One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

and HP3000; the PDP-11 was built by DEC.

Heh heh! Two of the most important things to master in modern life: (1) The disclaimer and (2) The "Undo" command! They cover a multitude of sins.

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

Yes, because the total amount is irrelevant. As I pointed out, it's a total of 2 gallons / vehicle / year. Cut your grass 10% less for the summer and you'll probably save that.

That's 1 day's worth of oil in the US. That's 0.27% of the oil we use. Peanuts.

Again, peanuts. There's a reason scientists use PPM and % in such calculations, because actual numbers don't mean a thing. From

So if we carry this further, total release of CO2 into the atomosphere each year is about 130-230 BILLION TONS. Your 3 million is nothing compared to that.

Nonsense. It's a decrease of .07 MPG.

If your goal is to save gas, DRL is nothing compared to other things drivers can do. Filling their tires proper can increase their milage by 3%. From 21.5 to 22.145. That 9 times the amount of gas of what DRLs cost.

Of course it's more relevant. That's why standards are measured in averages, i.e. MPG. And as we know, it's .07 MPG difference, a whopping 0.3%. Fill your tires properly and you'll save 9 times that amount. Turn your AC off and you'll save 30-60 times that amount.

So the real question is what is your motive for opposing DRLs, when it's obvious there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to automotive energy conservation.

I can't speak to statistics, but the absence of DRLs DOES stick out during the day, in fact. At dusk and dawn, and in conditions in which it would be recommended to use normal lights, I quite agree the DRLs might help.

Does Laguna Canyon Road still have the "Daytime Headlights Area" signs?

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.

I'll defer comment until I can get to a high-bandwidth connection.

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.

"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.

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.

Power steering- you have to force fluid to move out of the way (thourgh various plumbing and valves) as you turn the wheel, AND the ratios are set up so that the wheel has less leverage than a manual steering car even without the added drag of the fluid.

Power brakes: the pedal leverage is far less on a power brake setup, and the ratio of the master cylinder bore size to the wheel cylinder bore sizes is different and makes the pedal much stiffer as well.

I have really grown to hate power brakes. They really take away a lot of responsiveness and fine control over braking effort that you get with a manual brake setup with properly sized cylinder ratios and pedal linkage ratios. My 4000-lb convertible is MUCH more fun to drive with manual disk brakes than it was with a power booster, master cylinder, and pedal linkage.

Power steering is less offensive, and quite worth it to make slow-speed maneuvering easier.

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.

An overboosted power steering can feel like there is no connection to the road at all. Really scary IMO....