buick regal questions -- looking for advice

Page 2 of 3  
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote


I don't think you understand what the intent and purpose of ABS is. It's definitely "not" intended to stop you quicker.

So tell me how you think that "Stabilitrak" systems work. I don't think that you understand how they work either.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph is so confused and mixed up that isn't funny
Stop writing man and start reading...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rick wrote:

I read up on it. Evidently around 2000 or so they fixed the gremlins in the system and it works as it should. His car in question probably didn't have it.
Still, FWD isn't going to do more than half the intended job - you need AWD to make stability control really work as it should.
Nothing will save you if you totally load up the front suspension, though, which is what I suspect happened in his case. I've seen FWD cars spin and fishtail like a RWD vehicle when this happens.
Every GM car that I've owned or my father has was prone to weak front struts and springs after a few years. The original factory equipment is hopelessly average and should be replaced after 20-30K miles. Suspension components need more mass on the Buicks as well, especially up front.
As for the ABS - I suspect it had a rain-induced bout of confusion as well. Perhaps they need to have a second "wet mode" that turns on when the wipers do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:39:00 GMT, "shiden_Kai"

Yes it is. In general (yes, I do know there are conditions which turn it around) a slowing down rolling wheel stops you faster than a stuck wheel that you are skidding on. There is a often a large difference in the sliding coefficient of friction vs. the starting coefficient of friction.
When you are skidding, it is the sliding coefficient of friction between the rubber tire and the road which is at play. When accelerating the wheel rotation under power, or conversely applying a deceleration force to a rolling wheel, the coefficient of starting friction must be exceeded in order to break traction. The idea of ABS is to slow the rotation of the wheel down as much and quickly as possible, without the remaining momentum of the vehicle causing the starting coefficient of friction to be exceeded resulting in a skid.
Once in a skid, it is usually the case that the sliding coefficient of friction provides less deceleration than keeping the wheel rolling but slowing it. Stopping quicker was / is the primary objective of ABS. Being able to retain more stearability is also an objective and benefit of the system, but comes secondary to stopping quicker.

ABS in itself is not a traction or stabilization control system. ABS means just that, Anti-lock Braking System. It simply tries to slow the wheel rotation as much as possible without locking up the wheels and entering a skid. Stability or traction control systems go beyond; usually dealing with power application as well. Dealing with power application could be as simple as reducing throttle or it could increase power to some wheels while reducing it at others. I know the question wasn't for me specifically, but I have no idea how the "stabiltrak" system is implemented.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think that Ian means it's goal isn't to make the car stop faster. All ABS intended to do was to make the car not skid and as a result there was better braking and steering.
http://www.thecarguy.com/articles/airbags.htm http://www.culpepperlaw.com/abs.htm http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/abssurvey_rptfinal.pdf (an interesting read)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi. Better braking means stopping in less time and shorter distances. What's your definition of "better braking?"
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:00:15 -0500, "Phillip Schmid"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The sole purpose of ABS is to stop the brakes from locking up.
Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without? ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/equipment/absbrakes.html
BTW, I STRONLY urge you to read http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/braketst.pdf pages10 and 12. Now if ABS was ONLY supposed to make the braking distances shorter then why didn't driver number 3 notice a big decrease if you look at the shortest distances for all 3 vehicles?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I never said it was only to make stopping distances shorter. I clearly said that it was the main objective. Stearability while braking is another objective. It was others that said shorter stopping distance definately was NOT an objective of ABS. Anyone who states that is simply wrong. It is the main objective. Not alloowing the wheel to lock up results in shorter stopping distances and better control.
Also I might add, the data presented in the NHTSA document shows a clear trend of ABS on resulting in shorter stopping distances. Just because driver #3 didn't follow the trend as well doesn't prove ABS doesn't work. It simply indicates that there is a variance in driver #3 that is different than the other drivers. The over all trend is obvious. You can choose to ignore it because it discredits your position, but the truth is the truth.
Might I suggest to you a course in physics 101. Another in basic statistics might serve you well also.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:13:20 -0500, "Phillip Schmid"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did acknowledge that ABS does make cars stop in shorter distances. I never said anything about it not working for drivers 1 2 or 3 did I? Nope. Hell, I even admitted that it worked by saying that it didn't have big decreases (which I assumed, but I guess incorrectly; compared with the other drivers) in distance.
BTW, if you read my earlier posts I did acknowledge that ABS does indeed reduce braking lengths, I said and I quote "All ABS intended to do was to make the car not skid and as a result there was better braking and steering." All my question was that if "Stopping quicker was / is the primary objective of ABS" why didn't it work for driver number 3?
And might I suggest that you read what has been said before you start typing and insulting people?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phillip Schmid wrote:

The difference is that ABS gives you a perfect "PRO" stop on dry pavement every time. Of course, that means quicker stops overall, but only if conditions are same as the system was designed for.
Turning it off like most cars do with traction control - with an override switch is the best way, IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What should be thought of someone who doesn't dispute anything another says but has to respond in an argumentative way? What is your point then? That a gaol of ABS couln't possibly be to stop in a shorter distance simply because the improvement isn't as much as you think it needs to be?
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:24:18 -0500, "Phillip Schmid"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What could be thought of one that doesn't produce coherent sentences?
The goal of ABS is to stop the tires from locking up, that it does. That leads to better maneuverability and shorter distance stops while stopping. If it was developed primarily with making shorter stops then why wouldn't the car manufacturers just use disc instead of drum brakes or use bigger disc brakes? I most certainly think that it would have been cheaper. My point is that ABS being designed primarily for shorter stopping distances is utterly ridicules. That's been my point the entire time. Do you actually comprehend what is being said here?
BTW..aren't you the guy from the Pontiac group that didn't believe that an 3800 F-Body could beat a Mustang GT?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:21:56 -0500, "Phillip Schmid"

They are coherent. I find that statement insulting. Perhaps it is you that has a comprehension problem.

Yes obviously it is to stop the wheels from locking up. What we have been talking about here is WHY that is important. Without exception, EVERY article I found on the subject lists shorter stopping distance before mentioning retaining steering control.

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I could make guesses but guesses don't prove any thing. You should study that concept. And I'm just curious actually, can you please tell me any vehicles which implement ABS on wheels with drum brakes?

Yes I comprehend just fine. I just disagree with statements claiming shorter stopping distance is not the main goal of, or not even a goal at all of ABS. Also, research on the topic supports my assertion and discredits yours. I've had enough of your attacks on my intelligence.

It wasn't me. I think anything could beat anything depending on how far askew the variables surrounding the comparison get. Now, all else being equal, some cars just don't have a chance against certain others. I don't know which Mustang GT you refer to. The 3800 if I'm not mistaken puts out 200hp these days. 240hp if super charged? I was just checking out a Monty supercharged SS on the showroom floor TODAY and it had a super charged 3800 engine rated at 240HP (I think it said that anyway). Is it safe to assume Pontiac is doing about the same? I think a mere 20% increase HP after supercharging is a bit weak. Perhaps the compression ratio is just so high already that not much boost is possible (without going to top fuel). My understanding is that a proper supercharging job could / should yield around 50 to 100% increase in power.
Anyway it wasn't me (in the Pontiac group) and I digress. Besides, I drive an LS1 F-body (Chevy variety) and Mustangs don't worry me too much (mostly).
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah, I comprehend just fine (In my English 201 class the instructer gave us all these stories to read and I remember him saying that "you will not comprehend these, if you do reread it...you're not meant to comprehend them"). Just read that other paragraph the wrong way. My mistake.

This could actually be something kind of interesting then. Maybe it started development for shorter stops but now it's going onto more maneuverability? Or maybe even that it was developed for steerability but they couldn't get that done well so they used the shorter distance stops? Possibly braking/maneuverability each have half the development responsibility? Can't really say what purpose they wanted it developed for since I (and I think you) weren't there developing it with them.

If you look at some Cavaliers, like 95 for example, they have drum rears and ABS. And I'm not positive but I think that the Focus may.

As I did. The reason that I contest claims that ABS was/is only developed for short distance stops is like if you're on the highway and an animal comes out and jumps in front of you, you're going to slam on the brakes and be more concerned about not hitting it and swerving then coming to a complete stop.

Aighty, just wondering since his name was similar to yours if I recall. Sounds about right for the supercharged engine (both for what should be increases in power and what the GM 3800SC puts out). Good choice with the Camaro too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"SgtSilicon"wrote

It's not the main objective, Sarge...but you just keep believing that.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is, and I will.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:23:33 GMT, "shiden_Kai"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ian, why don't you put up or shut up? I can list sources which discuss ABS and always list shorter stopping distance and stearability as the purpose / value of the system. And in each place I have read, shorter stopping distance is always listed before stearability. I don't know what kind of education you have, but it is generally an accepted practice in writing that in such cases you list the most significant points before the lesser ones. I suppose you aren't going to accept that either, but then it's more than you have been able to show.
From http://www.culpepperlaw.com/abs.htm :
The History of ABS
When a driver of a vehicle hits conventional brakes hard, the wheels may lock causing the vehicle to skid, especially on wet and slippery roads. Antilock brake systems provide the capability for shorter stopping distances and the ability to steer and to maintain control during hard braking, especially on wet and slippery surfaces.
From http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Computer/Anti-lock_brake.shtml
Anti-lock braking system
An Anti-lock Braking System (commonly known as ABS) is a system on motor vehicles which prevents the wheels from locking while braking. ABS is a very important safety feature, because vehicles become very unstable when the wheels are locked, braking becomes inefficient and so braking distances become very long.
From http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/antilock.htm :
1. How do antilock brakes work? Antilock brakes are designed to help drivers avoid crashes. When a driver hits regular brakes hard, the wheels may lock and the vehicle may skid. Wheel lockup can result in longer stopping distances, loss of steering control and, when road friction is uneven, loss of stability if the vehicle begins to spin. The main advantage of antilocks is that they can reduce these problems on wet and slippery roads. Antilocks work with your car's normal service brakes to decrease stopping distance and increase the control and stability of the vehicle during hard braking.
You originally stated that shorter stopping distance is not goal of ABS. Now you assert that it merely is not the main goal. Anyway no matter if you want to assert your original statement or your changed tune, I suggest YOU provide some sources which specifically back you up. Otherwise I'm not interested your self proclaimed truths, unless of course you are the inventor of the system.
Have a nice day.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:23:33 GMT, "shiden_Kai"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have you ever looked at a copy of DSM-IV-TR? That's a book containing criteria and statistics for mental illnesses and disorders. Just because a criterion is put ahead of another doesn't mean that it's any more significant. But hey, what would I know? I've just been studying the book for half the year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:32:09 -0500, "Phillip Schmid"

Yes I know what the DSM is. I had psychology in college too. Have you ever used a dictionary? Do you know that when some words have more than one pronunciation (even more than one correct pronunciation) that the pronunciation listed 1st is considered to be the more correct or accepted? Of course that doesn't prove anything more than the way the DSM lays things out does.
What does have a bearing though is technical writing. Do you understand that GENERALLY articles on technical topics list the more significant concepts before the lesser? Have you had a course on technical writing? Would you generally agree that articles explaining the virtues and workings of ABS are of a technical nature?
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I realize that the 1st definition/pronunciation will generally be better received. I've looked at some of the troubleshooting charts that various garages here use and some are linear where it's "If this works right, go onto the next step" whereas others were like the DSM with the problems and the symptoms.

I wouldn't necessary agree that in technical literature that the primary ideas come before the others. Just bear with me here, if you drew up a chart with ABS written on one side and the benefits on the other side then it's nature to assume that one benefit isn't more important then the other. But in literature the individual figures out which one is more important. I could write something like "smaller displacement engines get 3 MPG better gas mileage and can create gobs of power" and for me at this moment in time I'm more concerned about the power the gobs of power, while someone else may care less about the power and want the 3 MPG. I'd say that maybe the organization of ideas while being written could be attributed to what that individual or group thinks is more important. The same can be said for when people read what's been said, they can reorganize it so that it's the thing they want more that'll be placed higher up on their list of concepts.
I consider technical literature as stuff that can only be read by and made sense by the group that it's intended for. Literature for ABS in this case would have to written for mechanics and engineers using terms that they know but most lay people don't. I'm neither a mechanic or engineer but I know how ABS works from reading stuff on it, both from the internet and from the various repair guides. I don't doubt that technical literature for ABS is out there, but I've yet to find some that uses terminology that lay people couldn't understand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.