Heh heh! When I was teenager, my daily driver was an International Travelall - a station wagon built on a truck chassis - heavy as lead and overdesigned like crazy - about the size of a Chevy Suburban, only heavier. It did not have power steering - boy was it fun to parallel park!!! And a real babe magnet too!
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Yes, of course! However, the vehicle owner can choose to remedy those issues themselves. The owner can't "choose" to remedy the "DRL waste" themselves.
Flip the light switch and BINGO, the headlamp will light up. Thus it functions. It meets the test Daniel mentions.
And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common. Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I want to.
DEC. HP makes great instruments and printers, but their computers weren't anything terribly special. DEC minicomputers were the best by far and their software was even better yet.
Microsoft still brags about introducing "new" technology that DEC sold two decades ago.
Matt
I agree. I've seen films of the very early automobiles, and some, or maybe many, had a stick or lever that you moved from side to side to steer - very much like a joy stick (after all, you don't need pitch control in a car) - looked kind of crude and awkward. I think the steering wheel was a leap forward in the evolution of things automotive. For one thing, the rotational inertia of the steering wheel itself may help dampen things in an unstable situation (lessening the human tendency of over-correction).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
| >> Most idiot drivers say, "I can see the road, I don't need to turn my | >> lights on". They're too stupid to realize that light have two purposes. | >> (to see and BE SEEN). | >
| >Several different types of DRLs common in North America *encourage* driver | >misuse of lights (driving in bad weather and/or after dark without proper | >lights turned on). It's much easier for a cop to spot a dark car than an | >improperly-lit car. | >
| And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common. | Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I | want to.
Probably so...but "auto headlamp control" create another issue. People that have them get used to the auto system doing their job for them so they forget that often they still need to manually turn their regular lights on when it's foggy out (in the daytime). For some cars...ditto for daytime rain and snow conditions.
No, Clare, once again, it is you who are mistaken. Normally I no longer see the crapola you spew on a continual basis, but the crossposting of this thread shows me I need to tweak your killfile filter so I don't see you in rec.autos.tech, rec.autos.driving, *or* rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
Yes, but the lights in question are those prescribed by the Ontario Highway Code, not by CMVSS 108/108.1.
Only in your befuddled little mind.
Bye, now!
I got it, but and I don't like nanny government anymore than the next guy, but you have to pick your battles, and this one is a small fry.
As I stated to someone else, you have to pick your battles, and this one is a small fry. Fight against ridiculous laws which actually have a large impact on your life, such as mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory DUI checks, etc.
Where did I ever state I opposed domestic oil exploration? I think you've got me confused with someone else.
That's why they invented steering wheel knobs - you know - the ones with the naked girls on them and stuff (I think they're illegal now - the knobs, not the girls).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Daniel J. Stern replied:
It could be more complicated than that.
The California state constitution [art. 3, sec. 3.5] explicitly prohibits state agencies from deciding whether or not state laws are unconstitutional or preempted at the federal level. Only the courts are allowed to make such rulings.
Presumably, if/when the matter ever does end up in court, CVC 24800 will indeed be found invalid. But unless/until a court so rules, or unless/until the California legislature decides to repeal CVC 24800, I assume it can still be enforced.
Disclaimer: I haven't done a detailed study of either the California Vehicle Code (to see if there's some specific provision that already says something about conflicting federal vehicle laws/regulations) or case law (to see if some court may already have struck down CVC
24800). Also, I'm not a lawyer, and none of what I've said here is intended to be taken as legal advice.Rich Wales snipped-for-privacy@richw.org
Likewise. As far as AC, it contributes to fuel consumption ALL the time due to the extra weight. It contributes more significantly when used.
You've just described the crux of the state/federal jurisdictional battle. But, in every state, in every case where a state has objected to an item of motor vehicle equipment permitted by Federal standards, the Feds have prevailed.
Here I, and every knowlegable mechanic, will have to dissagree. An alternator running with no electrical load consumes VERY little power. A full high beam headlamp system, with park lamps and side markers, draws roughly 300 watts of power, or 1/2 HP. Heater on high can draw upwards of 20 amps, or close to 300 watts - another half HP. The alternator is not terribly efficient - the newer ones are getting better, but 85% would be optimistic, so heater fan and full headlights draws something better than 1 HP. Less than 2 HP.
So, it IS causing the engine to work harder - the question is, what is significant???
The AC compressor draws more power from the engine - up to 3 HP, not including the AC fan and the electrically operated cooling fan. A total of 5 HP would not be far off the mark.
Your arguement does not hold water.
But if federal law MADATED windsheild tinting, state law could NOT dis-allow it.
It is POSSIBLE to get better mileage with a standard than an automatic, but the brain moving the shifter needs to know what it is doing. Today's automatic "brain" does know what it is doing, and it takes a VERY good driver to consistently better an automatic with a stick.
Another thing not taken into account is that whenever a car is decellerating or coasting, going down hill, etc, the alternator is not using ANY gasoline to produce the power. In typical urban driving cycles, that would be well up in the 25% plus range. If not in gridlock, possibly over 50%. Try driving an electric vehicle sometime to see. This will skew the calculations a bit!!!
I'm not sure how you figure that - the regulator does NOT see the current flow, as it is in PARALLEL with the load, not in series. The regulator senses VOLTAGE. Voltage pushes current through a load, (resistance) so the EFFECT of regulating voltage is, o an extent, to limit the current. The actual current limiting in today's alternators is a function of the stator resistance.
Back in the days of 3 unit regulators and generators, the regulator DID sense load current, as well as voltage.
Your interpretation. That's the "beauty" of laws. It's not how you choose to interpret them - it's how the courts, and the enforcement officers, choose to interpret them. Even if the charge does not stick, you have the inconvenience of fighting it.
As far as safety inspections are concerned in Ontario, you may as well not have them, as there is NO enforcement. If you, as a consumer, buy a used car with a safety certificate, and find there are even SERIOUS deficiencies, just TRY to get something done about it. If you are buying from a dealer, the truth in advertising laws have more teeth than the safety inspection - you can (rightly} claim the car was not as advertised, and force the dealer to take it back. Getting the signing mechanic to stand good for the "overlooked" deficiencies is nigh unto impossible. Getting them charged with an offence, muchless convicted???? Forget it.
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.