RTE News, RSA and the danger of worn or damaged tyres

Patch123

Hi everyone,

Interested in your opinions on this. Last night RTE news ran a report on the dangers of worn or damaged tyres, a campaign co-sponsored by the Irish Tyre Industry association.

The report can be viewed here http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1115575
- it starts at 18.41 minutes.

What interests me is whether there's more at work here than worn tyres: the second car's wheels seem to lock up as it skids, whereas the first car's ABS brakes can clearly be seen in action.

Do you know if worn tyres would prevent ABS or other systems (if fitted) from working - apparently completely?

Or do you think it's possible that the ABS was disabled, or that other electronic systems fitted to the first car were not fitted/disabled on the second (in order to better illustrate the effects of worn tyres)?

I agree with the message of the piece - tyre safety is very important and needs to be highlighted - but something tells me there might be more at work here than the tyres. I'm really not sure though, and would be delighted to be wrong. Whaddya think?



Thanks for reading anyway...

Patch123

Patch123 wrote: »

..........
Do you know if worn tyres would prevent ABS or other systems (if fitted) from working - apparently completely? ...........

If there's enough grip for a wheel to lock up there's enough grip for ABS to work

Was thinking last night watching that piece that the ABS must have been disabled.

mickdw

Thats a disgrace. I realise that if that piece causes one person to go out and replace dangerous tyres, its worth while but GET IT RIGHT!

Blazer

Patch123 wrote: »

a campaign co-sponsored by the Irish Tyre Industry association.

there's the problem straightaway..

mickdw

RTE should be pulled up on this. If you get it wrong, you lose a large portion of the audience as they have seen through the fake demo.

It would be interesting if the tyres were swapped around

Patch123

Thanks for the responses. I agree that if you detect something's not right with this type of message - even if you're not sure why, it really undermines the whole thing. For me, I agree also there's something a bit off about the co-sponsorship with the tyre association; it calls the objectivity into question, but others might take a different view...

Lord Nikon

Okay, I have 50% thread on my back tyres, and when it's wet outside, I feel like the car will slide out at any second.

Only the other day, after some rain, i curned a 50 degree bend at about 25mph. The back of the car slid out, and the ABS lights started flashing at me too.

Anyone hazard a guess at my problem? Tyres?

VolvoMan

Sc@recrow wrote: »

there's the problem straightaway..

Not at all.

Sure the main business behind it doesn't even sell tyres.

Mycroft H

neuromancer wrote: »

Okay, I have 50% thread on my back tyres, and when it's wet outside, I feel like the car will slide out at any second.

Only the other day, after some rain, i curned a 50 degree bend at about 25mph. The back of the car slid out, and the ABS lights started flashing at me too.

Anyone hazard a guess at my problem? Tyres?

Put a bag of cement in the boot?

Seriously I've driven an empty transit many times and it was very tail happy.


It could be the tyres, excessive speed or a combination of both

iphone4g

neuromancer wrote: »

Okay, I have 50% thread on my back tyres, and when it's wet outside, I feel like the car will slide out at any second.

Only the other day, after some rain, i curned a 50 degree bend at about 25mph. The back of the car slid out, and the ABS lights started flashing at me too.

Anyone hazard a guess at my problem? Tyres?

You should not be braking on a bend,all braking and gear changing should be done before you reach the bend

Tazio

I find it interesting the RSA/RTE are plugging the sale of new tyres etc.. ok.. if you're tyres are bad then change them etc etc....

For me, my biggest concern the amount of far eastern rubbish tyres for sale. I could mentions brands here but might get into trouble.... some of these brands are just as bad (imo) as worn good branded tyres.

Mycroft H

Tazio wrote: »

I find it interesting the RSA/RTE are plugging the sale of new tyres etc.. ok.. if you're tyres are bad then change them etc etc....

For me, my biggest concern the amount of far eastern rubbish tyres for sale. I could mentions brands here but might get into trouble.... some of these brands are just as bad (imo) as worn good branded tyres.

I seriously doubt that. I'd sooner drive on cheap unworn tyres then below the legal min premium tyres

Tazio

BX 19 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. I'd sooner drive on cheap unworn tyres then below the legal min premium tyres

Sorry.. didn't phase it right.

I should have stated it partly worn i.e. still with 1.6 to 3mm etc... not actual bald!


And again I'd personally prefer my P Zero Neros with 1.3 mm than a new set of <generic far eastern brand> with ~8mm....

Bruthal

RoverJames wrote: »

If there's enough grip for a wheel to lock up there's enough grip for ABS to work

The wheels are less likely to lock up if there is enough grip though, such as good tires on a dry road. Its at times of low grip that the wheels lock under much less braking pressure from the driver, and in comes the ABS.

Patch123 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Do you know if worn tyres would prevent ABS or other systems (if fitted) from working - apparently completely?

If that did cause the ABS not to work, then the purpose of ABS would be defeated.

robbie7730

robbie7730 wrote: »

The wheels are less likely to lock up if there is enough grip though, such as good tires on a dry road. Its at times of low grip that the wheels lock under much less braking pressure from the driver, and in comes the ABS. .........

Did you watch the clip?

They were doing emergency stops at speed in the wet.

Bruthal

RoverJames wrote: »

Did you watch the clip?

They were doing emergency stops at speed in the wet.

I know, and no sign of any ABS working, which it should have if in use. I was just making a point to do with you saying if a tire has enough grip to lock up then it has enough grip for ABS to work.

Its sort of a contradictory sentence isnt it? ABS should start working when there is not enough grip compared to the braking pressure applied. There needs to be enough grip to get the wheel turning again as the ABS releases it alright, but that would take almost zero friction not to happen, in which case there is no stopping the car anyway.

Overall anyway, i think everyone agrees it was ABS v non ABS in the 2 runs.

CiniO

robbie7730 wrote: »

Overall anyway, i think everyone agrees it was ABS v non ABS in the 2 runs.

Most likely.

But there is still a small chance, that ABS just went crazy and though car was stopped - and that's why wheels were locked.
In some cars ABS might behave that way on very slippery surface, as in the moments when it releases the breaks, wheels don't start spinning because fraction between tyres and surface is too small even to accelerate a wheel.
It sometimes happens in some cars usually on pure ice.
Considering it was completely bald tyres at reasonable thick layer of water, aquaplanning could have caused such effect.

Anyway - as I said - it's very very unlikely.

Tragedy

Watching it, the tyres only seem to skid and dig in(rather than aquaplane) right at the end. Don't most ABS systems disable under ~10km/h?

-Chris-

That's an absolute disgrace IMHO.

The Kia would have definitely had ABS as standard, so they've actually gone to the trouble of disabling the system in order to give a more shocking and sensationalist demonstration.

If a red-top newspaper was up to such tricks, I'd probably accept it, but for a legitimate organisation to be so deliberately disingenuous is unacceptable.

If your message is right, you shouldn't need such silly stunts in order to prove your point.

Tragedy

Might want to stop with asserting opinion as facts guys. You can clearly see the Silver kia's front wheels are still rotating as it approaches the camera.

Also, the stopping distance doesn't bear up to claims that the ABS was disabled.

43m -> 60m = increase in braking distance of 40%.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/tyre_tread_depth.pdf
http://pictures.dealer.com/invergrovetoyota/ab4c08814046387201162a9cf48c2819.pdf
http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/62611005cp.shtml

Unfortunately the sources for the latter two aren't great, but the first one is a scientific study(albeit commissioned by an industry group).

-Chris-

What are you talking about? The silver car's wheels obviously lock, and stay locked, for the length of the slide.

There is no ABS active on that car.

Tragedy

-Chris- wrote: »

What are you talking about? The silver car's wheels obviously lock, and stay locked, for the length of the slide.

There is no ABS active on that car.

They only lock at the end, you can clearly see the front wheels moving in the shot as the Kia approaches. This is also backed up by the amount of extra distance it took for the silver Kia to come to a standstill, which is fairly consistent with the figures above.

Also, as mod, you should know better than to post libellous claims.

-Chris-

Tragedy wrote: »

They only lock at the end, you can clearly see the front wheels moving in the shot as the Kia approaches. This is also backed up by the amount of extra distance it took for the silver Kia to come to a standstill, which is fairly consistent with the figures above.

Of course they're moving as it approaches, it's not a hover car.

It passes the yellow cones, the driver brakes. The wheels lock up and stay locked.
When the camera angle changes, you can clearly see the rear wheels motionless as the car slides to a stop.
If ABS was active on that car, the wheels would not have stopped rotating (except for very short periods of time as the car finds maximum grip).

Tragedy wrote: »

Also, as mod, you should know better than to post libellous claims.

Who am I libelling, how am I libelling? If you can't answer both of those questions very clearly and definitively, you have to ask yourself if you're libelling me...

:rolleyes:

mickdw

Tragedy wrote: »

They only lock at the end, you can clearly see the front wheels moving in the shot as the Kia approaches. This is also backed up by the amount of extra distance it took for the silver Kia to come to a standstill, which is fairly consistent with the figures above.

The silver car has no active ABS in that clip. All four wheels are locked for pretty much all of the breaking zone that can be clearly seen. You can argue about when the wheels stopped rotating but the length of time that the wheels can be clearly seen locked up guarantee that there was no functioning ABS. That is beyond doubt and I would challenge anyone on that. Its a modern car and would never lock up to that extent in the situation / angle we see that car moving at.

Bruthal

Tragedy wrote: »

They only lock at the end, you can clearly see the front wheels moving in the shot as the Kia approaches. This is also backed up by the amount of extra distance it took for the silver Kia to come to a standstill, which is fairly consistent with the figures above.

Also, as mod, you should know better than to post libellous claims.

Another fine observation display there on such matters:pac:

Tragedy

-Chris- wrote: »

Of course they're moving as it approaches, it's not a hover car.

The front alloys rotate in the approaching shot. I've downloaded the stream from rte player and played it back at 1/16th speed.

It passes the yellow cones, the driver brakes. The wheels lock up and stay locked.

You do understand that the yellow cones you see with the silver car are there to represent where the black car had already stopped? Clearly not :rolleyes:

When the camera angle changes, you can clearly see the rear wheels motionless as the car slides to a stop.

Indeed, however heavy braking shifts weight forward, lifts the rear and with bald tyres and a very wet road could easily lead to the rear tyres aquaplaning so severely that they lose all contact and skid until the car stops.

Who am I libelling, how am I libelling? If you can't answer both of those questions very clearly and definitively, you have to ask yourself if you're libelling me...

:rolleyes:

"so they've actually gone to the trouble of disabling the system in order to give a more shocking and sensationalist demonstration.

If a red-top newspaper was up to such tricks, I'd probably accept it, but for a legitimate organisation to be so deliberately disingenuous is unacceptable."

No question, no "if"'s, you stated the above as fact as have other posters. That's extremely different to "To my eyes, it looks like ABS isn't active on the silver car?". Clear enough?

mickdw wrote: »

The silver car has no active ABS in that clip. All four wheels are locked for pretty much all of the breaking zone that can be clearly seen. You can argue about when the wheels stopped rotating but the length of time that the wheels can be clearly seen locked up guarantee that there was no functioning ABS. That is beyond doubt and I would challenge anyone on that. Its a modern car and would never lock up to that extent in the situation / angle we see that car moving at.

Then how did the car only take 40% longer to come to a stop than the black one, if it had no ABS, was in a four wheel skid for the duration, and had bald tyres? You're saying that the car had zero braking ability past inertia/minimal friction from locked wheels on wet ground and yet only had 40% longer braking distance.

-Chris-

Tragedy wrote: »

The front alloys rotate in the approaching shot. I've downloaded the stream from rte player and played it back at 1/16th speed.

The fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

Tragedy wrote: »

You do understand that the yellow cones you see with the silver car are there to represent where the black car had already stopped? Clearly not :rolleyes:

Apologies. That's my mistake/typo.

Tragedy wrote: »

Indeed, however heavy braking shifts weight forward, lifts the rear and with bald tyres and a very wet road could easily lead to the rear tyres aquaplaning so severely that they lose all contact and skid until the car stops.

The fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

Tragedy wrote: »

"so they've actually gone to the trouble of disabling the system in order to give a more shocking and sensationalist demonstration.

If a red-top newspaper was up to such tricks, I'd probably accept it, but for a legitimate organisation to be so deliberately disingenuous is unacceptable."

No question, no "if"'s, you stated the above as fact as have other posters. That's extremely different to "To my eyes, it looks like ABS isn't active on the silver car?". Clear enough?

I didn't put in an "if" because the fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

Tragedy wrote: »

Then how did the car only take 40% longer to come to a stop than the black one, if it had no ABS, was in a four wheel skid for the duration, and had bald tyres? You're saying that the car had zero braking ability past inertia/minimal friction from locked wheels on wet ground and yet only had 40% longer braking distance.

I'm not sure what to say to this. I'm certainly not saying that the car had zero braking ability past inertia/minimal friction, I'm just saying that <insert something about rear wheels being locked = no ABS>.


We may have to park this argument, as I don't know how we'll resolve this Mexican standoff...

-Chris-

-Chris- wrote: »

.......... is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.....


The fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.................


I didn't put in an "if" because the fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.



.............. I'm just saying that <insert something about rear wheels being locked = no ABS>.


...........

Just to clarify, you reckon the ABS wasn't working so is it :pac:

Tragedy

-Chris- wrote: »

The fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

Which is fine, but that's not the boards.ie position on users posting potentially libellous comments. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60469673&postcount=1 Emphasis on the last part. Also, I thought the forum rules were very stringent when it came to bad comments about car dealers etc, as they were potentially libellous yet it's fine when you do similar?

Apologies. That's my mistake/typo.

How is it a typo? Quite clearly you didn't understand the video as you thought the braking started when it was almost finished.

The fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

You only see the last ~40% of the silver cars braking. Also, stating something isn't the same as proving something

I didn't put in an "if" because the fact that the rear tyres lock up and stay locked in this demonstration is proof that the ABS is not working (or not working properly) in this car. I would happily stand up in court and state this is my opinion.

You still haven't provided any proof that wheels cannot ever lock on ABS despite stating that wheels locking up is 'proof'.

I'm not sure what to say to this. I'm certainly not saying that the car had zero braking ability past inertia/minimal friction, I'm just saying that <insert something about rear wheels being locked = no ABS>.

So, for someone with proof, explain how the car stopped so quickly with no ABS and bald tyres?


It's weird, the last two winters I've noticed lots of people locking wheels in the snow and ice. Apparently you have proof that I didn't though! I also found a nice instructional video on youtube about ABS/aquaplaning and it clearly shows an Alfa 156 locking it's rear wheels braking hard on very wet ground - I guess they must have disabled the ABS too

mickdw

I find it quite odd that we get to see the full and complete emergency stop from the 'good' car including showing us the brakes being applied at the 2 yellow cones and the forward weight transfer as the braking occur. We only get a clip of the 'bad' car from half way through its braking up to a stop. We dont get to see the point where the brakes are applied at the initial 2 yellow cones, we dont get to see the weight transfer as the brakes are applied at that point. We only get to see the car smashing through the point where the other car stopped.
If we were shown a full and proper film of the action and if both cars were identical, we would have seen the 'bad' car behave in a similar fashion to the one with the new tyres although with marginally longer braking distance.- Indeed if there was little standing water and the old tyres were legal, the difference wouldnt be too outrageous IMO.
The fact that the film is chopped to only show the car smashing through the cones in an out of control manner with all wheels locked for a substantial period to me mean that a fair and proper braking comparison was not carried out. This, I would strongly argue was down to the ABS being disabled and given the nature of the footage of the second car, possibly also due to the brakes not actually being applied at the same point or in the same manner as the first car. The only other reason not to show the full film of the second car braking would be that maybe it would have given the game away by showing the wheels clearly locked from early in the braking zone.

I think us boards members need to put this to the test. Only way to solve this. I wonder would rte show the results!

Tragedy

Ok mickdw, yet again, how do you explain that the second car only took 40% longer to stop with the ABS disabled AND bald tyres, when cars with bald tyres and working ABS seem to take 40%(or longer) to stop too? Are you now claiming that ABS actually increases stopping lengths on cars with bald tyres or what exactly?

-Chris-

Tragedy wrote: »

Which is fine, but that's not the boards.ie position on users posting potentially libellous comments. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60469673&postcount=1 Emphasis on the last part. Also, I thought the forum rules were very stringent when it came to bad comments about car dealers etc, as they were potentially libellous yet it's fine when you do similar?

If you know so much about boards.ie procedures, you'll know that the correct procedure is to report a post you have an issue with. The moderators (not me in this case, it wouldn't be appropriate) will assess the issue and act as necessary. It can be escalated to cmod or brought to Admin attention if you're not happy with the way the mods have acted.

Knock yourself out. I'll abide by the mods/cmod/admin decision.

Tragedy wrote: »

How is it a typo? Quite clearly you didn't understand the video as you thought the braking started when it was almost finished.

I mentally got mixed up with the two cars in my head while typing, and referenced the two yellow cones at the start of the braking section that you see when the black car is being filmed/show.

I've admitted it's a mistake. No problems. It doesn't materially affect my opinion though.

Tragedy wrote: »

You only see the last ~40% of the silver cars braking. Also, stating something isn't the same as proving something

The rear wheels are locked. If the ABS was working properly, they would sense the front wheels are rolling and the rear wheels are stopped. It would know the car was skidding and would release the brakes on the rear wheels until they started moving again. It would then reapply the brakes until it got to the skidding stage before releasing them again (ad nauseum until the car is stopped).

That's how ABS works, which is why I believe this test is disingenuous.

Tragedy wrote: »

You still haven't provided any proof that wheels cannot ever lock on ABS despite stating that wheels locking up is 'proof'.

What kind of proof would satisfy you?

Tragedy wrote: »

So, for someone with proof, explain how the car stopped so quickly with no ABS and bald tyres?

It didn't stop quickly, it skidded for quite a distance.

Tragedy wrote: »

It's weird, the last two winters I've noticed lots of people locking wheels in the snow and ice. Apparently you have proof that I didn't though! I also found a nice instructional video on youtube about ABS/aquaplaning and it clearly shows an Alfa 156 locking it's rear wheels braking hard on very wet ground - I guess they must have disabled the ABS too

If all 4 wheels lock at the exact same time, the car will think it's stopped and will not feel the need to release the brakes and correct the skid. ABS works on measuring the difference in speed between the individual wheels.
This is possible on Ice.

My experience of the snow and ice was that any time the car started to skid the ABS would pulse (often wildly, as it's not expecting those conditions) rather than allow the wheels to lock up.
Every. Single. Time.

I can't believe you've found a Youtube video that supports your argument, but instead of posting the link you're going to make us all search for it. Seriously?

mickdw

Tragedy wrote: »

Ok mickdw, yet again, how do you explain that the second car only took 40% longer to stop with the ABS disabled AND bald tyres, when cars with bald tyres and working ABS seem to take 40%(or longer) to stop too? Are you now claiming that ABS actually increases stopping lengths on cars with bald tyres or what exactly?

Ok so cars with bald tyres take 40% longer. Firstly that is very much dependant on the surface, how wet it is etc. On a dry surface, the stopping distances could be pretty identical. The important thing here is that 40% is the figure that the people who put this piece together wanted to show. Given that the film is not in any way transparent in the way it shows the brake tests being carried out, we can assume that the results 'measured' have a touch of the hollywood about them all in an effort to get the message across, with the ABS being disabled for added visuals of the effect of worn tyres.

Bruthal

Tragedy wrote: »

Ok mickdw, yet again, how do you explain that the second car only took 40% longer to stop with the ABS disabled AND bald tyres, when cars with bald tyres and working ABS seem to take 40%(or longer) to stop too? Are you now claiming that ABS actually increases stopping lengths on cars with bald tyres or what exactly?

Not much evidence was shown as to how fast both cars were going, and very little of the second cars run was even shown. Looks just like all they wanted to show was bald tires = longer stopping distance.

And how much further will a car go with no ABS and bald tires assuming both in the same conditions,,, do you know?

Anan1

Tragedy wrote: »

Are you now claiming that ABS actually increases stopping lengths on cars with bald tyres or what exactly?

ABS won't necessarily stop you any quicker, it's main advantage is that you can still steer under heavy braking. And Chris is right, the ABS has clearly been disabled on the silver car.

Anan1

robbie7730 wrote: »

And how much further will a car go with no ABS and bald tires assuming both in the same conditions,,, do you know?

It all depends on the conditions. On a dry road, no ABS and bald tyres might actually stop you quicker.

swe_fi

I have Chinese cheap tyres on my current car (they were on the car) with good thread depth and the wet grip during braking and cornering is actually shocking, and i have experienced this before on other cars also so my opinion would be good brand tyre & model even if it is a part worn over Chinese / low cost tyres. That is what I think they should talk about instead.

The most extreme example was driving on Goodyear Eagle F1 when they first came out with the V shaped pattern, you could literally drive the car in heavy rain as if it was a dry day, pretty amazing. No I don't sell Tyres by the way.

That video is about as unscientific and uninformative as they come. Its like something from the eighties. It does not show or tell anything! I would agree that there is no ABS on the second car based on experience. Part of the driving test in Sweden is driving on a race track for half a day, emergency braking in the wet (and i mean completely aquaplane flooded on cement).

We did not use new cars or new tyres, both front and rear wheel drive, and we had to actively turn OFF the ABS for it not to assist braking so that you were forced to crash in to the plastic moose, and that was back in 1996! Very good experience as well to have as a part of a driving test as you learn to "crash".

One of the problems i find here as a foreigner is that the tarmac becomes much much more slippery than what it would in Sweden when it rains and the roads don't seem to be properly drained in many cases. This obviously gets worse the more rural the area is, but also in cities and especially around roundabouts. The Chinese (sorry China for generalizing, but...) tyres as i understand it have "harder" rubber compound which makes the problem worse.

I would imagine tire dealers would have a pretty sweet margin on these tyres as well as in many cases they can sell them for only about 20-30 Eur / corner less to a non-carfanatic as "sure tis almost (almost =disclaimer) the same only cheaper" - iv'e seen this happen numerous times for friends and family and it is a bit worrying. Just wait til Ireland get proper winters folks, but that's another story!

Victor

Tazio wrote: »

I should have stated it partly worn i.e. still with 1.6 to 3mm etc... not actual bald!

Just because you have more than 1.6mm of tyre depth, doesn't mean there is enough depth - you need to check the car and tyre manufacturers' instruction.

swe_fi wrote: »

We did not use new cars or new tyres, both front and rear wheel drive, and we had to actively turn OFF the ABS for it not to assist braking so that you were forced to crash in to the plastic moose, and that was back in 1996! Very good experience as well to have as a part of a driving test as you learn to "crash".

Who does "we" refer to?

Patch123

Tragedy wrote: »

Might want to stop with asserting opinion as facts guys. You can clearly see the Silver kia's front wheels are still rotating as it approaches the camera.

Also, the stopping distance doesn't bear up to claims that the ABS was disabled.

43m -> 60m = increase in braking distance of 40%.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/tyre_tread_depth.pdf
http://pictures.dealer.com/invergrovetoyota/ab4c08814046387201162a9cf48c2819.pdf
http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/62611005cp.shtml

Unfortunately the sources for the latter two aren't great, but the first one is a scientific study(albeit commissioned by an industry group).

A general point on relative stopping distances: When a claim is made that stopping at 100Km/h takes 17m longer with worn tyres, or that stopping from the same speed takes exactly 43m or whatever the actual figures are, surely they need to point out that 'your mileage may vary'? Stopping distances must be also about what brand tyres you have fitted (otherwise why buy a quality tyre?), the extent of their wear, your suspension geometry, the weight of your car, the ability and reactions of the driver, as well as the weather conditions and so on...? Is it valid to make generalisations to the population of cars as a whole from such a small sample?

Zubeneschamali

This video is obviously for illustration purposes only, cut together to show exactly what they set out to show, and not representative of any real testing.

The silver car's ABS is clearly off. Look at the difference between how the wheels rotate on the black car.

If you look at the shot where the silver car stops, and then at the shot where the dude measures exactly 17 meters extra distance, you can see that the silver car isn't even at the same spot! It skids to a halt at an angle, with the front left wheel almost in the grass. Then we see a shot of it stopped in the distance, but straighter and further from the grass, and when the measurer arrives, it's almost centred on the white line.

swe_fi

Victor>>> Sorry if that was unclear. "We" refer to me as part of a group of people doing this particular exercise as part of the driving test - the driving school(s) always bring a group of people say 10-15 to keep the costs down as they rent the whole track and you share the cars, so you can have 2-3 passengers in the car driving around doing all these tests. Makes it more real i suppose, even if the tests are staged.

You reminded me also, the test involves a similar test to the one in the clip, speeding up on a straight, hit flooded tarmac and experiencing proper aquaplaning at 100km/h and then slam on the brakes, scary experience but good to see how dramatic it is.

Anan1

Patch123 wrote: »

A general point on relative stopping distances: When a claim is made that stopping at 100Km/h takes 17m longer with worn tyres, or that stopping from the same speed takes exactly 43m or whatever the actual figures are, surely they need to point out that 'your mileage may vary'? Stopping distances must be also about what brand tyres you have fitted (otherwise why buy a quality tyre?), the extent of their wear, your suspension geometry, the weight of your car, the ability and reactions of the driver, as well as the weather conditions and so on...? Is it valid to make generalisations to the population of cars as a whole from such a small sample?

Governments lie to people all the time. In this case, it could at least be argued that it's for our own good.;)

Tea 1000

-Chris- wrote: »

That's an absolute disgrace IMHO.

The Kia would have definitely had ABS as standard, so they've actually gone to the trouble of disabling the system in order to give a more shocking and sensationalist demonstration.

If a red-top newspaper was up to such tricks, I'd probably accept it, but for a legitimate organisation to be so deliberately disingenuous is unacceptable.

If your message is right, you shouldn't need such silly stunts in order to prove your point.

You're assuming that's what they did. They may not have.

-Chris-

Tea 1000 wrote: »

You're assuming that's what they did. They may not have.

It's what I, and others, believe they did. Read the rest of the thread for more info.

Thoie

I want to know why, if it was a private road, was there a 60kmph speed limit posted, and why were they driving at 100kmph in an area where the road theoretically wasn't up to that spec.

Tea 1000

-Chris- wrote: »

The rear wheels are locked. If the ABS was working properly, they would sense the front wheels are rolling and the rear wheels are stopped. It would know the car was skidding and would release the brakes on the rear wheels until they started moving again. It would then reapply the brakes until it got to the skidding stage before releasing them again (ad nauseum until the car is stopped).

That's how ABS works, which is why I believe this test is disingenuous.

No it isn't, what you're describing is electronic brake force distribution and stability control. ABS in it's simplest form is just a sensor on each wheel, and when that wheel locks, the brakes are released for a fraction of a second. They don't care what the other wheels are doing.
I don't know if Kia's have ESP and EBD, but I'd guess not.

On a seperate note, what shocked me more about that report is that some pleb had 4 Triangles taken off that were worn to the canvass. I wouldn't put brand new Triangles on a trailer, let alone drive with them on a car till they were almost worn away!

swe_fi

Tea 1000 wrote: »

No it isn't, what you're describing is electronic brake force distribution and stability control. ABS in it's simplest form is just a sensor on each wheel, and when that wheel locks, the brakes are released for a fraction of a second. They don't care what the other wheels are doing.
I don't know if Kia's have ESP and EBD, but I'd guess not.

But, even in the early days of ABS, in my experience at least the car will always brake straight (with minor steering adjustments and assuming you don't have severe brake imbalance) and the second car does not break straight.

Patch123

Tea 1000 wrote: »

No it isn't, what you're describing is electronic brake force distribution and stability control. ABS in it's simplest form is just a sensor on each wheel, and when that wheel locks, the brakes are released for a fraction of a second. They don't care what the other wheels are doing.
I don't know if Kia's have ESP and EBD, but I'd guess not.

So maybe the discrepencies in the video are down to the fitment of ESP on one car and not the other, but with both cars being fitted with ABS? Maybe the black car is a later (facelifted?) ceed and the silver car an earlier one...

The ceed has both of ESP and EBD as standard now, but I don't know since when this has been the case. I think maybe ESP was not fitted to the ceed at launch in Ireland. However, EBD tends to be bundled with ABS these days, and ABS has been mandatory since 2004 (I think) so it's likely both ABS and EBD were fitted to the ceed since launch in Ireland. All new cars in the EU have to have ESP fitted as standard by Nov. 2011. I'm sure there are some derogations from this for small manufacturers and so on...

-Chris-

Tea 1000 wrote: »

No it isn't, what you're describing is electronic brake force distribution and stability control. ABS in it's simplest form is just a sensor on each wheel, and when that wheel locks, the brakes are released for a fraction of a second. They don't care what the other wheels are doing.
I don't know if Kia's have ESP and EBD, but I'd guess not.

Nope, what I'm describing is ABS. The speed sensor sees the wheel is locking or locked, and it releases the brake. It can only do that by knowing what speed the other wheels are doing. Otherwise the car would panic when you came to a complete halt.

If the car had ESP, it would have sensed the car sliding and rotating left, and would have braked the OSF wheel in order to try and pivot the car back into a straight line.

Reg'stoy

To have made this the perfect storm for some of the posters on motors, would have been for the RTE while mentioning the RSA (boo, hiss) have Mr Gay Byrne (damn you Gay, damn you to hell) sitting in the back seat (seat belt slighly off shoulder) of the second car as it braked to avoid *insert boy racer type car*.

Get over yourselves, this was a news item on a campaign been launched on the danger of worn tyres and it's effect on road safety. We all know that driving on (badly) worn tyres is not a very bright idea and for demonstration purposes the stopping distances were shown for effect. I personally don't care if they were 'hollywooded' for effect, in fact I think it was a good idea. I remember a program from a couple of years ago that used an inflatable car been hit from behind to demonstrate how much longer it took to stop and this would have been more effective in my humble opinion.

As for the tyre industry sponsoring the campaign well again I have no problem, would people prefer if more camera vans were used to raise the money needed.... no, thought so. Do people avoid certain toothpastes because dentists (bloody know-alls) recommend them.

To agrue here about whether or not ABS was been used on the second car is secondary to the main point been expressed, which was; hopefully a lot of people thought upon seeing the item "I better check my tyres".

We all have seen the '1 in 2' smokers will die of smoking related diseases adverts, yet no one points out that natural causes (Mother nature you bitch)takes the rest. We all have a great uncle Joe who smoked till the day he died, lived to 92 God rest him..... sorry.... how did he die you say..... his oxygen tank yeah he needed it to breathe exploded tragic, killed fours others in the nursing home

Advertising while not always believable is none the what effective, now I'm off for cup of refreshing Lyons tea to enjoy with my shaws ham and dubliner cheese brennans bread sandwich.

Thoie

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Advertising while not always believable is none the what effective, now I'm off for cup of refreshing Lyons tea to enjoy with my shaws ham and dubliner cheese brennans bread sandwich.

Advertising has no place in a news bulletin. It wouldn't be acceptable to have a piece on the news about the deliciousness of Shaw's ham with Dubliner cheese on Brennans bread.