Why switch DSC/ESP off on public roads?

[rhinochopig]

Simply because in some conditions you want the car to do exactly as you decide and not what it thinks is best. I had a Cupra R as a courtesy car for a weekend and the stability programme on that was very intrusive on a wet road. In corners where I wanted to the rear to be mobile it wouldn't let me, which made it dangerous as I had to quickly react to what it wanted to do, rather than what I was expecting it to do.

[Finlandia]

Caulkhead said:

Nope, it was definitely so you could turn it off for gravel and snow.

The reasoning behind the ABS was that at full braking you would have steering input. On snow and ice this is cruical as you cannot stop the car withing normal braking distance and need to be able to steer away from the danger. Locked brakes/wheels = no steering and a big crash.

This was what I got taught at driving school in Finland, they may have been talking sillies though, wouldn't have been the first time. After all the highly positioned brake lights were banned in Finland because they blinded drivers behind, I kid you not.

[Froomee]

John D. said:

Its fun.

This, its like saying whats the point in revving hard when you can change early and use a higher gear to obtain the same speed.

[sebhaque]

I never turn the DSC off in my 1er - its very unobtrusive, it'll still let me have a bit of a play and wheelspin off the line or between gears. However, I tend to leave the TC off in the Alfa, as it really doesn't do anything except irritate me. If I fancy being a bit exuberant on a back road, it won't let me pull away quickly as it thinks I'm about to crash and cuts the power. Similarly on standing water, it'll occasionally kick in for no reason, causing the car to slow down a lot. Obviously the VX hasn't got tc and I have gone backwards unexpectedly once or twice.

[Caulkhead]

Finlandia said:

Caulkhead said:

Nope, it was definitely so you could turn it off for gravel and snow.

The reasoning behind the ABS was that at full braking you would have steering input. On snow and ice this is cruical as you cannot stop the car withing normal braking distance and need to be able to steer away from the danger. Locked brakes/wheels = no steering and a big crash.

This was what I got taught at driving school in Finland, they may have been talking sillies though, wouldn't have been the first time. After all the highly positioned brake lights were banned in Finland because they blinded drivers behind, I kid you not.

The switch was for use at low speeds. ABS systems are easily confused by snow and gravel to the point where they barely apply the brakes at all. With the ABS switched off a pile of snow or gravel builds up in front of the wheels stopping the car quicker than with ABS left on. This was the reasoning for early ABS systems having an off switch back in the eighties.

[Blue Oval84]

Froomee said:

This, its like saying whats the point in revving hard when you can change early and use a higher gear to obtain the same speed.

Eh? No it's not, that's a totally different question...

[roachcoach]

Finlandia said:

Caulkhead said:

Nope, it was definitely so you could turn it off for gravel and snow.

The reasoning behind the ABS was that at full braking you would have steering input. On snow and ice this is cruical as you cannot stop the car withing normal braking distance and need to be able to steer away from the danger. Locked brakes/wheels = no steering and a big crash.

This was what I got taught at driving school in Finland, they may have been talking sillies though, wouldn't have been the first time. After all the highly positioned brake lights were banned in Finland because they blinded drivers behind, I kid you not.

[Apparently, never verified myself] In loose dirt/snow locking stops the car faster because the debris dams up in front of the wheel forming a buffer, ABS prevents this happening.

[Finlandia]

Caulkhead said:

The switch was for use at low speeds. ABS systems are easily confused by snow and gravel to the point where they barely apply the brakes at all. With the ABS switched off a pile of snow or gravel builds up in front of the wheels stopping the car quicker than with ABS left on. This was the reasoning for early ABS systems having an off switch back in the eighties.

There it is then, we don't do low speeds in Finland
I can't recall any cars with on/off switches for ABS being sold in Finland, the reason probably was that to prevent you from flicking a switch all the time while driving on different roads and speeds.

roachcoach said:

[Apparently, never verified myself] In loose dirt/snow locking stops the car faster because the debris dams up in front of the wheel forming a buffer, ABS prevents this happening.

It does stop the car quicker, but on snow you also lose all/most steering input. ABS in the early days was quite clunky and big fisted though, so there probably was a good reason for the on/off option in some markets.

[davy9449]

Just to get back to the original question here. I pose 2 questions, of which I suspect I know the answer to both.

1. If you have a crash with the DSC/ESP disabled in the vehicle, and that warrants police involvement, are you subject to being charged for reckless driving?

2. Your car is insured as having the stability pgm fitted to your vehicle. If it can be proved that this is disabled during a collision, will they pay out?

For info, my old boss crashed his Boxster a few years ago, and the copper asked him if the DSC was turned off (he crashed into a ditch exiting a roundabout) and told him if it had been he would have been charged. There was him and a passenger in the car.

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

[John D.]

davy9449 said:

Just to get back to the original question here. I pose 2 questions, of which I suspect I know the answer to both.

1. If you have a crash with the DSC/ESP disabled in the vehicle, and that warrants police involvement, are you subject to being charged for reckless driving?

2. Your car is insured as having the stability pgm fitted to your vehicle. If it can be proved that this is disabled during a collision, will they pay out?

For info, my old boss crashed his Boxster a few years ago, and the copper asked him if the DSC was turned off (he crashed into a ditch exiting a roundabout) and told him if it had been he would have been charged. There was him and a passenger in the car.

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

1. Depends on the circumstances of the crash surely. Even in the scenario your boss described sounds a bit legally tenuous.

2. Stronger case for this perhaps. Given that insurance companies charge extra if you boost the engine power of your car. Getting a bit close to having a black box in the car though.

[paddyhasneeds]

davy9449 said:

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

Oh come on, this is PistonHeads

My take on it is that it's a little like listening to people who don't wear seatbelts explaining why they don't. When it comes down to it there's really no sensible reason not to do so, but they'll always come up with something to try and justify it.

[roachcoach]

davy9449 said:

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

Same reason people drive manuals instead of autos

Furthermore, not all systems are created equal


And this comes from someone who has it on 99.5% of the time.

[Jasandjules]

It stays on in my Passat Diesel estate... No idea why there's an option to switch it off on that car!

[davy9449]

Not trying to pitch myself as a saint here, I'm too tight to get my car sideways, although, if no-one buys my car, it'll be due tyres shortly, so might make good use of the last few microns!! Not really had any sideways fun since my 944

[HereBeMonsters]

paddyhasneeds said:

davy9449 said:

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

Oh come on, this is PistonHeads

My take on it is that it's a little like listening to people who don't wear seatbelts explaining why they don't. When it comes down to it there's really no sensible reason not to do so, but they'll always come up with something to try and justify it.

Rubbish.

My traction control is in charge of over 220bhp going through the front wheels of a 1300kg + car. Obviously there is going to be some slip (usually when the turbo comes on song) but what does the system do? Yep, kills power to both wheels. The revs literally drop. When pulling onto a motorway or going for a gap on a busy roundabout, I'd rather modulate the slip with my right foot (which is analogue) than rely on the "on or off" traction control.

For taking corners fast in the wet thought, it's ace. Saved my skin once when the car was new, and I forgot it was not lithe and nimble like my other two!

[freecar]

All systems are not equal.

If everybody had to have the ABS that is currently on my Dads Mitsubishi Galant then I'd rather nobody had it! However if it was the ABS that I had in the Boxster then I would want everyone to have it.

I had DSC in the Jag and had to turn it off as I couldn't fight my instincts and the system was so slow that we'd end up fishtailing between us! With it off it was fine, but on I'd countersteer and the car would counter brake me! The TC was also woeful as it would just make the accelerator dead for a second or two, felt very strange and used to cut in on the motorway on full waft mode?!? Possibly faulty but no warning lights to say it wasn't working as it should.

Personally I am against it in a way as I know people who are so mechanicallyt inept they'd drive around with the car keeping them on the road all the time, they wouldn't notice if they had a flat tyre, I kid you not!

[Zwoelf]

Jasandjules said:

It stays on in my Passat Diesel estate... No idea why there's an option to switch it off on that car!

So if you're caught with one side of the car on ice/low grip surface and the other with grip, the spinning wheel is picked up by the DSC, it cuts engine power, so none gets through to the one with traction either - so you stay put. Turn the DSC off, one spins and the one with traction can get you going as engine torque output remains unimpeded.

[Caulkhead]

davy9449 said:

Who can honestly say, they are a better driver than the systems that are fitted to cars to make them safer?

Totally missing the point.

Who here can change gear faster than a DSG 'box? Should we only buy DSGs then? No, it's not about being better, it's about driver involvement. When all I want to do is get there quicker DSC on. When I want a bit of fun, a bit of involvement and a bit of reward for getting it right, DSC off. But then I'm old and have spent years driving cars with no nanny systems whatsoever, which is why I'm a significantly better driver than all you kids who think driving a car without ABS is akin to jamming lit sticks of dynamite up your arse before jumping in a bath full of super-unleaded. . . . .

[yinujim]

Never had traction control. Never had a problem and I have a E30 325i.

[davy9449]

Caulkhead said:

Totally missing the point.

Who here can change gear faster than a DSG 'box? Should we only buy DSGs then? No, it's not about being better, it's about driver involvement. When all I want to do is get there quicker DSC on. When I want a bit of fun, a bit of involvement and a bit of reward for getting it right, DSC off. But then I'm old and have spent years driving cars with no nanny systems whatsoever, which is why I'm a significantly better driver than all you kids who think driving a car without ABS is akin to jamming lit sticks of dynamite up your arse before jumping in a bath full of super-unleaded. . . . .

It is you my friend who is missing the point. Using DSG or a manual box isn't going to impact on how safe you are as a driver really is it?