This should be a sticky.

Thanks for posting the info. Given how long it took to turn Congress around about tobacco, and the argument that new tire compounds could alter the shelf-time, I don't see the government tackling this anytime soon.

 

You never know what the government will do. Remember a number of years ago people rolling their Ford Explorers with disastrous results? Well the tires were blamed, but the real cause was the fact the owners were irresponsible. They did not check air pressure & as most folks know, or should know tires low on air run hot, they can & do fail catastrophically, not to mention the poor handling the under-inflated tires gave to an already extremely poorly handling SUV. Add to that insufficient driver training with most drivers not knowing how to handle a vehicle. What does that get ya? A lot of dead & injured.

So to save us Big Brother gave us....

Tire pressure monitoring system that people will ignore & stability control, an electric nanny to drive for you that gives some a very false sense of security. Why learn how to drive, my car will save me.

Sure would have been nice if they'd have tightened licensing requirements & required some actual training. As of now driving around the block & parking ones car is all it takes to get a license.

Might take a few years, but there will come a time when tires are outlawed a certain age. Might not be a bad thing either.

 

Alex

 

This is a great post. Real helpful.

 

I agree with you here.

So, to get/keep the votes of the then newly identified and thought to be politically powerful voting block, Soccer Moms...

I got lucky. My 2007 has the rotation-based system.

You just had be bring up electronic nannies. Shouldn't you be blaming Formula 1 for those? I believe that is where they were invented.

What are you going to do when the auto braking and car following systems start coming with all cars?

A politician who proposes taking away the "right to drive" from a segment of the population wouldn't survive the next election, and probably get his/her butt recalled.

Isn't there somewhere in the world that requires skid-pad driving instructions to get a license? Think I saw it on Top Gear or somewhere. Might have been Sweden, Denmark, or Finland. I imagine that would be really popular with high school students taking drivers ed.

 

Sure did!

Maybe invented there, but long since banned. Let the driver drive! Rolling SUVs driven by non-driving folks on the phone is what gave us stability nanny, not F1.

Well if there is an easy way to disable the system I'd do that. Failing an easy fix for the braking & following nanny I'll happily drive an older car without those nannies.

Correct, but I hope the enlightened here on NAM know driving is a privilege not a right.

 

IIRC, they got banned because it became a race of the propeller heads in the pits, rather than drivers in the cars. It was interesting to see what technology they could come up with, then it started getting boring. Like watching slot-car racing in large scale. Also, it was getter to where the drivers weren't going to survive the g-forces.

For the street, if electronic nannies can keep soccer moms from crushing me with their SUVs, I'm for it, especially if you can buy a MINI with the ability to turn most of it off. However, I'd rather see SUVs banned on the streets. You'd have to have a license that proved you had an off-road need and that you only drove it on streets to get gas and have it serviced.

 

Yep traction control, ABS, launch control, active suspenders & stability control all conspired to make F1 a joke. I've heard it said a well trained monkey could have driven one of those cars. Not to mention the mega cost of all of that wizardry. Personally I feel the racing has gotten better since it is gone.

Nanny is there supposedly to help maintain ones pondering SUV with a non-driver from careening off the road. Personally I'm not convinced it does that so very well. People are crashing nanny equipped vehicles everyday, what's up with that? It will do nothing to keep an inattentive driver from running into the back of you or turning in front of you. That all comes with driver training. All this being said I'd rather be run into by a car than an SUV. Well really not either....

Well banning SUVs ain't ever going to happen nor would I want it to. Having to prove that you use one off road to own one, well how'd you like the what you drive police to ask for your proof of tracking your MCS to own one? No MCS for you sir, you get a Cooper....

 

You are so right on this. I see SUVs and vans driving around on seriously under inflated tires all the time. If I can I will tell them, but some seem insulted when I do. Like, "Who asked you? Mind your own business!"

Did you notice in the video clip where they showed the warehouse full of crashed vehicles, they all seemed to be SUVs or minivans. I don't think I saw a single sedan in there. That should tell you something.

 

You still going on about this.............

The stability control was mandated to help with the emergency "lane-change" type of maneuvers, not for pulling out in front of someone or being stupid. Training is not going to help when you put the car into a situation that is technically impossible to get out of. The stability controls allow the car to independently apply brakes to control the direction of the car. Something no human can do.

 

The tires on my wife's minivan always "look" underinflated to me but I check religiously, usually after washing it every week. I even run an extra pound or two in them just to firm up the ride just a bit and they still appear low on air. Not almost-flat low but... if I didn't know how it was supposed to "look", I'd guess they need another ten pounds.

But... I know what you mean. Just the same, if somebody "suggested" they were low in the Wal-Mart parking lot, I'd ask them "willing to put money on that?"

 

Yep still at it. Of course that nanny won't help with people doing stupid things. Exactly my point. If it is so good at keeping people from crashing with its fancy independent wheel braking why are there nanny equipped cars crashing? Hmmm, could it be lack of skills? Driver training will help by showing people were the limits are so they do not drive over those them... Although there are people who have a false sense of security because they have stability control aka nanny. I'm not saying nannies are bad, they can help, but nothing will help a non-driver behind the wheel who falsely believes their car can't crash because it stability control. More & better training would.



Back on topic....

The latest Top Gear....

No, it's about old tires that can & do fail.... carry on.

 

If you are going by the van makers info on inflation, IMO they tend to spec lower pressure than optimum to get a smooth ride. I believe specing a too low pressure was one of the components of the rolling Ford Explorer fiasco. For what it is worth I'd put a few more pounds of air in those tires, especially since they look low to you when at the spec'd pressure.

 

Your memory serves you well with regards to the Ford Explorer Fiasco.

The low air pressure of 26 lbs front and rear, the pressure spec'd by Ford, was major problem for vehicle stability.
According to Firestone, OEM tire supplier, 30 should have been the correct number.
Ford and Firestone ended up replacing all 5 tires for free and sending new stickers with updated inflation requirements,
30lbs, to cover the old factory installed stickers.

Hope this helps...

 

You can always crash a car if you try hard enough, it just happens less frequently with the nanny involved. There are very compelling statistics about this. They basically boil down to the general populace being between 30-50% less likely to die in an accident if they have a nanny equipped car vs one without. I'll take those odds.

 

Yep gotta love statistics. One can spin them anyway one wants to show what they want. If you feel 30-50% safer then I am 30-50% happy for you.

Back on topic old tires....

 

Speaking of those damn SUVs, one of them ran a red light at an intersection last night and almost T-boned me! Good thing I noticed him/her and took the necessary precautions. I hate the idiots driving these damn SUVs!!!!

 

Saved lives are saved lives..........no spin about it.

Crash, you are good at getting off topic and then trying to get back when folks take you to task for the mis-info.

Now about those old tires.

 

Yeah... and the "spec" is 36 pounds. I typically run 38, maybe a bit higher.

I'm perfectly aware that manufacturers spec a lower pressure. ...and often, after a visit to the dealer, they'll let some air out, to make sure the customer is happy with the ride.

My quad only needs 5 psi. The big tires on the truck? 12, maybe 15, especially on the beach.

Trust me... I watch the wear like a hawk. I put more in the rears of the minivan when I'm pulling the trailer with the quad on it. I'm just sayin'...

They always look low and if somebody pointed it out in the parking lot, I'd tell 'em to put money on it.

To the point of aged tires... Unless they're stored outside for six years... Probably not a big deal. I help a buddy run a NASA PT car. We pick up cheap, used, two, three plus year old tires where we find em and have won races on them. We've blown two motors during the race but have never blown a tire.

 

Bigshot, guess we will have to agree to disagree on the merits of nannies. There must be a statistic somewhere that will show driver training saves more lives than nannies do.

Now back to the old tire thread....

 

They're not mutually exclusive. Driver training will save lives, nannies save lives. But given the pitiful state of driver training in this country, the nannies seem like an even better idea.

 

I agree that in this country nannies are a definate requirement. We as a unity have trouble taking responcibility for our own actions.

TPMS mandation is a good example. Can't we all just check our tire pressures?

Certain parts of Europe are more accountable, for instance accident fault is yielded in Germany if seatbelts are not engaged.

I understand nannies, I prefer when nannies are defeatable.
Superior driver traning/skills on vehicle dynamics will never be surpassed by elctronic managment in my opinion.

(except Mitsu's SAWD handling, or F1's traction controll )

You can stop quicker without ABS as an example, providing the pilot is willing to take 100% responcibilty for his vehicle. We test with most electronics disabled.

Alex

 

You may be able to stop sooner while going in a straight line, but that is not why ABS was developed. It was developed to maintain control while making an evasive manuever. Same as the stability control. These are very well thought out systems and benefit everyone.

The nannies I don't care for are the ones like the lockout on the transmissions that don't allow you to put into drive w/o pressing on the brake or not being able to start the car w/o the clutch in. These really only protect the stupid driver not the public at large.

 

It has been fine tuned to achieve that result but the first ABS system was developed for the Aviation Industry in the 30's.

In the 70's Chrysler, General Motors and Mercedes were all working on ABS systems for their high end cars.
Mercedes and Bendix Brake were developing a truck system at the same time.

The truck version was called the "121" system.
The 121 system (FMVSS 121) was federally mandated by Title 49 CFR Section 521.121 in 1975.

I had the privilege of working, in conjunction with the trucking industry and the CHP,
on size and weight issues effecting California during the late 70's and early 80's.

Hope this helps...

 

My feeling is that agressive brake use should not be combined with steering inputs. This is an example of a basic vehicle controll dynamic we're never taught. If you don't offer dyamic vehicle handeling training, a nanny is a good catch all option. Accountability?

Alex