Honda Car Forum

Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
brakes. Why is this? And why does the auto industry have the idea
that economy cars do not need ABS? I just don't see why ABS should be
treated as an expendable luxury like a premium sound system, sunroof,
or cruise control.

My next car WILL have ABS. I vow that I will NOT let ABS encourage me
to drive faster, leave less following distance, leave less braking
distance, or drive more aggressively.

And if I have to buy your grandfather's dowdy Buick instead of a new
Honda Civic to get the ABS for a reasonable price, so be it.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG
usenet@@@@@@jasonhsu.com

>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
>brakes. Why is this?

Basically, it's brainwashing. If Honda ommitted power steering, they'd all be
like "only bad drivers need power steering!"



U.S.A. "Go West Young Men..."

Mexico "El Norte Hombre..."

On 2 Sep 2003 17:32:31 -0700, jason_hsu@my-deja.com (Jason Hsu) wrote:

>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
>brakes. Why is this?

Because anti-lock brakes are inferior to regular brakes for any driver
who knows how to drive. I tested anti-lock brakes on my 95 Accord EX
vs. my 96 Accord LX. On snow, ice, water and dry pavement I can stop
quicker with the 96 sans ALB than I can in the 95 with ALB. The 95
even has wider tires! Yet it is inferior at stopping.

On 03 Sep 2003 00:42:50 GMT, drpimpdadi@cs.commodore64 (DrPimpDadi)
wrote:

>
>
>>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
>>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
>>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
>>brakes. Why is this?
>
>Basically, it's brainwashing. If Honda ommitted power steering, they'd all be
>like "only bad drivers need power steering!"

Moron, Honda does not have full power steering. That is another
reason good drivers prefer Hondas, and another reason why you are an
idiot.

>Because anti-lock brakes are inferior to regular brakes for any driver
>who knows how to drive. I tested anti-lock brakes on my 95 Accord EX
>vs. my 96 Accord LX. On snow, ice, water and dry pavement I can stop
>quicker with the 96 sans ALB than I can in the 95 with ALB. The 95
>even has wider tires! Yet it is inferior at stopping.
>

You are a nitwit. You do not know the proper use of the ABS. Its main advantage
is the ability to steer during emergency braking.






.........
I do not killfile, nor have I joined any do-not-call lists.

One also can't make an accurate comparison unless the same rubber is on both
cars. Back when I reshod my old '96 Civic (w/o ABS) I replaced the
bad-traction factory Dunlops with Yokohamas. It was GREAT! But before that
I had to try (for 1 day) Generals because they were available. On DRY
PAVMENT with just a little bit of gravel we almost slid into a concrete
bridge abutment on a corner.... they had such poor road-holding ability.
Tires are quite important... and how inflated/deflated they are has an
impact also.
(Did the same corner, later, with the Yokos and added 25 mph to the corner
without even a hint of sliding... and the conditions APPEARED to be the
same.)
KWW
"DrPimpDadi" <drpimpdadi@cs.commodore64> wrote in message
news:20030902231602.23341.00000237@mb-m19.news.cs.com...
> >Because anti-lock brakes are inferior to regular brakes for any driver
> >who knows how to drive. I tested anti-lock brakes on my 95 Accord EX
> >vs. my 96 Accord LX. On snow, ice, water and dry pavement I can stop
> >quicker with the 96 sans ALB than I can in the 95 with ALB. The 95
> >even has wider tires! Yet it is inferior at stopping.
> >
>
> You are a nitwit. You do not know the proper use of the ABS. Its main
advantage
> is the ability to steer during emergency braking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ........
> I do not killfile, nor have I joined any do-not-call lists.
>
>
>

On 2 Sep 2003 17:32:31 -0700, jason_hsu@my-deja.com (Jason Hsu) wrote:

>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
>brakes. Why is this?

Maybe the rest of us just don't want to start another flamefest about
it.:-) Personally I think ABS is useful in some situations and a PITA in
others... i.e. snow. There is no doubt in my mind that it helps in a panic
stop and people who think they can "beat it" in that situation are just
wrong. It's main benefit is that it allows far better control of the
vehicle, meaning you can still steer while braking hard. There *is* a
reason it is banned from many racing series as a "driver aid".

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:59:44 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 03 Sep 2003 00:42:50 GMT, drpimpdadi@cs.commodore64 (DrPimpDadi)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
>>>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
>>>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
>>>brakes. Why is this?
>>
>>Basically, it's brainwashing. If Honda ommitted power steering, they'd all be
>>like "only bad drivers need power steering!"
>
>Moron, Honda does not have full power steering. That is another
>reason good drivers prefer Hondas, and another reason why you are an
>idiot.

What is it about Honda power steering that makes it not "full"?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:13:52 GMT, "KWW" <kwalker@nospamaircooled.net>
wrote:

>One also can't make an accurate comparison unless the same rubber is on both
>cars. Back when I reshod my old '96 Civic (w/o ABS) I replaced the
>bad-traction factory Dunlops with Yokohamas. It was GREAT! But before that
>I had to try (for 1 day) Generals because they were available. On DRY
>PAVMENT with just a little bit of gravel we almost slid into a concrete
>bridge abutment on a corner.... they had such poor road-holding ability.
>Tires are quite important... and how inflated/deflated they are has an
>impact also.

Duh. I expect ignorance from pimpwannabe. You own a Honda and don't
know that both the 95 and 96 Accord came with Michelin MXV4 tires?
You don't know the only difference was in the size? That the only
difference was about 1/2" in tire width? That the car with thinner
tires, and thus LESS SURFACE CONTACT (to make it simple for pimps) was
able to stop faster than the wider tire with MORE SURFACE CONTACT?

Come on, pimple boy is an idiot, but you should realize that in a
conversation about stopping distance on a straight road that you are
testing the difference between ABS ability to stop and non-ABS ability
to stop, and nobody ever mentioned stopping while turning. Only
idiots turn their wheel when they see a need to stop quickly.

Pimple dick may not know that studies have shown that professional
drivers (OK I realize I am taking some license calling cops
professional anything...) have far more accidents with anti-lock
brakes than without. I expect more from a Honda owner.

You aren't going to brag about your daddy's GM next, are you?

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:3f56805e.47246844@news.tellurian.com...
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:59:44 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On 03 Sep 2003 00:42:50 GMT, drpimpdadi@cs.commodore64 (DrPimpDadi)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>Looks like a majority of Honda owners don't care about antilock
> >>>brakes. I knew that there are a few people out there who don't like
> >>>antilock brakes, but I didn't expect 4:1 to come out against antilock
> >>>brakes. Why is this?
> >>
> >>Basically, it's brainwashing. If Honda ommitted power steering, they'd
all be
> >>like "only bad drivers need power steering!"
> >
> >Moron, Honda does not have full power steering. That is another
> >reason good drivers prefer Hondas, and another reason why you are an
> >idiot.
>
> What is it about Honda power steering that makes it not "full"?

because you still have road feel? ever driven a typical GM, with steering
that makes you feel like your arms are shot full of novocaine?