HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: met@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Meteorology General)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Can I install wider tyres than what specified by the auto-maker?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:12:37 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne Dept of Meteorology
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

>$|> >If your going from a 195-60-15 to a 205-60-15, the 205 will be taller. 
>$|> >This will affect your speedo.  You might try looking at a 205-55-15.  They

I think we are missing the point here guys. The subject line says WIDER tyres.
The problem with putting wider tyres on a car is that the set up will then be
askew. You would really then need to stiffen the suspension as well. Reason;
a car is set up so for a standard set of recommended tyres the suspension is
of such a "hardness" that the car "should" slide before it rolls. i.e the 
suspension should be set so that the body roll will induce only so much "bite"
that before the point of "roll-over" is reached the tyres will give and will
begin to slide. If you put wider tyres, and hence get more grip, and the 
suspension has not been stiffened, then it is possible that the "bite" will
continue past the point of no return, and the car will hence roll before it
slides. Think about it. Finding that optimum point is what it is all about.
Testimony to this was Carlos Sainz in the 1991 (I think) Rallye Aust, when 
he finished the loose gravel stages and switched to slicks for a short tarmac
special stage. Unfortunately the Toyota mechanics didnt change the suspension
settings (for whatever reason) that had been set very "soft" for the marble-like
West Australian gravel, and Sainz went out, pushed it hard (as is
his want) and promptly flipped the car onto its roof almost (ALMOST) putting
himself out of the rallye. The rest is history. So the moral to the tail as I
see it is more grip, stiffer suspension, or the exercise is pretty much 
useless.


Andrew B. Watkins                    |    `To strive, to seek, to find and
awatkins@mullara.met.unimelb.edu.au  |     not to yield'  
awatkins@buster.met.unimelb.edu.au   |                  - Lord Tennyson 



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Headlights and driving lights
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:48:15 GMT

In <1jkqoqINNe2u@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>In article <bob1.727557964@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>Didn't work. While your tactic is OK when they are coming at you,
>>what do you do when they are in the lane beside you? I use my side
>>mirrors, but they don't have a night setting :-(.

>You could try using your side mirrors in 'assault' mode--  set them to
>reflect the high beams right back at the offender.  Doesn't work at
>all with convex mirrors, though.

Tried that but the motorized mirrors on my Probe will not swing far
enough. I did think about a remote control on the hatchback and a
light seeking .50 cal machine gun, but that's probably illegal.

>-- 
>Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

I wonder if the insurance statistics would show an increase in night
time accidents since these new *stylist dictated* weird headlights
started appearing. It is rather obvious that many of them are poorly
designed (Ford and Honda, are you listening?), and also do a poor
job of lighting the road ahead. I would be willing to bet the
numbers would show a pronounced increase.

Bob



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Illegal Radar Jammers -- Legal for a ham?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:06:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.222254.16041@microware.com> adam@microware.com (Adam Goldberg) writes:
>I just read the FAQ for the rec.autos hierarchy--and it says (rightly
>so) that radar jammers are illegal (in the US).
>
>But a ham once told me that if you have a particular type of ham
>license (which allows use of any bandwidth [does this exist?]) then a
>jammer would be legal for use by that person.
>
>Is this true? Does anyone have a definitive answer?

Hams are permitted to operate in specific bands of frequencies.  The
probability is that since radar is in a frequency band that is very
high, the operation of a ham on a nearby frequency would probably
be identified by the police radar unit as an interfearing signal.
That is because the receive capability of the police radar unit is
probably very broad in bandwidth and because the police radar
receiver is looking for a very low power signal (the reflected
radar signal from the car being speed checked).  If a nearby
ham transmitter in the radar frequency band is operating it might
simply "overload" the police radar.  An example of that can be
sometimes experienced in an automobile when you drive by a
AM or FM station's 
broadcast antenna.  Even if your radio is tuned to a different
station, so much signal power is present (because you are right
next to a transmitter antenna) that you can pick up the station
anywhere on your car radio's dial.

I have often wondered exactly how suseptiple police radar units are
to other transmissions (eg. ham, CB etc.).  Some police radar units have
an indicator which tells the cop that there is a potentially
interfearing signal present.  I'd love to experiment with
a police radar unit to see if my ham mobile rig and/or a CB will
give an interfereing indication and, if so, at what range , power,
frequency, etc.

So, to the original question, is jamming as a ham legal.  Other
FCC regulations specifically prohibit jamming and/or interfering
on a deliberate basis.  Having said that, it would be difficult
at best to prove such a scenario was happening and the mere
ownership and use of a transmitter by a ham is, of course, totally legal.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: shantanu@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Shantanu Ganguly)
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:01:55 GMT

In article <bob1.727649688@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.085305.14965@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>
>
>>i have a '90 acura integra which has fog lamps.
>>the fog lamps have clear lenses and are mounted
>>next to the headlamps.  this past weekend, up
>>in the reno area, i was driving with my fog lamps on
>>(the better to see the surface of the road and through
>>the snow).  a lot of oncoming drivers thought i had
>>my brights on and flashed me, to which i replied by flashing
>>my own brights.
>
>>i know that my fog lamps don't produce much additional glare

I've stopped using my integra's driving lights (that's what the manual
calls them) unless I'm the only one on the road. These lights actually
don't cause much glare, they just provide additional fill to the low
beams (which are  quite inadequate if there is no street lighting). 
Problem is, any oncoming driver who sees 4 headlights in a row
will think that you are using high beams, and flash you.
Honda should have positioned the driving lights differently.

>Have you sat in the seat of a car, facing your integra with the
>lamps on? I've seen similar integras here, and I wonder about
>what you mean by *much additional glare*. The integra is after
>all merely an updscale Honda, and as I've said before, Honda
>can't design headlights worth sh*t.

Well, I've found my civic's headlights are fairly functional (I won't claim
to be a headlight expert)  - its the integra low beams that suck.
There was some talk about this on the shortlived acura mailing list,
the trick is to replace the integra low beams with some exotic
hellas with a good cutoff pattern. I'll see if I can dig up
that info.

Shantanu Ganguly
Somerset (Motorola)

phone : (512) 795-7146                  Motorola Inc, Mail Drop OE 513
fax   : (512) 795-7513                  6501 William Cannon Drive W.
                                        Austin TX 78735-8598
email : shantanu%ibmoto.com@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: fog lamps
From: alanb@sdl.ug.eds.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:54:01 GMT
 <1993Jan22.154407.17507@colorado.edu><1jpieuINNod6@shelley.u.washington.edu><1
 993Jan25.215055.17522@colorado.edu><1993Jan26.003046.5265@Happy-Man.com><1993Jan26.073822.15085@Celestial.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: bill@Celestial.COM's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:38:22 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:38:22 GMT, bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) said:

> A nice simple rule is never to let oncoming traffic ever see your
> driving lights or high beams.  IMHO these lights should be wired
> to a relay on the high-beam side so they automatically go off
> when the lights are dimmed.

Its also a legal requirement in the UK.

> Properly set up fog lights should probably be wired so that the
> headlights are turned off completely when the fog lights are on.
> One of the biggest problems driving in fog is the light being
> reflected back by the fog and the low position and sharp cutoff
> of the fog lights is designed to minimize back glare.

I think fog lights are allowed to be used with high beam, though
its pretty pointless using well adjusted fogs in good weather,
or high beam in fog.
While you might see better with headlights off totally in fog, you may
be more visible with them on (dipped).

What really irritates me is people using high intesity rear lights
in fine weather (also illegal in UK, but widespread).
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: I'll have a PBJ please.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:37:56 GMT

In article <s6VqXB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>damong@wpi.WPI.EDU (Damon F. Gentile) writes:
>
>> >> the amount of your ticket. Here's the deal, if you have a 2 point,76.00
>> >> speeding ticket, you have a choice. You can get a 100.00 court cost and 
>> >> NO points, or a 50.00 ticket and 1 point and be assesed a 1-9mph over
>> >> speeding ticket. Or a 25.00 court cost and all of your 2point ticket
>> >> on your record.
>> >
>> >This is absolutely amazing.. If a private citizen tried this, it would
>> >be called blackmail. I guess we can expect no more from the shits that
>> >run the legal system.
>> 
>> They may be shits... But I like the system.  I think that paying twice
>> my car's value for el-cheapo manditory insurance has me screwed enough...
>> I'd practically sell my soul to avoid points on my insurance....
>> I've disputed (and won) all of my tickets... Guilty as sin, but fuck the
>> insurance bastards.
>
>Having worked for an insurance company, I can tell you in no uncertain
>terms that private car insurance is not profitable at all; most
>companies sell it only because it is required if they wish to sell
>other, more profitable lines, within the same state.
>
um..yeh right...the insurance companies are all going broke selling us 
insurance..they always 'lose' money and pay no taxes...but 'luckily' they
just happened to invest all those billions in premiums and collect enough
interest to...um...stay in business i guess to keep selling unprofitable
insurance???
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: bowmanj@csn.org (Jerry Bowman)
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Organization: University of Colorado Boulder, OCS
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:54:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.055406.10248@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.170831.8474@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>>In a previous article tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) spake...
>>>
>>>[stuff deleted]
>>>i know that my fog lamps don't produce much additional glare
>>>compared to my regular low beams, since they are aimed fairly low.
>>>but i'm getting tired of being flashed whenever i use my fog lamps
>>>and i thought about changing them to amber.  are there any
>>>replacement bulbs that would do this?
>>>
>>
>>Turn 'em off. These damn fog lights are nothing but a glaring pain in the ass
>>to other drivers on the road (Amber or otherwise) especially since people who
>>have them seem to drive with 'em on weather or not there's fog. If there IS
>>fog, then please, use the lights (as they were meant). Otherwise get used to
>>other drivers flashing their brights at you. Sorry, but I really hate these
>>lights (as much as those blinding strobe lights that some cars use as turn
>>signals).
>>-- 
>
>Fog lamps, when they are set up properly should not produce additional glare.
>I have installed several sets on various vehicles, and always, the beams are
>adjusted so that at 25ft they project just below the actual height of the
>lamps.  They are pretty much useless, if they are adjusted any higher, as they
>will just through glare back in the drivers face.  And yes, I keep them on even
>in no fog.  So flash away, I'll just flash back.
>
>******************************************************************************
>Mike Serafin             serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com       Texas Instruments
>DoD #0742  AMA #671922  HOG #0565502                            Dallas, Texas
>1967 Firebird 326              1982 Honda CM250C
>1969 Barracuda Formula 340S    1993 H-D FLHS 
>1988 Ford F250 4x4             1964 Cessna 310I
>1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee
>******************************************************************************

      Serafin --  You got too damned many toys !
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: %%% Honda Integra "Fog Lamps" vs. Toyota ES300 "Fog Lamps" %%%
Keywords: Hi.
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:07:39 GMT

The two of these cars have the worst fog lamps. The Honda Integra's lamps
are a joke... if you have them. TURN THEM OFF. And the Toyota ES300's are 
annoying too...

TURN THEM OFF...

Fog lamps belong LOW... they for the most part, should not be used without
the low beams. 


--
  |o| Marshal Perlman                       Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu |o|
  |o| Florida Institute of Technology                        IRC: Squawk |o|
  |o| Melbourne, Florida                             Private Pilot, ASEL |o|
  |o| 407/768-8000 x8435                      Goodyear Blimp Club Member |o|
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:26:34 GMT

In article <1jnk5pINN6b2@hpscit.sc.hp.com> klui@corp.hp.com (Ken Lui) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.085305.14965@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>>i have a '90 acura integra which has fog lamps.
>>the fog lamps have clear lenses and are mounted
>>next to the headlamps.
>
>I think Honda made a mistake when they placed the Integra's fog
>lamps right next to the headlamps and didn't make their lenses
>amber.  A lot of times when I see MkII Integras with their fogs
>on, they look like driving lamps instead of foglights.  They
>don't appear to point down towards the ground either.  In any
>event, fog lights should be lower and Honda should have placed
>them within the air scoop below the bumper.  But, what do I know?

Well, for one thing, clear or white lamps will penetrate fog better. The common
myth that amber lenses are better originated because this yellow light produces
less glare, which gives the impression of better fog penetration.

-- Brent
morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
From: uni@acs.bu.edu (Shaen Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Police transmitter detectors
Keywords: Radar
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:17:25 GMT
Distribution: rec.autos.driving
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1508@fozzy.UUCP> jcross@aud.alcatel.com writes:
>Several years ago, I used to see adds for a little box folks were
>selling that would detect any police in a 2~3 mile range. It
>worked on the simple priciple that the highway patrol folks had
>a radio transmiter in their cars that they left on most~all the
>time. I don't recall why the X-mit device existed or why it was left
>on, but that's not really important. What is important is, does

What your talking about is a "CHiPs detector"
These were marketed some years back, I dont know if they are still around.

The Principal was:
Many State Troopers have a "Mobile Extender" device, a transmitter which
allows them to talk on their portable radio when outside the car, and have
the signal rebroadcast over the 75-100W mobile radio in their car.
In addition it transmitted any chatter that came over the car radio back
to the portable, so the trooper could stay in touch.

As the transmitter ran about 3-5W, and keyed up everytime the dispatcher
said ANYTHING to ANY TROOPER out there, it is useful to listen in.  Most
likely when you hear something on this frequency, there is a trooper somewhere
near by.

Troopers wouldn't tend to turn these off, as a foot chase would render them
out of contact with the dispatcher.

Problems with the system are the following:

1>  Often times the Dispatcher will remain silent for minutes at a time.
Unlike local and municipal police, state police and highway patrolmen are
VERY disciplined with their radios.  In my experience, 15 minutes can go
by between transmissions in the wee hours.  That's 15 minutes for you to
stumble on a trooper with no warning at all.

2>  Not all states have mobile extenders in troopers cars.

3>  Some states have SOME cars with mobile extenders, others without....
A False sense of security is lethal to a speeder.

My suggestion:  If it is legal in your state to carry one in your car,
buy a scanner.  You can get the same frequencies for almost the same
price, and you can HEAR what's being said.


>Anyway help would be appreciated...
>
>-Jeff

uni

-- 
uni@acs.bu.edu  ->  Public Keys by finger and/or request
Soverignty is the sign of a brutal past.
From: drew@bnr.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: To all American fast car owners....
Date: 20 Jan 1993 14:02:54 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs211.bnr.co.uk

In article <C14pAA.67z@ncube.com> bob@ncube.com (Bob Kehoe) writes:
>In article <4031@isgtec.isgtec.com> karl@isgtec.com <Karl Sewlochan> writes:
>>--
>Experienced a '93 LT1 lately?  I'd put it right there with all
>the other so-called 'supercars' I've tested this past year.
>Much better, in some cases.
>
>"Refinement" goes much deeper than dashboard layout.
>
>bob
>

Agreed. But if I don't like the dash, I wont drive the car.

Drew.

-- 

Pretty damn silly place to leave a signature...
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Police transmitter detectors
Keywords: Radar
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:42:39 GMT
Distribution: rec.autos.driving
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1508@fozzy.UUCP> jcross@aud.alcatel.com writes:
>Several years ago, I used to see adds for a little box folks were
>selling that would detect any police in a 2~3 mile range. It
>worked on the simple priciple that the highway patrol folks had
>a radio transmiter in their cars that they left on most~all the
>time. I don't recall why the X-mit device existed or why it was left
>on, but that's not really important. What is important is, does
>anyone know if & where you can get on of these nifty little things?
>I'm sure someone could make one (if they know the proper frequences)
>but I'm not all that into electronics (try to stay w/ Software.)
>Are they still effective or did the cops just start switching off
>the transmitter once they realized what they were doing.
>

is this box perhaps filled with a half dozen creme-filleds or just glazed?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: ham@wam.umd.edu (Scott Richard Rosenfeld)
Subject: Re: Illegal Radar Jammers -- Legal for a ham?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:23:13 GMT

>I just read the FAQ for the rec.autos hierarchy--and it says (rightly
>so) that radar jammers are illegal (in the US).
>
>But a ham once told me that if you have a particular type of ham
>license (which allows use of any bandwidth [does this exist?]) then a
>jammer would be legal for use by that person.
>
>Is this true? Does anyone have a definitive answer?
>
Hams are bound by the same laws as anyone else regarding this subject.
Any license above an amateur Novice class license grants the owner the right
to use several microwave bands as part of his/her set of privileges.  Inclu-
ded in this set of privileges are 2.4 GHz and 10 GHz, namely K and X bands.

While, however, our license grants us the ability to transmit within these
frequency bands, it does not allow us to cause malicious, intentional 
interference with other services, such as shortwave stations, with which
we share the 40 meter (7 MHz) band.  Similarly, it would be completely 
illegal for a ham to intentionally jam traffic radar.  The fine for doing
so would probably be even more severe than simply jamming with no license, 
as hams KNOW as part of their licensing examinations that malicious, inten-
tional interference is a BIG no-no.

Of course, if you were to accidentally jam radar while legally using the 
10 GHz band, that would probably be OK in that you would be using the band
for a legitimate purpose, and the license does allow you to do so.

Hope I was of some help.

73,

Scott NF3I  Amateur Radio Extra Class Operator

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: I'll have a PBJ please.
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:01:39 GMT

In article <s6VqXB2w165w@major.panix.com>
dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

>Having worked for an insurance company, I can tell you in no uncertain
>terms that private car insurance is not profitable at all; most
>companies sell it only because it is required if they wish to sell
>other, more profitable lines, within the same state.

In article <1993Jan23.061209.26866@leland.Stanford.EDU>
tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:

>question: when you say "not profitable at all, does that include
>the money they make by investing the premiums collected?

Just the question I was gonna ask...."Voodoo" accounting can work wonders.
I don't buy it.

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.