Btw, in Sweden they consider this test important as they have a high rate of accidents with elk (deer). Why set a safety margin for some countries and not others? Rules are in place to set an acceptable level of dynamic safety as well as for drivers considered to be the lowest common denominator.

 

So, in Sweden, the test is to deliberately induce oversteer at 60 MPH on a gravel road that's bordered by a ditch?

 

Putting it into REAL WORLD USE is part of magazine testing. It shows failure when it most likely did not in previous "official" testing (i don't know for sure). Failure was likely not expected, but as seen failure still took place.

No matter how much "lab" or "controlled" testing you do, nothing beats testing it by using it. The failure of the system (after "official" testing i presume?) just shows flaws in the current test system as it is unable to recreate all aspects of the enviroment in which it needs to operate.

Further improvements are needed on that control system before it will be able to do AS CLAIMED. Thus the recommendation AGAINST getting this vehicle is valid.

 

If many swedish roads are such, then yes, that would be a very good testing ground. A system is best tested in the enviroment it will be used in, else additional unforseen factors may play a role in changing the expected results.

 

Gotcha - so we all think it's reasonable for a stability control system to work under every condition, even when the laws of physics may dictate differently? Thanks for helping me to understand!

 

Eric,

I am shocked…shocked I tell you (not to mention appalled) at how you are so completely missing the point!!!

The point being, of course, is that you are completely ignoring the opportunity to bash Toyota simply for being Toyota.

Were this a GM vehicle rather than a Toyota; everyone would be screaming about how stupid the driver/testing was (that’s assuming there would be a post about it at all).

Get a grip, please!

 

I hate to admit it, but Robert's right on this one.

 

So "lab" testing is accurate for ALL possible situations that may be encountered on the road?

 

I remember there being a huge stink when the Mercedes A Class tipped in a moose test when it was first intro'd. It resulted in ESP (which wasn't on the test model) being made standard across the board.

 

Improved the looks, but other than that...

 

Imagine, for a moment, that I came on this board and told you that I was driving a TrailBlazer on a gravel road, deliberately induced a slide at 60 MPH, and rolled the vehicle after sliding off into a shallow ditch. Potential responses might be:

A) You're a dumbass and need to learn how to drive.
B) Sorry to hear about your accident, but stability control can't prevent every accident.
C) GM's StabiliTrak system is fundamentally flawed and should be blamed for the accident.
D) This thread is worthless without pictures.

My guess is that the responses might be split between A) and B), with maybe a hater or two suggesting C) and frequent Lounge visitors chiming in with D).

This test was not conducted under controlled circumstances, and under these conditions, relatively minor differences in speed, throttle/brake application, steering wheel motion, vehicle path ("line"), or road surface could result in drastic differences in the outcome of the test - even with the same vehicle.

If stability control promised to prevent every accident, then it'd be reasonable to be appalled by this test - but that's not the level of promised performance, and thus what I see here is mainly a reaction to the brand name of the vehicle involved and the severity of the outcome (face it - if this was performed in a reasonably safe environment, the rollover probably wouldn't have occurred and this wouldn't be such a rich discussion).

 

I don't see what the big fuss is about going 60mph. Out here, in KS, thats usually as low as the speed limit is, but people still go faster.

Your right Eric, ANY system will not be able to defy the laws a physics. That being said, I have a hard time understanding why the system didn't kick in. If you read the article on that site, you will notice that he is not a novice driver on that course. They were at the Holden Proving Grounds which he says that he has driven several times before. He also noted that the system was sporadic during the testing prior to the incident. He said that he had the car sideway at an estimated 85-95KPH. The question is not "could the system get him out of the slide without flipping", I would be amazed see as that probably would have been a miracle of itself, but why the system let him get so far without intervening? After the wheels popped and demounted from the tires, there was nothing the system or the driver could do. Also, he never noted that he was off the road during the slide.

He also noted that there were other vehicles that attributed poor system response, but none of the other ones would let him get as far as he did with the Toyota.

It is not that there is no job done to remove all the variables and make all the have to enter the same exact way etc, it is why did the Toyota system let him get so far sideways and never respond? These systems should all be able to respond within milliseconds of driver and car input and be able to correct before the driver knows that they is in trouble. As I'm sure you know, its not easy to put a car in a slide at those speeds, but with todays computers on cars controlling everything from the throttle to the brakes, and the driver just inputing requests to the PCM before it is approved, the question still remains as to why the system let him get so far sideways and still did nothing?

 

My response would be the same no matter the vehicle so that "arguement" is pointless.

This test was conducted under "real world" conditions (more or less), but i guess your saying that no one ever drives their car in the real world? If that was so then why do we need this system to exist at all?

The system failed to act in a situation it most likely should have, even if it wasn't "proper" testing. Doesn't matter who's car or where it was, etc..

 

I am not an engineer nor did I say at a Holiday Inn Express last night but I’ve been around long enough to know that if you want to do real testing of a type of system between different brands/models of vehicles, the only want to REALLY know how well the system is doing is to remove all other variables – that means controlled circumstances.

Same driver or not…professional driver of not, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of factors that could come into play in testing like this and just because the guy manages to roll the Toyota cannot be taken as hard evidence that their system was at fault.

It may be, I may not be but you’ll never know from testing like this.

Not that I expect you to believe me; we are, after all, talking about an evil Toyota – it must be the vehicle’s fault!

 

From left field comes this innuendo... if true, I sort of owe Eric a public apology. Read from post #35 down...

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1206842&page=2

Though it would seem strange that the magazine's ability to raise revenue would be put at risk.