From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: chains
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:47:15 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.252.153

Theodore Chen posts and and Jim Frost ripostes...

TC>> i've been thinking about why chains are required.
TC>> they let you go without chains if you have 4WD/AWD
TC>> or snow tires.
TC>> i have a feeling that the reason chains are required is
TC>> more out of a desire to see that you don't get stuck and
TC>> hold everybody up than to make sure you don't crash.

JF> I take it you've never been in a situation where you needed them.
JF> Ever tried making a steep climb on ice?  

Hmm.  I'd imagine that TC is talking specifically about the "chain
controls" imposed by the California Highway Patrol, in cahoots with
Caltrans, on certain mountain highways when winter storms are in 
the offing. This is especially noticeable on US 50 and I-80, the 
main conduits from the Bay Area to the Reno/Lake Tahoe area).

I know a lot of experienced winter drivers who think they're a
bunch of weenies who impose chain requirements at the least provocation.
However, there are some other factors:

* There is a LOT of traffic through those corridors because of the
  ski areas and the Nevada-side sin palaces.  If one idiot wads up
  his car in a particularly obstructive fashion, you can get a
  traffic jam that *feels* like it extends from Sacramento to Winnemucca.

* The weather up there can get very, very bad, and it's hard to say
  beforehand whether you're going to have a routine snowstorm or a
  massive blizzard.  People have died up there before, and will again.
  It's a good idea to make sure that everybody has the wherewithal to
  maintain forward progress -- and to avoid accidents that would bring
  a lot of traffic to a lengthy halt during life-threatening weather.

* Everybody seems to think that he or she is a good winter driver but
  none of those other idiots out there have a clue.  :)

TC> the presence of 4WD/AWD helps only acceleration, not braking
TC> or steering.  a GMC syclone with gatorbacks all around would not
TC> be required to have chains or snow tires.

I'm not sure about that.  Caveat lector -- I'm not quoting the Vehicle
Code on this -- but I usually see the requirements described as "chains
required, 4WD with snow tires OK."  I suspect that the CHP officer on
the scene is the arbiter plenipotentary and extraordinary of who goes
and who gets turned back, and that the ones stationed in snow country
have a pretty good notion of what competent snow tires look like.

TC>> furthermore, if you have chains, you can't go more than 30 mph.

JF> That would depend a lot on the design of the chains, but if you need
JF> chains you probably shouldn't be going more than 30 anyway.

You can sure tell the difference between people who have cheap chains
for occasional use (~ 30 mph) and those who have well-fitted chains
(they venture as high as 45 or 50 when conditions permit).  The main
disincentive is the roughness and noise and general seat-of-the-pants
impression that something is dreadfully wrong with the underneath of
your car when you use the el-cheapos.  Some people say that one of the
main purposes of the chain controls is to slow people down, both to
meter the volume of traffic and to keep the idiots from tugging too 
hard on Father Darwin's beard.

But the Sierras (and several of California's other pointed topographic 
features) are real mountains with real winter storms, and there are 
occasions when the chains are useful for traction.

Happy motoring,

Joe
"Never take no cut offs and hurry along as fast as you can."
                      -- Donner Party survivor Virginia Reed