One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

You may have heard of Aristotle. He said,

"It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

You don't even approximate the truth, and dumb ol' Aristotle predated you by at least 2000 years. Of course, you're at least 2000 years smarter, right?

I love your sense of humor mixed in with a dose of truth!

It doesn't matter who wrote it or why -- the math is correct whether it was written by Citizens to Eliminate DRLs from the Face of the Earth or Coalition to Install DRLs on Every Car Everywhere. Likewise, I accept a statement that 2+2=4 whether issued by a Democrat or a Republican.

Yes, the point is that the *order of magnitude* is correct. Their calculation comes up with a result of 406,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year. Their approximations and assumptions aren't hidden; they're right there for everyone to see and independently confirm, and none of them is particularly questionable. It doesn't matter if the real figure is

300,000,000 gallons or 600,000,000 gallons -- the *order of magnitude* is correct, which means the real answer isn't 500 gallons or 5,000,000,000 gallons.

Suggest you read this message three or four times -- slowly -- to let this basic mathematic concept seep into your brain.

I have no problem with basic math, I just don't accept dubious formula's written by who knows who. I think you will believe anything if it supports your position. I am not as naive.

Actually, you apparently failed basic physics. The formulas have been accepted for over a century, and aren't disputed for the purpose of back of the envelope calculations like these by anyone with any engineering experience.

nate

Apparently you do -- otherwise you'd see there's nothing "dubious" about the maths presented in the original article, as further evidenced by your steadfast refusal to elaborate beyond your childish "It's dubious! It is too! Is too! IS TOO IS TOO IS TOO IS TOO!" rant.

If you see problems with the maths, point them out. T-H-X, the audience is listening.

What specific part of the formula applied to the equation do you believe to be "dubious"? If you have different calculations and/or results, please share them.

This is typically only true on larger engine cars and the rare small car. I think it was CR that just tested several manual and automatic small cars recently and all but one got better mileage with the manual.

Matt

Any references to support this? I find it very hard to believe that the ECM can't control the fuel injection sufficiently accurately to control emissions during shifts. Manual transmissions are rare because buyers don't buy them. Detroit (and Europe and Japan) make what sells and manual trannies simply don't sell well anymore.

Matt

You need to read up on the theory of alternators and then you will see that what you wrote above is very wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of alternators.

Matt

Well, at least this makes more sense than the emissions claim.

Matt

I don't remember fruit being discussed.

| Driving lights light only the headlamps at reduced wattage.

Driving lights? I don't remember those being discussed either. I'll assume for the purpose of continueing the subject of this discussion that you are refering to daytime running lights. A configuration for true/real driving lights normally would be completely separate units from the headlamps.

| Parking lights turn on the front signal lamps and the | tail lamps.

Technically...no. Parking lights use a _different_ lower wattage filament from the turn signals. While the light may be produced from the same lamp housing, they are different things. A parking light is not a turn signal and a turn sugnal is not a parking light. GM most recently has implemented turn signal DRLs on most of their new models. So, the statement you made should have been "...the parking light switch setting turns on the tail lights in addition to the parking lights. The way you stated it, you imply that the switch setting turns on the "signal lamps"...hot true.

| Completely different lighting, obviously.

I agree...but you referred to them (above) as if they were one in the same (parking lights and turn signals). Make up your mind. :-) GM is obviously confused about the differences as well. I wonder where they get their vehicle lighting system engineers! What is even more worrisome is that the NHTSA keeps allowing this foolishness!

| Furthermore, the California law is based on the logical | deduction a driver is going delay or forget altogether | to light his headlamps, especially on lighted roads or in | heavy traffic where it is not obvious to see the | projected headlamp beam.

I suppose you've spoken to those that drafted the law as to their reasons? It may be a reasonable hypothesis as to the reason.

| Also, burning the tail lamps masks the brake lamp | giving a diminished brake signal to trailing cars; thus | driving with parking lights on (ditto for headlamps) | diminishes safety.

This has been documented...nothing new there, which is why Volvo uses completely separate brake lamps from the tail lamps (Volvo is one that illuminates the tail lamps day and night with the DRLs and the headmamps))

| Use conventional headlamps 30 minutes before sunset or | 30 minutes before sunrise.

You mean 30 minutes _after_ sunrise, don't you?

| Burn them when visibility is reduced during daylight hours.

Most state laws refer to times you describe, as "when there is a limited sight distance of 'x' feet".

| You should use Driving lamps on high speed open roads | on clear days only.

Site any state law that requires "driving lamps" in that specific situation.

| I personally don't thing Driving lights are worth the bother; when | you need lights in the daylight, just use your regular headlights.

For that we agree.

| Car makers are always dreaming up useless new features to | peddle their 19th Century technology...

I will agree the new "features" these days are mostly gimmicky and often useless. Guess they've run out of good ideas.

| can you imagine they are still putting in steering wheels in | cars? Loss of control of the steering wheel is the number | one cause of accidents!

What do you want, a joy stick?

He didn't even have to use anything but multiplying and dividing. It's ALL basic math. Those dubious formulas all come from the simple equation of X x Y = XY. If the percentages are throwing you off then continue bing dubious.

-Bruce

Here is some silly math for you -

Assume 2 turn signal bulbs at 5 watts each used for DRLs Assume 12,000 miles a year at average speed of 35 mph Assume 50% of driving during the day (probably a low percentage) Assume 30% efficiency for the transformation from gas to electricity (very optomistic) Assume Energy contnet of gasoline 115,000 BTUs Assume 100,000,000 vehicles in regular use in the US (it is actually about double this)

12,000 miles at 35 mph = 343 hours = 171 daylight hours 2 5 watt bulbs for 171 daylight hours equals 1,710 watt-hours At 30% conversion efficiency this equates to 5,700 wh = 20,000 BTU So, running the two DRLs during the day for a year consumes about 0.2 gallons of gasoline Addtional gas used by 100,000,000 car in the US, if they all had DRLs - 20,000,000 gallons.....

At every step I think I picked conservative numbers. I came up with half the gas wasted that was mentioned in the original article. However, I am probaly low by more than a factor of 2.

DRLs are wasting gas.

Ed

More than that. 5 watts is a parking light, not a DRL. You're off by a factor of about five there at a minimum. Also I think you are being conservative on your conversion of gasoline to electricity. However, I don't know if 35 MPH is a good average or not, so I'd have to say you're at least within an order of magnitude.

nate

Turn signal bulbs are 27 watts, not 5 watts. Plug that into your formula.

You are low by a factor of a little over 5 and a little under 6 due to your wattage estimate error.

True.

Way back in the 50's, joysticks were considered a good way to operate a motor vehicle. Forward to go, backward to stop and left and right to steer. If they're good enough for multi-million dollar aircraft, why not cars? Boeing 777's etc. use joysticks both in the air and on the ground. So, in answer to your question....Yes, would love a joystick instead of a steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedal.

Arthur

It's probably more doable now than ever, what with the many drive-by-wire systems integrated into a car. Only problem that I see is a lack of fail-safes, how are you going to steer when the electrical system fails? Same with braking. I'm just paranoid enough that I would prefer to stick to the current method of operation; matter of fact, my Stude is easy enough to drive without any power assistance for any of the controls - and you know what, I like it that way. The tactile feedback is invaluable, and would be very difficult to integrate into a joystick type control.

Yes, for 99% of motorists it would be good enough - but I guess the real question is, what's the point? The current set of controls has been refined over the years to the point where it's difficult to improve on the ease of use (for most people) and also the ease of integration of power assist for those controls for which such is deemed necessary (faugh,) with the ability to retain full manual operation in case of a system failure. The last is a very good argument for *not* implementing any new control scheme, unless it proves to be *more* robust somehow.

IMHO automotive engineers have deviated somewhat from the KISS principle in the last 20 years or so, however...

nate

Absolutely right, Nate.....but have you ever tried to operate a medium or large car without power assists? I can barely turn the wheel of my Intrepid and the brakes are only good for maybe one or two pumps without power...then bye bye. I think you are riding on some false security there.

I'm not soliciting change to a joystick control, but wouldn't back away from it if the innovation was proven better than our current controls.

Arthur