Honda Car Forum

In article <fvkiem12nrp@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> > No--insisting that cars be built with such gauges is idiotic.
> >
>
> I'm not insisting that they be built with them. I'm just stating that
> they'd better be damn appealing - more so than most new cars - if the
> manufacturer expects me to buy them

But since you are one of three people who cares like this, the real
world says manufacturers wouldn't care about you and your wants even if
they knew about you.

I'm talking real world here.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <8oCdnaknJYNZiYPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Some of us like to know about *impending* failures before a tow truck is
>>> necessary. It seems somehow more convenient.
>>>
>> some of you may need it because you drive shit cars and you don't
>> maintain them properly. i otoh drive honda. and when i have a car with
>> 306k on the clock, that runs perfectly, and looks set to run another
>> 300k, i read all this inane bleating and wonder how you guys ever get up
>> in the mornings.
>
> These are the same types as people who own computers for the sake of
> owning computers. They love to fiddle and measure clock speeds and
> broadband speeds and know the cpu temperature and how it measures on
> benchmarks, and then fiddle some more to see if they can beat their
> benchmarks.
>
> You don't want those people making strategical decisions on how to
> deploy a technology infrastructure within a corporation.
>
> Same with the cars: you don't want the engineers who have to know the
> temperature at the top of the piston ("just in case, to avoid failure")
> to be involved in managing the money pump that is an auto manufacturer.
>

you'd certainly want to know in the r&d phase to see whether the cheapo
pistons you're trying to use will melt at w.o.t. but once you've
determined that relative to design life, then it's completely over. all
attention then turns to q.c. and cost management.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> <MjmTj.290429$cQ1.109893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I gotta come to Nate's defense here.
>>
>>As I stated earlier, everyone should know the four basic functions to
>>trouble free driving;
>>
>>1. Fuel Supply
>>2. Engine Temperature
>>3. Oil Pressure
>>4. Electrical System Status
>>
>>It should be one of the basic requirements to get behind the wheel.
>>
>>It's just that simple...
>
>
> I'm dealing in the real world here.
>
> People don't know the basic functions. And you can't make them know.
> You can't make knowing those functions be required for them to get a
> driver's license.

Why not? Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of
responsibility. Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far
more about how their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four
simple, basic gauges.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <8oCdnaknJYNZiYPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Some of us like to know about *impending* failures before a tow truck is
>>>necessary. It seems somehow more convenient.
>>>
>>
>>some of you may need it because you drive shit cars and you don't
>>maintain them properly. i otoh drive honda. and when i have a car with
>>306k on the clock, that runs perfectly, and looks set to run another
>>300k, i read all this inane bleating and wonder how you guys ever get up
>>in the mornings.
>
>
> These are the same types as people who own computers for the sake of
> owning computers. They love to fiddle and measure clock speeds and
> broadband speeds and know the cpu temperature and how it measures on
> benchmarks, and then fiddle some more to see if they can beat their
> benchmarks.
>
> You don't want those people making strategical decisions on how to
> deploy a technology infrastructure within a corporation.
>
> Same with the cars: you don't want the engineers who have to know the
> temperature at the top of the piston ("just in case, to avoid failure")
> to be involved in managing the money pump that is an auto manufacturer.
>

We're not talking about throwing thermocouples in there willy-nilly.
We're talking about the basic instrumentation necessary to give you a
high-level view of the basic operating parameters and health of the engine.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <fvkiem12nrp@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>No--insisting that cars be built with such gauges is idiotic.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not insisting that they be built with them. I'm just stating that
>>they'd better be damn appealing - more so than most new cars - if the
>>manufacturer expects me to buy them
>
>
> But since you are one of three people who cares like this, the real
> world says manufacturers wouldn't care about you and your wants even if
> they knew about you.
>
> I'm talking real world here.
>

Odd, then, that the two cars that I own came with all the basic
instrumentation, with calibrated scales even, straight off the assembly
line. Seems like you meant to say "GM, Ford, and Honda don't care about
me and my wants." I realized that a long time ago (for many reasons, of
which the "idiot panel" is only one small one,) which is why I don't
really care about their cars, with the possible exception of the 'vette
and the S2000 which I would assume actually come with proper
instrumentation.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article <fvlc3a5vp0@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> > But since you are one of three people who cares like this, the real
> > world says manufacturers wouldn't care about you and your wants even if
> > they knew about you.
> >
> > I'm talking real world here.
> >
>
> Odd, then, that the two cars that I own came with all the basic
> instrumentation, with calibrated scales even, straight off the assembly
> line. Seems like you meant to say "GM, Ford, and Honda don't care about
> me and my wants."

BMW doesn't, either.

In article <fvlbuo4vp0@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> > Same with the cars: you don't want the engineers who have to know the
> > temperature at the top of the piston ("just in case, to avoid failure")
> > to be involved in managing the money pump that is an auto manufacturer.
> >
>
> We're not talking about throwing thermocouples in there willy-nilly.
> We're talking about the basic instrumentation necessary to give you a
> high-level view of the basic operating parameters and health of the engine.
>

Again: that "basic" instrumentation is beyond 99.9% of the auto buying
and driving public.

In article <fvlbsr3vp0@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> > People don't know the basic functions. And you can't make them know.
> > You can't make knowing those functions be required for them to get a
> > driver's license.
>
> Why not? Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of
> responsibility.

You wouldn't make much of a politician, I'll tell you that.

Again, real world: there is no personal responsibility. Just ask the
courts and any lawyer you want.

We as a society are way, WAY beyond assuming any sort of personal
responsibility, ESPECIALLY for something as fundamentally necessary as
personal transportation.

You can't put that smoke back into the bottle.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <MjmTj.290429$cQ1.109893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I gotta come to Nate's defense here.
>>>
>>> As I stated earlier, everyone should know the four basic functions to
>>> trouble free driving;
>>>
>>> 1. Fuel Supply
>>> 2. Engine Temperature
>>> 3. Oil Pressure
>>> 4. Electrical System Status
>>>
>>> It should be one of the basic requirements to get behind the wheel.
>>>
>>> It's just that simple...
>>
>>
>> I'm dealing in the real world here.
>>
>> People don't know the basic functions. And you can't make them know.
>> You can't make knowing those functions be required for them to get a
>> driver's license.
>
> Why not? Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of
> responsibility.

the only "responsibility" that matters is legal responsibility. you
don't sign a contract to monitor any gauges in your car when you buy it.
and you /certainly/ don't get auto manufacturers sue drivers for
failing to check oil levels and ****ing up their beautiful machines.


> Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far
> more about how their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four
> simple, basic gauges.

really? in what way? is it legally enforceable?

jim beam wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MjmTj.290429$cQ1.109893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I gotta come to Nate's defense here.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated earlier, everyone should know the four basic functions
>>>> to trouble free driving;
>>>>
>>>> 1. Fuel Supply
>>>> 2. Engine Temperature
>>>> 3. Oil Pressure
>>>> 4. Electrical System Status
>>>>
>>>> It should be one of the basic requirements to get behind the wheel.
>>>>
>>>> It's just that simple...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm dealing in the real world here.
>>>
>>> People don't know the basic functions. And you can't make them
>>> know. You can't make knowing those functions be required for them to
>>> get a driver's license.
>>
>>
>> Why not? Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of responsibility.
>
>
> the only "responsibility" that matters is legal responsibility. you
> don't sign a contract to monitor any gauges in your car when you buy it.
> and you /certainly/ don't get auto manufacturers sue drivers for
> failing to check oil levels and ****ing up their beautiful machines.

but it *can* put you in a difficult spot if, say, your vehicle breaks
down in the middle of a long tunnel and you get to pay for the
quick-response tow service to yank you out of there. Plus if I'm
spending a huge amount of money - likely the largest single item
expenditure most people make, save for a house, and unlike a house, a
car depreciates like mad - on a car, I want it to be reliable and in
good condition for as long as possible.

>> Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far more about how
>> their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four simple, basic gauges.
>
>
> really? in what way? is it legally enforceable?

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registratio...ng/cdl/cdl.htm
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...cfr383_00.html

and yes - if you don't pass the test, you can't legally operate a
commercial vehicle (as defined by the government.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel