home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / rec / autos / tech / 15677 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-20  |  1.1 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!news.ai!ilh
  2. From: ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington)
  3. Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
  4. Subject: Re: More on anti-lock brakes
  5. Date: 20 Nov 92 10:29:49
  6. Organization: MIT/LCS Spoken Language Systems
  7. Lines: 13
  8. Message-ID: <ILH.92Nov20102949@winnie-the-pooh.lcs.mit.edu>
  9. References: <ILH.92Nov18154234@winnie-the-pooh.lcs.mit.edu>
  10.     <93669@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>
  11. Reply-To: ilh@lcs.mit.edu
  12. NNTP-Posting-Host: winnie-the-pooh.ai.mit.edu
  13. In-reply-to: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com's message of 19 Nov 92 19:35:38 GMT
  14.  
  15. Yes, I realized all of your points.  I know that the brake isn't
  16. simply released (bad choice of words) but pulsed.  I realize that
  17. you'll get better traction than lock-up.  (I'm not THAT stupid,
  18. honest!)
  19.  
  20. My point was that it could be better to pulse a wheel on the opposite
  21. side too so that the side with traction doesn't have too much more
  22. than the side with poor traction.  If the forces on the two sides are
  23. too unbalanced, I'd think you could pull or even spin.
  24. --
  25.  
  26.                                 Lee Hetherington
  27.                                 ilh@lcs.mit.edu
  28.