The dangers of DRLs

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

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').

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.

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