Amber directionals

ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 6:07 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
> > to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...imedia/PDFs/Cr...
> >
> > He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
> > I doubt the debate is over yet.
> >
> > nate
> >
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
> _________________________
> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.

Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the US and
EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
configuration.

> And don't give me any "looks" crap - aesthetics is secondary to saving
> money in the mfg process.
>
> I would prefer the European standard, with amber turn signal lights.
> I've been in a situation where I can see only the left(or right) side
> tail light of a vehicle flashing - owing to the proximity of the
> vehicle behind the one that is flashing - and don't know it is a turn
> signal until I forward enough to see both side tail lights to know
> that only one is flashing, hence a turn or lane change indication.

Its not just the amber. When the mfg uses an amber turn signal, by
definition it must be separate from the brake light/lens. Part of the
cost savings is the ability to cram two functions behind one lens
(and into one bulb envelope), further confusing the other drivers.

> But of course America does what's right for America - not for the rest
> of the world.

And I'll buy from the manufacturer who figures, "Damn the cost. If
there's a possibility that amber/separate turn/brake signals might
prevent accidents, we'll spend it".

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
f u cn rd ths u r usng unx

In article >,
Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>ChrisCoaster wrote:
>> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
>> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
>> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
>> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.
>
>Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the US and
>EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
>costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
>configuration.

Oddly, many manufacturers are now making US-specific taillamp clusters
with red rear turn signals on cars that are sold in other countries with
amber rear turn signals. Consider most BMW, Audi, and VW cars, the first
generation Ford Focus, and Chrysler minivans.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article >,
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
>>> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
>>> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
>>> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.
>> Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the US and
>> EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
>> costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
>> configuration.
>
> Oddly, many manufacturers are now making US-specific taillamp clusters
> with red rear turn signals on cars that are sold in other countries with
> amber rear turn signals. Consider most BMW, Audi, and VW cars, the first
> generation Ford Focus, and Chrysler minivans.
>

I *wish* that they wouldn't design seperate rear clusters just for the
US market. I suspect that part of the reason they do, though, is that
a) the US requirements for rear light brightness are different than EU
and b) the US requires side markers where the EU traditionally did not -
I think now they require amber ones? not sure. Anyway, the point is, I
think they have to design a whole different cluster ANYWAY due to the
difficulties of harmonizing between ECE and FMVSS so they just do
whatever. And, unfortunately, instead of just redesigning the clusters
to ones just like the ECE ones except where they *have* to be different
to conform to the FMVSS's they design ones that they think US drivers
*want,* which often don't have a rear fog light segment and lack amber
directionals.

At least older VWs and BMWs had amber directionals... some lower volume
models actually used the same lenses, just different bulb arrangements
(e.g. VW Scirocco, Porsche 944) and can easily be rearranged to the ECE
configuration to enable the rear fog light without too much more trouble
than just running a new wire.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel skrev:
> Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
> to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>
>
> He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
> I doubt the debate is over yet.

Yup, the results are pretty inconclusive, and it appears it's not the
color itself that's responsible for the believed improvement. IOW, red
turn signals will most likely be common on US vehicles for decades to
come. The only reason I could think of for a change is pressure to
harmonize the standards with the rest of the world, but with the way
things are going for the auto makers, and with a Obama soon in charge,
the most likely outcome is nothing at all.

With that said, in my experience amber only turn signals takes some of
the guessing out of driving.

>
> nate
>
Ulf
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Dec 29, 3:00*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>
> I *wish* that they wouldn't design seperate rear clusters just for the
> US market. *I suspect that part of the reason they do, though, is that
> a) the US requirements for rear light brightness are different than EU
> and b) the US requires side markers where the EU traditionally did not -
> I think now they require amber ones? not sure. *Anyway, the point is, I
> think they have to design a whole different cluster ANYWAY due to the
> difficulties of harmonizing between ECE and FMVSS so they just do
> whatever. *And, unfortunately, instead of just redesigning the clusters
> to ones just like the ECE ones except where they *have* to be different
> to conform to the FMVSS's they design ones that they think US drivers
> *want,* which often don't have a rear fog light segment and lack amber
> directionals.
>
> At least older VWs and BMWs had amber directionals... some lower volume
> models actually used the same lenses, just different bulb arrangements
> (e.g. VW Scirocco, Porsche 944) and can easily be rearranged to the ECE
> configuration to enable the rear fog light without too much more trouble
> than just running a new wire.
>
> nate
__________________
Unfortunately, U.S. standards will slowly overtake other world
standards for products from automobiles to pocket combs. The logical
choice of amber for blinking directionals will go the way of the dodo
bird, unfortunately.

-CC
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nate Nagel skrev:
> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>>> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
>>>> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
>>>> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
>>>> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.
>>> Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the US and
>>> EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
>>> costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
>>> configuration.
>>
>> Oddly, many manufacturers are now making US-specific taillamp clusters
>> with red rear turn signals on cars that are sold in other countries with
>> amber rear turn signals. Consider most BMW, Audi, and VW cars, the first
>> generation Ford Focus, and Chrysler minivans.
>>
>
> I *wish* that they wouldn't design seperate rear clusters just for the
> US market. I suspect that part of the reason they do, though, is that
> a) the US requirements for rear light brightness are different than EU
> and b) the US requires side markers where the EU traditionally did not -
> I think now they require amber ones? not sure. Anyway, the point is, I
> think they have to design a whole different cluster ANYWAY due to the
> difficulties of harmonizing between ECE and FMVSS so they just do
> whatever. And, unfortunately, instead of just redesigning the clusters
> to ones just like the ECE ones except where they *have* to be different
> to conform to the FMVSS's they design ones that they think US drivers
> *want,* which often don't have a rear fog light segment and lack amber
> directionals.

That's not quite true. It's possible to design a rear cluster that
conforms to both US and rest-of-the-world spec as evident of models from
several European manufactures. Why US auto makers don't bother with it I
don't know, but I imagine it's a cost issue. I also suspect it's not the
same people who design the different spec clusters, ie. the Euro ones
might be designed i Europe at lowest possible cost. Premium European
manufactures want something that will work in all countries of the world
since their sales are more diversified. Had it not been for the
different headlight standards it would have been possible up front too.

BTW, there's no requirement for side marker lights or reflectors in the
ECE world on vehicles shorter than 6 meters.

>
> At least older VWs and BMWs had amber directionals... some lower volume
> models actually used the same lenses, just different bulb arrangements
> (e.g. VW Scirocco, Porsche 944) and can easily be rearranged to the ECE
> configuration to enable the rear fog light without too much more trouble
> than just running a new wire.

I've owned my US spec Camaro over 10 years now, and I've never once
needed a rear fog light...

>
> nate
>

Ulf
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Ulf wrote:
> Nate Nagel skrev:
>> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>>>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>>>> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
>>>>> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
>>>>> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
>>>>> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.
>>>> Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the US
>>>> and
>>>> EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
>>>> costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
>>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> Oddly, many manufacturers are now making US-specific taillamp clusters
>>> with red rear turn signals on cars that are sold in other countries with
>>> amber rear turn signals. Consider most BMW, Audi, and VW cars, the
>>> first
>>> generation Ford Focus, and Chrysler minivans.
>>>
>>
>> I *wish* that they wouldn't design seperate rear clusters just for the
>> US market. I suspect that part of the reason they do, though, is that
>> a) the US requirements for rear light brightness are different than EU
>> and b) the US requires side markers where the EU traditionally did not
>> - I think now they require amber ones? not sure. Anyway, the point
>> is, I think they have to design a whole different cluster ANYWAY due
>> to the difficulties of harmonizing between ECE and FMVSS so they just
>> do whatever. And, unfortunately, instead of just redesigning the
>> clusters to ones just like the ECE ones except where they *have* to be
>> different to conform to the FMVSS's they design ones that they think
>> US drivers *want,* which often don't have a rear fog light segment and
>> lack amber directionals.
>
> That's not quite true. It's possible to design a rear cluster that
> conforms to both US and rest-of-the-world spec as evident of models from
> several European manufactures. Why US auto makers don't bother with it I
> don't know, but I imagine it's a cost issue. I also suspect it's not the
> same people who design the different spec clusters, ie. the Euro ones
> might be designed i Europe at lowest possible cost. Premium European
> manufactures want something that will work in all countries of the world
> since their sales are more diversified. Had it not been for the
> different headlight standards it would have been possible up front too.
>
> BTW, there's no requirement for side marker lights or reflectors in the
> ECE world on vehicles shorter than 6 meters.

Right, which is why they need to have different clusters. UNLESS they
are willing to tack on a separate side marker light... but that seems to
be more and more rare, likely for aesthetic reasons.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel skrev:
> Ulf wrote:
>> Nate Nagel skrev:
>>> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>>>>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>>>>> It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to
>>>>>> mfg. a
>>>>>> R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
>>>>>> amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
>>>>>> thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly
>>>>>> line.
>>>>> Maybe. But what if the manufacturer desires to sell into both the
>>>>> US and
>>>>> EU markets? Now, extra design work, parts configurations, inventory
>>>>> costs are involved to produce the US-specific red/red/white
>>>>> configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, many manufacturers are now making US-specific taillamp clusters
>>>> with red rear turn signals on cars that are sold in other countries
>>>> with
>>>> amber rear turn signals. Consider most BMW, Audi, and VW cars, the
>>>> first
>>>> generation Ford Focus, and Chrysler minivans.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I *wish* that they wouldn't design seperate rear clusters just for
>>> the US market. I suspect that part of the reason they do, though, is
>>> that a) the US requirements for rear light brightness are different
>>> than EU and b) the US requires side markers where the EU
>>> traditionally did not - I think now they require amber ones? not
>>> sure. Anyway, the point is, I think they have to design a whole
>>> different cluster ANYWAY due to the difficulties of harmonizing
>>> between ECE and FMVSS so they just do whatever. And, unfortunately,
>>> instead of just redesigning the clusters to ones just like the ECE
>>> ones except where they *have* to be different to conform to the
>>> FMVSS's they design ones that they think US drivers *want,* which
>>> often don't have a rear fog light segment and lack amber directionals.
>>
>> That's not quite true. It's possible to design a rear cluster that
>> conforms to both US and rest-of-the-world spec as evident of models
>> from several European manufactures. Why US auto makers don't bother
>> with it I don't know, but I imagine it's a cost issue. I also suspect
>> it's not the same people who design the different spec clusters, ie.
>> the Euro ones might be designed i Europe at lowest possible cost.
>> Premium European manufactures want something that will work in all
>> countries of the world since their sales are more diversified. Had it
>> not been for the different headlight standards it would have been
>> possible up front too.
>>
>> BTW, there's no requirement for side marker lights or reflectors in
>> the ECE world on vehicles shorter than 6 meters.
>
> Right, which is why they need to have different clusters. UNLESS they
> are willing to tack on a separate side marker light... but that seems to
> be more and more rare, likely for aesthetic reasons.

No, as I said, several Euro spec car models have red rear side markers
and reflectors even though it isn't required, just so they can use one
cluster world wide.

>
> nate
>
Ulf
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Ulf wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel skrev:
> > Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
> > to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
> >
> >
> > He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
> > I doubt the debate is over yet.
>
> Yup, the results are pretty inconclusive, and it appears it's not the
> color itself that's responsible for the believed improvement. IOW, red
> turn signals will most likely be common on US vehicles for decades to
> come. The only reason I could think of for a change is pressure to
> harmonize the standards with the rest of the world, but with the way
> things are going for the auto makers, and with a Obama soon in charge,
> the most likely outcome is nothing at all.
>
> With that said, in my experience amber only turn signals takes some of
> the guessing out of driving.

It might be a moot point with the end of the US auto industry.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying information technology is simply finding the right wrench
to pound in the correct screw.