ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
dangerous?
- Thread starter clio172racer
- Start date
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
cliokhunt said:
I agree with everything you've said about the benefits of ABS...but on this point I feel you are sorely wrong.
Tyres give their most absolute grip when they are slipping across the road surface slightly, be that when they are accelerating, cornering, and braking.
Under braking a tyre is giving the most it has to give when it is "slipping" or rotating slower than the road speed by about 15%.
Now I cannot say for certain, but I'd hazard a guess that the Renault ABS system does not permit that level of disparity betweeen front and rear axle wheel speeds?
If it doesn't...a non-ABS car technically has the ability to stop quicker than one ABS equipped - that's fact.
Whether you can find a driver to demonstrate that is an entirely different matter.
Saab 93 Aero Wagon
Just a thought, but in reference to this whole "Cups are dangerous cos of the lack of ABS" debate, well if people are throwing their Cups off the road into the scenery in the winter then surely thats down to a sudden loss of LATERAL tyre grip, when say going into a corner too hot, a situation that ABS isn't gonna help you out in, and thats surely gonna happen to any driver (bar those who are graced with exceptional car control and jedi mongoose reactions) in nearly any car.
Yes yes, i hear you chant, traction control may give you a little lee way in your FF 182's but its not a miracle worker.
So then a picture of a stuffed Cup that has hit ANOTHER car up the ass is evidence of the driver of the Cup no doubt driving too fast for the conditions, be it wet, icy, whatever....not necessarily due to the car lacking ABS.
So if you are approaching a junction or roundabout doing close to double the limit, in the wet, in the Cup, and find yourself standing on the anchors, sliding inexorably towards those twinkling brake lights in front then surely the feeling of "sh*te, i wish i was driving slower" is gonna come over you more than the feeling of "sh*te i wish i had ABS"
Comes back the common sense everytime.
Yes yes, i hear you chant, traction control may give you a little lee way in your FF 182's but its not a miracle worker.
So then a picture of a stuffed Cup that has hit ANOTHER car up the ass is evidence of the driver of the Cup no doubt driving too fast for the conditions, be it wet, icy, whatever....not necessarily due to the car lacking ABS.
So if you are approaching a junction or roundabout doing close to double the limit, in the wet, in the Cup, and find yourself standing on the anchors, sliding inexorably towards those twinkling brake lights in front then surely the feeling of "sh*te, i wish i was driving slower" is gonna come over you more than the feeling of "sh*te i wish i had ABS"
Comes back the common sense everytime.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
This is a bit of an iffy point.
I agree on the place you're coming from about the absolute maximum braking force that the car can put down. But if the tyres are slipping, then they are loosing out on either acceleration or braking.
Sure when accelerating from a standstill you need the tyres to slip to keep engine speeds high, unless you fancy slipping the clutch (I'd rather take the 0.1 second penalty to 60 though).
Put it this way, the rear wheels are moving at a constant speed, let's say 100mph. The fronts are moving at 85 mph, something has to give because that's not possible.
They are both connected to the same chassis, albeit the rears aren't receiving power (I assume we're still talking about Clios) and are barely braking.
So then let's assume that for every second the wheels are turning, the rears are moving at a consistant speed, where the fronts are moving at 100mph on the surface for 0.85 of the second, but are locked for the other part of the second. I think you are describing ABS
So obviously the fronts moving 15% slower than the rears will slow quicker than if they were moving 100% slower (i.e. locked), but slower than if they were on the threashold of moving slower, i.e. not moving slower, but braking as hard as they can without starting to jump the road.
I agree on the place you're coming from about the absolute maximum braking force that the car can put down. But if the tyres are slipping, then they are loosing out on either acceleration or braking.
Sure when accelerating from a standstill you need the tyres to slip to keep engine speeds high, unless you fancy slipping the clutch (I'd rather take the 0.1 second penalty to 60 though).
Put it this way, the rear wheels are moving at a constant speed, let's say 100mph. The fronts are moving at 85 mph, something has to give because that's not possible.
They are both connected to the same chassis, albeit the rears aren't receiving power (I assume we're still talking about Clios) and are barely braking.
So then let's assume that for every second the wheels are turning, the rears are moving at a consistant speed, where the fronts are moving at 100mph on the surface for 0.85 of the second, but are locked for the other part of the second. I think you are describing ABS
So obviously the fronts moving 15% slower than the rears will slow quicker than if they were moving 100% slower (i.e. locked), but slower than if they were on the threashold of moving slower, i.e. not moving slower, but braking as hard as they can without starting to jump the road.
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
cliokhunt said:This is a bit of an iffy point.
I agree on the place you're coming from about the absolute maximum braking force that the car can put down. But if the tyres are slipping, then they are loosing out on either acceleration or braking.
Sure when accelerating from a standstill you need the tyres to slip to keep engine speeds high, unless you fancy slipping the clutch (I'd rather take the 0.1 second penalty to 60 though).
Put it this way, the rear wheels are moving at a constant speed, let's say 100mph. The fronts are moving at 85 mph, something has to give because that's not possible.
They are both connected to the same chassis, albeit the rears aren't receiving power (I assume we're still talking about Clios) and are barely braking.
So then let's assume that for every second the wheels are turning, the rears are moving at a consistant speed, where the fronts are moving at 100mph on the surface for 0.85 of the second, but are locked for the other part of the second. I think you are describing ABS
So obviously the fronts moving 15% slower than the rears will slow quicker than if they were moving 100% slower (i.e. locked), but slower than if they were on the threashold of moving slower, i.e. not moving slower, but braking as hard as they can without starting to jump the road.
They're not...
I can't quote all the science bit about how the outer rubber surface actually grips the road at a molecular level, and what happens when you introduce some slip-angle (or rotational slip) but the (my) fundamental point is that tyres give more grip/traction/call it what you will, when they are slipping slightly.
Your example about pulling away - ignore the engine bogging down bit...
If you managed to modulate your throttle input so that there was no "wheelspin" whatsoever, and you accelerated like that constantly on the edge of the wheel just starting to spin/slip, you'd accelerate at a certain rate.
Introduce rotational slip to the tune of about 15% and keep it like that and you will accelerate quicker - the friction of the tyre moving that much quicker across the road surface generates the extra traction.
Exactly the same is true in reverse...I personally can brake (albeit in a straightline) with my front tyres howling and leaving two faint black lines in the road. I'm not locked up when I do that, so why do they howl/leave black lines?
It's because they are actuall skidding/slipping - just not enough for you to lose total traction and lock-up. In that instance I'm on the cusp of lock-up - and as in my previous post, I'd hazard a guess that if I tried that in an ABS equipped Clio, the ABS would take over well before I got to that point as the Renault programmed ECU would think I was for a ditch.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
I see that as it is on the threashold of locking up, the wheels will be braking at their near maximum potential, and I seriously doubt you would even be able to measure the difference between the wheels slipping at your discussed 15% rate, and the wheels receiving the maxmium friction from the brakes before the tyres start to lose traction, after all there will be an exact coefficient (although it will be different on different surface types, temperatures and moisture levels) between the pads and the discs at which the force starts to cause the friction between the tyres and the road to decrease.
For this reason I would guess that when you personally are braking, you can always brake that little bit harder until you hear the tyres starting to scream, and if you couldn't hear them, would they be braking at 90 or 100 % ??? You really couldn't tell without getting the car wired up with G force sensors.
But again, it must come down to a tenth, if not hundredths of a second difference and it comes down to how you can effectively do this every corner.
Regarding the ABS Clio... I think some comparisons need to be done
Perhaps if you can get your hands on a 172 with some good brakes it would be good to do a test and measure stopping distances. I think that it would come down to, at the very most, a few metres from 60mph to standstill, due to the weight differences
For this reason I would guess that when you personally are braking, you can always brake that little bit harder until you hear the tyres starting to scream, and if you couldn't hear them, would they be braking at 90 or 100 % ??? You really couldn't tell without getting the car wired up with G force sensors.
But again, it must come down to a tenth, if not hundredths of a second difference and it comes down to how you can effectively do this every corner.
Regarding the ABS Clio... I think some comparisons need to be done
Perhaps if you can get your hands on a 172 with some good brakes it would be good to do a test and measure stopping distances. I think that it would come down to, at the very most, a few metres from 60mph to standstill, due to the weight differences
172cup/BMW 320 coupe
cliott
i have a 172 cup and have had it for 3yrs, i do not own a set of winter tyres,the contis are spot on! nor does the lack of abs effect the saftey of my car in the winter. i have driven my cup in minus temps/rain and on one occation snow, as long as u learn to read the weather and adjust your driving style(by that i mean speed/braking/cornering speed)you will be fine with a 172 cup. when i drove the cup in the snow it was quite scary but later that day i took my dads mg(didnt want to chance damaging the cup)out which has abs/tc/esp and there wasnt a difference in the way either cars drove, braking especially! it was just a scary as the cup!
to sum up, you will be fine with a cup in the winter as long as u drive senceably and within the boundrys of the weather! the reason so many cups do crash in the winter more than the summer is because the people driving them have the impression that they can drive them the same as they do in the summer!which they cant, but then to some extent this aplys to most cars!
hope this has helped and welcome to the forum!
davo
i have a 172 cup and have had it for 3yrs, i do not own a set of winter tyres,the contis are spot on! nor does the lack of abs effect the saftey of my car in the winter. i have driven my cup in minus temps/rain and on one occation snow, as long as u learn to read the weather and adjust your driving style(by that i mean speed/braking/cornering speed)you will be fine with a 172 cup. when i drove the cup in the snow it was quite scary but later that day i took my dads mg(didnt want to chance damaging the cup)out which has abs/tc/esp and there wasnt a difference in the way either cars drove, braking especially! it was just a scary as the cup!
to sum up, you will be fine with a cup in the winter as long as u drive senceably and within the boundrys of the weather! the reason so many cups do crash in the winter more than the summer is because the people driving them have the impression that they can drive them the same as they do in the summer!which they cant, but then to some extent this aplys to most cars!
hope this has helped and welcome to the forum!
davo
Whilst I agree with some of the very technical explanations, you have to remember the road is not a test bed. Roads vary by surface, gradient, grip, and MORE importantly the other road users.
I would be very happy to see the 172 cup compared to a ff 172/182, cupped/ or a MK1 172.
Staight braking in the dry there will be no real difference, in the wet then factor some steering. No way will the cup driver be able to maintain steering, and generally the overall stopping distance.
It is all about saftey, not planned braking.If anyone here feels they are able to hold there brakes to the absolute optimum force, then the stats beg to differ. You can not on road even when "driving like Miss Daisy", prejudge all that is infront of you.
Why do all of you driving Gods feel you can do so much better than someone else. Stats prove otherwise. Lives lost and crashed non ABS cars do too. ABS without doubt saves lives.
If any of you have gone round a proper skid pan, with varying grip surfaces, varying levels of oil, and varying saturation levels will know that ABS is "what it says on the tin".. You can not steer properly without it. Cadence braking is a VERY poor substitute for a system the does it 16 or so times a second agianst a right foot, that can never do that and can't regulate the right foot pressure for every condition.
There seems to be a proliferation of people who feel they have the ability to hold the braking forces required by a non ABS fitted car through all conditions. FFS this is why ABS is here to save lives. Can anyone doubt the savings so far? NO THEY CAN'T.
Again goes back to the proliferation of dead non ABS vehicles. You are able to scrub speed far more quiclky in the wet and maintain better steering with it afterall.
So a few young and gungho drivers know better than all the evidence, do they?
I would be very happy to see the 172 cup compared to a ff 172/182, cupped/ or a MK1 172.
Staight braking in the dry there will be no real difference, in the wet then factor some steering. No way will the cup driver be able to maintain steering, and generally the overall stopping distance.
It is all about saftey, not planned braking.If anyone here feels they are able to hold there brakes to the absolute optimum force, then the stats beg to differ. You can not on road even when "driving like Miss Daisy", prejudge all that is infront of you.
Why do all of you driving Gods feel you can do so much better than someone else. Stats prove otherwise. Lives lost and crashed non ABS cars do too. ABS without doubt saves lives.
If any of you have gone round a proper skid pan, with varying grip surfaces, varying levels of oil, and varying saturation levels will know that ABS is "what it says on the tin".. You can not steer properly without it. Cadence braking is a VERY poor substitute for a system the does it 16 or so times a second agianst a right foot, that can never do that and can't regulate the right foot pressure for every condition.
There seems to be a proliferation of people who feel they have the ability to hold the braking forces required by a non ABS fitted car through all conditions. FFS this is why ABS is here to save lives. Can anyone doubt the savings so far? NO THEY CAN'T.
Again goes back to the proliferation of dead non ABS vehicles. You are able to scrub speed far more quiclky in the wet and maintain better steering with it afterall.
So a few young and gungho drivers know better than all the evidence, do they?
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Not once have I personally ever said that I could hold said braking forces through all conditions, nor would it be possible for anyone to do so on the road as the weight transfer would cause almost instant oversteer if any steering input is applied while threshold braking.
I accept that ABS is far safer for the majority of drivers.
I accept that ABS enables people to maintain steering control while mashing the middle pedal.
I accept that ABS is far safer in the majority of conditions.
I accept that ABS is far safer over the majority of surfaces.
What I don't accept (because it's not true ) is that a car equipped with ABS will stop quicker than one without. That's all I'm saying. And from your post above you don't disagree. Thank you.
What part of your mildly abusive post was aimed at me then?
I accept that ABS is far safer for the majority of drivers.
I accept that ABS enables people to maintain steering control while mashing the middle pedal.
I accept that ABS is far safer in the majority of conditions.
I accept that ABS is far safer over the majority of surfaces.
What I don't accept (because it's not true
) is that a car equipped with ABS will stop quicker than one without. That's all I'm saying. And from your post above you don't disagree. Thank you.What part of your mildly abusive post was aimed at me then?
BMW M4; S1000 RR
MarkCup said:Not once have I personally ever said that I could hold said braking forces through all conditions, nor would it be possible for anyone to do so on the road as the weight transfer would cause almost instant oversteer if any steering input is applied while threshold braking.
I accept that ABS is far safer for the majority of drivers.
I accept that ABS enables people to maintain steering control while mashing the middle pedal.
I accept that ABS is far safer in the majority of conditions.
I accept that ABS is far safer over the majority of surfaces.
What I don't accept (because it's not true
What part of your mildly abusive post was aimed at me then?
I challenge you to a duel
Will anyone give me their 172 to take round Donny a few times ????
BMW M4; S1000 RR
MarkCup said:
As I said before, everyone tenses up in a crash situation, this is what ABS is for. Not for the drivers who think they're all that on the track by kicking in the brake pedal. And my second point is that it is not a hinderence.
Now let me get on track with you in a 172 lol.
Perhaps I should book a days test drive and coincide a track day... Would you be up for that ? :rasp:
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
I'd be more than up for a challenge if we could ever find a suitable venue...in the meantime, I'll see if I can get out this weekend to film a 100-0 video clip.
Glad to see the reasoned debate continuing after Mr "I've got major issues" blaze waded in
Glad to see the reasoned debate continuing after Mr "I've got major issues" blaze waded in
Only people who shouldn't have Cup's in the first place crash them.
ABS is a good thing - the major downside is that people who have it believe they are "protected" and drive as such. If it's raining, snowing or icy I drive slower, leave a greater distance between me and the car in front and presume everyone else is a blithering idot.
ABS is a good thing - the major downside is that people who have it believe they are "protected" and drive as such. If it's raining, snowing or icy I drive slower, leave a greater distance between me and the car in front and presume everyone else is a blithering idot.
The Cup in the dry is a fantastic bit of kit, it's very adjustable, safe and loads fun. Braking hard and feeling the rear become light and moving is wonderful, cocking up one rear wheel on a good tightening bend and controlled acceleration just holding prior to the wheels slipping makes the Cup what it is. I've had mine for nearly 3 years now and that's the longest I've ever owned a car for, will I sell it, like hell I will...
Last edited:
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
You just took the words right out of my mouth
Almost 3 years and 68k miles - and I've lost count of the number of times I've justified my obsession to my wife with the "it'll never depreciate as I'm never selling it!" line LOL
Almost 3 years and 68k miles - and I've lost count of the number of times I've justified my obsession to my wife with the "it'll never depreciate as I'm never selling it!" line LOL
Steve2004 said:
You will still have near zero braking though. You'll appear to be gliding along just like you would with locked wheels, except yoru pedal will be voilently vibrating under your foot. You will still have the ability to steer of course, but with grip levels so low it wont stop you sailing off into a field.
As has been said already, ABS is pretty redundant on ice and snow.
As for using winter wheels to save ones alloys, well IMO if they cant stand a bit of snow and ice then they cant be very good alloys, but to each his own
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Roy Munson said:As for using winter wheels to save ones alloys, well IMO if they cant stand a bit of snow and ice then they cant be very good alloys, but to each his own
Any wheels will corrode with a few coats of road salt and no washing. And I'm sure the people with £10000 a piece alloys will be licking them clean of brake dust and dirt every time they stop anyway !!
Liquid yellow R26 F1
LOL.. Illegal.. i don't tell people how to drive.. not my fault if that try and keep up..
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Safe as houses mate if you know what you're doing eh
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Roy Munson said:Most alloys are painted though, just like the car? Winter car?
I have never seen metallic wheels:dead:
It's lazy either way, whether it's because you don't know how to change a tyre or because you don't want them to get dirty. Gay.
Similar threads
