Stability Control, are you ready for it?

210delray

The side impact standard won't be fully effective for at least two more model years, IIRC (2009). It's possible vehicles might be able to meet the standard without thorax bags.

The tire-pressure monitoring rule was delayed also, due to wrangling in the courts, but I think it kicks in fully with the '07s. (The Bush administration wanted to save the automakers some bucks by allowing so-called "indirect" systems, but safety advocates successfully sued to mandate only "direct" systems, which are more accurate and identify the specific tire that has lost pressure.)

corvette

Helpful info, thanks for the update...

starrow68

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/26/004906.html

"With respect to stability control systems, low customer awareness, perception and willingness to pay are likely to be critical growth restrains."

Guess that is why it's so hard to sustain a discussion on this.

elias

hi. i insist on stability control on any car that my wife will drive. it pays for itself even if it engages just once in one dangerous situation.
i had to pay $1k extra for it on our previous volvo - a 2001 volvo v70 2.4T. in that car it ended up saving my butt one time too, car slid sideways at slow speed on a snowy road - would have slid off road sideways and hit a tree - but the DSTC straightened it out. our current volvo is xc90 - DSTC (and rollover stability control) are both standard. they work too - i discovered this at volvo's lime rock xc90 driver training.
"ESP" was a $200 option on our jetta TDI.
it's not available on our third car (holden monaro/GTO) - my wife doesn't drive this one.

carlisimo

I'd be careful about coming across as overprotective, unless you insist on SC as well. I've had discussions along those lines...

Also, I was talking to my cousin in Spain, and according to her the accidents being prevented by stability control mostly involve small (short-wheelbase), weak FWD cars on 2-lane divided highways in mountainous areas. So it isn't necessarily useful only on powerful RWD cars.

corvette

There is a smaller proportion of tall, tippy SUVs in Spain than there is here. Just goes to show that ESC is useful on any type of vehicle, even small, low-priced cars.

I think it's extremely callous of car manufacturers to include safety features that aren't that expensive only on their most expensive vehicles, but that's the case in the US.

starrow68

Yes, in the EU the second thrust after some high priced models got ESC was the MB A-Class and that made VW go to it across their line in the EU which made others compete. That was back about 2000, so we are far behind here in the states. There were some studies in the EU and Japan that showed ESC having the most impact on small short wheel base cars with inexperienced drivers.

actualsize

Corvette wrote: I thought all 2006 cars were supposed to have flat tire monitors, but if memory serves, there are several models that don't have them.

Tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) are in the midst of a 3-year phase-in period.

For the 2006 model year (MY2006), 20% of a what any manufacturer sells must be fitted with TPMS. For MY2007, that rises to 70%. By MY2008, 100% of vehicles sold in the US will have it.

During the phase-in, we will see certain models that have it standard, some that offer it in higher trim levels, and others on which it is not available. This meets the requirement as long as a manufacturer's sales mix hits the required minimum percentage across their entire product range.

By the 2008 model year the point will be moot, as everything will have the system.

Contrary to an earlier post, the standard, FMVSS 138 is still "technologically neutral" and does not require direct pressure measurement to be used, per se. Indirect detection, typically through the use of ABS wheel speed sensors, is still allowable.

But the performance requirements for a TPMS system have been made so agressive that it is doubtful that anything other than a direct measurement system will satisfy them. Still, NHTSA wanted to make sure the door is left often for some as yet unforseen technology to emerge.

Dan

neil733

I'm not blaming the dealers.
If they asked a typical US customer to wait 6-12 weeks for their new car to be built, they'd get very few sales. It's as much the consumer's fault as the dealers'.

I ordered my current car in November 2002, and collected it from the dealer in March 2003. I was prepared to wait, because I got exactly the car I wanted.

There's also the issue of space. I believe a typical US car lot has space for a large stock of cars. In general, Europe is more crowded, with higher land values, so the dealer can't afford the space for a large stock of new cars. My local Renault Dealer has showroom space for 3 or 4 cars, and maybe another 6-8 new cars at the rear, and that's normal. With that little space, no-one expects them to have the car they want in stock.

benzy1

I cannot disagree with the benefits of stability control and the technologies effectiveness in helping a driver avoid loosing control leading to an eventual rollover. As mentioned, the NHTSA found that ESC reduced single-vehicle deaths in passenger cars by 30% and SUVs by 63% [1]. A further look at the data shows that 75% of those deaths occurred to occupants not wearing seatbelts. Furthermore, the study investigated accidents occurring between 1997 and 2003. Meaning that the cars and SUVs tested were likely built before and during that time period, before the hysteria surrounding SUV rollover safety.

Buyers must be aware that the most important feature of the car that prevents loss of control -and in effect single-vehicle deaths - is the inherent stability of the car itself. Meaning any given car with ESC is not better than every car without. For example, the 2004 Toyota Tacoma Prerunner w/ESC tipped during NHTSA's Dynamic Rollover Test (DRT) at 37 mph, as the redesigned 2005 Tacoma Prerunner without ESC passed the DRT with a no-tip at 50 mph. Improvements to the redesigned Tacoma including track width and suspension were far superior to rollover prevention than an ESC system. The same goes for the redesigned Ford Explorer.

And, even though rollover deaths account for such a large portion of SUV deaths in particular, the overwhelming leading cause of death in an automobile is frontal impact collisions (49%), followed by side impact collisions (31%) [2]. All things considered, if you choose a vehicle with a "5-Star" front and side impact score, and add side curtain airbags, you have eliminated risk in 80% of fatalities.

Many factors need to be considered when picking and choosing costly safety upgrades. But the most important factor is the inherent safety of the car itself. Even more thought and practice needs to be dedicated driving safely, understanding the speed and handling limitations of your particular vehicle, and most importantly- wearing a seat belt.

[1] http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.html
[2] http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

210delray

I basically agree with you, but I thought the pre-2005 Tacomas (before the redesign) didn't have ESC available at all.

But for side-impact safety, the government's side-impact test is a joke, because the striking barrier simulates a car and is too low to impact the dummies' heads directly. Even more important, while head injury measures are recorded, they're not factored into the star ratings.

A much better side impact test is the one conducted by the IIHS.

Even more thought and practice needs to be dedicated driving safely, understanding the speed and handling limitations of your particular vehicle, and most importantly- wearing a seat belt.

This is why I don't put as high a priority on ESC as on passive safety features like side airbags. The vast majority of the life-saving benefits for ESC occur in single-vehicle crashes; that is, there was no other "bad driver" involved. So you have direct control over the situation and the duty to drive responsibly.

rockylee

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060613/AUTO01/606130316/- 1148

Rocky

albert6

Thanks for bringing up the indirect detection scheme.

Tire speed (differential rotation rate) does not reliably detect a low pressure tire. The reason is that the circumference of tire rubber remains the same length, even as the sidewall is collapsing. Making up for that is that the sidewalls heat up due to increased flexure.

This effect was mentioned about 10 years ago in Machine Design by a tire engineer who researched it 20 or so years before that. They found the sidewalls would start smoking before the tire rotation rate changed enough to flag a warning.

Don't have to believe me outright - make a mark on a tire tread to match a spot on the road. Roll the car one turn of the tire and mark the pavement again. Then let the air out as far as you think necessary to trip a low-pressure alarm and roll the car back. See if the marks still line up.

Much better would be a sidewall temperature detector to prevent overheat blowouts and a tread temperature detector to prevent delamination. It's a terrible environment though - gravel impacts, snow, ice, sand, salt, mud, dirt, water. High temps and low. It's a bad place for delicate sensors.

starrow68

"This is why I don't put as high a priority on ESC as on passive safety features like side airbags. The vast majority of the life-saving benefits for ESC occur in single-vehicle crashes; that is, there was no other "bad driver" involved. So you have direct control over the situation and the duty to drive responsibly."

Only problem is the other driver that causes your accident but is not involved. Guy's wife local a few years back got cut off in her older big MB sedan and over correction resulted in a roll and several years of rehab. They both wish the car had ESC at the time. Funny thing about accidents, they don't lend themselves to prediction about if you are driving responsibly that nothing will happen, they are of course, accidents.

starrow68

Thanks for the article. The stats are a little different from the NHTSA studies mentiond earlier and show that a bigger percentage of rollovers can be prevented in both SUVs and cars than the deaths prevented. I suppose that is to be expected since ESC isn't going to prevent the very worst incidents and those will produce more fatalities. Had to read it a couple times since I have the 42/43k deaths per year very firmly in mind (IDLSWDY) and they were talking about reducing 10k of the 34k fatal crashes. Guess that just means there are 1.3 or so fatalities per crash.
Again thanks for the update.

starrow68

From a google search, note several sources and the reference to 172 others ...

I think some are confusing the crashes vs. fatalities stats.

Earthtimes.org US fatalities could be cut by stability control
Channel 4 News, UK - 7 hours ago
... of all fatal car crashes in the US - some 10,000 each year - could be prevented if more vehicles were fitted with stability control technology, according to a ...
Electronic Stability Control Is a Major Life Saver, Study Says Car and Driver
IIHS pushing for mandatory stability control Autoblog
Stability control system in cars can eliminate accidents, says ... Earthtimes.org
New York Times - Los Angeles Times - all 172 related »

rockylee

starrow68,

No problem pal. I saw the article and said this needs to be posted. Especially since this topic is still very popular.

Rocky

jeffyscott

Here is the IIHS news release:

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr061306.html

rockylee

Thanx for the article jeff.

Rocky

nynewcar

This is a difficult question and maybe impossible to answer. But I have turned it over in my mind for weeks without being able to decide and now I’m hoping to solicit some of your views and opinions.

The car is meant for an elderly couple who will drive it around town and use it very little – less than 5,000 miles a year on their current car. They don’t drive in bad weather or on icy roads, and the only highways they use are in the city, not interstate expressways.

They are loyal to Honda and the options are a Honda Accord or Acura TSX.

The TSX costs approximately 26,000 + TTL, and has stability control. As nice a car as it is, none of its other premium features over a comparably-accessorized Accord are meaningful for the buyers.

The Accord EX w/ leather costs approximately 21,500 + TTL but does not have stability control available on its 4-cylinder model.

They are relying on me to tell them what to do. $4,500 is a lot of money, and much more than they wanted to spend, but they will find the funds if we are convinced that the electronic stability control and traction control are essential.

I have read through this thread and the articles linked, and still can’t decide one way or another. It seems clear that these features are helpful in situations of rollover, or with SUVs. But to me at least, it is not quite clear how much benefit they have in our situation – mid-sized sedan, minimal highway driving, no driving in bad weather.

Please let me know what you think or what you would do.

corvette

It will help bail you out, even on dry pavement, if you need to perform an evasive maneuver and, say, you turn the wheel too sharply. It's more helpful in the rain than in the dry, though. A rollover after losing control would be uncommon on a car with a low center of gravity like the Accord or TSX. It would be more likely that you spin out and hit a curb, pole, slide into oncoming traffic, etc.

Honda does make an Accord in the $21K price range with stability control--the Accord LX V6. Good luck finding one, as it seems that something like 99% of V6 buyers want the sunroof and leather. If they must have leather, consider also the Accord EX V6, which offers stability control like the TSX, but in a mid-sized car.

This will probably go over like a lead balloon, but the new Hyundai Sonata has standard stability control on all trim levels, and I think you can get one with leather and a V6 for the price of the EX four-cylinder Accord.

rp67

Some G-Whiz info for Honda owners with VSA equipped vehicles. While pulling into oncoming traffic, my Pilot has twice applied the VSA (applied brakes and took away gas pedal). The Honda dealership is not sure why. Apparently is has to do with wheel or yaw sensors. Instead of replacing sensors, the Honda wants to install some type of detector that will allow me to push a button when the problem occurs in order to record the problem. Evidently my vehicle is the only one ever to encounter this problem and they have no answer. Problem is, they said, "hopefully it will not happen in oncoming traffic." That is easy to say when their family is not involved. I am getting Honda review the case and hopefully they will replace all sensors involved with the VSA. They seem to be putting the vehicle in front of my families safety.

carlisimo

Under those circumstances (few miles, good weather), I'd say they'd benefit less than average from stability control.

I'd suggest giving more weight to their other priorities. If they can afford the car they like the most, now's as good a time as any in their lives to get it.

nynewcar

Thanks for the replies so far. My instinct is telling me that these features matter more on higher cars like SUVs and when driving at higher speeds than they do on city streets.

As far as the LX vs the EX, we settled on the EX for the same reason carlisimo mentioned - at this point in their lives, we want them to have as much luxury as they'll agree to. They're old-school frugal, but we finally talked them into "indulging" in leather seats and the other extra touches that go with that trim level.

It's a lot harder to justify the need for the 4.5K price jump to the Acura, though. I know the Accord isn't a luxury car but nowadays the car makers are really making a lot of these mid-size sedans feel very luxurious.

As far as Hyundai, yeah, it's a lead balloon. They're Honda loyalists; couldn't even get them to consider Toyota.

210delray

Frankly, I have a hard time believing your story.

How aggressively, I ask, did you pull into oncoming traffic? Was it raining or was the road still wet from a recent shower? I would assume this is why the electronic stability control kicked in. Possibly without stability control, you would have spun out or otherwise lost control.

Honda wants to install some type of detector that will allow me to push a button when the problem occurs in order to record the problem. An auto company is going to ask its customers to push a button under a high-risk situation? As I said, I have a hard time believing this.

corvette

I don't think the OP mentioned attempting to pass anyone--I had assumed he was trying to make a left turn. In either case, I wonder if the tires were worn. On the other hand, sensors, computers, and wiring do fail with some frequency, even on a Honda.

210delray

To me, it seems you made a reasonable choice.

Right now, I'm dealing with the same issue for my son and his wife, who live in New York City (Queens) and are about to buy their first car.

My son is set on a Toyota Prius, and it really makes sense for NYC of all places. However, in both the New York and Central Atlantic regions for Toyota, the lowest-priced option package with stability control is not available. You have to go with much more expensive packages just to get stability control.

By checking the internet, I found that the New England region does have offer this lower priced option package ($350 retail over the next lowest package).

The salesman at a dealership in my area (VA - Central Atlantic) said he could try to trade for a Prius intended for the New England region with one slated for Central Atlantic, but to do so, he'd have to call individual dealers in the N.E. region.

I don't think he really made the effort (no way to prove it of course), but we have since decided to go without ESC. The car he's getting will have side airbags, however, which are essential in our opinions.

We figure the risk without ESC is rather low, as the car will not be used for commuting into Manhattan, and total estimated mileage will be about 5000 miles per year.

The studies do show a benefit for both single- and multi-vehicle crashes, but the benefit is clearly more significant for single-vehicle crashes. My son doesn't drive recklessly (he's 28) and his wife doesn't drive much at all.

When it's snowy or icy, the car won't have to be used, as they can easily do all shopping and commuting by subway or by walking (which is how they've gotten around for the last 5 years).

210delray

You may be right about the passing part, so I deleted it from my earlier post. Yes, failures can happen, but he/she seems to imply the ESC worked but to his/her detriment. Also, if the tires were worn, that could have been a big factor (but no one should be driving on badly worn tires in the first place).

We had a poster in here before who postulated that if his car had been equipped with ESC (it wasn't), he would not have been able to accelerate on the left shoulder around another vehicle that suddenly entered his lane (going the same direction).

nynewcar

Thank you. Reading this is really helping settle my mind on the decision. It's like asking "how much insurance should we buy," and there's never an easy answer for that, but I think your line of thinking is very reasonable.

rp67

210delray, you sound like the service manager that I spoke to. I am sorry that you have a hard time believing me, but yes it is true. During both instances it was a smooth clean asphalt surface and I was starting from a complete stop. First time I was turning sharp to the left and the second time it was turn to the right with a slight dip from the driveway of the business. The first time was I pulling into the middle lane of a 3 lane street. There was oncoming traffic but I accelerated at a normal rate of speed. My family was very lucky we were not rear-ended. I am 38 years old and my wife considers me to be a very conservative driver to the point she complains about it, plus I had my wife and daughter in the vehicle during both instances. I hope this gives everyone a better understanding.

210delray

You're very welcome. It's rare to receive a "thank you" on these boards, and I certainly appreciate it!

210delray

Ok, I think I understand better.

I can tell you that Edmunds won't allow you to post phone numbers or names of individuals -- just dealer names and city/state.

In both instances, you started from a stop while turning (sharply in your own words in one case) from a driveway or side road into rather heavy traffic. In such a circumstance, it is possible to spin the drive wheels, even on smooth pavement. This is especially true if the turn is sharp, the acceleration is sudden, or there is some unseen oil or moisture on the road. The dip wouldn't help matters either in the one instance. Plus the Pilot has a fair amount of engine torque (think low-speed takeoff).

If this happens in a car equipped with stability control, the traction control feature will intervene to stop the spinning. This is done by applying brakes to each spinning wheel as well as reducing engine power.

It doesn't seem abnormal to me. Maybe you accelerated more than you realized, because traffic was heavy and you were trying to get into a gap.

I have no particular reason to favor Honda -- I've never owned one or plan to in the foreseeable future.

Also, you said evidently my vehicle is the only one ever to encounter this problem and they have no answer. Unfortunately, this is a classic all-purpose service line.

rp67

Thanks, I think I got it deleted. Believe me, its abnormal when your car decides to come to a complete stop on its own. The service manager wanted to try and see if he could duplicate the problem. We took it to a parking lot with a lot of loose gravel and turned practically 20 half doughnuts and it did it once. I will probably just turn it off most of the time. I am trying to dispute the problem with Honda and hopefully they will replace the sensors. What we did in the parking lot compared to how the Pilot has shut down on us under normal driving is not even comparable. If anything it has shown me that it is not being consistent. Its not a good feeling when you pull onto a street and you know your vehicle may stall. Anyway, we will get the device plugged in Monday and go from there. I will probably not use the VSA very often though, I just don't feel that my particular vehicle is safe.

user777

from a standstill, it is TCS (Traction Control) which derates engine output and modulates brakes to avoid excessive wheel-spin.

i've managed to do the same in my '03 Odyssey that doesn't have VSA.

when this happened, was there any visual indication on the dash that VSA activated? flashing light? tone? or just engine response (or lack there of and braking sensation)?

what does your manual say - is there any indication (visual / audible) for the function being activated?

if so, and if you aren't seeing it or hearing it (i don't have it so i don't know), maybe you have a fuel pump / fuel pressure delivery problem...

diesel_farmer

I have a 2006 Jeep Liberty CRD equiped with ESP. I drive it frequently on construction sites in sandy conditions and on rain slick roads here in Florida...it is the best option your money can purchase. The system allows me to drive through sandy conditions without engaging the four wheel drive in conditions where my F350 King Ranch 4x4 FX4 would bog down and require four wheel drive activation, and it has saved me from losing control during an emergency maneuver on a rain slick road. I enjoy driving the Jeep Liberty CRD over the 2005 Ford F350 King Ranch. Will be trading my wifes 2005 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon in for the 2007 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon as the 2007 has ABS and ESP which was not available on the 2005 models.

Anyone purchasing a new vehicle would be wise to pick one with ESP.

rp67

I did not notice the VSA indication light when it happened on the street. The the service manager was able to duplicate the problem and the VSA light came on. It was just like before though. He had the accelerator floored but not response and you could tell that it applied the brakes also. It came to a complete stop. The more I think about it, I will probably just park it until my complaint is reviewed by Honda. The VSA automatically comes on when the engine is started and then you have to hope to remember to turn it off. I just don't feel that is safe. Thanks for the info.

starrow68

Just another posibility but in some systems there is also a steering angle sensor in the mix. I've had that steering sensor go out on my Vette as well as the full ABS/Stability Control module replaced on my '02, but that was at 35k and 52k respectively. Also, in most systems I've heard discussed by the engineers where we made one of the yaw control gyro's there was general agreement that most auto makers have a default to disengage the system if it gets conflicting data from sensors. That may be why Honda is so interested in getting more data as it would seem the default disengage might not be working as designed.

starrow68

http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=26368

BMW it seems is going to use stability control to describe traction control on their motorcycles.

starrow68

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20295205-28737,00.html

Article about buyers of mid to low cost vehicles not picking
up ESP.

carlisimo

ESP tends to be bundled with a ton of stuff that no one really wants to pay for.

starrow68

That's really a shame, it also seems that since they mandated ABS and it really didn't do as much as predicted that they are dragging the process out to mandate any new things like ESP. Stand alone it is one of the best deals in safety around.

actualsize

Maybe I came into this late, but the government has never mandated ABS. It's use has always been up to a manufacturer. However...

Regarding ESP: The new NHTSA rollover resistance test, a.k.a. fishhook test, is so difficult to successfully complete (for SUVs and minivans) that many, if not all companies are starting to make ESP standard for these vehicles. The major Asian manufacturer I used to work for made that decision while I was there. Others are doing the same.

And when a vehicle has ESP, by definition it has ABS too.

It's hard for the government to mandate something like: "you must make ABS standard." Same goes for ESP. But what they can do and are doing, is devise a dynamic performance test that a car must be able to complete in order to get a good star rating. If that maneuver is designed so that ESP is the best or only way to get through it cleanly, then the government gets the de facto mandate they want with a smaller political fight, the vehicle manufacturers get a star rating they can brag about, and the ESP suppliers get the guaranteed sales they want.

Cars can get through the current fishhook test just fine, but an additional test is being researched...

jeffyscott

ESP tends to be bundled with a ton of stuff that no one really wants to pay for.

Of course this depends on the manufacturer. VW makes it available as a stand alone option on the base trim level. IMO, this is the right thing to do, since it is a safety feature.

However, I don't think it is something a lot of people go looking for (it would be interesting to hear from some sales people on this). I think they more often want sunroofs, alloys, and stereo upgrades...and don't want to pay for things like ABS and ESP.

corvette

And Hyundai makes it standard on all trim levels of the Sonata. Whether you like the car or not, that's an impressive precedent...

As for people not paying extra for it, the acceptance rate is higher in Europe, and some companies here (like Chrysler) are trying to make a push to include it on a certain percentage of models they ship to dealers.

210delray

However, I don't think it is something a lot of people go looking for (it would be interesting to hear from some sales people on this). I think they more often want sunroofs, alloys, and stereo upgrades...and don't want to pay for things like ABS and ESP.

You're absolutely correct on this. The sunroofs, alloys, and stereos can be enjoyed or admired every day. The ABS and ESP may never be needed, especially in places where it doesn't snow.

But as mentioned above, stability control will become standard in the US because of the upcoming handling/rollover regulations.

jipster

I caught a Hyundai Sante Fe commercial on t.v the other day. The sales pitch was geared toward the vehicles stability control. It showed a Sante Fe on top of a mountain, with a giant water-filled Slip N Slide going down this steep hill. The Sante Fe is shown going down this Slip and Slide, handling the steep decline and sharp corners with ease. I thinking this is totally irresponsible advertising... as you know some idiot out there is going to think the laws of physics do not apply to their Sante Fe with stability control.

Shame on you Hyundai! :mad: Are you out of your minds...or just plain stupid?

Kirstie_H

But really, is it Hyundai's fault that people can be morons? I'm sure there's a disclaimer (Caution: do not attempt), just as there is in the ads that show consumer-grade trucks towing 18-wheelers, or Jeeps traversing rock piles, or Eclipse owners dancing while driving... I think it's kind of a fun ad.

And, who do you know that owns a giant, road-sized slip 'n slide? I'd like to be invited to their next water party. Fun!

jeffyscott

Too many SUV drivers already drive like jerks...tailgating and lane flipping...they seem to think the "S" means they have a sports car. They do not need more encouragement of their bad and dangerous driving styles.

jipster

The ad is dangerous because it gives the "morons" out there a false sense of security, one that could cost them (or someone else) their lives. Think of all the SUV owners that ended upside down in a ditch because they over estimated their vehicles capabilities(probably many due to the commercials on tv you were referring to).

Car manufacturers can exaggerate about how fun a vehicle is to drive, or its towing capacity etc. But to exaggerate and misrepresent the capabilites of safety features is irresponsible IMHO.

kyfdx

.. I just consider that natural selection..

Darwinism at its best..