Talk:Traction control system

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Control theory.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

216.132.251.37 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

what was the first bmw to have this? and do all >2000 bmw's have it? --72.139.114.66 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention the German name for it? Why not other languages too? Is there something superior or significant about the German term?

F1 ECU changes

Were the ECU changes really intended to _ban_ Traction Control? I thought it was merely a consequence of the standardized ECU design for 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.18.213 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mclaren Electronics (http://www.mclarenelectronics.com/Systems/CaseStudy/Formula%20One) who makes these ECUs makes very little mention of it. I've been searching for a solid hour, and can find nowhere refutable that says these ECUs don't include some form of traction control. Combined with the fact that I've never seen a F1 car do a burnout or doughnut since... well, the late 1990s actually (yes, I know it's illegal during races, but have you ever seen an accidental one?), I'm inclined to think it's just the typical media hysteria that F1 seems to be frought with. Additionally, a 700+hp rear wheel drive car without any traction control at all seems idiotically suicidal to me.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/ is badly worded, and defers most of the relevant information to an appendix that doesn't seem to be available. They do specifically state *additional* traction control systems are banned, but do not mention what the supplied ECU does.

Also, 'Traction Control' is a *superset* of Anti-lock Braking Systems, according to the people who make this stuff. I haven't delved into it deep enough to figure out what they call the part of it involving driven wheels is, but this would explain why so many people think it was banned in F1, even when it wasn't. The officials (I guess?) sometimes say 'traction control' when they mean specifically ABS. Banning the ABS subset is much safer and more entertaining as long as the tracks have runoff areas in appropriate places. Which they've spent decades and millions of <insert your currency here> ensuring they do. The FIA 'no straight longer than 2(?)km' rule is a particularly offensive example of this to me, being a fan of Le Mans and loving the old 7km straight they forced the ACO to wreck with a bunch of dumb chicanes.

To hell with it, let's be objectively scientific about it: Count the number of brake lockups you see vs. the number of wheelspins. Both actions involve a similar activity of a foot pressing a pedal. One pedal has very different feedback to the other, but the lack of feedback in the accelerator (particularly with drive-by-wire stuff) favours more wheelspins. Yet we see the opposite. Right there is the answer.

23:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not just a road vehicle thing

Does anyone know enough to add rail applications? Talltim (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed sections

Traction Control Systems do NOT work when cornering. TCS/ASR merely monitor the difference in rotational road wheel speed between driven axles compared to non-driven axles. "Cross axle" monitoring is sometimes called "Electronic Differential Lock" or EDL, and may be an addition to TCS, but is not a standard component (or design function) of TCS. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 07:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. TCS senses diferential wheel rotational acceleration across the axle, and suppresses it. If your company charges extra for that, fine, but other companies don't. Hopefully they will drive yours out of business.Greg Locock (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Greg. I have driven a vehicle with TCS that did NOT have brake intervention or any sort of yaw-sensor and it would kick in when only ONE drive wheel spun. While it was unable to alter the left/right torque split and had to reduce power to both drive wheels, it DID work when cornering. Or are you merely bad with words? Jervinator (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to brake intervention traction control. I have done detailed research into a Continental Teves ABS/TC system and I can confirm that it does activate when cornering in a Landrover NOT fitted with a steering wheel sensor or yaw sensor. When driving the particular vehicle on full steering lock in a circle, TC was activated upon the detection different wheel speeds despite no wheel spin. The brake intervention alarmingly caused skidding on a frosty tarmac car park. Other systems/cars may be more sophisticated and I can not comment on the effect at higher speed.Quattroheaven (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brake Intervention TC re-directing torque: This is in fact a myth. The application of a brake to a spinning wheel does not re-direct talk as so many jounalists think. It applies a negative torque which slows the engine. Torque will not transfer via the differential to the opposite wheel, until the brake force is the equivalent of the force required for forward motion. But this force would stall the engine (so TC is disengaged as the loss of engine revs are detected). Torque transfer IS achieved by adding addition torque (throttle) to overcome the brake force and create forward motion (i.e. twice the original torque required). This means that only half the engines torque is available for forward motion meaning that the climbing angle in these circumstances is halfed. In practice, a driver can not add throttle at the exact time the TC activates, and too much throttle at the wrong time is likely to cause a loss of traction. However, in some stationery situation, with relatively good traction at one wheel, continueing to apply throttle may transfer torque. However this technique is DANGEROUS as when the brake intervention is released, the engine will deliver twice the torque and so sent the vehicle forward in a violent manner if traction is found. A mechanical diff-lock does not loose any torque available for forward motion. Tc also is deactivated to prevent over heating of the brakes (and it doesn't last long). In demanding off-road conditions, the Society of Automotive Engineers do not recomend TC brake intervention as an alternative a mechanical differential lock. In a recent court case, Landrover's own expert and an independent expert, conceded that TC as a Diff-Lock would not function in soft ground steeper than approx 6 degrees due to the loss of torque for the vehicle in case.Quattroheaven (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong Quattroheaven. I may only be a student, and an Electrical Engineer, not a Mechanical one, but I'm developing a traction control system for my school's Baja SAE team. True, it's not a true car, it's more like a dune buggie weighing only about 300 pounds or so, so the physics of how the traction control will operate is different than a full sized car (you don't have as much inertia). Also, it's different in that it's an off road vehicle and the traction control is meant to provide a different purpose. My traction control system is meant to activate only under near-total traction loss. Mostly this occurs when one wheel leaves the ground. When this happens nearly all of the engine torque is directed to the wheel in the air and almost none to the wheel on the ground. My traction control system is meant to apply a brake to the airborne wheel, transferring torque to the wheel on the ground, and thus restoring drive power. This is very effective and is proven to work well with this sort of car for off road environments. Basically what this traction control system is doing is making a sort of automatic cutting brake. A cutting brake manually does this. The driver basically will "feel" when the wheel has left the ground and apply the cutting brake to it. This is essential for rock crawl events, and is very effective in a race. Now this same traction control for a street vehicle, it may not be as effective, but it is very effective for off road applications.tractrpl 15:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tractrpl (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hmmmm - TC and ASR

It seems that a lot of the discussion is between these two systems

It looks as though ASR and TC are slightly different things.

ASR to the layman would probably mean a specific function of TC eg 4X4 at low speeds in mud/sand/ice etc and your average family car in snow/ice/mud, whereas TC in cars is a more general term which would include any system using high speed control for high end cars such as Ferraris and F1 cars at higher speeds under hard acceleration.

My Alfa has ASR and it is front wheel drive, if driven hard on a roundabout in the rain, the wheels will spin up and ASR light flicker on and off. Without ASR it is unlikely that the wheels will spin up under acceleration unless from a standng start. The Ferrari I drive (occasionally) has ASR and without ASR it will spin up in the dry at 60mph on that same roundabout under hard acceleration. I would say that although labelled ASR that is more TC

There is also the fact that this article may be edited in future to include trains, bulldozers and anything else that uses traction control.

I suggest either new sub sections or new articles for ASR and for TC in F1/Motorsport and division of the various TC for this article into "Examples of TC"

I believe that the Wiki guide is for "generally accepted terms" and in this case it would mostly be how the general public view these things which should determine how the whole article is handled, not necessarily needing these arguments to define exactly which one is the winner

Perhaps this is where the arguments are occuring and maybe a fix is to separate these in some way...Chaosdruid (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traction control and engine braking

for On-road vehicles; Does traction control reduce engine braking if RPMs are high, by injecting more gas into the cylinders? As you know, aggressive engine braking on slippery surfaces can result in wheel slip on the drive wheels. Will the traction control system increase gas to reduce wheel slip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Greglocock (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]