Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2005
Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
David E. Powell - 18 Nov 2005 16:31 GMT Hi there.
I have been looking at the new Honda Civic, it's pretty sweet, and the welds and everything are as nice as anything I have ever seen. I just have a question about the "Drive by wire" system that they are supposed to have.
What happens if the Engine dies on you? In my current car, my timing chip went once and the engine went out. I had enough steering control left, even without power steering, to pull my car over before it came to a stop. If the drive by wire system has no "real" or active connection, how can it work if the engine or electronics quit on you? Are there any backups built into the system in case any of that stuff happens? And what if your battery dies and you need to push the car? Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the car?
Much thanks, sorry to bother.
David
the fly - 18 Nov 2005 16:49 GMT >Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >David This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to these newsgroups a few years ago. Sorry I can't name the author, but that person hit the nail squarely on the head with these words:
".........more importantly than that, you've got to have the insight and wisdom to know when something has been developed to the point where further development amounts to pointless engineering masturbation.
"The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid reason for steer-by-wire."
Elle - 18 Nov 2005 17:03 GMT > This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to > these newsgroups a few years ago. Sorry I can't name the author, but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- Ya, so was the horse and buggy, the bicycle, etc.
> computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away > three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what > little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work > and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid > reason for steer-by-wire." This reminds me of Bill Gates comment a few decades ago that no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her computer.
What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the words not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him for his labors, at that.
He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should get out of the business or certainly never enter it.
mst - 18 Nov 2005 18:08 GMT > There is, therefore, > no valid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her > computer. That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has to do with capacity - he was basing his opinion because of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt changed in computers, but the capacity of devices has, such as faster CPUs (with increasing cache size), higher- capacity drives, more RAM, and so on.
Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers.
The basic design of the computer is still the same: to move 0's and 1's around the bus to peripherals, all controlled by various chipsets.
 Signature remove MYSHOES to email
Elle - 18 Nov 2005 20:01 GMT > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. Another short-sighted gent.
mst - 18 Nov 2005 20:59 GMT > > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > > systems and the bloated software written by lazy > programmers. > > Another short-sighted gent. Nice try. You obviously, regardless of gender, dont understand how to relate parallels.
:)
 Signature remove MYSHOES to email
Sparky Spartacus - 19 Nov 2005 12:24 GMT >>There is, therefore, >>no valid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt > changed in computers, Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.?
HLS@nospam.nix - 19 Nov 2005 14:09 GMT > > That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances > > in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.? America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge technology just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook. Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps?
Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology - though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software which, indeed, has become bloated and glitchy.
You could run word processors, databases, spreadsheets, games, etc even on the old black and white Z80 machines. One company where I used to work ran the whole operation with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system.
Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some form or the other. Nor do they always do the job so terribly much quicker or better, although the microprocessors grunt along at multigigahertz speeds. We garbage mongers that feed the data into them are, oft as not, the limiting factor.
Mainframes had somewhat different requirements. They didnt have to cater to the executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate.
Michael Pardee - 25 Nov 2005 06:04 GMT > America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge > technology [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the > executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate. Having written programs for x86 machines since DOS 3 was the hot ticket, I think you have a slanted view.
What is perceived as "bloat" by the public is a combination of two factors: increased packaged data and the overhead required for proper structure. When I started it was considered pretentious to refer to an accomplished programmer as a "software engineer," whereas that is the minimum expected of any modern programmer; the senior programmers are "software architects." (I am neither, since it was only a sideline for me and I couldn't ride the rocket. I am still a "cowboy coder" who can knock out small applications and utilities without making a big mess of it.)
Did you ever see a DOS machine run on a network? It was ugly - surely you recall the "share" TSR to make files multi-accessible. There were email readers in the DOS days, but do you recall a web browser?
The good old days were good mainly because we know everything came out okay. However, in this case, we can go back. You can still load DOS on any modern Windows capable box. Go for it and let us know how it works out.
Mike
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 07:57 GMT >>>That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances >>>in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge > technology just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook. Wow, do you have a cite for this?
> Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps? The post to which I replied said "changed", not "improved" - that's more of a philosophical discussion.
> Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology - > though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole operation > with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system. Luxury! The first disk drives I worked with were the 2311s on the early IBM S/360s - 7.25 MB/pack (100 cyl x 10 heads, IIRC, 7,250 bytes/track).
> Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some > form or the other. True, and computers don't do anything that a bunch of guys with abacuses couldn't also do, but time is a major factor - imagine a moon shot without computers or a lot of modern medicine.
> Mainframes had somewhat different requirements. They didnt have to cater to > the executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate. How'd you know I'm retired from the mainframe business (mostly programming them)?
mst - 19 Nov 2005 14:20 GMT > > That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances > > in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.? So tell us what innovations have happened with processors and hard drives? They've made processors speedier, and maybe added more to the instructions set, or have increased capacity from 32-bit to 64-bit, and have made hard drives with more CAPACITY at lower cost to the consumer.
Yes, we have new drive interfaces, such as SATA, but that is merely a higher rate interface that moves data at a HIGHER CAPACITY.
My argument still stands - there has not been any true innovation to computer hardware/peripheral components, they have only gotten speedier moving those 0's/1's around and they move MORE (re: CAPACITY) 0's/1's than predecessors.
 Signature remove MYSHOES to email
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 08:01 GMT >>>That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances >>>in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from 32-bit to 64-bit, and have made hard drives with more > CAPACITY at lower cost to the consumer. These are all changes to the technology involved - did you mean something other than "changed", e.g., "improved"?
> Yes, we have new drive interfaces, such as SATA, but that is > merely a higher rate interface that moves data at a HIGHER > CAPACITY. Moving from a parallel interface to a serial one is certainly a *change* (your term, not mine).
> My argument still stands - there has not been any true > innovation to computer hardware/peripheral components, they > have only gotten speedier moving those 0's/1's around and > they move MORE (re: CAPACITY) 0's/1's than predecessors. Since when? Are you going back to the 8088 chips? IBM 650 computers, 701's, 7090's, etc.?
Old Wolf - 22 Nov 2005 02:48 GMT > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. That's garbage. Higher capacity is required for tasks that deal with large amounts of data, or need to do large amounts of data analysis (for starters). For example: - watching/editing high quality movies - playing computer games with high quality graphics and sound - analyzing data sent back by space probes / satellites - predicting the weather
Try watching some porn on your IBM XT -- it isn't very exciting.
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 08:02 GMT >>Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating >>systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Try watching some porn on your IBM XT -- it isn't very exciting. You need better porn.
;)
HLS@nospam.nix - 18 Nov 2005 18:43 GMT > What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates > a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should > get out of the business or certainly never enter it. We have been served up a lot of dumb ideas in the past...ideas which were interesting, but not worth the cost and the risk.
I am sure we will continue to make firm advancements in transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the money to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it.
Elle - 18 Nov 2005 20:03 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OPnff.853$rM2.97@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the money > to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it. When someone posts a decent citation of whatever Honda is proposing be flown-by-wire, then comment will be worthwhile.
To categorically reject change because the "current system is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way yielded some advantage, so it predominated.
Bob Palmer - 18 Nov 2005 22:21 GMT > To categorically reject change because the "current system > is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way > yielded some advantage, so it predominated. I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and suspensions from 1950 that all the people in the country have flocked to dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology.
Elle - 19 Nov 2005 00:34 GMT You're not categorically rejecting change here.
-- Honda home studies: http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness --
> > To categorically reject change because the "current system > > is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the > automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology. SoCalMike - 19 Nov 2005 06:45 GMT >> To categorically reject change because the "current system >> is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the > automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology. and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they blow it.
meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine design was based on the lexus LS series.
Elle - 19 Nov 2005 15:56 GMT > Bob Palmer wrote: > > I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they > blow it. Do you think that car companies should produce what the companies think is right for the American consumer, or what consumers want?
These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 08:04 GMT >>>I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > companies think is right for the American consumer, or what > consumers want? You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful advertising.
> These companies have obligations to shareholders and their > employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.
Elle - 28 Nov 2005 02:32 GMT > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful > advertising. I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I could even stomach someone's argument that most design changes are not engineering oriented at all.
But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society. Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger; more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to insist on bigger more--is debatable.
So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food on his family's table? So to speak.
But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen the life of a car, etc.
> > These companies have obligations to shareholders and their > > employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. > > So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm. Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can the last several years. I thought it was more like labor problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno. Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.
Sparky Spartacus - 13 Dec 2005 15:17 GMT <snip>
>>You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by >> skillful advertising. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to > insist on bigger more--is debatable. Advertising first, check out the history of GM.
> So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely > satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the > Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food > on his family's table? So to speak. Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's?
> But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp > performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen > the life of a car, etc. Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror, which was a racing innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have fought every change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle).
>>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and >> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still > loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see. So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in? (a famous quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove"). ;)
The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars profitably from their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"?
"These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else"
Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as of late. ;)
One final observation - the price of every new GM car includes something like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for retirement), which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur because those countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the charge to universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto related observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of such a move>
Elle - 13 Dec 2005 18:13 GMT > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Advertising first, check out the history of GM. I'll believe you. :-)
> > So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely > > satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the > > Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food > > on his family's table? So to speak. > > Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's? I don't know.
I think it's hard to compare the successes of two companies satisfying the same basic need, but also many others, operating in two different countries, with different cultures and mores and different governmental philosophies.
> > But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp > > performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried > to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle). I reckon you're mostly right.
I think also of reports (or the cinemization) of lawsuits where car companies defend against making a certain design change, because the cost of the 'wrongful death' yada lawsuits is much lower than the cost of the design change.
Still, on a day to day basis with engineers, I don't buy that they are idiots who never object to certain proposed features as being inherently unsafe that will result in a car with many problems, threatening life and property. And so costing the company money, yada.
> >>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and > >> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did > you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"? After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the company's health care plans.
Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though.
So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly, and how Honda manages in comparison.
As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large companies are already starting to push somewhat for universal care. (I may have read as much.) They won't be gung-ho for it, I suppose, for some time (if ever), because their business ties in with that of insurers.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but more about how executives look out for each other; one hand washes the other; etc.
> "These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to > turn a pretty profit, or else" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of > such a move> Sure.
We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current American cultural mores: With the ailing American car companies, more small cars would go on the road. With the ailing health insurance system, Americans would be more willing to accept catastrophic health insurance plans and not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not clear) their doctor prescribed.
Gordon McGrew - 14 Dec 2005 06:11 GMT >After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on >GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the >company's health care plans. > >Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though. I think the screwup was that they didn't support the "socialized medicine" push in the 1960s. Whether it was because they couldn't screw over their buddies at the country club or because they thought it was a communist plot to have *all* children vaccinated or it was just apathy, they are paying the cost of a private health care system.
Of course, the ultimate cost will be paid by the GM employees and retirees and all of the rest of us as we are gradually pushed out of the health care insurance system.
>So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or >two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >executives look out for each other; one hand washes the >other; etc. It is the best kind of conspiracy because there is never more then a wink or a nod between the conspirators.
>> "These companies have obligations to shareholders and >their employees to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >because those >> countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Of course, they do incur those costs for their US factories. One advantage to Honda and Toyota is that they have relatively few US retirees and their workforce is younger (healthier) because the factories have only been running for 10 - 20 years. If we project current trends out another 20 - 40 years, Honda and Toyota US operations will be broke. But then again, everyone will be broke.
>Wouldn't it be >> ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >politics of >> such a move> Actually, I think this is an issue who's time is coming fast.
Michael Pardee - 14 Dec 2005 15:56 GMT Are you veering OT because the power went out on the drive-by-wire steering?
Sorry - I couldn't resist. <8^)
Mike
Sparky Spartacus - 24 Dec 2005 20:35 GMT > Are you veering OT because the power went out on the drive-by-wire steering? > > Sorry - I couldn't resist. <8^) Nor should you have. Mike, LOL.
Sparky Spartacus - 24 Dec 2005 20:34 GMT <snip>
>>you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > executives look out for each other; one hand washes the > other; etc. For sure, Elle, plus the enormous cultural reticence to admit that the free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue and that the govt might offer something worthwhile.
>>"These companies have obligations to shareholders and > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not > clear) their doctor prescribed. There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as though that's what you're talking about above?
Elle - 24 Dec 2005 20:41 GMT "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote E
> > We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current > > American cultural mores: With the ailing American car [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as > though that's what you're talking about above? Spot on.
Health services are not a true free market, because the consumer weighs in not at all on the pricing of the product.
OTOH, plop your typical middle class employee and his/her family down somewhere in Canada for a couple of years of experiencing their health care system, and s/he'll come away saying s/he doesn't want universal health care, because Canada won't give him/her and his/her family every conceivable snake oil product offered for a malady. The person will not believe s/he's getting the best care in Canada. "More is better" is a way of life in the U.S.
A cultural shift in attitude will be necessary, IMO. It will take a generation or two.
Michael Pardee - 24 Dec 2005 20:54 GMT > There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem > with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation > from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as > though that's what you're talking about above? I don't know the term, but a former neighbor who was president of the local hospital at the time explained it pretty much that way, and it made a lot of sense. He said health care at any particular standard costs a certain amount to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is spread among the self-payers at many times the fair price, because the others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit that had been denied... my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's bill.
Mike
Elle - 24 Dec 2005 21:06 GMT > "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote > > There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit > that had been denied... It shouldn't be such a goddarned maze. A few weeks ago a Harvard PhD, a multi-degreed engineer, and a doctor wrote the NY Times each wrote letters saying they couldn't figure out how to navigate the new Medicare drug benefit. Add my father, also multi-degreed, an engineer, from one of those high-falutin' schools who has mentioned twice in the last six weeks that he is struggling mightily with it, as well. If people as educated as this can't figure out how to get the benefit, what about the roughly 80% of adults in the U.S. who never even graduated from any college?
> my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked > it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's > bill. I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee (around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's revolting that different fees are charged for the same service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the madness.
Also, I hear health care services write off the shortfalls as losses.
I hate to dismiss it as "a lot of funny money is floating around," but the stories I'm reading in reputable publications sure make it seem like there's little order in the system. Bargaining over fees and haggling over what exactly was prescribed given by hospitals seems common. If one doesn't know the ins and outs, one is doomed, ISTM.
Throw in the NY Times piece recently on people with /good health insurance/ who were driven into bankruptcy because having to pay "only 10%" of a million dollars of medical services is still a lot of money.
SoCalMike - 25 Dec 2005 07:13 GMT > I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee > (around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's > revolting that different fees are charged for the same > service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the > madness. to bring this back to hondas...
the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper that gets a good deal through costco, sams, AAA, etc
there are several that get ripped off, pay "added dealer markup", etc.
Elle - 25 Dec 2005 16:22 GMT > Elle wrote: > > I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > there are several that get ripped off, pay "added dealer markup", etc. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It seems to me that hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with individuals without health insurance.
I guess that's incentive to at least have catastrophic health insurance. Even though one may be well below the (usually several thousand dollars) deductible for, say, a hospital visit, one is obtaining the discounted rates that one's insurance company has previously negotiated with the hospital.
So if one wants the discount, one is sort of forced into dealing with insurance companies. But then by being insured one is forced into subsidizing a lot of people who aren't careful with their health. Because of the way the insurance-health care system (monopoly? ponzi scheme?) is set up, there's little incentive for them to refuse unnecessary medical services. Hence doctors may prescribe away, lining their wallets and bringing income to hospitals, and promoting the "more is better" mentality while simultaneously claiming it's necessary because they'll be sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Meanwhile, the added cost is passed along to those who work to stay healthy and not abuse the insurance system.
I know buying insurance is about buying peace of mind. One should not expect to ever get back what one pays. Just seems that in the last 15 years or so, too many expect to get back from their premiums what they paid and then some, by excessive use of medical services that benefits them not at all.
Of course, with uninsured individuals in need of significant health care services, at some point Medicaid will kick in. But that also pushes up costs for everone else. Plus, by the time such people finally get to the hospital, a malady that might have been easily cured a year ago has exploded into a very expensive proposition.
Seems to me a Universal Health Care system would solve a lot of these problems. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would stop this persistent spiralling of costs that, as I suggest above, seems more and more like a Ponzi scheme every year.
SoCalMike - 25 Dec 2005 16:48 GMT >> the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper > that gets a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with > individuals without health insurance. then theres double-billing.
the time i twisted my ankle i did everything by the book, (listed urgent care facility, paid my co-pay, etc.) bout a year later i got a bill from a doctor i NEVER saw that day, for treatment/services i NEVER received. only 2 people i saw were the receptionist, and a licensed vocational nurse.
went straight into the shredder and havent heard anything since.
the dealer version of that is the:
"you need to come back with a check because..."
1) the car was mica blue metallic, and we forgot metallic paint was extra
2) down payment was too small
3)credit didnt go through
4)numbers didnt add up
5)want another chance to ream ya
Elle - 25 Dec 2005 17:02 GMT > Elle wrote: > >> the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 5)want another chance to ream ya lol
... but to a large extent, I /do/ agree with this part of your analogy. Indeed, from what I'm reading in reputable publications, the medical-insurance billing process is so complicated that mistakes are very common. IIRC, and ballpark, 30% or more of the time there is a significant billing error by health care/insurance services. Whether they're intentional, or just gross gross negligence is another matter.
I give the current, non-Medicare U.S. health care system 20 years or less. By which time I will be on Medicare. Still, if all Americans are paying less for health care (while some are paying a bit more in taxes), that will impact on inflation, etc.
Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's Honda," drawn from real life experiences.
Grumpy AuContraire - 25 Dec 2005 17:47 GMT snip
We need a
> top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. 1. Do NOT crawl under a jacked up car with jackstands in place!
JT
Elle - 25 Dec 2005 18:06 GMT > > We need a > > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. > > 1. Do NOT crawl under a jacked up car with jackstands in place! What's the matter with using jackstands (of the appropriate size) to support a car while doing work underneath it?
Grumpy AuContraire - 26 Dec 2005 00:40 GMT > > > We need a > > > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What's the matter with using jackstands (of the appropriate > size) to support a car while doing work underneath it? Heh. I forgot the "out." Hadn't had my coffee yet...
<G>
JT
Michael Pardee - 25 Dec 2005 18:24 GMT > Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel > tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. Okay, time to fess up. Sometimes I can do the *dumbest* things, too.
I used to have an early Nissan 300ZX (troublesome beast!). One day it developed a leak in one injector, so I bought a replacement. I was waiting for the weekend to undertake the job, but one night the engine started running rough. I was only a couple blocks form home so I went home and parked in the driveway. Then I noticed smoke coming from under the hood. I didn't have an extinguisher or even a plan, but I opened the hood anyway. "Huh. I wonder what's happening?!" Of course the leak had caught fire, but it had burned down to where it was only hoses and insulation sedately flaming, so I bent over and blew them out like a candle on a birthday cake. Not two seconds later the fuel injector hose that had been burning ruptured and sprayed about an ounce of gasoline where the flame and my face had been! Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.
Who's next?
Mike
Elle - 25 Dec 2005 18:35 GMT About a year ago I was working on those nasty rear control arm bolts etc. I had to be someplace the next day, so I had to stop mid-job. For a temporary "replacement" of a bolt I wired up one control arm with some 10 AWG copper wire I had lying around, several loops. I thought I should take a test drive. I made it halfway out the driveway at a couple miles an hour when the car went over a half-inch bump. The applicable rear strut assembly collapsed, and that rear quarter of the car crashed to the ground. The wheel bent out in a totally unseemly way, and I thought, "Oh no... " The wire was sheared right apart. Jacked it up. Stuck the old control arm bolt yada in place. Wheel looked okay. The asphalt of the road where the car quarter landed was kinda scratched up. Had the wheel balance checked a week later; it needed no adjustment. The road looks fine, after a year too.
Helluva crash. I got lucky.
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote snip "thing not to do during Honda repairs"
> Who's next? ER - 28 Dec 2005 17:57 GMT I was checking under the hood of a Pontiac Tempest and the wind blew the hood right almost on the windscreen. It was so strong I could not bring it down to hook in the support rod. So I left it there thinking I will be done in a second. I got involved with whatever I was doing (I will tell you in a second why I forgot) and then heard a very loud thud and everything turned white. The wind had let up and the hood used me as a supporting rod.
I staggered into work and put in a full day. I think my boss was happy with how quiet I was that time.
> About a year ago I was working on those nasty rear control > arm bolts etc. I had to be someplace the next day, so I had [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > snip "thing not to do during Honda repairs" >> Who's next? SoCalMike - 25 Dec 2005 07:09 GMT >> There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem >> with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the > amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the which sounds pretty damn good. all our elected representatives get free health care off our dime, while a lot of people that pay taxes have no healthcare at all.
if the govt can negotiate for 300+ million people, they should get a better deal than my employer! and in that case, id give up my *excellent* healthcare coverage for something mediocre if my employer wont have to deal with that burden.
> large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for > what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's > bill. or not. you likely didnt even receive $300 worth of service.
> Mike Chuck - 25 Dec 2005 14:53 GMT >>> There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem >>> with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > health care off our dime, while a lot of people that pay taxes have no > healthcare at all. The only health care plan our elected representatives deserve is the Soylent Green plan. Fire up the furnaces.
> if the govt can negotiate for 300+ million people, they should get a > better deal than my employer! and in that case, id give up my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Mike Elle - 28 Dec 2005 20:21 GMT > Elle wrote: > > As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue > and that the govt might offer something worthwhile. snip
> > >Wouldn't it be ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead
> > >the charge to universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto
> > >related observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the
> >>politics of such a move> Today's NY Times editorial page has fascinating commentary related to the above discussion as follows:
"Big Labor's Big Secret" (NY Times, Dec. 28, 2005)
As most Americans are aware, our auto industry is in a crisis.
Workers' wages are falling, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being sent offshore. ...
How did we get here? There are many causes: poor car designs, high pension costs, increased foreign competition. But much of it comes down to the overwhelming health insurance costs borne by the auto makers. This is why the union's president, Ron Gettelfinger, has urged Congress to enact sweeping health insurance reforms.
If the government paid everyone's health insurance bills, as those in Canada and most of Europe do, Detroit's Big Three could save at least $1,300 per vehicle. Profitability would return. With deeper pockets, the auto makers could afford to pay their suppliers. Communities would be spared layoffs. ...
Most advocates of universal health care focus on the opposition of Republicans and insurance companies. But perhaps the most important factor keeping an overhaul off the national agenda is one that few Democrats acknowledge: most of Mr. Gettelfinger's fellow labor leaders don't support a single-payer system either.
The reason comes down to simple self-interest. The United Auto Workers is one of the few private-sector unions that doesn't run its own health plan. Rather, most have created huge companies to administer their workers' plans, giving them a large and often corrupt stake in the current system.
Opposition to a national health care plan is as much a part of the American trade union tradition as the picket line. It goes back to Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, who railed at early Congressional efforts to pass a law mandating employer coverage as Britain had done, which he said had "taken much of the virility out of the British unions."
This line of thinking led to the notorious decision in 1991 by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s health care committee to reject a proposal that the federation support a single-payer plan. The majority said a national system simply had no chance in Congress, but others saw a conflict of interest: government-supplied health care would put union-run plans out of business.
The deciding vote was cast by Robert Georgine, chief executive of Ullico, a huge insurance provider created by the unions. A decade later, Mr. Georgine, who was paid $3 million a year by Ullico, and several other company directors - all heads of major A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions - were investigated by a federal panel for insider trading involving Ullico stock. Mr. Georgine and several directors resigned, and this year he agreed to pay back $13 million to the company.
Let's face it: union-administered health insurance funds provide irresistible opportunities for labor leaders. First there's patronage: hiring friends and relatives. Then there are the conventions, junkets and retreats provided by the plans and the providers. And for those willing to cross the line of legality, there's the chance to take kickbacks from health care vendors.
Many officials are charged, but few go to prison, even when money allegedly winds up in Mafia hands. Last month federal prosecutors lost a criminal case in Brooklyn in which they charged that the Genovese crime family leaned on two International Longshoremen's Association local presidents to, among other things, choose a favored health vendor.
Evidently, the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that the union leaders were under duress. Even Lawrence Ricci, the principal accused Genovese figure, was acquitted, although he disappeared during the trial and never testified. (His body was found last month in the trunk of a car in Union, N.J.)
Despite shrinking membership, organized labor still has enough money and muscle to get behind a campaign for national health insurance. Last month, public-sector unions in California came up with tens of millions of dollars in a successful campaign to defeat a ballot measure that challenged their right to use union dues for political purposes.
The problem is getting American unions to fight for common concerns as opposed to narrow institutional interests. It may just be that a broad-scale union overhaul will have to precede one in American health care.
----
By Robert Fitch, author of the forthcoming "Solidarity for Sale: How Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America's Promise."
So the UAW (the auto industry union) has no ties to health insurance; its industry is being devastated by health costs; and so the UAW is for a national health plan, which is consistent with the whole (let's face it, socialist or at least social-democrat) notion of unions.
(But what ties to health insurance profits do auto companies have? Would it pay for the CEOs of auto companies to lobby for a national health plan?)
Unions in other industries have ties to health insurance; are in industries not /as/ devastated (knock on wood) by health costs; and so oppose a national health plan, which is antithetical to the notion of unions. And, apparently, they have opposed such a plan as a matter of historical record.
Grumpy AuContraire - 29 Dec 2005 00:27 GMT > > Elle wrote: > > > As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Workers' wages are falling, and hundreds of thousands of > jobs are being sent offshore. ... snip
I suspect that the "savings" of $1,300 would quickly be distributed as bonuses and other executive perks etc. with little going to reduce prices or instituting efficiencies...
JT
(Who really like to call "trickle down" something else...)
E Meyer - 29 Dec 2005 00:51 GMT On 12/28/05 2:21 PM, in article GtCsf.11074$nm.5040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Elle wrote: >>> As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > antithetical to the notion of unions. And, apparently, they > have opposed such a plan as a matter of historical record. This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue.
Elle - 29 Dec 2005 01:36 GMT "E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote snip--Look back. :-)
> This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. That's a good point, but as I think I pointed out earlier in the thread, Time magazine in its Dec. 5th issue had an article on GM and pointed out that Honda or Toyota's (can't remember which) health care cost per car for its much younger work force was only about $300. Compare this to the IIRC roughly $1500 per car that goes for health care for GM's workforce (including retirees).
SoCalMike - 29 Dec 2005 05:15 GMT > This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. they dont have all the retirees... yet. and the workers make sub-UAW wages, which isnt necessarily a bad thing.
if GM hadnt kept giving outrageous executive pay and bonuses, the UAW wouldnt have asked for (and gotten) all those wage increases. someone had to draw the line somewhere, and it might take bankruptcy court to settle the whole thing.
Elle - 29 Dec 2005 16:47 GMT > E Meyer wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had to draw the line somewhere, and it might take bankruptcy court to > settle the whole thing. All good points about which I had been wondering as well.
The Time magazine article also pointed out that GM (and I think Ford) too were selling their cars at relatively huge discounts the last few years. Whereas Honda and Toyota cars have been in such demand that they go for a premium. (Which I guess means consistently higher than invoice or far more over invoice than GM and Ford cars.) So the GM and Ford profit for each car sold tends to be lower.
Sorta blows away my theory that Americans are jerks about buying small, fuel efficient cars, though. They do buy them.
Elle Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. Doggone Toyota stock has just about gone through the roof but still may be a good investment, if GM goes under.
SoCalMike - 30 Dec 2005 00:44 GMT > Elle > Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. > Doggone Toyota stock has just about gone through the roof > but still may be a good investment, if GM goes under. if youre looking to invest to actually MAKE some money, i think ford is undervalued.
yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to turn around.
Elle - 30 Dec 2005 04:29 GMT > Elle wrote: > > Elle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if youre looking to invest to actually MAKE some money, i think ford is > undervalued. If you mean check it's P/E (particularly the expected, next year's P/E) and make sure it's low, sure, that's one so-called stock fundamental to check. Ford's P/E is low at the moment. But, as you may be aware, this is one of dozens of company fundamentals that an astute investor should check. I often go next to the earnings history. In fact, Ford's annual earnings were in negative territory in the last five years, and are otherwise erratic. If you're interested, see the chart in the lower right of http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Snapshot.asp?Country= USA&Symbol=F&stocktab=snapshot&pgid=qtqnnavsnapshot for the earnings trend in the last five years. Type in HMC for Honda or TM for Toyota, and compare their earnings trends. Also, compare to a huge conglomerate like GE or the soda pop company Coca-cola KO.
Then too simple realities like Ford bonds are now rated at the junk level make its stock an easy rejection. Not to be obnoxiously pedantic, but for the interested student, this means professional business analysts have gone over a company's fundamentals (prospects for making profit!) with a fine tooth comb and ruled the company in deep doo-doo, at significantly greater risk of going bankrupt compared to, say, a company like Honda these days.
> yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to > turn around. Both are too risky for my blood at this time. That took some hard experience in investing to realize--I did own some Ford stock a few years ago! Coulda timed it and come out ahead, but you know how that goes. Likewise, one could buy some Ford stock today, like you suggest, and try to time it. But it really could go under. It's even more likely today than a few years ago. It's for gamblers, or people that want to put a very small portion of their portfolio in risky stocks, in the hope it will go up and provide a little gain. But they can also sustain the loss of the company going under, and the stock becoming worthless.
I also had some GMAC bonds (a subsidiary of GM) a few years ago. Pre-junk rating. They paid a nice interest rate, matured and all was swell. But today any GMAC bond available is rated junk. The yield is great, but they're high risk.
Of course, I know reputable people who say there is a fair chance the government would bail out either GM or Ford and not let them go under. Point being to spare the drag on the economy all these folks out of work etc. would be, I suppose. But then that may be seen to unfairly stifle companies producing a good product, like Honda and Toyota.
So we'll see. For me, I want stock in products I know people like and that are quality. Ford and GM once were. No more. Onto Honda and Toyota.
Back to the fun, substantive stuff that makes us all go "Whish, vroom, putt-putt-putt-putt... "
Elle (Gonna lay off poor Elliott, too.)
John Horner - 30 Dec 2005 15:48 GMT >> Elle >> Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to > turn around. Smaller is a highly relative term here. Ford is a massive company both in North America and globally. The first obvious action Ford needs to take is to stop putting money down the Jaguar sink-hole, but instead Ford just put another $2.1 billion into Jaguar.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&storyID= 2005-12-23T110104Z_01_L23231860_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-FORD-JAGUAR-UPDATE-2.XML
John
SoCalMike - 31 Dec 2005 03:57 GMT >>> Elle >>> Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&storyID= 2005-12-23T110104Z_01_L23231860_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-FORD-JAGUAR-UPDATE-2.XML dunno if jaguar is that much of a sinkhole. mebbe i should read the link, huh?
before the ford buyout, jags were extremely pricey and had a completely lousy reputation. now, hell- anyone could afford one! taurus guts underneath, FWIW. i see a lot more of em on the road than i used to, also. and they also managed to keep jags looking like jags.
and then theres GM/saab. ugh. rebadged crap from a once quirky company. even a rebadged subie, fer chrissakes.
i still say ford can turn it all around way before GM. yes, therye massive, but not as huge as GM and with a bit less baggage and a bit better reputation.
GM needs a LOT of help and should get rid of at *least* one US division entirely. id suggest losing the chevy truck line, badge em all GMC, and get rid of buick.
John Horner - 30 Dec 2005 15:43 GMT > This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. The transplant factories employee mostly younger workers and have almost no retirees on the books. Healthcare expenses, and healthcare insurance costs, go up exponentially as a person ages.
John
Steve - 21 Nov 2005 02:42 GMT > meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent > small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the > tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine > design was based on the lexus LS series. Yeah, the tundra's great. Unless you need to haul, tow, carry, pull, or otherwise do real work. I can't believe the STUPIDITY of the Japanese makers in trying to get in on the dying tails of the poseur truck market, selling luxury pseudo-trucks to people that need a truck like a hole in the head. Ford, Dodge, and Chevy will always sell their real work trucks to contractors farmers and ranchers, even when the poseur market is gone. Toyota, Nissan, and (especially) Honda with that ridiculous front-drive Ridgeline will have a lot of wasted engineering investment on their hands.
Hugo Schmeisser - 19 Nov 2005 00:00 GMT <snip>
> To categorically reject change because the "current system > is good enough" is foolishness Indubitably true.
> and demonstrates > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way > yielded some advantage, so it predominated. True again.
But in the comparison of aircraft "fly-by-wire" and the idea of truly analogous automotive "drive-by-wire", the plot tends to get lost.
Aircraft "fly-by-wire" came about to address certain actual, specific issues regarding the rather inmportant goal of keeping an airplane in the air. Automotive "throttle-by-wire" (to coin a more accurate phrase) arose in an attempt at meeting emissions regulations. The difference is fundamental and of great import: One is critical, the other is utterly useless absent its regulatory impetus.
To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile on current roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not cars and do not live in even remotely the same environment.
Elle - 19 Nov 2005 00:39 GMT > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > fundamental and of great import: One is critical, the other is utterly > useless absent its regulatory impetus. That last comment is a bit too sweeping, or a bit misleading, for me to buy.
Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the driver-owner.
> To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile on current > roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not cars and do not > live in even remotely the same environment. I agree people are throwing around this phrase very loosely here.
But folks love to kvetch, so... :-)
Hugo Schmeisser - 20 Nov 2005 21:47 GMT >> Aircraft "fly-by-wire" came about to address certain >> actual, specific issues regarding the rather inmportant goal of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That last comment is a bit too sweeping, or a bit > misleading, for me to buy. Then I concentrate it a bit by saying that: airplane fly-by-wire addressed certain laws-of-physics issues that pointed up serious shortcomings in previous control systems. Cable control of the automotive throttle has not that sort of limitation where it would be fundamentally incapable of reliable and durable operation under normal and expected operating conditions. Therefore, replacing a cable with a servomotor in a car does not grant functional improvement to an auto throttle the way a servomotor would to, say, an airplane rudder.
Is that better?
> Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have > made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the > driver-owner. I used to grow weary of replacing the points and condenser every 6,000 miles, so yes, electronic ignition (just to cite one example) has been a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do something else besides getting a backache and needing to find his bifocals.
However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I remember a points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few dollars. If a modern electronic ignition component fails, you could spend the equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers replacing it.
>> To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile >> on current roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But folks love to kvetch, so... :-) This *is* Usenet, after all. Kvetching-R-Us.
Elle - 21 Nov 2005 00:48 GMT > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Is that better? Sure.
I think I would have just said that the demands of operating a plane are quite a bit different from the demands of operating a car. One pushes against air to move; the other pushes against the ground to move, for one.
It was your somewhat disrespecting the outcome of regulatory impetus, as well as ignoring that other improvements not a result of regulation, that seemed to me to be off the mark.
No big deal. Your first post had already reduced the slop in this discussion substantially.
> > Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have > > made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do something else > besides getting a backache and needing to find his bifocals. Sure.
Though as an aside, one of the regulars at the Honda newsgroup discovered that the external radio noise condenser some older Hondas have does wear over time and replacing it may improve performance. While it's not located electrically in the exact same place that the old points condenser was located, it does serve a kind of analogous function, protecting, for one, the igniter, just as the old points condenser protected the points, etc.
> However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I remember a > points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few dollars. If a > modern electronic ignition component fails, you could spend the > equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers replacing it. I'm not sure what a precise cost-benefit (including reliability; that has a pricetag) analysis would yield, but certainly I see your point.
Just that radio noise condenser to which I refer above goes for about $6 today through online Honda OEM parts sites. I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for a lot less.
Don Bruder - 21 Nov 2005 04:38 GMT <snip>
> Just that radio noise condenser to which I refer above goes > for about $6 today through online Honda OEM parts sites. Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin with... (Or was that your whole point? I haven't been following this thread closely since finding out that "drive-by-wire" actually means "throttle-by-wire" - A rather different beast than the subject line implied.)
> I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for > a lot less. I'm sure one can, as long as one defines "a lot" as somewhere in the 2-3 dollar range. It might be a multi-piece unit, and it will have two leads, rather than being the usual "single can with a wire hanging out" style, but when you get right down to it, a capacitor of the right value is a capacitor of the right value, regardless of form-factor or common-use name.
Given the value (mF/pF & voltage rating - prolly find it easily in the service manual - You *DO* have the service manual for your vehicle, right?) of the condenser on your Honda, you've got all the information you need to get one or more - depends on whether the target value is a standard size or not - capacitors that will replace it just fine, even though they might look a bit "odd" for an automotive application. :) They'll be functional, though, and that's what I'd be caring about. I'd expect that rat-shack would have them for around 2-3 bucks. Sure, the "real" one is easier to wire into the system, and might be "prettier" to a purist's eye, but the rat-shack one will work just the same once you get it in place, which would be my main concern if I was needing to be pinching pennies hard enough to go to the effort.
Going back to the "drive/throttle-by-wire" concept for a bit...
I could cope with throttle-by-wire - if, AND ONLY IF, it used a failsafe of "total driver control of the throttle", and when in operation, it confined its "modification" of my input to (brace yourself for the run-on-quotated-phrase from hell :) ) "OK, you just stomped it to the floor - That's fine, but since we're only turning "X" revs and I see we're in "Y"th gear, I can calculate that opening the throttle all the way will just dump "Z" amount of gas out the tailpipe unburned as we rev up to speed, so what I'll do is I'll actually only open the throttle "T" amount, which is optimal to increase "R" from the current value for <set of current operating conditions> without pouring that gas out the tailpipe, and I'll continuously recalculate and apply that "T" value to the throttle based on a new <set of current operating conditions> sampled every "M" milliseconds until either the throttle is fully open, or you let up on the pedal to a point at or below the current throttle position, whichever comes first"
<INHALE!>
<Whew!>
Any application of drive-by-wire that involves steering or braking is something I don't want any part of. As I said previously, I demand total, godlike control of my vehicle when I'm at the controls - Aside from the case stated above, I don't need or want a computer second-guessing my inputs - If my input says "put it on the locks to the left", I want the wheels turned to the locks on the left. I don't CARE if you think that's unsafe, Mr. Computer - Just MAKE IT HAPPEN. Your calculations may very well show that doing so will send the car into an out-of-control skid to the left. That's fine. Maybe that's *EXACTLY* what I'm counting on in order to avoid running over that kid that just jumped out in front of me. Ditto ABS - Mr. Computer says "You're braking too hard! You're gonna skid! Here, lemme just pump that real fast for you so you don't break traction." What if I'm *TRYING* to break traction for some reason that your little electronic pea-brain just plain isn't equipped to comprehend, let alone react to? What if that reason involves the difference between whether I break traction and spin out to come to a stop just before going over the 400 foot drop, or knowing that I braked smoothly and without loss of traction until a point about 30 feet beyond the edge of the dropoff? Uh-uh... when it comes to steering and braking, just DO WHAT I SAID AND DO IT NOW!
As someone else said, though, steering has been refined over the years, as have braking systems, so that both are highly reliable (given proper service, of course) and both responsive to user input in all but catastrophic failure situations, and give the operator good-to-excellent feedback when power-assisted. The considerations that make "fly-by-wire" a must-have (or even "just desirable") for some aircraft don't exist in cars, and no "drive-by-wire" control is needed unless one wishes to fully automate the driving (Thinking in terms of the "Autodrive" feature in the cars of the future from "Demolition Man"), which is something that I personally think is still a good many years beyond the reach of current technology and AI methods.
Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?"
 Signature Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
jim beam - 21 Nov 2005 05:21 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > get it in place, which would be my main concern if I was needing to be > pinching pennies hard enough to go to the effort. it's 0.47 microfarads. the oem part is $27 with all the wiring and harness that accompanies it.
> Going back to the "drive/throttle-by-wire" concept for a bit... > > I could cope with throttle-by-wire - if, AND ONLY IF, it used a failsafe > of "total driver control of the throttle", why on earth would you want that? have you ever driven a diesel? a diesel driver has no direct control over fuel injection whatsoever - it's all delegated to the govenor, either old mechanical or modern electronic. can't say i've met a diesel driver that ever had their panties in a bunch about it the way you all have.
the biggest single advantage for fly-by-wire throttle control in a car is the ability to impliment F1 style shifting on the steering wheel. the day i can get that in a honda [that i can fit in] is the day i retire my 89 civic hatch.
> and when in operation, it > confined its "modification" of my input to (brace yourself for the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" so, you want to go back to manual ignition timing adjustment on the steering wheel? how about hand crank starting? bias ply tires? rod brakes?
fly-by-wire engine control is simply the next logical step. why shift an automatic under full power if you don't have to? it's bad for the transmission, the rest of the power train, the engine mountings, and gives a lurchy ride to the occupants. the current "fudge" of this is to retard ignition timing so that power drops on shift, but it still burns full power gas. that's dumb if you can properly de-throttle and speed up the shift at the same time - and that can be achieved with fly-by-wire.
Elle - 21 Nov 2005 05:23 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin > with... (Or was that your whole point? I meant that I would think the points and condenser assembly today was more than a few bucks. More like at least $20. OTOH, I've never put my hands on these and certainly never went shopping for them. I'm only going by what simple mechanical parts for my 91 Civic go for. Now I could google and either quickly prove myself wrong--that points and condensers remain so common today they're dirt cheap--or I would find I'm correct. Don't know. Don't care. We're not doing a detailed analysis of anything here and so there is no learning going on. Just people posting crap off the top of their heads.
> I haven't been following this > thread closely since finding out that "drive-by-wire" actually means > "throttle-by-wire" - A rather different beast than the subject line > implied.) Yes.
> > I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for > > a lot less. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > service manual - You *DO* have the service manual for your vehicle, > right?) What do *YOU* think?
It's 0.47 microfarad on the cars that have them. You *DO* know how I found this, right? No, you don't. I haven't a service manaul. I'm amazingly smart and know where to find info like this.
snip stuff that's a best guess and I'd just have to double check anyway, if I were in the market for this condenser, which I'm not, because my Civic's radio noise condenser is built-in to the igniter.
snip the dilettante stuff
Hugo Schmeisser - 21 Nov 2005 15:37 GMT
> Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin > with... I don't recall exact pricing any more, but the Kettering points-and-condenser set used to be one of those very cheap things you could buy for your car, probably because so very many were made and sold every day of the week.
I'm vaguely remembering the set was close to the cost of an oil filter. And if you had only one set of points (some cars had two) and were not swapping the condenser this time around, it got even cheaper.
Anyone with a better memory?
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 08:08 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" So why did humans move out of caves?
Don Bruder - 25 Nov 2005 15:14 GMT > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" > > So why did humans move out of caves? How many layers of gold leaf are you planning on putting on that turd?
In other words, Sparky, take your specious "If it isn't the newest, bestest, fastest, it must be garbage", and the implied "If you aren't using the newest/fastest/bestest, you're too stupid to move out of a cave" crap and stick it where the sun don't shine. Something being *ABLE* to be improved doesn't imply a need, or even a desirability, for the improvement to happen - Only the possibility of doing so. Also phrased as "just because it's the hot new thing doesn't mean it's any good." - Ever heard of Thalidomide? And the results of using it?
Things as they stand in automotive technology, are quite functional now. Further development, while being *POSSIBLE*, is neither required, nor in some cases, desirable, for many currently in-use automotive systems.
An old programmer's line: "A program is never *DONE*, but you do have to ship it sooner or later."
In other words, there's the choice between continuing to hang bells and whistles (needed or not) off the program, and actually getting it to the customer - *ANY* program can be tweaked and tuned and fiddled with until doomsday, if desired. But somewhere, somebody has to step in and say "Hey! We've gotta ship this thing if we wanna eat!"
Cars have reached that point. Particularly the control systems. The next major change in vehicle systems won't come until the day that we can make *100 PERCENT* reliable, sentient machines that can respond to a situation as well as or better than a human *EVERY SINGLE TIME*. At which point, cars will be ready to go to "full auto drive". Until the "Eureka Moment" that shows us how to make things absolutely infallible happens, I'll continue to be a luddite and insist on purely mechanical/hydraulic control of my brakes and steering, *WITHOUT* any input from a computer, thanks.
 Signature Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
Sparky Spartacus - 25 Nov 2005 20:18 GMT >>>Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" >> >>So why did humans move out of caves? > > How many layers of gold leaf are you planning on putting on that turd? LOL, interesting turn of phrase.
Mark - 17 Dec 2005 15:10 GMT The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that the car is running too cold is ridiculous (unless Santa has taken up residence under the hood and is making it snow).
so what's up with the gauge saying she's cold? just a bad gauge?
mdr
Mike Romain - 17 Dec 2005 15:48 GMT It could mean a worn out thermostat. If the interior heat is lower than normal, it would indicate that.
Or maybe the plug and socket for the sensor is just in need of a clean. Contact cleaner is best but WD40 will work also.
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the > manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mdr Mark - 18 Dec 2005 05:08 GMT thanks. I'll check that. cold enough in TX to be checking your heater these days...
mark
> It could mean a worn out thermostat. If the interior heat is lower than > normal, it would indicate that. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > mdr |
|