Moron in a Silver Mondeo - Road Rage

[219]

We're talking about modern ABS-based disc brakes, apologies if that wasn't clear.

While I made that comment partly in jest , it has to be borne in mind that brakes were not always as efficient as they are now , and there are still a great many vehicles around which require significant pedal effort , and with which some drivers would not have the physical strength to achieve lock up .

Some members old enough to remember such cars may have forgotten this , while other younger members may never have experienced this .

Even my Ponton , with its Alfin drums , was probably one of the better cars of the day , and older cars were even harder to stop .

 

[Simon_M]

Two different video's, but you've clarified the point clearly.

If we all go back, Simon_M said that his car would out brake the Peugeot, which most said that wouldn't be clear.

That is still the case, he can not guarantee his car will stop quicker, even if it does have a stick on badge saying AMG.

Most? Think it was you and one other.

Still, you like to argue with who you can so the topic went haywire.

My car will stop quicker, it has no AMG badges so on that point you have failed (probably CSE General Science letting you down again). But 6 piston Brembo calipers, upgraded brake pads, race spec fluid, composite discs, Michelin Pilot Supersport tyres (which are wider that the little 206's bicycle tyres) and a great big heavy V8 over the front axle will allow it to stop quicker than the 206 from 80.

I invited you to test this theory, but you have not accepted my kind invitation.....

 

[Dieselman]

My car will stop quicker, it has no AMG badges so on that point you have failed

6 piston Brembo calipers, upgraded brake pads, race spec fluid, composite discs, Michelin Pilot Supersport tyres (which are wider that the little 206's bicycle tyres) and a great big heavy V8 over the front axle will allow it to stop quicker than the 206 from 80.

I invited you to test this theory, but you have not accepted my kind invitation.....

You supply two good working cars and I'll be happy to tailgate you at 80mph and test this.

Either we will see you are incorrect or you will have a smashed up boot. Maybe I wouldn't hit the brakes quite quick enough...

Other than listing the "special" parts your car has, you aren't offering any reason why it should stop quicker.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

While I made that comment partly in jest , it has to be borne in mind that brakes were not always as efficient as they are now , and there are still a great many vehicles around which require significant pedal effort , and with which some drivers would not have the physical strength to achieve lock up .

Some members old enough to remember such cars may have forgotten this , while other younger members may never have experienced this .

I'm certainly old enough to remember little drum brakes struggling to slow down heavy cars. Pre-servo assistance required prop forward's legs to stop any faster than a sea-going tanker! Only the iciest roads would induce wheel locking. Then we got disc brakes and had to put stickers on the rear of our cars to warn other drivers that we'd be stopping much faster than them. The we got ABS and no longer had to become competent at cadence braking. This all happened very many years ago, but those early days still leave me not fully relying on my car's modern braking system. So it's a good thing that I drive in a way that's well within my car's capabilities. Except that I still worry that should I ever find myself in a position whereby I have to brake really hard, will I be able to just press hard and let the technology sort everything out for me, or will my natural instincts in an emergency situation tell me to cadence brake? It's been a very long time since I've needed to, so hopefully not.

 

[219]

Only half agree with that. On a motorway you have to be aware of joining traffic. If there is someone joining from a slip road you have right of way, but should also make reasonable adjustments to aid the flow of traffic - i.e. move into the next lane if possible. Part of due care and attention.

I agree that a bit of common sense and courtesy goes a long way to avoiding unnecessary conflict : hence if someone is ahead of me when I come to a slip road I will ease off slightly to let them out ahead ( unless being closely followed ) , or move out if convenient .

However , at the end of the day , traffic joining a carriageway is meant to make the neccessary adjustments to merge safely with traffic on the main carriageway , ultimately stopping if required ; the dashed lines bounding the slip road from the carriageway ARE give way lines after all , and the question of which vehicle has priority is quite clear .

 

[Colin_b]

While I made that comment partly in jest , it has to be borne in mind that brakes were not always as efficient as they are now , and there are still a great many vehicles around which require significant pedal effort , and with which some drivers would not have the physical strength to achieve lock up .

Some members old enough to remember such cars may have forgotten this , while other younger members may never have experienced this .

Even my Ponton , with its Alfin drums , was probably one of the better cars of the day , and older cars were even harder to stop .

Many years ago I owned a 1967 Mustang. Base model, except a high output 351ci engine. Non servo drum brakes all round.

The brakes were appalling, even when working at their best. Heavy, no servo, weak and worst of all fade.

Try and stop hard from 100/105 MPH and the pedal was dead at around 25mph. Engine braking was essential (3 speed manual box).

Dreadful car.

 

[Simon_M]

You supply two good working cars and I'll be happy to tailgate you at 80mph and test this.

Either we will see you are incorrect or you will have a smashed up boot. Maybe I wouldn't hit the brakes quite quick enough...

Other than listing the "special" parts your car has, you aren't offering any reason why it should stop quicker.

That wasn't my offer - if you are so certain, put your balls on the line....

You watched the same YouTube video as everyone else and then immediately flamed down a member with 'stats' from your head rather than the video because it suited your argument - you cannot even be trusted to watch an 8 minute video and pay attention, much less drive a car!

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I never realised braking distances could be quite so entertaining.

 

[Dieselman]

That wasn't my offer - if you are so certain, put your balls on the line....

You watched the same YouTube video as everyone else and then immediately flamed down a member with 'stats' from your head rather than the video because it suited your argument - you cannot even be trusted to watch an 8 minute video and pay attention, much less drive a car!

Nice try Simon, but the point of the video (as you well know) was to show that the Peugeot 106 stopped in less distance than the Porsche 911.

You seem to have a problem with that.

You still cannot demonstrate why your car should stop any quicker than a Peugeot 206, please do so.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

My car will stop quicker,... But 6 piston Brembo calipers, upgraded brake pads, race spec fluid, composite discs, Michelin Pilot Supersport tyres (which are wider that the little 206's bicycle tyres) and a great big heavy V8 over the front axle will allow it to stop quicker than the 206 from 80.

May I refer you to my earlier comment about respective kerb weights. I think you car weighs 1795kg (or more?), which is 71% heavier than the Pug. I'll accept that I learnt about Mr Newton's Laws of Motion a very long time ago, but I've not heard anything about them being refuted so we can still take the inverse of his 2nd Law and say that the force required to decelerate is directly proportional to the mass. So your brakes (and all you other clever bits) will have to be 71% better that the 206's just to stop as quickly. They may well be even better than this, but so what? If you have to defend your car against one that is much older and a bucket load cheaper, then you'll just be making DM laugh even louder!

 

[Will]

I don't profess to be an expert on these things, but surely aside from reaction time, stopping distances are simply a case of how quickly a car can decelerate. In other words - how much 'G' force can be generated under braking? And this will be limited by grip.

So if you look at what makes an object difficult to stop - it's going to be what makes the tyres lose grip? It makes sense that a heavier object moving at speed will resist stopping more compared to a lighter one at the same speed? Therefore two identical cars - the lighter one will stop quicker.

It's quite plausable (however surprising!) that a 'low performance' small/light car would be able to stop quicker than a much heavier 'sporty' one.

All cars will be limited to slowing down by the weakest link in that system - and that seems to get forgotten.

This thread may well have drifted off topic, but it does make for some interesting reading - and maybe makes some people think more about what actually goes on under braking - which can only be a good thing.

How much do Formula 1 cars weigh? Imagine how long they would take to stop if (all else being the same!), they weighed as much as road cars

Out of interest, does anyone actually know what road cars have the shortest stopping distances? Figures would be interesting

 

[219]

...... I still worry that should I ever find myself in a position whereby I have to brake really hard, will I be able to just press hard and let the technology sort everything out for me, or will my natural instincts in an emergency situation tell me to cadence brake? It's been a very long time since I've needed to, so hopefully not.

I've used Cadence Braking at relatively low speeds on snow , since it seems to work better for me than just leaving things to the electronics - still no substitute for anticipation and avoiding braking in the first place , though .

CB did come in useful a few years back in my non-ABS 190E when a traffic light changed to red and I found myself braking on a Diesel spill : I found myself instinctively Cadence Braking with my left foot ( which I always use when driving automatics ) and stopped safely behind the line , while the much newer car ( presumably with ABS ) in the lane alongside me slid halfway across the junction before coming to a halt , fortunately nothing had started moving from the other lights so no harm done .

Oh , I do remember another incident a good few years back when I came round a bend on a country road at a fair old lick in my W124 300TE ( too fast if I am honest ) to be confronted by a cow standing in the middle of the road : I mashed both feet hard down onto the big automatic brake pedal and felt the ABS pulsing back through the pedal as I came to a stop a couple of feet from said cow , despite a dry road surface and on a bend the car remained stable and stopped amazingly quickly . I don't know if moo or me got the biggest fright . On that occasion I don't think I'd have bettered the ABS .

 

[Dieselman]

CB did come in useful a few years back in my non-ABS 190E when a traffic light changed to red and I found myself braking on a Diesel spill : I found myself instinctively Cadence Braking with my left foot ( which I always use when driving automatics ) and stopped safely behind the line , while the much newer car ( presumably with ABS ) in the lane alongside me slid halfway across the junction before coming to a halt , fortunately nothing had started moving from the other lights so no harm done .

A worthwhile point.

This was shown in the bus simulation video some pages back.

 

[Dieselman]

Out of interest, does anyone actually know what road cars have the shortest stopping distances? Figures would be interesting

I've been looking for these to make an informed decision, but no joy so far.

What I have found is that consumer magazine "Which" has performed such tests. Here is a very brief summary.

note the Mercedes A class is the worst stopper in it's class.

The magazine, which tests out consumer products, measured what the average braking distances of 160 different cars was when they stopped from 62 mph.

To do this test, Which? magazine half loaded the car with two adult passengers and checked that the tyre pressure on the car was perfect. They then performed an emergency stop test from 62mph to 0mph and used a racelogic GPS tracking computer to measure the stopping distance. They then repeated this test 10 times in quick succession so that they could use all 10 results to measure the stopping distance.

In the supermini category the car that came bottom was the Suzuki Alto which took 42.52 metres to stop, which was 8 metres more than the winning car the Volkswagen polo which only took 34.16 metres to stop. The worst in the test over all was the Chrysler Grand Voyager which stopped some 43.49 metres after the driver applied the brakes. Others cars that came bottom in their category were the Mercedes A class which was the furthest in the medium cars category at 41.61 metres and the Land Rover freelander in the 4x4 category which stopped at 42.04 metres- very dangerous for a car of its size.

The original test was to test tyres and there is an interesting comment made.

However, the test does not explain the reason for the bad braking distances on the tyres and they could be downplaying tyres which work perfectly well on the cars they are originally equipped for, but less so on the test car.

http://www.tyresavings.com/articles...ld-oems-be-more-clear-about-braking-distances

 

[Simon_M]

Nice try Simon, but the point of the video (as you well know) was to show that the Peugeot 106 stopped in less distance than the Porsche 911.

You seem to have a problem with that.

You still cannot demonstrate why your car should stop any quicker than a Peugeot 206, please do so.

This is the best I can find as it is nearly time for Martin's pit walk:

Audi TT #1 in braking test...quote, "impeccable." Know that some of you don't like the brakes at - AudiWorld Forums

I would have thought the E55 would be even heavier than the C63 but I know you won't let facts get in the way of an argument.

 

[Dieselman]

I would have thought the E55 would be even heavier than the C63 but I know you won't let facts get in the way of an argument.

W210 E55 is 1709kg
W204 C63 is 1731kg.



It's a difficult topic as there is very little data available and without actual testing it's virtually impossible to say which car will react better as there are so many influential factors.

 

[Simon_M]

W210 E55 is 1709kg
W204 C63 is 1731kg.

Really? Your figures have been make believe before but I will take your word, is that the saloon? The S204 is around 50kg heavier.

 

[Dieselman]

Really? Your figures have been make believe before but I will take your word, is that the saloon? The S204 is around 50kg heavier.

Ha ha.. Troll on again Simon. BTW, it's 22kg heavier.

They are accurate figures for the W210 E55 Saloon and the W204 C63 saloon.

The W204 C63 estate is 1795 kg.

 

[Simon_M]

 

[balge]

What is the top speed of a pug 206 compared to a porker, just out of interest like...