Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

andres3

stickguy said:

Finally broke down and picked a tire and scheduled an install for tomorrow since I have an open morning. Decided to go with the cooper CS5. Seem like a good overall choice, and price is good. If I don’t like them, will just blame Michael.

At least they aren’t full of dry rot cracks. And none of the shoulder blocks have chunks missing (that probably isn’t a good sign when that happens).

I hope the wife enjoys the new battery and tires for Christmas! It is her car. And looks like we will be keeping it for a while now.

Those gifts fall under the new blender, washing machine, and dryer category. Not really appreciated by significant others.

andres3

fintail said:

I'd like to know who signed off on that sign. Then drive by and downshift just for fun - as long as it doesn't break the engine, it's good

I'd question who authorized wasting tax payer resources on such a dumb law and expensive signage in the first place?

tjc78

andres3 said:

Finally broke down and picked a tire and scheduled an install for tomorrow since I have an open morning. Decided to go with the cooper CS5. Seem like a good overall choice, and price is good. If I don’t like them, will just blame Michael. At least they aren’t full of dry rot cracks. And none of the shoulder blocks have chunks missing (that probably isn’t a good sign when that happens). I hope the wife enjoys the new battery and tires for Christmas! It is her car. And looks like we will be keeping it for a while now.

Those gifts fall under the new blender, washing machine, and dryer category. Not really appreciated by significant others.

I think he was joking ? 


As for the minivan comment, I’d suspect a minivan has more cargo room than most of the midsize SUVs that have largely taken over the segment (Pilot, Highlander, Santa)

We drive a pretty large SUV with middle captains chairs that basically is a minivan without the sliding doors.  

Mr_Shiftright

thebean said:

Why is it that a dog loves to ride in a car/pickup and sticks his head out the window into the wind, but if a kid blows in their face, they might bite them?

The kid has eyes.

Mr_Shiftright

Gee, remember when it cost $5 to plug a tire and $40 for a new one? Maybe you don't, but I do.

So I get a flat and I see that the sidewall of my wire is peeled back, like from a sharp rock or some such.

Well, OK, I think, the tire's half done anyone.

So, new tire--that's $120 bucks for a Cooper Z rated. Then nah nah nah...you aren't done yet. We have to reseal that TPMS sensor and we really should replace the battery, as it didn't warn you of anything, now did it?

And of course, there's mounting and balancing.

WAH!

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

graphicguy said:

This is when you have real damage from an accident. This won't buff out. I posted it because this is an example of the speed cameras effect that the local Dayton gov't reactivated recently. They don't work. This is an area where they set up a portable camera in a trailer. What kind of car is this?

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around? RB....your thoughts?

How is the fault of speed cameras?

This has probably already been answered, but I'll chime in anyway: 1) Lack of real police presence and enforcement due to the cameras taking over the world. 2) Lack of Police enforcement of other more important and hazardous violations since the speed cameras take their primary motivation for existence away (revenue-generation). Lack of motivation breeds laziness, and it's a vicious cycle of less real enforcement, and less police presence. 3) Presence is important as the societal benefit of someone being pulled over being noticed by other drivers is far FAR FAR greater than the benefit to society from the ticket revenue and penalty to one driver being cited. 4) Speed Cameras breed contempt and increase rage. 5) That guy was going too fast for conditions, and speed cameras don't cite that violation. 6) That guy was driving recklessly, and speed cameras don't cite that violation. 7) Speed cameras don't pull over drivers like that, momentarily and at least temporarily slowing them down. They rely purely on the punitive effect of the fines from the tickets.

1.) There not being a camera there does not mean an officer would have been there when this happened.
2.) actually speed cameras allow more police presence aimed at more serious issues. Remember police don't only do traffic stops. 
3.) see #1 above.
4.) Only for those who think they should be able to go as fast as they want to go.
5 & 6) not really addressing my question.
7.) Again if the speed camera wasn't there there is no guarantee that an officer would have been there. Also that person was reported to be doing around 90. Now look st the road, someone going that fast down that road will likely run from the officer, not to mention that it would take some time for the officer to even catch up to such a driver.

Sorry it's not the speed cameras fault. If there was no speed camera that crash would have still happened. 

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

graphicguy said:

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around? RB....your thoughts?

RB's in the wrong state... Ohio has "home rule." Somehow the cities say that means they can do as they please about giving out bills for speeding without due course as in a hearing before being pronounced guilty. Our legislators, so called, passed a law that there had to be a policeman present for each photo billing taken from a speed or red light camera. A few cities saw $$$ flying away and won a suit that went to the supreme court. They gleefully have announced they have turned back on their cameras--Dayton and Trotwood. And every citation about their reasons by the story-writers in the local media carries the pronouncement that the cameras stop red light running and slow cars down, magically, somehow. And that the cities are only doing this for safety. My own legislator, an insurance salesman guy, responded when I asked what was being done about these rogue cities by saying the State is withholding money they dole out to local entities equal to what they collect in "bills" to the criminals running and speeding. Then he also said that the cities say it reduces accidents and is for safety.

A camera can not be cross examined. Again, with no one observing the alleged crime to testify against you, how is this constitutional?

The camera, or the picture, is not a witness or the complanted, it's simply evidence. By your logic any evidence cannot be admitted in court because you cannot cross examine it. 

The one you cross examine in the officer or technician who examined the picture and made the determination. 

I'm getting too good at this If I hold-up and commit robbery at a liquor/convenience store, you better bet my Defense Attorney worth 2 cents will call in the Store Manager (or Subcontractor) that installed and setup the security system and video the prosecution is using to help convict me. They know how the camara system operates and can be questioned on that. In every Traffic Court I've ever heard of, they don't allow this. In my opinion, this makes the video hearsay evidence as no one is in court to testify where the camera was positioned, when it was installed, ect. A random police officer testifying to those facts is hearsay (they would just be reading the City records on that data. They assume you are guilty instead of innocent. The presumption is the video is accurate and has not been altered or doctored in some manner. I'm not questioning the mechanics/engineering process of how video tape works, but I would sure be worried about how many hands and computers had access to the USB drive that video was stored on before reaching the courtroom on the trial date!

No traffic court you have heard of? Me thinks you never heard of a traffic court then. I have been able to request similar stuff in traffic court. 

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

thebean said:

stickguy said:

a couple of random thoughts. First, it was supposed to be a tax simplification overhaul. Not an across the board tax cut. The concept is that you make it fair by eliminating tons of useless or unfair deductions and loopholes. And yes, that means that some people pay more, some people pay less. The tax code has always, and will always, pick "winners and losers" based on the provisions that make it in. So just because some middle class earners end up paying more, does not mean the bill is inherently bad or unfair (rather, it should mean that those people were paying too little in the past!) Note: not commenting on the specifics of this bill (which so far, sounds like just as loaded with "pork", just moving it around to different people). Just the theory of what is claimed to be happening, vs. the reality. Also, there is not actually a bill. There are 2, with quite different provisions in some areas. Until the lobbyists house and senate get together and hash out one bill to get voted on, no one is really sure what it means to them.

All true, but I would bet a sizable amount that wealthy people will make out best of anyone once the final bill is passed.  And, the subset of super-rich will make out the best of the wealthy folks.

Would make sense since a sizable amount of tax revenue comes from wealthy people and there is a large segment of the country that pays no tax. You can't give a tax cut to someone who pays no taxes. 

Oh yes you can, because everyone pays taxes. Perhaps not income taxes, but everyone pays taxes. To help the common-man reduce his tax burden you would: Reduce State Sales Taxes Reduce Driver's License Fees, Taxes Reduce Vehicle Registration and Licensing fees and taxes Reduce Smog Abatement fees and Taxes (yes, I got my CA DMW Registration renewal recently) Reduce Traffic Infraction penalties Reduce Telecommunications Taxes & Fees (Cable/Phone/Cell/TV) Reduce Property Taxes Reduce National Park & Recreation Fees/Taxes Reduce Airport/Air Travel Fees/Taxes Reduce Hotel Taxes And I'm sure there are many more. Yes, I realize a lot of these are the fault of CA or the State, not the Federal Gov't.

Since the topic is income taxes the meat of you post is a bit off topic..

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

fintail said:

Maybe because the "think of the children" idiots don't know or care about those places? Maybe the false pretense of safety won't work there? Maybe the volumes aren't worthy? I don't know about your local anecdotes, so I will take your word for it.

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

That's just it, they watch school zones, residential areas, and near parks as needing far more enforcement for safety issues than a wide open road going past fields and industrial parks. Even though it means less tickets issued and less revenue raised. 

That's been the opposite of my experience and observation and I've been around a few moons. To help prove my point, who here (anyone!) has been pulled over when it was raining or snowing in the last decade or 2? (not me, not once). Now answer the same question but with the qualifier changing to "ideal weather conditions." Grabbing the popcorn!

andres3 said:

fintail said:

Maybe because the "think of the children" idiots don't know or care about those places? Maybe the false pretense of safety won't work there? Maybe the volumes aren't worthy? I don't know about your local anecdotes, so I will take your word for it.

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

That's just it, they watch school zones, residential areas, and near parks as needing far more enforcement for safety issues than a wide open road going past fields and industrial parks. Even though it means less tickets issued and less revenue raised. 

That's been the opposite of my experience and observation and I've been around a few moons. To help prove my point, who here (anyone!) has been pulled over when it was raining or snowing in the last decade or 2? (not me, not once). Now answer the same question but with the qualifier changing to "ideal weather conditions." Grabbing the popcorn!

I have been pulled over in rather bad weather. Not in the last decade or two but since its been a good decade or two since I have been pulled over so I have to go back further.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

I'd like to know who signed off on that sign. Then drive by and downshift just for fun - as long as it doesn't break the engine, it's good

I'd question who authorized wasting tax payer resources on such a dumb law and expensive signage in the first place?

Those laws are usually put in place due to noise ordinances, but are rarely enforced. It's usually hard to tell if someone is engine braking unless they have a real loud exhaust. 

This is aimed more towards semi's that make a lot of noise engine braking than it is towards cars and motorcycles. 

explorerx4

@Mr_Shiftright
We had to replace 1 tire on my wife's 2013 Escape with 19 inch wheels.
$250. We passed the Escape on to one of the kids.
I had them buy a new battery just because the original was 5 years old.

suydam

tjc78 said:

andres3 said:

stickguy said:

Finally broke down and picked a tire and scheduled an install for tomorrow since I have an open morning. Decided to go with the cooper CS5. Seem like a good overall choice, and price is good. If I don’t like them, will just blame Michael.

At least they aren’t full of dry rot cracks. And none of the shoulder blocks have chunks missing (that probably isn’t a good sign when that happens).

I hope the wife enjoys the new battery and tires for Christmas! It is her car. And looks like we will be keeping it for a while now.

Those gifts fall under the new blender, washing machine, and dryer category. Not really appreciated by significant others.

I think he was joking ? 


As for the minivan comment, I’d suspect a minivan has more cargo room than most of the midsize SUVs that have largely taken over the segment (Pilot, Highlander, Santa)

We drive a pretty large SUV with middle captains chairs that basically is a minivan without the sliding doors.  

Joking? No way! Appliances, tires, etc. are things you buy together that benefit both. They aren’t personal gifts.

isellhondas

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

fintail said:

Maybe because the "think of the children" idiots don't know or care about those places? Maybe the false pretense of safety won't work there? Maybe the volumes aren't worthy? I don't know about your local anecdotes, so I will take your word for it.

snakeweasel said:

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

That's just it, they watch school zones, residential areas, and near parks as needing far more enforcement for safety issues than a wide open road going past fields and industrial parks. Even though it means less tickets issued and less revenue raised. 

That's been the opposite of my experience and observation and I've been around a few moons.

To help prove my point, who here (anyone!) has been pulled over when it was raining or snowing in the last decade or 2? (not me, not once).

Now answer the same question but with the qualifier changing to "ideal weather conditions."

Grabbing the popcorn!

I haven't been pulled over for anything in any weather since I was in my 20's.

There was a time though......

nyccarguy

Raising my hand!

I got pulled over in my Prelude with 4" of snow on the ground and falling fast.  It was 6:30 AM.  I was pulled over for "excessive speed."  I was going maybe 20 mph. I was also given a citation for having a modified exhaust system.  I had to plead down to a parking violation and had to pay $100 cash.

fordfool

qbrozen said:

I put up with this atrocity for as long as I could stand. This morning was finally the time to take the matter into my own hands.

Jake brakes (which use engine compression to slow diesel tractor trucks)
are quite noisy and therefore illegal in residential areas. So should bad
grammar and spelling.

fordfool

Mr_Shiftright said:

Gee, remember when it cost $5 to plug a tire and $40 for a new one? Maybe you don't, but I do.

So I get a flat and I see that the sidewall of my wire is peeled back, like from a sharp rock or some such.

Well, OK, I think, the tire's half done anyone.

So, new tire--that's $120 bucks for a Cooper Z rated. Then nah nah nah...you aren't done yet. We have to reseal that TPMS sensor and we really should replace the battery, as it didn't warn you of anything, now did it?

And of course, there's mounting and balancing.

WAH!

And the valve stems, tire insurance, old tire disposal fee, shop fee,
ad infinitum until the seller has doubled the original cost. :@

abacomike

There was a time, not many years ago, when cars came standard with all season or performance tires that were not run flats. Now, you would have to special order tires on many German cars as well as many American cars to avoid run flats. I just find them harder riding than regular performance tires. In the 740i, with the sportier suspension, it was much more pronounced than on the S Class Mercedes. I have Pirelli’s on the Mercedes and had Michelin’s on the BMW. I am more pleased with the ride and handling of the S450 even with run flats. I’m just getting old and more crotchety than I used to be. What can I say.

snakeweasel

fordfool said:

I put up with this atrocity for as long as I could stand. This morning was finally the time to take the matter into my own hands.

Jake brakes (which use engine compression to slow diesel tractor trucks) are quite noisy and therefore illegal in residential areas. So should bad grammar and spelling.

Bad sellers of the world untie!

driver100

fordfool said:

qbrozen said:

I put up with this atrocity for as long as I could stand. This morning was finally the time to take the matter into my own hands.

Jake brakes (which use engine compression to slow diesel tractor trucks)
are quite noisy and therefore illegal in residential areas. So should bad
grammar and spelling.

It could have been worse;

qbrozen

I did not yet get the chance to fix the sign going the other way. Maybe some day.

stickguy

Someone thinks AWD Acura’s are cool? Graphicguy must moonlight painting roads.

fintail

It was for your own safety, think of the children, it's not about money, "life isn't fair", etc.

nyccarguy said:

Raising my hand!

I got pulled over in my Prelude with 4" of snow on the ground and falling fast.  It was 6:30 AM.  I was pulled over for "excessive speed."  I was going maybe 20 mph. I was also given a citation for having a modified exhaust system.  I had to plead down to a parking violation and had to pay $100 cash.

fintail

Probably a relative of a "homeowner" on the street who heard a loud truck one day. Remember, it's not what you know.

We should all just defer and conform and admit that it is all about safety, not about revenue or ego. The brave warriors in enforcement and gavel-banging are doing it for our own good. The wealthy camera operators are providing a valuable service, and when bribes are passed or yellow lights shortened, it is still just for safety. When you get nabbed at a speed trap or an unjust light, just thank your lucky stars that credible accountable responsible people are looking out for you. If a sensitive snowflake Barney Fife is triggered by you and puts a wink wink nod note on a ticket for a judge to give you an extra penalty, just deal with it, life isn't fair (but is more fair some than for others, especially those deriving a comfy meal ticket from the racket).

Here's an interesting story about what could happen if you challenge the egoistic and untouchable powers that be - it's all about safety, life isn't fair, etc.

andres3 said:

I'd question who authorized wasting tax payer resources on such a dumb law and expensive signage in the first place?

fintail

I think runflats are definitely harsher than conventional tires. It probably takes the advanced active suspension on that S-class to compensate.

Still not sure of the real benefit over conventional tires, other than being a convenience for those who can't change a tire. Come to think of it, that's probably most "drivers" these days, so there you go.

abacomike said:

There was a time, not many years ago, when cars came standard with all season or performance tires that were not run flats. Now, you would have to special order tires on many German cars as well as many American cars to avoid run flats. I just find them harder riding than regular performance tires.

In the 740i, with the sportier suspension, it was much more pronounced than on the S Class Mercedes. I have Pirelli’s on the Mercedes and had Michelin’s on the BMW. I am more pleased with the ride and handling of the S450 even with run flats. I’m just getting old and more crotchety than I used to be. What can I say.

fintail

Nah, we must pity the wealthy and keep the Randian dialogue in play, and at the very most, enact deductions which pretend to help the common man but are really subsidies for well-lobbied industries.

If anything, those taxes are just going to rise in the coming years.

andres3 said:

Oh yes you can, because everyone pays taxes. Perhaps not income taxes, but everyone pays taxes. To help the common-man reduce his tax burden you would:

Reduce State Sales Taxes
Reduce Driver's License Fees, Taxes
Reduce Vehicle Registration and Licensing fees and taxes
Reduce Smog Abatement fees and Taxes (yes, I got my CA DMW Registration renewal recently)
Reduce Traffic Infraction penalties
Reduce Telecommunications Taxes & Fees (Cable/Phone/Cell/TV)
Reduce Property Taxes
Reduce National Park & Recreation Fees/Taxes
Reduce Airport/Air Travel Fees/Taxes
Reduce Hotel Taxes

And I'm sure there are many more. Yes, I realize a lot of these are the fault of CA or the State, not the Federal Gov't.

abacomike

fintail said:

I think runflats are definitely harsher than conventional tires. It probably takes the advanced active suspension on that S-class to compensate. Still not sure of the real benefit over conventional tires, other than being a convenience for those who can't change a tire. Come to think of it, that's probably most "drivers" these days, so there you go.

There was a time, not many years ago, when cars came standard with all season or performance tires that were not run flats. Now, you would have to special order tires on many German cars as well as many American cars to avoid run flats. I just find them harder riding than regular performance tires. In the 740i, with the sportier suspension, it was much more pronounced than on the S Class Mercedes. I have Pirelli’s on the Mercedes and had Michelin’s on the BMW. I am more pleased with the ride and handling of the S450 even with run flats. I’m just getting old and more crotchety than I used to be. What can I say.

I am past the point where I can change a tire.  So long as I have roadside assistance with Mercedes for as long as I drive the car, it really is of no consequence.

oldfarmer50

Did you know that now Craigslist has a box you can check if you accept crypto currency? I can see a whole new set of scams happening.

Also I was looking at Dallas CL for the first time and a good portion of the cars have branded titles. I always wondered if sellers would try to hide that after the floods.

driver100

fintail said:

I think runflats are definitely harsher than conventional tires. It probably takes the advanced active suspension on that S-class to compensate.

Still not sure of the real benefit over conventional tires, other than being a convenience for those who can't change a tire. Come to think of it, that's probably most "drivers" these days, so there you go.

abacomike said:

There was a time, not many years ago, when cars came standard with all season or performance tires that were not run flats. Now, you would have to special order tires on many German cars as well as many American cars to avoid run flats. I just find them harder riding than regular performance tires.

In the 740i, with the sportier suspension, it was much more pronounced than on the S Class Mercedes. I have Pirelli’s on the Mercedes and had Michelin’s on the BMW. I am more pleased with the ride and handling of the S450 even with run flats. I’m just getting old and more crotchety than I used to be. What can I say.

Also, apparently, less weight = more mpg, and more trunk space - sounds good when people compare.
I am pretty sure less cost for the manufacturer is in there too...one less wheel, one less step in manufacturing, etc. But, they sell it on the principle they are safer, for us.

qbrozen

oldfarmer50 said:

Did you know that now Craigslist has a box you can check if you accept crypto currency? I can see a whole new set of scams happening.

Also I was looking at Dallas CL for the first time and a good portion of the cars have branded titles. I always wondered if sellers would try to hide that after the floods.

I did notice that. so is that bitcoin? and, if so, are there any other forms of cryptocurrency?

I promise I'll try to avoid getting into a debate about bitcoin. haha.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

graphicguy said:

imidazol97 said:

graphicguy said:

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around?
RB....your thoughts?

RB's in the wrong state... Ohio has "home rule." Somehow the cities say that means they can do as they please about giving out bills for speeding without due course as in a hearing before being pronounced guilty.

Our legislators, so called, passed a law that there had to be a policeman present for each photo billing taken from a speed or red light camera. A few cities saw $$$ flying away and won a suit that went to the supreme court. They gleefully have announced they have turned back on their cameras--Dayton and Trotwood. And every citation about their reasons by the story-writers in the local media carries the pronouncement that the cameras stop red light running and slow cars down, magically, somehow. And that the cities are only doing this for safety.

My own legislator, an insurance salesman guy, responded when I asked what was being done about these rogue cities by saying the State is withholding money they dole out to local entities equal to what they collect in "bills" to the criminals running and speeding. Then he also said that the cities say it reduces accidents and is for safety.

A camera can not be cross examined. Again, with no one observing the alleged crime to testify against you, how is this constitutional?

The camera, or the picture, is not a witness or the complanted, it's simply evidence. By your logic any evidence cannot be admitted in court because you cannot cross examine it. 

The one you cross examine in the officer or technician who examined the picture and made the determination. 

I'm getting too good at this

If I hold-up and commit robbery at a liquor/convenience store, you better bet my Defense Attorney worth 2 cents will call in the Store Manager (or Subcontractor) that installed and setup the security system and video the prosecution is using to help convict me. They know how the camara system operates and can be questioned on that. In every Traffic Court I've ever heard of, they don't allow this. In my opinion, this makes the video hearsay evidence as no one is in court to testify where the camera was positioned, when it was installed, ect. A random police officer testifying to those facts is hearsay (they would just be reading the City records on that data. They assume you are guilty instead of innocent. The presumption is the video is accurate and has not been altered or doctored in some manner.

I'm not questioning the mechanics/engineering process of how video tape works, but I would sure be worried about how many hands and computers had access to the USB drive that video was stored on before reaching the courtroom on the trial date!

No traffic court you have heard of? Me thinks you never heard of a traffic court then. I have been able to request similar stuff in traffic court. 

Go run your nearest red light camera and get a ticket. Without the help of a lawyer, if your able to summon and cross examine the camera installers & operators for your ticket I'll pay for your ticket. The whole point of camera enforcement is to slime around due process rights. Do you really think they would let you slow down the revenue by questioning authority?

The same legislative assembly bills that try to label camera citations as "civil infractions or administrative infractions" also usually include language that says the camera evidence will be accepted by the Courts as prima facie accurate evidence without laying an iota of ground work or substantiation. In other words, making hearsay evidence not hearsay.

qbrozen

driver100 said:

Also, apparently, less weight = more mpg, and more trunk space - sounds good when people compare.

I have to wonder about the mileage improvement, if any. More mass per tire takes away some of the savings, and more rotational mass hurts acceleration, which means more go pedal applied, which means decreased efficiency. All of these are minuscule, of course, but probably to the point where there is virtually no discernible efficiency improvement.

tjc78

I 100% agree, there is no way the lack of a spare means anything in real world FE. It's merely a statistic for an engineer that is responsible for weight savings.

andres3

nyccarguy said:

Raising my hand!

I got pulled over in my Prelude with 4" of snow on the ground and falling fast.  It was 6:30 AM.  I was pulled over for "excessive speed."  I was going maybe 20 mph. I was also given a citation for having a modified exhaust system.  I had to plead down to a parking violation and had to pay $100 cash.

OK, but how long ago was that, and in the same time period how many times have you been pulled over in good weather?

roadburner

qbrozen said:

driver100 said:

Also, apparently, less weight = more mpg, and more trunk space - sounds good when people compare.

I have to wonder about the mileage improvement, if any. More mass per tire takes away some of the savings, and more rotational mass hurts acceleration, which means more go pedal applied, which means decreased efficiency. All of these are minuscule, of course, but probably to the point where there is virtually no discernible efficiency improvement.

BMW is even starting to offer spare tires and conventional tires in their newer cars. Prior to that the only BMWs with conventional tires were the M and M Performance vehicles- along with the i3 and anything with the Track Handling Package.

ab348

My ATS has no spare or tools, but they kept the flat trunk floor so the space in the spare tire well is not all that useful.

stickguy

yeah, in most cars I checked, the space for the spare was filled in by a styrofoam plug. In the volvo and acura, they put the can of fix a flat and air pump in there. so you save a few pounds, and the make saves some money, and probably eke out another .01 MPG on the EPA test.

andres3

tjc78 said:

I 100% agree, there is no way the lack of a spare means anything in real world FE. It's merely a statistic for an engineer that is responsible for weight savings.

And as was mentioned, run-flat tires weigh more than regular tires, multiply that difference by 4, and you offset the spare. Plus, added un-sprung weight is bad!

andres3

fintail said:

Probably a relative of a "homeowner" on the street who heard a loud truck one day. Remember, it's not what you know.

We should all just defer and conform and admit that it is all about safety, not about revenue or ego. The brave warriors in enforcement and gavel-banging are doing it for our own good. The wealthy camera operators are providing a valuable service, and when bribes are passed or yellow lights shortened, it is still just for safety. When you get nabbed at a speed trap or an unjust light, just thank your lucky stars that credible accountable responsible people are looking out for you. If a sensitive snowflake Barney Fife is triggered by you and puts a wink wink nod note on a ticket for a judge to give you an extra penalty, just deal with it, life isn't fair (but is more fair some than for others, especially those deriving a comfy meal ticket from the racket).

Here's an interesting story about what could happen if you challenge the egoistic and untouchable powers that be - it's all about safety, life isn't fair, etc.

andres3 said:

I'd question who authorized wasting tax payer resources on such a dumb law and expensive signage in the first place?

I love that story you linked: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/12/state_board_concedes_it_violat.html

It really shows the true nature of these camera programs. Trumped up charges to begin with, that leads to more new invented trumped up charges if you try and resist.

Good on that Engineer for not "settling" the case. A pound of flesh isn't enough, the key is to get decisions by the Courts published so that precedent is set. These scamera systems (which includes the City's that use them) hate when precedent by published higher court decisions is set.

driver100

Edmunds gives advantages and disadvantages of RFTs

nyccarguy

andres3 said:

Raising my hand!

I got pulled over in my Prelude with 4" of snow on the ground and falling fast.  It was 6:30 AM.  I was pulled over for "excessive speed."  I was going maybe 20 mph. I was also given a citation for having a modified exhaust system.  I had to plead down to a parking violation and had to pay $100 cash.

OK, but how long ago was that, and in the same time period how many times have you been pulled over in good weather?

It had to have been 8-10 years ago.  I don't remember.  Since then I've been pulled over twice.  Once I got a ticket on a Saturday AM on my way to work (3/10/2011).  I was ticketed for going 82 in a 55.  I was going much faster, but the radar gun was quicker than my Acura's brakes.

oldfarmer50

I just watched a UTube video where a young guy took his 1 yo highly modified (supercharged, exhaust, bagged, ground effects, wing etc) Mustang to Carmax to see what it was worth. He didn't say what it all cost but said he paid $32k to start. Figure at least another $10k for the goodies, so maybe $42k. Car had 11,000 miles.

CarMax offered $22k.

A lesson for anyone who thinks modifications will make a car more valuable.

pensfan83

qbrozen said:

I did notice that. so is that bitcoin? and, if so, are there any other forms of cryptocurrency?

I promise I'll try to avoid getting into a debate about bitcoin. haha.

Bitcoin is the leader in terms of market capitalization and the digital currency used most often in real-world transactions but there are literally hundreds of different digital currencies.

qbrozen

pensfan83 said:

Bitcoin is the leader in terms of market capitalization and the digital currency used most often in real-world transactions but there are literally hundreds of different digital currencies.

But when talking about "crypto," we aren't talking about things like paypal, right?

qbrozen

qbrozen said:

driver100 said:

qbrozen said:

The seller provided a USPS tracking number (who the hell uses the postal service for a TV?), but the number comes up with no information on the USPS website (nor any other shipper). When I checked to make sure my claim was entered with Amazon, a note in there indicated the seller is no longer on Amazon's site. And it was a NEW seller when I purchased. So I think that probably dashes any hope of it actually being sent.

.

What happened to your credit card charge? Maybe someone was trying a scam or just posing as a vendor?
Was the TV being shipped from Nigeria or Russia?

Amazon finally decided on refunding my TV money. Sadly, I can't find anything for anywhere close to the $588 deal this originally was. The same TV is currently $699 on their site from other sellers.

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

Edmunds gives advantages and disadvantages of RFTs

That's pretty funny. By the time you read through all the qualifications of the "pros", it's pretty clear there aren't any "pros".

Things like "stability if you have a blowout" vs. "but a RFT can have a blowout, too".

Or "You save weight" vs. "But not really"

pensfan83

qbrozen said:

But when talking about "crypto," we aren't talking about things like paypal, right?

Right. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized digital currencies that exist only in a virtual/online world. Since they they exist outside of the world of Federal banking regulations and are not controlled by a centralized authority like the Treasury it's a very convenient way to perpetrate fraud or money laundering schemes.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

I just watched a UTube video where a young guy took his 1 yo highly modified (supercharged, exhaust, bagged, ground effects, wing etc) Mustang to Carmax to see what it was worth. He didn't say what it all cost but said he paid $32k to start. Figure at least another $10k for the goodies, so maybe $42k. Car had 11,000 miles.

CarMax offered $22k.

A lesson for anyone who thinks modifications will make a car more valuable.

The car lost half of it's value in one year...not even counting the modifications?

Mustangs must really depreciate fast.

It probably has to do with Carmax not getting customers who want modified Mustangs.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

driver100 said:

Edmunds gives advantages and disadvantages of RFTs

That's pretty funny. By the time you read through all the qualifications of the "pros", it's pretty clear there aren't any "pros".

Things like "stability if you have a blowout" vs. "but a RFT can have a blowout, too".

Or "You save weight" vs. "But not really"

And no one mentions my biggest fear. It is Christmas Day and you get a blowout in Boogertown N.C. and of course no garage is open and if they were you still wouldn't find one with 2 tires your size. So what do you do....find a motel and twiddle your thumbs for 5 days while they UPS you some tires?

stickguy

driver, yes. Last time I got a blowout was a few days before Thanksgiving, above Scranton PA. about 8 at night, and freezing cold. lost the tire coming up to off ramp on I81, and by the time I got off into a parking lot, the tire was shredded. No can of fix a flat was taking care of that. Too late to get a tire that night, so the donut went on, I found a hotel, and found a store in the AM. Without the donut, I assume the car would have had to be towed someplace and left there, and I would have been stranded in East boogertown. If I really wanted to, I could have driven home, though it was close to 200 miles and would not push a donut (or airless RFT) that far on the highways.

andres3

oldfarmer50 said:

I just watched a UTube video where a young guy took his 1 yo highly modified (supercharged, exhaust, bagged, ground effects, wing etc) Mustang to Carmax to see what it was worth. He didn't say what it all cost but said he paid $32k to start. Figure at least another $10k for the goodies, so maybe $42k. Car had 11,000 miles.

CarMax offered $22k.

A lesson for anyone who thinks modifications will make a car more valuable.

Modifications of high caliber in great conditions could raise value, but only from someone with similar tastes and desires to the original owner that made the mods in the first place.