My son lost control of his Evo a few days back, when it aquaplaned on a dual carriageway in torrential rain, at an estimated 45-50 mph. He hit the central barrier, went through a hedge and ended up in what he believes is a total write-off.
Another driver called the police, giving the number plate, and they had already established his insurance was in order when they appeared. He was tested for alcohol but he never drinks and drives. An officer found he had well over the minimum tread depth on his low profile types but said "These tyres are a menace in the wet". My son was not clear why, being shattered by the loss of a car cherished for 7 years, but it had something to do with the general lack of rubber inherent in the design and the reduced ability to disperse water.
Is this a known fault? If so, what are the compensating virtues of low profiles, other than bling?
|
|
It won't be the low profile, more likely the tread width and/or model of tyre
|
Sorry if you don't like this, and glad your son is OK, but........ It isn't the tyres it is the driver.
Drive to the road conditions and the vehicle you are driving. Wide tyres on wet roads with possible surface water, slow down. Tyres can only shift so much water no matter how much tread they have.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 11:35
|
>> Drive to the road conditions and the vehicle you are driving.
>> Wide tyres on wet roads with possible surface water, slow down.
>> Tyres can only shift so much water no matter how much tread they have.
>>
I agree but what is the best action if you do hit water that is deeper that anticipated on a straight dual carriageway ?
My action on my previous manual gearbox car was to dip the clutch and avoid any steering input until I exited the water. Was this the best action?
Now drive an auto ( with AWD )
|
>> I agree but what is the best action if you do hit water that is
>> deeper that anticipated on a straight dual carriageway ?
>>
The first four words of this thread are all you need to know, "My son lost control".
It does not matter what tyres, how many wheels are driven, manual or auto, too fast and you are off into the scenery.
|
"I agree but what is the best action if you do hit water that is deeper that anticipated on a straight dual carriageway ?"
If you are aquaplaning you can't effectively turn, brake or accelerate i.e you have no control. The recommended procedure is to freeze what you are doing. i.e. no further input on brake accelerator or steering. Aquaplaning doesn't normally last long and if you are going straight you should be OK. If you aren't a small prayer may be appropriate.
Apparently NASA research indicates that around 54 mph is the critical speed when aquaplaning is most likely
|
>> It won't be the low profile, more likely the tread width and/or model of tyre
>>
+1
A narrow tyre would be less likely to aquaplane that a wide jobbie.
Our bread delivery Transit turned up at the shop early on Christmas Eve with it's nearside wing mirror hanging limp and several heavily reshaped panels after aquaplaning it's way through some undergrowth on the way to us.
Lying water can be hard to spot in the dark.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 11:39
|
For what it's worth, I've never gone through a winter with less than 4mm tread depth and always try to time my tyre changes to maximise winter depth. Even when I could ill afford it.
My good pal and neighbour is a test engineer/driver at Bentley. He was brought up in Bavaria but is now permanently resident here. He reckons that while winter tyres are indeed useful that the critical thing at this time of year is tread depth no matter what the compound.
Not saying your son's car hadn't got plenty of tread BTW ! Glad he's ok.
|
>> For what it's worth, I've never gone through a winter with less than 4mm tread
>> depth and always try to time my tyre changes to maximise winter depth. Even when
>> I could ill afford it.
Checked mine yesterday.
Rears are brand new Pirelli P7's, been on there 2 weeks.
Fronts are P6000's that I immed and ammed about changing when I did the rears...they are on about 2.5mm...New P7's will be put on on Thursday now, it's not worth sodding about with.
I did seriously consider an all weather tyre or winter tyre for all year work, particularly as it rains here a lot and I understand the newer all year stuff doesn't wear as bad in the summer as they used to..but..I bottled it and went for the newest Pirelli summer version.
I wondered if the all year stuff would be too noisy and wear too quickly, as I do drive at speed. Still a bit sat on the fence to be honest, albeit it'as too late now, the rears are already on there.
|
>>P7's will be put on on Thursday now
Good move
|
Two new P7's on...so 4 new all round now...can I change my user name to Albert C Smug?
I feel a lot happier now, once the decision had been made I resented the delay in achieving it.
I watched the boys change the tyres and noted the old ones weren't that bad..still glad I've changed them though, it's a peace of mind thing.
|
>>I wondered if the all year stuff would be too noisy and wear too quickly, as I do drive at speed. Still a bit sat on the fence to be honest, albeit it'as too late now, the rears are already on there
Compare the P7's to say the Nokian WR D3's:
www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Pirelli/P-7.htm
www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Nokian/WR-D3.htm
|
>> Compare the P7's to say the Nokian WR D3's:
>>
>> www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Pirelli/P-7.htm
>>
>> www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Nokian/WR-D3.htm
>>
That's impressive for the Nokian
|
|
But you are comparing summer and winter tyres. Nokian are at the top end of the game as regards winter tyres,
|
>> But you are comparing summer and winter tyres. Nokian are at the top end of
>> the game as regards winter tyres,
>>
This explains it well, looks like I've made the correct decision then.
www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/All-Season-Tyres-How-Do-They-Stack-Up.htm
|
>> It won't be the low profile, more likely the tread width and/or model of tyre
Yeah, as said, wide tyres just don't cut through the water.
|
My old Daihatsus were brilliant with decent tyres in standing water, nice and narrow tyres but with decent tread patterns worked well, great in snow too.
I find these cheapo tyres on the Elantra are terrible in standing water, they arent especially wide wheels but the tread pattern is lame and it aquaplanes easily so I go slower and avoid puddles - my wifes Matrix which has some nice Goodyears on it is far more capable at hitting deep water at 50 than my car so you factor it in.
|
Did the car have cruise control, and was it switched on at the time?
I nearly came a cropper on the A34 the other night hitting standing water at approx 60 mph - fortunately I wasn't driving any faster because of the recent heavy rain. I was in the outside lane about to overtake a car. Next thing I see is a wave of water covering my windscreen from the car who hit the standing water in the nearside lane. Totally blinded, and all of a sudden I hit the standing water in the offside lane. Cruise was on and the speedo shot up to over 100 mph along with the engine revs because of no traction. Out of the haze of dirty water on the windscreen I saw a blurry image of a car sideways on in front of me. I just gritted my teeth and waited for the impact. Then all of a sudden I regained some traction and could see where I was going again. The odd thing was the car I was overtaking was now in the outside lane, and I was in his lane. How we managed to cross over into one anothers lane and not hit one another (or anything else) I'll never know.
I pulled over shortly afterwards into a layby, heart still pounding 10 to the dozen. I've been in some accidents and near misses in my time, but this one was the most scariest.
I was told afterwards NEVER to use CC in the wet.
|
Low proiles are pretty useless in snow, useless in ice, and as above not good in standing water.
So that's half the typical UK year allowed for.
So the question is: why do people fit them? After all, it's hardly as if the UK has public raectracks as roads...so you cannot corner fast anyway.
Anything lower than a 65 profile is for those with more money than sense in my view.
(runs awaYYYYYY)
|
>> Low proiles are pretty useless in snow, useless in ice, and as above not good
>> in standing water.
>>
>> So that's half the typical UK year allowed for.
>>
>> So the question is: why do people fit them?
Probably because they were fitted as original equipment and it's too much faff to change/ you can't change them/the insurance chappies don't like deviations from standard equipment.
|
>>It isn't the tyres it is the driver.
But the police officer's comment was on the tyres as a class, not on who was driving.
|
>> >>It isn't the tyres it is the driver.
>>
>> But the police officer's comment was on the tyres as a class, not on who
>> was driving.
>>
Policemen have to be diplomatic, I don't.
|
I'm not sure why low profiles would be more dangerous in the wet. Certainly wider tyres can be, perhaps the policeman meant this "style" of tyre which would presumably include both width and profile?
However, its an observation and may just mean that many cars he sees have this type of tyre, rather than any necessary cause/effect relationship.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 14:34
|
>> why low profiles would be more dangerous in the wet. Certainly wider tyres can be,
Yes, it isn't the low profile, it's the width. Profile is neither here nor there.
Aquaplaning at any speed is pretty dangerous, especially on any kind of bend.
|
>> However, its an observation and may just mean that many cars he sees have this
>> type of tyre, rather than any necessary cause/effect relationship.
>>
Quite likely, my car has low profile tyres and although less powerful than an Evo I have yet to have a traction problem. My son in law however did put his Honda S2000 off twice, and was told to get rid of it by my daughter.
|
>> My son in law however did put
>> his Honda S2000 off twice, and was told to get rid of it by my
>> daughter.
We've all forgotten that if you booted a Morris Minor with its 45bhp in a corner in the wet it would slide as often as not. A 2 litre Cortina, every time.
With a modern everyday front drive car you can basically be as clumsy as you like with no real consequences. A whole generation has known nothing else. But an S2000, for all it will have far better fundamental grip, is a different matter I should think at least without ESP.
Part of the fun of the MX5, a slug really but rear drive and no TC/ESP, is that you have to drive with some feel and and a bit of thought if you are getting a move on - an absent minded stamp on the accelerator on a damp greasy roundabout could well have you looking where you just came from. Much more interesting than a car that looks after you.
It was even more fun when the ABS wasn't working, I hadn't appreciated that I had more or less stopped thinking about the possibility of unintended consequences from hard braking.
|
>>
>> With a modern everyday front drive car you can basically be as clumsy as you
>> like with no real consequences. A whole generation has known nothing else.
>>
One advantage of being a biker is you never lose your feel for rear wheel drive (Not without losing a yard or two of skin, anyway).
|
A 2 litre Cortina,
>> every time.
I can confirm that.
|
>> A 2 litre Cortina,
>> >> every time.
>>
>> I can confirm that.
>>
Even more so if the void bushes were shot so it had a degree of unintended rear wheel steering !
|
>> Low proiles are pretty useless in snow, useless in ice, and as above not good
>> in standing water.
>>
>> So that's half the typical UK year allowed for.
>>
>> So the question is: why do people fit them? After all, it's hardly as if
>> the UK has public raectracks as roads...so you cannot corner fast anyway.
>>
>> Anything lower than a 65 profile is for those with more money than sense in
>> my view.
I think you're 100% correct, although it's not usually the buyer that asks for them...the manufacturers have deals with the tyre companies and the wheels go with the tyres..then the tyre companies rake it in when we have to replace tyres.
New car buyers need to become more knowledgeable,..and put their foot down. Until they do, we'll end up with wheel/ tyre combinations that look nice, but aren't as suitable as they could be.
|
>>
>> New car buyers need to become more knowledgeable,..and put their foot down. Until they do, we'll end up with wheel/ tyre combinations that look nice, but aren't as suitable as
>> they could be.
>>
Low profiles are fashionable. Probably over 50% of new car buyers have little or no idea of the effects of different tyre or wheel sizes, they just like them because they are the thing to be seen with. Like when fuel injection first started to appear on hot hatches, every designer junkie wanted an "Injection" car with the little "i" on the back but if you asked them what injection meant they didn't have a clue.
That's how they shift so many Chelsea Tractors to school run mums, it's the thing to have, dahling.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 16:52
|
>>Low proiles are pretty useless in snow, useless in ice, and as above not good in standing water.
Can't say I've found any of those conditions a problem in my car which has wide, low tyres attached to RWD and 200bhp. Fair bit of weight to the thing though which may make a difference I guess.
In line with what someone said somewhere else in this thread, if you respect the conditions you're dealing with and drive with appropriate common sense it doesn't have to be a drama.
|
|
Until you make a mistake. OK if you practice twirling the wheel widdershins, but how many have done that recently, or at all? I've had some driver training post-test (in the mists of time!) but last time on a skid pan was 20 years ago. Think a session would be useful for upcoming b'day treat.
|
>>
>> I was told afterwards NEVER to use CC in the wet.
>>
That's very sensible, but for those that ignore it I thought that modern cars with traction control and/or stability control automatically disable CC if they are activated? Not that it's likely to make much difference - once you're aqua planing at any speed you are just a passenger...
|
|
I used to think my CC was faulty, but now suspect it was disabling itself due to signal from the traction control, temperature sensor etc.
Last edited by: Alastairw on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 14:19
|
>> I used to think my CC was faulty, but now suspect it was disabling itself
>> due to signal from the traction control, temperature sensor etc.
The CC in the Seat and Touran shut off pretty damn quickly if indicated speed rose suddenly out of line with that which was set. No doubt trigged by the traction control.
Edit. Driven through some very deep water recently (who hasn't in this lot!) at speed, where one side of the driven wheels aquaplaned, (speedo and revs shot up because of no limited slip diff) so I was in a split traction scenario, but the car stayed as straight as an arrow and felt very safe.
I love those rain tyres. In a country where its rainy for half the year, surely they make sense.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 14:46
|
>> The CC in the Seat and Touran shut off pretty damn quickly if indicated speed
>> rose suddenly out of line with that which was set. No doubt trigged by the
>> traction control.
>>
Mine does that, the slightest difference in wheel rotation speeds and it drops off. It has only done it once when I deliberately provoked it as a test. With this car the easiest way is to ease the handbrake on to slow the back wheels.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 14:52
|
The outcome shows it was a misjudgement of the conditions but the point is that part of the required judgement is the suitability and condition of the tyres, not just the conditions.
Without being there it's speculation, and I point no finger, but my instinct is that the major factor was the conditions anyway.
The sort of rain that the wipers can barely cope with is something that makes me really nervous on a motorway because I don't feel my fate is in my own hands. Rain so heavy is bound to result in deep standing water in places, and even 40-50mph is not a speed at which you want to be without traction. Any slower in bad visibility and you have a much increased risk of being rear ended heavily by one of the many people who make no allowance for conditions.
When it's like that I get in lane one as go as slowly as I dare, and get off the road at the next opportunity if it hasn't abated by then.
I don't really worry about cruise control misbehaving so much, as not just having sufficient control and feel when it's on - any circumstances requiring a sensitive touch cannot be suitable for it.
|
>> The sort of rain that the wipers can barely cope with is something that makes
>> me really nervous on a motorway because I don't feel my fate is in my
>> own hands. Rain so heavy is bound to result in deep standing water in places,
>> and even 40-50mph is not a speed at which you want to be without traction.
>> Any slower in bad visibility and you have a much increased risk of being rear
>> ended heavily by one of the many people who make no allowance for conditions.
Met exactly those conditions on the M6 a couple of hours ago. Started just after the M5 turn and carried on as far as J4A - M42. Wipers couldn't cope, surface awash and loads of spray whipped up and carried by a vicious right to left cross wind. Saving grace was very light traffic.
Fifty limit for installation of managed motorway signalling and I stuck to nearside lane. Down to less than 30 at times but trucks were doing 10mph more in lane 2 - horribly close in view of narrow lanes and need to clear cones and standing water at edge of road.
New 'lingo only has 5k on clock so tyres (Michelin) are near new. Lower profile/alloys are part of spec but in this context they're still 55+. Never gave me a moments worry but I wasn't going to push the envelope either. Turned radio off and got Mrs B to act observer for hazards, bunching, brake lights etc. Toyed with idea of coming off and if we'd been near services I would have but didn't think urban Brum was likely to be much of an improvement.
Most drivers were well behaved but a few loons in the outside lane seemed to be barely slowing. Others thought rear fogs necessary in even in nose>tail conditions. I used the front ones though to improve chances of sighting standing water.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 1 Jan 14 at 20:23
|
The M5 and the A38 were like that for pretty much all of the journey home from Cornwall yesterday and it was almost the same on Monday going, down but there was more traffic to contend with.
We made a decision after seeing the forecast for yesterday, to suffer just 3 hours sleep and get up and get on with it as soon as it was anywhere near light enough to see flooded roads and branches down.
Probably the best decision we have ever made as Looe itself was flooded from the early morning high tide and the wind speeds were almost impossible to cope with at 7.15am when we were loading the car on the seafront.
The V70 was amazing and performed so much more precisely than the Mondeo has ever done, inspiring confidence all the time.
The A38 was flooded in many places almost across the road and it was only the early hour and lack of traffic which meant we were able to sit at a low speed comfortably.
The M5 was no better and saw us sitting in the middle lane most of the time (as were the few others on the road) to avoid the tramlines and consequently avoiding the worst of the lying water but speeds of high 50's were about all we could achieve safely.
It is the total concentration in conditions like that which are so tiring...I have been lambasted on here for saying that driving for me is automatic and doesn't require too much thinking about most of the time.
It's always taken out of context by a few but conditions on both journeys were such that total concentration was needed for the whole six hours each way.
We saw just one (4X4) who had overtaken us earlier and had spun off the road into a barrier on the hard shoulder, but in over 600 miles that surely says we're not a bad bunch of drivers in the UK.
Pat
|
>> It is the total concentration in conditions like that which are so tiring...I have been
>> lambasted on here for saying that driving for me is automatic and doesn't require too
>> much thinking about most of the time.
>>
>> It's always taken out of context by a few but conditions on both journeys were
>> such that total concentration was needed for the whole six hours each way.
Some of us know what you mean.
|
I think the act of operating the car in a normal manner is subconscious. Driving is almost always a continually refreshing risk assessment, it has to be or long distance driving is simply beyond human capacity.
Midday, quiet motorway, good weather, risk assessment says safe, most of the heightened senses are shut down, car operated in near subconscious mode.
Bad weather, many hazards, risk assessment high, senses high, nothing is subconscious. Driving varies between the two, and anyone who says they drive at 100% maximum concentration all the time is simply lying. Its simply not humanly possible.
|
>> Midday, quiet motorway, good weather, risk assessment says safe, most of the heightened senses are
>> shut down, car operated in near subconscious mode.
>>
>> Bad weather, many hazards, risk assessment high, senses high, nothing is subconscious. Driving varies between
>> the two, and anyone who says they drive at 100% maximum concentration all the time
>> is simply lying. Its simply not humanly possible.
>>
Which is why I'm happy to continue pushing on a bit when the conditions allow...it has me remain more aware for longer and lessens boredom.
|
>> I think the act of operating the car in a normal manner is subconscious. Driving
>> is almost always a continually refreshing risk assessment, it has to be or long distance
>> driving is simply beyond human capacity.
>>
Which brings me to the basic driving test. I believe this brings you to a level of car control competence that allows your attention to be primarily directed to what is going on around you. This improves with experience allowing better assessment of the road conditions, traffic etc. The problems start when people think they are competent enough to use phones or text as well as drive.
|
>> driving for me is automatic and doesn't require too
>> much thinking about most of the time.
That'll be operating a vehicle you're talking about. Driving, however, requires concentration on your surroundings (i.e. what other people and the scenery are doing or might do) at all times.
I quite agree that driving in such monsoon-like conditions requires extra and total concentration on the operating-a-vehicle aspect. The driving part I speak of in the previous paragraph should command as near total concentration as possible at all times.
You often say things which, as a professional driver (you not me), alarm me, Pat.
|
Well the things I say shouldn't alarm you Alanovic, in fact they should reassure you.
I am as about as typical as you can get of any lorry driver on the road after driving fulltime for 30 years with all types of loads in all weather conditions.
Lorry drivers consider the time they are driving as the easy part of the job, work is when we jump out of the cab and have to start using some muscles (and dealing with people!)
The only time driving becomes hard for us is when the weather is bad, the load unstable or personal reasons, such as not feeling well or home and family worries start to dominate, it then requires some discipline.
Up to that point it is a complete and utter pleasure which we all enjoy immensely and as such can relax and feel a part of the vehicle, knowing it's every twitch and turn by the seat of our pants.
Have you ever truly felt 'at one' with a car?
I have always felt that way in a lorry, and the times when concentration is needed, it has always been there, and that's the reason I've managed so many accident free miles in a lorry and car.
A relaxed driver is a good driver Alanovic, and I'm sure Rattle won't mind me saying that the journey we did over New Year made me realise how hard it must be for someone like him to drive, when he has to concentrate so much all of the time.
Don't be alarmed by lorry driver's, we're all the same. I was alarmed by the 4X4 driver parked on the hard shoulder with a crunched front and rear end and family stood up the bank looking shocked.
How could he have not known to stop listening to the chatter in the car, to back it off a bit, to shut the world out and get on with the job of driving when the vehicle needed his careful input?
I know that, lorry drivers know that and I bet Humph knows that too with the amount of miles he does as well as many others on here.
The upside is that we know when we can relax and enjoy driving too.
Pat
|
>> The upside is that we know when we can relax and enjoy driving too.
>>
Which is when the accidents usually happen. He came out of nowhere, didn't see it, that sort of thing.
I'm perfectly relaxed when driving, and I enjoy it immensely - often more so when there's a challenge to be met. I'm also concentrating as much as I can all the time. I fail to understand how it can be otherwise, it sounds like complacency to me.
I've been doing 12k miles a year for near 27 years. Not as much as you or Runfer of course, but enough to know what I'm doing. One aquaplaning incident in a serious downpour and one wet foot sliding off a metal clutch pedal are my accidents to list. Having had some accidents (and having had to live with the fallout of a fatal), I'm more keenly aware of some dangers and their consequences than others, I believe.
|
>> I'm perfectly relaxed when driving, and I enjoy it immensely - often more so when
>> there's a challenge to be met. I'm also concentrating as much as I can all
>> the time. I fail to understand how it can be otherwise, it sounds like complacency
>> to me.
I understand given you're Father's death in a road accident that you have a perspective the rest of us lack. However, reading your post together with Pat and Zeddo's contributions I believe you're all three saying same thing in different ways. What Pat describes as automatic is pretty much the same thing as Z's constant risk assessment or you're concentration.
In the storm on the M6 last night I was running at 100%. If it hadn't eased I'd have been struggling with fatigue and had to stop at Corley.
|
I'm not so sure Bromps, Pat seems to be saying she's capable of taking her mind mostly off the task at hand and remaining perfectly safe at the wheel. Spider senses, use of The Force, that sort of thing.
Hope I'm wrong.
The scowly wasn't from me.
>> In the storm on the M6 last night I was running at 100%. If it
>> hadn't eased I'd have been struggling with fatigue and had to stop at Corley.
>>
That's why we're advised to "Take a Break" every two hours. It isn't a birthright to keep on keeping on for however long we fancy. If you have to stop, you have to stop. Big deal, call ahead and tell whoever it is you're in a hurry to get to that you'll be a bit late. Better than arriving at Eternity a bit early.
|
>> taking her mind mostly off the task at hand and remaining perfectly safe at the wheel. Spider senses, use of The Force, that sort of thing.
Pat neither mentioned nor implied the presence of 'spider senses' or 'use of the Force'. That is pure slander. She simply said that in undemanding conditions her well-developed automatic pilot enables her to drive without stress. Mine is exactly the same. If yours isn't, Alanović, I'm a bit surprised that you are here at all.
Although there is a radical distinction between a proper driver and a mere car user, there's no dividing line between operating a vehicle and driving. It's a continuum.
|
I have already said that I drive without stress, AC, but manage to do so whilst concentrating. Others seem to think concentration causes stress. I know which sounds more dangerous.
As for slander, it's just an attempt at humour. Perhaps a bit too sarcastic, which isn't cool, I'll admit. Sorry. I didn't intend to be offensive. But it's not far from reality to say that using a mental "auto pilot" isn't far off mythical powers. On a motorway, there's not much to do so far as operating the vehicle is concerned, granted. But there's just as much need for concentration as in other places, and in fact it's far easier to become complacent due to the relative lack of hazards. However, they are there, and concentration is required.
>> Although there is a radical distinction between a proper driver and a mere car user,
>> there's no dividing line between operating a vehicle and driving. It's a continuum.
Agree and disagree in varying degrees. My 9-year old could, given a cushion and a few wooden blocks, operate my Mazda 6 auto. He couldn't drive it, though. Not in the proper sense, on the public roads.
|
>> But there's just as much need for concentration as in other places, and in fact it's far easier to become complacent due to the relative lack of hazards. However, they are there, and concentration is required.
The way I see it, you have to be properly awake, ready at no notice to snap into full-on driver mode even before the hazard is fully present. The expression I use is 'relaxed but vigilant', ready at all times to deploy full and close concentration.
It takes a long time to develop a reliable autopilot. A lot of miles in all conditions. Learner drivers however enthusiastic are certain to get it wrong sometimes. As with politics and politicians, the safest ones know when and how to be a bit boring. Thrills and tyre squeal all the way are bound to upset the passengers and other road users.
|
You are wrong Alanovic, but here's another conundrum for you.
Ian and I, as you know are both lorry drivers and no matter what seat we're sitting in during journeys like that, we're both driving, both as tired and drained and it's a team effort.
Hence the booked room.
In normal conditions one is a passenger and the other a driver and that's how it should be.
Doesn't that tell you the training we've done to get the licence we both hold has worked? It should do.
I really am not trying to argue with you but I would love you to really understand what I mean.
Pat
|
>> You are wrong Alanovic, but here's another conundrum for you.
>>
>> Ian and I, as you know are both lorry drivers and no matter what seat
>> we're sitting in during journeys like that, we're both driving, both as tired and drained
>> and it's a team effort.
>>
I agree, a passenger who has a driving licence is subconsciously driving, and as a result becoming fatigued.
|
>> I really am not trying to argue with you but I would love you to
>> really understand what I mean.
Me too. Hey ho.
|
Funny enough Bromp we had a room booked at Corley just in case the lack of sleep got us and we didn't feel able to give that amount of concentration to do the last lap home.
Starting early we were able to cancel with no charge just before 12 noon and find a relaxing meal at Rugby to help that end of the journey.
We made that precaution before leaving knowing what was likely to be ahead of us and wouldn't have hesitated to use it had either of us felt tired.
Pat
|
The police officer may have seen (the aftermath of) a lot of accidents but that doesn't make him an expert on the cause. He'll have heard a lot of drivers swear that it all happened so fast there was nothing they could have done, and observed that a lot had had low-profile tyres, but it's just as likely that these were drivers who (see the Driving Standards thread) thought their expensive or advanced equipment made them invincible road gods, and so failed to apply due care and common sense.
We don't want this to turn into slanging match, especially since the driver himself isn't here to state his own case, but the general principle still applies that standing water, black ice, low sun and the like don't cause accidents, they merely make an accident more likely if a driver doesn't drive well enough. And [EDIT] as Manatee points out, there are conditions in which the only prudent action is not to drive at all.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 14:35
|
|
Surely there could have been a good chance that the tyres on the attending police vehicle would have fallen into the 'low profile' category, does that mean the police office was also refering to his own car?
|
Wide low profile tyres are foisted upon us by manufacturers coz they look sporty. The fact that they are unsuitable for our roads is conveniently ignored. Only market pressure will change this. Just this week in Autocar they were saying how a low profile tyre caused a pothole to buckle an alloy rim because there was so little forgiveness in the side wall.
Having said that, the worst aqua planing that I ever had was on a French autoroute in a skinny tyred Citroen BX estate many years ago. Thankfully the road was clear, as I had no control as the car drifted across the lane, almost like a hovercraft.
To the OP, I'm sorry, but your son was driving too fast for the tyres/conditions.
|
|
Well I think we should encourage drivesafe-staysafe to lobby for a 20mph limit if its wet or if you have low profile tyres, with a limit of 10mph if both conditions apply
|
|
The French have already thought of this, non? The speed limit on their autoroutes drops from 130km/h to 110 when it's raining! Mind you, the Belgians on a wet A26 yesterday weren't paying much attention...
|
>> the Belgians
Vous avez dit assez. Je genoeg hebt gezegd.
|
>> Well I think we should encourage drivesafe-staysafe to lobby for a 20mph limit if its
>> wet or if you have low profile tyres, with a limit of 10mph if both
>> conditions apply
>>
That is nanny state mentality, I am glad you are joking.
We are not all incapable of driving in bad conditions or knowing when it is unsafe and to decide to stop.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 17:02
|
My rears were down to 2mm this week. I had the job earmarked for early January but the offside kept needing me to get the pump out.
Nipped down to National yesterday and blew £127 on a couple of nice cuddly 215/65X16s. Tread you could hide a refugee in !
More confident if we get any bad weather now. Not much sign of any yet !
HO
|
To the OP: your son had a bit of run-of-the-mill bad luck and will have learned a couple of useful things when it all settles down. He wasn't necessarily at fault in any way. In the recent weather conditions there's been a lot of standing water in unexpected places. No blame!
For many years I would never drive any car in the wet without trying to break its adhesion in suitable places with other traffic out of the picture, at least until I knew, or thought I knew, what its basic handling characteristics were (in the wet - dry can be radically different).
Older, cooler and more relaxed now, but old habits die hard and I am aware of every skip, jink, wriggle and slide of the jalopy I am driving, and nearly always whether it's to do with basic handling, rough or incorrect control inputs, suspension wear or tyres past their best.
The front tyres on the car are getting on a bit although the tread is better than legal. The rears are newer, and I keep meaning to get them changed to the front where (in my opinion) they belong, and get them all aligned properly at the same time. However I'm not afraid of crashing in the meantime...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 17:33
|
>> He wasn't necessarily at
>> fault in any way. In the recent weather conditions there's been a lot of standing
>> water in unexpected places. No blame!
Absolute rubbish, blame the tyres, wet conditions, the car, the road surface, surface water, but whatever you do don't blame the driver who should have been in control of the situation.
|
>> whatever you do don't blame the driver who should have been in control of the situation.
Don't be such a sour old warrant officer... young guy, unusual weather conditions, learning something from painful experience. He'll be blaming himself for sure, which is the way it should be.
Anyone else, unless they know he's a reckless idiot, should just feel sympathy. These things happen as any fule kno.
|
|
:-) Just keeping the thread going.
|
What makes you suppose the driver is young, AC? Yes, young enough for his father still to be with us - in both senses, I hope, not scared off by the way our debate has focused more on driving skills than rubber - but to have had an expensive-to-run car for seven years suggests he's some way past 25. Clues in Ambo's posts about his own life suggest, if I'm remembering correctly, that he's retired, so I'd expect Junior to be in his thirties; hardly wet behind the ears, if you'll excuse the expression in this context.
}:---)
|
>> I'd expect Junior to be in his thirties; hardly wet behind the ears, if you'll excuse the expression in this context.
Perhaps a better word would have been youngish. True, he's had a - very quick I believe - car for seven years, and perhaps he had become complacent about its capabilities, as you can. But the mid thirties are certainly young enough not to know it all... indeed there is no age at which one's driving can be guaranteed faultless.
The road has a nasty sense of humour. It can always take you by surprise.
|
>> the standing water in the offside lane. Cruise was on and the speedo shot up
>> to over 100 mph along with the engine revs because of no traction. Out of
No cruise crontrol would accelerate because of loss of traction.
If you set the cruise control at 60mph and lost traction, the CC would try to maintain 60mph so would decelerate.
|
>> No cruise crontrol would accelerate because of loss of traction.
>> If you set the cruise control at 60mph and lost traction, the CC would try
>> to maintain 60mph so would decelerate.
I have an auto though, not a manual gearbox. Because of the sudden traction difference the gearbox changed down, just like it would when going up or down a hill. It may have only been for a brief second or two (at the time it felt longer), but the revs and speedo both shot up as mentioned. No TC or stability control to self disable it, however once I managed to regain visibility of the road ahead and control of the car I did notice the CC had been disabled. Whether I'd hit the button on the wiper stalk or it did it all by itself, I have no idea. I had other things going on in my mind, like am I going to hit the car that also lost control, hit the barrier, hit both the barrier and other car, or end up dead.
Thinking about the change from 60mph to over 100mph when the wheels lost traction though; the tyres went from being under load (i.e. in contact with the road) to basically free wheeling (i.e. no traction). There would have been a delay for the cars electronics to play catch up.
Also, when going downhill, being an auto the CC doesn't immediately try and maintain the set speed. It can quite often creep up before changing down the box.
|
a hill.
>> It may have only been for a brief second or two (at the time it
>> felt longer), but the revs and speedo both shot up as mentioned.
Probably the drag of hitting the water suddenly slowed the car, so it had to downshift and accelerate to get back up to the set speed.
|
The tyres weren't those semi-slicks that you often see on Evos and Scoobys were they ambo?
They're legal but lethal in anything but dry conditions.
|
|
I had a Bum Burp last week in the Pajero. 1.8 tons + me on new tyres. I hit a patch of standing water, one of many on the way home. All pools had passed without incident, but this one sent me into the path of an oncoming car. It self corrected and there was nothing that I could do. I felt quite uneasy for several miles afterwards.
|
The profile of the tyre surely has nothing to do with it's ability to disperse water, grip, etc. That's down to tread design and compound. Tread depth limits are the same regardless of tyre design/construction. Winter and summer tyres might perform differently but they all start with the same tread depth.
So back to the OP.... Regardless of tyre size, profile, winter or summer compound, FWD/RWD/AWD.... aqua planing will happen if the water is deep enough. All you can do is recognise this up ahead and deal with it - no steering/braking/accelerating if possible.
Sounds like driver error. And perhaps the Evo's normal high grip got them into a situation they normally wouldn't experience? Four wheel drive etc. with smart electronics won't help if you drive through deep water.
Even if the Evo's a write off, your son is okay. A good result from the sound of it.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 21:43
|
|
Glad he'll fight another day.
|
>> The profile of the tyre surely has nothing to do with it's ability to disperse
>> water, grip, etc. That's down to tread design and compound.
I don't think the compound has anything to do with aquaplaning, as the tyre will not be touching the road. It is purely the tyres ability to disperse the water, which is down to tread pattern, tread depth, tyre width, the weight on the wheel, and of course speed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdHwuBbyu74
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 22:10
|
|
Thanks to all for comments. I will pass them on to the young 47-year-old lad.
|
|
Ah, mid life crisis. Dont let him buy a bike.
|
>> Dont let him buy a bike
He had ready done that before the EVO, a 170 mph job, with no mishaps. He later did well on car skid pan training at Castle Combe. He was in the centre lane on this occasion.
|
|
Just let him read this thread, he is welcome to shout at me instead of you. :-)
|
He has my sympathy. Misjudgement or not, there's always probability involved and anybody can be caught out even when reasonable allowances have been made.
We'd be unwise to ignore the copper's comments too. It's intuitively right that wider (if that's what he means) tyres are more prone to aquaplane - there's just more water to shift.
If your son has been driving the car for seven years, he must have had a feel for it - maybe there was just more water there than could reasonably have been expected. Was he in lane one? Sometimes the ruts contain a surprising depth of water.
|
>>
>> We'd be unwise to ignore the copper's comments too. It's intuitively right that wider (if
>> that's what he means) tyres are more prone to aquaplane - there's just more water
>> to shift.
>>
Agreed, and for a given weight of car a low(er) profile tyre will likely have a bigger contact area with the road, so less pressure between tyre and road, hence more chance of a film of water being able to develop between the two. Not saying tread depth/design doesn't also play a major part.
|
I've only experienced aquaplaning once in 40 years of driving, and once was enough.
Back in the late 70's we used to fly from sowf lunden to West Cornwall via an ex plod Rover V8 shod with the standard Avon tyres.
Once I hit the M4/M5 it was 95-100 MPH all the way until the A30 at Exeter.
I remember that I lost all control of the car and it was like driving on ice to a certain extent.
The car soon found its footing again though fortunately, I honestly had never heard of aquaplaning at that time.
|
>> I've only experienced aquaplaning once in 40 years of driving, and once was enough.
I have experienced it twice.
first time was in a RWD down a country lane I knew (too) well. I had read about it, but the feeling of panic was awful, and it was very hard not to brake or steer.. how I didn't crash I'll never know.
The second time was on the M25 in a FWD. it was raining fairly hard, when there was a mass of brake lights ahead.
I stood on the brakes, the ABS cut in, then the pulsing stopped - all 4 wheels where locked, and I was aquaplaning!
I released the brakes, then reapplied then and started Cadence braking, I managed to stop one car length from the car in front.
Had to change my undies after that!
|
>> I've only experienced aquaplaning once in 40 years of driving...
That's disgraceful. Clearly you haven't been trying nearly hard enough !
;-)
|
>>Clearly you haven't been trying nearly hard enough !
Clearly we don't get enough rain in Cornwall to even begin to try.
:o)
|
I've only experienced aquaplaning once, on the M8! Dead straight line, heaving with rain and I reduced my speed down to 30 mph before I started clearing the water. Luckily it was late at night, next to no traffic and I was only yards from Hartshill services where I hid until things got better.
Low profile tyres tend also to be wide and since the ability to clear water goes down with increased width, I suspect that is where the original thought comes from.
|
We came up the M1 today which had heavy rain and some areas of standing water. My tyres are down to ~2mm, so felt less confident in them.
Some people have no interest or idea about their car/tyres and so would just be sat there with one elbow on the windows sill and other hand in their lap. Probably the same people with no lights on or high-intensity rear fog guards on.
|
I can certainly vouch for the grip of spindly tyres. You can see this on rally sites in muddy conditions. At the Chelford steam fair a couple of years ago, moderns were really struggling where the mud was concentrated at the exit gate. Classic tractors were helping out.
The older stuff was just driving out without difficulty. I just sailed through the mud on my 500X16 crossplys...even with the caravan on the back ! Cutting through the mud on to the hard ground underneath rather than floating on top.
HO
|
>>>My son lost control of his Evo a few days back, when it aquaplaned on a dual carriageway in torrential rain, at an estimated 45-50 mph. He hit the central barrier, went through a hedge and ended up in what he believes is a total write-off.
Late to this thread but I'm staggered it would be possible to lose control at such low speeds... even on a road that was soaking. It would have been interesting to know the tyre make/type.
I would take the police comments with a pinch of salt... on the camera action type shows they often come out with comments related to technical aspects of cars that show more opinion than understanding... bit like HJ.
Aquaplaning test conditions, as Pat mentions elsewhere, are to be found on many routes in the lane 1 lorry tracks... if you fancy a practice.
|
>> I'm staggered it would be possible to lose control at such low speeds... even on a road that was soaking. It would have been interesting to know the tyre make/type.
Why? Lightweight car, wide tyres, deep water, 40mph is more than fast enough to lift the car off the road.
Good water-dispersing tread will make a difference in shallow puddles or pools, but if there's too much depth it can't disperse the water and will aquaplane. Tyres with unsuitable or worn-thin tread will aquaplane more easily.
|
>>>Why?
Well yes I know all that guff but despite experiencing both actual aquaplaning and conditions that would make it likely so so often in so many car types I've never let it get out of hand even at higher speeds. I would have thought that the stability control on an Evo would have helped avoid this situation getting as far as a crash.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 2 Jan 14 at 18:18
|
I've always got away with it too, so far, with nothing more severe than a nasty wriggle on coming back to earth. But you have to be very quick to get the steered wheels at least - all four if possible - in line with the car's direction of travel, and if it happens in a serious bend you might not have the space to gather it all together without leaving the road when adhesion is regained. Because when you are aquaplaning you are always travelling in a straight line, whether the jalopy itself is also rotating or not.
No doubt you're a better pilot than I am Fenlander, but a long aquaplane in the wrong place could put Fangio up a tree.
|
>>>No doubt you're a better pilot than I am Fenlander
Not trying to say that... just judge the accident situation related to my experience.
It's just the fairly low speed aspect is puzzling... 80mph I could perhaps understand.
|
>> fairly low speed aspect is puzzling... 80mph I could perhaps understand.
At very low speed a car won't aquaplane. But at any speed above say 40 a light car with wide tyres in deep enough water will aquaplane. It's a function of the car's mass, the width of the tyre footprint and the depth of the water, not of its speed as such.
|
>> I would have thought that
>> the stability control on an Evo would have helped avoid this situation getting as far
>> as a crash.
>>
The electronics, brakes, and steering are useless once the wheels are off the road surface. When you are aquaplaning you are a passenger and the car will go in the direction it was travelling in until the wheels re-contact the road. If one or two contact before the others and you are on the brakes you have real problems.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Thu 2 Jan 14 at 18:49
|
|
Agreed but the driver was very unlucky not to have any window of opportunity for some grip to be regained and at that point stability control would have helped.
|
|
Not if he was already going sideways or the wheels touched down unevenly. They may have lifted off unevenly and caused a spin, so many variables happening in an instant.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Thu 2 Jan 14 at 18:54
|
>> Not if he was already going sideways or the wheels touched down unevenly.
Yes, a lot of what N_C calls 'yaw' isn't what you want at all.
But the order in which the wheels touch down doesn't matter. What matters is their alignment with the car's direction of travel, and of course that the driver hasn't applied the brakes while aquaplaning. You can't do anything about staying on the road until you have adhesion again, but trying to steer and brake while your car is off the ground will certainly put you in trouble.
|
>> The electronics, brakes, and steering are useless once the wheels are off the road surface.
>> When you are aquaplaning you are a passenger and the car will go in the
>> direction it was travelling in until the wheels re-contact the road. If one or two
>> contact before the others and you are on the brakes you have real problems.
>>
Exactly that.
No matter how many 'aids' are fitted to a vehicle, it still has to obey the laws of physics.
Something that is not thought about these days - every year I see smashed up cars at work, the drivers saying they can't understand wy it happened, after all the car has ABS traction control, etc etc etc...
|
...I see smashed up cars at work, the drivers saying they can't understand...
Separate point, perhaps, but a generation ago would drivers who'd suffered similar accidents even be there to wonder what happened?
I suppose ST reinforces my suggestion earlier that there are too many drivers who believe before they make their mistake that their machinery will get them out of trouble. I remember in one of my early drives in the LEC taking a familiar motorway junction too fast (because it's a quiet car) and (possibly) being got out of trouble by the ESP - although it could just as easily have been that I'd underestimated the limit and wasn't really in trouble at all.
But I don't think I've taken more risks as my cars have acquired first door bars, then airbags, ABS and finally ESP; on the contrary, I used to be far more aggressive in my 1989 Escort 1.3 - which had the structural solidity of an orange box and whose safety systems consisted of a seat belt - than I have been in my hefty Swedish and German safety cages. Perhaps that's just old age; put me in the Escort now and I might be too afraid to pootle as far as Tesco.
|
I haven't driven a car with bells-and-whistles electronic stability control. No doubt it has reassured many a driver who has perhaps verged on losing adhesion. But although I wouldn't mind trying it I don't fancy it at all really. It's hopelessly complicated and does far too much braking for my liking.
I strongly suspect that it makes driving quickly more of a chore or perhaps makes it impossible. In a car with a good sporting chassis a really good fast driver (don't claim to be one myself) goes quickly by putting the car over the edge of ordinary adhesion and exploits its instability to snake along rapidly, braking only to reduce speed before corners... not all the way through them one wheel at a time FFS...
No, I'm not talking about Jeremy Clarkson making clouds of wheelspin smoke just to go at a medium sort of speed. I'm talking Fangio or Jim Clark doing it properly and with far less drama.
|
Have held back until now
The only reason for the originally described event happening is that the driver put himself in a situation he didn't have a clue how to deal with, he would have done just the same on 80 profile tyres. How many remember Morris Minors on cross ply tyres . . . . . . all the fun and excitement you ever need and at much lower speeds.
Unfortunately there are too many people who want to travel as fast as they can with no regard to the consequences and occasionally they get bitten. I just pray that I am nowhere near them when it happens.
|
It would be interesting to see some theoretical or test figures for a given car's aquaplaning speed in relation to water depth.
Presumably there is an inverse relationship - if a car aquaplanes at 70 mph on 1/4" of water, at what speed will it aquaplane on 1/2" ?
Drenching continuous rain can easily produce 1/4" of water on the road I'd have thought even assuming quick run-off. If a cloudburst or tramlines in the road can double that depth, it doesn't really seem surprising that ordinary tread depths cannot cope.
It's hard to picture what actually happens when a wheel tries to run through water. Does all the protruding rubber have to squash through to the road, forcing the water aside and down the circumferential grooves in the tread? Or does the tyre actually "run over" some of the water? Hitting water at speed is like hitting a solid - witness frogs and birds that can run along the surface of a pond if going fast enough.
|
As far as I understand it Cliff problems start when water builds up in front of the tyre so the tyre climbs onto it.
>>>haven't driven a car with bells-and-whistles electronic stability control... hopelessly complicated... does far too much braking for my liking... strongly suspect that it makes driving quickly more of a chore or perhaps makes it impossible... car with a good sporting chassis and a really good fast driver.
You'd be surprised just how good it is AC. On my 2009 C5 the stability control cut in at the point where an average careless motorist might have lost it... given it was a family cruiser that seemed appropriate. Sounds a bit cheesy but the effect was like a gentle giant hand supporting the car from the side where you might otherwise have spun off into the fields. You could turn the system off but only below 40mph and as soon as you went above 40 it switched back in.
The Alfa system is set up to be less intrusive allowing very high cornering speeds without interference and only cuts in at the point your actions might be deemed stupid on the public highway. It can also be turned off regardless of speed but there is no point unless you were having a track day with it.
An example of its effectiveness was the other day in the rain with loads of standing water at the road edges on a B-road when someone travelling towards me decided to drive round a large puddle going over the white line onto my side of the road causing me to put two wheels into the mud/grass of the verge at around 50mph. The normal strong pull was much reduced when the stability light flicked on for a few seconds as it did its work.
From everything I've experienced of the system over the past 4yrs I think it is a huge safety feature for both the ordinary motorist and faster drivers.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 09:45
|
>> I think it is a huge safety feature for both the ordinary motorist and faster drivers.
Well if anyone can make a good case for stability control, I would expect it to be an Alfa owner. Actually Fenlander I think we have had a different version of this exchange in the past. Sounds like a jalopy any red-blooded driver would like.
Yr description of the B-road incident is telling. We live among B and C roads some of which are busy at certain times, and not all drivers are as tidy as they might be. One needs a firm hand at times, and an intelligent system like yr Alfa's sounds just the thing.
So perhaps my visceral dislike for these elaborate driver aids is a bit dated and Luddite, but I can't help it. No one's perfect.
|
>> over" some of the water? Hitting water at speed is like hitting a solid -
>> witness frogs and birds that can run along the surface of a pond if going
>> fast enough.
The car suddenly becomes a speed boat. The only problem is you are not equipped with a a rudder.
|
>>
>> But I don't think I've taken more risks as my cars have acquired first door
>> bars, then airbags, ABS and finally ESP; on the contrary, I used to be far
>> more aggressive in my 1989 Escort 1.3 - which had the structural solidity of an
>> orange box and whose safety systems consisted of a seat belt - than I have
>> been in my hefty Swedish and German safety cages. Perhaps that's just old age; put
>> me in the Escort now and I might be too afraid to pootle as far
>> as Tesco.
>>
I think you got a bit more feedback before you reached the limits on cars of yesteryear, it was easier to tell that you were pushing your luck. Modern cars tend to isolate you from the outside world and the first you know that you've gone over the edge is when you lose it.
|
|
This morning there was a car parked on its roof with a rear wheel ripped off in lane 2 of 2 on a rain soaked M90, the only other damage seemed to be to the central barrier. As it is local to me I know that water runs across the road at this location as it is on a bend and the camber runs right across the road. I wonder what caused that little off?
|
>> I think you got a bit more feedback before you reached the limits on cars of yesteryear, it was easier to tell that you were pushing your luck. Modern cars tend to isolate you from the outside world and the first you know that you've gone over the edge is when you lose it.
>>
Exactly my feelings.
Problem is, the modern car will now 'let go' at a higher speed....
|
Low profiles dangerous in the wet - Tigger
