We're not dealing with a rational mind here, Bernard. This same Larry Bud who thinks it's no big deal for DRLs to be forced on everyone rants and raves in support of the "right to choose not to wear a seatbelt".
This thread has already wasted more energy than DRL's ever will. :-)
I don't think I'm the only one doesn't *want* to be mandated to give three bucks a year to help bankroll anti-US terrorism.
To buy a big-engined-high-horsepower vehicle and volunteer to pay for the fuel costs is one thing. To be forced to pay for extra, often needless fuel consumption by the nanny government is another.
Gee, whiz.
Tell you what: I'll drop my opposition to DRLs (which isn't based in fuel-economy concerns anyway) the minute you drop your opposition to increasing U.S. domestic oil exploration and drilling in all of its forms, and are willing to remove the tax and regulatory disadvantages to such drilling.
--Geoff
Then you have to factor in all of the gasoline spilt on the ground when there is an accident!
Maybe there are savings in gas here after all!
Dan |>)))
While I respect your opinions on lighting, you are incorrect here. Arrogance in the service of the truth can amuse or impress; otherwise it only annoys, and that is the case with your completely incorrect ideas concerning this issue.
It is plain human nature to read things in a certain order. You may have noticed that every interview you have ever read places the answer to a question after that question.
USENET is an extended human conversation, not a series of scrawlings on a bathroom door. Nobody enjoys someone who insists on talking over his conversational companions. Top-posting is a sign of:
While you are I have both been on USENET much longer than most, neither of us are yet "above the law". I suggest you reconsider your attitude.
That the top-vs-bottom posting debate continues is prima facie evidence that yours is not the only correct position on the matter. There are situations in which top-posting is the most appropriate, situations in which bottom-posting is the most appropriate, and situations in which interspersed comments are the most appropriate. Your assertion that top-posting is always bad and that any opinion that differs from your own is "completely incorrect" is puerile, childish and untenable, if for no other reason than nobody forces anyone to read anything on Usenet. If you dislike top-posts, skip them. Haughtily insisting that everyone conform to your idea of what constitutes "correct" posting form on Usenet is an exercise that can be ranked in efficacy and purpose somewhere between pissing into the wind and herding cats.
Easier than in my old '84 Scirocco with 195/50-15s, manual steering and a Momo steering wheel :)
I can turn the front wheels at a standstill (slow ratio steering box and a bis-sized wheel,) but I agree it's a bad practice. Besides grinding your tires, it puts a lot of stress on your steering box and tie rod ends.
My observation is that despite having produced some higher-end cars like the GT Hawks and Avantis, Studebaker was still basically concentrating on the "economy" segment of the market up until they went out of business, so Stude buyers were often less likely to pop for options like power steering or power brakes. Therefore the steering boxes fitted to Studebakers were often criticized for being too slow, however, I suspect that was an attempt to minimize steering effort on the manual-steering models. Unfortunately, since the power steering offered in the late-model Studes was the Bendix "ram" type (by late model, I mean early-mid 60's) the steering box was the same power or non-power, so the power steering models were saddled with unnecessarily slow steering.
nate
You know, Dan, if you did the right thing (bottom-posted) you would have read my whole post in a single sitting and would not have had to make two top-posts on the subject.
Naturally I'll continue to read your posts, no matter how poorly or inconsiderately you compose them; when you are not accidentally deconstructing your positions, you are one of my favorite U[sS][eE][nN][eE][tT] personalities. Who else could get so worked up about ATF - when the ATF in question is a fluid, not a government agency? Who else would admit on a public forum that they deliberately attempt to blind people with their headlights because they disapprove of the other person's driving style? Who else is still fighting the Pinto battle with Ford, thirty years later, in the manner of an elderly, abandoned Japanese soldier in a lost Iwo Jima cave, waiting for the emperor to arrive and declare victory? Shine on, you crazy diamond!
Only if you're doing it wrong (i.e., the car isn't moving while you're trying to get out of the parking space).
...so?
This is really very elementary math. Let's try this again. The number is correct...400,000,000 gallons of fuel saved per year would be like taking
683,760 cars off the road at 585 gallons per vehicle per year (the number at 587 gallons per year would be 681,431...which is not the result I quoted). So, I used the right total cars off the road number in the calculation, but quoted the wrong per vehicle fuel use number.Now, you can do this simple equasion yourself, I'm sure. Take the total fuel saved by eliminating DRLs (400,000,000) and divide that number by your average annual fuel consumption per vehicle (585 gallons). Let us know what answer you get. I bet it matches mine.
| 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.
Naturally, and I have the ability to do just that. The point is I can inflate my tires when required (I check them weekly), I can turn off my AC, I can remove my roof rack (and I have), I can combine trips (and I typically do), I can drive the speed limit (or less), etc. If I have a GM car, I can't turn off the DRLs.
| > 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).
||On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Arthur Alspector wrote: || ||> I've driven a 37 Chev, 48 DeSoto, 57 Pontiac, etc. None of these had ||> power anything. My first car with power steering was a 1961 Pontiac ||> (which was a piece of crap). So, I know the difference between cars ||> built to have non-power equipment and ones with power-assist. I recall ||> that those old vehicles I mentioned did very well when they were moving, ||> but required an enormous amount of exertion to get out of tight parking ||> spaces. || ||Only if you're doing it wrong (i.e., the car isn't moving while you're ||trying to get out of the parking space). || ||> No one-finger steering then.
No, but Necker-Knobs were common :) Texas Parts Guy
That depends largely on the background. In many areas of the US where there is a lot of light colored background (sand, wheat fields, sandstone, sky, sunset, etc.) a dark object in silhouette is more visible than a lighted one. In other words, a dark silhouette is more noticeable than a object artificially lighted to near the same luminescence as it's background. In that case, lights would create a "blending in" effect with the background and can be made almost invisable. The military has used lighting as camouflage under certain lighting conditions since at least WWII.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should! :-)
Matt
At the risk of turning this into another marathon political thread, which we haven't had here in a while, you do realize that the last new refinery built in the U.S. was built in 1976? And why? Because of "environmental concerns". I wonder how much more efficient a new refinery could be, and how the net impact to the environment would actually be better with new refineries.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
You can legally disconnect them, but it is illegal to sell the car with them disconnected, and if pulled over (for any reason) you can be charged with having a defective vehicle if any mandated safety equipment is non functional for any reason. Have not heard of anyone being charged, but I do know of warnings, where the vehicle had to be submitted for confirmation of repairs within 7 days. So it's legal to disconnect them, but not to drive with them disconnected.
As for the power wasted, fuel consumed, and polution caused, air conditioning is a MUCH worse culprit, and underinflated tires are MUCH worse as well. Even a small misalignment (excessive toe in or toe out) wastes more fuel, and the vast majority of cars on american roads are either out of alignment, underinflated, or both, and run the AC all summer.
OK - but is my apology owed to DEC or HP?
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Daniel, you are mistaken. In Ontario ALL PERSCRIBED LIGHTS AND REFLECTORS must be PRESENT AND FUNCTIONAL..
The interpretation of this varies, but the prevalent interpretation is they MUST work for a safety check, and if a cop is looking for something to charge you with (knows you were speeding, but could not get a fix on you, etc., he CAN charge you with having defective equipment, and he CAN win.
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.