Talk:Electronic Stability Control

Trailer Stability Program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Electronic Stability Control. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Untitled

Taken from Category:Automotive safety technologies, from an anon. edit:

Electronic Stability Control: a fairly new technology that helps prevent crashes, including rollovers, by helping the driver maintain stability of the vehicle. ESC uses sensors to compare where the driver is pointing the vehicle and where the vehicle is actually going. If there is a descrepancy, an individual brake is applied, engine toque reduced to align the vehicle with wher the driver is intending to go. In this way ESC corrects oversteer and understeer and helps prevent skidding or running off the road. ESC combines anti-lock brakes, traction control, and yaw control.

AAAAAAAAAAH :)

oh no! ESP isnt a brand of DaimlerChrysler!!

But it is a brand of an other Stuttgarter company, Bosch :)

Continental Teves provides ESC to the Chrysler 300C and Crossfire Coup.

http://www.contitevesna.com check out this link: http://www.bosch-esperience.com/

Page move

I think this page should be moved to Electronic Stability Control. The article itself says this is the more generic name several times. However, there seems to be a small technical problem preventing the move at the moment (the database seems to think the strings 'Electronic Stability Program'='Electronic Stability Control', but it might be something else). -- Solipsist 11:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The destination had a history and that was preventing the move. I've fixed it now. violet/riga (t) 13:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks violet/riga, for sorting that out. I've now also clarified the opening para to reflect the change of name.

However, there might be some wider naming issues at play here. The article still reads like the collision between several related articles, I've deleted some repeated passages, but there is more to be done. Although there were several comments that 'Electronic Stability Control' is the generic term, this might actually be an American naming issue. Is this the common term world wide?

In any case it would seem best not to have the main article discussing these sort of systens at the title that is a registered trade mark of one manufacturer. There could also be a case for restoring an early version of this page at Electronic Stability Program, limiting its discusion to the original Bosch system with an link here for the general explanation. -- Solipsist 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While many makers of ESC use the name ESP, others use ESP to include more than just ESC. For example, Bendix, a supplier of ESP for commercial vehicles uses ESP to include ESC and RSC (Roll Stability Control) among other systems. Authorities in Europe and North America seem to me moving towards standardizing the terminoloty for ESC to distinguish it from Traction Control and other devices. It makes logical sense that ESP would be more all-inclusive as Bendix uses the term.

Citation or less subjective wording needed

"the perception of safety conferred by the ESC will encourage more dangerous driving, as seems to be the case with seat belts" - that "seems" a bit subjective. A citation of some study would help, though.

Avada Kedavra 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the ABS pages for some studies. personally I doubt that this is true for ESC, as so few people will actually set it off and so rely on it.

Greglocock 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is needed on the study that found 35% of crashes would be reduced. I doubt that any legitamite study of ESC would find such a result and perhaps its findings were misinterpreted. Like the person above, I doubt that even 35% of crashes involve loss of stability or sliding out of control (most are simply the result of driver inattention), so the idea that that many crashes could be completely avoided by a little electronic help is ridiculous.

74.130.236.184 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the data? http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/5258/event=view/ for example

I don't believe it at a gut level, but there you go.

Greglocock 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations would help convince skeptics. I was skeptical until I saw how many studies show the profound effectiveness of ESC. There are literally dozens of studies, including real world crash studies, and they are all VERY positive. The IIHS studies are the most widely cited; however there are studies showing both lower and higher rates of crash reductions due to ESC. There are also studies focusing on different aspects of ESC, such as cost effectiveness or which types of crashes are most affected by ESC. Despite differences, I know of no negative studies.

The evidence in favour of ESC is quite overwhelming. There are no negatives studies. While some are more positive than others, and each study approaches the issue from a different angle, they are generally profound and amazing. Here is a link to an abstract of a literature review - the whole report is quite thorough.[[1]]

Cost

According to an article by Jason Roberson in the Detroit Free Press, Oct 20 2006, an ESC system costs the car manufacturers about $US 110

Greglocock 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Someone has rightly pinged this section with weasel. It seems to be an overlong representation of various unsupported assertions about how dangerous it might be, followed by a schizophrenic section saying that it should be fitted to every car. Would anyone object if I edited the first part down to a single short para on risk compensation thory, and then a short rebuttal referencing the studies that have been done, and perhaps a tidied version of the whinge about it not being compulsory? Greg Locock (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is also a case of undue weight and could apply to any safety feature. I'm going to edit the section down to something saner but I wouldn't oppose a full removal. BJ^Talk 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After completely reading it I just removed it. All it asserted was a non-notable group and "driving enthusiasts" dislike the feature, of course non of that was cited. BJ^Talk 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Brakeforce Distribution

EDB is quite different from ESC and should not be merged with the ESC article. Better to leave it as a "See Also" along with ABS and Traction Control. Each of these four devices serves a different purpose and responds to different inputs. To understand the differences, check out this website.[[2]]

From moved page talk

EBD is a different technology to ESC, they should not be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesarian (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From moved page talk

Proposed merge

No, the electronic brake distribution should be merged with ABS ,not this page. Greglocock 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABS, EBD and vehicle stability control use same sensors and acuators, than they can be merge in one topic of Electronic Brake System --Jaffar Alasmawi (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They share some components, not all. Greglocock (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can reasonably be argued that Traction Control, Stability Control, Active Roll-over Protection, Cornering Brake Control, Electronic Brake-force Distribution, and Brake Assist are all descendants of ABS. That might mean they belong on the same family tree, but it doesn't mean any of them need to be merged. Would you deliberately conjoin any of your relatives to yourself or to any other relatives? 09:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)