One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

Here I, and every knowlegable mechanic, will have to dissagree.
An alternator running with no electrical load consumes VERY little
power.
A full high beam headlamp system, with park lamps and side markers,
draws roughly 300 watts of power, or 1/2 HP. Heater on high can draw
upwards of 20 amps, or close to 300 watts - another half HP. The
alternator is not terribly efficient - the newer ones are getting
better, but 85% would be optimistic, so heater fan and full headlights
draws something better than 1 HP. Less than 2 HP.

So, it IS causing the engine to work harder - the question is, what is
significant???

The AC compressor draws more power from the engine - up to 3 HP, not
including the AC fan and the electrically operated cooling fan.
A total of 5 HP would not be far off the mark.

Your arguement does not hold water.

 

But if federal law MADATED windsheild tinting, state law could NOT
dis-allow it.

 

It is POSSIBLE to get better mileage with a standard than an
automatic, but the brain moving the shifter needs to know what it is
doing. Today's automatic "brain" does know what it is doing, and it
takes a VERY good driver to consistently better an automatic with a
stick.

 

Another thing not taken into account is that whenever a car is
decellerating or coasting, going down hill, etc, the alternator is not
using ANY gasoline to produce the power. In typical urban driving
cycles, that would be well up in the 25% plus range. If not in
gridlock, possibly over 50%. Try driving an electric vehicle sometime
to see. This will skew the calculations a bit!!!

 

I'm not sure how you figure that - the regulator does NOT see the
current flow, as it is in PARALLEL with the load, not in series. The
regulator senses VOLTAGE. Voltage pushes current through a load,
(resistance) so the EFFECT of regulating voltage is, o an extent, to
limit the current.
The actual current limiting in today's alternators is a function of
the stator resistance.

Back in the days of 3 unit regulators and generators, the regulator
DID sense load current, as well as voltage.

 

Your interpretation. That's the "beauty" of laws. It's not how you
choose to interpret them - it's how the courts, and the enforcement
officers, choose to interpret them. Even if the charge does not stick,
you have the inconvenience of fighting it.

As far as safety inspections are concerned in Ontario, you may as well
not have them, as there is NO enforcement. If you, as a consumer, buy
a used car with a safety certificate, and find there are even SERIOUS
deficiencies, just TRY to get something done about it. If you are
buying from a dealer, the truth in advertising laws have more teeth
than the safety inspection - you can (rightly} claim the car was not
as advertised, and force the dealer to take it back.
Getting the signing mechanic to stand good for the "overlooked"
deficiencies is nigh unto impossible. Getting them charged with an
offence, muchless convicted???? Forget it.

 

Not with my Trans-Sport. It errs on the cautious side, turning on full
lights LONG before most drivers would suspect it might be prudent.

Now, a BRIGHT rainy day, you know, when you need sunglasses AND an
umbrella? No headlights or tail lights - just daylighters.

There are SOME vehicles that apparently turn on full lighting when the
wiper switch leaves the "off" position.

 

Daniel J. Stern replied:

I totally agree. However, in California at least, someone would have
to be cited under the conflicting Vehicle Code section, and then take
it to court and get it overturned on appeal, before police could (at
least technically) start ignoring this Vehicle Code section.

Would you (or anyone else out there) happen to know if any such court
ruling has happened affecting California yet?

Or, of course, the California legislature could make life easier for
everyone by amending the Vehicle Code as required to make it conform
explicitly to the federal regulations.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org

 

What, you mean the taillights don't fall out anymore?

 

That doesn't make much sense, those are sort of the
opposite side of the same argument.

Damn usenet, they'll let anyone in here.

 

But it drops the speed faster, and if that causes you to overshoot, that
savings just has to be made up with more fuel to get back up to speed on
the next uphill (or apply a little throttle to keep from overshooting
while descending or decelerating). But if you're stopping for a stop
light, then it saves on brakes a little.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I think you misread what he wrote. He said that the regulator
*controls* the current based on thje voltage that it looks at.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Let me see if I understand this:

A company makes a product so severely defective that it causes a
serious injury.

A jury of twelve normal people looks at the facts, decides that it is
the fault of the manufacturer, and that the injury caused major harm
to the person injured and awards a large sum of money as compensation
for their injuries -- i.e., money to make them whole again.

The trial lawyer, who did not make the product, did not operate the
product, took all of the risk and cost in the lawsuit gets a portion
of what is awarded -- much of which goes to offset his out-of-pocket
costs -- and you contend the problem is the lawyer?

In Japan, before there were product liability laws, televisions used
to explode and kill people. The only reason that trial lawyers make
money is that we have decided we want manufacturers to be socially
responsible as well.

Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight
running lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are
sponsored by the insurance companies, not the trial lawyers.

 

Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight running
lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are sponsored by the
insurance companies, not the trial lawyers.

Not accurate. DRLs started in Northern Europe. A front white light in a
different segment from turn, and headlight segments. No glare, and a study
suggested a 15% reduction in accidents. They suffer from long dark winters.

When vehicle venders petitioned the guys in Washington to permit or mandate
DRLs Washington decided to permit but not mandate them. But the USA car guys
wanted to do it on the cheap, so instead of doing the way it was done in
Northern Europe they got the OK from the Feds to use high beams with their
brightness diminished as an alternative, or the use of amber turn light
segments for DRL use. You know the rest of the story. Glare and confusion
and wasted energy.

Richard.

 

I can't believe they got away with that shit. GM makes it very difficult for
your to permanently dis-able DRL's.

 

I can easily get my car aligned, check my tire pressure and turn off my
AC. I can't easily disable DRL's.

 

Sometimes this is the case; far more often the customers refuse
to read the documentation or use the product in the manner intended.

And, of course, is emotionally manipulated by everyone involved. Would
Mr. Edwards have become a multi-millionaire had he been possessed of a
pockmarked face, a crooked back, a droning voice, and a habit of
stuttering? Do you really think that the facts determine most of these
cases? Or are normal people manipulated into us-versus-them emotional
decisions, never considering that a corporation never truly pays, but
rather passes misery on to its employees and customers?

That is correct. He has made nothing.

Also correct. He has done nothing.

As any other self-employed individual does in business.

But not *that* much, obviously, or Mr. Edwards and his ilk would
not be so spectacularly wealthy.

He is certainly part of the problem. And you have not addressed the
class actions which earn millions of dollars for individual attorneys
and reward each member of the class with nine dollars, a coupon for
a free product, or an apologetic letter.

I would suggest instead that trial attorneys earn money out of a basic
lack of understanding on the part of the average American concerning
the way corporations actually work. There is something in the psyche
which loves to see the mighty brought low. For every common-sense
justified award, there are many others which are the product of nothing
but a misplaced desire to see someone - anyone - "pay".

Take a look at

www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=191

to see who is sponsoring whom.

 

| In article <>, says...
|
| >| >| Larry Bud wrote:
| >| > So average mileage/vehicle has gone from 21.5 to 21.43 because of DRL.
| >| > BIG DEAL.
| >| 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.
|
| >GM petitioned (and won approval) for DRLs to be off when their cars are
tested
| >for EPA fuel ratings years ago. They knew it would be tougher to maintain
| CAFE
| >with the DRLs lit (obviously).
|
| I can't believe they got away with that shit. GM makes it very difficult for
| your to permanently dis-able DRL's.
| ------------
| Alex
|

The did get away with it. GM basically gets what it wants, apparently.

 

| On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:25:50 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
|
| >
| >| >| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:04:27 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
| >|
| >| >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, davefr wrote:
| >| >
| >| >> Most idiot drivers say, "I can see the road, I don't need to turn my
| >| >> lights on". They're too stupid to realize that light have two purposes.
| >| >> (to see and BE SEEN).
| >| >
| >| >Several different types of DRLs common in North America *encourage*
driver
| >| >misuse of lights (driving in bad weather and/or after dark without proper
| >| >lights turned on). It's much easier for a cop to spot a dark car than an
| >| >improperly-lit car.
| >| >
| >| And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common.
| >| Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I
| >| want to.
| >
| >Probably so...but "auto headlamp control" create another issue. People that
| >have them get used to the auto system doing their job for them so they
forget
| >that often they still need to manually turn their regular lights on when
it's
| >foggy out (in the daytime). For some cars...ditto for daytime rain and snow
| >conditions.
| >
|
| Not with my Trans-Sport. It errs on the cautious side, turning on full
| lights LONG before most drivers would suspect it might be prudent.

Unusual, but I have seen that too. The ones I've had were the
opposite...applied lights way too late (for my preference)

|
| Now, a BRIGHT rainy day, you know, when you need sunglasses AND an
| umbrella? No headlights or tail lights - just daylighters.

But most states stilll require all lights when raining. So, manual operation
is required in this case.

|
| There are SOME vehicles that apparently turn on full lighting when the
| wiper switch leaves the "off" position.
|

True... Wipers aren't always needed in fog or very dry/fluffy snow conditions
however.

 

| In article <>, Thomas Arneson
wrote:
| >
| > A company makes a product so severely defective that it causes a
| > serious injury.
|
| Sometimes this is the case; far more often the customers refuse
| to read the documentation or use the product in the manner intended.
|
| > A jury of twelve normal people looks at the facts,
|
| And, of course, is emotionally manipulated by everyone involved. Would
| Mr. Edwards have become a multi-millionaire had he been possessed of a
| pockmarked face, a crooked back, a droning voice, and a habit of
| stuttering? Do you really think that the facts determine most of these
| cases? Or are normal people manipulated into us-versus-them emotional
| decisions, never considering that a corporation never truly pays, but
| rather passes misery on to its employees and customers?
|
| > The trial lawyer, who did not make the product,
|
| That is correct. He has made nothing.
|
| > did not operate the product,
|
| Also correct. He has done nothing.
|
| > took all of the risk and cost in the lawsuit
|
| As any other self-employed individual does in business.
|
| > gets a portion
| > of what is awarded -- much of which goes to offset his out-of-pocket
| > costs
|
| But not *that* much, obviously, or Mr. Edwards and his ilk would
| not be so spectacularly wealthy.
|
| > and you contend the problem is the lawyer?
|
| He is certainly part of the problem. And you have not addressed the
| class actions which earn millions of dollars for individual attorneys
| and reward each member of the class with nine dollars, a coupon for
| a free product, or an apologetic letter.
|
| > In Japan, before there were product liability laws, televisions used
| > to explode and kill people. The only reason that trial lawyers make
| > money is that we have decided we want manufacturers to be socially
| > responsible as well.
|
| I would suggest instead that trial attorneys earn money out of a basic
| lack of understanding on the part of the average American concerning
| the way corporations actually work. There is something in the psyche
| which loves to see the mighty brought low. For every common-sense
| justified award, there are many others which are the product of nothing
| but a misplaced desire to see someone - anyone - "pay".
|
| > Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight
| > running lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are
| > sponsored by the insurance companies, not the trial lawyers.
|
| Take a look at
|
| www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=191
|
| to see who is sponsoring whom.
|

No need for my reply...well stated facts.