Wow! I had no idea I was going to stir up such a storm of controversy with my
post
regarding ABS.
For all you GM vehicle owners out there - I did say "GM quality control issues
aside".
GM's system may "suck", as Fred so eloquently put it, but that does not change
the fact
that the theory behind ABS is sound. It is simple physics - there is less
friction force,
therefore less braking, at the interface between a sliding tire and the
pavement. And
don't talk to me about "hot racing rubber" - I'm not talking about a nicely
warmed up,
high tack racing tire - I'm talking about a sliding tire that is shedding rubber
particles, generating it's own little patch of roller bearings between the body
of the
tire and the pavement.
The fact that insurance companies don't like ABS is no showstopper, either.
Yes, repair
rates will go up, for the exact reason that Paul Kort cited - but the brain
trust in the
insurance industry were also initially leery of ABS because they were afraid
that
ABS-equipped cars would be rear-ended more often when they stopped quicker than
the car
behind them.
While it is true that a skilled driver in a vehicle with a braking system in
good nick can
brake as well (or nearly as well) as a vehicle with a well-designed (like
BMW's) ABS
system, face it - that kind of capability is only found behind the steering
wheels of
about 10% of the vehicles on the road. Like it or not, automobiles are the
transportation
system of the masses in the US, and even those who have the reflexes and the
latent
capability need training to develop that skill.
There is no need, however, to bring the subject of airbags into the discussion.
Frontal
airbags are designed to protect people who are too ignorant to implement a
simple,
effective safety device - the seatbelt - from themselves. ABS brakes, when
PROPERLY
DESIGNED, allow a vehicle's brakes to operate in their most efficient operating
regime
without the requirement of a high level of skill on the part of the vehicle
operator.
Gary McCormick
San Jose, CA
|