The dangers of DRLs

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:40:36 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
> >
> > "C.H." > wrote in message
> > news
>
> >> Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even
> >> looked at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up
> >> point.
> >
> > So not only did they manage to drive, they were apparently expert at
> > handling these leviathans on stone tires!
>
> No, they just had to contend with much less traffic. Plus the number of
> fatalities per driven mile was indeed significantly higher.
>
> >> Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
> >> women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the
> >> 50s and early 60s.
> >
> > Yet, somehow, they did not crash headlong into every obsticle that
> > presented itself.
>
> They had to drive much slower than we are used to. Also the traffic volume
> simply was much lower.
>
> > Even with standard, non power brakes.
> >
> > It must not be that hard, huh?
>
> Would be fun to see you drive one of these 50s bias ply tire cars as a
> daily driver in today's traffic. Wanna bet that you would change your
> opinion?
>

It's certainly possible if you exercise a bit of care and look ahead
(like you're supposed to.) The only difference will be that on the old
bias plys you will be operating closer to their traction limits than
you would be on modern radials. Also the bias plys give you a lot more
warning (squealing, gentle slip) before they let go completely, they
have a much more progressive breakaway than radials.

That said, I wouldn't *choose* to run bias plys, as it's undeniable
that radials are overall better and safer, but as someone who's logged
more miles on them than most people my age (driving old show cars) I
can say they're certainly acceptable. If they weren't they would have
been outlawed!

nate

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> > CH wrote:
>
> >> Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten
> >> foot pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate:
> >> 'Oh, I don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get
> >> a car with both because its a financial advantage for me.'
> >
> > You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas -
> > when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
> > difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>
> If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
> postulate, you would.
>

I think they are both safety hazards, as I've repeatedly stated in this
group before. It must be nice to be independently wealthy to the point
that one could do as you suggest.

nate

N8N wrote:
>
> C.H. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>>
>>>CH wrote:
>>
>>>>Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten
>>>>foot pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate:
>>>>'Oh, I don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get
>>>>a car with both because its a financial advantage for me.'
>>>
>>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas -
>>>when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
>>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>>
>>If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
>>postulate, you would.
>>
>
>
> I think they are both safety hazards, as I've repeatedly stated in this
> group before. It must be nice to be independently wealthy to the point
> that one could do as you suggest.
>
> nate
>

CH is obviously trolling.

223rem wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>CH wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten
> >>>>foot pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate:
> >>>>'Oh, I don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get
> >>>>a car with both because its a financial advantage for me.'
> >>>
> >>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas -
> >>>when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
> >>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
> >>
> >>If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
> >>postulate, you would.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think they are both safety hazards, as I've repeatedly stated in this
> > group before. It must be nice to be independently wealthy to the point
> > that one could do as you suggest.
> >
> > nate
> >
>
> CH is obviously trolling.

Well, yeah. I mean, if I were to find a car that conformed to all my
ideas of what a car should be in terms of safety, quality, and
performance - I couldn't afford it! we all make compromises at times.

Of course, if you know any company that provides new Porsches (well,
heck, you know I'd even settle for an old 930 or 951 if I had to <G>)
for company cars, my resume is up to date

nate

In article .com>,
N8N > wrote:
>
>I wish that things were such that it weren't considered gauche to
>provide foreign cars for employees' company cars, but that's not how
>things are... Wouldn't I love to have, say, a G35 sedan instead of a
>freakin' Impala (or let's be honest, even a Camry or Accord,) but I
>don't think it's in the cards.

Probably has as much to do with the better fleet deals offered than
the propriety. Certainly there's no shortage of individual (high-level)
employees who end up with foreign (Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc) company cars.

In article .com>,
Harry K > wrote:
>
>Get off it already! Non-power brakes do not take that much effort to
>operate. Jeez, cars (and trucks) went for 40 years before power breaks
>even became available, more like 80 before they became de facto
>standard on most cars.

Brake pedal travel was greater though, wasn't it? Also these were
drums, not discs.

>I suppose you also have the false belief that
>it takes weight lifter strength to operate non-power steering.

Again, steering ratios have increased and steering wheels gotten smaller.

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
>
>>CH wrote:
>
>
>>>Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten
>>>foot pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate:
>>>'Oh, I don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get
>>>a car with both because its a financial advantage for me.'
>>
>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas -
>>when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>
>
> If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
> postulate, you would.

You make no sense.

Clueless people driving a DRL equipped car are a danger
because they're not visibile from behind in fog or rain.

That doesnt mean that a DRL equipped car cannot be driven
with the all the proper lights on in such conditions.

So why would Nate turn down a GM car again?

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >Get off it already! Non-power brakes do not take that much effort to
> >operate. Jeez, cars (and trucks) went for 40 years before power breaks
> >even became available, more like 80 before they became de facto
> >standard on most cars.
>
> Brake pedal travel was greater though, wasn't it? Also these were
> drums, not discs.
>
> >I suppose you also have the false belief that
> >it takes weight lifter strength to operate non-power steering.
>
> Again, steering ratios have increased and steering wheels gotten smaller.

Which has what to do with CH's claim that it takes superhuman strength
to operate them??

Harry K

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:59:53 -0700, Harry K wrote:
>
> >> Many competition classes have power brakes, some even ABS.
> >>
> > Get off it already! Non-power brakes do not take that much effort to
> > operate. Jeez, cars (and trucks) went for 40 years before power breaks
> > even became available, more like 80 before they became de facto standard
> > on most cars. I suppose you also have the false belief that it takes
> > weight lifter strength to operate non-power steering.
>
> Classic case of non-sequitur.
>
> Please quote properly.
>
> Btw, I know very well, how driving a heavy car without power steering
> feels. Unfortunately cars get heavier from year to year, tires become
> wider and braking grip increased very significantly over the years.
>
> The better a tire grips, the more force is needed to brake it to lock-up
> (as you know the best brake performance is reached a smidgen before the
> tire locks up).
>
> And ever increasing traffic increases the number of braking situations
> from year to year, adding to the fatigue of driving a non-power car.
>
> Chris

My god! I didn't think it possible for you to be so wrong in every
post. Weight of cars. Would you care to try the weight of a 68 for
example Impala against the current big Chev? Clue, size for size
modern cars weigh -less- than the lead boats of the past. As for
effort, I drive both city and country and rarely touch my brakes except
for coming to complete stops. Maybe you need to pay more attention to
your driving.

<plonk>

Harry K

N8N wrote:
>
>
> I wish that things were such that it weren't considered gauche to
> provide foreign cars for employees' company cars, but that's not how
> things are... Wouldn't I love to have, say, a G35 sedan instead of a
> freakin' Impala (or let's be honest, even a Camry or Accord,) but I
> don't think it's in the cards.

Infinity G35? Nice car, but that's twice the price of an Impala.
'Even' an Accord? An Accord with a V6 and MT is a *much* better car
than the Impala.