Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 wrote:

> > > At the risk of bringing up old tapes, what about this DRL system offends
> > > you?
> >
> > Christ, here we go again. Can't you use use Google? It's *ALL* been said.
>
> Did anyone ask you anything, asshole?

You posted a question on a public forum. I answered. Don't like my answer?
Grand! Don't read my posts.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 wrote:
>
> > > > At the risk of bringing up old tapes, what about this DRL system
offends
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > Christ, here we go again. Can't you use use Google? It's *ALL* been
said.
> >
> > Did anyone ask you anything, asshole?
>
> You posted a question on a public forum. I answered. Don't like my answer?
> Grand! Don't read my posts.

You didnt actually answer anything. Nor was anything asked of you.

Thanks Daniel. DRLs to these specs are DRLs more people could live with.

On Sun, 1 May 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> Thanks Daniel. DRLs to these specs are DRLs more people could live
> with.

I think so. One problem with North American regulators is that they have
blinders on. They refuse to make even the slightest effort to consider
such "non-safety-related" factors like end user acceptance and
compatibility, street-cop enforceability, etc. They simply issue their
regulations without regard to what will happen when the resultant cars get
driven on actual roads by actual drivers.

There's really nothing at all wrong with the *concept* of DRLs. Virtually
all the problems are implementation-related.

DS

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Pete wrote:

> Thanks guys. I've been to that website and a lot more. No mention of my
> paticular model. Am not gonna cut wires and/or bend relay pins as
> described for another model and have it not work on mine.

Well, you're gonna have to do some homework. It's highly likely the
instructions for the '98 S10 are applicable to the '02, but invest 45
minutes at your local main-branch public library and compare the wiring
diagrams and system descriptions in the '98 and '02 Chev/GMC factory
service manuals. Then you'll know if you can use the '98 instructions on
your '02.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> I think with that year S-10 you need a unique code (that only GM will
> provide upon receipt of the proper "military or law enforcement DR
> exception" paperwork...and is unique to the VIN) to "deprogram" the
> DRLs.

I'm pretty sure the code isn't VIN-specific, but GM does require the VIN
for their records, and yeah, you have to be municipal, military or law
enforcement, and sign all kinds of disclaimers and promises to reconnect
them, blah blah blah.

DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>I think with that year S-10 you need a unique code (that only GM will
>>provide upon receipt of the proper "military or law enforcement DR
>>exception" paperwork...and is unique to the VIN) to "deprogram" the
>>DRLs.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure the code isn't VIN-specific, but GM does require the VIN
> for their records, and yeah, you have to be municipal, military or law
> enforcement, and sign all kinds of disclaimers and promises to reconnect
> them, blah blah blah.
>

Why is that? They're not REQUIRED by law, although GM would seem to like
to require them. Seems to me that GM doesn't have any right whatsoever
to restrict anyone from disabling DRLs. Or was the OP in Canada and I
missed it?

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Steve wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure the code isn't VIN-specific, but GM does require the
> > VIN for their records, and yeah, you have to be municipal, military or
> > law enforcement, and sign all kinds of disclaimers and promises to
> > reconnect them, blah blah blah.
> >
>
> Why is that? They're not REQUIRED by law,

Right. They're required by GM.

> although GM would seem to like to require them.

GM, with all the financial doo-doo it's in, is still pushing NHTSA *very
hard* to mandate DRLs in the US.

> Seems to me that GM doesn't have any right whatsoever to restrict anyone
> from disabling DRLs.

You're right, of course, which changes nothing.

> Or was the OP in Canada and I missed it?

Nope, we're talking about the US.

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0505010039001.17523@ns7...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 wrote:



Definition and placement:

1)-4)
No problems on these

5) Colour of light emitted: Selective Yellow to Yellow-green

Maybe. However, when the attention level and adherence to principle is so
low in drivers here, I am not sure they would know what to do anyway.

6) Minimum optically-active projected surface area of 24 square
centimetres

No comment one way or the other.

7) Must illuminate automatically when vehicle is in motion, independently
of any other lamp(s).

This might, again, give idiots confidence that their 'system'
has taken care of them. I can imagine them parked on the
emergency shoulder in rain or fog, and the lamps might not be illuminated.
Ditto the wiper switch... Perhaps
the system could be activated whenever someone sits
in the car. Many think with their ass anyway.


8) Must not illuminate when headlamps and/or front fog lamps are
illuminated.

No problem with this either.

9) Must illuminate when parking lamps are illuminated unless vehicle is in
a condition that prevents motion (parking brake applied and/or
transmission selector in "Park" or "Neutral")

Op cit,

10) Vehicle controls and displays shall not illuminate except when
headlamps and/or front fog lamps are illuminated.

Rationale: Encourage proper driver behaviour .

Heavy fines encourage proper driver behavior. Little else.

11) Parking, marker, tail lamps shall illuminate when front windshield
wiper switch is in any "on" position.

Better than nothing.


12) Power consumption: Each daylight running lamp shall consume no more
than 16w at 12.0v

Rationale: Mitigation of extra fuel consumption and resultant emissions

The fuel consumption issue has been dealt with before.
On an individual basis, it is largely irrelevant. On a statistical basis,
maybe it saves a little fuel. Mandating better engine economy figures would
save a lot more.

13) Durability: DRL light source shall have a Tc life rating of no shorter
than 700 hours at design voltage.

No quibble.

14) Vsources.ehicle certification or type approval: Vehicles equipped with
DRL
shall undergo national emissions and fuel-consumption certification or
type approval tests with the DRL system intact and functioning.

Just make a standardized lighting system mandatory according to a formula.
The lighting feature is such a small part of the fuel consumption and
emissions issue,
this is probably effort wasted.

Thanks Daniel