A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Jeep Grand Chicory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 13th 04, 11:21 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".


And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.

>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?


My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.

> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?


Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
Ads
  #32  
Old October 14th 04, 01:12 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?

>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.


Halfassedly.

"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.

"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...

  #33  
Old October 14th 04, 01:12 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?

>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.


Halfassedly.

"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.

"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...

  #34  
Old October 14th 04, 11:16 AM
John Welch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lon > wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!

Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...

But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.
  #35  
Old October 14th 04, 11:16 AM
John Welch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lon > wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!

Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...

But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.
  #36  
Old October 14th 04, 04:24 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?

>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.

>
>
> Halfassedly.
>
> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>
> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
> light.Half the problem solved.


And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)
  #37  
Old October 14th 04, 04:24 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?

>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.

>
>
> Halfassedly.
>
> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>
> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
> light.Half the problem solved.


And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)
  #38  
Old October 15th 04, 01:57 PM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal
>>>>functions
>>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and
>>>>if
>>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>>>
>>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem
>>>solved.

>>
>>
>> Halfassedly.
>>
>> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>>
>> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
>> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
>> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
>> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your
>> brake
>> light.Half the problem solved.

>
> And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake? Either
> one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot point,
> especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
> simultaneously visible 99% of the time.
>
> OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
> vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
> Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
> to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for another,
> and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't particularly
> dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing to a near-stop
> (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
> systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50 years, and I
> think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically different number of
> collisions based on the color of the rear turn signals, except for the
> "duelling reds" design you mentioned before. (That's your open invitation
> to prove me wrong.) :-)


International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates that
amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If the USA
followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having to guess
if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle, it would
unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn or if both
are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked. Instead, the
USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.

Has anyone done a study to show that our assumptions about amber being safer
is valid?

Richard.


  #39  
Old October 15th 04, 01:57 PM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal
>>>>functions
>>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and
>>>>if
>>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>>>
>>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem
>>>solved.

>>
>>
>> Halfassedly.
>>
>> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>>
>> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
>> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
>> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
>> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your
>> brake
>> light.Half the problem solved.

>
> And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake? Either
> one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot point,
> especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
> simultaneously visible 99% of the time.
>
> OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
> vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
> Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
> to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for another,
> and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't particularly
> dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing to a near-stop
> (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
> systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50 years, and I
> think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically different number of
> collisions based on the color of the rear turn signals, except for the
> "duelling reds" design you mentioned before. (That's your open invitation
> to prove me wrong.) :-)


International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates that
amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If the USA
followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having to guess
if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle, it would
unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn or if both
are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked. Instead, the
USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.

Has anyone done a study to show that our assumptions about amber being safer
is valid?

Richard.


  #40  
Old October 15th 04, 06:55 PM
Dori A Schmetterling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Front fogs are white, rear fogs are red (in an offset position) and amber is
for turning -- Europe.

There used to be yellow fog lights but very different to amber.

France used to have yellow headlights.

All standardised.

The only thing that isn't is whether headlights should be on during
daylight.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
...
[.....]
>
> International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates
> that amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If
> the USA followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having
> to guess if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle,
> it would unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn
> or if both are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked.
> Instead, the USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.

..........


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
400 Engine Swap in Jeep [email protected] 4x4 10 November 6th 04 09:19 PM
Places I've been in my Jeep Jeff Alu 4x4 0 June 3rd 04 07:37 PM
Photos from my Jeep! Jeff Alu 4x4 2 February 28th 04 02:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.