Minimum noise level? Minimum???

Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.

I certainly hope this level is enforced as well as the upper limit is.

Okay, sound suggestions? I'm all for a AA/FD 427 cammer. Just a nice
fat burble, nothing "real loud". My sister wants a Ferrari F1 V8. But
my wife has the best one, so far. A Rolls-Royce. High bypass
turbofan.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.

It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
eliminating one objection they create another.

?
"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>
> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
> eliminating one objection they create another.
>

Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas to
try to keep up.

I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
can run virtually silent.

I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of LED
on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind, I'm
not sure what we can do.

dwight

On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
> ?
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>
>> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
>> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
>> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
>> eliminating one objection they create another.
>>
>
> Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas to
> try to keep up.
>
> I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
> reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
> noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
> can run virtually silent.

But that virtually silent operation wasn't something people didn't know
about. It has been touted as a benefit, a reason to go electric for
decades.

> I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
> may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of LED
> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind, I'm
> not sure what we can do.

This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't known
when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
complain.

?
"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
>> ?
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>>>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>>
>>> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
>>> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
>>> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
>>> eliminating one objection they create another.
>>>
>>
>> Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas
>> to
>> try to keep up.
>>
>> I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
>> reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
>> noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
>> can run virtually silent.
>
> But that virtually silent operation wasn't something people didn't know
> about. It has been touted as a benefit, a reason to go electric for
> decades.
>
>> I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
>> may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of
>> LED
>> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind,
>> I'm
>> not sure what we can do.
>
> This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
> birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't known
> when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
> complain.
>

So... if they were known, why weren't they addressed?

dwight

On Jan 9, 9:36*am, "dwight" > wrote:
> ?"Brent" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
> >> ?
> >> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
> >>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
> >>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
> >>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
> >>>> them. *I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
> >>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>
> >>> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
> >>> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
> >>> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
> >>> eliminating one objection they create another.
>
> >> Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas
> >> to
> >> try to keep up.
>
> >> I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
> >> reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
> >> noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
> >> can run virtually silent.
>
> > But that virtually silent operation wasn't something people didn't know
> > about. It has been touted as a benefit, a reason to go electric for
> > decades.
>
> >> I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
> >> may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of
> >> LED
> >> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind,
> >> I'm
> >> not sure what we can do.
>
> > This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
> > birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't known
> > when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
> > complain.
>
> So... if they were known, why weren't they addressed?
>
> dwight

There is no reason why a sound track cant be added to the car that's
tied to the accelerator. The farther down you push the louder the car
gets. Imagine a Prius withe a Hemi sound track

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 09:06:10 -0800 (PST), mustangjoe
> wrote:

>On Jan 9, 9:36*am, "dwight" > wrote:
>> ?"Brent" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
>> >> ?
>> >> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>> >>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>> >>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>> >>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>> >>>> them. *I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>> >>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>
SNIP
>> >> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind,
>> >> I'm
>> >> not sure what we can do.
>>
>> > This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
>> > birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't known
>> > when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
>> > complain.
>>
>> So... if they were known, why weren't they addressed?
>>
>> dwight
>
>There is no reason why a sound track cant be added to the car that's
>tied to the accelerator. The farther down you push the louder the car
>gets. Imagine a Prius withe a Hemi sound track
Back in the early 70s, a buddy of mine mounted speakers in the wheel
wells of his VW Bug and through his 8 Track pipes recordings of drag
racers. He'd pull up to a light and crank up the sound. When the light
changed, he had two tricks he liked to play. One is he'd simply pull
out at normal speed, while the guy next to him was smoking tires. The
other was to take off as fast as he could. In that case,, the other
car just sat there stunned, hesitated, or hit it. The reults were as
funny as the looks on faces. More often than not, a stock VW could
beat any other car off the line.... sometimes even to the other side
of the intersection before being passed.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 09:36:26 -0500, "dwight" > wrote:

>?
>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
>>> ?
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>>>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>>>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>>>>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>>>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>>>
>>>> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
>>>> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
>>>> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
>>>> eliminating one objection they create another.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas
>>> to
>>> try to keep up.
>>>
>>> I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
>>> reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
>>> noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
>>> can run virtually silent.
>>
>> But that virtually silent operation wasn't something people didn't know
>> about. It has been touted as a benefit, a reason to go electric for
>> decades.
>>
>>> I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
>>> may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of
>>> LED
>>> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind,
>>> I'm
>>> not sure what we can do.
>>
>> This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
>> birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't known
>> when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
>> complain.
>>
>
>So... if they were known, why weren't they addressed?
>
>dwight
>
MONEY

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:34:31 -0500, "dwight" > wrote:

>?
>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want a
>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front of
>>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there loading
>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>
>> It is this sort of thing that makes me think that politically people who
>> just want something (to get rid of cars in this case probably) will
>> latch on to any excuse they can find. When a technology shows promise of
>> eliminating one objection they create another.
>>
>
>Nah, it's not that. Things change, and we sometimes jump on foolish ideas to
>try to keep up.
>
>I've walked behind cars that I didn't know were running, until I saw the
>reverse lights come on. It's kind of unsettling. Cars "should" make some
>noise when they're running, yet here comes a whole new breed of cars that
>can run virtually silent.
>
>I don't think that artificial noise generation is the way to go, but this
>may actually be a concern. For the sighted, I'd like to see some sort of LED
>on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the blind, I'm
>not sure what we can do.
>
>dwight
>
Isn't that the basis for those always on marker lights (ala Canada)?

What's next? Escape capsules like in hydro boats?

"D E Willson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 09:06:10 -0800 (PST), mustangjoe
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jan 9, 9:36 am, "dwight" > wrote:
>>> ?"Brent" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 2011-01-08, dwight > wrote:
>>> >> ?
>>> >> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>> On 2011-01-08, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>> >>>> Seems that folks are complaining that the hybrds (esp Prius, gotta
>>> >>>> pound the crap out of Toyota, right?) are "TOO QUIET" and they want
>>> >>>> a
>>> >>>> minimum noise level for the cars so blind folks won't step in front
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> them. I guess that means we'll have some 'bangers out there
>>> >>>> loading
>>> >>>> up 10KW speakers just to be in compliance.
>>>
> SNIP
>>> >> on these cars that signals that they're actually running. For the
>>> >> blind,
>>> >> I'm
>>> >> not sure what we can do.
>>>
>>> > This strikes me as a parallel to "OMG, those windmills a ugly, chop
>>> > birds, disturb natural light". As if none of those things weren't
>>> > known
>>> > when they were being pushed by the same groups and people that now
>>> > complain.
>>>
>>> So... if they were known, why weren't they addressed?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>>There is no reason why a sound track cant be added to the car that's
>>tied to the accelerator. The farther down you push the louder the car
>>gets. Imagine a Prius withe a Hemi sound track
> Back in the early 70s, a buddy of mine mounted speakers in the wheel
> wells of his VW Bug and through his 8 Track pipes recordings of drag
> racers. He'd pull up to a light and crank up the sound. When the light
> changed, he had two tricks he liked to play. One is he'd simply pull
> out at normal speed, while the guy next to him was smoking tires. The
> other was to take off as fast as he could. In that case,, the other
> car just sat there stunned, hesitated, or hit it. The reults were as
> funny as the looks on faces. More often than not, a stock VW could
> beat any other car off the line.... sometimes even to the other side
> of the intersection before being passed.

In the middle 1970s I had a big Chevy van with a speaker behind the grill,
connected to a CB radio with Public Address function. Can you imagine how
the driver of a nice new Porsche stopped at a traffic signal would jump and
cringe when I rolled up behind him and emulated the sound of screeching
tires?

--
Frank ess