I think if a vehicle needs stability control as part of its design then I would have to look at something else. I can't have confidence in something that resists doing what I tell it to do.

 

wow, to me thats a '70 or earlier way of looking at it. kind of like never flying because "too many computers" (including a kind of stability control).

to me the advantage of new stability systems are all about helping in the driving experience. they are not new systems, been in cars / trucks / suv's for years now.

 

Quick note: The F-16 fighter jet was the first production fly-by-wire aircraft and was designed with a number of computers that help the plane remain stable in flight. In fact, without these computers, it would be virtually impossible to fly, as it is naturally unstable. My recollection is it was designed that way to assist maneuverability.

Many of the systems on new cars, particularly hybrids, are also "fly-by-wire" where the driver operates controls that simulate the physical feedback of "normal" vehicles, but are actually completely electronic. On my TCH, the accelerator and brake pedal both feel "normal", but actually have no physical effect on the systems they control.

I'd love to see a car utilizing a simple joystick in the center console that would control acceleration, steering and braking all in one control.

 

I'm not a Luddite. I do appreciate new technologies that enhance the drive. But the smart is something very different; It is not drivable without stability control. Its design is inherently unstable. I just think that stability shouldn't be a full-time job with dozens of corrections per second. This isn't driving, it's ceding responsibility to the computer.

 

Probably the F-16's functions are overwhelming for a human to control w/o computer assist....plus it's speed, approaching missiles, etc...

One comforting thought is that the Smart Car has been sold in Europe for over 10 years I think...so its design and real world testing is not something completely new and in experimental phases.

And for a $11,000 car, I doubt the computer is anything awesome. It probably adjusts the driving wheels' power and apply the 4 braking points individually as needed....when it senses instability. Maybe also adjusting the shocks and struts on the fly?

 

Ceding responsibility to a computer- eh, no... I'd have to say that I really have absolutely no concern about that idea at all. I mean, just think about all the things that go on in your life that you could say the same thing about. Not everything, of course (I'd really like HUMANS to talk to when I call into a customer support line, thank you!) but plenty of important and everyday things.

When stores switched from price tags to bar codes, they ceded responsibility to a computer to determine the cost of your groceries. Upset? No. It's probably more accurate now.

When universities switched applications, course enrollment, and grade reporting functions to computers, they ceded responsibility to a computer to determine whether you signed up in time to take that awesome seminar with the Nobel Laureate, or were stuck in an intro course with a grad student. Would we rather wait in line for hours or days to find out whether the course is available, worry about typos or illegibility on hand-printed report cards that don't come for months, and sweat out whether we can get that transcript in time to apply to law school? Nope. I'm not upset.

How about 911 call centers? Talk about an important responsibility that has been ceded to a computer! Routing ambulances, determining which police car is closest to a scene, even prioritizing responses- a lot of that is computerized now or done through automatic systems. Do we feel less safe? Don't we think it's probably faster and more efficient, and maybe cheaper and ....probably better?

spinner says he isn't a Luddite, but his comments seem to be coming from an unexpressed fear or anxiety about technology that indicates something a bit different. I'm not saying every piece of technology is trustworthy or better than human interaction, of course. But I think stability control probably ranks up there with anti-lock brakes and power steering as a fairly common bit of auto technology that has been tested and used enough to count on- cars with stability control have no history of just falling over, as far as I know.

 

saw this on jalopnik.com and thought I would share. Shaq seems to be a little big but he does seem to fit.

 

OK, well, stability control or understeer or whatever is to blame, I have experienced being blown off to the shoulder on a freeway by a combination of high cross-winds and passing transport trucks. This was with a smart fortwo, the earlier generation with slightly skinnier wheels and tires. So the car is busy maintaining stability, while I crank the steering wheel 180 degrees in the opposite direction in vain to keep myself on the highway. The only way out of the predicament was to reduce speed, but I had another transport truck following too closely behind me.

Losing control of a vehicle is a very scary thing, even if it is the safest option.

 

are you exaggerating or is this for real? this is very scary. i drove around in a Geo Metro 4-door before and it was scary over 60 mph but wasn't this bad. this would make me not want to buy a Smart Car.

 

lol. why would they sell that in craigslist for 17k? Well maybe it is modified or something?