Skoda Kodiaq SUV Forum banner

Electric hand bake high speed application and handbrake turn!!

10K views 24 replies 8 participants last post by  Colin Lambert 
#1 ·
Top Gear electric hand brake in a golf.
Just in case any of you are wondering...... following a query from Karoq Forum.
 
#2 ·
I was wondering about this. For example, could (hypothetically speaking) an inquisitive grandson in the passenger seat apply the parking brake (with very little effort) such that I might lose control of the car? It seems the answer is no. Would the same apply if the road was wet, I wonder?
 
#3 ·
Find a large, wet, empty car park and try it...... :eek:
If you do, please let us know!
 
#5 ·
I brought this very scenario up in May and all of the replies (except the one from scratch113 who pointed out this video) reckoned their car would come to a very abrupt stop when the EPB was applied.
So, are all VAG cars created equal or will our Skoda react differently to that Golf ? Who is willing to try it at speed ? :eek:
 
#6 ·
A friends A8 did a full emergency stop when we applied it at 40mph. I cant tell how hard that Golf is really braking but this A8 felt like you'd struggle to stop much faster applying the brakes as normal. That was an early version of the electronic handbrake though so I don't know if parameters for them have been changed since then as well.
 
#7 ·
SInce so much is common between the VAG 'cousins' I would assume that the electric handbrake would be identical throughout the range.
There is a large flat car park near me, by the beach so empty at night.
I'm happy to creep out one night when its dark and try an emergency straight line stop, but I'm NOT going to risk a handbrake turn, since I will never need to do it, I ain't going to risk it. :eek:
 
#8 ·
We need to remember that Top Gear did this on a traffic free runway, so not a real world scenario. I'd like to see the same thing done with another car following closely behind to see if that car could avoid Chris Harris when he applies the EPB.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, that if you use the EPB for an emergency stop, you should pull it up and hold it there and that's what Mr Harris does. What would happen if you just flicked it up and then let go, would it have the same effect ?
I just had a chat with a very level headed guy at my dealer who used to be the workshop manager. He said that he would never use the EPB for an emergency brake on a trafficked road because it would stop you far too quickly for the following car to avoid you and would likely cause a pile up on the motorway.
Colin; Don't let this stop you having a go :D :eek:
 
#9 ·
Marinfullsuss said:
I was wondering about this. For example, could (hypothetically speaking) an inquisitive grandson in the passenger seat apply the parking brake (with very little effort) such that I might lose control of the car? It seems the answer is no. Would the same apply if the road was wet, I wonder?
To use the 'emergency braking' function of the EPB, you must hold it up. The car won't lock up but it bloody tugs the anchors that's for sure.
 
#10 ·
Old Man,
I think you just 'tickle' the switch to do a handbrake turn. As Zach says, as I understand it, to do an emergency stop you have to pull it up and hang onto it.
As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
I think that the only real danger may be if you are going round a fairly sharp bend and do an ES you just might roll it, or loose it rather than just stopping 'nicely.'
 
#11 ·
I think that if you just flick the switch it does nothing to be honest. I've tried this in a couple of my past cars just in case my little boy takes a liking to it at any point (although in reality he could barely reach it from his seat if he was in the front) and never had it activate.

In regards to the traffic issue and being rear-ended, I think that's a mute point and here's why. If you're using the EPB in an emergency to slow the car it means that your preferred manner has failed (as in, normal brakes) and that you've had time to think to grab it. So I think that you'd probably already have your foot on the brake, activating the brake lights, and that you probably have more to worry about than a car behind you potentially rear ending you. Lol.
 
#12 ·
Wouldn't fancy your chances if it was a fully laden artic behind you.
 
#13 ·
Daddy2Bears said:
Wouldn't fancy your chances if it was a fully laden artic behind you.
No different than if you just hit the brakes full force though is it? Actually, if it's just using the rear wheels, as I presume it is, then it will slow down less quickly than doing that so less chance of a rear end than an actual emergency stop.
 
#15 ·
old man said:
So I think that you'd probably already have your foot on the brake, activating the brake lights, and that you probably have more to worry about than a car behind you potentially rear ending you. Lol.
Not if your front seat passenger activated it because you're having a heart attack, which is the question I posed in my original thread.
Fair enough, I must've missed that by skimming through responses. It looks like it also applies the brake lights when you use it judging by the Top Gear video when they try to do the handbrake turn which would hopefully minimise any issues.
 
#16 ·
Colin Lambert said:
As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I am sure "testing the EPB" will be another.

(*) indeed, if I am found to be correct on this, then the law requires you to evaluate your bumper fodder in a split second. For instance, the red squirrel is faced with extinction in the UK and is not considered vermin.
 
G
#17 ·
I can just imagine explaining to the insurance company that ones method of stopping was the handbrake rather than the foot brake and of course this is a handbrake that is binary, either off or on, you can't feather it like a traditional handbrake. I would imagine it very difficult to stop quickly just by locking the rear wheels, much less remain in a straight line.
 
#18 ·
Silverbear said:
I can just imagine explaining to the insurance company that ones method of stopping was the handbrake rather than the foot brake and of course this is a handbrake that is binary, either off or on, you can't feather it like a traditional handbrake. I would imagine it very difficult to stop quickly just by locking the rear wheels, much less remain in a straight line.
The emergency braking function does not apply the parking brake i.e. lock the rear calipers. It will use the ABS system on all four wheels to brake.
 
#19 ·
Zach said:
Silverbear said:
I can just imagine explaining to the insurance company that ones method of stopping was the handbrake rather than the foot brake and of course this is a handbrake that is binary, either off or on, you can't feather it like a traditional handbrake. I would imagine it very difficult to stop quickly just by locking the rear wheels, much less remain in a straight line.
The emergency braking function does not apply the parking brake i.e. lock the rear calipers. It will use the ABS system on all four wheels to brake.
No that is clever, or should I say, "Simply Clever"? ;)
 
#20 ·
iwarv said:
Colin Lambert said:
As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?
 
#21 ·
Daggerit said:
iwarv said:
Colin Lambert said:
As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?
I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).
 
G
#22 ·
Old and Grumpy said:
Daggerit said:
iwarv said:
A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?
I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).
I have some sympathy for the following driver if the lead car is not roadworthy but surely a lead car has the right to expect that should the rear brake lights fail the following driver is sufficiently smart to have left sufficient space to allow for the unexpected. Huge numbers of drivers follow too close to the car in front. I was taught to drive defensively and to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot.

On a related matter I have always been amazed that the driving test is so simple to pass (I passed first time aged 17 and it's by far the easiest exam I've ever taken) and that it is simply pass or fail and not graded. It is very obvious that drivers have very different standards of driving. I would favour a graded system which directly affects ones insurance or perhaps take it out of the insurance companies hands and apply it to road tax. An A grade would see little tax applied to the keeper of the vehicle with steadily more draconian amounts for those with, shall we say, a poor mindset to other peoples safety. Regular retesting or retesting a year or two after passing might help. The driving of some newly qualified drivers is staggering and one wonders how they ever passed but as I said the driving test is too easy. The more difficult theory test of late is neither here nor there.

A basic understanding of physics would go a long way, an O level physics pass should be a prerequisite to drive a car!

While I'm rubbishing the driving test, what about stopping distances! What is the point? Who can meaaure out a stopping distance by eye and even worse while driving? I can measure a yard reasonably well when sat on the sofa, but 50 or 100 yards in a moving car through a windscreen? No chance.
 
#23 ·
Silverbear said:
Old and Grumpy said:
Daggerit said:
I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?
I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).
While I'm rubbishing the driving test, what about stopping distances! What is the point? Who can meaaure out a stopping distance by eye and even worse while driving? I can measure a yard reasonably well when sat on the sofa, but 50 or 100 yards in a moving car through a windscreen? No chance.
That last bit made me chuckle because it's so true. :lol: :lol:
 
#24 ·
Wasn't it a Crash For Cash thing, where the lead car disables their brake lights and then comes to a sudden stop, car behind hits them and they claim all & sundry (car repair, whipash etc)

One of the few reasons I have a dash cam.
 
#25 ·
Brake lights working or not the following car is always at fault. Trust me, been there, done that!!
If you can't judge distances accurately (I admit I'm not good at that) If you follow the '2second rule' at whatever speed, you should be ok.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top