Dave Boland wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Dave Boland wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
>>> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber
>>> color used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't
>>> like it because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention
>>> day and night.
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>> red turn signals are one of the most dangerous retrograde foolish
>> idiocies ever. the fact that honda of all people are doing it just
>> makes me /puke/.
>>
>> truth is, in modern high speed freeway traffic, a single flash of an
>> orange turn signal from the car two ahead of you [and therefore
>> partially obscured] tells you that the vehicle is maneuvering. a
>> single flash of red tells you squat. do you get ready to brake? do
>> you start braking and have the tail-gater behind you slam your ass?
>> do you try closing up in anticipation of the person ahead being able
>> to accelerate now their obstruction has gone? and all this in
>> nose-to-tail 70+mph commuter traffic? at night?
>>
>> the "red lens" rules exist /only/ because it allows certain other
>> manufacturers to save the incremental cents on two extra cable runs,
>> two bulbs and a switch. on a 1930's turnip truck with zero traffic
>> density. today's grand total saving less than $5 per vehicle in
>> volume. but spread over 1M vehicles, that's a nice $5M saving. that
>> gives $500k bonus for the genius manager that thinks red lenses are
>> "ok". $500k bonus for the bean counter/legal team that does the math
>> indicating that no class action from the families of bereaved could
>> ever match annual savings, $500k for political, er, "grease" to ensure
>> no embarrassing questions ever get raised on the subject, and $3.5M to
>> the bottom line to an ailing company that survives only on the
>> strength of it's marketing team, not it's product quality? and honda
>> jump on this bandwagon like it's some sort of identity panacea? blows
>> my mind.
>>
>
> I guess my concerns are that if Honda, and perhaps other manufacturers,
> want to cheapen the car in obvious ways, then"
>
> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more important?

the ridiculous thing with red-lensed hondas is that nothing is
cheapened!!! they still use the extra bulbs, wiring, switches, etc.
the /only/ thing different is the lens - and that's specific to the
north american market. they're copy-catting detroit, but they're not
even taking advantage of the cost savings!!! potential class action
exposure without even the offset??? it's one of the most ridiculous
"marketing" ideas i've ever seen. even bmw, just about the most
marketing-driven car company there is, won't touch red rear lenses.

current honda management have lost all touch with their customer base.

>
> 2. If they want to follow the same business model as Detroit, then why
> would anyone want to pay the thousands extra for a Chevy or Ford wannabe?
>
> 3. Trying to raise prices and cut corners are one of the milestones of
> a company's (or industry's) demise. What seems to have happened is
> Detroit is going the way of the buggy manufacturer, Japanese car
> manufacturers are becoming the new Detroit, and (perhaps) the Korean
> manufacturers are becoming what the Japanese were a few years ago.
>
> I have owned Honda s since 1987, and Japanese since 1979. It looks like
> time for a change. My guess is that Honda (if my above analysis is
> correct) will see a drop in sales and try to cut more corners to be cost
> competitive. Not at all why we bought these cars, but that is the life
> of an industry.
>
> Dave,
>