An interview with the Stig: Talking stunt driving with Ben Collins

Top Gear's former tame racing driver tells us about being a stunt driver.

Read the whole story

 

[ghstd4303]

Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

 

[calyth]

ghstd4303[/url]":tf03eeos]Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

And his nipples are shaped like the Nurburgring.

 

[Vala]

calyth[/url]"ohlrp6k]

ghstd4303[/url]"ohlrp6k]Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

And his nipples are shaped like the Nurburgring.

Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground.

 

[JerryLove]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

 

[JerryLove]

Thor84no[/url]":1xncn2ug]

calyth[/url]":1xncn2ug]

ghstd4303[/url]":1xncn2ug]Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

And his nipples are shaped like the Nurburgring.

Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground.

His left hand is magnetic, and he has it in his head that northerners are edible.

 

[xme]

JerryLove[/url]":3jryvswa]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

 

[JerryLove]

xme[/url]":2l7bo7j2]

JerryLove[/url]":2l7bo7j2]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

Which in any but ideal conditions is the same thing.

And are you stating that skilled, unpanicked drivers have never hydroplaned while breaking?

 

[gruntboyx]

I have to say. I have some respect for him. Even after Collins and Top Gear parted ways in less then amiable fashion. He still came back to do a piece to help disabled/amputated veterans race an off road vehicle in a baja style endurance race.

I believe it was the Dakar Ralley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTZW5a6rC3M

 

[Panick]

JerryLove[/url]":3tpf044v]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

I don't think he has an anti-tech bias (he likes the McLaren, after all) or that he ever claimed or implied anything. He says they have to disable a lot of those types of systems for stunt driving which is nothing but logical. All those systems exist for righting a car when an unforeseen loss of control happens. Not good for stunt driving.

All he said was ABS doesn't shorten stopping distances, and he's right. Even vehicle manufacturers will tell you that. ABS is about maintaining control in less than ideal conditions. Nothing more.

 

[afward]

JerryLove[/url]":2ohkrcau]

xme[/url]":2ohkrcau]

JerryLove[/url]":2ohkrcau]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

Which in any but ideal conditions is the same thing.

And are you stating that skilled, unpanicked drivers have never hydroplaned while breaking?

That's not it... For stunt driving (and ONLY stunt driving), it is important to have direct control over the vehicle's systems. I'm pretty confident that Mr. Collins would agree that ABS and other safety systems are quite useful and desired in regular (and even race) driving.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Thor84no[/url]":1m7k8a94]

calyth[/url]":1m7k8a94]

ghstd4303[/url]":1m7k8a94]Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

And his nipples are shaped like the Nurburgring.

Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground.

Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for wolves.

 

[xme]

JerryLove[/url]":2d4tmbvm]

xme[/url]":2d4tmbvm]

JerryLove[/url]":2d4tmbvm]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

Which in any but ideal conditions is the same thing.

And are you stating that skilled, unpanicked drivers have never hydroplaned while breaking?

That's not my point at all. I wasn't disagreeing with you, simply stating that Collin's comment about stopping distances doesn't look at the whole picture.

 

[bruindrummer]

Panick[/url]":umkpbi2a]

JerryLove[/url]":umkpbi2a]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

I don't think he has an anti-tech bias (he likes the McLaren, after all) or that he ever claimed or implied anything. He says they have to disable a lot of those types of systems for stunt driving which is nothing but logical. All those systems exist for righting a car when an unforeseen loss of control happens. Not good for stunt driving.

All he said was ABS doesn't shorten stopping distances, and he's right. Even vehicle manufacturers will tell you that. ABS is about maintaining control in less than ideal conditions. Nothing more.

Nitpick: ABS isn't designed to shorten stopping distance. ABS can, however, shorten stopping distance on certain surfaces. This was demonstrated to me on the slip pad (which is about as slippery as black ice) at EVOC training.

 

[Stormspace]

xme[/url]":25u8losq]

JerryLove[/url]":25u8losq]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

I can attest to that. In dry conditions on a country road with a posted limited of 55 I came upon an elderly gentle man driving his lawn mower across the road. My first instinct was to stop as quickly as possible, but once the ABS kicked in I was able to drive around him, first thinking to go in front of him and then deciding to go behind him. I had complete control of the car during the entire encounter. My appreciated for ABS rose considerably after that because I would surely have killed that man had I not had them.

 

[harathan]

BoredSysAdmin[/url]":3fpgvht8]

Thor84no[/url]":3fpgvht8]

calyth[/url]":3fpgvht8]

ghstd4303[/url]":3fpgvht8]Some say he still doesn't know more than 2 facts about ducks....

And his nipples are shaped like the Nurburgring.

Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground.

Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for wolves.

Some say he has more genes in common with the velociraptor than he does with the average human, and that when he gets his blood drawn it comes out as pure gasoline.

 

[AndrewZ]

I am the stig.

 

[Dilbert]

Sad.

In both bing and google a couple of years ago, typing "who is" would autocomplete to "the stig". Now it isn't even in top 10.

 

[JerryLove]

Stormspace[/url]":3rdzfm8o]

I can attest to that. In dry conditions on a country road with a posted limited of 55 I came upon an elderly gentle man driving his lawn mower across the road. My first instinct was to stop as quickly as possible, but once the ABS kicked in I was able to drive around him, first thinking to go in front of him and then deciding to go behind him. I had complete control of the car during the entire encounter. My appreciated for ABS rose considerably after that because I would surely have killed that man had I not had them.

That is another good example.

When steering during breaking: the front tires lose traction relative to the rear tires (and indeed: there's disparity between left and right tires depending on turn direction). What is needed is a different amount of breaking force on the driver-front than on the passenger-front both of which will be different than on the rears (which depending on the amount of turn may also have traction different from one another).

Optimum breaking, and therefore shortest stopping distance requires 4-wheel independent breaking which, in turn, only occurs with ABS.

I'll reiterate: Under all but ideal (or rather insanely ususual, as might occur in stunt driving) conditions, regardless of driver, stopping distance is shorter on ABS than without.

And I wish I believed, as an earlier poster stated, that he was only discussing the area of stunt driving (in which case I would not have commented), but I see quotes in the article like "Safety systems like stability control have numbed the brains of drivers, and driving, and drivers pay less attention the more systems there." and I can't. All I hear is "things were better in the good old days".

 

[Chark]

Jonathan - didn't you think to ask whether he would have any involvement in the show hosted by the former Top Gear trio now filming for Amazon?

 

[xme]

Stormspace[/url]":lamyhe5d]

xme[/url]":lamyhe5d]

JerryLove[/url]":lamyhe5d]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

It's kind of a wrongheaded argument; ABS is more about maintaining an unskilled or panicked driver's control of the vehicle than decreasing stopping distances.

I can attest to that. In dry conditions on a country road with a posted limited of 55 I came upon an elderly gentle man driving his lawn mower across the road. My first instinct was to stop as quickly as possible, but once the ABS kicked in I was able to drive around him, first thinking to go in front of him and then deciding to go behind him. I had complete control of the car during the entire encounter. My appreciated for ABS rose considerably after that because I would surely have killed that man had I not had them.

Well, him or yourself. When I was a teenager I hydroplaned while braking into a turn on a wet road without ABS going slower than 55... Managed to throw my car sideways into a ditch, roll it, and wrap the back end around a small tree. I guess the old Subarus are still pretty safe though, much to the responding officer's surprise there wasn't a scratch on me. Point being though, when grip shifts suddenly across the corners things get bad really quickly. ABS can help prevent that.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Chark[/url]":12z9qunm]Jonathan - didn't you think to ask whether he would have any involvement in the show hosted by the former Top Gear trio now filming for Amazon?

AFIAK there's not a lot of goodwill there.

 

[Dilbert]

No matter. Stig's American cousin will fill-in for the Amazon production.

 

[Action]

ABS varies quite a bit between systems, The older the ABS system, the wider the variance between the performance. Newer ABS systems have shorter stopping distances than older ABS systems. In the older cars it was actually quite simple to disable them and see that stopping distances were shorter when threshold braking, for at least a few of the cars at the time (Mercedes, BMW, Audi were the ones that I actually did this with back in the late 80's and early 90's). Newer ABS systems are more sophisticated than the older ones and differences are probably quite a bit smaller.

However, ABS is not really a threshold braking system, it is a system built for control not maximum stopping power in a specific circumstance. In a very level, single friction surface situation with straight ahead braking only, I have little doubt that a very highly skilled driver would have shorter braking distances, after a bit of practice, than modern ABS systems. In the past the difference was marked, probably not quite as great currently, but maximum threshold braking is not the point of ABS.

Also the difference between a really good driver and most Joes on the road is pretty massive, so I would refrain from criticizing a very good driver with loads of experience in the very area that he is commenting upon...

 

[Paul J Hill]

Nitpick. I believe the term is "Tamed racing driver" as in, he was wild and has been tamed.

 

[apex321]

JerryLove[/url]":eflk3i0h]

Stormspace[/url]":eflk3i0h]

I can attest to that. In dry conditions on a country road with a posted limited of 55 I came upon an elderly gentle man driving his lawn mower across the road. My first instinct was to stop as quickly as possible, but once the ABS kicked in I was able to drive around him, first thinking to go in front of him and then deciding to go behind him. I had complete control of the car during the entire encounter. My appreciated for ABS rose considerably after that because I would surely have killed that man had I not had them.

That is another good example.

When steering during breaking: the front tires lose traction relative to the rear tires (and indeed: there's disparity between left and right tires depending on turn direction). What is needed is a different amount of breaking force on the driver-front than on the passenger-front both of which will be different than on the rears (which depending on the amount of turn may also have traction different from one another).

Optimum breaking, and therefore shortest stopping distance requires 4-wheel independent breaking which, in turn, only occurs with ABS.

I'll reiterate: Under all but ideal (or rather insanely ususual, as might occur in stunt driving) conditions, regardless of driver, stopping distance is shorter on ABS than without.

And I wish I believed, as an earlier poster stated, that he was only discussing the area of stunt driving (in which case I would not have commented), but I see quotes in the article like "Safety systems like stability control have numbed the brains of drivers, and driving, and drivers pay less attention the more systems there." and I can't. All I hear is "things were better in the good old days".

Yes, Stig is talking about driving conditions other than stunt driving.

What you are missing is the level of skill available to someone who is a trained racing driver vs the ordinary driver, and the actual mechanism of ABS.

For a skilled racing driver with a car with proper brake bias dialed in, the stopping distances will almost always be shorter with ABS DISabled. Why?

The way ABS works is to measure the turning rate of the wheels. When the wheels stop turning, it backs off the brake pressure for that wheel or the whole system. Thus, the system alternates between skidding and not skidding. This is why ABS events leave the dash-dash-dash skid marks.

The problem is that sliding friction is ALWAYS less than static or gripping friction. The microsecond the wheel stops, the tyre is turning to a greasy compound (which leaves the skid marks), even further reducing the available grip.

Yes, ABS does at least stop that process after a foot or so, and allow each tire to get back to a high-grip situation, but it is only for a portion of the stop. And, for untrained drivers, this is a HUGE advantage, as most of them will just keep pushing the brake pedal harder, accentuating the slide.

However, the trained race driver has learned and constantly practiced Threshold Braking technique. This is where you brake right at the extreme grip limit of the tires *without* locking them up. This provides the maximum available braking force throughout the event, and results in shorter distances.

Threshold braking also leaves the driver in direct control.

The weakness is a lack of left-right bias, although McLaren did even have a left-right split pedal for a while before it was banned in F1.

A very advanced ABS system that could track the actual motion and direction of the car, and brake each wheel independently to a degree that it only slowed the turning of the wheel by a few percent *might* in some circumstances beat a highly skilled driver.

Just as a related anecdote, I know a driver who had a Audi wrecked on a track because as he was braking at about 90mph in a compression (dip), the car, which was not programmed for that force profile, instead decided that the lack of grip was due to icy conditions, and backed off the brakes. He wound up in the barrier with a crunched Audi, and a long tow home.

So, for ordinary drivers who are not accustomed to emergency and high-performance driving, ABS is a huge advance and lifesaver.

But, for highly skilled and trained drivers, ABS is an impediment that gets in the way of controlling the car.

These skilled drivers disliking it and turning it off is NOT some kind of nostalgia or luddism. It is the expert knowledge of people who have a world of knowledge that you don't even know exists.

Seriously, go to the track and take some high-performance driving classes, and then keep doing it for a few years until you get up to amateur competition. You'll learn a world of things you never knew existed and have more fun that you ever thought possible.

 

[pocketdrummer]

JerryLove[/url]":17lrzbpm]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

The point of ABC is to allow an inexperienced driver to turn even if they've mashed the brakes to the floor. Without it, the front wheels lock up and the car will continue to go in the same direction. However, you will increase stopping distances with ABS. An experienced driver knows when the wheels are locked up and will ease off the brakes until they are rolling again before attempting to turn. An experienced driver driving with ABS on will use threshold braking to maximize braking force without activating ABS.

He's not wrong when approached from the perspective of driving at the limits of the vehicles capabilities. However, most people benefit from ABS because they panic in emergency situations and don't lift before turning. Thus ABS will let them mash the brakes and turn at the same time. It's safer for most people, but it's not what you want on the track.

 

[esldude]

Of course I do remember a driving instructor profiled in I believe C/D many years ago before ABS was around. He taught people in emergencies to slam the brakes good and hard to make sliding a certainty. Less reaction time, less to think about and very effective. He also taught them to release brakes for just a moment if they wanted to change direction of the slide. Then slam brakes again.

The incredulous staff, which included some race drivers, then proceeded to try it both ways. Controlled braking on the edge of sliding vs slam it, slide it to a stop. Everyone of them stopped shorter in the no-brainer sliding method. Not by many feet less mind you, but shorter. The point being any fool if he has been taught the habit can slam and slide. Not many could match race drivers controlled braking.

They also found just a few experiences releasing and relocking the brakes to change direction far easier to learn than they anticipated.

 

[Shimshon]

some say, he almost got flattened by a tank!

 

[Carewolf]

<blanked>

 

[Carewolf]

bruindrummer[/url]":c8gi5z5s]

Panick[/url]":c8gi5z5s]

JerryLove[/url]":c8gi5z5s]

but there wasn't time to deactivate the antilock brakes, which as Collins pointed out, don't actually decrease stopping distances

I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

I don't think he has an anti-tech bias (he likes the McLaren, after all) or that he ever claimed or implied anything. He says they have to disable a lot of those types of systems for stunt driving which is nothing but logical. All those systems exist for righting a car when an unforeseen loss of control happens. Not good for stunt driving.

All he said was ABS doesn't shorten stopping distances, and he's right. Even vehicle manufacturers will tell you that. ABS is about maintaining control in less than ideal conditions. Nothing more.

Nitpick: ABS isn't designed to shorten stopping distance. ABS can, however, shorten stopping distance on certain surfaces. This was demonstrated to me on the slip pad (which is about as slippery as black ice) at EVOC training.

And it WILL dramatically lengthen stopping distance on snow or gravel as it can't tell the partial tracktion you get when breaking on that from being on the verge of normal aquaplaning.

 

[stackOVFL]

Some say that he has to take his shoes off with an allen key, and that his new year’s resolution is to eat fewer mice

 

[oblib__]

Some say that many people have no idea what you're all talking about. Those people should enlighten themselves here.

 

[Magickchicken]

Chark[/url]":1sxmmtg5]Jonathan - didn't you think to ask whether he would have any involvement in the show hosted by the former Top Gear trio now filming for Amazon?

If anything, I'd think it more likely that he'd go back to Top Gear now that the Trio and Wilman have left - I think they're the ones that were upset he blew the secret.

 

[.劉煒]

ALL WE KNOW IS, HE'S NOT THE STIG!

 

[dtabb]

Nothing stops shorter than a car with all four wheels locked. Trouble is, you'd need an airport tarmac or something similarly as spacious to not hit something in the process as the car slides uncontrolled in any possible direction.

Hence race car drivers developed modulated braking, and from that engineers developed ABS. Control during braking is the goal of both, not shortest distance.

 

[Luv2Calculate]

Can't some ABS systems manipulate the brakes on the left and right side independantly, so as to keep the car following a straight path? Wouldn't that give ABS an advantage even over skilled drivers in some situations?

Edit: Please explain why my reasoning is wrong, I want to know. The only thing I can learn from a downvote is not to ask questions ;-)

 

[Icycomet]

JerryLove[/url]":1lwpvgq6]

His anti-tech bias (and its implied reduction in safe driving) is not, I believe, born out by real-world data.

I cannot recall the scene he is referring to but ABS is an outright liability for driving in certain conditions. Judder bars/bumpy and dirt roads will see your ABS go hyperactive and reduce your braking to nothing. I bet you this is more or less a quote taken out of context, I can believe in his line of work he would want to get rid of the ABS for all sorts of reasons. The first thing you do to a rally car is disable all this crap, it will get you killed.

I drive down a dirt road every day, sometimes I am having to overtake trucks. Just recently my ABS kicked in and it was like trying to brake on an ice rink, given all the times the ABS has not kicked in I know it is not reducing my stopping distances, on the contrary it is increasing them maybe 2 fold. The worst part of this is it can be wildly unpredictable when they are going to engage.

 

[OhReallyThatCantBeSurely]

JerryLove[/url]":18u9qzcf]
I've nothing but respect for the mans skill and experience but he is (functionally at least) wrong.

If the breaks and surface conditions are such that all four tires lose traction at the exact same amount of pedal-depression than it is true that a ABS offers no advantage over a perfect human. In the real world, tires often don't lose traction all together and so, in addition to the lack of perfect humans, ABS can offer per-wheel reductions in breaking to maintain traction that is simply not possible for a person with a break pedal.

<snip>

And are you stating that skilled, unpanicked drivers have never hydroplaned while breaking?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's somehow a repeated autocorrect problem, but please - it's "brake / braking" not "break / breaking"!

If you're no good at braking, you end up breaking something.

 

[robotic_tourist]

dtabb[/url]":1vutnc8w]Nothing stops shorter than a car with all four wheels locked. Trouble is, you'd need an airport tarmac or something similarly as spacious to not hit something in the process as the car slides uncontrolled in any possible direction.

Hence race car drivers developed modulated braking, and from that engineers developed ABS. Control during braking is the goal of both, not shortest distance.

Umm. I'm not sure physics agrees with you. Anyway, the best thing is not to tailgate, and if someone is tailgating you, leave a bigger gap in front so that if something happens ahead of you, you have more time to react and won't get rearended.

Back to the physics, rubber skidding on tarmac is pretty high friction, but often there's water and dirt that lowers the friction. You really need your tyres not to be skidding in most cases.