Beware of high tech running amok

On Feb 28, 5:00*pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> No. I enjoy you adding the very noise you complain about.
> > So, you *are* an asshole on purpose. *Not merely reflecting other
> > posters, but actually willfully being an asshole.
>
> How is enjoying your noisy posts make me a willful asshole? You're at
> liberty to deny me the entertainment any time you wish.
>
> > Glad to see, after all this time, that you admit it.
> > I'll have to save this thread. *It'll come in handy.
>
> Too bad you can't read it. I enjoy (seeing) *YOU* adding the the noise you
> complain about. Can't control yourself, Ed? lol.
>
> You post what you complain about and that makes me the asshole? lol.... I
> made you do it? lol.....

On Feb 28, 11:41*pm, Roger Blake > wrote:
> In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > Yeah, but you could service them yourself with a file and a pair of
> > needle-nose pliers.
>
> It is possible to have the best of both worlds, at least to an extant. One
> of my vehicles has a transistorized ignition system that is triggered by
> a set of points. They only carry a few milliamps so contact wear is minimal,
> but if the electronic circuitry fails you can switch over to points-only mode
> in a few seconds.
>

yes, I believe Prestolite had such a system in the late '60s. I know
it was optional on some Studebakers and I presume other cars as well.
I'm not sure how well it actually worked, because the failing of the
Prestolite distributors was not the points but excessive wear in the
advance mechanism.

nate

On Feb 25, 4:59*pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
> Beware of high tech running amok
>
> Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>
> Frank Aukofer
> Automotive News
> February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
>

I can't believe that people in general and people that are most
involved with cars, i.e. car nuts, shade tree mechanics and hot
rodders, don't see what is coming. The writing is on the wall. We will
not drive our cars in the future. You will get in and the car will
take you to a programmed destination, automatically. Only one of the
things that need to be so that the machines, i.e. computers, can
control the world.

Disston

On Feb 29, 11:17*am, disston > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:59*pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
>
> > Beware of high tech running amok
>
> > Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>
> > Frank Aukofer
> > Automotive News
> > February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
>
> I can't believe that people in general and people that are most
> involved with cars, i.e. car nuts, shade tree mechanics and hot
> rodders, don't see what is coming. The writing is on the wall. We will
> not drive our cars in the future. You will get in and the car will
> take you to a programmed destination, automatically. Only one of the
> things that need to be so that the machines, i.e. computers, can
> control the world.
>
> Disston

Why do you think we're keeping all our old hot rods? Of course we see
it coming, and we don't like it. If I had any faith that cars would
become more interesting and more desirable in the future, I'd simply
save my money instead.

nate

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>OT crap like the 11 year old ford PATS system has been defeated by some car
>theives.... Yeah. black helicopter nonsense that is, car theives have
>been able to defeat a decade old anti-theft system.

There are several revisions of PATS. I've heard the original with the
separate PATS module has been defeated, by injecting an appropriate
signal (60Hz is what I recall) in between the module and the engine
computer. I haven't heard anything about the later ones (which are
integrated into the engine computer), but then, I haven't been paying
attention either.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
disston > wrote:
>On Feb 25, 4:59=A0pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
>> Beware of high tech running amok
>>
>> Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>>
>> Frank Aukofer
>> Automotive News
>> February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
>>
>
>I can't believe that people in general and people that are most
>involved with cars, i.e. car nuts, shade tree mechanics and hot
>rodders, don't see what is coming. The writing is on the wall. We will
>not drive our cars in the future. You will get in and the car will
>take you to a programmed destination, automatically. Only one of the
>things that need to be so that the machines, i.e. computers, can
>control the world.

I for one welcome our new machine overlords. Provided they're all
Summer Glau look-alikes, anyway.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Feb 27, 10:38*pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Fine information but I think you are missing the point.
>
> I thought you were equating the author of the commentary to Henry Ford. By
> the tone of your comment it seemed *you were implying that Henry Ford was
> unwilling to change with the times and you used the Model T as an example of
> his intransigence. I was pointing out that the Model T was not as static as
> you seemed to indicate (or urban lore would suggest). Further more Henry
> Ford was not adverse to innovation, but clearly he did have very firm ideas
> of what he thought was important and had a definite stubborn streak. He
> certainly continued building the Model T past its useful life. However, once
> he realized the Model T was truly obsolete he moved with surprising speed to
> introduce the Model A. When that became dated, he introduced mass produced
> V-8s. He did things his way. They might not have always worked out, but I
> don't think it is fair to say he was a stick in the mud or adverse to
> innovations. He (or at least his company) was responsible for implementing
> many manufacturing innovations. He was always interested in new processes
> and materials. Henry Fords chief goal for the Model T was to make it as
> cheaply as possible. Most innovations connected to the Model T were related
> to reducing costs, not increasing function (although there were many
> functional improvements over the 19 years it was produced).
>
> So if your point was that the author of the commentary was opposed to
> innovation "like Henry Ford," then I think your point is invalid since I
> don't think Henry Ford was opposed to innovations.
>
> Ed

Henry Ford was hardly the epitome of innovation. It was only after
sales of the seriously outdated Model T tanked that he moved toward a
somewhat updated model.

"N8N" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:

> Actually, he kind of was. There's a reason that Ford was one of the
> last mfgrs. to introduce hydraulic brakes, and his name was Henry.

Certainly true. But again, this doesn't mean he was adverse to all forms of
innovation, just that he had certain preferences. Early hydraulic brakes
were problematic and Ford considered mechanical brakes a more reliable and
safer alternative, so much so that the final designs were far more expensive
than hydraulic systems. [As a side note, at least for farm tractors, I still
like mechanical brakes. My 27 year old tractor with mechanical brakes has
never had an actuator problem. My 17 year old tractor with hydraulic brakes
had had to have the actuating cylinder seals replaced twice.] Another
example of Ford's stubbornness was his aversion to 6 cylinder engines.
Although early in the history of Ford, the company built a car with an
in-line 6 (Model K), Henry didn't like the design. So when it was clear he
needed an engine with more cylinder to compete, he came up with a cost
effective V-8. Of course H. Ford did not "invent" the V-8, but I think it is
reasonable to say he made it cost effective and popular.

Just because he was intransigent in some areas, does not mean he was a
"stick in the mud." I would agree that in later years, H. Ford was change
adverse and his stubbornness did damage to company. However, taken as a
whole, Ford's "life's work" included many innovations and he certainly did
much to contribute to the growth of the automobile industry.

What designer / engineer doesn't have some biases that affect there
decisions?

Ed

"John S." > wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:

> Henry Ford was hardly the epitome of innovation. It was only after
> sales of the seriously outdated Model T tanked that he moved toward a
> somewhat updated model.

Perhaps, but he was hardly a stick in the mud either. Over the course of his
career he adopted many innovations. With the Model T his prime motivation
was low cost. He single mindedly adopted changes design to reduced the cost
of the Model T. When "low cost" was no longer the major selling point it had
been, he reluctantly moved on. When introduced the Model A was state of the
art for the low cost segment, cost effective, and very popular.

It is my opinion that Henry Ford is a poor example of a "stick in the mud"
or someone who is against technological innovation. If you want to say he
was stubborn, held on to unpopular opinions, or made bad product decision,
then I'd agree. But he also adopted many innovations and was an agent of
change.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
>
>> Actually, he kind of was. There's a reason that Ford was one of the
>> last mfgrs. to introduce hydraulic brakes, and his name was Henry.
>
> Certainly true. But again, this doesn't mean he was adverse to all forms of
> innovation, just that he had certain preferences.


Many of which were patently irrational, though. Like his feral hatred of
six-cylinder engines.

>
> Just because he was intransigent in some areas, does not mean he was a
> "stick in the mud."

But highly eccentric, and as I said above, not always rational in his
intransigence.

>
> What designer / engineer doesn't have some biases that affect there
> decisions?

All do. Some are just more arbitrary than others.