 |
|
|
|
Related Topics:
| Beware this seller. Larry Brown Quincy Illinois - Read my Story at: or contact: for his story. Pardon the I just want to make sure that no one else is dumb enough to get nailed by this guy.
TECH: need help with Renault Megane 1.6 K7M engine - Hi, My Renault Megane 1.6 with K7M engine has some engine prb that my garage cannot fix: 1) Cold engine start is Engine will start but then stall. Engine needs stepping on gas to start. 2) RPM is unstable with cold and warm engine..
bad running car - I have a 1983 lincoln Mark VI.I have had a new fuel pump put on,lines blown out,and oxygen sencor put on and it still doesn't want to take gas when very little power at putts}.I thought I got bad gas ,so I put but clearner in the..
No High MPG autos? - The to greatly reduce our on oil has existed for decades. 76 years ago the President of General Motors predicted 80-mpg by 1939; 69 years ago Ford Motor Co. tested a 170-mpg Pogue 32 years ago Shell Oil Co a..
What to do with high mileage car? - We have four vehicles and since the mileage on each them is '190K, 140K, 128K and 64K'. We needed a new vehicle for reliable for long distance journeys (to see my son). Hence we purchased a new vehicle in December '05. One of these four..
|
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 24, 2007
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 46) Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: alt>autos, others (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 08, 2007
Posts: 98
|
(Msg. 47) Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.autos,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok
> You mean like the 85th percentile speed limit and other well supported
> contrarian to the general population items that the majority of the
> regulars of r.a.d. know to be true? The problem isn't my conclusions,
> rather its that certain people, namely you Ed, refuse to have the same
> open mind to the facts as they do with the 85th percentile speed limit.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...not that. Where's the support? I'll bet the best you
can trot out is a poorly constructed study from 25 or 40 years ago. There is
no verifiable"proof" that setting the speed limit using the 85th percentile
rule is any better than using the 80th percentile rule or the 90th
percentile rule. Just determining the true 85th percentile speed is
impossible in any meaningful way. Even if you determine the freely flowing
speed on a section of road under a particular set of conditions, exactly how
applicable would that me to a much longer section of the same road under all
conditions? As best I can figure the 85th percentile rule is favored by two
groups - traffic engineers who need to utter a justification for setting a
particular speed limit and people who think the speed limits are too low.
The fact that people invoke the term often does not make it a scientific
fact. You might as well say the earth is flat. For most practical purposes
it is. The 85th percentile rule is just a rule - convenient but not a
scientific fact.
The best discussion of the 85th percentile rule I have seen is at
http://www.dma.org/~ganotedp/85th.htm. In the end I think they give you a
fairly balanced argument for why the 85th percentile is useful, and they
never fall into the trap of claiming that speed limits set using the 85th
percentile rule are the "safest" speed limits. Their arguments tend more
towards - speed limits set by the 85th percentile rule are the fairest speed
limits, or most democratic, or easiest to enforce. I can't disagree with
these conclusions. What drives me crazy is people who try to claim there is
hard science that "proves" speed limits set by the 85th percentile rule are
the "safest" speed limits. That claim is total BS.
One more thing - how many speed limits are actually set using the 85th
percentile rule? I don't mean how many are claimed to be set by the rule -
how many truly are?
C E "Ed" White (yes another Ed who doesn't like the way some people worship
the 85th percentile rule) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 08, 2007
Posts: 98
|
(Msg. 48) Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"John S." <hjsjms.TakeThisOut@cs.com> wrote in message
news:fce5c57d-52d7-4aff-a208-444b33be07e5@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Fine information but I think you are missing the point.
I thought you were equating the author of the commentary to Henry Ford. By
the tone of your comment it seemed you were implying that Henry Ford was
unwilling to change with the times and you used the Model T as an example of
his intransigence. I was pointing out that the Model T was not as static as
you seemed to indicate (or urban lore would suggest). Further more Henry
Ford was not adverse to innovation, but clearly he did have very firm ideas
of what he thought was important and had a definite stubborn streak. He
certainly continued building the Model T past its useful life. However, once
he realized the Model T was truly obsolete he moved with surprising speed to
introduce the Model A. When that became dated, he introduced mass produced
V-8s. He did things his way. They might not have always worked out, but I
don't think it is fair to say he was a stick in the mud or adverse to
innovations. He (or at least his company) was responsible for implementing
many manufacturing innovations. He was always interested in new processes
and materials. Henry Fords chief goal for the Model T was to make it as
cheaply as possible. Most innovations connected to the Model T were related
to reducing costs, not increasing function (although there were many
functional improvements over the 19 years it was produced).
So if your point was that the author of the commentary was opposed to
innovation "like Henry Ford," then I think your point is invalid since I
don't think Henry Ford was opposed to innovations.
Ed >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 57
|
(Msg. 49) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:46 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "John S." <hjs....DeleteThis@cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fce5c57d-52d7-4aff-a208-444b33be07e5@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Fine information but I think you are missing the point.
>
> I thought you were equating the author of the commentary to Henry Ford. By
> the tone of your comment it seemed you were implying that Henry Ford was
> unwilling to change with the times and you used the Model T as an example of
> his intransigence. I was pointing out that the Model T was not as static as
> you seemed to indicate (or urban lore would suggest). Further more Henry
> Ford was not adverse to innovation, but clearly he did have very firm ideas
> of what he thought was important and had a definite stubborn streak. He
> certainly continued building the Model T past its useful life. However, once
> he realized the Model T was truly obsolete he moved with surprising speed to
> introduce the Model A. When that became dated, he introduced mass produced
> V-8s. He did things his way. They might not have always worked out, but I
> don't think it is fair to say he was a stick in the mud or adverse to
> innovations. He (or at least his company) was responsible for implementing
> many manufacturing innovations. He was always interested in new processes
> and materials. Henry Fords chief goal for the Model T was to make it as
> cheaply as possible. Most innovations connected to the Model T were related
> to reducing costs, not increasing function (although there were many
> functional improvements over the 19 years it was produced).
>
> So if your point was that the author of the commentary was opposed to
> innovation "like Henry Ford," then I think your point is invalid since I
> don't think Henry Ford was opposed to innovations.
>
> Ed
Actually, he kind of was. There's a reason that Ford was one of the
last mfgrs. to introduce hydraulic brakes, and his name was Henry.
nate >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 50) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
N8N wrote:
> 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
Points barely make it off the dealer lot without needing servicing. 
My buddy had the coil fail on his 72 Nova on the highway. (It was a 76
era HEI with an Accel Supercoil.)
I guess it depends on what you consider simple and easy to modify.
Me, I'm a mopower kind of guy. I don't care if the ignition system
needs special tools, I want it to fire and fire good.
Ray >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 24, 2007
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 51) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 52) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:15 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
N8N wrote:
> 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
ok, I guessed on the points servicing. It was a winter car, so IIRC,
checking the dwell and timing was done once in the fall. What a POS it
was - would run fine all summer if I ever needed it, but everytime it
got cold, it would die - ever changed a starter at 30 below in a parking
lot? Freakin trans self destructed in -30, puking 2 gallons (we kept
topping it up) of ATF on the 5 mile drive home, self shearing wheel
studs, and so on.)
I don't like FWD, but the wife's Beretta never ever left me on the side
of the road.
Ray >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 53) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:27 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 25, 1:59 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Beware of high tech running amok
Nothing personal to anyone, but this thead is a complete waste of
\bandwidth in my humble opinion.
Isnt the a newsroup or a listserve for 'I hate new stuff' or 'I love
old cars and new stuff sucks' or 'Technoilogy scares me'' >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 25, 2007
Posts: 22
|
(Msg. 54) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:47 am
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 27, 7:54 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET....DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1c27d0ee-baea-429b-b288-a99814986....DeleteThis@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > But sure, "I made you do it."
>
> > LOL.
>
> You enable and participate in the very noise you complain about.
"Enable?" Yeah, I made you post each and every time. ROFTL!
E.P. >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 25, 2007
Posts: 22
|
(Msg. 55) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 28, 1:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <e4cbb603-992b-43ab-a1a3-77ae8bf36... DeleteThis @i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <85e5c17b-6bc0-4ebb-a354-18ef3419a... DeleteThis @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > But seriously. I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on why
> >> > you seem to get so little respect, even from long-timers. Even Nate
> >> > admits that you have a certain attitude.
> >> > I suppose that once you grow up and stop blaming others for your
> >> > shortcomings, you may actually be able to address how folks who should
> >> > nominally be your allies reject your spewing a significant fraction of
> >> > the time.
>
> >> I'm not blaming anyone else Ed.
>
> > Sure you are. You said I was "enabling" it - here's a newsflash,
> > smart guy - *you* are the guy in control of what you post. Your long
> > OT diatribes are your responsibility, 100%. Only a little kid blames
> > others for his/her own choices. Grow up, Brent.
>
> I didn't say I wasn't in control of what I post.
Sure you did. On two occasions in this very thread. And several
other veiled "I wouldn't post so much off-topic junk if you [insert
behavior you can't control here]."
*You* are in control of what you post. Blaming others is childish.
"You made me do it!"
LOL.
E.P. >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 04, 2005
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 56) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:11:32 GMT, Ray
> <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Points barely make it off the dealer lot without needing servicing.
>
> Yeah, but you could service them yourself with a file and a pair of
> needle-nose pliers.
Yeah, but my wife's Beretta has made it 18 years without needing to
service that part of the ignition system. (It still needs plugs and wires.)
>> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 25, 2007
Posts: 22
|
(Msg. 57) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 28, 3:11 pm, russo....RemoveThis@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <64e05a21-6d54-46db-ad6c-9ec649af1....RemoveThis@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <gcmschem....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the
> >extreme.
>
> So you're of the opinion that it is not possible to paint a
> rotary-wing aircraft in a dark neutral color?
A straw man that is humorous. Very nice!
E.P. >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 73
|
(Msg. 58) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "John S." <hjs....DeleteThis@cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fce5c57d-52d7-4aff-a208-444b33be07e5@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Fine information but I think you are missing the point.
>
> I thought you were equating the author of the commentary to Henry Ford. By
> the tone of your comment it seemed you were implying that Henry Ford was
> unwilling to change with the times and you used the Model T as an example of
> his intransigence. I was pointing out that the Model T was not as static as
> you seemed to indicate (or urban lore would suggest). Further more Henry
> Ford was not adverse to innovation, but clearly he did have very firm ideas
> of what he thought was important and had a definite stubborn streak. He
> certainly continued building the Model T past its useful life. However, once
> he realized the Model T was truly obsolete he moved with surprising speed to
> introduce the Model A. When that became dated, he introduced mass produced
> V-8s. He did things his way. They might not have always worked out, but I
> don't think it is fair to say he was a stick in the mud or adverse to
> innovations. He (or at least his company) was responsible for implementing
> many manufacturing innovations. He was always interested in new processes
> and materials. Henry Fords chief goal for the Model T was to make it as
> cheaply as possible. Most innovations connected to the Model T were related
> to reducing costs, not increasing function (although there were many
> functional improvements over the 19 years it was produced).
>
> So if your point was that the author of the commentary was opposed to
> innovation "like Henry Ford," then I think your point is invalid since I
> don't think Henry Ford was opposed to innovations.
>
> Ed
You apparently have a real interest in ford and that's fine to search
out and correct any potentially misleading details about the company
on the net. However your attention to detail left you unable to see
the forest for the trees. You miss the intent of my statement which
was not to inform about the specifics of Ford Motor Car production 80
years prior. >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 73
|
(Msg. 59) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 28, 12:27 pm, "benteac...@gmail.com" <benteac....DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:59 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Beware of high tech running amok
>
> Nothing personal to anyone, but this thead is a complete waste of
> \bandwidth in my humble opinion.
> Isnt the a newsroup or a listserve for 'I hate new stuff' or 'I love
> old cars and new stuff sucks' or 'Technoilogy scares me''
Then why did you contribute your $00.02 about safety features
earlier? >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 561
|
(Msg. 60) Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Beware of high tech running amok [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <b38a2dbd-10aa-4f9b-b269-a56b58ebbe51 RemoveThis @s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... RemoveThis @yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <e4cbb603-992b-43ab-a1a3-77ae8bf36... RemoveThis @i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... RemoveThis @yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article <85e5c17b-6bc0-4ebb-a354-18ef3419a... RemoveThis @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > But seriously. I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on why
>> >> > you seem to get so little respect, even from long-timers. Even Nate
>> >> > admits that you have a certain attitude.
>> >> > I suppose that once you grow up and stop blaming others for your
>> >> > shortcomings, you may actually be able to address how folks who should
>> >> > nominally be your allies reject your spewing a significant fraction of
>> >> > the time.
>>
>> >> I'm not blaming anyone else Ed.
>>
>> > Sure you are. You said I was "enabling" it - here's a newsflash,
>> > smart guy - *you* are the guy in control of what you post. Your long
>> > OT diatribes are your responsibility, 100%. Only a little kid blames
>> > others for his/her own choices. Grow up, Brent.
>>
>> I didn't say I wasn't in control of what I post.
>
> Sure you did. On two occasions in this very thread. And several
> other veiled "I wouldn't post so much off-topic junk if you [insert
> behavior you can't control here]."
>
> *You* are in control of what you post. Blaming others is childish.
>
> "You made me do it!"
>
> LOL.
You have better reading comprehension than that.
Logically Ed, if I didn't have you to reply to, would the 'noise' as you
call it that I post increase or decrease? Think about it. You don't make
me do anything, you create the opertunity and I _choose_ to take it
because you complain about it. Duh. >> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
