[uucdigest] Wednesday, March 5 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6180
_________________________________________________________________ | | Search the ARCHIVES: | http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Visit Richard Nott's Ultimate BMW Database: | http://www.bmwdatabase.com | | For all available Digest commands including unsubscribe/subscribe, | visit the BMW UUC Digest page: http://www.uucdigest.com | | Send SUBMISSIONS to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Complaints? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you must. | Technical Problems? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |__________________________________________________________________ In this BMW UUC Digest: RE: [uuc] Re: <wob> Re: BMWs Getting Too Complicated RE: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision( formerly WA state to regulate racing schools) Re: [uuc] Idle Speed Control Actuator [uuc] E36 OBC upgrade? [uuc] WAS inexpensive helmets, NOW roll bars and harnesses RE: [uuc] Idle Speed Control Actuator [uuc] Helmets and all that.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:28:48 +0100 From: "Ulf Bertilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Re: <wob> Re: BMWs Getting Too Complicated E30 is happyness :) Great! Then I'll get a better deal on the car, and I can retrofit the manual system from an old E30 and be perfectly happy! Scott Scott, You are a cheap ass ignorant slut! ') By the time you buy a '98 car, its climate control will have bit the dust ;-) alex f [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Alex, you're a BMW butt fondler Luddite. > > Well you said... never mind. But if you want you can call me an ignorant > slut. Hey, it worked for Chevy Chase. > > Anyway, I'll refrain from knocking climate controls until I've tested one > from a '98 or newer car. Of course, I probably won't own a car that new > for another 7 or 8 years... > > Scott, cheap ass > > > <snip> > > >Call me a BMW butt fondler Luddite. > > > >alex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:50:34 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision( formerly WA state to regulate racing schools) No arguments that she (and Earnhardt") had survivable impacts. My point, maybe poorly worded, was that even relatively low speed impacts can be fatal without properly used safety equipment. I doubt anyone would say Earnhardt didn't have proper equipment, you could argue the open face helmet issue but everything I've read said it wasn't the chin blow that killed him. Whether she had "proper" safety equipment is unknown. At least to us it is. Maybe that is what the WA state legislators are trying to do, make sure everyone has the proper safety equipment and uses it correctly. GFL to them. Marco full face helmet HANS device 10lb Halon Fire System Yada^3 - -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision( formerly WA state to regulate racing schools) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm surprised that a 50 mph impact killed her, though. Sounds like > > the car could have used better safety equipment. > "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At the time of the impact with the wall, the No. 3 car was traveling at > approximately 157-160 mph. The car hit the wall at a heading angle of > approximately 55-59 degrees. Its trajectory angle at the time of impact was > approximately 13-14 degrees. The No. 3 car experienced a 'crash pulse' of > approximately 80 milliseconds in duration. In other words, it was in > deceleration for approximately 80 milliseconds. ... Its velocity changed by > approximately 42-44 mph as a result of the wall impact. The heading angle, > trajectory angle, crash pulse duration, lack of rotation and (velocity > change) all made this a very severe impact. > > So if she hit the wall head on at 50mph and decelerated to 0 mph in a > short period of time....... ....she should have survived. Unless she, or whomever prepared her car, was a subscriber to Earnhardt's approach to safety (wont happen to me). Earnhardt wore an open face helmet, sat too close to the steering wheel and had personally traded proper harness installation for 'comfort'. In the end his head hit the steering wheel and snapped his neck. alex f ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:50:52 -0500 From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Idle Speed Control Actuator Not even close. - ----------------------------------------------------- BMW Special Tool Rentals Pay per incident tech support - ----------------------------------------------------- Brett Anderson KMS (440) 338 1650 www.koalamotorsport.com OSS committee member - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendall Siemens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Does anyone know offhand if the Idle speed control actuator is the same > between a 92 325i & 97 328i? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:23:45 -0500 From: "Olsen, Mike (Morse TEC Ithaca)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] E36 OBC upgrade? Hello all, I'm looking at possibly picking up a 1999 E36 323is that has all the options I want other than it's missing the full OBC and only has outside temp and some message center or something (haven't seen it yet). What's the possiblity of upgrading to full OBC? Is this a situation where the wiring is all in place and I need to spring for the unit, tear apart the dash, and plug it in? Or would I be looking at a wiring harness upgrade that woud make it unreasonable? Thanks! - -Mike Olsen '88 325iCA '88 ///M3 Henna maybe an E36 coming... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:19:37 -0500 From: "Dennis Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] WAS inexpensive helmets, NOW roll bars and harnesses I wrote: > --Dennis (who wears his expensive helmet, nomex suit, nomex gloves, nomex > boots, nomex collar and six point belts in a street car with a fire > supression system -- but no racing seat, no roll bar/cage, and no HANS > device). Mark replied: >6-points and no roll bar? Well, good luck with that. ________________ Ah, the harness and roll bar issue. Thanks for bringing it up, Mark. I'd like to hear some opinions from the list on this topic. Is this adage true, or just something that sorta makes sense and has thus become samizdat? As debated furiously, the point of contention with regard to safety is that if you're going to use harnesses, you *must* have a roll bar or cage. This prevents injury in situations where the car has rolled AND the roof has collapsed AND the occupant remains belted by the 5 or 6 point harness in an upright position. Injuries could be fatal in this scenario. It's implied by proponents of this scenario that a properly set-up 5 or 6 point harness will keep that occupant firmly planted in the seat where a conventional 3-point stock belt will not, AND that the seat itself will not have collapsed/folded. So let's go with that, for argument's sake. So, does this follow that anyone using a 5/6 point harness in lieu of stock 3 point belts WITHOUT a rollbar is therefore putting himself or herself at greater risk of injury or death? MAYBE. I'm unconvinced. It's certainly possible, but I have not seen any proof. Here's why. For any given safety device, it has benefits and costs. The benefits of a proper racing harness include greater protection in the event of a collision where the car hasn't rolled over -- it keeps the occupant from flailing about inside the cabin and striking things, like steering wheels, dashboards, etc. For argument's sake, let's call this "Benefit One." And a harness also does a better job of keeping the driver planted, so that he/she can maintain control of a car (try doing laps in the same car with and without a harness; you'll find that doing so with a harness will mean that you're not using various muscles to remain seated, and you'll find yourself in better control and not as exhausted). This is especially true if the car is on the edge of control, or if the car has started to go out of control -- if the driver remains planted behind the wheel, he/she has a much better chance of regaining some or full control. So, let's call this "Benefit Two." What about the "cost" to which Mark refers? The possibility that if a car without a roll bar or cage flips over, and if the roof collapses, and if the seat doesn't give way, that the driver, trapped by the harness, will be seriously injured? Let's call that "Cost One." (I can't think of any other costs right now, but am open to suggestions. Also, if the car in question is a street car, someone who drives it on the street without a helmet will likely INCREASE the risk of injury due to striking the rollover protection without said helmet - but we'll leave this out of the analysis below.) So, let's analyze this. Let's assign an arbitrary value to each cost and each benefit. So if Cost One = 50, and Benefit One = 20 and Benefit Two = 20, it would be more intelligent of us to avoid use of a harness without a roll bar or cage. Conversely, if the values were Cost One = 80, Benefit One = 60 and Benefit Two = 50, it would be more intelligent to go ahead and use that harness, even without a roll bar or cage. Again, these values are purely arbitrary. So, what's the point? The point is this -- unless one has a rational basis for calculating values for each benefit and cost, one cannot simply say that using a harness without a roll bar is detrimental to safety. I based my own conclusion on the following observations. Nearly every single collision I've witnessed at the track, or that my friends have witnessed, in the DE environment, has involved hitting something (wall, armco, guardrail, mound, car), sometimes with multiple impacts, but never with a roll over. Do rollovers happen? Of course they do, even at the track. Do rollovers happen that cause a roof to collapse completely? Yes, of course. But not NEARLY as often as impacts without rollovers. In MY cost-benefit analysis, a harness gives me greater protection in impacts (w/o rollovers), and gives me greater control of the car -- thereby reducing my chances of getting into an accident in the first place. Thus, the BENEFIT to me is realized on every single lap, whereas the potential for incurring the COST of a rollover accident where my roof collapses and my seat doesn't and I'm pinned, is relatively LOW. Thus, again, just in my opinion, and for ME, it's actually SAFER for me to use a harness even without a roll bar. Am I completely insane? Is there something I'm totally missing? I'd like some intelligent feedback. thx, - --Dennis . ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:27:11 -0700 From: Wendall Siemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Idle Speed Control Actuator Thanks Brett. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:35:39 -0500 From: Don Eilenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Helmets and all that.. Where we've diverged into a helmet/value discussion.. >jk wrote: > > >re: inexpensive helmets > >There was a saying I heard when I went shopping for my first helmet. >It was, "Cheap helmets for cheap heads." I'm glad I listened. Never >tested my car helmet, but on the bike,when I got run down by a car, I'm >glad I had a top of the line Bell on my head instead of some $29.95 >bargain brand. >__________________ Dennis Liu replied: >JK, with all due respect, you're citing one isolated incident in your >personal experience. How exactly do you know that some $30 bargain brand >helmet wouldn't have afforded you exactly the same level of protection? Which is a very valid point. Tests done of $30 helmets vs $500 helmets have NOT shown a significant difference in protection. There have been $40 helmets sold by JCWhitney that have Snell approval. There is a magnitude difference between no helmet and and any helmet (excepting the skull-caps favored by HD riders), there is a significant difference in protection in SOME situations between open-face and closed-face helmets (strangely enough - in accidents involving nose-plants on pavement), but even an inexpensive helmet with legitimate DOT approval is going to provide you almost all the value for protection of an ultra-helmet. What the $40 helmet won't do - is hold up well, be very comfortable (unless you're lucky) or made with as high quality materials as the more expensive helmet. Our local Real-BMW club (2 wheeled ones) had a tech session about 2 weeks ago where a Shoei distributor gave us a talk about their complete range of helmets - from a $200 list price to a $600 list price helmet. ALL provided the same level of protection and ALL (except one flip-face - which hasn't been tested) were Snell-2000 approved. Differences between the $200 to $600 helmets were primarily graphics, number and locations of air vents, and in the highest priced one - a removable washable liner. Had an interesting discussion on our way home (we were bimmering' it since there was about 3" of snow falling that night) - on how much incremental cost difference in manufacturing there was between the $200 to $600 helmet. Our wildest guess - mebbe $20. If that. The differences were primarily paint, with a few extra plastic vents plugged into holes drilled in the helmet shell. No real protection changes (same foam liner), or comfort changes (same material used for the liners..) Which means there is an awfully big profit margin on the top end helmets - at least from Shoei. I wear a German helmet - not inexpensive (was about $500 when I bought it - now priced around $400 with wider distribution), but I chose to pay that for the features the helmet has (flip-face, built-in anti-fog, built in flip-up sunshield, ratchet lock) and because it fits my big fat head. Prior to that, I wore a $200 helmet (frequently discounted to about $150), with some of the same features, and did NOT feel any less protected in it. Now - if you wanna say you have a Harley head, so wear a Harley skull-cap - that's another story.. but any decent helmet will provide you with the protection you actually need. >vty, > >- --Dennis (FWIW, I wear the "expensive" helmets solely because they are the >only one available that fit my large noggin.) Yup. Agreed. Don Eilenberger, Spring Lk Hts, NJ JMP#1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] NJ Shore BMW Riders web page: http://www.njsbmwr.org/ Moderator BMW E39 Enthusiast Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmwe39 ==================================================================== "Argue with an idiot and he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" - Dilbert ==================================================================== ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6180 *************************** | | In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. |________________________________________ | Please visit these UUC-approved BMW parts vendors/service providers: | (listed alphabetically) | | Autoscope-Motorsports - http://www.autoscope-motorsports.com | |==================================================== | | Koala MotorSport . BMW technical information, special tool sales/rental | http://www.koalamotorsport.com | |==================================================== | | Taylor BMW - http://www.taylorbmw.com - Doc Bimmer! | UUC Motorwerks . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com |__________________________________________
