Text 15538, 192 rader
Skriven 2005-11-08 11:09:21 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 15497 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================

 >> If you by "stationary" mean idle, sure.

 MvdV> I meant, gear in neutral and foor off the pedal.

Ok.

 >> At 750 rpm the generaror isn't loading fully but in a sec or two it have
 >> returned to 750.

 MvdV> Not with my car. The drop remains as long as the lights remain on.

At 750 rpm the alternator isn't loading at full capacity and not even 12 V and
then it also should charge the battery.
Stand in front of the car with lights on and ask someone to slowly increase
the rpm to just over 1 000 and you will see that the lamps will light up and
now
the alternator will also leave 13,8 V.
This also have to do to with the loading-relay and that can be changed to a
electronic one if you always want to have your battery full

 >> Then we can discuss what a "moderate sized European" is. I would say that
 >> that's a Renault, Peugeot or Opel

 MvdV> I say my Volvo 345 is moderate sized.

Perhaps in the Nederlands but not in the rest of Europe.

 >> and not a Fiat Panda or any of this moving telephone-boxes

 MvdV> Those small cars happen to be very popular here....

See above.

 >> and with all those there isn't a problem with 100 W.

 MvdV> I didn't say coming up with an extra 100 Watt is a problem in the sense
 MvdV> that the generator can not deliver. What I said is that it has a
 MvdV> noticible effect on fuel consumption.

Driving with your head instead of with your foot can save much more then these
100 W.

 MvdV> An hour drive with the lights on will cost you an extra 0.1 liter of
 MvdV> gasoline. You may think that is not much but with these escalating fuel
 MvdV> prices, it will make many people think twice.

Planning your driving like changing gear in the right time, no unnecessary
brakings etc. etc. will save up to 30% of fuel (that has been proven) is much
better then turning off the lights in order to save 100 W.

 MvdV> I have chaged the wiring of my car so I can drive without the lights
 MvdV> always on. I think driving with the light on in clear daylight is
 MvdV> ridiculous and a waste of energy.

Not so. Driving with them on isn't so you should see without others should see
YOU. It would be like turning without using the turn signal. Have you even
disconnected those lamps? You could save another 42 W. And another 42 by
removing the brake lights. Nobody needs to see when you use the brakes either.

 MvdV> Bedides, I want an extra 10 Amp available for the fridge in my caravan
 MvdV> and another 20 amp to charge the battery in the caravan after a night
 MvdV> camping in the wild.

Been there, done that and I changed the alternator and used the propane to
the fridge and bought a better battery, a caravan battery instead of a car
battery.

 >> Did you know that when you make a cold-start here even the biggest cars
 >> have a negative energy-balance? And that means that the engine have to take
 >> power from the battery to make everything work.

 MvdV> Not my car...

Sure. Not even with the caravan on and a 55 A alternator?

 >> Not even the 150 A generator is enough to heat all seats, mirrors and
 >> windows, fans and all electrical stuff the first ten minutes or so, so 10 A
 >> when all this have turned off isn't much to talk about.

 MvdV> We are talking energy consumption, not generator capacity.

Since we're ready to pay 150 A for comfort, 10 A for security isn't much to
talk
about.

 >> And to compensate the bad light most cars have extra fog-light and extra
 >> head lamps anyway

 MvdV> Front fog lights used to be popular here in the sixties and seventees.
 MvdV> Nice Xmas present for dad. But these days one hardly sees them any more.
 MvdV> Must be because the circumstances where they are usefull hardly occur
 MvdV> any more.

Perhaps not in the Nederlands where you have street light all over the country
and no wild animals but those who got a moose in their car here yesterday
certainly would have had use for some extra light and I'm sure they gladly had
payed for those extra 10 A.
And think about the cost for all rescue cars, at least 5, helicopter, hospital
and
that they will not work for at least a couple of weeks. IF they can work at all
any
more. Millions of SEK for saving 10 A.

 MvdV> Same for double head lights. Hardly usefull as one may only use them
 MvdV> when there is no one else within reach of the beam. And that is rere
 MvdV> these days...

Now you're talking about the Nederlands again...

 >> so why not use this on "real" light from the beginning.

 MvdV> Because a 3 dB increase in light has little or no noticible effect and
 MvdV> is just a waste of energy.

That's your opinion.

 >> And then I don't know about those new "blue" light

 MvdV> Illegal here.

Is Xenon lights illegal?

 >> (have forgotten the namn right now) but they are working at 35 000 V

 MvdV> Hmmm... you wouldn'lt happen to be a lawyer would you? ;-)

No. Why?

 >> or so and those must take about 100 W each so where's the problem?

 MvdV> See above.

Those who have them says they are much better then the old.

 >> Why are we then having this new "blue" light then? Do you say that this is
 >> shit?

 MvdV> Yes, it is a fad. The blue lights are not optimal for human vision but
 MvdV> it is more blinding when they come towards you. It is a fad that will
 MvdV> blow over.

You think? If they are blinding it depends on the beam-adjustment.
Everytime you start a car with Xenon light it will "feel" the load in the back
of
the car and then adjust the level.

I even have blue glass on my extra light and they deliver a more "natural"
white day light then the old once and I appreciate then very much.

 MvdV>>> I have noticed that when some politician who wants to make history
 MvdV>>> once more proposes some silly rule like having the lights on at all
 MvdV>>> times or using seat belts on the back seat, they always claim it will
 MvdV>>> save 30 lives a year (In the Netherlands).

 >> It sure as hell have saved lives here.

 MvdV> I have yet to see a statitstic that proved that carrying lights on a
 MvdV> clear sunny day saves lives. Same for back seat belts.

And what about common sence? Don't you think a car with lights on are easily
spoted then one without? A car without is parked and a car with is coming
towards you.
And if we don't need belts in the back seats, we don't need them in the front
seats either.

 MvdV> And keep in mind that statistics are easely manipulated.

 MvdV> In case of the lights one must also count the accidents with bicycles
 MvdV> who's 3 Watt lamp gets drowned in the glare of 100 Watt...

Not according to Roy...

 MvdV> In fact I advocate the reintroduction of the so called city lights for
 MvdV> cars.

And what's the difference between them and the headlights? 30 W each! So
why bother to put on another lamp when there aldready is.

 MvdV>>> It is always 30. Never 100, never 10. The always claim 30 lives a
 MvdV>>> year. (For The Netherlands).

 >> That's your problem.

 MvdV> Manipulation by politicians is everybody's problem I'd say.

If they are manipulating with it in The Nederlands that IS your problem.
We don't need to be manipulated, we use the belt anyway. I can't drive
500 m without taking it on. It's for MY safty, not yours.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)