One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

People thinking their DRLs are automatic headlamps.

 

This is the second time you've posted the same wrong thing. The alternator
is not a constant current source, nor does it have a way to dissipate the
"excess energy". There is some loss in the conversion from mechanical to
electrical energy that is turned into heat as well as heat from friction in
the bearings and the windings heating up from the large current running
through them but it does not function the way you describe.

Have you ever been idling and hear your electric radiator fans come on and
the engine idle change? What caused that? Hmm.. Must have been the
alternator going from heat generator to current generator.. Yeah.. that
sounds so much more feasible. Go measure the temperature of your alternator
with all your accessories off and then with all your accessories on. Tell
us what the temperature difference is. Don't you think if an 80 amp
alternator had no current draw on it that it'd have to dissipate a lot of
heat? At 12 volts, that's 960 watts!

I think you should go brush up on some alternator theory. I know I'm not
the most knowledgeable guy around and I've been reprimanded by others here
in the NG so I know how you feel about now. It sucks but it doesn't change
the fact that you're wrong.

-Bruce

 

Ok Dan,

I stand corrected. It still seems a silly arguement to me.

 

| From their Canadian models. It saves having to have two different wiring
| schemes for two different countries.
|

That was likely the initial/original reason a few years ago. The lighting
control systems in GM vehicles have changed considerably since then. The DRL
mode is now just a simple BCM programming change on most GM models now (by the
dealer, not by the customer). However, the last time I read the GM policy on
making that programming change, the entity requesting the change _must_ be
either government or military. Otherwise, no. (That position could have
changed)

Over the years GM has been so strongly promoting their versions and statistics
touting the benefits of DRLs that they have essentially boxed themselves into a
corner on the issue given what has transpired since the introduction. We now
have several years of hindsight now...and it ain't exactly what was expected,
it seems. Because of that history, they can't _morally_ turn them off, either
for ego (save face) reasons or liability reasons or both. GM's competitors
outsmarted them big time on this one with statements like "we're waiting on the
final government conclusion on them...we don't have a position. But if you,
Mr./Ms. Customer want them, we will give _you_ the choice". When one has a
product to sell, customer choice is paramount. GM screwed up (in my opinion),
they didn't plan for customer choice (and they should have). They also
essentially pushed a largely untested DRL experiment on their customers, not
only against their will, but without their specific consent in agreement to
participate in their DRL experiment!

So, with that, I think the real issue (as of right now) is that there is a
significant consumer backlash against DRLs and it is growing over time. Even
current non-GM customers that might be "would-be customers" are often found to
be "annoyed" by DRLs, especially some of GM's high beam implementations, in
particular. Additionally, enough time has passed where real-world long term
insurance data is available. From what my insurance company has told me, their
"loss data" has not shown any apparent benefit of DRLs in actually reducing
"loss" and some of the more recent studies that have been done by truly
independent entities (not GM puppet entities) have been largely inconclusive.
Other studies (on file with the NHTSA) tie DRLs to safety negative issues.
Over time the customer has become more educated over the issue and most simply
don't want DRLs any more (if most ever did). Result? GM is loosing sales
because of it and they know it. People that don't want DRLs simply can't even
consider a GM vehicle at all. Therefore, IF GM can somehow convince the NHTSA
to make DRLs mandatory, they're back on even ground because all cars will have
them (not just theirs), which then eliminates the competitive disadvantage they
currently have, they "save face" too!

Make sense?

 

Keep trying -- with practice, it gets easier to let go of your misinformed
guesses and baseless prejudices when presented with facts.

 

Where? Where is this heat being produced by the "excess of energy" you
mention? In the battery? In the wiring? In the alternator? Can't be the
battery; that would mean it's overcharging. Can't be the wiring; you'd be
blowing fuses on any medium-to long daytime trips. Can't be the alternator
because it actually runs hotter with the electrical accessories on than off
(you can check this yourself with a contact pyrometer) due to the extra
current being produced and the subsequent IR^2 losses. So where is this
heat being produced when the headlights are off?

It's not. Alternators produce the amount of current demanded of them; they
don't produce the same amount under all circumstances of loading. When you
turn on the lights, more current flows from the alternator. This extra
current produces a greater counter-electromotive force (CEMF) within the
alternator which, in turn, causes extra drag on the engine through the
belt. The engine must, therefore, consume more fuel in order to bring the
speed back up to where it was. None of this is new; it's really pretty old
stuff and is very well understood by those with any kind of background in
electrical engineering.

You're arguing that alternators produce the same amount of current
regardless of the load and that any excess load is dumped into some heat
sink. In fact, they don't, and never have. It doesn't even make sense that
they would, when it's so simple to design and build regulating systems to
prevent that from occurring. Every automobile electrical system does just
that. At least do a web search to find out how these systems work instead
of relying on some sort of tribal knowledge which--pure and simple--has no
correspondence in the real world.

 

Nope, that's still GM's policy.

Both. Rmemeber, automakers have been successfully sued for installing
airbags and for *not* installing airbags.

GM knows how this works: Wait it out, and another issue will come along.
Right from the very start, their position on the thousands of complaints
received by NHTSA has been "People just like to complain". It does not
help that the anti-DRL groups use their websites and forums as platforms
for diarhhea-type (wet, messy and spattered all over the place) rants
about government intrusion into personal lives, blah blah antismoking laws
blah blah taking away freedom blah blah irrelevant blahbitty blah blah. It
plays right into GM's hands, as they can (and did!) smugly state to NHTSA
"It seems most of the complaints are coming from a group of political
malcontents."

This is probably very close to the way it's really happening.

 

Dang, oh dang! I meant I^2R (the square of the current multiplied by the
resistance) losses, of course. My physics professors and Georg Ohm would
have my butt for that one. Sorry.

 

| > >>
| > The offensiveness of DRL's is that they are a significant drain all of the
| > time.
|
| A significant drain?! This just keeps getting better and better. Whether
| you love or hate em DRL's are not a significant energy waster, this is a
| stupid argument. And some people are too stupid or just don't care to turn
| their lights on in low visibility conditions, so there is a need for them.
| I seem to recall people criticizing the addition of a 3rd brake light as
| needless. I used to think so too. But, look at how many people seldom
| check to see if their brake lights are working. At least now there is a 1
| in 3 chance that you'll see a brake light!
|
|

The headlamps are indeed one of the largest electrical energy users on a
vehicle relative to the remaining electrical devices.

 

So I'm a "political malcontent" because I don't like some piece of
equipment of dubious value forced on me? In what way is that *bad?*

And let's hope it doesn't go that way. If nothing else, GM's successful
lobbying for lax DRL standards pretty much guarantees that if/when they
are mandated, we will be flooded with even more "yeah, it's crappy, but
it's cheap!" substandard DRL implementations like high beams and
directional signals.

nate

 

| Rick Blaine wrote:
|
| >>The offensiveness of DRL's is that they are a significant drain all of the
| >>time.
| >
| >
| > A significant drain?! This just keeps getting better and better. Whether
| > you love or hate em DRL's are not a significant energy waster, this is a
| > stupid argument.
|
| Then you SHOULD be able to produce some non-stupid math that disproves
| the article.... I'm still waiting.
|
| Intuition: 0
| Mathematics: 1

He can't...even the official DRL support groups generally agree with the
electrical requirements (thus fuel required to power them)...it is not
disputable (or disputed) by those that matter.

 

You probably like the punchline to a joke first, too. Saves the tediousness
of having to listen to the set-up.

Have you heard the one that ends, "Only if you get your thumbs in between?"

 

I agree with you...not sure why people _want_ to waste time to scroll to the
bottom of every message when, if top posted, one could quickly just click
through the thread rarely needing to ever scroll at all. But, we're in the
minority.

| Arthur,
|
| Your assumption that EVERYONE prefers bottom posting is absolutely not
| correct.
|
| I very much prefer top posts since they allow me to read through an entire
| thread without needing to scroll through the body of the older messages. In
| addition, since many newsreaders check the number of lines of new (versus
| old) text, many times I've needed to trim a considerable portion of the
| previous post, especially when the response is very short. That said, even
| though I personally prefer top posts since they make me more efficient, I
| have always appreciated the timely advice/responses I've received from this
| newsgroup and the information in the message was always far more important
| than its location!
|
| Bob
|
| | >
| > There, this Canadian Idiot put his post on the bottom where everyone wants
| > it. : )
|
|
|

 

All this talk of giving and taking a $hit reminds me of a photo someone
e-mailed me today:
http://images6.fotki.com/v92/photos/4/42816/1185326/plumbtruck-vi.jpg

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

 

| On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Rick Blaine wrote:
|
| > Many things on a modern car are bigger energy drains than DRL's.
|
| True and irrelevant.

Some DRL implementation _continuously_ (not intermittently) consume up to 100
watts of _electrical_ power. I don't think there is any other single device on
a car that consumes that much _electrical_ power, is there? Not even the
blower on high and certainly not any factory radio. Yes the A/C consumes more
fuel, but that is pulley driven (direct power take-off from the engine), not
electrically driven (except the condenser and evaporator fans).

But you're right, irrelevant point anyway.

 

| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:57:19 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
|
| >Well...no, it's not, because you don't mean "LCDs". LCD = Liquid Crystal
| >Display. You mean LED, Light Emitting Diode. And LED DRLs already exist.
| >They consume next to no power, thus eliminating the objection of
| >currently-common filament or discharge light sources for DRLs. Pity
| >there's only one car that comes with them so far.
|
| And those cost how much to replace?
|

LED's generally have a 50,000+- hour life span...far exceeding the life of the
car. Replacement need would be rare (accident or damage).

 

| > | > |
| > |
| > | Man, what a load!
| > |
| > |
| >
| > Curious why that sentiment. The electrical generation to power the lamps
comes
| > from.....exactly where if not from the alternator which is driven by the
engine
| > which runs on gasoline. The electrical energy isn't free, for heaven's
sake!
| > It comes from somewhere. Even if you use the lights with the engine off
and
| > drain the battery a bit, the alternator (thus the engine fueled by gas) had
to
| > consume a bit more horsepower to generate the electrical energy to recharge
the
| > battery.
|
| This IS a load of crap. How is the alternator causing the engine to
| run harder? Answer, it's not. You're right, electrical energy
| isn't free, as the excess of energy from the alternator is turned into
| heat. Alternators also have electronic from preventing from
| overcharging the battery, so it's has power "in reserve" so to speak.
| Your engine runs no harder if you have zero electrical components on,
| or every single one of them. The only accessory which consumes gas (I
| don't consider a water pump an accessory, it's a necessity) is A/C.
| If you really want to save gas, ban auto air conditioning.
|
| Now you may ask, what's the difference? Well, when you turn the AC
| on, it causes the AC clutch to engage, which causes the compressor to
| compress. It directly robs power from the engine to run that
| compressor. Just like when you were a kid you had one of those lights
| which ran off of the tire. The little generator caused drag on the
| tire (engine).
|
| But the alternator is just a spinning motor, and it's going to spin
| whether you have DRLs on or off.

Physics Bud, physics. Need to brush up on the 'ole physics.

 

The A/C is pulley driven but what turns off the compressor when you don't
want A/C? That device would be the electrically actuated clutch which has
to draw current to hold the clutch in place.

 

Sure. Many people have written to the NHTSA exposing GM's motivation
with the same reason as you stated. Go to:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm
and Search Docket 4124 for DRL complaints or Docket 8885 for headlight
complaints in general. There is also a newer Docket 17243 that deals
with the withdrawal of the NHTSA from rulemaking for or against GM's
petition. Curiously, the NHTSA did not post their intent to withdraw in
the 4124 Docket, or refer anyone reading Docket 4124 to go to Docket
17243.

 

| Ok Dan,
|
| I stand corrected. It still seems a silly arguement to me.
|
|

400-600 million gallons of gasoline unnecessarily consumed annually within the
USA alone is silly? Hmmm.....