Notices
RX-8 Discussion General discussion about the RX-8 that doesn't fit in one of the specialty forums.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

dsc cost me a new hood,bumper ect...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 04-19-2006 | 08:27 AM
  #26  
tuj's Avatar
tuj
Registered
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Its called understeer. Don't blame the DSC.
Old 04-19-2006 | 08:38 AM
  #27  
sti_eric's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by Gomez
They are better than quite good. At the time of the RX-8's release, it had the best performing brakes ever fitted to a Japanese production car....bar none.

As far as I know, nothing released in the last few years has bettered the RX-8's stopping ability.
Wishful thinking. For one, I can tell you that the Brembos on the Evo and STi are better than the RX8's brakes. 0-60 stopping times, according to Motor Trend:

Evo MR: 107 feet
STi: 108 feet
Ford GT: 109 feet
RX-8: 111 feet
Old 04-19-2006 | 08:41 AM
  #28  
sti_eric's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by Chrisbert
Glad to hear you are OK. Think of what another 10-15mph in your speed may have resulted in, and be thankful that you were not really hauling **** and the brakes are excellent. You may have had a face full of truck bumper; ain't good.

DSC probably did save your car (and body) from total destruction down 1 side. I'm guessing the driver's side since you said you yanked it to the right to avoid the wreck. When you braked hard you loaded the front suspension. When you yanked it right you added lateral load to the front suspension. Without DSC, or in your FC the inertia would cause your rear end to want to go where your centerline was going before the drastic directional change. Since DSC makes every attempt to keep you from spinning it made your rear stay planted and created a "push" or understeer situation. I doubt it was enough to make a difference in you clearing the impact though. Even under heavy braking the turn-in on the 8 is really good, but you can't outdrive physics and most people can't outdrive DSC.
That sums it up quite nicely.
Old 04-19-2006 | 01:54 PM
  #30  
bascho's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
From: Motorcity
Originally Posted by Gomez
They are better than quite good. At the time of the RX-8's release, it had the best performing brakes ever fitted to a Japanese production car....bar none.

As far as I know, nothing released in the last few years has bettered the RX-8's stopping ability.

You missed the joke in stew's response (please reread). The first guy said the BREAKS were good. Stew was merely pointing out the typo. I got the joke stew
Old 04-19-2006 | 05:39 PM
  #31  
therm8's Avatar
Bummed, but bring on OU!
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 1
From: Charleston, SC
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Wishful thinking. For one, I can tell you that the Brembos on the Evo and STi are better than the RX8's brakes. 0-60 stopping times, according to Motor Trend:

Evo MR: 107 feet
STi: 108 feet
Ford GT: 109 feet
RX-8: 111 feet

My research shows me that Car and Driver tested the '04 STi at 166ft 70-0, and the Rx-8 at 153ft (new) 145ft (at 40k miles...new tires I assume). They showed the Evo (non MR) at 157ft so I could see the lighter MR stopping better than the 8 in '04.
Old 04-19-2006 | 07:06 PM
  #32  
KYLiquid's Avatar
Oil Injection
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 2
From: Orlando, FL
get SS brake lines, and good pads/good tires.....you will drop about 8feet off your 60-0 in a straight line (according to multiple before/after runs on dry pavement) that gets you close to 100ft stoping distance........that is VERY good.

The stock rx8 stops in 113feet 60-0, the $500,000+ Merc/McLaren SLR stops from 0-60 in 112ft..........that shows that the brakes are DAMN good.

Of course from higher speeds the SLR stops faster.....but 60-0 is what your gonna use to avoid most accidents......
Old 04-19-2006 | 10:59 PM
  #33  
valpac's Avatar
Ahead of its time
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 0
From: GA
Originally Posted by wisconsinben
...There is very little to protect you in a side impact.
Not exactly an accurate statement. 4 stars side impact rating. 6 to 10% chance of serious injury. Thats pretty good.

http://www.safercar.gov
Old 04-19-2006 | 11:02 PM
  #34  
swerver's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
like everyone else, good that you're okay......

...........just my 2 cents; yes, in my state if you hit anyone from the rear, period, it is considered your fault; following to closely, etc...........

but I can empathize. I just got my 8 a few days ago. I am an experienced driver but have to admit that the 8 just kinda sneaks up on you with the smooth way it handles. I know this comes under the header of "learning your car" but I too have been caught off guard how quickly I came up to (thanfully not under) traffic in front of me.

I'm so used to cars giving me violent feedback that its taking a little time to learn the way this beautiful car handles................................
Old 04-20-2006 | 02:23 PM
  #35  
yiksing's Avatar
the giant tastetickles
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
From: in the basement
Originally Posted by tuj
Its called understeer. Don't blame the DSC.
The DSC might cause understeer to stabilize car but I doubt in this case.
Old 04-21-2006 | 11:10 AM
  #36  
tuj's Avatar
tuj
Registered
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by yiksing
The DSC might cause understeer to stabilize car but I doubt in this case.
The DSC will actually correct for understeer if it needs to, but only if the understeer is dramatic. In this case, the guy says he 'cut the wheel as sharp as it would go.' That suggests that he turned the wheel all the way to lock, which is probably an indication that the car was understeering (or not changing direction at all) and he added steering, which is a natural but incorrect solution. Since he was already hard on the brakes, the ABS should have been engaging, and there was simply no available traction to change direction. The DSC won't necessarily cause understeer, since it is doing selective braking to get the rotational axis back in line. With the ABS engaged, the system knows that the driver is trying to get the car stopped in a hurry, and will focus on stopping as short as possible. Since all the brakes are working towards this goal, the DSC can only selectively 'unbrake' a wheel should rotation become a problem. This is very unlikely.

So this is an issue of driver error. You can't expect the car to turn while the ABS is engaged; there is simply no traction available at the front tires. There were two options in this scenario; brake hard and straight, or swerve. Not both. He says he can't remember if the wheels locked or not. Simple answer: they didn't. The ABS won't let them.

If he was traveling at 40 mph, he was going about 59 ft / sec. He said he was two or three car lengths behind the truck, which if that's correct, equals about 30-50 ft. Now assuming a 1 second reaction time, he's quickly screwed because he hasn't started braking until AFTER the point at which he could outbrake the truck.

That's why basing your following distance on car lengths is stupid. Instead, you should base it on a fixed amount of time, ideally 1.5 or 2 seconds. What I mean by this is when the car in front of you passes a fixed object (like a sign), your car should pass that same object no sooner than 2 seconds later. This applies for any speed. Assuming you will be able to outbrake the car in front of you (which is a decent assumption in the 8), you'll still need those 2 seconds to react and get on the brakes hard.

So I don't think the DSC was a factor in this incident. The RX-8 is not prone to spinning under hard braking, even if you cut the wheel hard. Which is why I take issue with this thread's title. It wasn't the DSC that cost you a new hood, it was not reacting fast enough to the situation ahead of you, and not leaving enough space.

Last edited by tuj; 04-21-2006 at 11:15 AM.
Old 04-21-2006 | 11:41 AM
  #37  
StewC625's Avatar
Insanely Yellow
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,093
Likes: 3
From: Buffalo Grove IL
Originally Posted by bascho
You missed the joke in stew's response (please reread). The first guy said the BREAKS were good. Stew was merely pointing out the typo. I got the joke stew
Thank GOD someone is paying attention! Thanks Bascho!

Time for my coffee brake.
Old 04-21-2006 | 11:48 AM
  #38  
brattesani's Avatar
broken swaybar king
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: Davis, ca
what might have avoided the accident would have been to do straight line breaking just to change the weight of the car onto the front wheels and then let off the breaks and turn, that way your not putting all the weight of the car on just one wheel.
Old 04-21-2006 | 12:49 PM
  #39  
wisconsinben's Avatar
Black and B-E-A-UTIFUL!
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
Originally Posted by valpac
Not exactly an accurate statement. 4 stars side impact rating. 6 to 10% chance of serious injury. Thats pretty good.

http://www.safercar.gov
Yes...your information is correct, however I meant it in the relative sense. There is very little to protect your body in a side impact, compared to the amount of protection in a frontal impact. And I would know...that is what I do for a living. The facility I work at performs crash testing for NHTSA and various other companies. It's very possible that WE performed the tests you are referring to.

From my professional opinion...you, as a person, are much safer if you hit something with the front of your vehicle rather than the side (assuming all other variables are constant...speed, height of impact, etc.).

Edit: Sorry if I came off all "high-and-mighty." Vehicle safety is a passionate topic for me.

Last edited by wisconsinben; 04-21-2006 at 12:59 PM.
Old 04-21-2006 | 01:28 PM
  #40  
Glyphon's Avatar
脾臓が痛みました
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 2
From: Land of Peaches, Pecans, and Peanuts
Originally Posted by wisconsinben
Yes...your information is correct, however I meant it in the relative sense. There is very little to protect your body in a side impact, compared to the amount of protection in a frontal impact. And I would know...that is what I do for a living. The facility I work at performs crash testing for NHTSA and various other companies. It's very possible that WE performed the tests you are referring to.

From my professional opinion...you, as a person, are much safer if you hit something with the front of your vehicle rather than the side (assuming all other variables are constant...speed, height of impact, etc.).

Edit: Sorry if I came off all "high-and-mighty." Vehicle safety is a passionate topic for me.
do you get to press the button that makes the cars go crash? if i had that job, i'd be like those little kids in the toyota minivan commerical.

kid: "do another"
researcher: "there are no more"
kid: "what about your car?"

hehe.
Old 04-21-2006 | 04:36 PM
  #41  
valpac's Avatar
Ahead of its time
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 0
From: GA
Originally Posted by wisconsinben
There is very little to protect your body in a side impact, compared to the amount of protection in a frontal impact.
?. Side air bags and side curtain airbags vs front airbag.

Originally Posted by wisconsinben
From my professional opinion...you, as a person, are much safer if you hit something with the front of your vehicle rather than the side (assuming all other variables are constant...speed, height of impact, etc.).
This may be true for other vehicles but a side impact is safer than a frontal crash for the 8.

Driver gets four star safety for a side crash (6%-10% chance for serious injury) vs four star safety for a frontal crash (11% to 20% chance of serious injury)

The HIC (head injury criterion) for a frontal crash is 485 vs. 282 for a side crash. So the melon is safer in a side crash.

Not trying to argue with you but opinions aren't facts.
Old 04-21-2006 | 04:49 PM
  #42  
Cam's Avatar
Cam
this space for rent
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
From: Indy
DSC's fault? Um, no. Dont tailgate and you wouldnt have rearended the truck in front.
Old 04-22-2006 | 12:01 AM
  #43  
Revolver's Avatar
Shootin' from the hip
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
The title to this thread is just inflammatory.

As you heard in chapter and verse, DSC didn't exacerbate your accident.

And I agree with Gomez about the brakes. I've attended a couple of defensive drive courses in company with a variety of other cars (including "comparable" cars like the 350Z). Only an Alfa GTA bettered the 8 in a straightline stop, and the 8 left it for dead when it came time to do brake and swerve stops.

Highly recommend these courses. Even for good drivers they can be great reminders of good habits and also allow you to see just what your car can do accident avoidance-wise in a safe environment. Of course, they're also good fun.
Old 04-22-2006 | 04:10 AM
  #44  
swoope's Avatar
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,602
Likes: 36
From: orlando, fl
but you miss the ??? about the brake recall!!!

the car is wrong, not me... or is it the dsc, or the abs... i dont know , but it is not ME.

beers
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RXFEVER
RX-8 Parts For Sale/Wanted
38
08-29-2018 11:14 AM
Kahl
NE For Sale/Wanted
21
08-05-2017 03:49 AM
RXFEVER
West For Sale/Wanted
17
09-11-2016 03:51 PM
Trancemission
RX-8 Multimedia/Photo Gallery
46
12-02-2015 08:26 PM



You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 AM.