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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:17:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:14:42 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >> >>> Only in your mind Chris. Most of it is made up in your head (but I'm >>> sure you still believe it...which is fine). >> >> Amusing, how you try to wiggle out of what you said yourself. > > Only in your head Chris. Someone needs to tell this clown that repeating things doesn't make them true. Just because you hear voices in your head, Reeves, doesn't mean others do. I for one don't. But don't worry too much about your blackouts and memory holes, a very prominent German politician had memory holes too and they helped him out of an indictment. >> If everything, that is stated twice was redundant, 98% of your postings >> would be redundant. > > Well if you would get it the 1st time (without adding stuff that isn't > there)..or even the second, or the third times, then it wouldn't be > necessary, now would it? ;-) It's fun to watch how your stories gradually change whith repetitions. If this was a police interrogation you would already be in jail... Chris |
Ads |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:12:58 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:06:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >> >>> A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a >>> textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and >>> unless future sales numbers show otherwise. >> >> No, it just is a good marketing campaign. It's not uncommon that a good >> marketing campaign boosts sales numbers drastically. > > Of course it is a good campaign...I've agreed with that premise from the > start. No, you keep calling it an anomaly, which is _not_ the same thing as a good marketing campaign. > Something typically causes a anomoly to occur (which can include a > marketing campaign. Nevertheless, it's still a anamoly by definition Not > sure why you're arguing a point that can't be any clearer. Unless you can prove that the sales numbers are going to go back to the pre-campaign numbers you cannot call it an anomaly. >> You were complaining about GM's campaign and success. That clearly shows >> that you think they are at fault. Which is not surprising, because your >> pretty theory that people don't buy GM because of DRLs was blasted out >> the window by this very campaign. > > How was a statement of praise that indicated a ingenious marketing move, > compared to the other sales numbers of the year, even come close to > qualifying as a complaint? Exactly what are you reading here in this > forum? I am reading what you write, unlike you who only reads the first three to four words in every sentence. >> Of course DRLs have to do with this. You claimed that people are not >> buying GM because of DRLs any more. > > No, I claimed that a certain segment of the market won't buy GM because > of DRL's. The debate can only be what percentage that segment of the > market is. Is it 1%, 2%, 10%....who knows? Less than 1%. I have never heard anyone (except for you and Nate) claim that they base their buying decision on DRLs. Usually price, performance, interior space, equipment and such are named as influences on a buying decision. >> As preposterous as the claim is for a company that has almost 30% of >> the car market in the US, it was proven even more wrong when without >> removal the sales numbers shot up just because people were freed from >> the haggle/hassle issues. > > Surely you can understand the simple concept that if 1% of the market > won't buy DRL equipped vehicles, then the market share mumber would be > 31% if DRLs weren't forced on them (given your market share number of > 30% with DRLs and assuming that 1 out 100 people won't buy for that > reason). If it's 10 of that market, then market share would have been > 40%. What nonsense. The handful of people, who hate DRLs so much that they seriously base their buying decision on them are not even close to 1%. No one in their right mind would put the existence or non-existence of DRLs above price, performance, ride, interior space and all the factors normally influencing a buying decision. >> Face it, no one cares about DRLs enough to make a buying decision >> because of them or the lack of them (except you of course, but that you >> are not very good at selecting criteria for buying cars is nothing >> new). > > And you apparently choose to ignoring those thousands of people that > have stated the same in the public comment dockets at the NHTSA, and > those that have stated same in numerious forums, newsgroups, etc. Why? > Those are real people that buy cars. Most of them on the NHTSA site > state that they are current GM owners that won't buy another GM for that > reason. Of course that may be why GM is pushing so hard, for the past > 10+ years, to make DRLs mandatory. Doing so would remove the marketing > disadvantage GM has if buyers couldn't go elsewhere to avoid them. But > that is speculation on my part...but sure does smell fishy. > >> Plus DRLs improve visibility > > If you had read the report, you would know that it increases > conspicuity, not visability. Unless DRLs also wash your windows and > clean your glasses too! ;-) Webster: Visibility: the quality or state of being visible This has nothing to do with whether you have cleaned your windows, but whether you are visible to others. Thus DRLs increase visibility. >> and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted a reference to. > > And you've yet to answer my earlier question that if this was so cut and > dried (no down sides to DRLs to work through yet), why didn't the NHTSA > make them mandatory 10 years ago? Because the NHTSA cannot make anything mandatory. >> IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM is out the >> window. > > Curious question. How do you "explain-away" those comments posted at > the NHTSA if some percentage of the public doesn't hate them? You won't believe it but for everything that is done or sold in the US there is a handful of nutcases who protests against it. These nutcases usually are very vocal, i.e. they try to force their opinion on everyone everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of complaints about DRLs at the NHTSA site already represents the majority of all DRL haters in the US. > Also check the wording of your sentence. I've clearly stated (a half > dozen times now, at least), that this applies to a *segment* of the > market...not generally to "people" It doesn't apply to a 'segment' of the market (which would be a statistically relevant number of people) but to a handful of fanatics. Chris |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:12:58 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:06:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >>> >>>> A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a >>>> textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and >>>> unless future sales numbers show otherwise. >>> >>> No, it just is a good marketing campaign. It's not uncommon that a good >>> marketing campaign boosts sales numbers drastically. >> >> Of course it is a good campaign...I've agreed with that premise from the >> start. > > No, you keep calling it an anomaly, which is _not_ the same thing as a > good marketing campaign. You're right..they ARE two different things. The anamoly refers to the sales number itself that was outside of forcast/expectation (the pure definition of a anamoly). The good sales campaign being the catalyst the caused said anamoly. Surely you understand that the sales numbers ARE a statistical anamoly. Look up the meaning. The anamoly is the result (obviously) of a good (no actually great) sales campaign. There is nothing inherently negative about a anamoly (not sure why you think there is something negative about it). In fact in this case, it's a very good anamoly (a upside anamoly vs. a downside anamoly). It's all good...honest. Not sure how many times I have to say it before you hear it. >> Something typically causes a anomoly to occur (which can include a >> marketing campaign. Nevertheless, it's still a anamoly by definition >> Not >> sure why you're arguing a point that can't be any clearer. > > Unless you can prove that the sales numbers are going to go back to the > pre-campaign numbers you cannot call it an anomaly. Having trouble with space and time I see. If future sales figures reinforce the trend, then it will no longer be a anamoly. However, at this point in time, it is a anamoly. It is yet to be seen if it remains a anamoly. One can only define a anamoly that exists at this moment in time. Having said that, let us hope it turns out not to be a anamoly as time progresses...we have to wait and see. >>> You were complaining about GM's campaign and success. That clearly shows >>> that you think they are at fault. Which is not surprising, because your >>> pretty theory that people don't buy GM because of DRLs was blasted out >>> the window by this very campaign. >> >> How was a statement of praise that indicated a ingenious marketing move, >> compared to the other sales numbers of the year, even come close to >> qualifying as a complaint? Exactly what are you reading here in this >> forum? > > I am reading what you write, unlike you who only reads the first three to > four words in every sentence. Better then reading (into) stuff that isn't there at all. >>> Of course DRLs have to do with this. You claimed that people are not >>> buying GM because of DRLs any more. >> >> No, I claimed that a certain segment of the market won't buy GM because >> of DRL's. The debate can only be what percentage that segment of the >> market is. Is it 1%, 2%, 10%....who knows? > > Less than 1%. I have never heard anyone (except for you and Nate) claim > that they base their buying decision on DRLs. Usually price, performance, > interior space, equipment and such are named as influences on a buying > decision. Then you haven't read much...it's all out there. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it so. Interesting that somehow you come up with a figure of under 1%. Now, that could very well be correct. But in reality no one knows what the impact is (not even you). Curious, how do you come to such conclusions when people that study many of these things and have more information on it than you do haven't yet come to? >>> As preposterous as the claim is for a company that has almost 30% of >>> the car market in the US, it was proven even more wrong when without >>> removal the sales numbers shot up just because people were freed from >>> the haggle/hassle issues. >> >> Surely you can understand the simple concept that if 1% of the market >> won't buy DRL equipped vehicles, then the market share mumber would be >> 31% if DRLs weren't forced on them (given your market share number of >> 30% with DRLs and assuming that 1 out 100 people won't buy for that >> reason). If it's 10 of that market, then market share would have been >> 40%. > > What nonsense. The handful of people, who hate DRLs so much that they > seriously base their buying decision on them are not even close to 1%. No > one in their right mind would put the existence or non-existence of DRLs > above price, performance, ride, interior space and all the factors > normally influencing a buying decision. And how do you come to that conclusion? People place all types of odd factors into buying desisions. Some won't buy a car if it has a certain brand of tire on it...that's why the dealer will often often change them out to make the sale. Some won't buy unless the dealer throws in floor mats, or a bottle of touch-up paint, or a extra key or two, or a full size spare tire, etc. etc. etc. Dealers will accommodate all of that (well, actually floor mats come standard these days, but didn't used to). The dynamics are much broader than what you have stated..and can often contain the smallest silliest things sometimes. I had a neighbor that used to live next door to me that sold Nissans. I could tell you some stories of some odd and amazing things he and the dealer would do to make the sale. >>> Face it, no one cares about DRLs enough to make a buying decision >>> because of them or the lack of them (except you of course, but that you >>> are not very good at selecting criteria for buying cars is nothing >>> new). >> >> And you apparently choose to ignoring those thousands of people that >> have stated the same in the public comment dockets at the NHTSA, and >> those that have stated same in numerious forums, newsgroups, etc. Why? >> Those are real people that buy cars. Most of them on the NHTSA site >> state that they are current GM owners that won't buy another GM for that >> reason. Of course that may be why GM is pushing so hard, for the past >> 10+ years, to make DRLs mandatory. Doing so would remove the marketing >> disadvantage GM has if buyers couldn't go elsewhere to avoid them. But >> that is speculation on my part...but sure does smell fishy. >> >>> Plus DRLs improve visibility >> >> If you had read the report, you would know that it increases >> conspicuity, not visability. Unless DRLs also wash your windows and >> clean your glasses too! ;-) > > Webster: > Visibility: the quality or state of being visible Which needs clean windows...no? ;-) It was a joke. > This has nothing to do with whether you have cleaned your windows, but > whether you are visible to others. >Thus DRLs increase visibility. Like I said (and will again and will probably need to 4-5 more times), you didn't read the reports. The term primarily used is the word "conspicuity" when discussing the benefits of DRLs. Most of the subject matter experts seem to agree that a object is either visable or it is is not. There isn't a "in-between" state to "visability". A object *can't* be "slightly visable". In other words, for a object to be "slightly visable" is to be visable (since it is being seen). So they use the term "conspicuity" (as in the DRLs make a vehicle more "conspicous", not more "visable"). It's all in there. Keep reading, you'll find it. >>> and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted a reference to. >> >> And you've yet to answer my earlier question that if this was so cut and >> dried (no down sides to DRLs to work through yet), why didn't the NHTSA >> make them mandatory 10 years ago? > > Because the NHTSA cannot make anything mandatory. You are incorrect. They are chartered with the "rulemaking" in these matters. If you read more, you might find out that they're working on research to resolve (or improve upon) the negative issues side to DRLs. They will likely be mandated at some point, but the final implementation standard will likely be very different comared to today. It will probably be closer to the 1988 Canadian standard when all is said and done. >>> IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM is out the >>> window. >> >> Curious question. How do you "explain-away" those comments posted at >> the NHTSA if some percentage of the public doesn't hate them? > > You won't believe it but for everything that is done or sold in the US > there is a handful of nutcases who protests against it. I believe it. > These nutcases > usually are very vocal, i.e. they try to force their opinion on everyone > everywhere. Are there anti-DRL rallys is 60 cities across the US. I had no idea the movement was so large! > I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of complaints about > DRLs at the NHTSA site already represents the majority of all DRL haters > in the US. I knew you would have a explanation. But that is actually a possibility. Hard to know if it is true though. It's amazing that every one of them know about the NHTSA. They must be organized quite well. ;-) >> Also check the wording of your sentence. I've clearly stated (a half >> dozen times now, at least), that this applies to a *segment* of the >> market...not generally to "people" > > It doesn't apply to a 'segment' of the market (which would be a > statistically relevant number of people) but to a handful of fanatics. And you know that, how? Oh, that's right...just like how you know everything else that experts on certain subjects haven't figured out yet. |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:17:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:14:42 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >>> >>>> Only in your mind Chris. Most of it is made up in your head (but I'm >>>> sure you still believe it...which is fine). >>> >>> Amusing, how you try to wiggle out of what you said yourself. >> >> Only in your head Chris. > > Someone needs to tell this clown that repeating things doesn't make them > true. It does when it's about what I said...your intrepretations being skewed based on your incorrect assumptions about "motovations", "hidden agendas", etc. The problem is that when someone attempts to correct your incorrect assumptions about them (their motovations, agendas, etc.), you won't make the correction...you just keep coming back with the same incorrect assumptions time and time again. > Just because you hear voices in your head, Reeves, doesn't mean others do. Then where does the stuff come from that you say people say (or mean) when they know they didn't say (or mean) it. In fact when you read what they said...and then you respond as if they said something else completely. > I for one don't. But don't worry too much about your blackouts and memory > holes, a very prominent German politician had memory holes too and they > helped him out of an indictment. >>> If everything, that is stated twice was redundant, 98% of your postings >>> would be redundant. >> >> Well if you would get it the 1st time (without adding stuff that isn't >> there)..or even the second, or the third times, then it wouldn't be >> necessary, now would it? ;-) > > It's fun to watch how your stories gradually change whith repetitions. If > this was a police interrogation you would already be in jail... > Under what statute? Was a law broken? ;-) I guarantee, if you read this post, it will be consistent with the first post. It's just full of corrections to your incorrect assumptions you bring to it. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:05:06 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:12:58 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >> >>> Of course it is a good campaign...I've agreed with that premise from >>> the start. >> >> No, you keep calling it an anomaly, which is _not_ the same thing as a >> good marketing campaign. > > You're right..they ARE two different things. The anamoly refers to the > sales number itself that was outside of forcast/expectation (the pure > definition of a anamoly). The good sales campaign being the catalyst the > caused said anamoly. Anomaly means in this case, that the sales numbers are low, then they suddenly soar _and_afterwards_they_drop_back_to_pre_campaign_lev els. As yuo have no idea whether they will, this is not an anomaly until you can prove that they will drop back to pre campaign levels (which you can't). >> Unless you can prove that the sales numbers are going to go back to the >> pre-campaign numbers you cannot call it an anomaly. > > Having trouble with space and time I see. If future sales figures > reinforce the trend, then it will no longer be a anamoly. On the contrary, right now we just have a shift in sales numbers. It will become an anomaly if the numbers drop back down afterwards. >>> How was a statement of praise that indicated a ingenious marketing >>> move, compared to the other sales numbers of the year, even come close >>> to qualifying as a complaint? Exactly what are you reading here in >>> this forum? >> >> I am reading what you write, unlike you who only reads the first three >> to four words in every sentence. > > Better then reading (into) stuff that isn't there at all. And that from the undisputed master of the free invention. Hilarious. >> Less than 1%. I have never heard anyone (except for you and Nate) claim >> that they base their buying decision on DRLs. Usually price, >> performance, interior space, equipment and such are named as influences >> on a buying decision. > > Then you haven't read much...it's all out there. What? A dozen negative comments? TWO dozen? Oh the horror, the horror, GM is going broke because two dozen people wont buy their cars. > Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it so. Interesting > that somehow you come up with a figure of under 1%. Now, that could > very well be correct. But in reality no one knows what the impact is > (not even you). I have quite a good idea of what makes people buy cars or not buy cars, having been a car guy for many years. You on the other hand are about as much car guy as any daddy with a ratty minivan is, namely not at all. I talk to people about cars, I ask them why they bought the cars they have and if they express displeasure about a model I ask them why they dislike it. And explain to me why none of the several hundred people I have asked so far even mentioned DRLs. If even your one percent would be true, at least one or two out of the sample should have said something. > Curious, how do you come to such conclusions when people that study > many of these things and have more information on it than you do haven't > yet come to? Since when do you know people, who study many of these things? You don't even study cars and car buyers hard enough to know that your ratty Chryslers are not the pinnacle of automotive engineering. >> What nonsense. The handful of people, who hate DRLs so much that they >> seriously base their buying decision on them are not even close to 1%. >> No one in their right mind would put the existence or non-existence of >> DRLs above price, performance, ride, interior space and all the factors >> normally influencing a buying decision. > > And how do you come to that conclusion? People place all types of odd > factors into buying desisions. Some won't buy a car if it has a certain > brand of tire on it... Funny, I never had one mention that either. I know of a handful who had tires changed on a new car, but none who wouldn't buy a car because of the tires on it. By the way, DRLs may be neutral in regards to safety though the fact point to a positive impact. Having bad tires on a car though has a _very_ pronounced negative effect on safety. It's about like comparing a car with a slightly hard seat cushion to a car with a foot long spike sticking out of the steering wheel and no seat belts. [rest of the nonsense snipped. > I had a neighbor that used to live next door to me that sold Nissans. I > could tell you some stories of some odd and amazing things he and the > dealer would do to make the sale. >>> If you had read the report, you would know that it increases >>> conspicuity, not visability. Unless DRLs also wash your windows and >>> clean your glasses too! ;-) >> >> Webster: >> Visibility: the quality or state of being visible > > Which needs clean windows...no? ;-) It was a joke. Being visible doesn't need clean windows at all. Cars with dirty windows are just as visible as cars with clean windows. And if you don't have anything useful to contribute, don't. >> This has nothing to do with whether you have cleaned your windows, but >> whether you are visible to others. >>Thus DRLs increase visibility. > > Like I said (and will again and will probably need to 4-5 more times), > you didn't read the reports. The term primarily used is the word > "conspicuity" when discussing the benefits of DRLs. Most of the subject > matter experts seem to agree that a object is either visable or it is is > not. There isn't a "in-between" state to "visability". Unlike you I have quite some experience with visibility. Flying enhances your understanding of the subject greatly because you cannot rely on an object just coming along a street towards you. The object could be slightly above you, below you, coming from left or right at any time. It may be a bit above the horizon and you would have to be able to see it against the sky. It might be below the horizon and very hard to see against a greyish-green speckled background. That's why most aircraft have had the equivalent to DRLs (a beacon or a strobe) for many years. No one is talking about conspicuity there, just about visibility. And there is a condition between visibility and invisibility, which is that the object blends into the background so you can see it if you know it is there and where exactly it is. That is often the case with aircraft, which for any reason do not have a strobe or beacon. And the strobe or beacon often elevates the other aircraft from 'hidden' (for lack of a better word) to 'visible'. > A object *can't* be "slightly visable". Oh yes, it can. > In other words, for a object to be "slightly visable" is to be visable > (since it is being seen). So they use the term "conspicuity" (as in the > DRLs make a vehicle more "conspicous", not more "visable"). It's all in > there. Keep reading, you'll find it. I don't have to read to know that you are trying to bull**** me again. The question is just - are you really as clueless as you portray yourself or are you just playing? >>> And you've yet to answer my earlier question that if this was so cut >>> and dried (no down sides to DRLs to work through yet), why didn't the >>> NHTSA make them mandatory 10 years ago? >> >> Because the NHTSA cannot make anything mandatory. > > You are incorrect. They are chartered with the "rulemaking" in these > matters. They can make suggestions but they cannot make laws. If you claim otherwise you are wrong. >> These nutcases usually are very vocal, i.e. they try to force their >> opinion on everyone everywhere. > > Are there anti-DRL rallys is 60 cities across the US. I had no idea the > movement was so large! It isn't, that's why there are no rallies. The movement isn't even big enough for a single rally. >> I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of complaints about DRLs at the >> NHTSA site already represents the majority of all DRL haters in the US. > > I knew you would have a explanation. But that is actually a > possibility. Hard to know if it is true though. It's amazing that every > one of them know about the NHTSA. They must be organized quite well. > ;-) Nutcases usually know quite well where to go to make an impression on weak minds... Chris |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:13:43 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> Someone needs to tell this clown that repeating things doesn't make >> them true. > > It does when it's about what I said...your intrepretations being skewed > based on your incorrect assumptions about "motovations", "hidden > agendas", etc. If you care to actually read my postings and then doublecheck them against what you have disclosed about yourself you will find I don't interpret much, much to your dismay of course. [rest of the whining snipped] Chris |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote: > > > > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:33:33 -0700, N8N wrote: > >> > >> > Because you're acting like a dumbass. If the foo ****s... > >> > >> No, I merely am stating my view, and you merely happen not to like it. > > > > Because it doesn't make sense. > > You just claim it doesn't and don't even back your claim up. But even if > it didn't it would merely be a wrong view and no justification at all for > childish namecalling. I've had this discussion with so many people and so many times, and the factsw are out there, if you actually cared about the subject you'd have educated yourself on it by now instead of merely trying to "win" an argument. > > >> And > >> instead of just stating your view like a grown-up person you think that > >> calling your opponent names is going to make you look better. > >> Fortunately that's not true, so I suggest you go find your manners and > >> return when you are prepared to behave like an adult. > > > > Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will start > > relating to you like an adult. > > I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number of > names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are calling > me just because you happen not to like my opinion. Your "opinion" happens to be wrong, when it comes to ABS. > > >> > Wrong, wrong, wrong. I really hate to have to play the > >> > "qualifications" card, but I used to work with this stuff every day > >> > and I think I have a little better understanding of how it works than > >> > you do. > >> > >> Obviously not or you would already have explained it. Given your boorish > >> behavior and your incapability of 'setting things straight' (spare me > >> the 'you won't believe me anyway' lament) it is highly unlikely that you > >> have anything useful to contribute. > >> > >> Go ahead, prove me wrong - by explaining your view of things, not by > >> dipping into your endless supply of insults. > >> > > I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the ABS > > enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test surfaces - > > isn't good enough for you? Too bad. > > It might be good enough, but your mere claim that you have said experience > is not. Also, even if you had the experience I would still want to see an > explanation, why this is so, which - if you actually were a test engineer > at an auto manufacturer - you would have a good explanation for. It's real easy. When you brake on a split mu surface the high mu side will tend to make the vehicle rotate in that direction. Rather than force the driver to use steering input to correct, the ABS will dump pressure on the high mu side to the point that braking is effectively limited to little more than that offered by the low mu surface. Whereas without ABS, if the low mu side is ice or wet, smooth concrete there's really no problem just letting the low mu wheels lock and using lots of steering input to keep the vehicle pointed in the direction you want to go. Doesn't require a whole lot of skill, just reflexes fast enough to turn the steering wheel in the correct manner. > > As things are you claim you are an 'insider' like any number of usenet > denizens and are unable to back it up. > I really am not sure how far my NDA goes. I imagine it's expired by now, but I don't really know. I don't claim to be an "expert" - as I really only spent about six months working directly with ABS systems. But I do have experience that most people don't have, and lots more behind-the-wheel experience actually USING it than 95% of the public. (well, I hope. It would scare me to discover that a significant amount of people use their ABS every day...) > Now go ahead and corroborate your claim. Models of the cars, what > happened, explanation. Can't wait... > > Chris See above. Seen this behavior first in Dodge vans back when I was driving shuttle vans to get through college, would have been about 1993-1994 or so. All the drivers experienced what felt like near total brake failure when stopping on patchy ice, and lobbied the powers that be to not order ABS on any new vans as we felt it was unsafe. (The powers that be refused; stating that were an incident to occur, in a lawsuit the absence of ABS would likely be brought up as "evidence" of the school's lack of concern about safety; even if in fact all drivers felt safer and more comfortable without it. This was my introduction to politics and how it can make you do things you don't want to do...) Experience was corroborated when I spent about six months working in ABS development for a major supplier a couple years ago. Things were much improved by then, don't get me wrong, but decisions were made, both customer driven and NHTSA driven, that sacrificed ultimate stopping distance for "idiot-proof" stability, thus making it easy for someone who actually had experience driving in low-traction conditions to "beat" the ABS. This held true for just about every American truck-based vehicle platform as of 4-5 years ago. Didn't have much experience with cars, but they tended to be intrinsically more stable due to better suspension geometry, so they were able to be tuned a little more aggressively. See, I didn't even bring up gravel or loose snow... (that's what you were expecting me to say, wasn't it?) nate |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote:
> On the contrary, right now we just have a shift in sales numbers. It will > become an anomaly if the numbers drop back down afterwards. Of course they will. Is there any doubt that GM will continue to lose market share? > it. And explain to me why none of the several hundred people I have asked > so far even mentioned DRLs. Duh. Most owners of DRL equipped cars are too dumb to switch on their regular ligths in low visibility conditions. Why? Because they think DRLs make them visible. >>>Webster: >>>Visibility: the quality or state of being visible Of *what* being visible? The road ahead can be visible or not (ie poor 'visibility'). |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote:
> The GTO has exactly nothing to do with a Grand Prix. Different Chassis, > different engine, not even the same ballpark performance wise. You are > comparing a family sedan with a performance coupe - not gonna work. Regardless, spending over 33K on a freaking Pontiac is insane. I rarely see one on the road. No wonder. The V8 Mustang is cheaper and looks much better, and the Dodge Charger is likely a better car. Look for the GTO to be discontinued pretty soon. Another GM success story. |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:04:45 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> C.H. wrote: > >> The GTO has exactly nothing to do with a Grand Prix. Different Chassis, >> different engine, not even the same ballpark performance wise. You are >> comparing a family sedan with a performance coupe - not gonna work. > > Regardless, spending over 33K on a freaking Pontiac is insane. Not any more insane than spending over 33k for a freaking Lexus. > I rarely see one on the road. No wonder. I see a few every day. Maybe you just live in the wrong area. > The V8 Mustang is cheaper and looks much better, and the Dodge Charger > is likely a better car. The GTO is a car for performance enthusiasts, not 'ooooh, pretty!' guys like you. With comparable equipment it is less than $4000 cheaper than the GTO is, but at the same time you get a lackluster 4.6l modular motor with 300hp instead of the 400hp LS6, I will admit that the styling is a bit bland, but for every serious car guy the performance more than makes up for that and the current version with the more powerful engine sells like hotcakes. And I sincerely hope that your comparison a freaking sedan without available stick shift, 300 lbs heavier and with 60hp less to the GTO was meant as a joke. If not you really are as clueproof as you seem. > Look for the GTO to be discontinued pretty soon. Another GM success > story. GM is selling GTOs as fast as they get them from Australia. I call that a success and the GTO is not going away, much as you might want it to. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option | ls_dot1 | Chrysler | 11 | May 26th 05 01:49 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |