| 10th Warrior | 09-22-2004 11:36 AM |
auto-xers: you won't like this
�
�
The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today proposed a new safety standard to warn the driver when a tire is significantly under-inflated.
The proposal requires manufacturers to install a four-tire Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) that is capable of detecting when a tire is more than 25 percent under-inflated and warning the driver.
The new standard also proposes to add a TPMS malfunction indicator to the requirements, which would warn the driver when the system is not working properly. For example, sometimes tires are installed on the vehicle that are incompatible with the TPMS, or sometimes other problems cause the TPMS to become inoperative.
TPMS is a safety warning system and is not a substitute for regular tire pressure maintenance by drivers. Operating a vehicle with substantially under-inflated tires can result in a tire failure, such as instances of tread separation and blowouts, with the potential for a loss of control of the vehicle. Under-inflated tires also shorten tire life and increase fuel consumption.
The new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard would apply to passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.
This document proposes the following three-year phase-in schedule:
In the first model year, beginning Sept. 1, 2005, 50 percent of all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
In the second model year, beginning Sept. 1, 2006, 90 percent of all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
After Sept. 1, 2007, all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING RULE
NHTSA will accept comments on this "notice of proposed rulemaking"
( url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TPMSnprmPost2Cir/TPMSnprmPost2Cir.html [/url]) for the next 60 days. Written comments concerning the proposal should be sent to the DOT Docket Facility, Attn: Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or faxed to (202) 493-2251. The notice also will be available for viewing at [url]http://dms.dot.gov/[/url]. Comments may also be submitted electronically via this Web site.
I've sent in my comment already and I urge you all to do the same. This will make changing to/running different tires a real pain and increase costs, all for no benefit.
The proposal requires manufacturers to install a four-tire Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) that is capable of detecting when a tire is more than 25 percent under-inflated and warning the driver.
The new standard also proposes to add a TPMS malfunction indicator to the requirements, which would warn the driver when the system is not working properly. For example, sometimes tires are installed on the vehicle that are incompatible with the TPMS, or sometimes other problems cause the TPMS to become inoperative.
TPMS is a safety warning system and is not a substitute for regular tire pressure maintenance by drivers. Operating a vehicle with substantially under-inflated tires can result in a tire failure, such as instances of tread separation and blowouts, with the potential for a loss of control of the vehicle. Under-inflated tires also shorten tire life and increase fuel consumption.
The new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard would apply to passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.
This document proposes the following three-year phase-in schedule:
In the first model year, beginning Sept. 1, 2005, 50 percent of all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
In the second model year, beginning Sept. 1, 2006, 90 percent of all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
After Sept. 1, 2007, all light vehicles manufactured would comply.
TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING RULE
NHTSA will accept comments on this "notice of proposed rulemaking"
( url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TPMSnprmPost2Cir/TPMSnprmPost2Cir.html [/url]) for the next 60 days. Written comments concerning the proposal should be sent to the DOT Docket Facility, Attn: Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or faxed to (202) 493-2251. The notice also will be available for viewing at [url]http://dms.dot.gov/[/url]. Comments may also be submitted electronically via this Web site.
I've sent in my comment already and I urge you all to do the same. This will make changing to/running different tires a real pain and increase costs, all for no benefit.
| TyrannoSullyRex | 09-22-2004 11:43 AM |
different tires or different rims?
It would seem that the detection device would attach to the rim and could likely change to a different rim without too much trouble.
I'm all for it otherwise, all too often I see some SUV deathtrap with the right front and left rear ballooning out likely running about 8 psi.
It would seem that the detection device would attach to the rim and could likely change to a different rim without too much trouble.
I'm all for it otherwise, all too often I see some SUV deathtrap with the right front and left rear ballooning out likely running about 8 psi.
| forced4 | 09-22-2004 11:46 AM |
I would think the system could be "tricked" during autox runs to think the tire is inflated properly.
I agree with Tyranno...this would be good for the general, mindless masses.
I agree with Tyranno...this would be good for the general, mindless masses.
| MrHorspwer | 09-22-2004 11:51 AM |
[QUOTE]This will make changing to/running different tires a real pain and increase costs, all for no benefit.[/QUOTE]
No benefit?
How many cars have you seen with underinflated tires? These are the people that share the road with you and when they overheat a tire due to underinflation and chunk a significant portion of the tread off, you'll be in the next lane. While this may be lowest common denominator mentality, I'll admit that I have driven on an underinflated tire and not caught it for a week or so. Matter of fact, I think there is a picture on TireRack of a properly inflated and underinflated tire side-by-side with no significant visual difference in sidewall bulge.
You act as if TPM is something new. There are plenty of cars out there already equipped with TPM.
The only affect it will have on you, the enthusiast is...
a) You shell out the cash for the TPM sensors on your non-stock wheels (if they will accept a TPM sensor)
b) You live with a low tire pressure warning message when your non-stock wheels are on the car
TPM sensors replace the typical rubber valve stem. Some wheels lip and internal design elements will not allow proper installation of a TPM sensor. You're basically hosed in this instance unless the aftermarket steps up with some other type of mounting that is compatable with the factory systems. Many wheels, however, will accept a TPM sensor with no problems. In this instance, you either purchase a new set of sensors to install in the new wheels, use the sensors from your old wheels (if you are no longer using them), or install no sensors, in which case you'll have a low tire pressure warning lamp that is illuminated. It's not like the car won't start if the tire pressure is thought to be low.
TPM will have no effect on the type of tires you can run. I've seen TPM systems work just fine on race rubber, dubs, big ass mudder tires, and your everyday passanger car tire. As long as you can mount the sensor, you're golden.
No benefit?
How many cars have you seen with underinflated tires? These are the people that share the road with you and when they overheat a tire due to underinflation and chunk a significant portion of the tread off, you'll be in the next lane. While this may be lowest common denominator mentality, I'll admit that I have driven on an underinflated tire and not caught it for a week or so. Matter of fact, I think there is a picture on TireRack of a properly inflated and underinflated tire side-by-side with no significant visual difference in sidewall bulge.
You act as if TPM is something new. There are plenty of cars out there already equipped with TPM.
The only affect it will have on you, the enthusiast is...
a) You shell out the cash for the TPM sensors on your non-stock wheels (if they will accept a TPM sensor)
b) You live with a low tire pressure warning message when your non-stock wheels are on the car
TPM sensors replace the typical rubber valve stem. Some wheels lip and internal design elements will not allow proper installation of a TPM sensor. You're basically hosed in this instance unless the aftermarket steps up with some other type of mounting that is compatable with the factory systems. Many wheels, however, will accept a TPM sensor with no problems. In this instance, you either purchase a new set of sensors to install in the new wheels, use the sensors from your old wheels (if you are no longer using them), or install no sensors, in which case you'll have a low tire pressure warning lamp that is illuminated. It's not like the car won't start if the tire pressure is thought to be low.
TPM will have no effect on the type of tires you can run. I've seen TPM systems work just fine on race rubber, dubs, big ass mudder tires, and your everyday passanger car tire. As long as you can mount the sensor, you're golden.
| Thug | 09-22-2004 12:05 PM |
Im sure it just sends voltage and can be easily fooled with a resistor if it's really required, which I doubt it will be. It's not like a low pressure signal is going to send your ECU into limp mode.
| zoomfactor | 09-22-2004 12:11 PM |
I don't know if it's such a big deal but...Come on -- when/where does this all end? There is no [B]individual [/B] responsibility in this country. How about we penalize drivers that don't maintain their vehicles properly. While we are at it, lets reduce highway speeds to 45 -- it's safer and more fuel efficient. :rolleyes:
I see cars barely hanging together but they are rarely stopped around here. The local Sherrif's Office would rather set-up speed traps to go for the big bucks ($150+, each).
I see cars barely hanging together but they are rarely stopped around here. The local Sherrif's Office would rather set-up speed traps to go for the big bucks ($150+, each).
| trhoppe | 09-22-2004 12:12 PM |
What was said above and also
"b) You live with a low tire pressure warning message when your non-stock wheels are on the car"
Just like when you disable traction control for your runs and you have an orange light on the dash. Or like my permanent check engine light. It tells me to check my engine. I have, its there, but the light is still on :confused: I'll just have another light on my dash :lol:
-Tom
"b) You live with a low tire pressure warning message when your non-stock wheels are on the car"
Just like when you disable traction control for your runs and you have an orange light on the dash. Or like my permanent check engine light. It tells me to check my engine. I have, its there, but the light is still on :confused: I'll just have another light on my dash :lol:
-Tom
| KC | 09-22-2004 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE=y2k24door]Im sure it just sends voltage and can be easily fooled with a resistor if it's really required, which I doubt it will be. It's not like a low pressure signal is going to send your ECU into limp mode.... [I]yet.[/I][/QUOTE]
Fixed. ;)
I'm all for it actually. Properly inflated tires increases gas mileage (or should I say, brings it to the norm).
Like Nate said... it's not going to prevent you from driving the car. It'll just illuminate a light.
--kC
Fixed. ;)
I'm all for it actually. Properly inflated tires increases gas mileage (or should I say, brings it to the norm).
Like Nate said... it's not going to prevent you from driving the car. It'll just illuminate a light.
--kC
| Dussander | 09-22-2004 12:15 PM |
I am constantly telling people at stop lights that their tires need air. A couple of months ago I was just about to get on the interstate for a 20 mile @ 80 mph drive when someone told me, a tire was low. I had two punctures in the tire and it was completely flat (rear, obviously). Once, my wife made a sign in the car to tell a semi that his front tire was low, since we were on the interstate . He read it, but didn't slow down.
| MNbiker | 09-22-2004 12:16 PM |
Guess I don't see the big issue. As others have stated, a number of passenger vehicles already come equipped with such systems, and seem to make fine autocross cars. Worst case, you'll have to put up with some idiot light, when your race wheels are mounted.
Underinflated tires are a HUGE safety issue, so I don't have a big problem with monitoring being required on new cars. Note: mass adoption of this technology will drive the cost of aftermarket systems down as well.
-Steve
Underinflated tires are a HUGE safety issue, so I don't have a big problem with monitoring being required on new cars. Note: mass adoption of this technology will drive the cost of aftermarket systems down as well.
-Steve
| Thug | 09-22-2004 12:28 PM |
[QUOTE=zoomfactor]I don't know if it's such a big deal but...Come on -- when/where does this all end? There is no [B]individual [/B] responsibility in this country. How about we penalize drivers that don't maintain their vehicles properly. While we are at it, lets reduce highway speeds to 45 -- it's safer and more fuel efficient. :rolleyes:
I see cars barely hanging together but they are rarely stopped around here. The local Sherrif's Office would rather set-up speed traps to go for the big bucks ($150+, each).[/QUOTE]
I think you're over reacting. Should the government require this? Probably not. But Id be willing to bet the manufacturers would do it eventually anyways. It's a selling point, a safety selling point, at that.
I see cars barely hanging together but they are rarely stopped around here. The local Sherrif's Office would rather set-up speed traps to go for the big bucks ($150+, each).[/QUOTE]
I think you're over reacting. Should the government require this? Probably not. But Id be willing to bet the manufacturers would do it eventually anyways. It's a selling point, a safety selling point, at that.
| dadswrx | 09-22-2004 12:43 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]Or like my permanent check engine light. It tells me to check my engine. I have, its there, but the light is still on :confused: I'll just have another light on my dash :lol:
-Tom[/QUOTE]
I guess Brian ignored the "check trans" light last Saturday. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
P.S. Sorry Tom, the temptation was just too great!
-Tom[/QUOTE]
I guess Brian ignored the "check trans" light last Saturday. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
P.S. Sorry Tom, the temptation was just too great!
| MrHorspwer | 09-22-2004 12:52 PM |
[QUOTE]Im sure it just sends voltage and can be easily fooled with a resistor if it's really required[/QUOTE]
I'll give a brief insight as to how a typical current system works...
Each tire has a pressure sensor in it. Besides having pressor sensors, these sensors also know when the tire is rolling (vehicle moving). When movement is sensed, an RF transmission is sent out from each sensor that contains tire pressure data. This signal is recieved via an antenna by a specefic vehicle module (in this case, the remote control door lock receiver since it already handles RF signals associated with keyless entry). This data is interperated and a serial data message containing the pressure data is sent to the driver information display (if equipped) which will display real-time tire pressure or to the instrument cluster, which will illuminate the idiot lamp if required. 4 RF signals are sent, 1 from each tire. If any or all of these signals are not received, a DTC is set and a service TPM lamp or message is displayed. After the initial RF signal, a signal is sent every 30 minutes updating tire pressure status. Once again, if any or all the signals are missed, a DTC is set. When the vehicle is stopped, the signal transmissions are stopped until roll is sensed again.
I'll give a brief insight as to how a typical current system works...
Each tire has a pressure sensor in it. Besides having pressor sensors, these sensors also know when the tire is rolling (vehicle moving). When movement is sensed, an RF transmission is sent out from each sensor that contains tire pressure data. This signal is recieved via an antenna by a specefic vehicle module (in this case, the remote control door lock receiver since it already handles RF signals associated with keyless entry). This data is interperated and a serial data message containing the pressure data is sent to the driver information display (if equipped) which will display real-time tire pressure or to the instrument cluster, which will illuminate the idiot lamp if required. 4 RF signals are sent, 1 from each tire. If any or all of these signals are not received, a DTC is set and a service TPM lamp or message is displayed. After the initial RF signal, a signal is sent every 30 minutes updating tire pressure status. Once again, if any or all the signals are missed, a DTC is set. When the vehicle is stopped, the signal transmissions are stopped until roll is sensed again.
| dknv | 09-22-2004 01:05 PM |
2 more cents.
My Mazda has an intermittent chime along with a dash indicator. If left on, it could be quite annoying. However, it has helped me once when I did not know one of my tires was low.
Also, to replace the stock tires, the tire installer needs to use more care to avoid damaging the sensor monitors. More cost.
This safety requirement will likely result in additional cost of a new car purchase. Is it worth the expense? Maybe. I would just like the choice of being able to disable it when I want.
My Mazda has an intermittent chime along with a dash indicator. If left on, it could be quite annoying. However, it has helped me once when I did not know one of my tires was low.
Also, to replace the stock tires, the tire installer needs to use more care to avoid damaging the sensor monitors. More cost.
This safety requirement will likely result in additional cost of a new car purchase. Is it worth the expense? Maybe. I would just like the choice of being able to disable it when I want.
| stiski | 09-22-2004 01:07 PM |
I am still wating for a sensor that will remind me that my bladder is full when I am getting ready pass a rest stop.
"Next rest stop 47 miles" Oh noooooo :eek:
"Next rest stop 47 miles" Oh noooooo :eek:
| KC | 09-22-2004 01:07 PM |
Will it check over-inflation too??? That's the killer for auto-xers.... low pressure, who cares in an auto-x situation. It's when you pump them up to higher than normal pressures that might make this a frustrating endeavour.
| MrHorspwer | 09-22-2004 01:09 PM |
Depending on vehicle, some do report over-inflations. The particular system I described does, and it does so at 42 psi.
| dknv | 09-22-2004 01:11 PM |
Mine reports both. It was chiming when I went to 37F/52R. (We were experimenting, trying to get the car to stop pushing.) :)
| Butt Dyno | 09-22-2004 01:59 PM |
Well, aside from all the other comments, this would only apply to new vehicles... it's not like someone from the NHTSA is going to run around looking for tire monitoring systems.
john
john
| 10th Warrior | 09-22-2004 02:09 PM |
right, if you want it, you can already get it. i don't want it. i have a tire pressure gauge and know how to use it. why should i pay more money for a new car, pay more money to get tires mounted, and put up with a bs light on the dash, and have more useless crap on my car that just adds weight? should the goverment mandate that all cars be limited to 75mph top speed? it would be safer :rolleyes:
last i checked, the underlying assumption of all the laws concerning cars and car ownership was that driving is a privelige, not a right. well, one of those aspects is proper maintaince.
how about a lug torque sensor too :rolleyes: stupid people are stupid. you can't legislate it away. you can only hamper those who aren't stupid.
last i checked, the underlying assumption of all the laws concerning cars and car ownership was that driving is a privelige, not a right. well, one of those aspects is proper maintaince.
how about a lug torque sensor too :rolleyes: stupid people are stupid. you can't legislate it away. you can only hamper those who aren't stupid.
| jmott | 09-22-2004 02:25 PM |
Any law requiring people to spend money on something is a infringement on our civil libereties and should be resisted.
| MNbiker | 09-22-2004 02:37 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]Any law requiring people to spend money on something is a infringement on our civil libereties and should be resisted.[/QUOTE]
:huh:
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:
:huh:
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:
| PaulC | 09-22-2004 02:59 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]Any law requiring people to spend money on something is a infringement on our civil libereties and should be resisted.[/QUOTE]
I missed the part where this law requires you to buy a new car.
I missed the part where this law requires you to buy a new car.
| MNbiker | 09-22-2004 03:03 PM |
[QUOTE=PaulC]I missed the part where this law requires you to buy a car.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and it specifically states you MUST buy a Subaru! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, and it specifically states you MUST buy a Subaru! :lol: :lol: :lol:
| KC | 09-22-2004 03:12 PM |
Da, comrade!
| Scooby South | 09-22-2004 03:19 PM |
to chime in...Subaru already has this system in place...on the new LL Bean Outbacks...US Std is like 24 psi....Subaru Set their sensors to 30 psi....No big effect...Theres a fuse in the box that will take care of it...;)....Meh..
Bill
Bill
| 10th Warrior | 09-22-2004 03:22 PM |
another great thing about this wonderful idea that i just realized is if you weren't running the sensors and just putting up with the stupid light, you'd fail emissions in St. Louis for having a warning light/code. nice.
look, i'm not saying that the technology is bad or that its something new, i'm not saying it shouldn't be available to those who want it. i am saying it shouldn't be federally mandated for everybody. [i]that[/i] is the issue.
look, i'm not saying that the technology is bad or that its something new, i'm not saying it shouldn't be available to those who want it. i am saying it shouldn't be federally mandated for everybody. [i]that[/i] is the issue.
| jcroy66 | 09-22-2004 03:30 PM |
[QUOTE=MNbiker]:huh:
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Steve, Steve, Steve. He didn't say that all of the [B]things[/B] that you're required by law to pay for are bad. Just that [B]being[/B] required by law to pay for them is bad.
At least that was how I interpreted jmott's statement. And since I happen to agree with it, let me answer some of your remarks:
You mentioned schools. Are you maintaining that private schools aren't capable of educating children? :confused:
You mentioned roads. Why must roads be publicly funded and/or funded by gas sales? For instance, there are plenty of times that people buy gas (and are required to pay gas tax) for purposes that don't involve driving on the roads. Off the top of my head, autocross comes to mind. :lol: Also, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, tractors, 4-wheelers, whatever.
In this thread, there have been a number of comments like "What's wrong with requiring this system? It'll be great, because of all the stupid drivers who drive with low tire pressure. And it's not like it'll make your car stop working if your tire pressure is low."
First, requiring people to pay for something against their will is simply [B]not right[/B]. No, the government doesn't require that I buy a car. But the government is saying that if I want to buy a car in a private transaction between me and a car dealer, that I have to buy X, Y, Z items as well. What right does the government have to get involved in that private transaction?
Second, if there is a demand for something, the market WILL provide it. That is already happening!! This is good! Forcing us to buy it against our will is not.
Third, theoretically, what's the point in a required system unless it DOES make your car stop working?? If the end-user didn't want the system in the first place, what are the chances they'll actually use it? (OK, can you tell I'm a computer programmer? :lol: ) There are already lots of stupid drivers out there that ignore blatant signals that their tire pressure is low. You think an idiot light is suddenly going to make them go "Oh my GOD! I never knew my tire pressures were low! I better go take care of that right away!" Yeah right. If you buy that argument, then well, I've got some oceanfront property here in Ohio that I can sell you... :devil:
Jen
--Getting down off her soapbox.
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Steve, Steve, Steve. He didn't say that all of the [B]things[/B] that you're required by law to pay for are bad. Just that [B]being[/B] required by law to pay for them is bad.
At least that was how I interpreted jmott's statement. And since I happen to agree with it, let me answer some of your remarks:
You mentioned schools. Are you maintaining that private schools aren't capable of educating children? :confused:
You mentioned roads. Why must roads be publicly funded and/or funded by gas sales? For instance, there are plenty of times that people buy gas (and are required to pay gas tax) for purposes that don't involve driving on the roads. Off the top of my head, autocross comes to mind. :lol: Also, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, tractors, 4-wheelers, whatever.
In this thread, there have been a number of comments like "What's wrong with requiring this system? It'll be great, because of all the stupid drivers who drive with low tire pressure. And it's not like it'll make your car stop working if your tire pressure is low."
First, requiring people to pay for something against their will is simply [B]not right[/B]. No, the government doesn't require that I buy a car. But the government is saying that if I want to buy a car in a private transaction between me and a car dealer, that I have to buy X, Y, Z items as well. What right does the government have to get involved in that private transaction?
Second, if there is a demand for something, the market WILL provide it. That is already happening!! This is good! Forcing us to buy it against our will is not.
Third, theoretically, what's the point in a required system unless it DOES make your car stop working?? If the end-user didn't want the system in the first place, what are the chances they'll actually use it? (OK, can you tell I'm a computer programmer? :lol: ) There are already lots of stupid drivers out there that ignore blatant signals that their tire pressure is low. You think an idiot light is suddenly going to make them go "Oh my GOD! I never knew my tire pressures were low! I better go take care of that right away!" Yeah right. If you buy that argument, then well, I've got some oceanfront property here in Ohio that I can sell you... :devil:
Jen
--Getting down off her soapbox.
| WRX-ECE | 09-22-2004 03:33 PM |
There is another method used in some cars already that simply looks at axle rotation speeds. If one tire is running faster then all of the others it must be underinflated.
This is cheaper then the active sensors and will probably be the most common initial type used. I think that they simple interpolate more info from the ABS sensors already on the car.
As for the proposed rule, I too am all for it. This is the kind of thing that we need for the mass public. Underinflated tires cause alot of accidents, it's a good thing.
Jeremy
This is cheaper then the active sensors and will probably be the most common initial type used. I think that they simple interpolate more info from the ABS sensors already on the car.
As for the proposed rule, I too am all for it. This is the kind of thing that we need for the mass public. Underinflated tires cause alot of accidents, it's a good thing.
Jeremy
| ChrisW | 09-22-2004 03:43 PM |
That system is so fricken lame. I read some where that it's only required to work for the first set of factory tires. After that, your on your own.
Rather than add $$$ to the cost of the car, why not just do a little driver education and $0.99 presure gauge?
fricken stupid.
Rather than add $$$ to the cost of the car, why not just do a little driver education and $0.99 presure gauge?
fricken stupid.
| KC | 09-22-2004 03:53 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]
First, requiring people to pay for something against their will is simply [B]not right[/B]. No, the government doesn't require that I buy a car. But the government is saying that if I want to buy a car in a private transaction between me and a car dealer, that I have to buy X, Y, Z items as well. What right does the government have to get involved in that private transaction?[/QUOTE]
Seat Belts.
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.
I can keep going....
First, requiring people to pay for something against their will is simply [B]not right[/B]. No, the government doesn't require that I buy a car. But the government is saying that if I want to buy a car in a private transaction between me and a car dealer, that I have to buy X, Y, Z items as well. What right does the government have to get involved in that private transaction?[/QUOTE]
Seat Belts.
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.
I can keep going....
| driggity | 09-22-2004 03:58 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Seat Belts.
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.
I can keep going....[/QUOTE]
Next you'll be saying that the government is placing regulations on what we eat and drink. Or on the medicine that is available to us. The only way to stop these atrocities is to complain about tire pressure sensors.
And for the whole emissions thing, is it known for sure that having improper tire pressure turns on the CEL and not another warning light?
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.
I can keep going....[/QUOTE]
Next you'll be saying that the government is placing regulations on what we eat and drink. Or on the medicine that is available to us. The only way to stop these atrocities is to complain about tire pressure sensors.
And for the whole emissions thing, is it known for sure that having improper tire pressure turns on the CEL and not another warning light?
| jcroy66 | 09-22-2004 04:29 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Seat Belts.
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.[/QUOTE]
Your point? :)
I wasn't arguing that requiring consumers to buy things (possibly against their will) is new territory for the government. I just don't agree with it. Not for tire pressure warning systems, not for the systems you mentioned, and not for HD signals for my HD-capable TV. As I said, if the market is there, the product will be (and it is - I actually couldn't care less about the "federally mandated" OTA HD, except during football and hockey games - but I love watching Discovery Channel in HD!!) . :)
Airbags.
Crumple Zones.
Tempered window glass.
Emissions.
Catalytic Converters.
Unleaded gas for the cats.[/QUOTE]
Your point? :)
I wasn't arguing that requiring consumers to buy things (possibly against their will) is new territory for the government. I just don't agree with it. Not for tire pressure warning systems, not for the systems you mentioned, and not for HD signals for my HD-capable TV. As I said, if the market is there, the product will be (and it is - I actually couldn't care less about the "federally mandated" OTA HD, except during football and hockey games - but I love watching Discovery Channel in HD!!) . :)
| jcroy66 | 09-22-2004 04:32 PM |
[QUOTE=driggity]Next you'll be saying that the government is placing regulations on what we eat and drink. Or on the medicine that is available to us. The only way to stop these atrocities is to complain about tire pressure sensors.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
I'm sorry, I'm trying [B]HARD[/B] to stay on-topic here. PLEASE don't tempt me to get back on my soapbox!! :D If I know my dear husband, he'd be willing to bribe you so that you don't get me started. :lol:
:lol:
I'm sorry, I'm trying [B]HARD[/B] to stay on-topic here. PLEASE don't tempt me to get back on my soapbox!! :D If I know my dear husband, he'd be willing to bribe you so that you don't get me started. :lol:
| 10th Warrior | 09-22-2004 04:38 PM |
[quote]And for the whole emissions thing, is it known for sure that having improper tire pressure turns on the CEL and not another warning light?[/quote]
dude, you don't realize what a scam the emissions test is here.
KC-your list can be broken down into two categories: pollution control and occupant safety in the case of an accident. TPMS does neither. not to mention stuff like airbags (especially the side ones) only work if the occupant is in a certain position, otherwise they are detrimental. i personally wouldn't want a car with side airbags, and that's not required.
[quote]There is another method used in some cars already that simply looks at axle rotation speeds[/quote]
and that would work so well with an AWD vehicle....or a 2WD vehicle spinning the drive wheels.
dude, you don't realize what a scam the emissions test is here.
KC-your list can be broken down into two categories: pollution control and occupant safety in the case of an accident. TPMS does neither. not to mention stuff like airbags (especially the side ones) only work if the occupant is in a certain position, otherwise they are detrimental. i personally wouldn't want a car with side airbags, and that's not required.
[quote]There is another method used in some cars already that simply looks at axle rotation speeds[/quote]
and that would work so well with an AWD vehicle....or a 2WD vehicle spinning the drive wheels.
| KC | 09-22-2004 05:11 PM |
It was a rebuttal to the fact that gov't is mandating things in cars for whatever reasons.
I don't like it either... but we've let it go in the past, and it's gonna keep on happening until we're all driving "The Homer".
--kC
I don't like it either... but we've let it go in the past, and it's gonna keep on happening until we're all driving "The Homer".
--kC
| jmott | 09-22-2004 05:43 PM |
[QUOTE=MNbiker]:huh:
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Well we could go to the Randian extreme and say that all of this could be provided by privatised industry. But obviously that is arguably not worth the downsides.
I think telling me I have to spend money on a freaking tire pressure gauge is crossing the line.
Whereas telling me I have to spend money for a basic road system is not.
For what its worth, the government does not force you to pay for electrical utilities.
The chances of me not having a tire pressure gauage causing someone else besides myself personal harm or discomfort is so astronomically low it isn't worth the burden. The logical extreme of this kind of thinking would include computers that limit your speed to the speed limit at all times, limit lateral Gs to .5 or so, and limit acceleration levels as well.
anybody want to sign up for that?
Schools, roads, clean water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.........
You planning to move to the wilderness & live off the land? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Well we could go to the Randian extreme and say that all of this could be provided by privatised industry. But obviously that is arguably not worth the downsides.
I think telling me I have to spend money on a freaking tire pressure gauge is crossing the line.
Whereas telling me I have to spend money for a basic road system is not.
For what its worth, the government does not force you to pay for electrical utilities.
The chances of me not having a tire pressure gauage causing someone else besides myself personal harm or discomfort is so astronomically low it isn't worth the burden. The logical extreme of this kind of thinking would include computers that limit your speed to the speed limit at all times, limit lateral Gs to .5 or so, and limit acceleration levels as well.
anybody want to sign up for that?
| fliz | 09-22-2004 06:06 PM |
[QUOTE=WRX-ECE]There is another method used in some cars already that simply looks at axle rotation speeds. If one tire is running faster then all of the others it must be underinflated.
This is cheaper then the active sensors and will probably be the most common initial type used. I think that they simple interpolate more info from the ABS sensors already on the car.
As for the proposed rule, I too am all for it. This is the kind of thing that we need for the mass public. Underinflated tires cause alot of accidents, it's a good thing.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the method that uses existing ABS sensors was rejected, because it doesn't actually monitor tire pressure. The argument against it was that if all four tires lose are slowly at the same rate, it wouldn't activate.
And morons driving around on underinflated tires aren't going to stop and fill up when this light goes on. They'll wait until they need to stop for gas, see that air is $.50, look at the tire, and decide the sensor must be broken.
This is cheaper then the active sensors and will probably be the most common initial type used. I think that they simple interpolate more info from the ABS sensors already on the car.
As for the proposed rule, I too am all for it. This is the kind of thing that we need for the mass public. Underinflated tires cause alot of accidents, it's a good thing.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the method that uses existing ABS sensors was rejected, because it doesn't actually monitor tire pressure. The argument against it was that if all four tires lose are slowly at the same rate, it wouldn't activate.
And morons driving around on underinflated tires aren't going to stop and fill up when this light goes on. They'll wait until they need to stop for gas, see that air is $.50, look at the tire, and decide the sensor must be broken.
| DrBiggly | 09-22-2004 06:26 PM |
I want to know how many will go running to the dealership just like if it's a CEL. :lol:
I can see the posts on Nasioc now:
"I have this light in my dash for tire pressure and it just came on. What should I do about it? I was just driving along..."
:lol: :lol:
I can see the posts on Nasioc now:
"I have this light in my dash for tire pressure and it just came on. What should I do about it? I was just driving along..."
:lol: :lol:
| Protege Menace | 09-22-2004 06:28 PM |
i dont see how its that big of a deal.
do you run pressurs lower than 25 at autocrosses???
I know eric burmeister rallys his protege with a sustem JUST liekt hat which tells him if he has a flat during the stage
do you run pressurs lower than 25 at autocrosses???
I know eric burmeister rallys his protege with a sustem JUST liekt hat which tells him if he has a flat during the stage
| MNbiker | 09-22-2004 06:56 PM |
...and so, 39 posts later, I have to ask - what, exactly does this have to do with motorsports??? :confused:
-Steve
(who thinks OT may be taking over the forum. :lol: :alien: )
-Steve
(who thinks OT may be taking over the forum. :lol: :alien: )
| Chromer | 09-22-2004 07:15 PM |
[quote]i dont see how its that big of a deal.[/quote]
Well, look at it as having the SCCA PRB extending the seatbelt expiration regs to every aftermarket item in your car. Cage, seat, fuel cell, etc...
It's just "one more thing" that's driving up the price of your car...
Well, look at it as having the SCCA PRB extending the seatbelt expiration regs to every aftermarket item in your car. Cage, seat, fuel cell, etc...
It's just "one more thing" that's driving up the price of your car...
| jcroy66 | 09-22-2004 09:15 PM |
[QUOTE=MNbiker](who thinks OT may be taking over the forum. :lol: :alien: )[/QUOTE]
Steve, [B]this[/B] thread makes you think OT is taking over the Motorsports forum, but the posts about Hip Huggers, BDs, and Club Orleans didn't?? :lol: :devil:
Steve, [B]this[/B] thread makes you think OT is taking over the Motorsports forum, but the posts about Hip Huggers, BDs, and Club Orleans didn't?? :lol: :devil:
| adhowe70 | 09-22-2004 09:20 PM |
I submitted my comments. I disagree with it for safety reasons.
It adds cost to a vehicle and STILL won't necessarily tell you if you're being an idiot. People will rely on it and their Ford Exploders will still roll over when they have 25psi in their tires fully loaded on I-10 south of Phoenix.
When will the government learn that you can't regulate common sense. Ignorant people will always be ignorant people. Argh! :furious:
Andy H.
It adds cost to a vehicle and STILL won't necessarily tell you if you're being an idiot. People will rely on it and their Ford Exploders will still roll over when they have 25psi in their tires fully loaded on I-10 south of Phoenix.
When will the government learn that you can't regulate common sense. Ignorant people will always be ignorant people. Argh! :furious:
Andy H.
| MNbiker | 09-22-2004 09:21 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Steve, [B]this[/B] thread makes you think OT is taking over the Motorsports forum, but the posts about Hip Huggers, BDs, and Club Orleans didn't?? :lol: :devil:[/QUOTE]
Naw, this thread was just the final nail in the coffin.... :p
Besides, I thought it was REQUIRED for all competitors to visit Huggers while in Peru, BD's while in Topeka, etc. ;) :devil:
-Steve
(contributing to the OT-ness of this thread....)
p.s. Can you tell we're all bored, now that Nationals is over, or what??? :lol: :lol:
Naw, this thread was just the final nail in the coffin.... :p
Besides, I thought it was REQUIRED for all competitors to visit Huggers while in Peru, BD's while in Topeka, etc. ;) :devil:
-Steve
(contributing to the OT-ness of this thread....)
p.s. Can you tell we're all bored, now that Nationals is over, or what??? :lol: :lol:
| WRX-ECE | 09-22-2004 09:37 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]
and that would work so well with an AWD vehicle....or a 2WD vehicle spinning the drive wheels.[/QUOTE]
What does AWD have to do with it? All wheels rotate at the same speed (unless your cars ass goes faster then it's head). And as for spinning tires it's a magic trick called averages, you know, taking a bunch of readings and figuring out the average. A properly designed system is not trying to tell you that you have a flat, it's trying to tell you there is a low tire pressure. You know like the 100+ things that the OBDII system scans for that require 100+ miles, three starts and a number of other things before it will throw a CEL, or do you think that my CEL for cat inefficiency only comes on at the very instant the rear O2 gets a bad reading, over 250 miles after I reset the ECU?
[QUOTE=fliz]IIRC, the method that uses existing ABS sensors was rejected, because it doesn't actually monitor tire pressure. The argument against it was that if all four tires lose are slowly at the same rate, it wouldn't activate.
And morons driving around on under inflated tires aren't going to stop and fill up when this light goes on. They'll wait until they need to stop for gas, see that air is $.50, look at the tire, and decide the sensor must be broken.[/QUOTE]
Good if they did, I think that system is a joke anyway. I was just trying to point out another method that has been used (currently on some GM and Ford vehicles).
And I don't even want to get started on complaining about the government requiring safety systems in cars. Maybe it would be better if the government regulated nothing? Then we could have cheaper Nikes made by 12 yo kids that never went to school right here in the U. S. of A. Wow, that would be great, I hope the Government stops making all sorts of things mandatory.
<ON TOPIC!!!>
We are a resourceful bunch of people, so I think that this little annoyance won't cause too much trouble.
</ON TOPIC!!!>
and that would work so well with an AWD vehicle....or a 2WD vehicle spinning the drive wheels.[/QUOTE]
What does AWD have to do with it? All wheels rotate at the same speed (unless your cars ass goes faster then it's head). And as for spinning tires it's a magic trick called averages, you know, taking a bunch of readings and figuring out the average. A properly designed system is not trying to tell you that you have a flat, it's trying to tell you there is a low tire pressure. You know like the 100+ things that the OBDII system scans for that require 100+ miles, three starts and a number of other things before it will throw a CEL, or do you think that my CEL for cat inefficiency only comes on at the very instant the rear O2 gets a bad reading, over 250 miles after I reset the ECU?
[QUOTE=fliz]IIRC, the method that uses existing ABS sensors was rejected, because it doesn't actually monitor tire pressure. The argument against it was that if all four tires lose are slowly at the same rate, it wouldn't activate.
And morons driving around on under inflated tires aren't going to stop and fill up when this light goes on. They'll wait until they need to stop for gas, see that air is $.50, look at the tire, and decide the sensor must be broken.[/QUOTE]
Good if they did, I think that system is a joke anyway. I was just trying to point out another method that has been used (currently on some GM and Ford vehicles).
And I don't even want to get started on complaining about the government requiring safety systems in cars. Maybe it would be better if the government regulated nothing? Then we could have cheaper Nikes made by 12 yo kids that never went to school right here in the U. S. of A. Wow, that would be great, I hope the Government stops making all sorts of things mandatory.
<ON TOPIC!!!>
We are a resourceful bunch of people, so I think that this little annoyance won't cause too much trouble.
</ON TOPIC!!!>
| UKscooby | 09-22-2004 11:40 PM |
Just to add a bit more info regarding these systems. I design for a company that develops tire pressure systems for logging and concrete trucks (amongst other products)
The latest version of the RF sensors fit inside the valve stem and are interchangable per wheel. Its like an extension to your existing valve stem.
There will be several versions available. Some that can give out more info such as tire temprature, wheel and tire size and type of vehicle fitted to (think high end like Lexus etc), then there are standard pressure only sensors. These should be universal if/when everybody can agree to a common protocol.
The latest version of the RF sensors fit inside the valve stem and are interchangable per wheel. Its like an extension to your existing valve stem.
There will be several versions available. Some that can give out more info such as tire temprature, wheel and tire size and type of vehicle fitted to (think high end like Lexus etc), then there are standard pressure only sensors. These should be universal if/when everybody can agree to a common protocol.
| 10th Warrior | 09-23-2004 11:55 AM |
[quote]
I don't like it either... but we've let it go in the past, and it's gonna keep on happening until we're all driving "The Homer".[/quote]
that's the point of this thread. the NHTSA is asking for public comment. if you don't like it, take 30sec and tell them.
AWD is so cool because it allows the front and rear wheels to spin at different speeds, unlike a locked transfer case. turning requires all 4 tires to spin at different speeds.
[quote]do you run pressurs lower than 25 at autocrosses???[/quote]
do i run the standard tires at auto-x? nope.
I don't like it either... but we've let it go in the past, and it's gonna keep on happening until we're all driving "The Homer".[/quote]
that's the point of this thread. the NHTSA is asking for public comment. if you don't like it, take 30sec and tell them.
AWD is so cool because it allows the front and rear wheels to spin at different speeds, unlike a locked transfer case. turning requires all 4 tires to spin at different speeds.
[quote]do you run pressurs lower than 25 at autocrosses???[/quote]
do i run the standard tires at auto-x? nope.
| ChrisW | 09-23-2004 02:07 PM |
[QUOTE=UKscooby]Just to add a bit more info regarding these systems. I design for a company that develops tire pressure systems for logging and concrete trucks (amongst other products)
The latest version of the RF sensors fit inside the valve stem and are interchangable per wheel. Its like an extension to your existing valve stem.
There will be several versions available. Some that can give out more info such as tire temprature, wheel and tire size and type of vehicle fitted to (think high end like Lexus etc), then there are standard pressure only sensors. These should be universal if/when everybody can agree to a common protocol.[/QUOTE]
well that's great... but so what...
I don't like the idea of this product mandated by the government, increasing the cost of my already expensive car, just because some idiot is too stupid to make the effort to check their tire presures every now and then.
It's this "protect me from myself" attitude in the FED that irratates me the most.
The latest version of the RF sensors fit inside the valve stem and are interchangable per wheel. Its like an extension to your existing valve stem.
There will be several versions available. Some that can give out more info such as tire temprature, wheel and tire size and type of vehicle fitted to (think high end like Lexus etc), then there are standard pressure only sensors. These should be universal if/when everybody can agree to a common protocol.[/QUOTE]
well that's great... but so what...
I don't like the idea of this product mandated by the government, increasing the cost of my already expensive car, just because some idiot is too stupid to make the effort to check their tire presures every now and then.
It's this "protect me from myself" attitude in the FED that irratates me the most.
| SlideWRX | 09-23-2004 03:00 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]KC-your list can be broken down into two categories: pollution control and occupant safety in the case of an accident. TPMS does neither.[/QUOTE]
I would say TPMS falls into the [i]prevention[/i] of accidents territory.
On a different note, How long have cars had idiot lights for low oil pressure? Coolant temp? While TPMS is more safelty related, (vs engine failure related), it is just another idiot light, kinda like the ABS light or seatbelt light.
Tom
I would say TPMS falls into the [i]prevention[/i] of accidents territory.
On a different note, How long have cars had idiot lights for low oil pressure? Coolant temp? While TPMS is more safelty related, (vs engine failure related), it is just another idiot light, kinda like the ABS light or seatbelt light.
Tom
| 10th Warrior | 09-23-2004 03:55 PM |
ok, i did a little research. [url=http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/2001/TreadDepth.pdf]here[/url] is the study that lead to this legislation proposal, apparently. it looks like ~25% of cars have underinflated tires. so we're screwing 75% of drivers. nice. but wait, there's more! the largest group to have underinflated tires were bald tires. so the feds are apparently expecting people who aren't willing to replace worn out tires to care about inflation. and, i might add, this group is less then 9% of the total.
on top of this, i couldn't find anything where the cause of an accident was due to tire inflation. it looked as if most accidents were caused by driver error, speeding, drunks, and talking/eating while driving. go figure.
how do you guys feel about having to blow into a breathelizer before driving? that would probably do more good, from a safety point of view.
on top of this, i couldn't find anything where the cause of an accident was due to tire inflation. it looked as if most accidents were caused by driver error, speeding, drunks, and talking/eating while driving. go figure.
how do you guys feel about having to blow into a breathelizer before driving? that would probably do more good, from a safety point of view.
| jcroy66 | 09-23-2004 05:42 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]how do you guys feel about having to blow into a breathelizer before driving? that would probably do more good, from a safety point of view.[/QUOTE]
I believe I actually had heard a while back that some states were indeed toying with the idea of such a requirement for convicted drunk drivers. (And you can bet that regardless of whether it's successful in preventing accidents, that such a system would gradually become mandatory for ALL, because after all, it's for the CHILDREN!) :lol:
Before Steve accuses me of being OT again, let me relate this to the Motorsports forum. I can see it now - someone stalls out on the line at a ProSolo and pulls a 9.891 reaction time, as not only do they have to restart the car (which was already good for a 2.xxx reaction time!), now they have to try and get a good reading from the breathalyzer. Or worse, consider the safety aspects. Someone spins out on course in Solo2 and stalls. Now they have to try to get the breathalyzer to allow them to restart the car. Meanwhile, the course workers forget to red-flag the next car because the course workers are doubled over in laughter at the sight of the poor schmuck panting into a tube next to the steering wheel. :lol:
I believe I actually had heard a while back that some states were indeed toying with the idea of such a requirement for convicted drunk drivers. (And you can bet that regardless of whether it's successful in preventing accidents, that such a system would gradually become mandatory for ALL, because after all, it's for the CHILDREN!) :lol:
Before Steve accuses me of being OT again, let me relate this to the Motorsports forum. I can see it now - someone stalls out on the line at a ProSolo and pulls a 9.891 reaction time, as not only do they have to restart the car (which was already good for a 2.xxx reaction time!), now they have to try and get a good reading from the breathalyzer. Or worse, consider the safety aspects. Someone spins out on course in Solo2 and stalls. Now they have to try to get the breathalyzer to allow them to restart the car. Meanwhile, the course workers forget to red-flag the next car because the course workers are doubled over in laughter at the sight of the poor schmuck panting into a tube next to the steering wheel. :lol:
| 10th Warrior | 09-23-2004 06:04 PM |
[quote]Meanwhile, the course workers forget to red-flag the next car because the course workers are doubled over in laughter at the sight of the poor schmuck panting into a tube next to the steering wheel.[/quote]
it would be a funnier scenerio if it was because the course worker was drunk ;)
anyway, yeah, that's where i got the idea.
anyone find evidence that cars are flying off the road left and right due to underinflated tires?
it would be a funnier scenerio if it was because the course worker was drunk ;)
anyway, yeah, that's where i got the idea.
anyone find evidence that cars are flying off the road left and right due to underinflated tires?
| Chromer | 09-23-2004 06:18 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]
how do you guys feel about having to blow into a breathelizer before driving? that would probably do more good, from a safety point of view.[/QUOTE]
New Mexico was looking into proposing this for all new vehicles sold in the state. Hey, it's only another $200.
I imagine it would be real pleasant experience in a rental car...
how do you guys feel about having to blow into a breathelizer before driving? that would probably do more good, from a safety point of view.[/QUOTE]
New Mexico was looking into proposing this for all new vehicles sold in the state. Hey, it's only another $200.
I imagine it would be real pleasant experience in a rental car...
| dadswrx | 09-23-2004 07:01 PM |
This all started due to a number of deaths (IIRC, it was over 200) related to the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire fiasco. If they had stepped up to the plate sooner, TPMS probably would not have received the attention it has today.
If you want to "blame" someone for this, think Firestone and Ford.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
If you want to "blame" someone for this, think Firestone and Ford.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| 10th Warrior | 09-24-2004 10:53 AM |
the Ford rollovers were because Ford mandate tire pressures that were too low. this new proposal wouldn't do anything about that.
| dadswrx | 09-24-2004 01:08 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]the Ford rollovers were because Ford mandate tire pressures that were too low. this new proposal wouldn't do anything about that.[/QUOTE]
That was certainly part of the problem. For those really interested, you can read a summary at
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/UpgradeTire/Econ/TireUpgradeI.html[/url]
or just do a search on NHTSA's website to get further information on the Firestone recall.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
That was certainly part of the problem. For those really interested, you can read a summary at
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/UpgradeTire/Econ/TireUpgradeI.html[/url]
or just do a search on NHTSA's website to get further information on the Firestone recall.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| KC | 09-24-2004 01:35 PM |
[QUOTE]TPMS is a safety warning system and is not a substitute for regular tire pressure maintenance by drivers. Operating a vehicle with [B]substantially[/B] under-inflated tires can result in a tire failure, such as instances of tread separation and blowouts, with the potential for a loss of control of the vehicle. Under-inflated tires also shorten tire life and increase fuel consumption.[/QUOTE]
Define "substantially"
Ford said tires should run at around 28psi. If that's what the manufacturer called for... and *if* that's what they were running... then the sensor would have done nothing to prevent it. If they were 2 degrees off at 26psi or 4 degrees off at 24 psi (which can happen on a cold morning)... you're now about 10lbs off the TIRE manufacter's recommended pressures. Is that "substantial" yet? What's going to be the delta? Up here in New England... a tire can be 10lbs off from a tire filled on a hot day of running on the highway to a cool morning.
What is the sensor going to run off of? Vechicle specs or tire specs? If the manufacturers fail to comply to what the tire manufacturers say they should run... then the sensor will be useless.
The Ford fiasco was pertty much the fact that Ford overruled the suggested pressures of the tire manufacturer.
--KC
Define "substantially"
Ford said tires should run at around 28psi. If that's what the manufacturer called for... and *if* that's what they were running... then the sensor would have done nothing to prevent it. If they were 2 degrees off at 26psi or 4 degrees off at 24 psi (which can happen on a cold morning)... you're now about 10lbs off the TIRE manufacter's recommended pressures. Is that "substantial" yet? What's going to be the delta? Up here in New England... a tire can be 10lbs off from a tire filled on a hot day of running on the highway to a cool morning.
What is the sensor going to run off of? Vechicle specs or tire specs? If the manufacturers fail to comply to what the tire manufacturers say they should run... then the sensor will be useless.
The Ford fiasco was pertty much the fact that Ford overruled the suggested pressures of the tire manufacturer.
--KC
| Chi_San | 09-25-2004 08:08 PM |
I can't wait to see some dumb blond get in her car, notice the light, freak out, and try using a bike pump to inflate her tires on the side of a freeway.
| Davenow | 09-25-2004 08:45 PM |
I work at a dealership. I can assure you that the MAJORITY of people drive around with no more than 25PSI in their tires. Most of the time its more in the 20-22PSI range, with at least 2-3 cars a day in the 10-15 PSI range.
Then there are the morons with 60-80lbs because they see a bulge in the tire and assume its low, not just that there is a 3500lb car sitting on that sidewall.
Then there are the morons with 60-80lbs because they see a bulge in the tire and assume its low, not just that there is a 3500lb car sitting on that sidewall.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét