[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html

Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety experts.

Looks like this is the wave of the future. Not sure I like it.

[drive-thru]

Seems like a good idea to me.
The more information crash investigators have, the more likely they are to be able to find out why the accident happened and how it can be prevented in the future.

I'm not sure why some people see this as 'invasion of privacy' etc. but I don't understand that arguement, so it doesn't bother me.

[mitchell_pgh]

On one hand, it is a sacrifice of liberties. Someone knows where you are.

On the other, it's important to know how crashes really happen... not "eye witness testimony" that is inherently flawed. I would also love to put an end to the stealing of cars. It's rampant in DC.

[mitchell_pgh]

UPDATE: After reading the entire article... I'm not against this even if the government does require it. It makes perfect sense. It is also not like they will be tracking you via GPS etc.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
It is also not like they will be tracking you via GPS etc.

What's stopping them? The Patriot Act?

[Eriamjh]

These black boxes are not "tracking you". They are recording engine information for the engine controllers use. The fact that it is accessible after an accident is a by-product of its design.

I'm not sure exactly what the NTSB wants installed, but I work for the auto industry and these "black boxes" usually only contain the last few seconds of engine information, not hours, days, or weeks of info. They don't have the memory to "store" tons of information. These cars are built on the cheap.

Think about it. The engine has to know if you are pressing the accelerator, how fast it is going, engine RPM, etc. in order to allow operation of the car. It usually evaluates the data in millseconds and performs calculations over the last few seconds to know what to do next. Then you crash. Investigators retrieve that last few bits of data through a diagnostic tool. They find you had floored it and were going 100mph when you crashed. So what? In the old days, the speedo might stick at the time of the accident. This is no different.

The NTSB may want to have this on all vehicles, but it will likely happen anyway. All the automakers use electronics and computers on their cars. That's why your 400hp Escalade gets the same 11mpg as a 1975 Suburban with a 200hp engine. Electronics are more efficient than carburetors.

What the boxes do not prove is intent. They can prove you were actually hitting the accelerator instead of the brake when you plowed through that sidewalk full of grandmas. It cannot say you deliberately mowed those old ladies down with your Cadillac-of-death. The jury will decide if you made a mistake or if you just couldn't stand to see all those cheek-pinching, doily-making, geritol-taking fogeys gathering for attack without stopping them once and for all.

There are aftermarket boxes that can track hours of info. These will not be on cars from GM, Ford, etc. Only seconds are saved. And if the car is restarted or still runs after the accident, any real accident info will be lost faster than you can say "I'm guilty of being a bad driver."

End rant. <Steps off pedestal>

[typoon]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
What's stopping them? The Patriot Act?

Yes but this is not a place to get into a debate about the Patriot Act. Just the law in general.

I would have to see how this pans out and see what they are actually tracking. It sounds like a good idea if it's only used to determine an accident and helps to make cars safer.

[Sherwin]

Hmmm... Let's say you're doing 31 in a 30 zone and get t-boned. Is their insurance company going to pay up if they find out you were illegally "speeding"? Stranger things have happened.

[the_glassman]

This isn't anything new, GM has used them in their cars for years the Vette was one of the first, and I believe they were in the F-bodies as well.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
What's stopping them? The Patriot Act?

Wait till it becomes a matter of National security and watch even more of your privacy go down the drain.

[macaddict0001]

this is nothing new all cars since around late 80's have had built in computers that tell the engine what to idle at and so on around mid 90's all cars had the functionality to tell when they were having problems IE:check oil light(except more detailed) by the late 90's most cars have been able to record engine rpm's speed engine temperature and other engine stats. it is just another funtion of the engine computer.
btw the engine computer is usually located under the windshield except a couple of inches more to the front of the car under the hood. most of them include a serial port/cable to connect to a technicians laptop for diagnostics.
besides objects othre than cars have black boxes such as:
scanners vcr's and other video/image recorders. in fact most electronics have one and it doesn't affect use unless you're trying to scan a 20 dollar bill or use your tivo to copy a dvd.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hmmm... Let's say you're doing 31 in a 30 zone and get t-boned. Is their insurance company going to pay up if they find out you were illegally "speeding"? Stranger things have happened.

Most states and municipalities in the US allow for a 5-10MPH variance in registered speed, to allow for speedometer irregularities (having bigger tires, worn shocks, road conditions, etc.)

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by typoon:

Looks like this is the wave of the future. Not sure I like it.

Why? Is it because you want to get away with doing something illegal?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Why? Is it because you want to get away with doing something illegal?

Spoken like a true Socialist.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Is it because you want to get away with doing something illegal?

yes.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Spoken like a true Socialist.

Hey I am Mr. Illegal himself but I am not going to bitch if they invent a new way to catch me.

[G4ME]

another reason i won't buy a car past '90.

[IFLY2HIGH]

When you fly in an Airplane there the same thing. Altough most won't survive a plane crash, at least someone will know if it was pilot error, or mechnical error.


I think it's a good idea.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by G4ME:
another reason i won't buy a car past '90.

A car built before '90 pollutes about 25 times more than a car with mordern pollution controls. In other words, it takes 25 '03s cars to equal the amount of hydrocarbos your single '90s car emits. Pathetic.

Anything older than a '95 should be a hobby car in my opinion.

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
A car built before '90 pollutes about 25 times more than a car with mordern pollution controls. In other words, it takes 25 '03s cars to equal the amount of hydrocarbos your single '90s car emits. Pathetic.

Anything older than a '95 should be a hobby car in my opinion.

Please back up those statistics with LINKS please. You are saying a 2004 car pollutes only 4% as much as a 1989? I call BS.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Please back up those statistics with LINKS please. You are saying a 2004 car pollutes only 4% as much as a 1989? I call BS.

Call it all you want. I worked at an emmissions testing facility for a few years. Did the testing myself. And no, GM does not post it's internal testing on the internet.

But let me clarify a little. I am not saying a new car in 1989. I am saying a car from 1989.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by IFLY2HIGH:
Altough most won't survive a plane crash,

Your chances of surviving a plane crash are actually surprisingly high. Even if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a forced landing, you still have a 86% chance of making it out alive. /off topic

[Link]

Microsoft Car has detected that a crash has occured. Would you like to submit a crash report?

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
A car built before '90 pollutes about 25 times more than a car with mordern pollution controls. In other words, it takes 25 '03s cars to equal the amount of hydrocarbos your single '90s car emits. Pathetic.

Anything older than a '95 should be a hobby car in my opinion.

Bull$hit! So you are saying just because a car isn't OBD II compliant it's bound to pollute more?
Pollution control is a lot more involved than a few sensors and increased engine efficiency.
Type of fuel, ignition timing, air/fuel ratio, number and type of catalytic converts used.
Are todays cars cleaner than cars of yesterday? Sure, they should be, and by law have to be. But to use a blanket statement like that, with a number that looks like it was pulled out nowhere is just pathetic.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Wait till it becomes a matter of National security and watch even more of your privacy go down the drain.

Originally posted by typoon:
Looks like this is the wave of the future. Not sure I like it.

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Why? Is it because you want to get away with doing something illegal?

Am I the only one who caught this?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Bull$hit! So you are saying just because a car isn't OBD II compliant it's bound to pollute more?

Nope. Not what I am saying at all. But thanks for trying to put something into my post that wasn't there.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Pollution control is a lot more involved than a few sensors and increased engine efficiency.

Of course it is. Your first part is correct. Things like intake manifold design, piston cap shape, head design, valves, cat. converter, timing, mixture. Your second statement is wrong. engine efficiency has a lot to do with it. The closer and engine gets to perfectly balanced stoichiometric combustion, the cleaner an engine emits.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Type of fuel, ignition timing, air/fuel ratio, number and type of catalytic converts used.

Type of fuel is only dependent on engine design.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Are todays cars cleaner than cars of yesterday? Sure, they should be, and by law have to be. But to use a blanket statement like that, with a number that looks like it was pulled out nowhere is just pathetic.

I was using an average number we found while testing. Some cars were better, while some were worse. I was using a general average. It wasn't 25.00001 times more efficient. I guess "about 25 times" is a better way of stating it.

I was part of the testing myself. I say and analyzed the results. I don't have the figures in front of me, I don't work there anymore.

[alphasubzero949]

You think that the black boxes are bad now? Wait until OBD III comes out...

[Link]

Yes, so a 2005 Chevy Suburban deserves to be on the road but not a 1984 Toyota Celica?

For some reason that doesn't compute.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Please back up those statistics with LINKS please. You are saying a 2004 car pollutes only 4% as much as a 1989? I call BS.

he meant in terms of hydrocarbons in total polution it is almost the same. If only because cars get bigger and bigger engines.
although I admit that it could be higher I don't actually know but I asume that it is more or less the same but cars are more fuel efficient so in that sense they make fewer emissions.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Link:
Yes, so a 2005 Chevy Suburban deserves to be on the road but not a 1984 Toyota Celica?

For some reason that doesn't compute.

You guys do such a good job of trying to make words come out of my mouth. Here's what I said.

A car built before '90 pollutes about 25 times more than a car with mordern pollution controls

I did not say SUVs or trucks. I said "cars".

But I bet the '05 Suburban does burn cleaner than the '84 Toyota. But because it goes through 3 times more gasoline the advantage of burning cleaner is negated somewhat. But I bet the emissions are still less. Remember, the air coming out of the tail pipe of the Toyota will probably have a lot of black smoke during acceleration, but the Suburban's tail pipe will be quite clean.

[wdlove]

If this is under government control, then there is the potential for it to be used to monitor citizens.

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
But let me clarify a little. I am not saying a new car in 1989. I am saying a car from 1989.

Any improperly maintained car can pollute more than a new car. That was not what you said the first time. And how long does that 2005 car pollute at low levels like a new car before it starts polluting like a used car?

It won't matter in a few years/decades when we exhaust the earths supply of oil and fuel. No one will be driving any of these IC cars.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic.)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Most states and municipalities in the US allow for a 5-10MPH variance in registered speed, to allow for speedometer irregularities (having bigger tires, worn shocks, road conditions, etc.)

For now... This used to be the case here but they've started clamping down on very small differences - largely due to the constant harping on about "speed kills" by the powerful lib lobbies. Some dude got points recently doing 73 in a 70.
Main problem for us being, tech that catches on over there usually catches on over here... ...but without the sensible bits.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
For now... This used to be the case here but they've started clamping down on very small differences - largely due to the constant harping on about "speed kills" by the powerful lib lobbies. Some dude got points recently doing 73 in a 70.
Main problem for us being, tech that catches on over there usually catches on over here... ...but without the sensible bits.

www.valentine1.com

[G4ME]

i live in maine, the trees love the pollution, its least of my worries.

adding more electronics to cars only adds another variable that will eventually fusk up and then cost money, KISS.

[Kenneth]

I don't want to see it inside my car.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Bull$hit! So you are saying just because a car isn't OBD II compliant it's bound to pollute more? Pollution control is a lot more involved than a few sensors and increased engine efficiency. Type of fuel, ignition timing, air/fuel ratio, number and type of catalytic converts used. Are todays cars cleaner than cars of yesterday? Sure, they should be, and by law have to be. But to use a blanket statement like that, with a number that looks like it was pulled out nowhere is just pathetic.

Where did your insulting attitude come from. You sound like you don't want to hear the truth they way you fly off the handle when someone posts some information. Who's going to make up a statistic like that anyway? You think he's trying to sell you a new car or something? Why do you think the carmakers complain so much about pollution regulations?... they are really hard to meet these days.

Originally posted by Link:
Yes, so a 2005 Chevy Suburban deserves to be on the road but not a 1984 Toyota Celica?
For some reason that doesn't compute.

Wrap your mind around this one. Your lawnmower pollutes a lot more per hour than all the cars and trucks on your block put together. Even the ones from the 80's. And jetskis are worse.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Wrap your mind around this one. Your lawnmower pollutes a lot more per hour than all the cars and trucks on your block put together. Even the ones from the 80's. And jetskis are worse.

Not many people realize that.

One myth I have never heard proven true or not is that the couple drops of gas that drip off the pump when filling up your tank at the gas station is more hydrocarbons than the whole tank burned through the engine. I know some states have huge sleeves around the pump handle to catch these drips and some stations have a vacuum system to make sure all of the fumes are captured. Again, I do not know if this is true or false.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Where did your insulting attitude come from. You sound like you don't want to hear the truth they way you fly off the handle when someone posts some information. Who's going to make up a statistic like that anyway? You think he's trying to sell you a new car or something? Why do you think the carmakers complain so much about pollution regulations?... they are really hard to meet these days.



Wrap your mind around this one. Your lawnmower pollutes a lot more per hour than all the cars and trucks on your block put together. Even the ones from the 80's. And jetskis are worse.

My lawn mower? My lawn mower is like this.

Big time poluter.
Kilbey is just the person to make a statistic like that up. I know a thing or two about pollution, because I can get my big time polluting sports car to pass emissions without any smog devices! You would be amazed what you could accomplish with changing the timing and air fuel ratios.
I can also take a standard VW and run it off biodiesel and cut the amount of hydrocarbons with nothing else other than switching from standard diesel.
The reason car manufactures complain about the regulations? Because it cost them more money to improve and make the needed changes.

All this talk about efficiency and pollution and how any car before 95 is "pathetic" well guess what? The average MPG for vehicles has been on a decline since 1989!
That's right, those older "pathetic" cars of yesterday consumed less fuel!
Don't believe me? Read the report here or here. So while these newer cars may be produce less emissions they are doing so by using more fuel!

[mrtew]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
My lawn mower? My lawn mower is like this.

Big time poluter.

I was talking to Link about his lawnmower... your's is fine!

Originally posted by the_glassman:
The reason car manufactures complain about the regulations? Because it cost them more money to improve and make the needed changes.

Wait... that is MY point! The regulations make them IMPROVE! You're acting like the emmissions haven't improved much... but they have! Because of the regulations! Geez.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
All this talk about efficiency and pollution and how any car before 95 is "pathetic" well guess what? The average MPG for vehicles has been on a decline since 1989!
That's right, those older "pathetic" cars of yesterday consumed less fuel!
Don't believe me? Read the report here or here. So while these newer cars may be produce less emissions they are doing so by using more fuel!

Are you even thinking while you type? They aren't producing less emissions by using more fuel... they are producing less emissions in spite of using more fuel! Horespower has doubled in recent years while emissions have been cut drastically. Now that's worth putting up with a stolen vehicle tracker/crash recorder!

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
My lawn mower? My lawn mower is like this.
[img]http://members.cox.net/brsmith6/mower.jpg[ /img]
Big time poluter.

Well good for you. You're such a tree hugger. I also use a reel mower on my lawn. I use it because it's quiet and cuts the grass so well. I'll post a picture of mine too if you want proof.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Kilbey is just the person to make a statistic like that up. I know a thing or two about pollution, because I can get my big time polluting sports car to pass emissions without any smog devices! You would be amazed what you could accomplish with changing the timing and air fuel ratios.

Huh. Make it up eh? I guess you're just going to have to go on my word that I worked at a research facility for GM where I built and tested concept cars and experimental engines. But about 75% of our work was emissions testing.

I never knew all it took to know about emissions was the ability to make you car pass an emissions test. /sarcasm] Good for you to have learnt so well. Did you ever stop and think that maybe your local emissions testing isn't too strict? And do you know what a "smog device" is? Lastly, why are you driving a "big time polluting" car? Do you like smog and acid rain? Fresh air too pure for you?

Originally posted by the_glassman:
I can also take a standard VW and run it off biodiesel and cut the amount of hydrocarbons with nothing else other than switching from standard diesel.

You're a genius!!! Sell your wonderful ideas to VW. They have a lot of diesel cars and I am sure they would love this money saving idea.

Originally posted by the_glassman:
[BThe reason car manufactures complain about the regulations? Because it cost them more money to improve and make the needed changes. [/B]

No sh1t Sherlock. And it drives up the prices of cars and sales decline and the economy goes into the toilet. Share holders get scarce, investors demand changes, profits drop more, their credit rating skyrockets... yada yada yada....

Originally posted by the_glassman:
All this talk about efficiency and pollution and how any car before 95 is "pathetic" well guess what? The average MPG for vehicles has been on a decline since 1989!
That's right, those older "pathetic" cars of yesterday consumed less fuel!
Don't believe me? Read the report here or here. So while these newer cars may be produce less emissions they are doing so by using more fuel!

You really are out of your element Donny. See the above poster who explained it in small simple words for you.