who said underpowered 4wd cars always understeer?

[GravelBen]

Just had my most laughingly, joyously sideways moment yet in the new Legacy - and it wasn't even on gravel, just coming around a corner in town, pouring with rain (turning right off the one-way south into Hanover street for anyone who knows Dunedin) but taking it reasonably quick for the conditions, get enough visibility to see the road is completely clear for the next block, and hmm lets put the boot into it...



Well she swung round nicely anyway, kept the foot buried and wound on a turn of two of opposite lock, held fairly close to broadside for 20 metres or so until I ran out of power and it snapped back into a straight line. <Cue manic laughter>

It really made my day still grinning now...



I reckon it must have been a pretty good show for the guy waiting at the lights too...

[Kiwi XTR2]

GravelBen said:

. . . Well she swung round nicely anyway, kept the foot buried and wound on a turn of two of opposite lock, held fairly close to broadside for 20 metres or so until I ran out of power and it snapped back into a straight line. <Cue manic laughter> . . .

So would that be a 'Sustained Loss of Traction' ?

[robdickinson]

Must be, time to crush the legacy then

[GravelBen]

I'm sorry officer there must have been something slippery spilt on the road


It would almost be interesting to see if they could make 'sustained loss of traction' stick in court when the car in question has 155bhp and 4wd - I'd probably challenge them to get an identical car and prove that it was even capable of breaking traction (I'm not quite interested enough to get caught and try it though)

[robdickinson]

Is the law purposfull sustained loss of traction or just loss of traction? because its been icy here & there recently and a lot of people have lost traction at times...

[Esprit]

Had a similar moment in the Lotus the other day (in the dry). More camber on the rear might be great for high speed cornering on the track, but leaving intersections and tight corners in the damp now require a touch more respect... not that I'm complaining, just need to make sure I'm awake when I drive.

[GravelBen]

robdickinson said:

Is the law purposfull sustained loss of traction or just loss of traction? because its been icy here & there recently and a lot of people have lost traction at times...

I'm not sure on the exact law, I guess they interpret 'sustained' as meaning it must have been deliberate to sustain it?

[Kiwi XTR2]

GravelBen said:

robdickinson said:

Is the law purposfull sustained loss of traction or just loss of traction? because its been icy here & there recently and a lot of people have lost traction at times...

I'm not sure on the exact law, I guess they interpret 'sustained' as meaning it must have been deliberate to sustain it?

As I've been in the High Court all week I'll pretend I'm qualified to comment.

Unless it's specifically defined in the Act (which I don't think it is) and until it's defined by a weight of case-law, the Interpretations Act will apply. Which basically means there is a need to look at the ordinary and dictionary meaning of the word 'sustained' while having regard to the purposes of the Act and the context of the section.

I suspect that the prosecution would argue that the plain meaning of 'sustained' relates to a duration rather than requiring any intent or deliberation. I think that they would go further and argue that anything more than momentary is sustained.

Therefore, unless you take IMMEDIATE corrective action to remedy any loss of traction, it can be said to be sustained.

I wouldn't mind arguing about this . . . unless it was going to cost me something.

[GravelBen]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

Therefore, unless you take IMMEDIATE corrective action to remedy any loss of traction, it can be said to be sustained.

So, hypothetically speaking of course, when you're driving an AWD car in which the most effective way to regain control from an unintentional slide (or bring the car out of an intentional one in some circumstances) is to keep your foot on the gas and steer the way you want to go...

They would likely still say that you should take your foot off the accelerator to stop losing traction? even if this means you suddenly gain alot of grip at the front, lose grip at the rear and have a lot less control over the car.


though I think thid particular law (among others) doesn't exist for safety's sake in its own right, but so they can have an easy charge to slap on anyone they consider to be driving innapropriately. If one officer sees it, conviction without any evidence except the cop's statement that you did it. or maybe you get it if he just doesn't like your face, who's gonna know?

[Kiwi XTR2]

I agree it's a bit of a bu99er. Not my opinion of what SHOULD happen but rather, in my humble submission, how it would be argued by the prosecution.

Lift-off oversteer can kill. We all know that. It's killed a Ford GT.

So who would like to argue:

"Having first inadvertently lost traction it was necessary, in the interests of safety, to temporarily sustain that relative loss of complete traction until such time as the overall dynamics of the vehicle make it safe to restore full traction."

I really must have a good look at the legislation and some case-law. I wonder if it is written as though traction is an absolute? From an engineering or physics perspective it ain't.

[GravelBen]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

I wonder if it is written as though traction is an absolute? From an engineering or physics perspective it ain't.

Hmm an interesting point, to expand on this, one might imagine 'them' considering that any slip between tyre and road could be loss of traction, which would include threshold braking would it not? braking being at its most effective when the wheel is just on the edge of lockup. This is assuming they don't define traction as only being longitudinal adhesion of the tyre during acceleration. If they do then a handbrake-turn would not be loss of traction