erynthered Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Here's the difference. How many lives did those things save? How many lives are back up cameras going to save? Dunno. Just pointing out the cost. Camera's costs to cars are about 50 bucks per. Thats nuttin. Hell, when catalytic converters were mandated that added about 1000 bucks to the cost to the car. How many lives did those poor catalytic converter save?
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Dunno. Just pointing out the cost. Camera's costs to cars are about 50 bucks per. Thats nuttin. Hell, when catalytic converters were mandated that added about 1000 bucks to the cost to the car. How many lives did those poor catalytic converter save? If I recall CC's have Pt in them... What does platinum go for... Probably why it drives up the cost. Cameras are like calculators... A cheap commodity NOW. Almost all car models have the ability to have them as an option... So what is the problem... They don't even have to re-engineer the vehicle... Most likey sent wirless through the radio panel too boot.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I doubt it otherwise convertables would be illegal. touché...but just for the rear window part
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 If I recall CC's have Pt in them... What does platinum go for... Probably why it drives up the cost. Cameras are like calculators... A cheap commodity NOW. Almost all car models have the ability to have them as an option... So what is the problem... They don't even have to re-engineer the vehicle... Most likey sent wirless through the radio panel too boot. The problem is the word I've highlighted above. touché...but just for the rear window part Then why can I roll my side windows down?
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Ford has got this for their engineers so they can get ready for Cheffy in 15 years: "Third Age Suit" "On Wednesday, Ford showed off a so-called "third age" suit in Republic. It allows a design engineer to age 30 years. The suit comes with restrictive gear that limits movement of the joints, earplugs, and glasses that hinder vision. Developers say the suit has helped improve features on cars that help everyone." The problem is the word I've highlighted above. Then why can I roll my side windows down? Then brake lights should be an option... Just use hand signals. You are not SuperMan and these things are DIRT cheap. Pennies on the dollars just like brake light bulbs.
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 Ford has got this for their engineers so they can get ready for Cheffy in 15 years: "Third Age Suit" "On Wednesday, Ford showed off a so-called "third age" suit in Republic. It allows a design engineer to age 30 years. The suit comes with restrictive gear that limits movement of the joints, earplugs, and glasses that hinder vision. Developers say the suit has helped improve features on cars that help everyone." Don't even think you have to design a car differently for me when I'm 80. My dad is 83 and drives just fine. My mom is 86 and still drives all the time. All I'll want in 30 year is the ability to have my sound system go to 11.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Then why can I roll my side windows down? So you can stick your big head out the window, removing any need you might have for mirrors or a rear window...duh. If you roll your side windows down do they still exist? Is this a philosophical debate?
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 You are not SuperMan and these things are DIRT cheap. Pennies on the dollars just like brake light bulbs. I'll get one because I want one not because I'm forced to get one. I'm sorry you're not getting the difference. Sorry, but not surprised.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Then why can I roll my side windows down? Oh... Passenger cars, back window... You can only roll down half way... Has that changed for SUV's and Crossovers yet? Back tailgate windows have very strict mandates for roll downs I think... That is why you don't see them much (I think 4 Runner is one of the few). Convertibles were almost non-existant for a spell until better metal tech was used to support front windshields. Same with 2007. I bought a 2006 Wrangler TJ because it was the last of the dinos. In 2007 they had to totally redesign. BUT to Jeep's credit, they did... They didn't quit with the top selling Wrangler and throw their hands in the air and cry about the 2007 safety mandates. Edited March 21, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 Oh... Passenger cars, back window... You can only roll down half way... Has that changed for SUV's and Crossovers yet? Back tailgate windows have very strict mandates for roll downs I think... That is why you don't see them much (I think 4 Runner is one of the few). Convertibles were almost non-existant for a spell until better metal tech was used to support front windshields. Same with 2007. I bought a 2006 Wrangler TJ because it was the last of the dinos. In 2007 they had to totally redesign. BUT to Jeep's credit, they did... They didn't quit with the top selling Wrangler and throw their hands in the air and cry about the 2007 safety mandates. Bull ****. The rear windows on my last car went down all the way.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Bull ****. The rear windows on my last car went down all the way. What year, model and class of vehicle. My 2006 Pacifica have back seat windows that go down all the way. It is considered a "carry all". Now my father's old 1977, YES 1977!, Caprice Classic wagon... Had the half way type. Again... I am not sure if this is mandated... But was your car classified as a passenger car? I am pretty sure this MAY have been mandated many moons ago??? Again... Class of vehicle is where it is all at... Back in 1978 or so the who ball of wax started to change with the SUV exemptions... That is how makers skirt the issue. Edited March 21, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 What year, model and class of vehicle. My 2006 Pacifica have back seat windows that go down all the way. It is considered a "carry all". Now my father's old 1977, YES 1977!, Caprice Classic wagon... Had the half way type. Again... I am not sure if this is mandated... But was your car classified as a passenger car? I am pretty sure this MAY have been mandated many moons ago??? 2008 BMW Sedan. I'm pretty sure a sedan is considered a passenger car.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 2008 BMW Sedan. I'm pretty sure a sedan is considered a passenger car. You sure it isn't a crossover? My Chrylser looks as much a car as anything... Still a "carryall/truck." I stand corrected then... BUT I bet BMW had to jump through a bunch of safety hurdles just like convertibles had to as early as the 1970's. I should have stated that it doesn't mean they can't do that feature, but have to meet other guidelines too. BMW being luxury will jump through the hoops anyway... It adds the appeal.. they won't skimp on safety for that line. I'll get one because I want one not because I'm forced to get one. I'm sorry you're not getting the difference. Sorry, but not surprised. You are forced to get mirrors, use them or not. Again camera tech cost is very low!
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 2008 BMW Sedan. I'm pretty sure a sedan is considered a passenger car. Scooby, is that you?
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 You sure it isn't a crossover? My Chrylser looks as much a car as anything... Still a "carryall/truck." I stand corrected then... BUT I bet BMW had to jump through a bunch of safety hurdles just like convertibles had to as early as the 1970's. I should have stated that it doesn't mean they can't do that feature, but have to meet other guidelines too. BMW being luxury will jump through the hoops anyway... It adds the appeal.. they won't skimp on safety for that line. You are forced to get mirrors, use them or not. Again camera tech cost is very low! Am I sure it isn't a crossover?? No, I think I know what I drive. My point is I have mirrors I don't need a camera. The government on the other had tells me I do. Come on man, do you really agree that the government should be mandating rear view camera? Scooby, is that you? This is CA. Every third car on the road is a BMW 3-Series.
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Am I sure it isn't a crossover?? No, I think I know what I drive. My point is I have mirrors I don't need a camera. The government on the other had tells me I do. Come on man, do you really agree that the government should be mandating rear view camera? This is CA. Every third car on the road is a BMW 3-Series. 3-Series? You can't be Scooby then.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 What is the big deal... Mandate them... They only cost a few dollars... Most cars already are engineered to have them as an option. True, something like only 100 people die a year... I know of one story. 80 years or so ago... There were no brake lights... Hand signals worked fine... Cameras are just as cheap and more effective than mirrors alone. Why not just replace the mirrors with cameras? Turn signals are mandated, hand signals work fine.
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) What is the big deal... Mandate them... They only cost a few dollars... Most cars already are engineered to have them as an option. True, something like only 100 people die a year... I know of one story. 80 years or so ago... There were no brake lights... Hand signals worked fine... Cameras are just as cheap and more effective than mirrors alone. Why not just replace the mirrors with cameras? Turn signals are mandated, hand signals work fine. So any form of technology that provides a minuscule amout of safety should be required? That's !@#$ing insane. Let the market do its thing an in no time all vehicles will have them because that seems to be what people want. But no, the government needs to get their grubby fingers into everything. Almost as bad as the government telling me what !@#$king lightbulbs I need to have in my house. Both don't get me started on that one. Edited March 22, 2012 by Chef Jim
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 <br />So any form of technology that provides a minuscule amout of safety should be required? That's !@#$ing insane. Let the market do its thing an in no time all vehicles will have them because that seems to be what people want. But no, the government needs to get their grubby fingers into everything.<br /><br />Almost as bad as the government telling me what !@#$king lightbulbs I need to have in my house. Both don't get me started on that one.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Minuscule? Cameras should replace mirrors... They offer a multitude of more advantages. Actually, they probably will... I do agree about the cf light bulbs... That is a joke.
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> Minuscule? Cameras should replace mirrors... They offer a multitude of more advantages. Actually, they probably will... I do agree about the cf light bulbs... That is a joke. Yes minuscule. Potentially saving 100 lives a year?? Why replace mirrors? You can't use your mirrors? **** dude of you can't drive now so I know I'll drive circles around you when I'm 90.
Recommended Posts