One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

No, you're not figuring that right, please read it again: 585 gallons
are used per vehicle on average WITHOUT DRLs, 587 WITH DRLs. It's
only 2 gallons per vehicle per year that DRLs cost.

Fill your tires properly and instead of saving .07 MPG (which DRLs
cost), you can save 0.65 MPG, 9 times the amount. Turn off your AC
and you'll could save 2-4 MPG, approx 50 times the amount of what DRLs
cost.

 

Speaking of which, I just got my hands on a (shh!) copy of the Porsche
factory parts catalog and fired it up over the weekend. I notice that
the Euro lighting for a 944 has city lights in the fog light housings,
that's pretty cool... do you have a source for Euro-spec lighting of
that nature? I imagine it's expensive though...

nate

 

There are two separate issues to consider in the top-post debate.

The first is reading comprehension. A properly trimmed bottom-post is
always easier to read and understand. One can make the argument that
if top-posting on a particular thread does not render it
incomprehensible, one might as well delete *everything* and post
"clean", since the previous content isn't necessary. Most newsreaders
nowadays show the threaded structure pretty well. I use tin and slrn
alternately, as well as Emacs news mode, and they all work okay, so
I'm sure Outlook Depressed or whatever most Wintendo folks use also
shows the structure well enough that that 1 out of 100 people who
would be confused could back up one post and read what they need to.
That being said, trimming and responding properly is simple netiquette
and it keeps everyone happy as well as preventing misunderstanding.

The second reason for bottom-posting stems from the first. Surely you
have all received some mass-forwarded email which has fifty
"top-posted" comments in a row. That makes for a large email. By
trimming and bottom-posting correctly, the amount of bandwidth used
for each post is reduced. When I started on the USENET fifteen years
ago people were routinely chided for not trimming enough... after all,
NNTP is inherently wasteful of bandwidth and disk space and the old
guard of admins used to stop subscribing to newsgroups which chewed
up too much space.

It's no longer fashionable to be concerned with posting bandwidth but
a well-trimmed bottom post has a certain old-fashioned elegance about
it. It indicates that you are concerned with the time and effort of
the people who read your posts, and that you have structured your
contribution to be as economical of that time, and of their cost,
(some of our European friends are still paying by the minute for
dial-up access to NGs, you know) as possible.

 

Depends on the exact engine in question, but RPM is usually monitored
through the crankshaft position sensor, which outputs a square-wave
signal that is proportional to the engine speed. The PCM counts
zero-crossings per unit time.

They're actually a lot more elaborate than that, now, because they
measure instantaneous (sub 1- rotation) crankshaft speed in order to
detect misfires by sensing the acceleration of the crankshaft when a
particular cylinder (should) fire. I'm not sure how they do that, to be
honest.

 

Geoff wrote:

"Full-fielding" means bypassing the voltage regulator- and if you stop
and think about it for a second, you see that there's a positive
feedback path and the voltage will "run away" if you do it above idle
speed: when you "full field" the alternator, it sees the full bus
voltage of ~13.8 volts, and immediately puts out a large current (not
voltage- thats a subtle factor that is often overlooked, the voltage
regulator actually controls the CURRENT out of the alternator, but the
current flowing into the battery and load rasises the bus voltage in
proportion). As that current flows into the battery and electrical
loads, the bus voltage rises which gets fed back to the alternator
field, which drives the bus voltage higher still. There's a limit to how
much current the alternator can put out at a given RPM, though, so it
will level off depending on engine RPM.

Alternator ratings assume a regulated (eg. 13.8V) supply voltage to the
field and a normal battery load- a "90 amp" alternator will actually put
out (for a little while a lot more than that if you feed it 20 volts
at the field terminal. And if you open-circuit the output of an
alternator, even with only a 13 volt field supply, it will kick up an
amazingly high voltage at its terminal. That's why its a very bad idea
to remove the battery cable from the battery of a running car in order
to "test" the alternator- the bus voltage can vary wildly without the
battery to buffer the changes.

 

The total amount is the only relevant figure.

 

MPG is not "a standard measured in averages".

 

Its a big deal because its totally unnecessary. I'd gladly pay that
penalty for better braking systems, but instead we get flimsier braking
systems so that the gas savings there will offset the waste on DRLs and
still meet CAFE requirements.

 

Ulf wrote:

<biting tongue... caving into temptation... can't resist!!!>

Yeah, Chevys never have been much good at showing their taillights to
real muscle cars!



(Hey, he just ASKED for it!

 

You make a good point, but for ME the difference is simple: the things
you mention are all a matter of the driver's individual choices and
preferences. DRLs are mandated fuel waste- mandated by the government WE
elect.

That's a HUGE difference- I'm much less willing to deny a small portion
of the driving population the right to waste a little fuel than I am to
(through my government) MANDATE the waste of fuel by every new car on
the road.

 

Oh please, the corvette has held it's own for years.

 

In order for there to be an answer to that question, you'd have to be
correct in your conclusion that I oppose DRLs. You aren't; I don't. I
oppose thoughtless *implementations* of DRLs. This thoughtlessness takes
several forms:

-DRLs implemented without consideration for glare
-DRLs implemented without consideration for fuel consumption
-DRLs implemented without consideration for turn signal masking
-DRLs implemented without consideration for driver/vehicle interaction
factors
-DRLs implemented without consideration for other unintended consequences


There *are* thoughtfully-implemented DRLs that have virtually no drawbacks
and offer the greatest chance of achieving the maximum potential safety
benefit available from DRLs *per se*.

They just aren't common on North American roads.

 

What is your point? Are you saying someone can only
oppose the MOST wastefull thing, and nothing else?

Lots of things are wastefull, but the automakers do not
REQUIRE you to drive with your tires underinflated
(well, except for ford, but that's another story) I oppose
DRLs due to their crappy implimentation in Saturns,
and other cars where they just shine right in my eyes.

The fact that they are ALSO wastefull seems like a good point
to mention, to me.

Bernard

 

Do you really not get the difference? You MUST use DRLs,
you have no choice. You may top off your tires when you
feel like it, hell, run your tires at 45 pounds, it's your
CHOICE.


Get it yet?

 

Look! a choice, for you to make! What a concept! You can fill, or not.

 

We're not dealing with a rational mind here, Bernard. This same Larry Bud
who thinks it's no big deal for DRLs to be forced on everyone rants and
raves in support of the "right to choose not to wear a seatbelt".

 

This thread has already wasted more energy than DRL's ever will.

 

Yet another individual who thinks his opinions, guesses and preferences
are universal...

<snip>

 

726 million dollars is less than $3 per person in this country, for

I don't think I'm the only one doesn't *want* to be mandated to give three
bucks a year to help bankroll anti-US terrorism.

To buy a big-engined-high-horsepower vehicle and volunteer to pay for the
fuel costs is one thing. To be forced to pay for extra, often needless fuel
consumption by the nanny government is another.

Gee, whiz.

Tell you what: I'll drop my opposition to DRLs (which isn't based in
fuel-economy concerns anyway) the minute you drop your opposition to
increasing U.S. domestic oil exploration and drilling in all of its forms,
and are willing to remove the tax and regulatory disadvantages to such
drilling.

--Geoff

 

Then you have to factor in all of the gasoline spilt on the ground when
there is an accident!

Maybe there are savings in gas here after all!

Dan |>)))