2022 FORMULA ONE PREVIEW
SWERVE! RECOVER! AVOID! WHICH HAS THE ADVANTAGE WHEN COLLISION IS NO OPTION?
New cars, new rules, driver changes ... read this for ‘instant expert’ status
OUR FINAL test is the most difficult for virtually any vehicle, the double-lane change manoeuvre colloquially known as the ‘Moose test’ due to it simulating an antlered animal avoidance scenario. Its official international designation is ISO 3888, which outlines the precise dimensions of the course.
Each vehicle must enter the course through a coned ‘gate’, turn hard left to negotiate a second gate, then turn hard right to negotiate a third gate. The driver lifts the throttle two metres after entering the first gate, the entry speed increasing until the course can no longer be successfully negotiated.
As with the lateral g test, the hatches were the standouts, the Mazda 3 recording a maximum entry speed of 78km/h and the Ford Focus 79km/h. While the figures were extremely similar, the subjective experience differed markedly, as the testing notes explain: “The Mazda 3 performed very well, responsive and very easy to control with refined ESC performance that complimented the dynamics of the vehicle and not too intrusive. The vehicle response is direct, linear and the vehicle feels connected to the road. The Mazda 3 feet the most confident through the course even though it did not achieve the highest entry speed.
“The Focus is very responsive to driver inputs and needs to be nursed through the course to achieve a high entry speed when compared to the Mazda 3.Vehicle stability during an evasive manoeuvre is less forgiving than the Mazda 3 due to its related ESC control, however, its responsiveness and agility meant that it achieved the highest entry speed, but it did require more controlled inputs”.
Even the high-performing Escape can’t, err, escape physics in such a demanding test, though its 75km/h maximum was still impressive for a higher-riding vehicle. According to the testing notes: “Escape is responsive to driver inputs, however the strong roll-over mitigation limits the steerability of the vehicle, although it benefits this type of evasive manoeuvre as it slows the vehicle right down and makes it easier to negotiate the course due to the resultant speed reduction”.
The CX-8 was visually the most dramatic, the combination of its size, response and ESC calibration making tester Tony Metaxas work hard at the wheel at its 73km/h maximum. Testing notes: “The CX-8 is a very agile vehicle and borderline too responsive to a step steer input with a tendency to rush away. It needs to be nursed through the course compared to the Mazda 3 with noticeable oversteer on turn-in. ESC interventions are late; would benefit from earlier control to aid stability”.
Unsurprisingly, the moose test proved a stern challenge for the heavy, high-riding dual cabs, the Ranger managing a maximum of 69km/h, a single km/h more than the BT-50. The testing notes explain the difficulties: “The BT-50 is somewhat cumbersome, requiring a lot of effort to negotiate the course. It’s more difficult to control than the smaller vehicles with the high-profile H/T tyres introducing a delayed response. You need to turn prior to the marker so that the vehicle has enough time to set and respond to the steering input. Steering effort is high and it could do with more ESC support to negotiate the course”.
The Ranger was a “similar result to the BT-50 when negotiating the test, more challenging to negotiate the course than the smaller vehicles (as expected). You need to judge your turn-in point early to allow the vehicle to set and respond to your input. ESC and roll-over mitigation are more noticeable and intrusive than the BT-50, however it is not excessive for this type of manoeuvre and helps the Ranger feel more in control”.
As with the lateral g test, the hatches were the standouts, the Mazda 3 recording a maximum entry speed of 78km/h and the Ford Focus 79km/h