Consumer Report's Bulb Test

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.

I found that the NightHawk did give me a boost in my 04 Town and Country and
the GE/Toshiba inferred bulbs improved my 98 RAV4 much more than my PT
Cruiser. Perhaps there is something about improvements being lamp specific.

Richard.

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

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

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.
>
> I found that the NightHawk did give me a boost in my 04 Town and Country and
> the GE/Toshiba inferred bulbs improved my 98 RAV4 much more than my PT
> Cruiser. Perhaps there is something about improvements being lamp specific.
>
> Richard.
>
>

I put Nighthawks in my vehicle and they are indeed brighter than the
standard issue lamps.

Also, at Wallyworld, a 2-pack of Nighthawks is around $10 cheaper than a
2-pack of Silverstars. And Nighthawks have clear glass while
Silverstars have that sickly blue cast.

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?

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
>
>

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

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

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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

Made for some excellent bargains on the used car market.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Art,

On another matter. Does the 300M give you any back support? I'm thinking of
selling mine since my back is killing me.

Ken


"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
>>
>>
>
>

Mine is ok. But ours only has 51000 miles on it so the seat might be in
better shape than yours if you have higher mileage.

My wife just bought a hybrid Accord so we will be getting rid of the 300M.
It was a great ride but she wanted something smaller for parking at work.
And yes, I know the hybrid feature is a complete waste of money. And it
doesn't have auto lights, auto dimming rearview mirror or memory seats. And
the passenger gets a manual seat. And no spare tire (patching kit and
compressor instead). But it sips gas and is fast and a heck of a lot nicer
then the Prius.


"NJ Vike" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Art,
>
> On another matter. Does the 300M give you any back support? I'm thinking
> of selling mine since my back is killing me.
>
> Ken
>
>
> "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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>