What would cars cost if they left off the silly frills?

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
> news
>> Read this and you may change your mind about how "essential" ABS is:
>> http://www.highwaysafety.com/safety_...antilock.htm#5
>
> Very limited evidence. Subjectively, I like how ABS handles during
> heavy
> braking. I never said ABS brakes faster- it doesn't. Every car I've
> driven just about has ABS, it would involve alot of unlearning to go to
> regular brakes.
>
> I know if I lived in an area with alot of ice, stability control would be
> a feature I would look for. But it would probably be below just finding
> a
> good set of winter tires.
>
>

Over a decade of insurance loss data that clearly shows that ABS has done
nothing, zip, zero, nada towards reducing accidents among passenger cars and
light trucks...you call that "limited evidence"?

One thing you are right about though. It's mostly about driver preference
(and I would add capabilities). Personally I like having the option of
knowing I can employ controlled skidding techniques when/if necessary as one
form of directional control to help get out of a tight spot. When a car is
equipped with ABS, that is one vehicle control option/mechanism that is
taken away from the driver. That is not a good thing in my view. Although
I suppose if one is a driver that just closes their eyes, throws their hands
up in the air, mashes the brakes as hard as they can and preys for a
miracle, ABS can be useful for that type of driver.

What I do find interesting is why a few people seem to have such relative
problems with vehicle stability without ABS. 35 years and well over a
million miles of driving on ice, snow, sleet, you name it, I don't see the
problem and I've owned both types of cars...with and without ABS (my current
daily driver does NOT have ABS). I find that ABS, frankly, gets in the way
of my controlling EXACTLY what I want the vehicle to do and when I want it
to do it. VERY unnerving in critical situations as far as I'm concerned.

But, to each his own, as they say! :-)

"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:18:00 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Magnulus > wrote:
>>> Some car manufacturers put in those "options" as standard, like
>>>Volkswagen. Others, like Toyota or Honda, nickle-and-dime you for every
>>>last one (note, ABS/power steering/cruise control etc. are DIRT CHEAP to
>>>build into a car, they just charge you more for them)
>>
>>Nope. All three require significant extra parts added to the car.
>>ABS the most, cruise control the least. None of them is necessary.
>>I've always driven cars with no ABS, and I have driven cars with no
>>power steering and no cruise control.
>
> cruise control is highly overrated anyway....

With the congestion on the highways these days...it's hard to find places to
use it. My 1st car with cruise control was a 1978 Ford LTD. Back then I
was able to use it quite often. Not the case these days. Congestion may be
a reason why we're starting to see cars come equipped with radar-sensing
cruise control that automatically adjusts the speed to the vehicle (and
traffic) in front of you.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Magnulus wrote:
>
>> ABS doesn't cost the 600 dollars that Toyota charges to have it as an
>> option.
>>
>>
>
> Of course it doesn't, there's some markup. But when you add up all the
> parts that's not really out of line. You have three or four speed
> sensors, tone rings, etc plus another computer, a hydraulic control unit
> with several valves, a pump, an accumulator or two, extra plumbing etc.
> etc. etc. plus of course development time on both the hardware and
> software. If you think you can design an ABS system that's significantly
> cheaper but still makes money, send me your resume, I know people who
> would be interested in speaking with you.
>
> Now whether or not the $600 is *worth it* to the customer is another
> question entirely...
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

As Nate points out, there is a mark up (or Toyota doesn't make money..which
is what they're in business to do). Mark up's on options are often 100%.
So the system is probably about $300 or so in actual cost. Add up the
components that make up a ABS system, that sounds reasonable.

Now, I can answer the question if $600 (or even $300) is worth it for the
option! ;-)

Cartlon Shew > wrote:
>
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> > All three require significant extra parts added to the car.
> > ABS the most, cruise control the least. None of them is necessary.
> > I've always driven cars with no ABS, and I have driven cars with no
> > power steering and no cruise control.
>
> cruise control is highly overrated anyway....

How so? I find cruise control to be a boon to long distance travel.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> How so? I find cruise control to be a boon to long distance travel.
>

It's OK to have. I find I tend to become less alert sometimes if I use
it, though, which is disconcerting. I'm still a fairly new driver, though,
but having a feel for the gas and engine RPM's might be keeping my mind from
wandering. I'm also finding there are some small single-lane highways that
are just inappropriate for cruise control, especially ones with anything but
very gradual turns. Letting up on the accelerator a bit on those turns and
not using cruise control produces a bit more confidence, whereas the cruise
control will whip the car around a bit.

I am finding the same thing with an automatic. On a highway, having so
little to do in some ways reduces the attention. Sometimes I wonder how it
would have been if I bought a manual and learned to drive that way, but
OTOH, I got a good deal, and should the need arise, I'll have a car with
good resale value. Either way, I try and drive in such a way that I'm aware
of how fast the engine is going, and since it's a diesel, it tends to keep
the engine revs in a narrow band, at least in economy shifting (with the
sport mode or kickback, it tends to shift higher, going up to 3000-4000
RPM).

> Fool, at highway speeds (even 55MPH) the increased hit to fuel
economy
> from wind resistance from rolled down windows is higher than the
increased
> hit to fuel economy driving with AC.


Nope. MythBusters dedicated part of one episode to disproving this
myth.
http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/ht..._catapult.html

It is more efficient to roll down your windows than use your AC. They
took
identical vehicles, put only 5 gallons of fuel in each, ran them around
a
race track simultaneously at 45 mph one with the windows down and AC
off and
the other with the windows up and AC on, and the vehicle with the AC on
ran
out of fuel first. The vehicle with the windows down ran 15 miles
further.


The Florida Highway Patrol did a study of their own cruisers in real
world conditions (I have no idea where to find the reference, I read it
Years ago- early 90's maybe-) that found the most efficient was windows
up, AC off, which is completely unrealistic in Florida (don't the cops
have a union?). Second best: windows up, AC on. Third: Windows down,
AC off And they even tried the obviously wrong: Windows down, AC on.


Mythbusters drove at 45mph. They should try this test at 60mph (speed
of traffic in 45 zones in my town) or better at 80mph (speed of traffic
on most Interstates). Aerodynamic drag increases greatly at highway
speeds. Try this yourself: install a vacuum gauge (often sold as a
mileage gauge) in your car. Drive at realistic highway speeds in above
conditions. At 45, little or no variation. At 80, a large difference.

snip
The mythbusters test was not valid. A race track is sheltered
from the prevailing wind in many cases. That is due to the stands
and the banks on the corners. A second major factor is traffic.
There was no oncoming traffic such as semi trucks to disturb the
airflow around the cars. Had there been traffic, the car with the
windows down would have had far greater drag. Third, there were
no random objects near the roadway to cause disruption to the
wind patterns, such as buildings and signs near a highway.

Very few people take their car out on a track or deserted highway
like US-50 in Nevada. Most of us drive in the real world.

I agree. I am one of those few (how'd you guess Nevada!?) But I also
consider myself a real world driver....

On 2005-01-30, Bill the second > wrote:



> I'm waiting for a hybrid that burns an renewable fuel (that's
actually
> renewable, not one that takes more energy to refine than it contains)



I'm trying to figure out how you can have such a thing and not violate
the
second law of thermodynamics. Then again, I don't claim to be a chemist
or
physicist.

I thought that seemed odd.
He did ask about renewables. What's the downside of biodiesel?

On 24 Feb 2005 21:22:10 -0800, wrote:

>> Fool, at highway speeds (even 55MPH) the increased hit to fuel
>economy
>> from wind resistance from rolled down windows is higher than the
>increased
>> hit to fuel economy driving with AC.
>
>
>Nope. MythBusters dedicated part of one episode to disproving this
>myth.
>http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/ht..._catapult.html
>
>It is more efficient to roll down your windows than use your AC. They
>took
>identical vehicles, put only 5 gallons of fuel in each, ran them around
>a
>race track simultaneously at 45 mph one with the windows down and AC
>off and
>the other with the windows up and AC on, and the vehicle with the AC on
>ran
>out of fuel first. The vehicle with the windows down ran 15 miles
>further.

I like Mythbusters; we have a season pass for it on our TIVO.
But thinking that their show is a scientific class rather than
entertainment is kind of dumb; it took them four tries to get even
close with their chicken gun.
As for their gas mileage with AC test, 45 mph isn't even in the
running. Going around a race track circle adds more friction losses
than AC does, so it very badly skews any results.
I like them, but they are for entertainment purposes only.

I'm not commenting on the use of AC vs open windows, except to say
that *in my experience*, AC costs less than having the windows down
while we are travelling on Interstates at speeds of 65+. And, having
the windows down at those speeds precludes conversation.
>
>
>The Florida Highway Patrol did a study of their own cruisers in real
>world conditions (I have no idea where to find the reference, I read it
>Years ago- early 90's maybe-) that found the most efficient was windows
>up, AC off, which is completely unrealistic in Florida (don't the cops
>have a union?). Second best: windows up, AC on. Third: Windows down,
>AC off And they even tried the obviously wrong: Windows down, AC on.
>
>
>Mythbusters drove at 45mph. They should try this test at 60mph (speed
>of traffic in 45 zones in my town) or better at 80mph (speed of traffic
>on most Interstates). Aerodynamic drag increases greatly at highway
>speeds. Try this yourself: install a vacuum gauge (often sold as a
>mileage gauge) in your car. Drive at realistic highway speeds in above
>conditions. At 45, little or no variation. At 80, a large difference.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

TV's Magnulus wrote:
> "James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
> news
>> Read this and you may change your mind about how "essential" ABS is:
>> http://www.highwaysafety.com/safety_...antilock.htm#5
>
> Very limited evidence. Subjectively, I like how ABS handles during
heavy
> braking. I never said ABS brakes faster- it doesn't. Every car I've
> driven just about has ABS, it would involve alot of unlearning to go to
> regular brakes.

It's certainly saved my ass several times.

--

Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast -
Meatwad
I'd rather die than give you control - Trent Reznor