Diesels

That's the thing with 'em, going by the fleet experience I've read about. Great drive, polar opposite in the ownership experience. You'd hope that by the time they're off the fleet all problems have been solved, but resale values don't reflect this...

Difficult one. Actually, no it isn't. Four cylinders: Alfa Romeo. Six cylinders... okay that's harder...

Oh I see where you're going with this. Comparing the majority of *road* going cars, tackling the same corner, one with stability protection system and one without...

If you are relying on the electronics to get the car around a corner, you'll have a higher entry speed but a slower exit speed. You may well find you'll swerve about in your lane.

If you don't rely on the electronics and don't trigger them you'll have a lower entry speed and a higher exit speed. Your average speed through the corner will be higher.

For traction control, again for the majority of road going systems using the traction control will give you less than maximum acceleration.

Relying on the electronic systems to keep the car on the road is not something that should be encouraged.

DervMan ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I had three E36 318s. Absolute no brainer. Alfa, any day.

Ok.

Assuming that we're not beyond the point of being able to take the corner at all, aren't there too many variables to guess that the exit speed *must* be slower?

Couldn't it be possible that the stability program holds the car steady thus reducing swerving?

Assuming you can get the power down..

Your argument leans more towards both methods of cornering being at similar overall speeds - I don't see why the lower entry and higher exit compared to higher entry and lower exit speed automatically means the corner is taken quicker by either.

My experience of road going traction systems is that I can lay down much better power on the road with traction control on than off. Think of a powerful front wheel drive car in the wet, for example.

Perhaps..but I enjoy playing with them from time to time..

Taken to an extreme, if everyone else in the world agreed with each other and I was the only one taking a different position it would cross my mind that I could actually be wrong and also that the probability of being wrong would be much higher than I'd like.

no, you stick with the petrolly stuff so the govment dont decide to raise taxes on diesel cos' every one is using it !

The common traction control systems are there simply to limit you once you before you overstep the mark. They allow an untrained idiot to simply hoof it round bends. The problem with that is that when it cant deal with it it "failsafes" and turns off. At this point youre not expecting what will happen next, which is likely to be faster than you can respond and is outside your normal experience level.

In escence the traction control system is there to help keep your average driver, who makes a mistake, safe. Its not there to let you push the car to the limit and beyond and its not as good as an experienced racing driver would be.In general. If you were to look at a lambo/ferrari setup its a a lot different to a BMW one. I would suggest very often traction control systems are over-protective so may be slower than an experienced driver through bends, but then take that same driver and turn off his TC and he wouldnt be faster, he'd just stack it into the barriers.

Which makes the journey quite slow, on average.

I can see wagons being great fun to drive.

Outa me F*@ing way.....

Isn't that dangerous, I never tdrove a car with electonics controlling my steering, as far as I'm concerned (before trying it) - you can keep it!

They have lots and lots to answer for...

What's the safe speed on that stretch ofd the A5 where the road disappears? I'm sure my car'd collapse and I'd see suspension dampers or even my wheels coming through my bonnet if I hit it at 50+, but then I've got 800kg on my front axle.