One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

NO, 17243 is a withdrawal of NHTSA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
reduce DRL intensity to levels below those which cause glare. That was NOT
GM's petition to mandate! NHTSA is "considering the interesting
information GM has given" them and feels "the glare issue is best
considered in the context of any decision on GM's petition to mandate
DRLs".

The glare reduction was to have taken effect in 1998, BTW.

 

Abduhl the camel mechanic.

 

Arguing an issue eloquently and backing claims up with scientific
studies does wonders. Using ad hominems, posting irrelevant diatribes,
making unsubstantiated claims, and failing to correct grammatical and
spelling errors looks bad. When too many people start doing the latter,
the argument is usually dismissed by those in power.

 

Yeah - I was thinking - what does a pair of DRL's consume - 100 watts
per car, and only while it's being driven? How many of us keep our
computers on all day (and idle 90+% of that time)? What do they pull -
150 to 300 watts?

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

 

This is obvious to us older guys who had cars in the days of V-belts.
We all had times when our v-belts were loose or a little slick - they
would be fine with no lights or a.c. on, but you turn the bright lights
and a.c. on with cabin fan running full speed, and the belt would
screech. Turn the lights and/or fan off, and it would quiet down.
Why? Because of the extra load on the alternator/belt/engine.

With these good serpentine belts and automatic tensioners, the young
pups don't get to learn the laws of physics first hand.

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

 

My favorite punch line is "Oh! I'm not a real Marine - I'm just wearing
his hat!".

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

 

Some who have posted in this thread have mentioned that on some cars, the
DRL's use the Parking Lights instead of the Headlights. I've seen plenty of
cars equipped this way in California. However, in California it has long
been illegal to drive with Parking Lights ON but Headlights OFF.

So I checked with the DMV web site
(http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24800.htm) and found that the law
(from 1961) is still in effect. It simply says:

24800. No vehicle shall be driven at any time with the parking lamps
lighted except when the lamps are being used as turn signal lamps or when
the headlamps are also lighted.

Obviously, California law enforcement officers are not enforcing this law.
I wonder what would happen if they began enforcing it. Or if the DMV
refused to give driving tests in vehicles so equipped.

 

Just so we're clear here - it draws electricity only when the compressor
is on (clutch engaged). So most of the time, except on hot summer days,
it's not pulling electrical power,a nd then it's cycling.

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

 

| Some who have posted in this thread have mentioned that on some cars, the
| DRL's use the Parking Lights instead of the Headlights. I've seen plenty of
| cars equipped this way in California. However, in California it has long
| been illegal to drive with Parking Lights ON but Headlights OFF.
|
| So I checked with the DMV web site
| (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24800.htm) and found that the law
| (from 1961) is still in effect. It simply says:
|
| 24800. No vehicle shall be driven at any time with the parking lamps
| lighted except when the lamps are being used as turn signal lamps or when
| the headlamps are also lighted.
|
| Obviously, California law enforcement officers are not enforcing this law.
| I wonder what would happen if they began enforcing it. Or if the DMV
| refused to give driving tests in vehicles so equipped.
|
|

If the NHTSA allows it, it trumps state laws, unfortunately. It's illegal to
drive against traffic with the high beams on too...but many GM vehicles are
doing that as well.

 

Heh. You had AC? I would have killed for that on my old '55 Chevy when I
was stationed in Mississippi. I would have killed even more for a
battery/alternator that'd let me start the damn car when I wanted.

Mostly, I parked as uphill as I could and popped the clutch on the way
back.

Ever find a hill in gulf-coast Mississippi?

doc

 

Pellet rifle...

JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

 

|
| This is obvious to us older guys who had cars in the days of V-belts.
| We all had times when our v-belts were loose or a little slick - they
| would be fine with no lights or a.c. on, but you turn the bright lights
| and a.c. on with cabin fan running full speed, and the belt would
| screech. Turn the lights and/or fan off, and it would quiet down.
| Why? Because of the extra load on the alternator/belt/engine.
|
| With these good serpentine belts and automatic tensioners, the young
| pups don't get to learn the laws of physics first hand.
|

Yep. Plus the engine carburetors back then didn't have systems that would
compensate (by adjusting the throttle) for the added load. Engine RPM would
actually go down 100RPM-150RPM (and stay down) when one would switch on the
headlights. Add the cabin blower to that and the engine would almost stall
out...and if you needed a tune up, it would! A/C?...nope, we didn't have that
back then! A friend of my fathers had a old Ford Falcon stationwagon with
a 3-speed on the column back in the 1960's that must have had a 30HP engine in
it....it couldn't climb a steep hill at a camp site up at Sugarloaf Mountain
(Frederick, County, Maryland) we camped at one time unless he killed all the
electrical drain. He had to go up the hill blind...lights out at night, with
all of us and our gear at the bottom of the hill (we tried reducing weight
first...wasn't enough). I've since learned that reverse gear is lower than 1st
gear...so we may have made it if we tried going up backwards...live and learn.

 

No, the "parking light" DRLs are based on the turn signals (the 'other'
filament) in the parking/turn signal bulb.

 

Your argument here is "There is other waste, so this waste is OK."

 

No, you haven't. You've seen cars with the front *TURN SIGNAL* filaments
burning full time as DRLs.

State law is trumped by Federal regulations. If a Federal regulation says
an item of motor vehicle equipment is legal, any state laws saying
otherwise are rendered null and void.

 

But it's only a turn signal if it's signalling a turn,
otherwise it is for all intents and purposes a parking
light.

JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

 

My problem with LEDs is that not all of them last that long so you end
up with a light that is "missing pieces". Stand me in front of a
Christmas tree and I dont see the 399 lights that are on I seed the
one that isn't. We all see plenty of LED third brake lights that are
missing segments and it makes the car look old and crappy.

Steve B.

 

Nope, it's a turn signal whether it's on, off or flashing. Just as your
car is still a car when it's parked. Just as an orange is still an orange
when it's sitting in the fridge. Just as your brake lights are still brake
lights when you're not stepping on the brake. Anyway, it's irrelevant --
the cited portion of the California Vehicle Code is overridden and
preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle "Safety" Standard 108.

 

top posters are the ones that are too damn lazy to trim posts. So it is
mostly top posters that leave unecessary crap in thier follow up posts.
Other folks will trim posts and only leave relevant pieces when they
do follow ups.

 

Geez, how did you get to be such a high and mighty know it all?