1. Home
  2. Automotive Technologies
  3. Re: Air conditioning vs DRL

Re: Air conditioning vs DRL

>

> > I think it is obvious that there are situations where having DRL's on > > can reduce the chances of an accident. I'm not sure that it is > > possible to program a computer to consider only those possibilities and > > exclude all of the others. The better solution is to just run DRL's > > during the day and run regular headlights when dusk approaches. > > > > don't get me started on DRLs. > I live in Canada where they're mandatory since 1990. > It's been raining here all week. I live 5 miles outside of Winnipeg and > drive to work downtown. Less than 25% of the cars have headlights on > - they're all running DRLs. Big deal you say? Too bad that means only > 25% of the cars have taillights on in the pouring rain. Idiots. > > I've disabled the DRLs on my car. The headlight switch now works like > it's supposed to. On when it's dark or poor visibiliy. Off when I'm > idling or in rush hour traffic on sunny days. > > Ray

This has been a longstanding pet peeve of mine. Lots of drivers here don't turn on any lights under any circumstances...they forget, or just don't give a damn. These are dangerous.

People who have DRLs that don't illuminate the taillights are dangerous too..They may think they are safe and protected, but are very dangerous when you come upon them from behind in rain, etc.

I use my headlight switch, unless - like the objects of my complaints - I forget. Seldom, but it happens.

My wife's car has automatic fulltime running lights ( that include taillights,etc). I have nothing to complain about this car and its lighting.

Mileage, in either case, is so infinitesimally less with lights on that it really doesn't make any difference.

Reply to
<HLS
Loading thread data ...

My biggest peeve with DRLs (other than piss poor implementations like Saturn's) is the inability to turn the lights OFF. When entering a gov't installation with a military guard, they don't really like it when you don't go to parking lights when approaching the guard shack.

nate

Reply to
N8N

Yup...some base guards get pretty touchy. Don't those cars have a parking light setting??? My Volvo's do.

Reply to
John S.

My GTI didn't until I bought a euro-spec headlight switch.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Did you get that from europe?

Reply to
John S.

yes, but they are available stateside from several aftermarket VW parts vendors. Drop right in and also give you a rear fog light position as well should you choose to enable it.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Most agree that, using the current DRL technology, the amount of gasoline used annually wuld be approximately 450,000,000 to 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline in the USA alone. Not a huge amount compared to the total consumed, but still a sizeable number. Remember, DRLs consume between

55-110 watts per vehicle. AND the method that electrical energy is generated isn't particularly efficient (significant losses)

Insurance loss data seems to indicate that there is no benefit. Given that (and if true), then that means that they are a waste by definition.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

"Most agree that, using the current DRL technology, the amount of gasoline used annually wuld be approximately 450,000,000 to 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline in the USA alone."

JS> Uuuuhhh...who be dis "Most" fellah anyway - he musta had a purty big hat to pull such a number outa. And dat Most fellah gots to subtract both the cost of injuries caused by not having DRL's on and the lost income of those injured or killed (especially those killed). John tinks dat Most fellah gonna be plenty busy figgerin up a way ta come up with a meaningful number.

John tinks dat if mos drivers started using more fuel efficnent cars that would be a far more effective way of truly making a dent in in out huge fuel bill.

Reply to
John S.

Can you cite a source for this? 55-110 watts is approximately 0.07-0.14 horsepower electrical equivalent. For a nominal 280 HP engine, this is something like

0.025 to 0.05% of the rough fuel economy. Not much per individual, but would amount to a few gallons of petrol per year.

Again would you please cite your sources. I have not seen clear and unequivocal data, particularly under American driving conditions.

Reply to
<HLS

Since vehicle design is aimed at producing cars that someone with the average intelligence of an 8 year old can drive, I don't see this as that big a task for a computer program.

The better solution is to just run DRL's

Or why not just keep all lights, head and tail, on all day and all night as long as the car is running? Since we need cars to be drivable by clinical moron-grade intelligence, this just takes one more switch that will confuse them out of the loop.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

formatting link
- Manitoba public insurance has their rate calcluator online.

1989 Beretta - basic coverage - $1,129 1991 Beretta - basic coverage - $1,129 The 91 has mandatory DRLs. Apparently MPI doesn't think there is any savings with them.
Reply to
ray

They sure dont value them enough to pass along an incentive, do they?

Reply to
<HLS

I contacted them via email and will pass along their response...

fwiw, they don't value immobilizers much either... I have a 2001 Trans Am... they were going to offer me $35/year discount. The car is close to $2000 a year to insure... and the immobilizer was $500... some deal.

Ray

Reply to
ray

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.