Consumer Report's Bulb Test

Maybe Audi should have moved the gas pedal over a few inches.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marc wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports is very prone to letting their agendas override their
>> objectivity.
>
> What objectivity? They make a lot of noise about how objective they are
> because they don't accept advertising, but that is a disingenuous
> nonsequitur, for every issue of CR is cover-to-cover advertisement for
> CU's many produts and services, and they use the same marketeering
> psychology every other advertising company uses. It's just they don't
> accept advertising *from other people*.
>
>> Suzuki suffered major difficulties with its image after Consumer Reports
>> magazine's famous, or infamous, claim in 1988 that the Samurai was prone
>> to rollover. The Suzuki Samurai small SUV enjoyed enormous popularity
>> and sales in the mid-1980's until the CR article was published.
>
> They did the same thing to Audi with the "unintended acceleration"
> crapola.
>
> DS

Art wrote:

> Maybe Audi should have moved the gas pedal over a few inches.

Or required their customers to have an IQ above 70 before selling them a
car.


Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, haywood jablomy wrote:
>
>> Daniel, you once mentioned that bulbs with an "axial" filament
>> (running the length of the bulb) are superior to those with the
>> filament running across the width. Why is this?
>
>
> 1) In rectangular lamps, there's much more available light and much less
> light wasted on the floor and ceiling if the filament is axial rather
> than transverse.
>
> 2) In a parabolic reflector, the unmodified beam from an axial filament
> is a round spot, while from a transverse filament it's a more-or-less
> rectangular "bow tie" shape. The round spot is easier to manipulate to
> direct light where it's needed while keeping light away from where it's
> not. That is: A round spot is easier to focus than a horizontal
> kinda-bar. It's also much easier to control glare and upward stray light
> when starting from a round spot.
>
> There are some applications in which transverse filaments are a better
> choice (tall strip-shaped reflectors, some kinds of fog lamps, certain
> kinds of high beam/"driving" lamps).
>
> DS

Thank you for the answer. My vehicle uses #9007 bulbs which have axial
filaments.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:46:11 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>
>> Maybe Audi should have moved the gas pedal over a few inches.

Heh, I can top that:

LABEL THEM like a Model T's 3 pedals.
S on the brake pedal for Stop,
G on the gas pedal for Go.

Along with a warning sticker on the dash telling the potential
driver that they are responsible for hitting the correct pedal.
There's only two now.

Right, so you couldn't heel and toe, ruining the driver-friendly
ergonomics that is one of the big reasons that people who enjoy driving
tend to buy German cars? Then they'd be just like a F*rd or Ch*vy.

nate

Art wrote:
> Maybe Audi should have moved the gas pedal over a few inches.
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marc wrote:
> >
> >> Consumer Reports is very prone to letting their agendas override their
> >> objectivity.
> >
> > What objectivity? They make a lot of noise about how objective they are
> > because they don't accept advertising, but that is a disingenuous
> > nonsequitur, for every issue of CR is cover-to-cover advertisement for
> > CU's many produts and services, and they use the same marketeering
> > psychology every other advertising company uses. It's just they don't
> > accept advertising *from other people*.
> >
> >> Suzuki suffered major difficulties with its image after Consumer Reports
> >> magazine's famous, or infamous, claim in 1988 that the Samurai was prone
> >> to rollover. The Suzuki Samurai small SUV enjoyed enormous popularity
> >> and sales in the mid-1980's until the CR article was published.
> >
> > They did the same thing to Audi with the "unintended acceleration"
> > crapola.
> >
> > DS

The Samurai was first made in 1982 and within the next few years was selling
in Europe, Asia, Australia, and elsewhere. Suzuki introduced it into the US
in 1985 as a 1986 model. Starting with a mere 1200 trucks imported per
month, sales increased exponentially to 8000 vehicles per month and Suzuki
quickly found themselves with 47,000 Samurais sold by the end of their first
year. Not only was it the top-selling convertible in the United States, but
it also captured the best first-year sales record of any Japanese car
company. In 1987, the year before the CR article, sales were 81,349. And
you say the Samurai stopped selling because "it sucked"? I guess all those
people were buying the vehicle totally unaware that it "sucked"?

After the 1988 Consumer Reports article, annual sales dropped to only 5,041
within a year. Did all those people suddenly become aware that it "sucked"?
How?

Consumer reports was financially over-extended in 1988 and they simply
created a big story at Suzuki's expense, exploiting customers' worst fears
and creating a marvelous marketing tool for them, and based on the evidence
the courts were agreeing.

Suzuki pursued the case from 1996 to 2004, but it's hard to win any case
against a nonprofit organization. At least Suzuki got a compromised
statement from CR essentially taking back their claim that the vehicled
easily rolled over in turns.


"Art" > wrote in message
news
> Fascinating but you forgot to post the part where both automakers gave up
in
> their attacks on CU and both cars sucked compared to increased competition
> and that is why they stopped selling.
>
>
> "Marc" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Consumer Reports is very prone to letting their agendas override their
> > objectivity.
> >
> >
> >
> > Suzuki suffered major difficulties with its image after Consumer Reports
> > magazine's famous, or infamous, claim in 1988 that the Samurai was prone
> > to
> > rollover. The Suzuki Samurai small SUV enjoyed enormous popularity and
> > sales in the mid-1980's until the CR article was published.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consumer Reports had stated that the Samurai "easily rolls over in
turns"
> > and that it was "likely to roll over during a maneuver that could be
> > demanded of any car at any time". U.S. government studies actually
showed
> > that the Samurai's rate of rollover was similar to that of other SUV's.
> > Sales plunged and Suzuki eventually stopped production of the Samurai in
> > 1995.
> >
> >
> >
> > Suzuki filed lawsuit in 1996 for product disparagement after Consumer
> > Reports magazine rehashed the old test results in yet another article.
> > Suzuki had pursued their $60 billion lawsuit ever since 1996 in the
> > position
> > that the Consumer Reports "not acceptable" rating had caused sales to
> > plunge, tarnished the company's image and set back the company's brand
in
> > the US for a decade. Suzuki went so far as to specifically claim that
> > Consumer's Union had rigged the tests against the popular SUV to create
> > media attention in the midst of their fund-raising drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > A trial judge threw out the suit, but the 9th District Court of Appeals
> > later reinstated it on the grounds that Suzuki had presented enough
> > evidence
> > that CU published knowing falsehoods in their article, and the Supreme
> > Court
> > in 2003 refused to prevent the case from going forward. Suzuki's
managing
> > counsel had stated that "The evidence will clearly show that, rather
than
> > driving all the vehicles the same, CU singled out the Suzuki Samurai
and,
> > through stunt-like steering, intentionally made it tip up -- all to
> > support
> > CU's pre-determined story line, only after the Samurai received the best
> > possible rating on the test CU had used for the past 15 years." The
court
> > noted that at the time CU initially criticized the Samurai, CU had just
> > purchased a new building and therefore "needed to boost its revenues to
> > complete its capital campaign." The court concluded that this "evidence
> > of
> > financial motive dovetails with the evidence of test-rigging."
> >
> >
> >
> > In a similar lawsuit by Isuzu against CU regarding their Isuzu Trooper
> > receiving a similar "not acceptable" rating, Isuzu provided evidence
that
> > the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its British
> > counterpart rejected Consumer Reports' rollover tests as unscientific on
> > the
> > grounds that they were subject to driver influence. Isuzu was charging
> > that
> > the consumer group falsified certain test data and concealed other
> > information. It charged also that a magazine staffer began writing the
> > article before the tests were concluded.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just before the 1996 Trooper tests, the NHTSA rejected the consumer
> > organization's petition to establish rollover standards. Isuzu's lawyers
> > say
> > the article's timing was more than coincidence; it was an effort to
> > generate
> > media attention for CU and their latest cause.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consumer Reports counsel tried to turn the case into a First Amendment
> > issue, essentially intimating that even if the tests were biased, they
> > should be protected from a product disparagement claim because the
> > organization is part of the press, and asserting that they should have
> > received a summary judgment on that basis. CU finally compromised their
> > statement in a settlement late last year to clarify that the rollover
> > tendency was only seen in their somewhat extreme emergency rollover test
> > and
> > was not applicable to routine driving conditions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consumer's Union added that "CU's use of the adverb 'easily' may have
been
> > misconstrued and misunderstood" and that "CU never intended to state or
> > imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions."
> >
> >
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> > n.umich.edu...
> >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Richard wrote:
> >>
> >> > The recent issue tests after market bulbs, including the GE NightHawk
> >> > and the Sylvania bulbs. Their results were inconsistent depending
upon
> >> > the car lamp in question.
> >>
> >> They also just took the bulb makers' word regarding DOT compliance
("All
> >> the tested bulbs claim DOT compliance") without checking -- shame on
> >> them.
> >> Had they checked, they'd likely have found that the APC Plasma Ultra
> >> White
> >> bulbs are very definitely *not* compliant in several important ways.
> >>
> >> They've made a lot of noise regarding their newly implemented headlamp
> >> "tests" over the last year or so. Typical CR selfgratulatory crapola. I
> >> won't bother rehashing the exact reasons why their headlamp "tests" are
> >> largely bogus; I've posted the analysis before in this forum and
others.
> >> It's not just a question of "Dan Stern doesn't agree with Consumer
> >> Reports"; it's much more serious than that: Many of their assumptions
and
> >> recommendations regarding headlamps are just plain nonsense fabricated
> >> out
> >> of the same whole cloth that allows CR to consider themselves expert in
> >> everything from red wine to oil filters to washing machines to
insurance
> >> policies.
> >>
> >> DS
> >
> >
>
>

Please quote that statement of retraction. I've never seen it.


"Marc" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Samurai was first made in 1982 and within the next few years was
> selling
> in Europe, Asia, Australia, and elsewhere. Suzuki introduced it into the
> US
> in 1985 as a 1986 model. Starting with a mere 1200 trucks imported per
> month, sales increased exponentially to 8000 vehicles per month and Suzuki
> quickly found themselves with 47,000 Samurais sold by the end of their
> first
> year. Not only was it the top-selling convertible in the United States,
> but
> it also captured the best first-year sales record of any Japanese car
> company. In 1987, the year before the CR article, sales were 81,349. And
> you say the Samurai stopped selling because "it sucked"? I guess all
> those
> people were buying the vehicle totally unaware that it "sucked"?
>
> After the 1988 Consumer Reports article, annual sales dropped to only
> 5,041
> within a year. Did all those people suddenly become aware that it
> "sucked"?
> How?
>
> Consumer reports was financially over-extended in 1988 and they simply
> created a big story at Suzuki's expense, exploiting customers' worst fears
> and creating a marvelous marketing tool for them, and based on the
> evidence
> the courts were agreeing.
>
> Suzuki pursued the case from 1996 to 2004, but it's hard to win any case
> against a nonprofit organization. At least Suzuki got a compromised
> statement from CR essentially taking back their claim that the vehicled
> easily rolled over in turns.
>
>
> "Art" > wrote in message
> news
>> Fascinating but you forgot to post the part where both automakers gave up
> in
>> their attacks on CU and both cars sucked compared to increased
>> competition
>> and that is why they stopped selling.
>>
>>
>> "Marc" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > Consumer Reports is very prone to letting their agendas override their
>> > objectivity.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Suzuki suffered major difficulties with its image after Consumer
>> > Reports
>> > magazine's famous, or infamous, claim in 1988 that the Samurai was
>> > prone
>> > to
>> > rollover. The Suzuki Samurai small SUV enjoyed enormous popularity and
>> > sales in the mid-1980's until the CR article was published.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Consumer Reports had stated that the Samurai "easily rolls over in
> turns"
>> > and that it was "likely to roll over during a maneuver that could be
>> > demanded of any car at any time". U.S. government studies actually
> showed
>> > that the Samurai's rate of rollover was similar to that of other SUV's.
>> > Sales plunged and Suzuki eventually stopped production of the Samurai
>> > in
>> > 1995.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Suzuki filed lawsuit in 1996 for product disparagement after Consumer
>> > Reports magazine rehashed the old test results in yet another article.
>> > Suzuki had pursued their $60 billion lawsuit ever since 1996 in the
>> > position
>> > that the Consumer Reports "not acceptable" rating had caused sales to
>> > plunge, tarnished the company's image and set back the company's brand
> in
>> > the US for a decade. Suzuki went so far as to specifically claim that
>> > Consumer's Union had rigged the tests against the popular SUV to create
>> > media attention in the midst of their fund-raising drive.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A trial judge threw out the suit, but the 9th District Court of Appeals
>> > later reinstated it on the grounds that Suzuki had presented enough
>> > evidence
>> > that CU published knowing falsehoods in their article, and the Supreme
>> > Court
>> > in 2003 refused to prevent the case from going forward. Suzuki's
> managing
>> > counsel had stated that "The evidence will clearly show that, rather
> than
>> > driving all the vehicles the same, CU singled out the Suzuki Samurai
> and,
>> > through stunt-like steering, intentionally made it tip up -- all to
>> > support
>> > CU's pre-determined story line, only after the Samurai received the
>> > best
>> > possible rating on the test CU had used for the past 15 years." The
> court
>> > noted that at the time CU initially criticized the Samurai, CU had just
>> > purchased a new building and therefore "needed to boost its revenues to
>> > complete its capital campaign." The court concluded that this
>> > "evidence
>> > of
>> > financial motive dovetails with the evidence of test-rigging."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In a similar lawsuit by Isuzu against CU regarding their Isuzu Trooper
>> > receiving a similar "not acceptable" rating, Isuzu provided evidence
> that
>> > the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its British
>> > counterpart rejected Consumer Reports' rollover tests as unscientific
>> > on
>> > the
>> > grounds that they were subject to driver influence. Isuzu was charging
>> > that
>> > the consumer group falsified certain test data and concealed other
>> > information. It charged also that a magazine staffer began writing the
>> > article before the tests were concluded.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Just before the 1996 Trooper tests, the NHTSA rejected the consumer
>> > organization's petition to establish rollover standards. Isuzu's
>> > lawyers
>> > say
>> > the article's timing was more than coincidence; it was an effort to
>> > generate
>> > media attention for CU and their latest cause.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Consumer Reports counsel tried to turn the case into a First Amendment
>> > issue, essentially intimating that even if the tests were biased, they
>> > should be protected from a product disparagement claim because the
>> > organization is part of the press, and asserting that they should have
>> > received a summary judgment on that basis. CU finally compromised
>> > their
>> > statement in a settlement late last year to clarify that the rollover
>> > tendency was only seen in their somewhat extreme emergency rollover
>> > test
>> > and
>> > was not applicable to routine driving conditions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Consumer's Union added that "CU's use of the adverb 'easily' may have
> been
>> > misconstrued and misunderstood" and that "CU never intended to state or
>> > imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving
>> > conditions."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> > n.umich.edu...
>> >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Richard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The recent issue tests after market bulbs, including the GE
>> >> > NightHawk
>> >> > and the Sylvania bulbs. Their results were inconsistent depending
> upon
>> >> > the car lamp in question.
>> >>
>> >> They also just took the bulb makers' word regarding DOT compliance
> ("All
>> >> the tested bulbs claim DOT compliance") without checking -- shame on
>> >> them.
>> >> Had they checked, they'd likely have found that the APC Plasma Ultra
>> >> White
>> >> bulbs are very definitely *not* compliant in several important ways.
>> >>
>> >> They've made a lot of noise regarding their newly implemented headlamp
>> >> "tests" over the last year or so. Typical CR selfgratulatory crapola.
>> >> I
>> >> won't bother rehashing the exact reasons why their headlamp "tests"
>> >> are
>> >> largely bogus; I've posted the analysis before in this forum and
> others.
>> >> It's not just a question of "Dan Stern doesn't agree with Consumer
>> >> Reports"; it's much more serious than that: Many of their assumptions
> and
>> >> recommendations regarding headlamps are just plain nonsense fabricated
>> >> out
>> >> of the same whole cloth that allows CR to consider themselves expert
>> >> in
>> >> everything from red wine to oil filters to washing machines to
> insurance
>> >> policies.
>> >>
>> >> DS
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Hey... now you're hitting *really* close to home.. and I like to drive !!!

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Marc wrote:

> Consumer reports was financially over-extended in 1988 and they simply
> created a big story at Suzuki's expense, exploiting customers' worst
> fears and creating a marvelous marketing tool for them, and based on the
> evidence the courts were agreeing.
>
> Suzuki pursued the case from 1996 to 2004, but it's hard to win any case
> against a nonprofit organization. At least Suzuki got a compromised
> statement from CR essentially taking back their claim that the vehicles
> easily rolled over in turns.

Yep, a very quiet statement, full of weasel words, and long after the
damage was done.

True story: I was driving south on I87 (The Northway) while listening to
NPR. They had a story on about how the Suzuki Samari was prone to roll over.
Just ahead of me on the grass was a rolled over Samari. With this kind of
fate you would think I could win the lottery; but noooo.

Richard.