Self driving cars are not far away and you can get a preview on most
cars today.

Most cars now offer the option on adaptive cruise control, auto
emergency braking, etc. I've had it now for the past six months on my
Genesis but you can get it on other models, other brands. It sure makes
driving easier.

This past long weekend my wife and I took a 600 mile road trip through
NY state, Vermont, New Hampshire and used the secondary roads as much as
possible. Some of the roads were up and down hills, twisty, and speed
limits varied from 35 to 55 along the way. Traffic was light, but I'd
often be behind another car. I'd set the cruise control for the highest
speed and let my car follow the one ahead.

On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas or
brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a safe
speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights and going
through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes. If sure
makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights and going through a town where traffic caused a
lot of speed changes. If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?

On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the
grocery store.

The technology is available on modest priced cars now too. Auto
Emergency Braking will be standard on cars by 2022.

On 05/08/2016 10:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the grocery store.

The technology is available on modest priced cars now too. Auto Emergency Braking will be standard on cars by 2022.

I was at a car dealership the other day and overheard the service manager telling a customer a GPS map update would cost $820 for their car.
Good ****ing grief!

When I left in my plain-Jane model car, I kissed my $120 Garmin nüvi (with free lifetime map updates) and told her I loved her. ;-)

On 5/8/2016 11:19 AM, Buster wrote:

I was at a car dealership the other day and overheard the service
manager telling a customer a GPS map update would cost $820 for their
car. Good ****ing grief!

When I left in my plain-Jane model car, I kissed my $120 Garmin nüvi
(with free lifetime map updates) and told her I loved her. ;-)

Sounds like robbery. Mine would be $99. Still too much considering
everything, but I see no reason to update very often. In the area I
usually travel they don't move the roads around much. Mostly it is the
POIs that change and I don't use that feature often.

I've not used my Garmin since I got a car with nav in 2012. I do use it
for Europe though so I update it when we go.

On 05/08/2016 08:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the
grocery store.

Liking to drive and putting the car on autopilot seem to be mutually
exclusive.

On 5/8/2016 12:35 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 08:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to
have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the
grocery store.

Liking to drive and putting the car on autopilot seem to be mutually
exclusive.


Not as much as you'd think. Driving is some areas is boring and tedious
so that part you automate. Using your right foot to adjust your speed a
few mph is not using a lot of skill. There are some roads where you
put it in sport mode and use the paddle shifters. That's driving.

On Sun, 8 May 2016 10:55:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the
grocery store.

The technology is available on modest priced cars now too. Auto
Emergency Braking will be standard on cars by 2022.

So I should have it by 2029.

On Sun, 8 May 2016 11:27:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/8/2016 11:19 AM, Buster wrote:

I was at a car dealership the other day and overheard the service
manager telling a customer a GPS map update would cost $820 for their
car. Good ****ing grief!

When I left in my plain-Jane model car, I kissed my $120 Garmin nüvi
(with free lifetime map updates) and told her I loved her. ;-)

My friend told me he liked his cell phone GPS better than the
dedicated GPS he'd had. But the dealer still charged 520 dollars to
move the cell phone from one car to the next.

My friend asked, Why so much? And he was told that there were
separate charges for uninstalling in the old car and installing in the
new one, but that if he bought a new GPS, he wouldn't have to pay the
uninstall charge.

Sounds like robbery. Mine would be $99. Still too much considering
everything, but I see no reason to update very often. In the area I
usually travel they don't move the roads around much.

Hey, it's like that here too! I still use paper maps around here
from 1984, and when I travel, I've used one from 1974. It has a
couple interstates missing, but most of the important ones were built
befeore then.

(I will preview the location of some place i'm going to with google
maps.)

Mostly it is the
POIs that change and I don't use that feature often.

This summer I'm going out to find the pumpkin patch where Whitaker
Chambers passed spy data, he said, to Alger Hiss. It's nearby but
not a POI marked on anyone's map.

I've not used my Garmin since I got a car with nav in 2012. I do use it
for Europe though so I update it when we go.

In article ,
says...

On 5/8/2016 11:19 AM, Buster wrote:

I was at a car dealership the other day and overheard the service
manager telling a customer a GPS map update would cost $820 for their
car. Good ****ing grief!

When I left in my plain-Jane model car, I kissed my $120 Garmin nüvi
(with free lifetime map updates) and told her I loved her. ;-)

Sounds like robbery. Mine would be $99. Still too much considering
everything, but I see no reason to update very often. In the area I
usually travel they don't move the roads around much. Mostly it is the
POIs that change and I don't use that feature often.

That is the problem with the built in items. You are at the mercey of
what the factory wants to charge. Fine if you trade for a new car every
few years, but if you do like I do and don't drive much it gets to be a
problem. I have a car and a truck , both about 8 years old I bought
new. The car has about 30,000 on it and the truck just under 60,000.
Hardly broken in.

I have a Garmin gps that is nice,but the map update was close to $ 100.
I got a nicer new one with free map updates for around $ 150. Just
could not stand to pay almost as much for the map updates as for a whole
new gps with the lifetime updates.

From what I have heard , the car keys with the chips in them are a big
ripoff if you need a duplicate, being somewhere close to $ 100 for the
key and programming of them.

On 5/8/2016 6:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Self driving cars are not far away and you can get a preview on most cars today.

Most cars now offer the option on adaptive cruise control, auto emergency
braking, etc. I've had it now for the past six months on my Genesis but you can
get it on other models, other brands. It sure makes driving easier.

We deliberately opted to NOT get those options on SWMBO's new vehicle
(adaptive cruise control, lane monitoring, collision mitigation braking, etc.).
If you're not watching the road IN FRONT OF YOU, you shouldn't be driving!

We begrudgingly opted for blind spot and cross-traffic monitoring
(things that look *behind* you) -- along with the backup camera that
seems to be standard on damn near every vehicle. (We noted how
often these would screw up on the various vehicles that we test
drove and quickly realized they were just ADVISORS... prone to
FALSE alerts and FAILING to alert. Like having an extra set of
eyes in the vehicle but never knowing if those eyes are focused
where they SHOULD be!)

The problem with technology is that it isn't 100% reliable, requires
*you* to change your driving habits to conform to its notion of how
you should be driving (e.g., turn on your signal BEFORE you take
some action that it might misinterpret -- like wanting to pull
around a slow vehicle in front of you but IT thinks you're getting
ready to as-end it), can fail (in ways that let you think you are still
protected *or* can interfere with normal driving), etc.

This past long weekend my wife and I took a 600 mile road trip through NY
state, Vermont, New Hampshire and used the secondary roads as much as possible.
Some of the roads were up and down hills, twisty, and speed limits varied from
35 to 55 along the way. Traffic was light, but I'd often be behind another car.
I'd set the cruise control for the highest speed and let my car follow the one
ahead.

Why not take a bus? Cab? Limo? Train?

On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas or brake
pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a safe speed and
distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights and going through a town
where traffic caused a lot of speed changes. If sure makes driving safe and
less tiring.

I'd disagree. I think they lull you into the monotony -- or, tempt
you to distract yourself with other things instead of watching the
road. We've found the voice activated controls -- intended to keep
you focused on driving -- actually are MORE of a distraction than
manually controlling those same systems ("Did it understand what I said?
What does it THINK I said? etc.")

In the 70's, I designed an autopilot for boats. Instead of maintaining
a fixed *heading* (which would suffer from drift introduced by cross-currents),
you told it where you wanted to *go* (latitude/longitude). On it's maiden
voyage, we circumnavigated Cape Cod by laying in a set of six or seven
way points (typically, buoys for which the lat-lon coordinates are
published on navigation charts) -- without anyone at the helm.

"Frees the skipper from having to *be* in the wheelhouse to steer the
boat; he can, instead, be busy preparing his lobster pots, etc."

Or, below deck getting some shut-eye! I don't think it was ever marketed
for all the potential down-side risk. Can you spell "litigation"?

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

On 5/8/2016 10:38 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
That is the problem with the built in items. You are at the mercey of
what the factory wants to charge.

Exactly. And, you're stuck with their notion of "fit" -- i.e., you
can't install aftermarket items (that are often far better than what
you can buy from the factory AT ANY PRICE) because the factory has
decided how a particular item will look and mechanically integrate
with the vehicle, its styling, etc.

You're also at the mercy of the factory/dealer for repairs. Unlike
a water pump, alternator, master cylinder, etc. you're not going to
find anyone else who has access to the parts OR technology to
"make you whole", again.

As its not very easy (read: inexpensive) to push updates to the
vehicle, you're also more likely to have to live with bugs in
the implementation -- for longer periods of time. I managed to
crash the infotainment system on several different cars while we
were evaluating vehicles. "Hmmm.... that's not supposed to
happen! I'll have our service guy look at it!" (good luck!
he'll "play by the rules" and never be able to reproduce what
I just did)

Fine if you trade for a new car every
few years, but if you do like I do and don't drive much it gets to be a
problem. I have a car and a truck , both about 8 years old I bought
new. The car has about 30,000 on it and the truck just under 60,000.
Hardly broken in.

I have a Garmin gps that is nice,but the map update was close to $ 100.
I got a nicer new one with free map updates for around $ 150. Just
could not stand to pay almost as much for the map updates as for a whole
new gps with the lifetime updates.

From what I have heard , the car keys with the chips in them are a big
ripoff if you need a duplicate, being somewhere close to $ 100 for the
key and programming of them.

Yup.

In a few years, the car manufacturers will probably realize that
phones are the better bet and will migrate much of this functionality
out of the vehicle (cuz *they* don't have the skillset to develop
it) and into the owner's phone, tablet, etc. They'll go back
to making cars that are *cars* instead of wasting thousands of dollars
(of "price") on stuff that drivers only *think* they want...

A buddy has a HUD in his new vehicle. It's nice. But, would I *pay*
for that? Knowing the "display" is exposed in the sunlight all
the time (and likely to fail in short order)?

As we don't use cell phones, none of the phone-related technology in
the car has ever been used. The navigation system is just a toy
(we know how to get from A to B and even it's "traffic alerts"
are often "not current"). Too many controls are locked out while
the vehicle is in motion -- so, even your "co-pilot" can't be
operating them (so the driver isn't distracted).
"Pull over, I have to unlock the address book..."

Some of the vehicles we test drove had internet portals built in.
So, your passengers could be surfing the web through a hot-spot
provided by the vehicle. (sigh) Sheesh!

On Sun, 08 May 2016 10:35:59 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Liking to drive and putting the car on autopilot seem to be mutually
exclusive.

Contradictory? :-)

On 05/08/2016 11:38 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
I have a Garmin gps that is nice,but the map update was close to $ 100.
I got a nicer new one with free map updates for around $ 150. Just
could not stand to pay almost as much for the map updates as for a whole
new gps with the lifetime updates.

iirc, I paid $90 for a plain jane Nuvi with lifetime free updates.

On 5/8/2016 2:08 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 11:38 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
I have a Garmin gps that is nice,but the map update was close to $ 100.
I got a nicer new one with free map updates for around $ 150. Just
could not stand to pay almost as much for the map updates as for a whole
new gps with the lifetime updates.

iirc, I paid $90 for a plain jane Nuvi with lifetime free updates.

The other advantage of a hand-held GPS is that it is effectively a
portable *map*; discard all that paper from AAA/Rand McNally and
keep one of these in a desk drawer.

And, when you're trying to figure out where 1313 Mockingbird Lane
is located, you can just type it in and let the display pan to the
desired area -- instead of having to read all that micro-print on the
back of a paper map ("Let's see... G5... where the hell is 'G'?")!

OTOH, one advantage the GPS (navigation system) in the car has is
that it allows me to tell it which "roads" aren't really driveable.
E.g., the back entrance to our subdivision has a locked gate so
all the routes that try to direct us in/out that way are "wrong".
In the car, I can tell the nav system about this and it will
work around it. Not possible with any of my hand-held GPS's.

And, of course, car GPS's have no idea how to get somewhere ON FOOT
(or bicycle)!

All (except google maps) are lousy if *you* want to lay out a
route and determine how long it is.

On 5/8/2016 5:29 PM, Don Y wrote:

The other advantage of a hand-held GPS is that it is effectively a
portable *map*; discard all that paper from AAA/Rand McNally and
keep one of these in a desk drawer.

And, when you're trying to figure out where 1313 Mockingbird Lane
is located, you can just type it in and let the display pan to the
desired area -- instead of having to read all that micro-print on the
back of a paper map ("Let's see... G5... where the hell is 'G'?")!


I still like and use paper maps. The GPS screen does not give you the
big overview that I want to have at times. Often, I don"t uise the GPS
until close to my destination, then it takes me the last couple of miles
to 1313 Mockingbird lane.

On our trip this past weekend I did not turn the nav on until I was
maybe 10 miles from our destination because I knew how to get to the
city. Next day wsd different though. I wanted to go from Reihnbeck, NY
to Lake George. I know how to go on the highway, but wanted a more
scenic route. I set the nav to avoid highways and toll roads. It took
us over the back roads and we saw a lot that we would have missed on the
highway. We were not interested in getting there fast but to enjoy the
ride. Worked.

On 5/8/2016 4:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I still like and use paper maps. The GPS screen does not give you the big
overview that I want to have at times.

Prior to having the navigation system in SWMBO's vehicle, we'd use the
handheld GPS to tell us in which part of town a particular address was
located: "Ah, it's over on the northwest side..."

Then, zoom in to see particular (major) street names: "OK, it's southeast
of oracle and river". I.e., we know how to get to oracle and river
without a device telling us. And, if we'll be targeting the southeast
side, we'll know the right way to approach. The GPS will clue us in as to
whether it's the north/west side of a street or the south/east.

Often, I don"t uise the GPS until close
to my destination, then it takes me the last couple of miles to 1313
Mockingbird lane.

On our trip this past weekend I did not turn the nav on until I was maybe 10
miles from our destination because I knew how to get to the city. Next day wsd
different though. I wanted to go from Reihnbeck, NY to Lake George. I know
how to go on the highway, but wanted a more scenic route. I set the nav to
avoid highways and toll roads. It took us over the back roads and we saw a lot
that we would have missed on the highway. We were not interested in getting
there fast but to enjoy the ride. Worked.

I find SWMBO's navigation system to be helpful in predicting arrival times
*and* locating things like "Is Neo Melaka on Broadway or Speedway?" (I'm
pretty lousy when it comes to sorting out the names of major parallel
routes).

OTOH, I haven't sorted out how to constrain its search. "No, I'm not
looking for Penny's in Las Vegas! I *meant* Penney's, a mile from
HERE!" (unlike google, the car's navigation system doesn't have
much by way of heuristics!)

On 05/08/2016 03:29 PM, Don Y wrote:
The other advantage of a hand-held GPS is that it is effectively a
portable *map*; discard all that paper from AAA/Rand McNally and
keep one of these in a desk drawer.

I geocache so I have a collection of Garmin handhelds. For more
versatility I use RAM mounts;

http://www.rammount.com/

Each motorcycle and bicycle has a U-bolt mount

http://www.amazon.com/Zinc-Coated-U-.../dp/B0012TWRAO

so I can move the socket arm and GPS cradle between them in seconds.
While the Nuvi is permanently assigned to the car, I also have a suction
base for the RAM since the Garmin handhelds are more convenient for
caching.

Unless I'm out of town I don't use the Nuvi for directions but it makes
a great speedometer. I run studs in the winter that have a different
rolling circumference than the summer tires so the GPS (usually) is more
accurate.

On 05/08/2016 05:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I wanted to go from Reihnbeck, NY to Lake George. I know how to go on
the highway, but wanted a more scenic route. I set the nav to avoid
highways and toll roads. It took us over the back roads and we saw a
lot that we would have missed on the highway. We were not interested in
getting there fast but to enjoy the ride.

Good thing I wasn't navigating... I grew up in Rensselaer County and
know most of the farm roads and cow paths. Have you been to the
Aerodrome? If not it's worth a visit if you have any interest at all in
old planes.

On 5/8/2016 10:35 PM, rbowman wrote:

Good thing I wasn't navigating... I grew up in Rensselaer County and
know most of the farm roads and cow paths. Have you been to the
Aerodrome? If not it's worth a visit if you have any interest at all in
old planes.


I've been into airplanes since I was a kid. Took the stick of a J-3 cub
when I was about 12 years old, and a Tri-Pacer. Flew RC for many years.

I went to the Aerodrome but it does not open until the 16th. I was
hoping to at least see a Fokker or Sopwith outside. Nothing but a wet
field. Maybe I can get bak on a day they have bi-plane rids and see if
my ass fits in one.

We went to dinner at the Culinary Institute. Wow, top notch everything.
It was our 50th anniversary weekend.

On 5/8/2016 7:29 PM, rbowman wrote:
Unless I'm out of town I don't use the Nuvi for directions but it makes a great
speedometer. I run studs in the winter that have a different rolling
circumference than the summer tires so the GPS (usually) is more accurate.

When I used to travel (fly), I would carry one in my briefcase
(makes getting around at my destination easier).

Handy to know where you are while in the air! Amusing to
see it display your speed as ~600MPH! (makes me wonder
what the upper limit on their ability to resolve speed and
position would be!)

On 05/08/2016 09:39 PM, Don Y wrote:
Handy to know where you are while in the air! Amusing to
see it display your speed as ~600MPH! (makes me wonder
what the upper limit on their ability to resolve speed and
position would be!)

They display that high? iirc at one time the displayed speed was limited
to somewhere around 100 mph in an attempt to force light aircraft pilots
to buy a much more expensive version.

On 05/08/2016 09:26 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
We went to dinner at the Culinary Institute. Wow, top notch everything.
It was our 50th anniversary weekend.

I knew a woman who was a CIA graduate I don't see anything on google
but years ago UNH at Durham, NH had a restaurant that was run by the
food service students. It too was excellent.

On 5/8/2016 9:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 09:39 PM, Don Y wrote:
Handy to know where you are while in the air! Amusing to
see it display your speed as ~600MPH! (makes me wonder
what the upper limit on their ability to resolve speed and
position would be!)

They display that high? iirc at one time the displayed speed was limited to
somewhere around 100 mph in an attempt to force light aircraft pilots to buy a
much more expensive version.

Yeah, I know I have at least two different models that did.
I was originally surprised thinking "we're too high" (D'uh!
Of course we aren't! They're SATELLITES!!!)

I would select the airport I was flying into as my "destination"
to get an idea of my expected arrival time. And, look at the map
to see where we were presently. It's confusing, at first, cuz
you seem like you're flying a "curved" route but, in fact, it's
a straight one (in a spherical system)

Buster wrote:
On 05/08/2016 10:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/8/2016 10:51 AM, WTF wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On some stretches I'd go up to 20 miles and not have to touch the gas
or brake pedals. I'd just follow the car ahead and it maintained a
safe speed and distance between us. Even stopping at traffic lights
and going through a town where traffic caused a lot of speed changes.
If sure makes driving safe and less tiring.

If you are thinking about a new car, this is one optionyou want to have.

If you can afford a car like that, why not just hire a limo?


1. I like to drive
2. Too long of a wait for the driver to pick me up for a ride to the grocery store.

The technology is available on modest priced cars now too. Auto
Emergency Braking will be standard on cars by 2022.

I was at a car dealership the other day and overheard the service manager
telling a customer a GPS map update would cost $820 for their car. Good ****ing grief!

When I left in my plain-Jane model car, I kissed my $120 Garmin nüvi
(with free lifetime map updates) and told her I loved her. ;-)

Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep hill
I say.

Greg

On 05/08/2016 11:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
Yeah, I know I have at least two different models that did.
I was originally surprised thinking "we're too high" (D'uh!
Of course we aren't! They're SATELLITES!!!)

My first GPS was a Garmin II back before SA was dropped. I'd go out into
the desert, find a section marker, and then try to navigate to another
one. I didn't have too much success. When you're looking for a ground
level marker hidden in the creosote bush, 100 meter accuracy didn't get
it. I found my first geocache with it with a lot of searching. I was
looking for another one when I saw a woman I worked with coming up the
trail and counting off the feet to the target. I decided it was time for
new technology.


I would select the airport I was flying into as my "destination"
to get an idea of my expected arrival time. And, look at the map
to see where we were presently. It's confusing, at first, cuz
you seem like you're flying a "curved" route but, in fact, it's
a straight one (in a spherical system)

I wound up taking AP calculus in high school in lieu of the spherical
trig that was the normal senior course. I can't say I missed much even
though I do a lot of GIS work these days. Fortunately, like most
programmers, I can implement the Vincenty algorithm without worrying
about the details.

On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.

On 05/09/2016 9:03 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for
hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep
hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.

Need mo' power! The Buick handles the Smokeys just fine, thank you
very much! It actually will improve mileage over the long haul
compared to most drivers w/ only a modicum of intervention (primarly
don't set "resume" after a necessary slowdown until have recovered to
within 8-10 mph of setpoint to avoid the high acceleration rate noted
above. I do note that the later models are less aggressive in that
behavior than earlier though, although still a little too much so for my
taste.

The dreadful Ford Taurus rentals used to have to use during the coal
analyzer days in E KY, SW VA and WVA was useless or worse altho haven't
driven a Ford product in nearly 20 yr now so _maybe_ they've learned
something since...

--

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:02:46 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.

Best cruise control I ever had was on a 1997 Dodge B2500 Conversion van. It
held the speed within 1.5 MPH on even the worst of the rolling hills.

I've had a dozen or so vehicles since then and none of them come close to
tightness of the Dodge's CC. I'm OK with speeding up on downhills somewhat,
but I seriously hate the uphill lag.

(I once got out of a speeding ticket by telling the trooper that it was a rental (true) and that I wasn't used to the CC (not so true). It really did
speed up on that long decline, but you can't blame the CC for that. He ended
up giving me a ticket for a noisy muffler on a car that had less than 6K
miles on it.)

On 5/9/2016 7:01 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 11:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
Yeah, I know I have at least two different models that did.
I was originally surprised thinking "we're too high" (D'uh!
Of course we aren't! They're SATELLITES!!!)

My first GPS was a Garmin II back before SA was dropped. I'd go out into the
desert, find a section marker, and then try to navigate to another one. I
didn't have too much success. When you're looking for a ground level marker
hidden in the creosote bush, 100 meter accuracy didn't get it. I found my first
geocache with it with a lot of searching. I was looking for another one when I
saw a woman I worked with coming up the trail and counting off the feet to the
target. I decided it was time for new technology.

There's a difference between "wanting a position fix" and using a GPS
to determine velocity. And, of course, the *type* of motion being
tracked! Any *incremental* approach to accumulating "distance
traveled" will tend to OVERestimate that distance. And, as time
is fixed, overestimate velocity proportionately! (its a sort of
"accumulation of tolerances" effect). Even on straight-line trips!

I would select the airport I was flying into as my "destination"
to get an idea of my expected arrival time. And, look at the map
to see where we were presently. It's confusing, at first, cuz
you seem like you're flying a "curved" route but, in fact, it's
a straight one (in a spherical system)

I wound up taking AP calculus in high school in lieu of the spherical trig that
was the normal senior course. I can't say I missed much even though I do a lot
of GIS work these days. Fortunately, like most programmers, I can implement the
Vincenty algorithm without worrying about the details.

You don't need formal schooling to "see" the difference. Just grab a globe
and a length of string. Pick two points (preferably at different latitudes)
and lay the string between them. Note the path the string takes.
Do the same on a "flat" map.

The obvious cases are for trips over the poles...

On 05/09/2016 9:46 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

... I'm OK with speeding up on downhills somewhat,
but I seriously hate the uphill lag.

I do (the latter, that is), too, particularly 'cuz the 16-wheeler you
just went by a little while ago is now on your tailpipe and you're
either forcing him to change lanes or slow down which is the utmost in
discourtesy, neglecting the danger.

On the downhill, with so many vehicles now with overdrive and automagic
transmission, the effectiveness of engine breaking w/o downshifting is
minimal at best so simply throttle pressure isn't enough...

--

On 5/9/2016 1:26 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/09/2016 9:46 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


and 10 speed automatics?
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160426/OEM01/160429878/ford-to-invest-$1.4-billion-to-build-10-speed-transmissions-for-2017

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:02:46 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.

SWMBO used to drive a '05 Taurus. One day she came home and said that it was
accelerating by itself. Nothing serious, but let's say you're driving at
around 30 MPH and you take your foot off the gas. Instead of slowing down,
the car would actually speed up slightly. Tapping the accelerator usually
disengaged the self-acceleration. I asked her if the cruise control
was on, already knowing the answer. SWMBO *never* uses cruise control, so
that wasn't it - or so I thought.

I searched the net and found out that it actually was related to the cruise
control, specifically the cruise control cable. When the end of the cruise
control cable wears out where it attaches to the throttle cam, it can slip
off of its little post as shown here.

http://s611.photobucket.com/user/eck...E_057.jpg.html

The cam post can then - intermittently - get caught on the cable, not allowing
it to return to the "no-acceleration" position. The throttle stays slightly
engaged, thus the occurrence of the self-acceleration only at low-speeds.

I used a zip tie to prevent the cable from popping off of the post and the
problem has never come back. My daughter has put over 60K miles on the car
since the fix and she uses the cruise control all the time. Not bad for a
$0.02 fix.

On Mon, 09 May 2016 08:03:59 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.


The adaptive CC slows you on hills. At times I hit the "cancel" to
take advantage of gravity. When you resume it brakes for you.

On 05/09/2016 08:14 AM, dpb wrote:
On 05/09/2016 9:03 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 02:14 AM, gregz wrote:
Couple, three hundred for GM update. Awaiting for smart cruise for
hills. I
usually end up using manual, so excessive gear shifting, and loud
roaring
of engine, and gas gobbling is ended. It's OK to slow down on a steep
hill
I say.

Be nice if they'd slow down going downhill too. I had cruise control on
a rental that I drove around upstate NY, VT, and NH. It didn't do well
in rolling hills.

Need mo' power! The Buick handles the Smokeys just fine, thank you
very much! It actually will improve mileage over the long haul
compared to most drivers w/ only a modicum of intervention (primarly
don't set "resume" after a necessary slowdown until have recovered to
within 8-10 mph of setpoint to avoid the high acceleration rate noted
above. I do note that the later models are less aggressive in that
behavior than earlier though, although still a little too much so for my
taste.

It was a Grand Am and went uphill just fine. There wasn't much
compression braking so unless I wanted to go through Officer Friendly's
speed trap at 75 I had to get on the brakes which, iirc, canceled the
speed control.

On 05/09/2016 12:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
There's a difference between "wanting a position fix" and using a GPS
to determine velocity. And, of course, the *type* of motion being
tracked! Any *incremental* approach to accumulating "distance
traveled" will tend to OVERestimate that distance. And, as time
is fixed, overestimate velocity proportionately! (its a sort of
"accumulation of tolerances" effect). Even on straight-line trips!

I'm amused when the GPS loses coverage and then reports my maximum speed
as 5.5 mph. Some people run uphill but I certainly don't.

On 5/9/2016 5:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 12:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
There's a difference between "wanting a position fix" and using a GPS
to determine velocity. And, of course, the *type* of motion being
tracked! Any *incremental* approach to accumulating "distance
traveled" will tend to OVERestimate that distance. And, as time
is fixed, overestimate velocity proportionately! (its a sort of
"accumulation of tolerances" effect). Even on straight-line trips!

I'm amused when the GPS loses coverage and then reports my maximum speed as 5.5
mph. Some people run uphill but I certainly don't.

I don't think I've ever "lost" satellites. I know I would often have to
wait a while for it to acquire signal from enough of them before setting
out on a walk. But, once outside, signal never went away.