The dangers of DRLs

>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>
>> GM needs to suceed for the sake of all of us. Your assertion is simply
>> perposterious.
>
> No, it isn't. One of the reasons GM was indeed hurting for a long time is
> because people like you constantly badmouth them for minor details instead
> of saying 'the cars are good, I just wish they would...'.

Buick has won quality awards for the past few years. That is already known.
Generally the cars are quite good, I agree.

> And do you really think that GM is interested in the opinion of someone,
> who basically says 'i am not buying GM anyway'?

Of course they should be interested. Expecially if it is prefereced with
the condition that needs to exist for that the person to buy the car.

>> Sometimes you give things you love hell when they misbehave, if you
>> love them (just like kids).
>
> Giving something hell doesn't work with kids and it doesn't work with
> corporate market researchers.

I've got really great kids, worked for them. Two-three years ago my
daughter approached me and told me how often she hated me growing up. She
said; "Thanks so much Dad. All my friends are into nasty stuff,
irresponsible, in debt up to their eyeballs and many are still living with
"daddy". Daddy just gives them stuff because that aren't able to make it.
Here I completed my degree in 4-years, married, own a single family house,
no debt and doing better than any of them....and I'm only 22! I couldn't
have done it with other parents I know." After I wiped the tears from my
eyes, that moment was so worth it all. So, results seem to say otherwise
What really amazed me was that I was expecting to have to help them get into
their house...thay never even approached me for help. Now that is something
really special (at least I think it is)

You are not one of those Dr. Spock parents, are you? We all know how those
kids of his turned out (and those of his followers)...YIKES!

> Do you have an idea how market research
> works? They take all the letters they get and discard the 10% rants and
> the 10% raves and only read the rest in the first place. Your opinion is
> the first thing, that goes into the corporate wastepaper basked, and
> deservedly so.

10% equates to a lot of sales. Remember, only 1-2% of disatisfied customers
statistically bother to complain...at least that was our training when I
worked retail back in the 70's. For each one complaint, there are 100-200
more that you didn't hear from.

> If you are unable to state your opinion in a civil tone and at least
> roughly balanced it is worth nothing to anyone.

You really need to toughen up that hyde a bit. When you make derogatory
statements just because someone is in a certain profession, I question your
concept of "civil".

>> You have to accept the fact they your kids will hate you sometimes, as
>> with GM (do-no-wrong) lemmings such as yourself will. It comes with the
>> territory of doing what one believes is right.
>
> Wow, now I am a GM-do-no-wrong-lemming, just because I happen not to hate
> DRLs and auto-headlights? I can list a washboard full of things GM does
> wrong, but I am not going to rant about it because I appreciate my opinion
> being valued. When I criticize I do so in a civil tone and try to write it
> up in a way that it is legible to others.

Yes, you are very civil...and with such cute names attached as well. Very
nice.

>>> GM can't build enough Corvettes to satisfy demand. If a significant
>>> number of people wouldn't buy Corvettes because of DRLs the Corvette
>>> wouldn't outsell both the C5 and the DRL-less C4.
>>
>> And how does one come to that conclusion? There is no correlation
>> possible with only that limited level of information.
>
> Of course there is. You claim that GM loses a large percentage of buyers
> because of the DRLs. If it were so the Corvette wouldn't post record
> sales. Reality is, most people by far are indifferent about DRLs, some
> like them and some hate them. And unless someone is a total moron the
> decision, whether to buy a Corvette or not certainly is not going to hinge
> on DRLs.

I'm sure some won't buy because of them. I know several people that have
stopped buying GM's (most in my family, but some at the office too) because
of DRLs. A car can still have record sales without the anti-DRL crowd
buying them by simply attracting a large number of the remaining market
segment. So, no there is not a correlation from that single data point
(sales number).

>>> Probably because the newsgroup denizens are a dying breed. The younger
>>> crowd blogs and uses web message boards, because usenet and its
>>> denizens are about as inviting as the mouth of a shark with three rows
>>> of teeth on both jaws. Face it, people like stern, you, chemistyboy and
>>> others, who just are interested in finding someone to badmouth are not
>>> exactly the best athmosphere to make newbies want to stay.
>>
>> Then why are we you in a Newsgroup then?
>
> Because I have been in Usenet since long before web based boards
> even came up. And because people like you amuse me, to put it bluntly.

I'm glad you are as amused as the rest of us then.

>>>> There isn't a situation traffic safety wise.
>>>
>>> Bingo. Thus no off switch is necessary.
>>
>> Of cours there is. People use their cars for other purposes at times
>> (already listed from others here). But you can ignore thaose other uses
>> if you so choose to.
>
> If safety is at stake I indeed ignore people being too lazy to get their
> butt out of their car and idling away in the parking lot for hours.

Huh? Did you miss all the other items several people mentioned?

>>> Of course you can turn the high beams off: Turn on the lights. Btw, did
>>> you know that flashing the lights is misinterpreted in almost all cases
>>> and discouraged? If you need to warn someone from impending danger,
>>> honk. That's what the horn is for.
>>
>> I didn't use the word "warn". I used the word "signal" to communicate.
>> (Like signaling a rig that he is clear to move over into your lane in
>> front of you)
>
> You won't believe it but they usually know earlier than you do that they
> cleared you.

I didn't say they didn't.

> Again, a car 'signaling' another one is misinterpreted almost
> always - and often enough a simple thing like this sparks road rage.

Most truckers appreciate a courtesy signal that it's clear and okay before
coming over. You can tell that by the "thank you" signal (tail light
flashing twice) they return once they have come over into your lane in front
of you. So apparently, they intrepret the signal just fine and are
appreciative of the courtesy...not enraged at all.

>> I don't know the statistics if people with manual transmissions are more
>> likely to do the downshift, compared to those driving automatics. The
>> expected human behavior in that situation would indicate that the
>> automatic system (transmission in this case) would train people to not
>> think about downshifting when necessary since doing shifts is not part
>> of the routine of operatng the vehicle (out of sight, out of mind, as
>> it's often said).
>
> I notice the problem in both groups equally. And before you whine about me
> not being able to know remember I grew up in Germany where automatic is
> very rare.

I accept your observation. I don't have information that would be any
different from your observation.

>>> What a nonsense. I saw the calculation a while ago and they postulated
>>> 100 Watts of electricity for every car plus umpteen 'losses'.
>>
>> Pull up the GE lighting catalog and look up the wattage of the common
>> automotive lamps used as DRLs. Lamps used for that purpose are rated
>> between 23 watts each to 55 watts each. Multiplied times two and it's
>> 46-110 watts per vehicle. The "losses" of electrical generation are
>> automotove engineering standards used for load calculations....that
>> can't be disputed (although I see you just did). Not sure why you don't
>> believe them....well maybe we actually do.
>
> People waste enormous amounts of gas on all kinds of useless things. It is
> a well known trick for econazis to claim some enormous number, which is
> not only intentionally doctored but also not quite as enormous when seen
> in relation to the total consumption.

Changing the subject. Yes, there are many areas of waste. Those other
areas are not part of the topic of discussion. And waste in one place
hardly justifies ignoring waste in another. Reducing waste nees to begin
somewhere. This is one of the DRL issues you say doesn't exist. Hopefully
the eventual mandatory implementations will utilize more energy conserving
technologies. LED's seem to hold quite a bit of promise in that area. They
solve two issues. Energy consmption and lamp longetivity.

> My car gets somewhere between 20 and 30mpg depending on driving
> conditions. If my two 21 watt front turn signals were not constantly lit
> it would get somewhere between 20.001 and 30.001mpg. Yes, the number is
> big but only total idiots are impressed by big numbers without references.

Yes I suppose you're right. My guess is your numbers are exagerated a bit
to the low side and the numbers I provided are more accurate in comarison.

>> And you *could* be right about that. I only knew the fuel and emissions
>> numbers for DRL's.
>
> Again: Very likely doctored. Without the actual calculation and reference
> numbers your large numbers are useless.

Here is one site if that helps. There are a few others on file that have
similar results.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm


>> Since you made the claim that automatic transmissions waste fuel, I
>> assumed you knew what the numbers were.
>
> I do. Somewhere between 1 and 3 miles less to the gallon of gas.

That is probably about right, based on EPA ratings I've seen for the same
cars with the the two different transmission types. I believe the 1997 Neon
Sport my wife used to have was rated 39 highway (it was a 5-speed). She
usually got about what it as rated for. The sister version with the
automatic was rated 36 or 37 highway (if memory serves me). Plus that
little guy would make it to 60 is just over 7 seconds. Surprisingly peppy
for a cheap $10K car (at the time).

>> Now, I don't know where the air conditioner reference fit in...last I
>> read on that topic was that typically highway wind drag from open
>> windows created a similar level of drain on horsepower as a running a
>> A/C compressor (depending on the vehicle).
>
> If you want to save precious fuel I suggest you sweat instead. Both A/C
> and open windows decrease mileage much more significantly than two 21 Watt
> lightbulbs.

That is quite probably true. It's probably more than two 55 watt bulbs as
well. But waste anywhere is waste, in the final analysis.

> If you seriously claim that your brightly lit fog is prevalent in most of
> the USA you either never left your wide place in the road or the fog is in
> your brain, not in the air.

I didn't claim anything additional except that we are free to disagree on
the topic. Having said that, no more discussion is needed, is it? Not even
the eleven states I have visited over the years (not many, admittedly)

>>>> Well, since they were coming to work, perhaps they put a little Kahula
>>>> in the morning coffee at home...
>>>
>>> I didn't mean them but you and your powers of observation.
>>
>> It's really quite simple to tell if the lights are on or not...don't you
>> think?
>
> Not if the brain is befuddled with either bias or alcohol or a combination
> thereof.

So, I am a alcoholic now. I don't even drink wine or beer, so incorrect
again (what a surprise).

>>>> but what is odd is that it was only the people that drove the GM
>>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> Doesn't surprise me at all with your $6000 GM problem. A little hatred
>>> goes a long way...
>>
>> Why would I "hate" GM for my bad purchasing decision?
>
> Why would you rant about GM the way you do if you didn't hate them?

The topic of discussion is DRLs (and auto light control), not GM. These
devices just so happen to be on GM vehicles. It wouldn't matter in the
least what brand of car they were on. The brand could be Ford or Chrysler,
for all I care. If Ford or Chrysler had them (and I don't have full control
over them), I'm not going to buy their product either. But that has been
stated before. I'm not sure why you can't decouple two distinctly separate
and unrelated things.

>>>> Interesting. How dark was it during those observations...curious.
>>>
>>> Dark, i.e. after the end of evening civil twilight, as my pilot ground
>>> school so aptly phrased it.
>>
>> Hmm...interesting. That is a higher number than I would have expected.
>
> Guess what? Doesn't surprise me. You are so befuddled by your brightly lit
> fog that you don't even take other situations in consideration.

I could easily say the same back.

>>> It also is larger by a rather large factor. The population density in
>>> the USA is highest in New York City, thus your assertion that the most
>>> heavily populated area is covered by daily morning fog is simply wrong/
>>
>> Did I say density? No I didn't. I said total population of the
>> (defined) area.
>
> No, you said 'heavily populated' which clearly refers to population
> density.

Since this is tied to the general weather question we just agree to disagree
on, the point is moot anyway.

>>> I drove an older GM model with automatic headlights. The lights come on
>>> instantly when started under low-light conditions just like they do
>>> with mine and the current models. What you saw were either GM models
>>> without auto headlights or one of your frequent hallucinations.
>>
>> And if you remember, the delay was longer on those older models compared
>> to today's implementation. But this was already explained, you just
>> forgot, apparently. <sigh>
>
> You really have a hard time reading, don't you? I said they come on just
> as instantly when the engine is started at a thime when their trigger
> condition is met. Thus your observation can _not_ entail either newer or
> older GM cars entering the highway without their lights on at night unless
> on a specific car the lighting circuitry is defective.

You are right. I read it wrong.

>>> The point is that the likelyhood of a car with auto headlights leaving
>>> a gas station at night without lights is just about zero. The only
>>> exception is a defective system.
>>
>> I agree with that, with the auto system used today. I have been
>> agreeing with you on that.
>
> The system always worked like this. The delay loop does not apply when the
> car is started at a time when the trigger condition is met.

Yes, when the delay trigger was met immediately. True.

>> You just don't believe it...true or not matters not I guess. We get the
>> picture now.
>
> I don't believe anything I know to be untrue.

I don't blame you. You shouldn't

>>> No, I mean fluorescent lights, which are prevalent in gas stations
>>> throughout the west.
>>
>> Uhm, you said "Neon", not "Fluorescent".
>
> I apologize. Here my English is to blame. In Germany these lengthy white
> tubes are called 'Neonroehren' (neon tubes), so I accidentally substituted
> the german for the american term.

Not a problem. I was wondering about that, actually.

>>> And as you already stated there is no traffic safety related reason to
>>> have an off switch you conceded your other major point.
>>
>> You're right, there is no "traffic related reason". However, there are
>> _other_ reason and purposes for which people need to use their cars. You
>> and GM may ignore that reality, if you all so choose. No problem.
>
> Safety comes first.

There must be some way both requirements can be satisfied. For example, on
the GM large trucks, one can cycle the dome light 4 times (on-off-on-off)
and that will signal the BCM to completely disable the DRLs AND the auto
headlamps...but only for that one ignition cycle. That set up maintains
what you desire...the next time one starts the vehicle, it's back in auto
mode. That allows for the other circumstances when lights are not needed as
well. It's probably available on trucks because how they're used
(construction sites, farms, field work, etc.) where they may be
running/idling quite a bit and lights may not be required...or lights may be
a safety hazard from glare etc. of workers in close proximity.

>>> Jan-June 6907. In other words they sold all the GTOs they got. If you
>>> know of a hidden stash Id appreciate the info, some people I know are
>>> looking for one.
>>
>> That is better. Good for them. I'm not aware of any hidden stash. Did
>> you think I did for some reason?
>
> I thought you did because you loftily (and quite wrongly) declared the GTO
> as a failure.

I never said "failure". I said sales numbers were poor. The last I looked
that model hadn't even sold 3000 units. Of course ~6000 still isn't all that
great. I think my 67 model had 67K (maybe more) in sales. That's 10 times
sales this year...and that was almost 40 years ago. Making DRLs options
instead of mandates won't make a success out ot it, but it will bring in
some additional percentage of sales, I'm sure.

>>>> Rear drive helps, but it's doable with FWD.
>>>
>>> I asked you twice already to describe the procedure. You can't, which
>>> shows that once again you only invented something to support your
>>> thesis.
>>
>> Nate described a procedure quite well in a different thread.
>
> He described how to lose and regain control, not how to induce and sustain
> a controlled skid. Even Nate acknowledged that 'it is possible to regain
> control after this maneuver' which clearly confirms that even Nate sees
> the maneuver as a loss of control instead of a controlled skid.

He said "destabalize". Control isn't lost if the maneuver has reliably
provided the added directional control (and the operative word is control)
that was required for the avoidance maneuver. Nate's maneuver would work.

>> Why repeat it?
>
> I did not ask you to repeat it but to describe a procedure that works - if
> you have one. As you don't the point is cleared up.

I guess it is...since it does work. Even if you follow your logic of
explaining Nate's maneuver (control was momentarily lost and then regained).
If one reliably regains during that manuever, control was not really ever
lost in the first place since the intended result of avoidance was acheived
as expected.

Have you ever seen those driver competitions where one of the tasks is to
run the car up to a parrallel parking space and skid around 360 degrees into
the space. The better the driver aligns the car in the marked off space
wins that part of the competion. Well, the skid "appears" quite out of
control. But if the driver puts the car where it belongs...it's hard to say
he didn't really have control, can you?

>>> All of sudden? Above you claimed that inducing a controlled skid with
>>> only regular brakes and FWD _is_ possible.
>>
>> I was agreeing that powerful cars allow the accellerator option as
>> another way to induce a controlled skid.
>
> Not another way but one way. Your method does NOT induce a controlled
> skid. The other way is the parking brake.

If you say so.

>> Initiating a skid is very easy to do when one doesn't have ABS....you'll
>> just have to trust me on that one. Oh wait, you don't!
>
> Why should I trust a self proclaimed maniac, who tries dangerous stunts in
> totally unsuitable vehicles?

And the conclusions derived are based on what? Since I've manages to avoid
quite a few mishapes why ths conclusion?

>>> If they had time to avoid the situation without ABS usually was not
>>> that close. Few people have the balls to get off the brake to steer
>>> around an obstacle in a non-ABS car.
>>
>> Pure speculation on your part.
>
> No. The naked and ugly truth.

I'm surious about something. You've stated here that the preferred beaking
methos, even on non-ABS systems is to mash the brake. Not you're saying
perople don't have the balls to "get off the brake".

Thousands of people negiotiate that hill by the office on snowy mornings
just fine (some don't). The majority must be "getting off the brake as
nedded to maintain enough control to make it through or there would be a
hell of a lot more accidents there (especially if thay took your advise and
"mashed the brake".

>>> I have ample experience with both non-ABS and ABS cars.
>>
>> I would imagine most of us do.
>
> You seem not to have enough experience with ABS, seeing that you only
> recount the old fairy tales about ABS.

Did you forget what you read in my reference link again?

>>> You on the other hand are one of the oldtimers who think that just
>>> because they have little to no experience with ABS and because they
>>> have driven 'X miles without an accident' think it doesn't help.
>>
>> You are not correct about not having experience with ABS (what a
>> surprise). I've had three cars in the 35 years that had ABS (well the
>> truck only had rear-wheel ABS)
>
> Rear wheel ABS doesn't count. And apparently you never really drove the
> ABS cars to the limit or you wouldn't tell the nonsense you are telling.

How it is nonsense?

> [ABS fairy tales and bragging about control loss snipped]

>>> Chances are you never even got to test the difference between ABS and
>>> non-ABS in the short time you had your ABS equipped GM car. Which is a
>>> pity, because it would have enlightened you.
>>>
>> It's interesting when your assumptions are so wrong so often, yet you
>> still seem to continue to make them. Some people eventually learn that
>> when one doesn't possess all of the information required to formulate a
>> conclusion, a conclusion made cannot be correct. But not you....they
>> just keep on coming.
>>
>> 1989 Dodge Dakota. Owned it 14 years, ~180K miles. (rear ABS only) 1997
>> Dodge Caravan. Currently own almost 11 years. 2003 Chevy Malibu. Owned
>> 9 months
>
> OMG. The perfect vehicles. The Dakota has no ABS effect worth mentioning.
> The Caravan is among the worst handling cars in the Chrysler lineup,
> further hampered by a high center of gravity and rather horrible brakes.
>
> Face it, both these jalopies don't give you any idea what ABS is really
> like. And concerning the Malibu, you hated it and sold it off as fast as
> possible. No believable testbed either.

So ABS aren't effective on some of the most common vehicles on the road? Is
that what you're saying?

>>>> People believe that since the ABS kicked in, it somehow saved them.
>>>
>>> I had ABS kick in in quite a number of situations.
>>
>> The odd thing is, the ABS almost never kick in for me...even on snow and
>> icy streets.
>
> I had ABS kick in on a dry freeway the other day, because some idiot
> changed into the second from right lane at less than 20mph. If you really
> have one million miles and claim you have almost no situations, where hard
> braking is required, you are lying with either the former or the latter.

Yes, I'm lying. You've figured it out.

>>> But I had two situations, in which ABS with a very high probability
>>> saved my life.
>>
>> For some strange reason, I don't believe you. I think you would have
>> been fine.
>
> Unfortunately you have shown that your assertions about car handling and
> braking are so far off the mark that your opinion in this matter carries
> zero weight.

Not suprising.

>>> And I am sure that I am in a better position to determine that than
>>> you are.
>>
>> I'm sure that you think you are in the better position. That was
>> already clear to most of us here, I am sure of that. And you claim that
>> I have the superiority complex? Hmmm....
>
> No, I merely am able quite well to judge my own driving. You on the other
> hand judge my driving by two situations you don't even know just from a
> handful of typed words. Either you are suffering from a superiority
> complex in its final stage or you are a very stupid person. Of course I
> will not exclude the possibility that both is the case.

I haven' judged your driving at all. The word "maniac" (and many others)
came from the keyboard of the other person in this discussion, not me.

>>> Which is a pity because a lot of people run into things they would be
>>> able to safely stop in front of if they had mashed their brakes. The
>>> nonsense that oldtimer driving instructors taught in the 50s and 60s
>>> about gently braking shortening brake distances is just hogwash, as you
>>> would say.
>>
>> Well, the driving schools were still teaching the same braking technique
>> to my kids in the 1990's...so it's been taught long after the 1950's and
>> 1960's.
>
> If a driving instructor teaches you not to hit the brakes hard in an
> emergency, run - not walk - to another driving school. Btw, how do you
> know what your kids' driving instructors taught? You claimed so far that
> you taught them yourself.

I did. They had the required hours of professional instruction, Both the
wife and I completed the mandatory driving log (which is quite a fe w more
hours of vaious types of driving). You do have the ability to understand
that more there an be more than one instructor. Plus, I looked over the
instructional materials.

>>> In a non-ABS car you admittedly have to give up quite some brake
>>> distance in order to maintain directional control in cases where you
>>> have to brake in a curve or on road surface with different friction
>>> coefficients left and right, but that has nothing to do with optimal
>>> braking but just with compensating for the serious disadvantages of
>>> non-ABS brake systems.
>>
>> You have a reference for that?
>> Several years ago I read a study that compared braking distance for the
>> two systems. There wasn't much difference, from my recallection.
>
> And again J.C. Reeves manages to botch reading a paragraph in spectacular
> style.
> In a straight line and under good conditions (like your study would have
> showed) there is only limited ABS activity and the tradeoff between the
> times the brake is released and the better braking near the lockup limit
> as opposed to locked up normal tires is minimal. The more ABS has to work
> the longer the brake distance gets. Of course the brake distance for the
> normal system grows even longer, simply because in a limited grip
> situation you can't even go close to the limit of the brake without losing
> control (as you have admitted yourself), so the ABS actually has an
> advantage in these situations, even brake distance wise. Only as opposed
> to a straight line brake maneuver it loses brake distance.

Then I believe we agree...we were in two different contexts.

>>> No, that's exactly the right training for emergency situations. Both in
>>> ABS and non-ABS cars.
>>
>> So, it's best to mash the brakes on a non-ABS vehicle and and lock up
>> the front wheels so one can't control the car.
>
> As long as you are braking in a straight line: Yes.

And the obstacle you are trying to avoid in front of you dictates that you'd
better not stay in that straight-line-wheel-lock-skid.

> In a curve: Try to make the stretch you are braking on as straight
> as possible and still hit
> the brakes hard. If you get too close to the outer limit of the curve,
> release and steer toward the center of the curve. Repeat. Sound
> complicated?

It isn't al all complicated. Donce it hundreds of times over the years.
Why do you think that common situation is so complicated?

> Yes, it is. Still the only way to get brake distances in
> curves that even come close to ABS.

Yes, ABS will do better in curves (at the limits, as you say). I agree.

However, the added ability ABS provides apparently isn't necessary (or
needed) if ABS systems are not statistically reducing accident rates. What
this seems to say (but I will defer to the experts studying this that don't
even know yet) is that the lesser ability of what human beings are able to
do in that situation is *good enough* to where they are able to maintain
control in as many cases (statistically) as human beings with ABS do. But,
we'll know some day when the highway safety experts work through what is
going on.

> Only on ice and snow or severely different-friction pavement soft braking
> is required with non-ABS cars. Of course the brake distances are horrible
> unless you want to risk losing control but that's the price you pay for
> your arrogance.

So far the 89 years of combined driving experience of the people I mentioned
doesn't indicate otherwise? Not sure what arrogance has to do with anything
though. If the statistics indicate that that likelihood of "paying the
price" is of zero difference betwen the two, how is arrogance factored in?

>> The danger also existes
>> of a uncontrolled shid as well. You are seriously joking, right?
>
> An uncontrolled **** is what you will likely do in your last seconds when
> you realize that ABS would have saved your ass.

Well, I can hardly wait for this first time experience. I will keep a extra
pair of undies in the car for just such a occasion. Since the statistics
indicate that I have no more likelyhood of being in the sutuation you
describe, no matter which type of brake system I have, forgive me if I don't
hold my breath in anticipation.

>>> I pity your kids. Learning how to drive from a dad who doesn't drive
>>> very well in the first place can be a truly fatal experience.
>>
>> I suppose it would. Who would that be?
>
> I suggest using a reflective glass device to find out.

And can you explain both of their driving records. Oh, that's right, our
Fairy Godmother likes us more that yours does.. I forgot...it isn't that
they drive very well.

>>> I am glad I actually had my mandatory driver training (25 hours) with a
>>> professional
>>> and very experienced driving instructor (I am German, remember?), who
>>> taught us the correct procedures (hit the brakes hard if you have an
>>> emergency stop to do, even pre-ABS)
>>
>> Sure...lock up the wheels so you don't have steering control. Good
>> idea! NOT!
>
> Of course. You just have to have the balls to release in time to steer
> around the obstacle. If you just brake gently you are going to run into
> the obstacle simply because your brake distances get much too ling.

Then we actually agree, it seems

>>> Even many of the locals wrecked in the same place with trucks and
>>> trailers. The area is treacherous especially for people with little
>>> trailering experience.
>>
>> I'm certain that my chance of wrecking was about the same as yours was
>> (leass than 100% chance).
>
> Unlike you I have at least some experience with trailering, which makes it
> quite likely that you would not have been able to countersteer several
> times and scrub enough speed to not only prevent rolling the truck but
> also keeping the damage to a dent in the rear bumper (jackknifed).

Yes, quite likely. I believe I said that.

>> Claiming that you're "100% sure" *I* would have wrecked as well is a
>> stretch. Nothing is 100% sure. I'll go with a "likely chance" given
>> the situation you describe, especially with the crosswind.
>
> And I'll go with a likely chance that you would not be sitting there any
> more.

I can live with that, snce,you're likely correct.

>>>> If so, it's likely less than 100% sure the same fate would have
>>>> visited me in that situation. However, as slick as it sounds, it's
>>>> certaintly is a high probablilty, I would agree.
>>>
>>> How much experience do you have with a fullsize truck and a 20'
>>> enclosed trailer high-wind conditions on black ice?
>>>
>> I have driven trucks quite a bit. I have rarely pulled a trailer
>> though...and never a trailer on ice with a crosswind.
>
> Tanks for at least admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.
> That's a first for you.

I have admitted several times when I don't possess enough knowledge on a
particular topic to discuss it. Where have you been?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:31:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>> And do you really think that GM is interested in the opinion of someone,
>> who basically says 'i am not buying GM anyway'?
>
> Of course they should be interested.

Of course they should NOT be interested. Spending a lot of time and money
to convince a handful of fanatics takes away from making better cars for
the people, who are interested in the first place.

> Expecially if it is prefereced with the condition that needs to exist
> for that the person to buy the car.

Only a total moron would base their decision for or against a car solely
on a detail like DRLs.

>> Giving something hell doesn't work with kids and it doesn't work with
>> corporate market researchers.
>
> I've got really great kids, worked for them.

No, you just think it did. Giving kids hell almost always produces rather
screwed up examples and in the very few cases where it indeed does produce
decent examples they are mentally strong enough that they would have come
out ok without receiving hell.

> Two-three years ago my
> daughter approached me and told me how often she hated me growing up. She
> said; "Thanks so much Dad. All my friends are into nasty stuff,
> irresponsible, in debt up to their eyeballs and many are still living with
> "daddy".

My parents never gave me hell and I am neither in debt to my eyeballs nor
into anything nasty or irresponsible. I know quite a few of people, who
have been given hell by their parents. Not one of them is not into
something bad, from alcoholism to driving irresponsibly to beating up
their own kids.

> You are not one of those Dr. Spock parents, are you? We all know how
> those kids of his turned out (and those of his followers)...YIKES!

No, I do think discipline is valuable, but giving someone hell has nothing
to do with discipline. If you don't know that you are unfit as a parent.

>> Do you have an idea how market research works? They take all the letters
>> they get and discard the 10% rants and the 10% raves and only read the
>> rest in the first place. Your opinion is the first thing, that goes into
>> the corporate wastepaper basked, and deservedly so.
>
> 10% equates to a lot of sales.

The 10% rants and 10% raves equate to zero gained sales, simply because
the nutcases on either end of the spectrum either don't have enough money
to buy or they would buy what they want anyway.

> Remember, only 1-2% of disatisfied customers statistically bother to
> complain...at least that was our training when I worked retail back in
> the 70's. For each one complaint, there are 100-200 more that you
> didn't hear from.

I am not saying 'don't listen to complaings', just 'discard rants and
raves because they are not complaining customers but nutcases. If someone
writes a well thought out and civil complaint letter I am sure it is going
to be taken seriously, but what you are pulling here (and same goes for
your buddies) has nothing to do with civil or well thought out.

>> If you are unable to state your opinion in a civil tone and at least
>> roughly balanced it is worth nothing to anyone.
>
> You really need to toughen up that hyde a bit.

Sorry, no Mr. Hyde here. You should probably lay off that elixir of yours,
so your Mr. Hyde disappears and stops making your replies that uncivil.

>> Of course there is. You claim that GM loses a large percentage of
>> buyers because of the DRLs. If it were so the Corvette wouldn't post
>> record sales. Reality is, most people by far are indifferent about
>> DRLs, some like them and some hate them. And unless someone is a total
>> moron the decision, whether to buy a Corvette or not certainly is not
>> going to hinge on DRLs.
>
> I'm sure some won't buy because of them.

And GM is better off losing these 1-2% disgruntled oldtimers.

> I know several people that have stopped buying GM's (most in my family,
> but some at the office too) because of DRLs.

I am sure that GM has gained about the same percentage because of people
who like and want automatic headlights and DRLs. Law of averages.

>> People waste enormous amounts of gas on all kinds of useless things. It
>> is a well known trick for econazis to claim some enormous number, which
>> is not only intentionally doctored but also not quite as enormous when
>> seen in relation to the total consumption.
>
> Changing the subject.

No.

> Yes, there are many areas of waste. Those other areas are not part of
> the topic of discussion.

Of course they are. You claim that this safety device uses some 'huge
number' energy. I say that that the numbers in reality are small compared
to the numbers even wasted on things like A/C and loud stereos.

> This is one of the DRL issues you say doesn't exist.

It doesn't. The gasoline consumption of a car doesn't increase measurably
for having both front turn signals on all the time. IOW the gas
consumption is only a fraction of a percent of the total gas consumption
of the same car. In other words your big numbers are meaningless because
you forgot to put them in relation to the total gas consumption.

>> My car gets somewhere between 20 and 30mpg depending on driving
>> conditions. If my two 21 watt front turn signals were not constantly
>> lit it would get somewhere between 20.001 and 30.001mpg. Yes, the
>> number is big but only total idiots are impressed by big numbers
>> without references.
>
> Yes I suppose you're right. My guess is your numbers are exagerated a
> bit to the low side and the numbers I provided are more accurate in
> comarison.

US drivers use about 130,000,000,000 gallons of gas per year. your
450,000,000 are about 0.3 percent of this consumption. So I would get
between 20.06 and 30.06 mpg without my DRLs.

In other words, your big number means nothing whatsoever because you did
not put it into the proper relation.

>>> Since you made the claim that automatic transmissions waste fuel, I
>>> assumed you knew what the numbers were.
>>
>> I do. Somewhere between 1 and 3 miles less to the gallon of gas.
>
> That is probably about right, based on EPA ratings I've seen for the
> same cars with the the two different transmission types.

In other words, you waste about thirty times as much energy per mile
driven with your automatic transmission as I use up with my DRLs. I think
it's time you learned how to drive a stick and junked your automatic.

>> If you want to save precious fuel I suggest you sweat instead. Both A/C
>> and open windows decrease mileage much more significantly than two 21
>> Watt lightbulbs.
>
> That is quite probably true. It's probably more than two 55 watt bulbs
> as well. But waste anywhere is waste, in the final analysis.

Fortunately DRLs are not waste, but save lives as the study I posted
shows.

>> Not if the brain is befuddled with either bias or alcohol or a
>> combination thereof.
>
> So, I am a alcoholic now.

No, but you are very bad at reading comprehension.

Not every person, who drinks alcohol, is an alcoholic.

> I don't even drink wine or beer, so incorrect again (what a surprise).

That leaves the bias, which you clearly have. q.e.d.

>>> You're right, there is no "traffic related reason". However, there
>>> are _other_ reason and purposes for which people need to use their
>>> cars. You and GM may ignore that reality, if you all so choose. No
>>> problem.
>>
>> Safety comes first.
>
> There must be some way both requirements can be satisfied.

Until there is DRLs and automatic headlights make sense.

> For example, on the GM large trucks, one can cycle the dome light 4
> times (on-off-on-off) and that will signal the BCM to completely disable
> the DRLs AND the auto headlamps...but only for that one ignition cycle.

That actually might work if not the bozos too stupid to switch on the
light by themselves were the same control freaks, who are likely to switch
off DRLs and auto headlights because they feel a certain body part
shrinking if they can't decide when to turn on the lights themselves.

I suggest something along the lines of press the trip odo reset, turn the
light switch and cycle the dome light four times

>> I thought you did because you loftily (and quite wrongly) declared the
>> GTO as a failure.
>
> I never said "failure". I said sales numbers were poor. The last I
> looked that model hadn't even sold 3000 units. Of course ~6000 still
> isn't all that great.

It more than meets GMs projected numbers, i.e. they are selling all the
cars they get.

> I think my 67 model had 67K (maybe more) in sales. That's 10 times
> sales this year...and that was almost 40 years ago.

The 6000 were for half a year. And it was well known by GM that the GTO
fills a niche, albeit a lucrative one.

> Making DRLs options instead of mandates won't make a success out ot it,
> but it will bring in some additional percentage of sales, I'm sure.

On the contrary, it would cost lives.

>> He described how to lose and regain control, not how to induce and
>> sustain a controlled skid. Even Nate acknowledged that 'it is possible
>> to regain control after this maneuver' which clearly confirms that even
>> Nate sees the maneuver as a loss of control instead of a controlled
>> skid.
>
> He said "destabalize". Control isn't lost if the maneuver has reliably
> provided the added directional control (and the operative word is
> control) that was required for the avoidance maneuver. Nate's maneuver
> would work.

Even Nate admitted that it is only 'possible to regain control', IOW
control _is_ lost, unlike when doing a controlled skid with accelerator or
parking brake modulated by a skilled foot/hand.

> I guess it is...since it does work. Even if you follow your logic of
> explaining Nate's maneuver (control was momentarily lost and then
> regained). If one reliably regains during that manuever, control was not
> really ever lost in the first place since the intended result of
> avoidance was acheived as expected.

In most cases where someone attempts a maneuver like that it ends with
either running out of road or crashing into the obstacle before
'regaining' control. The number of accidents where a controlled skid helps
avoid a crash is small to begin with and your experiment in losing and
'potentially regaining' control is even worse.

> Have you ever seen those driver competitions where one of the tasks is
> to run the car up to a parrallel parking space and skid around 360
> degrees into the space.

None of them uses the brake to induce the maneuver, because that's much
too unprecise.

> The better the driver aligns the car in the marked off space wins that
> part of the competion. Well, the skid "appears" quite out of control.
> But if the driver puts the car where it belongs...it's hard to say he
> didn't really have control, can you?

That's why they don't simple 'unsettle the car with the brake and then
hope they regain control'.

>> Why should I trust a self proclaimed maniac, who tries dangerous stunts
>> in totally unsuitable vehicles?
>
> And the conclusions derived are based on what? Since I've manages to
> avoid quite a few mishapes why ths conclusion?

ROTFLMFAO. You claim to know that ABS has never saved my hide, but
seriously want to tell me that your control loss maneuver has saved yours?
Not a chance. Not one.

>>> Pure speculation on your part.
>>
>> No. The naked and ugly truth.
>
> I'm surious about something. You've stated here that the preferred
> beaking methos, even on non-ABS systems is to mash the brake. Not
> you're saying perople don't have the balls to "get off the brake".

If you need to steer of course you have to get off the brake. And ABS
makes that unnecessary, which is good for the large majority of drivers,
who don't have the balls to get off the brake when moving towards an
obstacle at a speed that makes an impact likely even under braking.

>> Rear wheel ABS doesn't count. And apparently you never really drove the
>> ABS cars to the limit or you wouldn't tell the nonsense you are
>> telling.
>
> How it is nonsense?

ABS keeps a car controllable under full braking. As you admit yourself you
can only brake very gingerly in low friction situations, having to
maintain a healthy margin to make sure you don't lose control. And still
have to severely limit steering input because your wheels already are
close to the lockup point.

So you have a car that is not braked at an optimal rate, cannot be
maneuvered easily and safely and you are telling me that this is safer
than a system that not only provides a near optimal deceleration rate
under low-friction conditions but also keeps the car maneuverable and
automatically compensates for the loss of friction due to the lateral
component introduced when steering the car?

>> Face it, both these jalopies don't give you any idea what ABS is really
>> like. And concerning the Malibu, you hated it and sold it off as fast
>> as possible. No believable testbed either.
>
> So ABS aren't effective on some of the most common vehicles on the road?
> Is that what you're saying?

No, these cars already handle and brake so bad that you are not really
able to gage the impact of ABS on safety.

>> No, I merely am able quite well to judge my own driving. You on the
>> other hand judge my driving by two situations you don't even know just
>> from a handful of typed words. Either you are suffering from a
>> superiority complex in its final stage or you are a very stupid person.
>> Of course I will not exclude the possibility that both is the case.
>
> I haven' judged your driving at all.

Oh yes, you have. You even claimed to know better than I do whether ABS
saved my skin in situations you don't even know.

> I did. They had the required hours of professional instruction, Both
> the wife and I completed the mandatory driving log (which is quite a fe
> w more hours of vaious types of driving). You do have the ability to
> understand that more there an be more than one instructor. Plus, I
> looked over the instructional materials.

I am so impressed... not. Driving instruction is a case for professional
instructors exclusively. Parents only botch things when left to something
they have no proper training in. You are an excellent example for that.

>>> So, it's best to mash the brakes on a non-ABS vehicle and and lock up
>>> the front wheels so one can't control the car.
>>
>> As long as you are braking in a straight line: Yes.
>
> And the obstacle you are trying to avoid in front of you dictates that
> you'd better not stay in that straight-line-wheel-lock-skid.

That's why you have to get off the brakes in time to maneuver around it.
With this method you not only make sure you impact with the least possible
speed if you don't make it around the obstacle, but also significantly
improve your chances of actually making it around the obstacle over
your 'gingerly braking and then trying to make the evasive maneuver with
a much higher speed and possible even under further gingerly braking'.

>> In a curve: Try to make the stretch you are braking on as straight as
>> possible and still hit the brakes hard. If you get too close to the
>> outer limit of the curve, release and steer toward the center of the
>> curve. Repeat. Sound complicated?
>
> It isn't al all complicated. Donce it hundreds of times over the years.
> Why do you think that common situation is so complicated?

Because if you have done it that way hundreds of times I want to know why
you instead taught your kid to brake gingerly.

Face it, braking gingerly is for situations where braking merely serves to
stop at a traffic light or such. In an emergency situation braking hard
and getting off the brakes when steering input is required is by far the
better strategy.

>> Yes, it is. Still the only way to get brake distances in curves that
>> even come close to ABS.
>
> Yes, ABS will do better in curves (at the limits, as you say). I agree.
> However, the added ability ABS provides apparently isn't necessary (or
> needed) if ABS systems are not statistically reducing accident rates.

ABS systems are reducing real accidents. The numbers are fudged by the
initial problem of people believing the first ABS ads about a miracle
brake. But since then the numbers have steadily and quite heavily declined.

You are a perfect example for why ABS is so necessary. You are not quite
sure about the correct way to decelerate a car in an emergency situation
and thus taught your kids total nonsense about gingerly braking and
whatnot and claim you yourself brake hard and release when you have to add
steering input. ABS solves that problem, brake hard, steer and you will
make it around the obstacle.

And one valuable lesson: Never believe any insurance statistics and
believe their interpretations even less.

>> Only on ice and snow or severely different-friction pavement soft
>> braking is required with non-ABS cars. Of course the brake distances
>> are horrible unless you want to risk losing control but that's the
>> price you pay for your arrogance.
>
> So far the 89 years of combined driving experience of the people I
> mentioned doesn't indicate otherwise?

No. I can list a whole bunch of total bozos who get into a situation where
someone else saves their hide on a daily basis and who at the same time
claim a clear driving record. A clear driving record says you are lucky,
nothing more.

> If the statistics indicate that that likelihood of "paying the price"
> is of zero difference betwen the two, how is arrogance factored in?

Statistics are the most elegant form of lying.

It's funny how you basically confirm my opinion about ABS and it's effect
but let yourself be so influenced by this insurance bull**** that you end
up not believing your own reasoning. What a pity.

>>> The danger also existes of a uncontrolled shid as well. You are
>>> seriously joking, right?
>>
>> An uncontrolled **** is what you will likely do in your last seconds
>> when you realize that ABS would have saved your ass.
>
> Well, I can hardly wait for this first time experience.

I on the other hand hope that you will never get in this situation.

> I will keep a extra pair of undies in the car for just such a occasion.

I doubt they will benefit you much when the coroner comes to pick you up.

> Since the statistics indicate that I have no more likelyhood of being
> in the sutuation you describe, no matter which type of brake system I
> have, forgive me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation.

Statistics indicate that most people, who never have been in an accident,
eventually get into one. As they say, there are two types of
motorcyclists, the ones who have been down and the ones who will be. Same
goes for cars.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:31:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>>And do you really think that GM is interested in the opinion of someone,
>>>who basically says 'i am not buying GM anyway'?
>>
>>Of course they should be interested.
>
>
> Of course they should NOT be interested. Spending a lot of time and money
> to convince a handful of fanatics takes away from making better cars for
> the people, who are interested in the first place.

You imply that the kind of people who buy GM cars are interested in
whether or not the cars are any good in the first place. Generally they
are the kind of people who treat cars like appliances and would be best
served by a Honda or Toyota but want to "buy American." They just
assume the cars are "good enough."

The whole concept of GM making "better cars" is laughable, they build
transportation appliances, and not as well as other companies.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:37:53 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> Of course they should NOT be interested. Spending a lot of time and
>> money to convince a handful of fanatics takes away from making better
>> cars for the people, who are interested in the first place.
>
> You imply that the kind of people who buy GM cars are interested in
> whether or not the cars are any good in the first place. Generally they
> are the kind of people who treat cars like appliances and would be best
> served by a Honda or Toyota but want to "buy American." They just assume
> the cars are "good enough."

I drive a GM car for a very specific reason. I know at least a hundred
people who do the same, also for a reason though not all of them are the
same reasons.

What I am implying is that GM can not take any 'idea' from any self
appointed guardian of GM's market share into account.

> The whole concept of GM making "better cars" is laughable, they build
> transportation appliances, and not as well as other companies.

Sure, the Goat is a transportation appliance. And the C6. And the CTS-V.

GM has their share of transportation appliances, like most other
manufacturers. Toyota almost exclusively makes transportation appliances.
At GM you have the the choice. Boring or interesting. I rather prefer to
have the choice.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:37:53 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>
>
>>>Of course they should NOT be interested. Spending a lot of time and
>>>money to convince a handful of fanatics takes away from making better
>>>cars for the people, who are interested in the first place.
>>
>>You imply that the kind of people who buy GM cars are interested in
>>whether or not the cars are any good in the first place. Generally they
>>are the kind of people who treat cars like appliances and would be best
>>served by a Honda or Toyota but want to "buy American." They just assume
>>the cars are "good enough."
>
>
> I drive a GM car for a very specific reason. I know at least a hundred
> people who do the same, also for a reason though not all of them are the
> same reasons.
>
> What I am implying is that GM can not take any 'idea' from any self
> appointed guardian of GM's market share into account.
>
>
>>The whole concept of GM making "better cars" is laughable, they build
>>transportation appliances, and not as well as other companies.
>
>
> Sure, the Goat is a transportation appliance. And the C6. And the CTS-V.
>
> GM has their share of transportation appliances, like most other
> manufacturers. Toyota almost exclusively makes transportation appliances.
> At GM you have the the choice. Boring or interesting. I rather prefer to
> have the choice.
>
> Chris

For each of the "good" GM vehicles which you mention - which I don't
think are all that great - they've built several Luminas. Or in other
words - if they *can* build good cars, why aren't their bread and butter
sedans at least marginally interesting?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:55:06 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> GM has their share of transportation appliances, like most other
>> manufacturers. Toyota almost exclusively makes transportation
>> appliances. At GM you have the the choice. Boring or interesting. I
>> rather prefer to have the choice.
>>
> For each of the "good" GM vehicles which you mention - which I don't think
> are all that great - they've built several Luminas.

And for every Supra Toyota has built literally hundreds of boring and
staid Corollas and Avalons. And the Supra is dead anyway, so Toyota only
builds ultra boring sedans now.

> Or in other words - if they *can* build good cars, why aren't their
> bread and butter sedans at least marginally interesting?

Because bread and butter sedans are not even marginally interesting in
most brands.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:55:06 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> GM has their share of transportation appliances, like most other
> >> manufacturers. Toyota almost exclusively makes transportation
> >> appliances. At GM you have the the choice. Boring or interesting. I
> >> rather prefer to have the choice.
> >>
> > For each of the "good" GM vehicles which you mention - which I don't think
> > are all that great - they've built several Luminas.
>
> And for every Supra Toyota has built literally hundreds of boring and
> staid Corollas and Avalons. And the Supra is dead anyway, so Toyota only
> builds ultra boring sedans now.

My point was that a Corolla, Avalon, Jetta, etc. is a vastly better car
than a Lumina, Malibu (well, I'm reserving judgement on that - I
haven't had any experience with the new one) Cavalier, etc and is more
engaging to drive as well. Even a "good" GM bread 'n' butter car, like
an older Oldsmobile or Buick with a 3800, is generally flaccid an
uninspiring, generally with marginal brakes as well.

>
> > Or in other words - if they *can* build good cars, why aren't their
> > bread and butter sedans at least marginally interesting?
>
> Because bread and butter sedans are not even marginally interesting in
> most brands.

I disagree, most of the competition at least tries to be somewhat more
interesting than a typical GM product.

nate

> Sure, the Goat is a transportation appliance.

You'd have to be crazy to spend that much money on a
Pontiac. 33K for a V8 Grand Prix?! Insane.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:05:00 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:55:06 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > C.H. wrote:
>>
>> >> GM has their share of transportation appliances, like most other
>> >> manufacturers. Toyota almost exclusively makes transportation
>> >> appliances. At GM you have the the choice. Boring or interesting. I
>> >> rather prefer to have the choice.
>> >>
>> > For each of the "good" GM vehicles which you mention - which I don't
>> > think are all that great - they've built several Luminas.
>>
>> And for every Supra Toyota has built literally hundreds of boring and
>> staid Corollas and Avalons. And the Supra is dead anyway, so Toyota only
>> builds ultra boring sedans now.
>
> My point was that a Corolla, Avalon, Jetta, etc. is a vastly better car
> than a Lumina, Malibu (well, I'm reserving judgement on that - I haven't
> had any experience with the new one) Cavalier, etc and is more engaging to
> drive as well.

The Lumina has been out of production for years. The new Malibu seems ok
and in the price range of a new Cavalier you won't find much even from
Japan, at least no 4-seat sedans.

The Jetta on the other hand has major reliability problems and I
personally despise it, YMMV. And I have never seen a car more uninspired
and boring than a Toyota Corolla.

>> Because bread and butter sedans are not even marginally interesting in
>> most brands.
>
> I disagree, most of the competition at least tries to be somewhat more
> interesting than a typical GM product.

If they really are trying they are failing miserably at it.

Chris

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:00:39 +0000, 223rem wrote:

>
>> Sure, the Goat is a transportation appliance.
>
> You'd have to be crazy to spend that much money on a Pontiac. 33K for a V8
> Grand Prix?! Insane.

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.

I will admit that the styling of the GTO is not as exciting as it should
be, which surely is of much importance when you sit in your garage in the
evening, admiring your car. On the other hand it may come in handy when
you run by the police at 80mph.

Chris