TD in DC

From a quick scan of the proposed rules, it does not appear that there is any reason why PSM could not be fully turned-off. I could be wrong, but I just haven't seen it. Here is the proposed rule from NHTSA:

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Report and record keeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR Parts
571 and 585 as follows:
PART 571 - FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.101 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as follows:
§571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and displays.
* * * * *
[INSERT TABLE 1.]
109
110
111
112
* * * * *
3. Section 571.126 is added to read as follows:
§571.126 Standard No. 126; Electronic stability control systems.
S1. Scope. This standard establishes performance and equipment requirements
for electronic stability control (ESC) systems.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and
injuries that result from crashes in which the driver loses directional control of the
vehicle.
113
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less, according to the phase-in schedule specified in S8 of this standard.
S4. Definitions.
Ackerman Steer Angle means the angle whose tangent is the wheelbase divided
by the radius of the turn at a very low speed.
Electronic Stability Control System or ESC System means a system that has all of
the following attributes:
(1) That augments vehicle directional stability by applying and adjusting the
vehicle brakes individually to induce correcting yaw torques to a vehicle;
(2) That is computer controlled with the computer using a closed-loop algorithm
to limit vehicle oversteer and to limit vehicle understeer when appropriate;
(3) That has a means to determine the vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its side
slip;
(4) That has a means to monitor driver steering inputs, and
(5) That is operational over the full speed range of the vehicle (except below a
low-speed threshold where loss of control is unlikely).
Oversteer means a condition in which the vehicle’s yaw rate is greater than the
yaw rate that would occur at the vehicle’s speed as result of the Ackerman Steer Angle.
Sideslip or side slip angle means the arctangent of the lateral velocity of the center
of gravity of the vehicle divided by the longitudinal velocity of the center of gravity.
Understeer means a condition in which the vehicle’s yaw rate is less than the yaw
rate that would occur at the vehicle’s speed as result of the Ackerman Steer Angle.
114
Yaw rate means the rate of change of the vehicle’s heading angle measured in
degrees/second of rotation about a vertical axis through the vehicle’s center of gravity.
S5. Requirements. Subject to the phase-in set forth in S8, each vehicle must be
equipped with an ESC system that meets the requirements specified in S5 under the test
conditions specified in S6 and the test procedures specified in S7 of this standard.
S5.1 Required Equipment. Vehicles to which this standard applies must be
equipped with an electronic stability control system that:
S5.1.1 Is capable of applying all four brakes individually and has a control
algorithm that utilizes this capability.
S5.1.2 Is operational during all phases of driving including acceleration, coasting,
and deceleration (including braking), except when the driver has disabled ESC or the
vehicle is below a low speed threshold where loss of control is unlikely.
S5.1.3 Remains operational when the antilock brake system or traction control
system is activated.
S5.2 Performance Requirements. During each test performed under the test
conditions of S6 and the test procedure of S7.9, the vehicle with the ESC system engaged
must satisfy the stability criteria of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2, and it must satisfy the
responsiveness criterion of S5.2.3 during each of those tests conducted with a steering
angle amplitude of 180 degrees or greater.
S5.2.1 The yaw rate measured one second after completion of the sine with dwell
steering input (time T0 + 1 in Figure 1) must not exceed 35 percent of the first peak value
of yaw velocity recorded after the beginning of the dwell period (ψ& Peak in Figure 1)
during the same test run, and
115
S5.2.2 The yaw rate measured 1.75 seconds after completion of the sine with
dwell steering input must not exceed 20 percent of the first peak value of yaw velocity
recorded after the beginning of the dwell period during the same test run.
S5.2.3 The lateral displacement of the vehicle center of gravity with respect to its
initial straight path must be at least 1.83 m (6 feet) when computed 1.07 seconds after
initiation of steering.
S5.2.3.1 The computation of lateral displacement is performed using double
integration with respect to time of the measurement of lateral acceleration at the vehicle
center of gravity, as expressed by the formula:
S5.2.3.2 Time, t = 0 for the integration operation is the instant of steering
initiation.
S5.3 ESC Malfunction. The vehicle must be equipped with a telltale that provides
a warning to the driver not more than two minutes after the occurrence of one or more
malfunctions that affect the generation or transmission of control or response signals in
the vehicle’s electronic stability control system. The ESC malfunction telltale:
S5.3.1 Must be mounted inside the occupant compartment in front of and in clear
view of the driver;
S5.3.2 Must be identified by the symbol shown for “ESC Malfunction Telltale” in
Table 1 of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101);
S5.3.3 Must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions specified in
S5.3 for as long as the malfunction(s) exists, whenever the ignition locking system is in
the "On" ("Run") position; and
Ay dt = ∫∫ C G. . Lateral Displacement
116
S5.3.4 Except as provided in paragraph S5.3.5, each ESC malfunction telltale
must be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition locking system is
turned to the "On" ("Run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition
locking system is in a position between "On" ("Run") and "Start" that is designated by the
manufacturer as a check position.
S5.3.5 The ESC malfunction telltale need not be activated when a starter interlock
is in operation.
S5.3.6 The ESC malfunction telltale must extinguish after the malfunction has
been corrected.
S5.3.7 The manufacturer may use the ESC malfunction telltale in a flashing mode
to indicate ESC operation.
S5.4 ESC Off Switch and Telltale The manufacturer may include a driver
selectable switch that places the ESC system in a mode in which it will not satisfy the
performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3 provided that:
S5.4.1 The vehicle’s ESC system must always return to a mode that satisfies the
requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 at the initiation of each new ignition cycle, regardless of
what mode the driver had previously selected. If the system has more than one mode that
satisfies these requirements, the default mode must be the mode that satisfies the
performance requirements of S5.2 by the greatest margin.
S5.4.2 The vehicle manufacturer must provide a telltale indicating that the vehicle
has been put into a mode that renders it unable to satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1,
S5.2.2 and S5.2.3.
117
S5.4.3. The “ESC Off” switch and telltale must be identified by the symbol shown
for “ESC Off” in Table 1of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101).
S5.4.4 The “ESC Off” telltale must be mounted inside the occupant compartment
in front of and in clear view of the driver.
S5.4.5 The “ESC Off” telltale remain continuously illuminated for as long as the
ESC is in a mode that renders it unable to satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and
S5.2.3, and
S5.4.6 Except as provided in paragraph S5.4.7, each “ESC Off” telltale must be
activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition locking system is turned to
the "On" ("Run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition locking
system is in a position between "On" ("Run") and "Start" that is designated by the
manufacturer as a check position.
S5.4.7 The “ESC Off” telltale need not be activated when a starter interlock is in
operation.
S5.4.8 The “ESC Off” telltale must extinguish after the ESC system has been
returned to its fully functional default mode.
S6. Test Conditions.
S6.1. Ambient conditions.
S6.1.1 The ambient temperature is between 0° C (32° F) and 40° C (104° F).
S6.1.2 The maximum wind speed is no greater than 10m/s (22 mph).
S6.2. Road test surface.
S6.2.1 The tests are conducted on a dry, uniform, solid-paved surface. Surfaces
with irregularities and undulations, such as dips and large cracks, are unsuitable.
118
S6.2.2 The road test surface must produce a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of
0.9 +/- 0.05 when measured using an American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E1136 standard reference test tire, in accordance with ASTM Method E 1337-
90, at a speed of 64.4 km/h (40 mph), without water delivery.
S6.2.3 The test surface has a consistent slope between level and 2%. All tests are
to be initiated in the direction of positive slope (uphill).
6.3 Vehicle conditions.
S6.3.1 The ESC system is enabled for all testing.
S6.3.2 Test Weight. The vehicle is loaded with the fuel tank filled to at least 75
percent of capacity, and total interior load of 168 kg (370 lbs) comprised of the test
driver, approximately 59 kg (130 lbs) of test equipment (automated steering machine,
data acquisition system and the power supply for the steering machine), and ballast as
required by differences in the weight of test drivers and test equipment.
S6.3.3 Tires. The vehicle is tested with the tires installed on the vehicle at time of
initial vehicle sale. The tires are inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended
cold tire inflation pressure(s) specified on the vehicle’s placard or the tire inflation
pressure label. Tubes may be installed to prevent tire de-beading.
S6.3.4 Outriggers. Outriggers must be used for tests of Sport Utility Vehicles
(SUVs), and they are permitted on other test vehicles if deemed necessary for driver
safety.
S6.3.5 A steering machine programmed to execute the required steering pattern
must be used in S7.5.2, S7.5.3, S7.6 and S7.9.
S7. Test Procedure.
119
S7.1 Inflate the vehicles’ tires to the cold tire inflation pressure(s) provided on the
vehicle’s placard or the tire inflation pressure label.
S7.2 Telltale bulb check. With the vehicle stationary and the ignition locking
system in the “Lock” or “Off” position, activate the ignition locking system to the “On”
(“Run”) position or, where applicable, the appropriate position for the lamp check. The
ESC system must perform a check of lamp function for the ESC malfunction telltale, and
if equipped, the “ESC Off” telltale, as specified in S5.3.4 and S5.4.6.
S7.3 “ESC Off” switch check. For vehicles equipped with an “ESC Off” feature,
with the vehicle stationary and the ignition locking system in the “Lock” or “Off”
position, activate the ignition locking system to the “On” (“Run”) position. Activate the
“ESC Off” switch and verify that the “ESC Off” telltale is illuminated. Turn the ignition
locking system to the “Lock” or “Off” position. Again, activate the ignition locking
system to the “On” (“Run”) position and verify that the “ESC Off” telltale has
extinguished indicating that the ESC system has been reactivated as specified in S5.4
S7.4 Brake Conditioning. Condition the vehicle brakes as follows:
S7.4.1 Ten stops are performed from a speed of 56 km/h (35 mph), with an
average deceleration of approximately 0.5 g.
S7.4.2 Immediately following the series of 56 km/h (35 mph) stops, three
additional stops are performed from 72 km/h (45 mph).
S7.4.3 When executing the stops in S7.4.2, sufficient force is applied to the brake
pedal to activate the vehicle’s antilock brake system (ABS) for a majority of each braking
event.
120
S7.4.4 Following completion of the final stop in S7.4.2, the vehicle is driven at a
speed of 72 km/h (45 mph) for five minutes to cool the brakes.
S7.5 Tire Conditioning. Condition the tires using the following procedure to wear
away mold sheen and achieve operating temperature immediately before beginning the
test runs of S7.6 and S7.9.
S7.5.1 The test vehicle is driven around a circle 30 meters (100 feet) in diameter
at a speed that produces a lateral acceleration of approximately 0.5 to 0.6 g for three
clockwise laps followed by three counterclockwise laps.
S7.5.2 Using a sinusoidal steering pattern at a frequency of 1 Hz, a peak steering
wheel angle amplitude corresponding to a peak lateral acceleration of 0.5-0.6 g, and a
vehicle speed of 56 km/h (35 mph), the vehicle is driven through four passes performing
10 cycles of sinusoidal steering during each pass.
S7.5.3. The steering wheel angle amplitude of the final cycle of the final pass is
twice that of the other cycles. The maximum time permitted between all laps and passes
is five minutes.
S7.6 Slowly Increasing Steer Test. The vehicle is subjected to two series of runs
of the Slowly Increasing Steer Test using a steering pattern that increases by 13.5 degrees
per second until a lateral acceleration of approximately 0.5 g is obtained. Three
repetitions are performed for each test series. One series uses counterclockwise steering,
and the other series uses clockwise steering. The maximum time permitted between each
test run is five minutes.
S7.6.1 From the Slowly Increasing Steer tests, the quantity “A” is determined.
“A” is the steering wheel angle in degrees that produces a steady state lateral acceleration
121
of 0.3 g for the test vehicle. Utilizing linear regression, A is calculated, to the nearest 0.1
degrees, from each of the six Slowly Increasing Steer tests. The absolute value of the six
A’s calculated is averaged and rounded to the nearest degree to produce the final
quantity, A, used below.
S7.7 After the quantity A has been determined, without replacing the tires, the tire
conditioning procedure described in S7.5 is performed immediately prior to conducting
the Sine with Dwell Test of S7.9.
S7.8 Check that the ESC system is enabled by ensuring that the ESC malfunction
and “ESC Off” (if provided) telltales are not illuminated.
S7.9 Sine with Dwell Test of Oversteer Intervention and Responsiveness. The
vehicle is subjected to two series of test runs using a steering pattern of a sine wave at 0.7
Hz frequency with a 500 ms delay beginning at the second peak amplitude as shown in
Figure 2 (the Sine with Dwell tests). One series uses counterclockwise steering for the
first half cycle, and the other series uses clockwise steering for the first half cycle. The
maximum time permitted between each test run is five minutes.
S7.9.1 The steering motion is initiated with the vehicle coasting in high gear at 80
+/- 1 km/h (50 +/- 1 mph).
S7.9.2 In each series of test runs, the steering amplitude is increased from run to
run, by 0.5A, provided that no such run will result in a steering amplitude greater than
that of the final run specified in S7.9.4.
S7.9.3 The steering amplitude for the initial run of each series is 1.5A where A is
the steering wheel angle determined in S7.6.1.
122
S7.9.4 The steering amplitude of the final run in each series is the greater of 6.5A
or 270 degrees.
S7.9.5 Notwithstanding S7.9.4, the test is terminated after a run in which the
vehicle does not satisfy S5.2.1 or S5.2.2.
S7.10 ESC Malfunction Detection.
S7.10.1 Simulate one or more ESC malfunction(s) by disconnecting the power
source to any ESC component, or disconnecting any electrical connection between ESC
components. When simulating an ESC malfunction, the electrical connections for the
telltale lamp(s) are not to be disconnected.
S7.10.2 With the vehicle stationary and the ignition locking system in the “Lock”
or “Off” position, activate the ignition locking system to the “On” (“Run”) position.
Verify that within two minutes of activating the ignition locking system, the ESC
malfunction indicator illuminates in accordance with S5.3.
S7.10.3 Deactivate the ignition locking system to the “Off” or “Lock” position.
After a five-minute period, activate the vehicle’s ignition locking system to the “On”
(“Run”) position. Verify that the ESC malfunction indicator again illuminate to signal a
malfunction and remains illuminated as long as the ignition locking system is in the “On”
(“Run”) position.
S7.10.4 Restore the ESC system to normal operation and verify that the telltale
has extinguished.
S8 Phase-in schedule.
S8.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008, and before
September 1, 2009. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008, and before
123
September 1, 2009, the number of vehicles complying with this standard must not be less
than 30 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 2008; or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2008, and before
September 1, 2009.
S8.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, and before September
1, 2010. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, and before September
1, 2010, the number of vehicles complying with this standard must not be less than 60
percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2009; or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2009, and before
September 1, 2010.
S8.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, and before September
1, 2011. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, and before September
1, 2011, the number of vehicles complying with this standard must not be less than 90
percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2007, and before September 1, 2010; or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2010, and before
September 1, 2011.
124
S8.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. All vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 must comply with this standard.
S8.5 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For purposes of complying with S8.1, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it
is certified as complying with this standard and is manufactured on or after (date to be
inserted that is 60 days after publication date of final rule), but before September 1, 2009.
(b) For purpose of complying with S8.2, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it:
(1) (i) Is certified as complying with this standard and is manufactured on or after
(date to be inserted that is 60 days after date of publication of the final rule), but before
September 1, 2010; and
(ii) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.1; or
(2) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, but before September 1, 2010.
(c) For purposes of complying with S8.3, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it:
(1) (i) Is certified as complying with this standard and is manufactured on or after
(date to be inserted that is 60 days after date of publication of the final rule), but before
September 1, 2011; and
(ii) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.1 or S8.2; or
(2) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, but before September 1, 2011.
S8.6 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S8.6.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for
each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each manufacturer under
S8.1 through S8.4, a vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be attributed
to a single manufacturer as follows, subject to S8.6.2:
125
(a) A vehicle that is imported must be attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one manufacturer,
one of which also markets the vehicle, must be attributed to the manufacturer that
markets the vehicle.
S8.6.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be attributed to
any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an express written contract, reported
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, between
the manufacturer so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S8.6.1.
S8.7 Small volume manufacturers.
Vehicles manufactured during any of the three years of the September 1, 2008
through August 31, 2011 phase-in by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000
vehicles for sale in the United States during that year are not subject to the requirements
of S8.1, S8.2, S8.3, and S8.5
S8.8 Final-stage manufacturers and alterers.
Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having previously been certified in accordance with
Part 567 of this chapter are not subject to the requirements of S8.1 through S8.5. Instead,
all vehicles produced by these manufacturers on or after September 1, 2012 must comply
with this standard.
[INSERT FIGURE 1]
[INSERT FIGURE 2]
126
Figure 1. Steering wheel position and yaw velocity information used to assess lateral stability.
Figure 2. Sine with Dwell steering profile.
127
PART 585 -- PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for Part 585 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
5. Subpart I is added to read as follows:
Subpart I – Electronic Stability Control System Phase-in Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.81 Scope.
585.82 Purpose.
585.83 Applicability.
585.84 Definitions.
585.85 Response to inquiries.
585.86 Reporting requirements.
585.87 Records.
585.88 Petition to extend period to file report.
Subpart I – Electronic Stability Control System Phase-in Reporting Requirements
§ 585.81 Scope.
This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less to submit a report, and maintain records related
to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the requirements of
Standard No. 126, Electronic stability control systems (49 CFR 571.126).
128
§ 585.82 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with
Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126).
§ 585.83 Applicability.
This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less. However, this subpart does not apply to manufacturers whose
production consists exclusively of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and
vehicles that are altered after previously having been certified in accordance with part
567 of this chapter. In addition, this subpart does not apply to manufacturers whose
production of motor vehicles for the United States market is less than 5,000 vehicles in a
production year.
§ 585.84 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart:
Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 of one year
and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
§ 585.85 Response to inquiries.
At any time prior to August 31, 2011, each manufacturer must, upon request from
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles
(by make, model, and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126). The manufacturer's designation of
a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable. Upon request, the manufacturer also must
129
specify whether it intends to utilize carry-forward credits, and the vehicles to which those
credits relate.
§ 585.86 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of the
production years ending August 31, 2009, August 31, 2010, and August 31, 2011, each
manufacturer must submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration concerning its compliance with Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126) for
its passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) produced in that year.
Each report must --
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official responsible for preparing
the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer complied with
the requirements of Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126) for the period covered by the
report and the basis for that statement;
(5) Provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
(b) Report content.
130
(1) Basis for statement of compliance. Each manufacturer must provide the
number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, manufactured for
sale in the United States for each of the three previous production years, or, at the
manufacturer's option, for the current production year. A new manufacturer that has not
previously manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United States must report the
number of such vehicles manufactured during the current production year.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer must report for the production year for which
the report is filed: the number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less
that meet Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126).
(3) Statement regarding compliance. Each manufacturer must provide a
statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer complied with the ESC
requirements as applicable to the period covered by the report, and the basis for that
statement. This statement must include an explanation concerning the use of any carryforward
credits.
(4) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each manufacturer whose
reporting of information is affected by one or more of the express written contracts
permitted by S8.6.2 of Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126) must:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of all parties to the
contract, and explain how the contract affects the report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
§ 585.87 Records.
131
Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle Identification Number
for each vehicle for which information is reported under § 585.86(b)(2) until December
31, 2013.
§ 585.88 Petition to extend period to file report.
A manufacturer may petition for extension of time to submit a report under this
Part. A petition will be granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension
and if the extension is consistent with the public interest. The petition must be received
not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in § 585.86(a). The filing of a
petition does not automatically extend the time for filing a report. The petition must be
submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

mitch236

Metal, of course you are correct. The government's response to every problem seems to be "remove all responsability from the consumer and make the product idiot proof". Not the better solution, which is to educate better drivers and remove the people that shouldn't be driving, but don't get me started!!!

FixedWing

Can there be any doubt that they are right?

Right now we have a situation where the systems are expensive and tend to appear only on more expensive, performance oriented cars. Of couse, these drivers are probably the least likely to need them. If the systems go mass-market then the costs will go down considerably. They will be on the mass market cars driven by the soccer moms with the kids in the back. These average drivers might not use these systems often but when they do they will be life savers.

My only problem, as I said before, is that it could possibly affect the cars themselves. For example, no more aggressive LSD systems. But if the technical problems can be dealt with then what's the issue?

Stephen

icon

robin,
but you do believe it should have the option of being fully disabled?

the people that made the criteria came to the conclusion that if the ability to fully disable it wasnt offered that people would pull a plug perhaps disabling other safety devices like abs as well.

tdc you get the record for longest post.
btw i mentioned the same thing in post no.36 (short version)

TD in DC

Yes, but just as I believe with respect to PSM, I think that individuals should have the choice, in this case whether to read the proposed rules for themselves or not

karlooz

then add the '99 996 to the list. no egas, just cable throttle, no PSM, PASM and a better suspension than the 964, 993

Bob Rouleau

Stephen - One of my concerns about PSM is that unskilled drivers may get themselves into more trouble because PSM builds a false sense of security. The story of ABS and its failure to reduce accidents may be repeated. Zone 1 PCA reports more incidents at DE in the novice run group. These are attributed to PSM to my surprise. A little skid or tail wag at low speeds can be a learning experience after all.

I am not saying nay to PSM, just that it will never replace good driving technique. Having tracked my son's Cayman S, I am with Colm in saying tha the current iteration of PSM is not intrusive in a properly driven car. I am not pleased at having to pay for PSM since I manage to drive my GT3 without it quite happily.

Best,

mooty

bob, i understand your point. but like going to school, one can argue spread sheets and calculators help you "cheat". i grew up doing a lot of math in my head or with abacus (not kidding).

psm is a TOOL. if the student think it's PLEASE SAVE ME, then they are hopeless. they will not learn much, if anything at all. but if they use psm to learn, it will help them while have some safety. for example, if the psm light flikckers, they should say to self "why did that happend. if i didnt' have psm, i may have crashed. let see if i can do next lap without triggering it." then it's a great tool.

of course above idea is rather idealistic, however. most ppl are inpatient and given a 500hp car, they want to feel like schumy i am afraid.

Bob Rouleau

Mooty - yes PSM can be a tool IF the driver recognizes that PSM is correcting his driving errors. If I was God, when PSM intervenes there would be a loud buzzer to inform the otherwise ignorant drier that PSM had saved his butt.

PogueMoHone

Interesting you say this Bob, because this was one of the very reasons I sold my TT and bought a GT2. I felt that I could drive the TT extremely fast, but never was convinced that I was in control (or that good). I felt it was better to have no aids and be self reliant.. that way had a better chance of staying alive, and self preservation is my #1 goal.

As time progressed (02-6) and Porsche evolved the PSM I found that I was able, with professional instruction (and natural conservatism), to avoid any impact of this system. I am at the point where everyone tells me I can carry more speed, but until I have the reactions ingrained in my mind, prior to a sphincter clenching moment, I am not likely to go there. I am, afterall, the biggest chicken in the world (and with good reason)!

What amazes, and sometimes frustrates me, is the level of expertize among those who have had very little track time or training.... I guess they were just born with talent!

Then again, there is that old immutable addage.. "ignorance is bliss".

So, at the end of the day, you assume the risk and pay the piper!

FixedWing

Bob,

I totally agree with everything you said. I do believe that stability control can be abused and can cover up mistakes. You are absolutely right that it will not substitute for skill.

However, the portion of the driving population that I am talking about are the 98% who will never appear at a DE. They are uninterested in driving fast or learning car control. It is easy enough to say that they shouldn't drive if they aren't willing to learn to be good drivers but this isn't the world we live in. In our world everyone drives and half of them are below average drivers. These are not people who are normally going to lean on stability control. But these are people who are going to one day oversteer and over-correct on frost and crash. If these people use their stability systems once in a lifetime it will be enough.

Oh, and the reason I think stability control is different to ABS is that ABS is a tool to go faster. I use it that way all of the time. I don't think stability control is such a tool (or if it is I have yet to master it). Stability control is something that kicks in when you screw up and tends to slow you down.

Stephen

krC2S

i found it interesting that a PCA instructor i met at one of the DE's kept PSM on in his 997 which he
tracks sometimes along with his track car( an older 911 with no psm ) and was recommending to others to do that as long as it's in sport mode which is even less intrusive

not sure if i agree but i guess there's no harm if it can be truned off

Nordschleife

Jeff

Most of the time its a matter of complete indifference to me whether its on or off. I know that my passengers do seem to derive some bizarre pleasure from turning it on an off during fast laps, maybe they like laughing, I don't know.

Most of the time I do very little in the car, and what I do do I try and do very slowly and smoothly, this doesn't trigger the ESP/PSM whatever. There are circumstances when it can get tricky, of course, damp leaves on the road when braking and snow on the wrong tyres spring to mind.

If I habitually used power to get rid of oversteer, i would get tired of stability control very quickly. However I usually try and deal with that problem at the outset and then only need small corrections subsequently. The trick to driving with stability management, as far as I am concerned, and I must add it may not work for everybody, is small inputs for short periods. I do get the rear end out with the system on, it does help to be pressing on a bit. In snow its much easier to lear it up a bit, with the right tyres of course.

So on the street I don't see the need for turning ESP off. However, I do have my ECUs modified to let me do things that are normally off limits, such as braking and accellerating at the same time. As far as ABS goes, I'll take a modern and properly callibrated system every time. Why would anybody want to turn off ABS unless driving fast on gravel or snow with a system that does not recognise these surfaces? ABS modulates the wheels individually, the driver modulates the braking effort on all wheels when only one or two wheels are at their limit, its a sub-optimal solution.

On track, it is faster without ESP, but there are stability systems that are more track oriented than others. I see these as a boon to endurance racing efforts where there is often a 'patron' driving who might not have all the car control skills of the younger and fitter hired guns who do this for a living. Driving in a downpoiur at night on slicks is not something many people are comfortable with, and rarely figures in the experience docket of part time race drivers, in these circumstances a stbility system is worth its weight in gold.

Gat your **** out of your comfortable Southern Swamp and I'll show you what I mean - you need to experience supercharged gayboys Ruf style, anyway.

R+C

gete3

Several years ago I used to drive a lightweight Subaru Spec C with no driver aids on the road and track with lots of sideways fun and without any problem. On wet tracks the car would slide predictably and the AWD often prevented a major moment.

One icy day on a mountain road at moderate speed in a corner, however, the car suddenly and without any warning turned 180 degrees and continued driving backwards. Luckily the car stayed in the correct lane and there was no other traffic to witness the event.

My passenger was impressed and laughed quite a lot, but I was surprised at how quickly a car I knew well at the limit could suddenly drive in reverse. PSM has its uses on public roads in slippery conditions.

stuka

I am not here to impress people with my mad skills, because I don't have any. Though I have long passed the rookie status, and Sears remains my favorite. I certainly hope that you are not implying that only professionals deserve to drive cars without traction controls, because basic RWD control skills really isn't that difficult to learn.

Perhaps PSM has evolved, all I can tell you is that the one in my 996 Turbo basically forced me to get rid of it at a loss to get into a GT2, so that if I am fast, it's all me, and if I screwed up, it's all me as well.

The biggest problem that I see with PSM is people's dependency on them. My observations at DE events have been that people leave them on never learning any car control, and because there is no general requirement of car control skills, instructors mostly tell their students to leave it on because they simply don't know/trust that their students have any level of car control. So these students progress to the fast group, with rear pads wearing out faster than their front pads, and one day, they get in way way over their heads, and spectacular crashes happen. Having personally witnessed plenty of spectacular crashes in Laguna Seca, Sears, PIR, what have you, and having spoken to some who even after the crash, had no clue what happened, led me to ths concluson that for DE's, it's better to remove that mental dependency from the very beginning, than not.

I will never own a P car with non defeatable PSM, I don't care that the threshold is higher, it can still come back on on its own. And really, unless there is a PSM log, it was probably still coming on subtly without drivers knowing. The bottom line is that it's my car, and I don't like to be told by the computer how I should drive it. BMW's DSC can be completely turned off, why not Porsche?

I am happy with my GT2, I am happy that when I am screwing around on the streets, I can go around slow corners by simply using the throttle, and I am happy that cars like the GT2 was made by Porsche. And heck, it even came without a sunroof too.