Instead of going ape shit with retarded safety regs, why not fit lower spec cars with fatter tyres and better brakes as standard?
Why do so many shit cheap cars use rear drum brakes, then have a million airbags and crumple zones? Why not actually attack the problem at the source?
Am I retarded?
>>14568313
No amount of braking power will save a driver who isn't paying attention to the road in the first place.
ie the teenage girls and soccer moms who buy shitty crossovers.
Doesn't stop some faggot jumping the lights and t boning you
>>14568313
>cheap shit cars
Answered you own question anon
Better brakes and tires are expensive as fuck
People don't even maintain their shit ass tires and brakes as it as
>>14568313
Good brakes and tires won't save you in many scenarios. Not that it's a bad thing to have them, maybe even by a regulation. Until it's forced tho, just don't buy shitty cars.
>>14568313
Because grippy tires are expensive, wear quickly and decrease fuel efficiency.
And no amount of brakes will help you when a retard runs a red light and T-bones you.
>>14568313
>cars use rear drum brakes
You fucking WHAT mate?
Literally illegal in Europe unless it's an old timer.
>>14568423
>Literally illegal in Europe unless it's an old timer
im sure plenty of new trucks, utes and vans are using drums in europe. doesnt the base model fiesta come with rear drums?
>>14568423
>what is a Ford Fiesta
>>14568423
Hahaha, nope.
Take a look around current gen Fiestas and Corsas, like half of them have drums at the back.
>>14568313
>he honestly thinks disk brakes will make a car any safer
aw it's cute
>>14568440
>>14568435
>>14568432
Literally never seen those two pieces of shit where I live so I'll concede.
>>14568446
Good luck braking with drum brakes at speeds higher than 50kph
>>14568452
>Europe
>never seen a Corsa or a Fiesta
Bullshit.
>>14568446
even if you cut your stopping distance by a small amount it can be the difference between crashing or not crashing, or a 40mph impact being a 20mph one.
>>14568463
Never up close, I mean. Nobody I know owned one nor in my apartment building.
>>14568468
They even paint the drums red or orange on the 'sporty' Corsa's, looks ridiculous. Take a look around a Vauxhall garage next time you're near one.
>>14568313
>Why do so many shit cheap cars use rear drum brakes
Because that works and it's cheap.
>>14568475
>They even paint the drums red or orange on the 'sporty' Corsa's
I was sure that was just the local Chav brigade doing sik modz to their Corsas?
>>14568423
>Literally illegal in Europe unless it's an old timer.
It's not and there is no reason it would be.
>>14568335 A mix of this and >>14568353
There is the most to be gained by adding features like autobrake, ESP and similar that try to prevent accidents that happen due to primarily driver error and not vehicle limitation.
Sadly, most accidents happen in such a way that brakes are either not touched at all or even brakes from an F1 car wouldn't be able to prevent it
>>14568482
Could be, but I've seen a lot of new shape Vauxhall's with sporty trim and bright painted drum brakes. They were new enough to have been bought on finance and then sold back to the dealership before the balloon payment, and I'm pretty sure most people don't mess with cars they bought on finance and plan to sell back.
>>14568446
dude, there's a reason no motor sport uses drum brakes.
they catch fire
>>14568510
They could be painting the rear drums and charging customers a fortune for it
Every corsa i see on the road is "limited edition" for some reason
>>14568514
They don't catch fire and motorsport is irrelevant. This isn't motorsport and braking load is mostly distributed to the front brakes. This is why early single channel ABS systems worked on the rear.
>>14568313
Because they are cheap cars...
You think tires and brakes are free or something?
>>14568475
top kek
>>14568538
A set of 235 tyres over some skinny dick 155's like you'd get on a modern shitbox is about 3x as much. In other words, a set will cost you say £400 instead of £150.
I'm not saying every shitbox should have 355 section tyres, but I don't think you can argue a £250 difference is worth smashing into a wall over.
>>14568593
it is for the dealership.
if some faggot wrecks his car, he'll either be dead, or he'll have to buy a new one.
it's a cycle.
>>14568313
because the drivers are fucking retards
>>14568313
>Instead of going ape shit with retarded safety regs, why not fit lower spec cars with fatter tyres and better brakes as standard?
They already do.
Lower spec cars have huge rotors nowadays, in comparison to 10 years ago.
I once emailed Euro ncap to find out why stopping distance isn't relevant for the safety ratings. It was due to the huge difference between tires.
All cars I've driven have had more stopping power than the tires can handle, drums or discs. My 2 cars with contisportcontact5 and contisportcontact2.
You may need to bring slicks, rain and intermediate tires with you at all times if you want much more traction.
>>14568313
Big tyres cost more and decrease mileage.
I believe it was the c7 when GM was still testing it, they put brakes on it so large they noticed a massive increase in stopping distance then smaller brakes they used. When they checked high speed footage or whatever they found that the brakes actually held the wheel so hard the bead let go and tire rotated around the wheel.
Tldr: bigger isn't always better. Also 90% of accidents are stupid fucks not paying attention.
>>14569113
This.
Bigger rotor and better pads are for fade resistance, which is not the issue for shitboxes.
Friction with the road is the issue.
Maybe put some sort of rubber skids that drop from under the car during hard stops?
