Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1>
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...

But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.

 

Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1>
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...

But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.

 

>> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
>> signals....
>
>The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
>signals".

Or else their trying to save a few bucks. "Hey, we just saved a few dollars
by not putting full gauges on our new Grand. We can save a few more cents
by only using one color plastic for the lenses.

One wonders if you can get a replacement amber/red lens designed for non-US
markets. If I ever had to buy a new Grand (which I have absolutely no plans
ever to do), I'd try.
>
>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? Or do you want the
>"Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
>to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
>just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
>bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
>they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
>right next to each other" badness?
>
>It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.

I can't either. Combining the brake and turn lamps takes away from brake
lamp functionality, but makes the turn signal stand out more at long
distances. Using seperate bulbs with both doubling as tail lights, like
Krysler likes to do in their large vehicles, causes the turn signal to tend
to blend into the brake lights at long distances, but doesn't reduce brake
light effectiveness at short distances.
--
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN <<to email, remove the "q" from address>>

 

>> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
>> signals....
>
>The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
>signals".

Or else their trying to save a few bucks. "Hey, we just saved a few dollars
by not putting full gauges on our new Grand. We can save a few more cents
by only using one color plastic for the lenses.

One wonders if you can get a replacement amber/red lens designed for non-US
markets. If I ever had to buy a new Grand (which I have absolutely no plans
ever to do), I'd try.
>
>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? Or do you want the
>"Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
>to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
>just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
>bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
>they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
>right next to each other" badness?
>
>It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.

I can't either. Combining the brake and turn lamps takes away from brake
lamp functionality, but makes the turn signal stand out more at long
distances. Using seperate bulbs with both doubling as tail lights, like
Krysler likes to do in their large vehicles, causes the turn signal to tend
to blend into the brake lights at long distances, but doesn't reduce brake
light effectiveness at short distances.
--
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN <<to email, remove the "q" from address>>

 

>> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
>> signals....
>
>The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
>signals".

Or else their trying to save a few bucks. "Hey, we just saved a few dollars
by not putting full gauges on our new Grand. We can save a few more cents
by only using one color plastic for the lenses.

One wonders if you can get a replacement amber/red lens designed for non-US
markets. If I ever had to buy a new Grand (which I have absolutely no plans
ever to do), I'd try.
>
>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? Or do you want the
>"Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
>to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
>just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
>bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
>they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
>right next to each other" badness?
>
>It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.

I can't either. Combining the brake and turn lamps takes away from brake
lamp functionality, but makes the turn signal stand out more at long
distances. Using seperate bulbs with both doubling as tail lights, like
Krysler likes to do in their large vehicles, causes the turn signal to tend
to blend into the brake lights at long distances, but doesn't reduce brake
light effectiveness at short distances.
--
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN <<to email, remove the "q" from address>>

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
>
>
> Halfassedly.
>
> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>
> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
> light.Half the problem solved.

And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
>
>
> Halfassedly.
>
> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>
> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
> light.Half the problem solved.

And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
>>>all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
>>>it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
>
>
> Halfassedly.
>
> "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
>
> "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
> surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
> on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
> the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
> light.Half the problem solved.

And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)

 

Groups trimmed to the one I know.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
> Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot

My mileage varies. Here in Connecticut a blinker means "I've nearly
finished turning". A brake light means "My right foot is bored."

4-way flashers mean "I really shouldn't have access to car keys and/or
I'm about to do something really really stupid".

 

Groups trimmed to the one I know.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> And so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
> Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot

My mileage varies. Here in Connecticut a blinker means "I've nearly
finished turning". A brake light means "My right foot is bored."

4-way flashers mean "I really shouldn't have access to car keys and/or
I'm about to do something really really stupid".