C0nsumer Reports helps Trial Lawyers again

[cgallery]

Cabinetman, you REALLY need to get a life. Maybe you could take up a hobby, learn to do woodworking or something.

Wouldn't that be a lot more enjoyable than harassing others here?

I think if you provided some details about where you teach, and perhaps some of the findings of your students doing the work, you'd shut Cabinetman right up.

[Alex Franke]

Speaking of Consumer Reports, I heard somewhere that Consumer Reports gave a 5-star rating to the vBulletin "Ignore List" feature, saying something to the effect of "If someone gets under your skin, or you don't find their posts useful, or you would rather not see their posts for whatever reason, you can simply add them to your 'Ignore List' in the User Control Panel: http://www.bt3central.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist "

...at least I think that's how the review went. In any case, I'm pretty sure it's been crash-tested, too.

[Mrs. Wallnut]

Okay I can't keep quiet...But Alex, "I don't care who you are but that is funny right there." LMFAO.

[Mr__Bill]

Speaking of Consumer Reports, I heard somewhere that Consumer Reports gave a 5-star rating to the vBulletin "Ignore List" feature, saying something to the effect of "If someone gets under your skin, or you don't find their posts useful, or you would rather not see their posts for whatever reason, you can simply add them to your 'Ignore List' in the User Control Panel: http://www.bt3central.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist "

...at least I think that's how the review went. In any case, I'm pretty sure it's been crash-tested, too.

You really have to be careful with the ignore feature. I tried it in the game program called Wife 1.0 with less than desirable results.....


Bill
over here where all the weather comes from

[cgallery]

I heard somewhere that Consumer Reports gave a 5-star rating to the vBulletin "Ignore List" feature...

INSERT INTO ignore_list (user_name)
VALUES ("Alex Franke")

[Alex Franke]

INSERT INTO ignore_list (user_name)
VALUES ("Alex Franke")

Touché! :lol:

[woodturner]

I think if you provided some details about where you teach, and perhaps some of the findings of your students doing the work, you'd shut Cabinetman right up.

Hasn't worked in the past, and I don't really want to encourage or enable more stalking.

[JimD]

Woodturner,

I find your "test" somewhat interesting but I do not think it addresses the question of whether vehicles can overpower their brakes endangering the driver. This is my logic. If the engine is rotating higher than it needs to for the car to move, then it has energy stored due to the movement. It is kinetic energy which can be calculated as 1/2 m(mass)V2 (velocity squared). So with a high enough rpm, if you drop the clutch I will accept you can move a little bit despite fully engaging the brakes. But the vehicle will immediately stop because it is only the kinetic energy stored in the rotating engine that allowed the brakes to be very briefly overcome by the engine.

In the narrowest sense, I accept that your example does provide a situation where the engine can overpower the brakes but it does nothing to demonstrate the premise some people have that their car can run away from them because the accelerator sticks open. A momentary surplus of energy from dropping the clutch on a rotating engine is only available as extra energy for a very brief amount of time. I also have heard of no claimed unintended acceleration involving manual transmission vehicles. With a manual transmission, if the gas sticks open, you have the easy option of just pushing the clutch pedal to disengage the engine. I do not see how your scenario is possible with an automatic.

I think it would be much more readily apparent that the brakes are more powerful if we saw test reports where acceleration and deacceleration were quoted in the same units. Acceleration is typically quoted as a time to a velocity. Deacceleration is typically quoted as the distance to stop from an initial velocity. I looked up a calculator online to convert and calculated some results for a BMW 135i using data from a test by Road and Track. R&T says the 135i they test went 0-60 in 4.8 seconds. The calculator I used says that would be 422.4 ft. R&T says deacceleration (stopping) from 60 mph took 114 ft. So since deacceleration took less than 1/3 the distance that acceleration to the same velocity took, it seems clear the brakes are more powerful than the engine. I also looked at the number for 80 mph. Acceleration took 950.4 feet and deacceleration took 204 ft. It is theoretically possible to have a car that would accelerate faster than it will deaccelerate but such a car would not be safe and I do not think any are available. I could be wrong. But for typical cars, it is not close.

Before somebody comments, these tests were with brakes that were at ambient temperature. If the brakes are hot due to partial application, it will take more time to stop and if they are hot enough, the engine can overcome them. But that represents driver error to me.

If it matters, I have no intent to harass anybody. If I can learn something I am open to that possibility. But so far, I am still convinced that it is a myth that cars can overpower their brakes absent an error by the driver.

Jim

[JR]

Toyota verifies flaw in Lexus SUV

"Toyota Motor Corp. said Friday that its engineers had confirmed a flaw in a Lexus SUV model that Consumer Reports had warned consumers not to buy because of a rollover threat."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,0,70001.story

[woodturner]

So with a high enough rpm, if you drop the clutch I will accept you can move a little bit despite fully engaging the brakes.

To clarify, the vehicle will "crawl" forward - it keeps moving, but slowly. Clearly not enough vehicles were tested to support a conclusion, but I found the anecdotal results to be surprising and unexpected.

In the narrowest sense, I accept that your example does provide a situation where the engine can overpower the brakes but it does nothing to demonstrate the premise some people have that their car can run away from them because the accelerator sticks open.

I think that's a fair comment. If the condition we observed were to happen in a real life "sudden acceleration" situation, any resulting crash would be a very low speed collision

I also have heard of no claimed unintended acceleration involving manual transmission vehicles. With a manual transmission, if the gas sticks open, you have the easy option of just pushing the clutch pedal to disengage the engine.

That's an interesting thought - I'll have to go back and reread the Audi report, I don't recall if they were all automatic transmission or not. Certainly pressing the clutch pedal is a simple "fix" - and likely a near instinctive reaction for most people who drive a manual transmission vehicle.