Beware of high tech running amok

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:R8Cdne0Vy41eZFnanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree
> and
> then I'll be concerned about it.

You have a car with three on the tree? I don't know when they stopped
offering that, but it had to be sometime in the 70's. I think our last
vehicle with three on the tree was a 1972 Ford F100. However, if you
can drive a stick shift, three on the tree is pretty easy. I am sure I
could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three
on the three in just a few minutes.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

In article <47c553aa$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:R8Cdne0Vy41eZFnanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree
>> and
>> then I'll be concerned about it.
>
> You have a car with three on the tree? I don't know when they stopped
> offering that, but it had to be sometime in the 70's. I think our last
> vehicle with three on the tree was a 1972 Ford F100. However, if you
> can drive a stick shift, three on the tree is pretty easy. I am sure I
> could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three
> on the three in just a few minutes.

My older car is three on the tree. it's a '73. And for emissions testing
when they would send over the person who could drive an MT they were just
baffled... explaining where R 1 2 3 wouldn't register.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

On Feb 27, 10:11 am, Ray <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid>
wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> >> I do chuckle, because "hi-tech" for some people might consist of things
> >> like self starters, radios, automatic transmissions, and disk brakes.
> >> Anyone here want to go back to point ignitions?
>
> > Hey!  You talking about me?
>
> > nate
>
> > (got rid of my last points distributor only a year or so ago; the '55
> > is running a Chrysler "orange box" ignition now, although I do have a
> > MSD 6AL that I might try to adapt...)
>
> Well, would you consider points ignition on a new car to be a selling
> feature?  It's simple, not high-tech....

Actually, I *would* consider a simple, easily modified ignition system
to be a selling feature, but points probably wouldn't meet the
emissions warranty requirements (no guarantee that they'd last out the
warranty period without service.) If the points die, you just take a
nail file/piece of sandpaper/whatever and brighten them up. If the
ballast resistor dies, just bypass it with a paper clip until you can
obtain a new one. The only real showstoppers on the road would be a
failed coil or condenser.

However, I do think the setup that I have now is damn near ideal from
a serviceability standpoint. The "orange box" is essentially a
transistor taking the place of the points. A crank trigger would be
nice, but then you need electronics to run the advance curve.

nate
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

On Feb 27, 10:11 am, Ray <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid>
wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> >> I do chuckle, because "hi-tech" for some people might consist of things
> >> like self starters, radios, automatic transmissions, and disk brakes.
> >> Anyone here want to go back to point ignitions?
>
> > Hey!  You talking about me?
>
> > nate
>
> > (got rid of my last points distributor only a year or so ago; the '55
> > is running a Chrysler "orange box" ignition now, although I do have a
> > MSD 6AL that I might try to adapt...)
>
> Well, would you consider points ignition on a new car to be a selling
> feature?  It's simple, not high-tech....
>
> I sure wouldn't.  Owned one car with points.  That was enough.  Wife's
> car - 1990 Beretta... original coils.  Never done anything but change
> the plugs and wires.  That's much better than doing points every 3 months.
>
> Ray

forgot to mention, if you're changing points more often than every
year or so, you probably have an out of spec condenser or ballast
resistor. Heck, my dad's old pickup didn't get a tuneup for years at
a stretch, until it died on me one morning and I got PO'd and bought a
junkyard HEI so I wouldn't get stuck again.

nate
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

In article <rbsas356ecr4p71ih7jcn8j061bhkfcu4c.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:48:51 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS.DeleteThis@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <02g9s35r5gmcl9e7p8r0an9fum4lshd68m.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:36:03 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS.DeleteThis@yahoo.com
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>I have no 'fob'.
>>>
>>> Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key
>>> fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden.
>>
>>I thought I was clear I consider it an annoyance.
>
> Do you really? Or are you just saying that so you can argue with me?
>
>>> Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets
>>> cold and icy.
>>
>>Except for the torqueless wonder car I haven't had that problem in about
>>14 years.
>
> But you have had that problem. QED.

Well, ya see it took me a bit to get into shape and the problem was half
mechanical. It was bad in the summer, worse in the winter. Only
disassembly and greasing took care of it. The linkage is still there with
the remote gizmo and it was the problem, not the lock cylinders
themselves.

>>I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too...
>
> Cite?

It's funny how I'm the person who is expected to keep cites for every
damn thing I've read in the last 20 years around here. How many times
have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there
would be just a little respect.

>>>>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh.
>>
>>> Luddite.
>>
>>No. Keep it Simple, Stupid.
>>
>>> Do you keep a bottle of lock de-icer in your wallet too?
>>
>>Why would I need that?
>
> Don't be disingenuous.

I've never needed it. It's not my fault you drove beaters when you lived
around here.

>>>>Only I drive my car.
>>
>>> And you're never getting married or even having an SO.
>>
>>Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and
>>then I'll be concerned about it.

> Maybe that's your REAL problem: you aren't getting laid enough, and
> you take out your frustrations by getting into silly arguments on
> USENET?

You're the one pushing the silly argument trying to convince me I need
your favorite gizmo. Note I haven't said you should give up your gizmo
only that I don't need or want it. Think about that for a moment. Why is
it so important that you convince me I need keyless entry?

>>Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did
>>drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up
>>but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take
>>the latch out of the system.

> The door latches in my C6 are controlled by solenoids. Since no part
> of the mechanism is exposed to water they cannot freeze up. You'd have
> to encase the entire car in a block of ice to keep me from getting
> into it.

The latches are just as exposed in your vette as any other car. Although
the old ford bear-hug latches did leave more mechanism out in the open
than more modern designs. But that's neither here nor there because
keyless entry does not eliminate nor does it better protect latches.
Keyless entry merely controls the latches. The electric solenoid is the
same one that is there for power locks. The electronic control replaces
the lock cylinder and only the lock cylinder, the rest of the mechanism
is there just as it would have always been.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

In article <5rsas3pfin739fn5kacah7hs67b28l5jp3.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:10:23 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3.TakeThisOut@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:R8Cdne0Vy41eZFnanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree
>>> and
>>> then I'll be concerned about it.
>>
>>You have a car with three on the tree?
>
> Since he drives a mid-90s Mustang, I'd say that's extremely doubtful.

> The thing about Brent is, when he's in an argumentative mood, he'll
> say *anything* just so he can disagree with you.
>
> But we love him anyway.

Now my '73 maverick is a 'lie' too? I'll take a picture of the shifter
for you tonight scott.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

In article <n0tas3ljtaao9nj1b9vb35froanohtvemg.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:58:23 GMT, Ray
><ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm a fan of basic cars... manual windows and all.
>>
>>But keyless entry rocks.
>
> Over the last decade, the only new vehicle I bought that didn't have
> remote keyless entry was a 2003 Tacoma. It had no power windows,
> either, but then again it was a work truck, not a luxury vehicle nor a
> daily driver. It was, however, the only exception; every other
> vehicle I have owned from my 1998 Mustang GT forward has come with
> keyless entry. As time goes on, Brent's going to have a tougher and
> tougher time finding vehicles that don't have it.

Who said I would look for a vehicle without it? I said I don't want or
need it. That means if I found a car without it that I liked it
wouldn't cause me not to buy it. If it was there, I merely would not
need to use it unless the lock cylinders were completely removed. You're
making huge leaps just to make silly arguments scott.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

While the manufacturers present such high-tech as a "benefit" for the
motorist, the truth is that they are trying to tie up more and more
after-the-sale, and after-the warranty service and repair work by
developing such complicated proprietary systems.

There is an ongoing battle over "The right to repair" in the aftermarket
service and repair industry right now.

Manufacturers do not want to provide critical information on allegedly
"proprietary" systems to independent repair shops. By withholding such
technological information, they become, by default, the ONLY source for
repair and adjustment.

So, instead of going to your local independent garage with the labor rate
of $50-$75/hour, you are pretty much stuck with the dealer at $125+ per
hour.

This, of course, is not the only example of how the auto manufacturers
present things as a "benefit" to the consumer when nothing could be further
from the truth.

FWD is one example. Turning the engine transversely, and packaging engine,
transmission and differential in a subframe module did two things for the
manufacturers.

It allowed them to "downsize" the cars without infringing too badly on
interior space, and it simplified the assembly of the car - making it even
cheaper to build,

Placing 100 percent of the steering, acceleration, and deceleration; and 90
percent of the braking inputs on one pair of wheels did nothing for the
consumer - unless you consider accelerated front tire wear and a constant,
near-dangerous understeer a "benefit".

I find it interesting that Chrysler - the company that made the initial
push to an all FWD fleet - is now offering more and more RWD cars such as
the Charger, Magnum, and "300".

AND.......McPherson struts DO NOT offer improved handling.....regardless of
what the advertising copywriters say.

McPherson worked for GM when he developed a suspension system that would
fit into a smaller package at each corner of the car. GM decided it didn't
need the "McPherson Strut" at the time, and allowed McPherson to keep his
patent.

Of course, many of today's cars use the strut setup - again to gain
interior room - and GM now pays royalties to McPherson.

The problem is that the strut's suspension geometry is horrid. Of course,
the strut manages to accomplish what the factories used to do with oddball
camber/caster settings, and that is to make the front end of the car wash
out long before the average driver can lay into a turn that is over his/her
driving ability.

One shop I worked at used to service a small fleet of police cruisers. We
used to re-align these cruisers to specs similar to my oval-track car, and
the officers driving these cruisers would come by and thank us for making
the cars feel safer at speed.

I'm currently looking for a couple of earlier vehicles with simple A/C,
automatic trans, cruise, etc. to rebuild and use as my primary vehicles.

Unfortunately, the tree-huggers have become pawns of the manufacturers in
"cleaning up and crushing" old vehicles.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnbRh-adC5ljanZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> In article <5rsas3pfin739fn5kacah7hs67b28l5jp3 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, Scott in
> SoCal wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:10:23 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3 DeleteThis @removemindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:R8Cdne0Vy41eZFnanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the
>>>> tree
>>>> and
>>>> then I'll be concerned about it.
>>>
>>>You have a car with three on the tree?
>>
>> Since he drives a mid-90s Mustang, I'd say that's extremely
>> doubtful.
>
>> The thing about Brent is, when he's in an argumentative mood, he'll
>> say *anything* just so he can disagree with you.
>>
>> But we love him anyway.
>
> Now my '73 maverick is a 'lie' too? I'll take a picture of the
> shifter
> for you tonight scott.

Hey, I drove one of those...had to be one of the last cars with 3 on
the tree.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

On Feb 25, 4:59 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Beware of high tech running amok
>
> Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>
> Frank Aukofer
> Automotive News
> February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
>
> COMMENTARY
>
> Volvo has a high-tech feature called BLIS.
>
> But it's anything but blissful. It's mostly annoying.
>
> And it's unnecessary, just like many of the other high-tech, high-cost and
> mostly useless features being foisted on gullible buyers as manufacturers
> think up ways to sell vehicles with faddish technology for technology's
> sake.
>
> Among them:
> -- Rain-sensing windshield wipers: They usually don't work, and besides,
> what's wrong with setting the interval yourself?
> -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night.
> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> twisting it?
> -- Radar cruise control: It slows you so the guy next to you can jump in the
> lane in front of you.
> -- Air-conditioned and heated seats: They're not needed if you sit on
> good-quality cloth instead of trendy leather.
> -- Surround-view cameras: What's wrong with looking around?
> -- Proximity warning systems: You can't tell whether it's picking up
> something in back or near the front fender.
>
> By now everyone has heard about the BMW iDrive, a hopelessly complicated
> system to do simple things, and Comand, which got Mercedes-Benz into a lot
> of quality trouble. Lexus has a self-parking system that needs about five
> times as much parking space as the average driver uses.
>
> Some of the stuff has marginal value, like rear cameras on SUVs that can
> keep some rutabaga brain from backing over a child. And Lexus has a face
> recognition system that sounds a warning and applies the brakes for the
> idiot who is drunk or nods off. Infiniti has a lane departure system that
> sounds a chime and gently applies the brakes to bring the car back in line..
>
> There are some extremely worthwhile high-tech inventions, including
> stability and traction control, antilock brakes and tire-pressure
> monitoring. But some are off-the-charts silly, like BLIS and similar
> systems.
>
>  This is BLIS?
>
> BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under
> the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the
> rear.
>
> When a car shows up in a supposed blind spot, a light inside on one A-pillar
> or the other illuminates to tell the driver something he should already
> know.
>
> It's not exclusive to Volvo. Mazda has one, and other manufacturers and
> suppliers have or are working on similar devices.
>
> They are costly and pointless. They don't always work as advertised, either,
> often providing false warnings.
>
> Virtually all automobiles and trucks these days have large outside mirrors
> with broad ranges of adjustments. Anyone can adjust the outside mirrors so
> that blind spots do not exist.
>
> All you have to do is adjust the left outside mirror so its right side lines
> up with the left side of the inside mirror. And adjust the right mirror so
> its left side aligns with the right side of the inside mirror.
>
> I am continually amazed at how many engineers, designers and even some
> automotive journalists believe in blind spots. They either don't know or
> refuse to learn how to adjust their outside mirrors properly. Or maybe
> they've been brainwashed by somebody's marketing department.
>
> In Europe, they've even institutionalized the fallacy by installing those
> ridiculous split reduction mirrors, which are supposed to eliminate blind
> spots but are mostly confusing and fortunately not legal in the United
> States.
>
> I think the blind-spot myth was propagated by generations of driver
> education instructors who told students to adjust outside mirrors so they
> could see the sides of the car - a "reference point."
>
> The problem is that if you adjust them that way, you get the same picture in
> all three mirrors - and blind spots.
>
> Then what?
>
> So, with Volvo's $695 BLIS, a light goes on when a car approaches. What are
> you supposed to do then? Guess where it is? Glance over your shoulder? All
> of that is distracting, and distractions are the No. 1 cause of accidents.
>
> The Mazda system, called BSM, has a page and a half of small italic type in
> the owner's manual with warnings about how the thing might not work, similar
> to those prescription drug advertisements on TV that warn of possible
> disablement or death if you use the product.
>
> The best part is that it says in boldface type: "Do not rely completely on
> the BSM system and be sure to look over your shoulder before changing
> lanes."
>
> Better yet, eliminate those expensive, complicated and unnecessary
> technology-spawned systems. Reduce the price of the car and spend the money
> on something useful, like a tush massager.

i've become enamored (from afar, of course) of the jaguar idea of
eliminating the gearshift for automatics, in favor of just a knob.
reminds me of the pushbutton automatics in the 60s.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 

On Feb 25, 5:48 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1... DeleteThis @wvu.edu> wrote:
> Ed White wrote:
> > BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under
> > the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the
> > rear.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Virtually all automobiles and trucks these days have large outside mirrors
> > with broad ranges of adjustments. Anyone can adjust the outside mirrors so
> > that blind spots do not exist.
>
> I'm surprised that someone who doesn't post to this newsgroup actually
> knows that.  In any case, I wonder how expensive the following system
> would be:
>
> Using the position of the driver's seat, automatically adjust the
> mirrors such that there are no blind spots.  Perhaps it could
> incorporate the height of the headrest as well to calculate vertical
> adjustment.  If the driver adjust them inward, automatically revert to
> the correct adjustment.

Hmm. there are systems around that can detect where your pupil is, so
it shouldn't be hard to have a camera back on the c pillar looking
into the mirror and adjusting it until it sees your pupil.

my problem is that the damn door mirrors aren't convenient for
glancing at; i prefer then way out front on the fenders, like they
used to be on english and japanese cars.
 >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok