ESP

[Astraist]

High speed lane change[...]High speed lane change and emergency stop. In this case, I was required to change lane and stop in the shortest distance possible. Again, I knew the priority was to first brake, as the car (with ABS) would be more stable. If I had tried to change lane first, and then braked, I would have risked losing control unless I held off braking until the chassis had recovered from the lane change. The Boxster was highly impressive once again – once firmly on the brakes with the ABS operating, it was easy to change lane rapidly and without drama.

The priority is to brake first for other reasons, except outright stability. By braking, you slow down and "earn" more reaction time towards the steering manuever. The additional time can also be usefull for th obstruction (i.e. a driver crossing your path or oncoming towards you) to get out of your way.

When a driver needs to brake suddenly, it's always best to gently tilt the car towards the "open" side (the left shoulder on the motorway, e.g.) so your car is heading diagonally towards the obstacle, and very gradualy moving both out of the way of the obstruction and of more traffic coming up behind.

However, if a proper avoidance manuever is needed, besides this initial steering input, than it is best to first wipe off as much speed as possible (again, while gently "slipping" towards the desired side) and wait to the very end of the braking (just short of the obstacle) to make a second, more dramatic steering movement.

[martine]

The priority is to brake first for other reasons, except outright stability. By braking, you slow down and "earn" more reaction time towards the steering manuever. The additional time can also be usefull for th obstruction (i.e. a driver crossing your path or oncoming towards you) to get out of your way.

When a driver needs to brake suddenly, it's always best to gently tilt the car towards the "open" side (the left shoulder on the motorway, e.g.) so your car is heading diagonally towards the obstacle, and very gradualy moving both out of the way of the obstruction and of more traffic coming up behind.

However, if a proper avoidance manuever is needed, besides this initial steering input, than it is best to first wipe off as much speed as possible (again, while gently "slipping" towards the desired side) and wait to the very end of the braking (just short of the obstacle) to make a second, more dramatic steering movement.

Sounds like sensible advice. ESP helps as well...this is just the sort of unexpected manoeuvre it was designed to help with but I take the point about braking hard first and then steering around the hazard.

Am I right in thinking ESP is going to be compulsory on new cars (in the EU) very soon?

[WS]

Am I right in thinking ESP is going to be compulsory on new cars (in the EU) very soon?

Yes - from October 2014.

[martine]

Am I right in thinking ESP is going to be compulsory on new cars (in the EU) very soon?

Yes - from October 2014.

Thanks - thought as much. Some say it's use is almost as effective at reducing casualties as seat belts.

[Astraist]

I Wouldn't say. It's an active safety measure compared to a passive one. Also, the seatbelt can be seen as multi-functional when compared to the stability control, which only works in skidding situations which are less frequent than collisions caused due to outright "traffic management" related collisions (front to-rear collisions due to tailgating, e.g.).

Also, ESP has it's own limit. We once set out to judge the system's limits, and had some interesting findings. Most stability programs are capable of keeping you safe only in deviations of up to 25-30% of the critical speed for the turn. Even at lower velocities, it often takes a driver's input to assist the system, either by maintaining directional control over the car and steering it to safety (during oversteer) or by braking it lightly (during understeer).

In particular, the system showed a lower ability to handle understeer than it did with oversteer, even though it is far more common. The problem is that the system handles the skid via assymetric braking, which in the event of understeer happens by braking the inside-rear tyre, which during understeer has little weight (and thus little grip) on it, and might even be swung airborne due to the rear anti-roll bar.

The system also had problems to deal with under-inflated tyres, mis-aligned suspension and other car problems, provocative driver's inputs or very problematic driving conditions like very steep slopes or high slippery conditions like when driving on polished ice or when aquaplaning.

[michael769]

The main benefit of ESP is to make the car handle more predictably during a loss of control or near loss of control. In particular its ability to prevent lift off oversteer - IMO the biggest single cause of single vehicle loss of control incidents.

One must remember that itis aimed at the vast majority of drivers who lack the opportunity to learn (and then maintain) how to control a vehicle at the limits, or to recover from a loss of control. Something it does very well. Yes it has issues in exreme low grip conditions (in many cars I find I have to turn it off to get going on a snowy or icy hill for example).

I have had the opportunity to try ESP on a skid pan set up to imitate wet mud conditions, and its ability to right a car from a irrecoverable loss of control is quite stunning. Time and time again i felt the car losing it only moments later to be sitting stationary still facing the right way. On the other handwhen we put the pan into a wet ice configuration the ESP was woefully bad, making impossible to move the car in some cases.

So yes it does have its limitations, but they are limits that a typical driver in a mainstream car will not be able to reach in their day to day experiences.

Put ESP in a high performance car on the track, though, and you will quickly find its limits, usually in a gravel trap!

[Silk]

I Wouldn't say. It's an active safety measure compared to a passive one. Also, the seatbelt can be seen as multi-functional when compared to the stability control, which only works in skidding situations which are less frequent than collisions caused due to outright "traffic management" related collisions (front to-rear collisions due to tailgating, e.g.).

Also, ESP has it's own limit. We once set out to judge the system's limits, and had some interesting findings. Most stability programs are capable of keeping you safe only in deviations of up to 25-30% of the critical speed for the turn. Even at lower velocities, it often takes a driver's input to assist the system, either by maintaining directional control over the car and steering it to safety (during oversteer) or by braking it lightly (during understeer).

In particular, the system showed a lower ability to handle understeer than it did with oversteer, even though it is far more common. The problem is that the system handles the skid via assymetric braking, which in the event of understeer happens by braking the inside-rear tyre, which during understeer has little weight (and thus little grip) on it, and might even be swung airborne due to the rear anti-roll bar.

The system also had problems to deal with under-inflated tyres, mis-aligned suspension and other car problems, provocative driver's inputs or very problematic driving conditions like very steep slopes or high slippery conditions like when driving on polished ice or when aquaplaning.

Goodness me. Whatever happened to taking it easy?

My current car has ESP as standard but I'd have saved the money if I'd had the option. It's completely unnecessary, IMO.

[jameslb101]

My current car has ESP as standard but I'd have saved the money if I'd had the option. It's completely unnecessary, IMO.

The insurance companies would say otherwise.

My car's from the pre-ESP days, but if it was available on a car I was looking at it would be very difficult to say no, provided it could be switched fully off for track use.

Mods: consider thread split?

[Grahar]

'Taking it easy' and good observation (even as an experienced advanced driver) does not guarantee that you will not find yourself having to execute an emergency manoeuvre, and where ESP might be of benefit (although in certain situations I accept it could be a hindrance e.g. on snow or ice).

Despite having attended a couple of car control sessions, if I found myself in a situation (hopefully not of my own making) which required a high speed emergency manouvere, particularly in poor road conditions, I wouldn't hedge my bets on my car control skills (admittedly very modest) being more effective in a non esp car than one equipped with it. Under pressure, having to manage braking steering, and weight transfer is a lot for the human mind to process in a matter of seconds.

Or maybe I should just go on a Don Palmer course and buy a TVR

[martine]

+1

[waremark]

Or maybe I should just go on a Don Palmer course and buy a TVR

I cannot speak for Don specifically, but other limit handling gurus have told me they are happy to enjoy the safety net of ESP in case an animal jumps out in front of the car on a dark and rainy night.

I think that when the compulsory fitment of ESP to cheaper cars (all more expensive cars have had it for years) works its way through the system to the vehicles generally driven by new and young drivers, say 10 years from now, there will be a significant reduction in serious injuries from single vehicle accidents. A much bigger reduction than would be achieved by making any conceivable amount of limit handling training compulsory.

[exportmanuk]

I think that when the compulsory fitment of ESP to cheaper cars (all more expensive cars have had it for years) works its way through the system to the vehicles generally driven by new and young drivers, say 10 years from now, there will be a significant reduction in serious injuries from single vehicle accidents. A much bigger reduction than would be achieved by making any conceivable amount of limit handling training compulsory.

I wonder if this will be true. Having gone beyond their limit and the car has corrected their mistake, will they have the sense to realise what has happened or will the continue to push the boundaries and overrun the system anyway.

[Silk]

I think that when the compulsory fitment of ESP to cheaper cars (all more expensive cars have had it for years) works its way through the system to the vehicles generally driven by new and young drivers, say 10 years from now, there will be a significant reduction in serious injuries from single vehicle accidents. A much bigger reduction than would be achieved by making any conceivable amount of limit handling training compulsory.

I wonder if this will be true. Having gone beyond their limit and the car has corrected their mistake, will they have the sense to realise what has happened or will the continue to push the boundaries and overrun the system anyway.

Most people have a healthy sense of danger which means they never go anywhere near the limits. ESP and other safety aids are only there to mitigate the effects of the moronic minority. Once the idiots discover they can drive even more recklessly in the hope the technology will get them out of trouble, they will. We'll then be back to square one.

[Silk]

'Taking it easy' and good observation (even as an experienced advanced driver) does not guarantee that you will not find yourself having to execute an emergency manoeuvre, and where ESP might be of benefit (although in certain situations I accept it could be a hindrance e.g. on snow or ice).

I'd rather be driven by a good driver in a non-ESP equipped car than a poor driver with ESP. I'd also rather take it a bit easier myself than hope the technology will step in if I don't.

As far as I'm concerned, emergency manoeuvres are rare enough to be negligible and, even then, there's no guarantee ESP will save the day.

[Silk]

My current car has ESP as standard but I'd have saved the money if I'd had the option. It's completely unnecessary, IMO.

The insurance companies would say otherwise.

I'm sure there may be some evidence statistically that ESP mitigates the effects of bad driving when it comes to paying out on claims, but it's irrelevant if you don't crash.