posted by wap, platform: Meizu (MX2)

引用:

原帖由 @chenpeinin  于 2013-11-11 15:59 发表
高速上看到前方有车不会减速？不会换道不和别人在一路？超车的时候不会闪灯？高速上前方有车我的速度一般会降到6070码，这个速度完全不需要急刹，如果急刹也根本用不到ESP，你非要开到80+去测验ESP？能不能正常一点？能不能头脑清醒点开车？你要不能我就说在大马路上随时都有人举刀砍你，盔甲是不是必备品？

前方有车你就降到60-70码喷了，感情你高速就开70码了，另外我们明明说的是abs，你咋又扯到esp了，再说高速上底速80不是常识么？

引用:

原帖由 鬼舞者4 于 2013-11-11 19:44 发表
高六有ESP，所以用了锦湖轮胎，是不是这个道理？:D

卡罗拉没ESP所以用了DUNLOP SP01轮胎，4个同尺寸的SP01比4个锦湖贵出的钱买ESP还有找，不是丰田不肯装ESP是让消费者利益最大化，是不是这个道理？

posted by wap, platform: Galaxy S II

引用:

原帖由 @toshiya115  于 2013-11-11 19:25 发表
我还想问一下，丰田没ESC的车用了什么高级轮胎？

用了没上315的轮胎

电子稳定程序肯定是必要的配置，中国官方管得松，只能靠厂家自己决定。

现在还有不带esp的车子？

posted by wap, platform: iPhone

引用:

原帖由 @hudihutian  于 2013-11-11 16:26 发表
那是你去买，丰田跟电装买这货你跟我说贵过轮胎？

是的，确实比装配车型用的轮胎贵，特别是经济型车，车价越低，轮胎用的越便宜，稳定系统高于轮胎的成本差越大

本帖最后由 NewRoaD 于 2013-11-11 20:51 通过手机版编辑

posted by wap, platform: Galaxy S II

引用:

原帖由 @NewRoaD  于 2013-11-11 20:47 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone

是的，确实比装配车型用的轮胎贵

就不说电装的便宜货了，九代esp比九代abs贵多少？

这帖子发展方向有些有趣。呵呵。一向不差钱的TGFC竟然为了个不是特别贵的装置争执起来。另外北美欧洲包括澳大利亚的法规是规定必须有ESP的。果然高贵的白种人怕死啊。 谈价格的都是个扯。国家新三包还会增加成本呢，怎么没有看车企普遍涨价。还不是个国家法规出太慢。主机厂本着能省就省的态度。

posted by wap, platform: iPhone

稳定系统强制安装是趋势，就像安全带，气囊，ABS那样，逃不掉的

posted by wap, platform: Galaxy S II

所有的主机厂都能省就省。。。。

esc当然有用，只不过从提升行车安全的角度看，如果说重要性，这esc不知道要排哪位去了

无非是新型电子设备，配置表上好看，夺人眼球才成为话题罢了，2013款合资车还有后排没安全头枕的，这上哪说理去

esp开与不开它的极限速度就在80km以内，那些5星撞击也是在80km以内，很清楚告诉你这些存在的意义是在交通法限制速度道路下发生意外所采取的保护车内人员功能而已。。。。而不是说这些功能可以让驾驶者更加开的快啊！esp到底有没有用这难道也是考量你智商的吗？

引用:

原帖由 hudihutian 于 2013-11-11 20:57 发表
posted by wap, platform: Galaxy S II

所有的主机厂都能省就省。。。。

esc当然有用，只不过从提升行车安全的角度看，如果说重要性，这esc不知道要排哪位去了

无非是新型电子设备，配置表上好看，夺人眼球才 ...

IIHS News | October 28, 2004


Electronic stability control found effective; main effect is to reduce single-vehicle crash risk, including the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes

About half of the 28,000 fatal passenger vehicle crashes that occur each year involve a single vehicle. Equipping cars and SUVs with electronic stability control (ESC) can reduce the risk of involvement in these crashes by more than 50 percent. The effect on all single-vehicle crashes (fatal and nonfatal) is somewhat less (about 40 percent), and the effect on multiple-vehicle crashes is much less. These are the main findings of a new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study comparing crash rates for cars and SUVs with and without ESC.
Together these studies, including the Institute's new one, indicate that widespread application of ESC in the vehicle fleet can be expected to afford a significant safety benefit. If all vehicles on U.S. roads had ESC, we might avoid as many as 800,000 of the 2 million or so single-vehicle crashes that occur each year. About 14,000 fatal single-vehicle crashes occurred in 2003, which means there's a potential to save more than 7,000 lives each year
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/de ... gle-vehicle-crashes

IIHS News | June 13, 2006

Electronic stability control could prevent nearly one-third of all fatal crashes and reduce rollover risk by as much as 80%; effect is found on single- and multiple-vehicle crashes

Previous research found significant effects of ESC in reducing the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes. Using data from an additional year of crashes and a larger set of vehicle models, researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have updated the 2004 results and found that ESC reduces the risk of fatal multiple-vehicle crashes by 32 percent.

The new research confirms that ESC reduces the risk of all single-vehicle crashes by more than 40 percent — fatal ones by 56 percent. The researchers estimate that if all vehicles were equipped with ESC, as many as 10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided each year.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/de ... ple-vehicle-crashes



[ 本帖最后由 toshiya115 于 2013-11-11 21:41 编辑 ]

IIHS News | December 10, 1996Subscribe
Antilock brakes don't reduce fatal crashes; people in cars with antilocks at greater risk — but it's unclear why

但是几乎所有的车都装了ABS

It’s easy to take safety features for granted, but according to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration three-year study, features like electronic stability control (ESC) are making a dramatic, life-saving impact. In fact, the NHTSA estimates that stability control saved 2,202 lives over the three year period from 2008 to 2010 alone.

每年救7000条人命，真是个美好的愿望

“中国交通事故死者构成跟世界上大多数国家很不一样，八成左右是车辆撞击致行人死亡” vs “"NHTSA research has consistently shown ESC systems are especially effective in helping a driver maintain vehicle control and avoid some of the most dangerous types of crashes on the highway, including deadly vehicle rollover situations or in keeping drivers from completely running off the roadway," NHTSA administrator David Strickland said in a statement.”

我怎么觉得行人安全气囊都要比什么ESC也好，CITY SAFTY也好，都要重要得多

高速危险在于会车，有前车的情况下降到70码是非常正常且必要的事，避免事故。在中国的高速原则上虽然有，但实际上没有低速限制，高速上开的比80慢的也大有人在，何况是会车降速，不是全程。无论是ABS还是ESP，都是一个道理，就是汽车的安全在于人的基本意识，注意，只需要基本意识就可以了，不需要那么复杂，时刻保持一个清醒的大脑去开车。

引用:

原帖由 realclone 于 2013-11-11 19:54 发表
posted by wap, platform: Meizu (MX2)

前方有车你就降到60-70码喷了，感情你高速就开70码了，另外我们明明说的是abs，你咋又扯到esp了，再说高速上底速80不是常识么？

posted by wap, platform: Chrome

另外，同样是IIHS强力推荐的安全装备，侧气囊，效果如何呢？

Side airbags that protect people's heads are reducing driver deaths in cars struck on the near (driver) side by an estimated 37 percent. Airbags that protect only the chest and abdomen but not the head are reducing deaths by 26 percent.

这不是降翻车率，这是降死亡率，干脆多了

但是，侧气囊又贵，又不时髦，在中国论坛的上镜率比ESC差远了