C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is
> >> not unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS
> >> performance in some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top
> >> 5% of drivers. Very probably you couldn't.
> >
> > Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat" the
> > ABS.
>
> In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal friction
> on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. Otherwise you
> are very likely wrong.

No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction.

>
> >> ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
> >> share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with
> >> different friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping
> >> the car maneuverable during emergency breaking.
> >
> > A good car should have a base brake system arranged so that under heavy
> > braking on a uniform surface, the front wheels lock up slightly before the
> > rears, and the brake pedal should offer good feedback and easy modulation.
> > Given those, it's really not that difficult for a good driver to post
> > decent stopping distances, without loss of control.
>
> Unfortunately surfaces are rarely even or have equal friction on all
> wheels, which is why in most real life situations ABS gives you a shorter
> brake distance than you could get with skill.

Depends on the ABS system. Quite a few of them make tradeoffs that I
personally don't like (stopping distance for stability.)

>
> One of the biggest reasons, why ABS doesn't reduce accidents caused by the
> average driver as much as originally predicted is that many drivers still
> learned to drive old-school like James Reeves. Don't brake hard, try to
> maintain control first, rather run into the obstacle than off the road.
> With ABS that's exactly the wrong way to do it. You can get much shorter
> distances by simply hitting the brakes so hard ABS engages.

Unless the ABS is fighting you.

>
> >> Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.
> >>
> > Indeed. The ones that benefit from ABS the most are the ones using it as
> > an electronic band-aid.
>
> ... and which would be even worse than they already are without ABS. It's
> not as if cars were better made before ABS arrived, people just thought
> that there was no way to make them better.

Some of them were, and people who cared demanded them.

>
> >> I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer
> >> satisfaction and independent quality assessments. Another factor is
> >> that they are starting to make more interesting cars.
> >
> > I don't see the interesting cars.
>
> GTO. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V. STS. XLR. And of the cars yet to come: Solstice.
> Sky. 'Blue Devil'. And others.
>
> >>>We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
> >>>of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.
> >>
> >> Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V.
> >
> > All priced outside the reach of the average person, and the C6 is
> > getting a lot of criticism from the 'vette fans for not being a "real
> > 'vette" whatever that means.
>
> I know about a dozen Vette fans. 10 of them already have a C6 and
> the others are interested. Every single one of them likes the C6 better
> than they liked the C5.
>
> What you probably are referring to is some geezers, who had a '67 and
> don't see a non-popup-headlight car as 'not a Corvette'.

No, actually, lots of C3, C4, C5 owners on various NG's and fora. I'm
about the only person who ends up defending the design of the C6 in
various discussions, because I do like it even if it is a niche market
car. My own opinion of the C6 was "first effort at a real sports car
since the C2" which got me ALL sorts of howls of protest from the
'vette lovers.

>
> > Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction, but the fact
> > remains that I very rarely if ever see any of the vehicles you mention
> > "in the wild" so GM is missing their target market, whatever that may
> > be, badly with all four of those vehicles.
>
> I see several of them every day.

You must live in a special area then. I can't remember ever seeing
one.

> And don't tell me that a Toyota Corolla
> or Honda Civic is in any way interesting. Aside from the Miata the
> japanese manufacturers don't have anything affordable and fun either.
>

For a slightly expanded definition of "affordable" there's the G35 and
S2000...

> >> Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And
> >
> > I have no data on that one.
>
> http://www.engine-power.com/chevy/ch...ercharged.html
>
> 2.0l supercharged engine, 205hp@5600, 5-speed stick and 2800lbs curb
> weight for 20 grand.
>
> >> the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
> >> Solstice. STS-V.
> >
> > We'll see. I don't have the faith that GM won't screw them up like
> > they've done so many times before.
>
> At least they won't build one dead boring Camry after another.

I'd rather have a Camry than most GM products, frankly. Yes, it's
boring, but it's at least not offensive.

>
> >>>And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
> >>>finally turning it into an almost respectable car)
> >>
> >> They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it
> >> off before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?
> >>
> > Perhaps they shouldn't use their first-year customers as beta testers
> > then?
>
> I will admit that the first Fiero was a beta product. Just like the Nissan
> 350Z currently is. It's not that the japanese are better, just that
> distant pastures always seem greener.

Difference is that even if what you say is true, the Japanese have a
history of solving problems and getting things right eventually. GM
really doesn't.

>
> >>>Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
> >>>that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the
> >>>corners they've cut elsewhere.
> >>
> >> An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms.
> >> The whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
> >> unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch
> >> off the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety
> >> relevant reason to have an off switch.
> >
> > Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Or are you dismissing all the other posts in
> > this thread just because you disagree with them?
>
> James just admitted that there is no traffic safety related reason to have
> an off switch. And he was the only one claiming repeatedly that there was.
>
> If you have a safety relevant reason to have an off switch I am interested
> in hearing it. If it is only a question of convenience, safety comes far
> before convenience.

Already mentioned several previously in this thread. (gee, that sounds
familiar. I might have responded similarly to any number of things
that you've asked for.)

>
> >> No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self
> >> image really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because
> >> of a safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.
> >>
> > I don't feel like a moron at all. I just don't like being treated like
> > one, which is my right.
>
> Again, if you feel like you are treated like a moron just because someone
> implements a safety feature, that's your problem alone. You may never run
> into anything, but it is still a good idea to have a safety belt.

But I don't particularly want a car with those execrable automatic
belts (that your beloved NHTSA forced on us)

> You may
> never forget your headlights but you are a rare specimen in that and it is
> better to give you automatic headlights alongside with everyone else just
> in case.
>

Yes, mom. Guess what, most people stopped letting other people take
care of them whenever they graduated from school and moved out.

> >> You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.
> >
> > Not easily. Not by checking a box on an order form.
>
> Which is a sound recipe against making all the morons checking said box
> because they feel treated like a moron if they get DRLs and auto
> headlights.
>

Who elected you grand high arbiter of what's good for me? I ought to
be able to do whatever the heck I want so long as it doesn't hurt
anyone else, up to and including smoking crack in an alley.

> >> ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither
> >> you nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar
> >> (not the Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a
> >> certain sound shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can
> >> brake very close to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under
> >> pressure and adverse conditions I don't think I could do a job to match
> >> ABs. And neither could you.
> >>
> > Depends on the vehicle. As I stated above, some of the poorer ABS
> > implementations that trade ultimate stopping power for stability, I'm
> > CERTAIN I could beat.
>
> ... under optimum conditions. In real life and an emergency situation you
> with almost absolute certainity would not beat it.

Bull****.

>
> Btw, a German car magazine did an interesting test specifically with
> people like you.
>
> They had them try to beat the ABS on their own with a range of different
> cars. As you predicted, a handful did under optimum conditions with the
> worst design in the bunch. Then they tried the same thing under adverse
> conditions, pressure, wet road, uneven pavement and combinations thereof.
> Even the people who had been most convinced of themselves managed to
> out brake even the worst ABS design under these conditions.
>
> To be quite fair, none of the cars was a Ford with the infamous mechanical
> ABS, but the result shows what I told you. You may be able to outbrake ABS
> under optimum conditions, but as emergency situations never entail optimum
> conditions the question whether you can do that or not is moot.

Did they do any tests with truck-based SUVs with non-advantageous scrub
radii? it's fairly common, or at least was a couple years ago, to
dump pressure to the high-mu wheels rather than to allow the vehicle to
rotate, requiring steering input to correct. It's cake easy for a
reasonably aware driver to beat such systems.

>
> >> Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD
> >> vehicle without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here
> >> is controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.
> >
> > Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis, then recover as
> > appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not
> > difficult.
>
> That's not a controlled skid but a recipe for disaster if done in real
> world conditions on the street. There is a reason why rally drivers use
> the hand brake to initiate controlled drifts and not a quick jab on
> non-ABS brakes to unsettle the car. The last thing you want for a
> controlled drift is unsettling the chassis.
>
> >> I can't wait for your explanation.
> >
> > Well, now you have it.
>
> I was asking for a controlled drift, not random skidding.
>

Just because you can't recover from a brake-induced skid doesn't mean
that nobody can.

> >> and claims
> >> somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
> >> proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
> >> way.
> >
> > Because it is there.
> >
> > http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTyp e=docket
> >
> > found this in less than five minutes of searching, notice that the
> > comments are almost universally anti-DRL.
>
> An amusing collection of anecdotes. I liked the one with the 70 year old
> geezer who knows that the conditions in Sweden don't apply to the US
> because in the US all accidents are driver related...
>
> > So where is the overwhelming public support for them that you claim?
> > Seems like a lot of people hate them enough to write to NHTSA.
>
> How much experience with statistics do you have? Not much, apparently.
> People write when they have a gripe for some reason. If something works,
> they just don't write. And the number of support letters in relation to
> the 200 Million drivers in the US is not exactly overwhelming in the first
> place.
>
> If you want an even borderline fair estimate of the public opinion you
> need to poll in a way that doesn't predetermine the group of people that
> will reply.
>
> If you had had statistics at university level I am sure your professor
> would have advised you about this trick to stuff the ballot box.
>

I see that you missed the point, which was that interspersed among all
the usual "I don't like DRL's, they are bad" letters there were several
letters from people who had the qualifications to comment
appropriately, all anti-DRL, and several citing research.

> >> I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about
> >> mine.
> >>
> > You *HAD* a source?
>
> Yes.
>

One link to one study.

> >> All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10%
> >> of the non-GM cars have DRLs.
> >
> > Enough cars on the road have them that it's a good proportion.
>
> I leave that to you and James to duke out. If you are right you are
> shooting a big hole in his case, if he is right the opposite is true.
>
> >> Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether
> >> someone has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And
> >> companies go to extreme length to pull customers into their fold.
> >
> > So if a common "safety" feature worked well enough that they could
> > afford to give a discount, they might?
>
> If they determine that it would be in their financial interest to do so:
> Yes.
>

So why don't they?

> >> Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the
> >> price range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed
> >> the 'blue devil'.
> >>
> >> The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.
> >
> > How many people do you know that can AFFORD a $40K new car? not many.
>
> The Goat is $30k, not 40k. MSRP is 32295 and with the GM employee
> discount you can get it for under 30k. Again: You said it is
> overpriced. So show me a comparable car that is cheaper.

For that money, you can get a couple-year-old Porsche. No comparison.

>
> >> The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
> >> lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.
> >
> > Again, priced outside the range of the vast majority of consumers, or at
> > least those averse to overextending their credit.
>
> And sells like hotcakes.

I can't remember ever seeing one. Actually new Caddys seem to be
decidedly unpopular; their crased, angular styling really stands out in
traffic and yet they are rare as hen's teeth. Now SUV's... those are
selling. Sadly.

>
> FYI: Overpriced doesn't mean 'more expensive than Nate Nagel can afford'
> or even 'more expensive than most drivers can afford' but 'more expensive
> than the competition, which is not the case for any of the cars I
> mentioned.

There really is not competition; they're an answer to a question nobody
asked. Most people looking for 400HP+ cars really don't care for back
seats etc.

>
> >> I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.
> >>
> > I could build a car faster than any of those for half the cost.
>
> Not a new car. We are not talking a hacked together Fox-Body here.

Never said anything about a Fox body. But actually it would be pretty
neat to build a hot rod Fairmont, just to build the ugliest "hot" car
possible, no?

>
> >> I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.
> >
> > What would you call them, then?
>
> Usenetties with some car inclination.
>
> To be fair, I deem a few people in here real car guys, C.R. for example.
> Most are not.
>
> >> Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
> >> studies and we will see...
> >
> > Already done, many times. Do your homework.
>
> You posted a few amusing anecdotes and a lonely reference to some
> political bull**** which you promptly proceeded to try to convert into a
> statistic improperly. Thanks, Nate, if I really want a doctored statistic
> I will doctor it myself.

I am referring to the references posted not only by myself but by
others as well.

>
> >> I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
> >> info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull****
> >> (to borrow from your vocabulary).
> >
> > Sounds to me like you're more interested in "winning" an argument than
> > actually educating yourself.
>
> No, it merely sounds like I don't have the time to sift through tons of
> flotsam and jetsam just to search for info you critters claim you already
> have and just don't want to reference for some weird reason.
>
> If the info was there as plain as you guys claim you would have referenced
> it long ago. And no, I don't mean that amusing collection of anecdotes you
> call dockets.
>
> >>>Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
> >>>corrupt and deeply flawed organization.
> >>
> >> Then post something better.
> >
> > Already done, many times.
>
> Someone needs to tell you that your repetition of a claim doesn't make it
> true.

And that right there, folks, is why this discussion is pointless.
That's all you've offered to bolster your position, so then why is it
valid?

>
> >> If you were right, you would post references yourself.
> >
> > Why should I? Others have already done so, IN THIS THREAD.
>
> No, they haven't. They merely have claimed some info and totally failed to
> reference it properly.
>

Um-hm. Probably because their references didn't support your agenda.

> >> Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
> >> wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.
> >>
> > You're the only one disagreeing.
>
> The only one in this extremely limited group. Look at James. He is barely
> able to understand and write English. I do a much better job and I am not
> a native speaker. What he thinks to have read in documents somewhere deep
> inside NHTSA doesn't have any bearing on what really is in there.

right.

>
> You drive old cars with a passion and hate GM. You try to compare a
> clunker with a souped up engine with a new Corvette. Your bias is obvious
> from everything you write.
>

Clunker? LOL. I like old cars because I have an appreciation for good
design, for a machine that is fundamentally good without relying on
electronic band-aids to make it all work together. If someone made a
modern iteration of the old Porsche 944 (preferably with a little more
power this time though) I would be sorely tempted to drop large wads of
cash. As it is, there's very few new cars that make me want them as
seriously as the best designs do from years past.

> Do I have to continue?
>
> >> The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.
> >
> > There are references to serious research in the comments under those
> > dockets. However, since they aren't easily linkable (often one .pdf
> > will contain many different short letters, and the ones that do
> > reference hard research may be buried in the middle - and may even
> > reference research not available on the Web, you might have to do a
> > little bit of legwork.)
>
> I don't have the time to sift through all the inane comments to possibly
> find one jewel. And referencing a pdf file is so easy even a total moron
> can do it: Post the URL and add the pdf page number.
>

What makes you think that anyone else has more free time than you do?
You're the one making the comments that DRLs, auto. headlights et. al.
are good ideas, against popular opinion and consensus.

> > So NHTSA is good but dockets are bad? I'll have to remember that.
> > *snork*
>
> Neither is really good, but the NHTSA at least has some hard numbers
> and not only amusing anecdotes. What a pity the numbers don't support your
> view or you would be all over the NHTSA.

Already been posted. One of the studies referenced showed an 8%
increase in incidents with DRLs. But of course you probably have all
sorts of reasons why the Holy NHTSA numbers are better.

>
> >> The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
> >> Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.
> >
> > That would explain why I see all kinds of new Mustangs and can't
> > remember the last time I saw a GTO in the wild - if I ever did.
>
> The Stang is cheap. The V6 Stang is even cheaper. Any secretary that wants
> a spiffy looking car can buy one and drive it without undue stress on her
> delicate psyche. The Goat is a totally different animal and mostly targets
> the enthusiast market. You of all people should understand the difference
> between a slightly spiffed up everyday car and a car for someone, who
> loves driving.

Actually both are spiffed up everyday cars. The GTO is based on a
generic Australian sedan platform (not that that's bad, the original
was based on a generic American sedan platform.)

>
> >>>Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
> >>>going to be yet another "could have been."
> >>
> >> One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors.
> >
> > This is true, but the fact remains that when you compare the prices,
> > someone originally tempted to buy a GTO just might decide to buy a
> > Mustang instead and pocket the difference for, say, a down payment on a
> > small house.
>
> You don't get much house for 5k, at least not around here. And I truly
> pity the enthusiast, who chooses a Stang over a GTO just because of the
> bit of money he saves.

Difference is more like $10K, really, and when that's on the order of
1/3 the price of the car in question, that's a lot of scratch.

>
> > Add to that that the average Joe can afford a Mustang but not a GTO...
> > well, you do the math.
>
> Weird reasoning. If someone really can afford a Mustang GT he can afford
> the GTO. May take a tad more effort but if money is so tight he should buy
> neither.

Most people don't make in a year what the GTO costs. You know that,
right?

>
> > Where are these cars selling? Why don't I see any of them at all? It
> > doesn't matter how good the thing is, if they don't sell.
>
> Around here they sell well. And as GM sells as many as they get the
> pricing seems to be correct.

You realize that even if what you say is true, that GM is only shooting
itself in the foot? And basically admitting that their overseas
products are better than what they design here?

>
> >>>Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
> >>>as many vehicles as they are.
> >>
> >> Clever marketing.
> >
> > And apparently effective.
>
> What's wrong with that?

Nothing, but it's not a viable long-term plan.

nate