
Timing is everything, 4 years ago I might have agreed with you somewhat. Now, having been over the corkscrew at Laguna Seca for three years, worked up to over 100mph entry into turn 1 at Sears Point / Infineon on street tires and learned the new 4.0 mile track at Reno-Fernley, slip and slide looks like just another E ticket. Try it some time, you may like it ...
I see you have a couple corvettes, been to driving school and performance car classes. You obviously know the limitations of your vehicles. Unfortunately, there are many drivers on the road who do not. And a small percentages of those would probably try to take that 100 mph entry into turn 1 at Sears Point/Infineon at 110mph...probably on a giant slip n slide after watching that Hyundai commercial.
Remember the Civic Si commercial where they show the car bounding from rooftop to rooftop at hypersonic speed?
HOW IRRESPONSIBLE! I'm surprised they haven't had somebody killed trying to jump their Civic across buildings..... . . . . c'mon jipster - it's a commercial. The POINT was to say that in slippery conditions, the sytem on the new Hyundai can help the diver maintain control - THAT'S IT. If they did a commercial with a typical road in a typical rainshower and then the Hyundai driving down the road in a completely normal manner, everybody watching the commercial would be like "Huh? What was the point of that? yawn....."
If a commerical comes out touting airbags, would you say they are promoting unsafe driving behaviour because the drivers might feel invincible? If they tout a new structural design leading to much better crashworthiness, does that make viewers feel invincible?
to continue the conversation in the commercial discussion.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Now why do I still feel lonely over here? People seem to 'get' air bags even though they have never been in a major crash. Some how they don't seem to get ESC since they don't feel they ever had a need to do an evasive maneuver that caused them to lose control, but it does happen. What is it going to take, or will it matter if it becomes standard, then its just going to take time to turn over the fleet. Hummm...
What is it going to take, or will it matter if it becomes standard
According to todays newspaper ESC will become standard on all vehicles by the 2012 model year, and will be required by the government. GM says it will have ESC standard on all of its vehicles by 2010... Ford and Toyota by 2009. Hyundai will have ESC as standard equipment on 70% of it's 2007 vehicles.
Except it ends up harming people who are doing the right thing. Manufacturers should be required to show responsible driving, not slaloming down a mountain in an SUV, because it's equipped with stability control.
We've got this on our '05 Vibe and I wouldn't buy another car without it. Saved our neck a couple of times last winter. I can see how the warmer climes could take it or leave it but we here in the great white north will reap great benefits. Besides, with global cooling coming those in the sun belt may need it too!
It'll be on my Caliber R/T FWD model next year when I order it. The inexpensive option will only serve to keep me on my intended path which will only serve to keep auto insurance affordable. It will be federally mandated on all SUV's and pickups in a couple more years, which is proof there is an increased safety factor with this option.
Currently, some vehicles that have ESP now...have a rocker switch that allows the user to turn off or disable the ESP feature. That means that beginning this new model year....2007, 20% of vehicle production...those particular models will no longer have that switch in them? And over time, as this requirement phases in...the optional switch that disables the feature will no longer be available. In another words, another choice by the user will be taken away by NHTSA, all in the interests of "safety?" I know there are times when you don't want stability control on and active, that's why that switch is there. Any compelling reason to have this feature on all the time? Besides "safety?"
I am essentially neutral about electronic stability control. However, I do view the mandate as another half-assed government solution to place a band-aid on a problem.
Why not pass the following laws first? 1. Mandate that all vehicles pass a certain minimum handling safety test. The handling capability of a Chevy Suburban and a Subaru WRX STi are vastly different. Don't allow poor handling tanks on the road. Better handling vehicles would save lives.
2. Mandate vehicle ride heights. A head-on collision between a Hummer II and a Honda Insight would likely not be pretty for the Insight driver. Responsible bumper placement would save lives. Mandate that tractor trailers use ONLY the right lane on state and interstate highways.
3. Electronically govern the top speed of all road registered vehicles to 85 mph (or some reasonable value close to the current speed limit). This would absolutely prevent all high speed crashes involving cars going over 85 mph and would save lives.
4. Disallow vehicles with too many blind-spots. Vehicles with poor visibility have no place on the road.
I see this moronic logic (ie ESC) all the time in engineering research. Instead of addressing the root cause, band-aids are placed on the effect to reduce disaster potential.
I don't think there are that many that have the on/off switch today. It is mostly in performance cars so they can be driven without the system holding things back. Others like Caddy and MB sedans figure that the buyer wanted it so no need to supply a kill switch. Also, funny thing about accidents, they happen when you least expect it.
Because it is difficult to get things passed that are targeted to specific makes or models.
1. They do pass minimum standards currently. In fact in fatalities per million miles, the Suburban is one of the safest vehicles on the road. The Evo and WRX on the other hand are the cars I see most often in rollovers at the track since they are more ralley cars and not exactly suited to very high speed track handling.
2. Ride heights are already set by rule in, I expect, all states.
3. Good luck and how is a goverened limit not "another half-assed government solution"? It seems you buy one form of intervention but don't much care for passive technology that might just save people from dying.
4. And just what would those be?
You may feel that it is moronic but as published, studies have shown that 7-10k lives could be saved annually if the system was on the whole fleet. Sounds like if the root cause can't be addressed, making people smarter so they don't kill themselves and others, that addressing how they do it is pretty direct. Especially when it is intervention that never takes place except when needed, sort of like air bags. Randy
Other than rollover mitigation, what are the differences in effectiveness going from a first-generation stability control system to a modern one? Among vehicles currently on the market that offer the feature, are all of the current systems more or less the same?
The mandatory ESP (ESC, VSC, whatever) proposal is still in the very early comment stages. The on/off switch detail won't be hammered out for a while.
Even today, however, many of the ESC "off" buttons don't turn the system off. Most merely raise the thresholds at which the system cuts in. Each manufacturer has their only policy on this matter, no doubt fueled by their respective legal departments. Every one I've tested has always reset to "on/more aggressive cut-in" when the car is re-started.
I suspect that if ESC is made mandatory, then the legal implications of providing an "off" switch will be more burdensome. True off mode may disappear.
On the other hand, I've talked to many sales and marketing types at automakers, and they usually INSIST on such switches for options that cost a lot of money. They want 'em because then a salesman can point out the switch in a showroom to emphasize that the car does, in fact, give you something you can see for your $700 or whatever it is. They really get worked up over it too!
Shame on you Hyundai! Are you out of your minds...or just plain stupid?
I know what you are saying, but c'mon. If reality were the true test, no commercials would ever be made.
I think the slip 'n' slide angle is humorous. Do I think they really mean it? Of course not!
Do I think a Toyota Tacoma is meteor-proof? No. Funny? yes.
Should I drop an s-load of heavy metal objects on my Tundra and expect to drive away with no damage? No. Funny? Yes.
Is it irresponsible for VW to imply, in one of their FAST commercials, that you SHOULD drive in the rain rather than ordering take-out and burdening some other person with a wet weather drive? I don't think so.
They're all trying to make a point about some feature of their car that you wouldn't notice on a showroom floor, and probably won't notice in a test drive.
Because we all know what a slide 'n' slide is, and what it feels like to be on one, we can all imagine what ESC does and understand why we might want it. And anything that can make the public WANT ESC is all right with me, because I've done the tests and I think, as the title of this thread asks, that its worth it.
They will almost have to have it... In almost every car with stability control, you need to disable it to get out of deep snow or mud... Without wheelspin, you are truly stuck..
Good point. For the last several years, many Toyota systems allowed a driver to turn off traction control with a switch for exactly this reason. But even when TRC was off, skid control (VSC, ESC, ESP, VSA, whatever) stayed active and could not be turned off.
Traction control needs an off mode for another reason: dynamometer testing, as is necessary for many annual smog tests. TRC won't let the front wheels be stationary while the rears are doing 60! Many cars that don't have a switch usually have a back door way for smog mechanics to do this.
Wheel spin is a traction control limited item, not a stability control issue. In the Corvette you have three modes, system on with both TC and ESC (Active Handling); then you can turn off TC but keep ESC in a reduced intervention mode called Competition mode; and last turn both systems off. Comp mode is mostly seen at the drag strip, allows burn outs, plenty of rear wheel spin, but the ESC system is still active and doesn't limit the wheel spin. This is commonly confused. ESC is all about Yaw, or rotating the car, not just the wheels. In a spin usually the rear tries to pass the front of the car and as this starts the car is 'yawing' and a gyro measures this beginning of rotation of the whole car and the system then decides what to do. Most systems also address understeer which is not technically yaw but since most cars are set to understeer instead of oversteer (yaw) it doesn't get much comment. randy
"Even today, however, many of the ESC "off" buttons don't turn the system off. Most merely raise the thresholds at which the system cuts in. Each manufacturer has their only policy on this matter, ..."
Interesting that in the Corvette the system in the C5 98-04 and the C6 since '05 and the new C6 Z06 since '06 there are differences. In the C5 the system is truly off when you switch it that way and in Comp Mode it is less intrusive. There are reports that in the C6 the off mode isn't truly off but I don't have any details. Also, you are so correct that each mfgr sets the limits of the system based on their own engineering and presumably legal input. The original Sequoia was so intrusive that it got really bad writeups in some car mags. The interesting thing about sensor input is that peak and steady state readings can mean very different things and getting computer code to recognize subtle things isn't easy, I expect. Then you have the reliability of the sensors themselves to consider and the safe modes they revert to when they don't pass their own internal safety checks. I understand that Honda replaced some code a couple years ago but didn't do a recall. It is complicated stuff. Randy
Because we all know what a slip n slide is, and what it feels like to be on one...
Precisely my point. You have absolutely no control while on a slip n slide. If it's not in a perfectly straight alignment you would slide right off at the first bend. Now transfer those conditions to a steep and twisty mountain road covered with sleet and ice. Could a vehicle with traction control handle it? No one has yet answered that question.
Again, manufacturers can exaggerate the meteorite proof ability and toughness of trucks etc. But, to exaggerate the performance capability of a safety feature is irresponsible.
Do I think they really mean it? Of course not!
Again you are making my point. You may not think they really mean it... and most half way intelligent people will realize it is just a humorous commercial for ESC. But, there are some "less intelligent" people out there in the world who may think it is perfectly safe to take a steep hill with limited to almost no traction... and do it safely as long as their vehicle is equipped with ESC.
"Now transfer those conditions to a steep and twisty mountain road covered with sleet and ice. Could a vehicle with traction control handle it? No one has yet answered that question."
I wish it was as easy to get people to mean what they say. I presume you mean with Stability Control, and yes the question has been answered in Europe when the system was introduced in the mid 90's. MB took the press out to an ice covered lake and set out a course, like auto cross with cones and had the press and professional drivers try to navigate it. Nobody, even the professional drivers could get around without hitting some cones. Then they turned on the ESC system and everyone was able to get around without hitting cones, the pro's just did it a little faster. Amazing video and one of the reasons that most all cars in the EU already have the system. When MB put it on the A Class (that's another story) then all the rest of the small car builders started to follow suit. Randy
I wish it was as easy to get people to mean what they say.
"As easy" as what??? How ironic. :P
Sorry to have confused you, but of course I meant stability control... not traction control.
It would seem Europeans can have intelligent commercials about the real life capabilities of "stability control". But, here in the U.S we are presented with idiotic slip n slide commercials that exaggerate stability control capabilities. Driving on a flat service on dry ice is much different than driving down a steep mountain on wet ice. So I still contend my original question hasn't been answered.
I do agree that a commercial you described would be much more informative and effective in conveying the capabilities of stability control. I have yet to see anything close to what you have described.
i'd have to agree; i cannot imagine how a stability control system would work if there was a problem establishing traction between the tire and road surface.
i could see where the technology would provide a false sense of security for low-skill or otherwise distracted drivers and the results could be disasterous.
i think used by skilled, knowlegeable, aware drivers, its all good. in use by others, not a differentiator, perhaps the opposite.
my concern about adopting the technology on a personal level is worry about yaw sensor validation and false activation, but also, i'd like a way to disable (and know it's disabled) so i could compare what the vehicle / road conditions are really presenting.
i want good situational awareness myself. i don't want that (my sensing) usurped by technology.
"It would seem Europeans can have intelligent commercials about the real life capabilities of "stability control"."
I didn't say it was a commercial, it was an introduction to the press and the video was for internal use. They were still trying to figure out how it would be perceived by the media and by extension by consumers. In the EU it was accepted, and then basically demanded.
"i could see where the technology would provide a false sense of security for low-skill or otherwise distracted drivers and the results could be disasterous."
Interesting that the tests and studies done show that the technology has such a low level of impact and happens so early that even some experienced drivers don't even know it has intervened. It is truly in the background until the situation is so beyond reason that it has to do something that you will really notice. Like when it saved me in a 100+mph drop of a wheel off the end of a berm on corner exit at Sears Point Raceway. In the first time I ever had it engage, it was in a hard rain on the freeway and all it did was chime and show a light on the dash with a very slight bobble of the steering wheel (that could have been road bumps) that I hardly noticed, probably saved a hydroplane spin, I'll never know, thankfully.
I don't get why some people that accept technology, be it cell phones or message boards will reject something that they haven't tested to find out if it works.
As for the sensor safe modes I can only speak for the gyro in the Corvette but if it gets any data that is not correct in sequence it gives you a warning that it is shutting itself off.
I don't get why some people that accept technology, be it cell phones or message boards will reject something that they haven't tested to find out if it works.
If you wouldn't mind handing over your corvette to me for the weekend, I would be more than happy to get squirreley in some tight turns with it. But, I don't think any of my friends, dealerships or rental companies would be to happy if I asked to borrow their vehicle for me to see how well stability control worked.
When airbags first came out it was advertised in a way that demonstrated it's actually performance in head on collisions. The same thing when the side curtain airbags came out. But, with stability control what do we get? Some stupid Hyundai Santa Fe at the top of a mountain high tailing it down on a jumbo sized slip n slide.
Why can't advertisers do a side by side comparison on a test track to show the actual performance capabilities of stability control? Stability control vehicle versus one without. They could show the non stability control vehicle flying off the track into a rock wall and bursting into flames. Then have the camera cut back to the driver with stability control giving a slight smile and a knowing wink of the eye. This type of commercial would be both informative, as well as entertaining for those with short attention spans who prefer the slip n slide type of ads.
I don't doubt stability control works, but it is difficult for me to believe it works as advertised when all we get are case studies and silly commercials that exaggerate instead of being informative.
Here's evidence that stability control works in real-world crashes, just as seat belts, frontal airbags, and side airbags have been shown to be effective.
I would have to disagree with you about "Inexperienced Drivers" and "Active Handling Systems"! My wife and I were coming home from a local Dragstrip one evening after Racing my Vette, and she attempted to make a reasonably mild left turn at a speed that was much greater then she had thought, or could feel. As we were halfway through the turn I felt the rearend of the Vette start to come around, then felt the "Active Handling" kick in, looked over at the "Driver Information Center", and seen the "Active Handling" light & wording "Active Handing Activated", and the car slowed enough to make this turn safely yet still going faster then she probably should have been going! I've had this "Active Handling System" in my last 3 vehicles, and think that ANY top heavy SUV, or any Sports Car should have this as standard equipment! That is only my opinion, and from experiencing it actually saving me from becoming part of a Tree, and here to tell you about it! :sick:
Thank you, and just for that one reason, it justifies the need for "Active Handling", or whatever your Auto Manufacturer calls it, to have it installed in all high risk vehicles! I have a switch for my "Traction Control" & "Active Handling", and would never be without it! I can turn it off at the Dragstrip, and the moment I re-start it, it goes right back to Default (ON)! You have to WANT it off, to have it that way, and you can choose which one you want off, or if you want both off, you can have that too! I see more women in SUV's (now that is a JOKE (SUV) just to add $$$ to the window sticker), that will never see off road, or need it for any reason at all, just to look good going down the road, but they have no idea how to handle this vehicle, none at all! They think that they are in a car, even with all the signs plastered all over the inside of the truck! Toyota's first SUV wasn't EVEN a 4 wheel drive, it was just a front wheel drive, that rode very high, to make it look like an SUV!!! I doubt that most women will ever see the sign over their heads, they usually have the visor down and mirror open to put on Makeup! In a quick maneuver this vehicle WILL roll over, just as the sign over their head says! Most of the SUV's on the road today, which I would say atleast 95% will NEVER be in any situation to need, or pay the price of high fuel cost and maintenance, to say you own a 4 wheel drive vehicle! How many Lexus's will EVER see off road? How about BMW's? Maybe the Supercharged ($95,000.--+) Porsche SUV? Well how about a Hyundai? NONE, I'm willing to bet! But this in Only My Opinion, you can disagree with me if you like, but just look at the stats on these vehicles, and look at WHY they are in more highway accidents, and then tell me they DON'T NEED "Active Handling" or Stability Control"!
BTW: The most important reason to have this ON by Default is in a quick maneuver situation, you just don't have time to think about turning this ON! Like the time with my wife driving my Corvette, almost putting us in the woods, attempting to turn too fast! The "Active Handling" saved us from an accident that would have happened, if not for having this turned on, or installed!
It's mostly a joke whether the driver is male or female. The vast majority will never go off-road, whatever the sex of the driver. Male drivers seem to me to be the ones more likely to be driving like jerks in them...tailgating and flipping from lane to lane.
Probably women are driving them because the husband is too insecure to get a minivan or wagon.
This Detroit Free Press article implies that mandatory ESC by Sept 1, 2011 is a done deal. Politics do indicate that this is likely to be the case, but a Final Rule has not been issued. Here is where things really stand.
NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 18, 2006. This NPRM details NHTSA's scentific justification for the rule, the proposed performance requirements, disposition of any on/off switches, and the phase-in schedule that builds to 100% by Sept. 1, 20011 (MY 2012 vehicles)
The comment period extends until November 17, 2006. Many manufacturers have issued comments, including a request by SEMA (Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association) to extend the comment period a further 31 days.
If you want to follow what is going on and see what manufacturers are saying about the proposed rule, go to the government's docket management system website, select the simple search tab and enter Docket Number 25801. I'm not certain, but I think anyone can comment.
A Final Rule cannot be issued until after a certain period of time after the comment period closes, even if the comments result in no changes to the NPRM. If memory of my past dealings with NHTSA rulemaking procedures are correct, a Final Rule cannot go into effect for 180 days after it's issuance.
Thanks for the article. On Vettes, the front wheels are smaller than the rear and this offset is programmed into the active handling (ESC) system. People who put on custom or track wheels have found that the AH light will go on with these setups. It will be an issue.
As I understand it the yaw sensor, gyro, measures rotation or about to spin for the whole chassis, but the system also gets input from the steering angle sensor and from wheel speed sensors that measure differential speed. The data from a different mix of wheels can mess up the system. Got that input at the Caddy dealer the other day when doing an oil change for the wife's Vette. An Esclade was in and the service tech said, 'yea, another owner who wants warranty service since their custom wheels don't work with ESC'. Randy
But, a plus-zero tire/wheel setup should still be okay?
Not sure what they could do under warranty if the aftermarket setup messed up the ESC--replacing all the sensors and brains still wouldn't change the programming of the thing.
Comments
I can't wait til the first icy morning.
Ron
I also saw the recent test on TV of ESC and hope many others did as well. For inexperienced drivers the system is a real life saver. Seems Ford will be first domestic co. to have it standard in 2009 with GM to follow in 2010.
Darwinism is great but this past weekend some econobox took on a Range Rover head on about 10 ft in front of me when the RR tried to make a left on a green arrow. Luckily the three folks in the RR were ok and I think the lady in the teal car was ok too, probably had at least a broken leg. Since they seem to want to take others with them I'll vote for safety systems that in some cases might keep others out of it, like my ability to avoid the accident and get out of the way so I could direct some traffic.
The question is not whether ESC is a good safety feature to have, but whether presenting it to an often ignorant public in the manner Hyundai did is irresponsible. I haven't been on a giant slip and slide lately, but I sure wouldn't be crazy enough to drive down a mountain on one... even with the miracle of ESC on my vehicle. :sick:
HOW IRRESPONSIBLE! I'm surprised they haven't had somebody killed trying to jump their Civic across buildings.....
.
.
.
.
c'mon jipster - it's a commercial. The POINT was to say that in slippery conditions, the sytem on the new Hyundai can help the diver maintain control - THAT'S IT. If they did a commercial with a typical road in a typical rainshower and then the Hyundai driving down the road in a completely normal manner, everybody watching the commercial would be like "Huh? What was the point of that? yawn....."
If a commerical comes out touting airbags, would you say they are promoting unsafe driving behaviour because the drivers might feel invincible? If they tout a new structural design leading to much better crashworthiness, does that make viewers feel invincible?
kirstie_h, "Car Commercials: The good, the bad, and the annoying!" #2956, 15 Sep 2006 6:14 am
to continue the conversation in the commercial discussion.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
According to todays newspaper ESC will become standard on all vehicles by the 2012 model year, and will be required by the government. GM says it will have ESC standard on all of its vehicles by 2010... Ford and Toyota by 2009. Hyundai will have ESC as standard equipment on 70% of it's 2007 vehicles.
Darwinism at its best..
Except it ends up harming people who are doing the right thing. Manufacturers should be required to show responsible driving, not slaloming down a mountain in an SUV, because it's equipped with stability control.
Why not pass the following laws first?
1. Mandate that all vehicles pass a certain minimum handling safety test. The handling capability of a Chevy Suburban and a Subaru WRX STi are vastly different. Don't allow poor handling tanks on the road. Better handling vehicles would save lives.
2. Mandate vehicle ride heights. A head-on collision between a Hummer II and a Honda Insight would likely not be pretty for the Insight driver. Responsible bumper placement would save lives. Mandate that tractor trailers use ONLY the right lane on state and interstate highways.
3. Electronically govern the top speed of all road registered vehicles to 85 mph (or some reasonable value close to the current speed limit). This would absolutely prevent all high speed crashes involving cars going over 85 mph and would save lives.
4. Disallow vehicles with too many blind-spots. Vehicles with poor visibility have no place on the road.
I see this moronic logic (ie ESC) all the time in engineering research. Instead of addressing the root cause, band-aids are placed on the effect to reduce disaster potential.
Because it is difficult to get things passed that are targeted to specific makes or models.
1. They do pass minimum standards currently. In fact in fatalities per million miles, the Suburban is one of the safest vehicles on the road. The Evo and WRX on the other hand are the cars I see most often in rollovers at the track since they are more ralley cars and not exactly suited to very high speed track handling.
2. Ride heights are already set by rule in, I expect, all states.
3. Good luck and how is a goverened limit not "another half-assed government solution"? It seems you buy one form of intervention but don't much care for passive technology that might just save people from dying.
4. And just what would those be?
You may feel that it is moronic but as published, studies have shown that 7-10k lives could be saved annually if the system was on the whole fleet. Sounds like if the root cause can't be addressed, making people smarter so they don't kill themselves and others, that addressing how they do it is pretty direct. Especially when it is intervention that never takes place except when needed, sort of like air bags.
Randy
Can you be more specific?
Even today, however, many of the ESC "off" buttons don't turn the system off. Most merely raise the thresholds at which the system cuts in. Each manufacturer has their only policy on this matter, no doubt fueled by their respective legal departments. Every one I've tested has always reset to "on/more aggressive cut-in" when the car is re-started.
I suspect that if ESC is made mandatory, then the legal implications of providing an "off" switch will be more burdensome. True off mode may disappear.
On the other hand, I've talked to many sales and marketing types at automakers, and they usually INSIST on such switches for options that cost a lot of money. They want 'em because then a salesman can point out the switch in a showroom to emphasize that the car does, in fact, give you something you can see for your $700 or whatever it is. They really get worked up over it too!
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
I know what you are saying, but c'mon. If reality were the true test, no commercials would ever be made.
I think the slip 'n' slide angle is humorous. Do I think they really mean it? Of course not!
Do I think a Toyota Tacoma is meteor-proof? No. Funny? yes.
Should I drop an s-load of heavy metal objects on my Tundra and expect to drive away with no damage? No. Funny? Yes.
Is it irresponsible for VW to imply, in one of their FAST commercials, that you SHOULD drive in the rain rather than ordering take-out and burdening some other person with a wet weather drive? I don't think so.
They're all trying to make a point about some feature of their car that you wouldn't notice on a showroom floor, and probably won't notice in a test drive.
Because we all know what a slide 'n' slide is, and what it feels like to be on one, we can all imagine what ESC does and understand why we might want it. And anything that can make the public WANT ESC is all right with me, because I've done the tests and I think, as the title of this thread asks, that its worth it.
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Traction control needs an off mode for another reason: dynamometer testing, as is necessary for many annual smog tests. TRC won't let the front wheels be stationary while the rears are doing 60! Many cars that don't have a switch usually have a back door way for smog mechanics to do this.
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
ESC is all about Yaw, or rotating the car, not just the wheels. In a spin usually the rear tries to pass the front of the car and as this starts the car is 'yawing' and a gyro measures this beginning of rotation of the whole car and the system then decides what to do. Most systems also address understeer which is not technically yaw but since most cars are set to understeer instead of oversteer (yaw) it doesn't get much comment.
randy
Interesting that in the Corvette the system in the C5 98-04 and the C6 since '05 and the new C6 Z06 since '06 there are differences. In the C5 the system is truly off when you switch it that way and in Comp Mode it is less intrusive. There are reports that in the C6 the off mode isn't truly off but I don't have any details.
Also, you are so correct that each mfgr sets the limits of the system based on their own engineering and presumably legal input. The original Sequoia was so intrusive that it got really bad writeups in some car mags. The interesting thing about sensor input is that peak and steady state readings can mean very different things and getting computer code to recognize subtle things isn't easy, I expect. Then you have the reliability of the sensors themselves to consider and the safe modes they revert to when they don't pass their own internal safety checks. I understand that Honda replaced some code a couple years ago but didn't do a recall. It is complicated stuff.
Randy
Precisely my point. You have absolutely no control while on a slip n slide. If it's not in a perfectly straight alignment you would slide right off at the first bend. Now transfer those conditions to a steep and twisty mountain road covered with sleet and ice. Could a vehicle with traction control handle it? No one has yet answered that question.
Again, manufacturers can exaggerate the meteorite proof ability and toughness of trucks etc. But, to exaggerate the performance capability of a safety feature is irresponsible.
Do I think they really mean it? Of course not!
Again you are making my point. You may not think they really mean it... and most half way intelligent people will realize it is just a humorous commercial for ESC. But, there are some "less intelligent" people out there in the world who may think it is perfectly safe to take a steep hill with limited to almost no traction... and do it safely as long as their vehicle is equipped with ESC.
I wish it was as easy to get people to mean what they say. I presume you mean with Stability Control, and yes the question has been answered in Europe when the system was introduced in the mid 90's. MB took the press out to an ice covered lake and set out a course, like auto cross with cones and had the press and professional drivers try to navigate it. Nobody, even the professional drivers could get around without hitting some cones. Then they turned on the ESC system and everyone was able to get around without hitting cones, the pro's just did it a little faster. Amazing video and one of the reasons that most all cars in the EU already have the system. When MB put it on the A Class (that's another story) then all the rest of the small car builders started to follow suit.
Randy
"As easy" as what??? How ironic. :P
Sorry to have confused you, but of course I meant stability control... not traction control.
It would seem Europeans can have intelligent commercials about the real life capabilities of "stability control". But, here in the U.S we are presented with idiotic slip n slide commercials that exaggerate stability control capabilities. Driving on a flat service on dry ice is much different than driving down a steep mountain on wet ice. So I still contend my original question hasn't been answered.
I do agree that a commercial you described would be much more informative and effective in conveying the capabilities of stability control. I have yet to see anything close to what you have described.
i could see where the technology would provide a false sense of security for low-skill or otherwise distracted drivers and the results could be disasterous.
i think used by skilled, knowlegeable, aware drivers, its all good. in use by others, not a differentiator, perhaps the opposite.
my concern about adopting the technology on a personal level is worry about yaw sensor validation and false activation, but also, i'd like a way to disable (and know it's disabled) so i could compare what the vehicle / road conditions are really presenting.
i want good situational awareness myself. i don't want that (my sensing) usurped by technology.
I didn't say it was a commercial, it was an introduction to the press and the video was for internal use. They were still trying to figure out how it would be perceived by the media and by extension by consumers. In the EU it was accepted, and then basically demanded.
Interesting that the tests and studies done show that the technology has such a low level of impact and happens so early that even some experienced drivers don't even know it has intervened. It is truly in the background until the situation is so beyond reason that it has to do something that you will really notice. Like when it saved me in a 100+mph drop of a wheel off the end of a berm on corner exit at Sears Point Raceway. In the first time I ever had it engage, it was in a hard rain on the freeway and all it did was chime and show a light on the dash with a very slight bobble of the steering wheel (that could have been road bumps) that I hardly noticed, probably saved a hydroplane spin, I'll never know, thankfully.
I don't get why some people that accept technology, be it cell phones or message boards will reject something that they haven't tested to find out if it works.
As for the sensor safe modes I can only speak for the gyro in the Corvette but if it gets any data that is not correct in sequence it gives you a warning that it is shutting itself off.
If you wouldn't mind handing over your corvette to me for the weekend, I would be more than happy to get squirreley in some tight turns with it. But, I don't think any of my friends, dealerships or rental companies would be to happy if I asked to borrow their vehicle for me to see how well stability control worked.
When airbags first came out it was advertised in a way that demonstrated it's actually performance in head on collisions. The same thing when the side curtain airbags came out. But, with stability control what do we get? Some stupid Hyundai Santa Fe at the top of a mountain high tailing it down on a jumbo sized slip n slide.
Why can't advertisers do a side by side comparison on a test track to show the actual performance capabilities of stability control? Stability control vehicle versus one without. They could show the non stability control vehicle flying off the track into a rock wall and bursting into flames. Then have the camera cut back to the driver with stability control giving a slight smile and a knowing wink of the eye. This type of commercial would be both informative, as well as entertaining for those with short attention spans who prefer the slip n slide type of ads.
I don't doubt stability control works, but it is difficult for me to believe it works as advertised when all we get are case studies and silly commercials that exaggerate instead of being informative.
I see more women in SUV's (now that is a JOKE (SUV) just to add $$$ to the window sticker), that will never see off road, or need it for any reason at all, just to look good going down the road, but they have no idea how to handle this vehicle, none at all! They think that they are in a car, even with all the signs plastered all over the inside of the truck! Toyota's first SUV wasn't EVEN a 4 wheel drive, it was just a front wheel drive, that rode very high, to make it look like an SUV!!! I doubt that most women will ever see the sign over their heads, they usually have the visor down and mirror open to put on Makeup!
In a quick maneuver this vehicle WILL roll over, just as the sign over their head says! Most of the SUV's on the road today, which I would say atleast 95% will NEVER be in any situation to need, or pay the price of high fuel cost and maintenance, to say you own a 4 wheel drive vehicle! How many Lexus's will EVER see off road? How about BMW's? Maybe the Supercharged ($95,000.--+) Porsche SUV? Well how about a Hyundai? NONE, I'm willing to bet! But this in Only My Opinion, you can disagree with me if you like, but just look at the stats on these vehicles, and look at WHY they are in more highway accidents, and then tell me they DON'T NEED "Active Handling" or Stability Control"!
It's mostly a joke whether the driver is male or female. The vast majority will never go off-road, whatever the sex of the driver. Male drivers seem to me to be the ones more likely to be driving like jerks in them...tailgating and flipping from lane to lane.
Probably women are driving them because the husband is too insecure to get a minivan or wagon.
I also note that many cars are now listed as having ESC
as switchable or nonswitchable.
Randy
This Detroit Free Press article implies that mandatory ESC by Sept 1, 2011 is a done deal. Politics do indicate that this is likely to be the case, but a Final Rule has not been issued. Here is where things really stand.
NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 18, 2006. This NPRM details NHTSA's scentific justification for the rule, the proposed performance requirements, disposition of any on/off switches, and the phase-in schedule that builds to 100% by Sept. 1, 20011 (MY 2012 vehicles)
The comment period extends until November 17, 2006. Many manufacturers have issued comments, including a request by SEMA (Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association) to extend the comment period a further 31 days.
If you want to follow what is going on and see what manufacturers are saying about the proposed rule, go to the government's docket management system website, select the simple search tab and enter Docket Number 25801. I'm not certain, but I think anyone can comment.
A Final Rule cannot be issued until after a certain period of time after the comment period closes, even if the comments result in no changes to the NPRM. If memory of my past dealings with NHTSA rulemaking procedures are correct, a Final Rule cannot go into effect for 180 days after it's issuance.
Dan
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/BUSINESS01/611210393/10- 14/BUSINESS01
Rocky
And then a view of the above at:
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53298.html
I just wish everyone in the automotive media would quit
calling it 'electronic nannies'.
Randy
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070127/AUTO01/701270352/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
smaller than the rear and this offset is programmed into the
active handling (ESC) system. People who put on custom
or track wheels have found that the AH light will go on
with these setups. It will be an issue.
As I understand it the yaw sensor, gyro, measures rotation
or about to spin for the whole chassis, but the system also
gets input from the steering angle sensor and from wheel
speed sensors that measure differential speed. The data
from a different mix of wheels can mess up the system. Got
that input at the Caddy dealer the other day when doing an
oil change for the wife's Vette. An Esclade was in and the
service tech said, 'yea, another owner who wants warranty
service since their custom wheels don't work with ESC'.
Randy
Not sure what they could do under warranty if the aftermarket setup messed up the ESC--replacing all the sensors and brains still wouldn't change the programming of the thing.