On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:04:38PM -0800, Tibbals, Paul wrote:
> re: KeS' comment regarding sportsmanship vs. disconnecting the ABS.
> How many ways can I _degrade_ the performance of my car before I get
> protested?
It's unsportsmanlike to violate the rules of a sport, no matter how
much you disagree with them or believe that the violation doesn't give
an advantage.
>Let's say -a Mustang spins its wheels under normal acceleration but
>the fuel filter is clogged so it stays hooked up, at the one place
>on the course where that will improve its time?
I don't think you're going to find anyone who will intentionally clog
their fuel filter because they think it will help their car "hook
up". This is a lot different from someone who intentionally breaks
a part of their car because they think it will give them an edge.
> -I was getting too much rear-end lockup but those old worn factory
> pads barely grip any more so I left it that way.
Pads are free in stock. Feel free to use balsa wood if you think it
will help!
> I just don't see that it would be a worthwhile protest to say that
> you must replace the fusible link to the ABS system, in the case
> where I might have held the opinion that I was faster without ABS.
It applies just as much to ABS as it applies to electronic stability
systems. On some cars, ABS has weird behavior and can get in the way
of driving the car. On others, the electronic stability controls
cannot be switched off. According to the rules, it is illegal to
disable either.
> On many vehicles, especially in years past, ABS was optional. So if
> I had two cars of that model, one with and one without, and switched
> between them depending on whether it was raining, which rule was I
> breaking again?
On a car that had ABS as an option, it would be legal to remove it
entirely. But when ABS is standard, your scenario isn't even
possible! The car "without" wouldn't be a legal car. In years past,
a lot of things have been optional. That does not allow free reign to
remove them from modern cars on which they are standard. The class
you are looking for is "street prepared", which allows
"update/backdate".
> This is not strictly academic because I had a broken ABS hydraulic
> module thingie in my car last year for a substantial period of time
> before I chose to spend the big bux to get it replaced. "Normal"
> braking was unaffected. I got it replaced as soon as practicable,
> as I don't think that the ABS is a detriment. When it's working I
> don't slide off the course in a straight line when I overcook the
> corner, at least I'm turning a LITTLE bit. I honestly do not think
> that it was an advantage to be running without ABS.
Detriment or benefit, your car was technically illegal for stock.
Fortunately there are drivers with the capacity to look at the rules,
and look at your individual situation, and say "ah, that's okay, we
don't care".
> I don't have a problem with the idea of discouraging the disabling
> of safety equipment. This is likely the reasoning behind the rule
> against removing airbags.
That, and it reduces weight. Remember, this is stock, where the car
is supposed to be entirely...stock, except for a few very specific
exceptions. The reason you can't disable ABS is not because ABS is a
safety system. It's because if you disable ABS, then your car is not
stock.
> But I was well within the Stock rules to remove or reduce my front
> sway bar size.
What does the swaybar allowance have to do with ABS? I don't see your
point here.
> I have read that insurance losses from rear-end collisions have not
> dropped noticeably despite many more cars having ABS. So is it a
> safety feature, really?
How collision statistics relate to whether ABS is a safety feature with
a competent drive would require a long and involved discussion, and
since it has nothing to do with what the rules are, I won't go into
it. But did you notice that up to this point, you were asserting
that ABS was a performance benefit? You can't have it both ways!
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|