For any idiot who thinks it's about safety

[meat]

Originally Posted by Joe Wicked

I will bet that the tahoe with antilock brakes stops shorter than the tahoe without antilock brakes thereby being safer.

That would be a pretty silly bet for a number of reasons:

1. Driver knowledge.
2. Driver experience.
3. Road conditions.
4. ABS physics. The layman's explanation of how antilock brakes work: is antilock brakes operate by pulsing the brakes on and off. Brakes work by friction. When the brakes are on, the friction increases, when they're off, there ain't no friction. Therefore, class, if the brakes are being applied intermittently - like an ABS system does - rather than continuously the stopping distance will increase with the ABS system chattering merrily away.

Under similar conditions, a non-ABS Tahoe can stop well before an ABS equipped one if the ABS system engages.

Therefore, antilock brakes are not 'safer.' They provide an illusion of safety - much like airbags do - and allow the neophyte to believe that he's Mario Andretti when, in actuality, he's just another idiot on the road who doesn't understand that his car isn't safer, it's been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator: the average, low-knowledge driver who couldn't drive himself out of a paper bag without putting an address into his GPS system first.

The rest of your post is totally moot and irrelevant as you don't understand the basics or the physics or the argument.

Your pal,
Meat.