david m

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:10:31 -0700, Big Al rearranged some electrons to
form:


Al, don't pay any attention to SnoBlower. You can't fix stupid.

--
David M (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 6 days 21:08

jeff strickland

Complete crock of shit. There is LOTS of evidence that DRLs work. Using High
Beams for DRLs is questionable, but DRLs as a generally good diea have ample
support, even within the USA.

spdloader

He's over in the Jeep group now, spewing his usual shit.

yippee.

Spdloader

steve barker

Link to the evidence? I thought not.

--
Steve Barker

edward stammer

Q. Will DRLs reduce fuel economy?

A. Yes. The energy required to power the DRLs is not free. It is not surplus
energy that is just "available" from the vehicle's engine. Various estimates
place the reduction in overall fuell efficiency at 0.25 - 0.5 mpg, and cost
estimates range from $5 - $15 per year. GM estimates the annual cost of DRLs
at less than $10 per vehicle per year. Multiply that by 200 million vehicles
in the US, and you can see why we oppose mandatory DRLs. The cost of DRLs
over several years cannot possibly justify the benefits, especially the the
benefits are in serious doubt. Given the increasing price of gasoline, the
economic impact of DRLs will only get worse. Further, the combustion of the
additional gasoline required to power the nation's DRLs will result in
several billion pounds of pollutants being exhausted into the atmosphere.
What makes the federal government's position on DRLs seem so strange is that
the Environmental Protection Agency allows GM to disconnect DRLs before
testing! Why?

fredzo

Virtually Nill

steve barker

ACTUALLY, your "virtually nill" could amount to over a billion, YES billion
dollars a year. Read this:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

--
Steve Barker

putt

Mathematicians/Statisticians can make a case for anything. This is in
the realm of: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with
bullshit"

The wallet-effect(MPG) on a persons vehicle having DRLs illuminated is
exactly what the man posted....virtually nil.

Dave S(Texas)

c. e. white

Boy this would be hard one to prove, but I am willing to take a shot
at a rough estimate:

Say the DRLs consume 40 watts. Assume the average fuel to DRL
conversion efficiency is 25% (and it is not this good). Assume the
average person drives 12,000 miles a year and that 65% of this is at
times when lights are not otherwise required. Assume the average speed
is 35 mph (including highway, town, stop and go). I get the following
results -

Total hours of DRL usage = 12000*.65/35 = 223 hours (could be a lot
more, or somewhat less)

Energy expended by DRLs = 40*223 = 9 kwh (could be half this or twice
this)

Energy consumed to power DRLs = 9 kwh/.25 = 36 kwh = 122,000 BTUs
(range is probably 50,000 to 500,000)

1 gallon of gasoline = 114,000 BTUs

Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but
the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. Given today's
price of gasoline, that means drivers are probably paying from $0.30
to $30 per year to run DRLs, not including bulb replacement. So, for
an individual, DRLs are not all that significant. However, there are
over 200,000,000 million cars in the US. If they all had DRLs, that
would mean an annual use of over 200,000,000 gallons of gasoline to
keep the DRLs illuminated. That would be over a half a billion
dollars.

Ed

spamthisbrp@yahoo.com

Its all a scheme by the


wait for it


illuminati.


Dave