[uucdigest] Wednesday, March 5 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6183
_________________________________________________________________ | | 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: [uuc] E-36 Check Engine Light woes Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision( formerly WA state to regulate racing schools) Re: [uuc] re: inexpensive helmets RE: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Re: [uuc] Play in quick-release steering wheel? Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist [uuc] P38 Remote & Key Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Re: [uuc] WAS inexpensive helmets, NOW roll bars and harnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:24:12 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uuc] E-36 Check Engine Light woes My '95 M3 just threw a check engine light. The car's still driving fine. At 58k miles (and with an observant daughter commenting on a "skunky" exhaust) I'm leaning towards the oxygen sensor as the cause. I've tried to use the "stomp" test to retrieve any codes, but the check engine light doesn't respond in the usual manner (I've done the stomp test before, a few months ago before the light was lit, just to check to see if anything was stored). Does the procedure change when the light's already lit, or do I need to beg, steal or borrow (or buy) a Peake code reader? TIA, Martin Bullen '95 M3 '97 Z3 2.8 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:41 -0500 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision( formerly WA state to regulate racing schools) NASCAR cars are very stiff in front and have little energy absorption from crush. Gary Derian > 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 23:25:44 -0500 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] re: inexpensive helmets There are statistics that suggest that occupants of standard production vehicles have higher neck injuries when belted, and the vehicle rolls over. There is no "right" answer. The stronger the roof of your car, the more tightly belted you can be. At one extreme, motorcycles or go karts, one wants no belts or rollover protection. At the other, one wants the best of both. Added protection for non-rollover crashes vs, higher risk for rollovers. You choose. Gary Derian > > --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). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:27:29 -0500 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Not exactly. Brake-Assist is not the same as ABS nor is it the opposite of ABS. Any more than the brake calipers are the same or the opposite of ABS. They are different devices performing different functions. Brake-Assist senses when the driver *appears* to be panic braking and increases the braking force to the extent necessary to trigger the ABS. Stan > From: "John Coffin wrote: > I think some are confused. This is not ABS doing this. Mercedes has a new > feature which pressurizes the brakes (opposite of ABS) if it senses a hard > stop. Kinda of like power steering. I was wondering how this would apply > in the real world. > > Here is more info > http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010501.htm > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:03 -0500 From: "Michael McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Play in quick-release steering wheel? there should be NO play. Pull up on the release mechanism and push it all the way on. It might not be on all the way. what would you need a quick release wheel for anyway? - -Michael McCoy - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BMW CR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "UUC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: [uuc] Play in quick-release steering wheel? > Hi all, > > I just installed a quick release hub / momo steering wheel and there's a > significant amount of play between the wheel and the hub when fully > attached. The play is about 1 mm in and out (longitudinally) and about > 1/5th of a mm radially (turning the wheel). > > Is this standard for a quick-release hub? Does anyone have a quick release > hub with no play? I had thought that the hub would feel just like a solid > steering wheel once it was on but it has too much slop for my taste. Has > anyone tried the sparco quick release hub? how is it? > > Any suggestions? > > TIA, > Mike > > 97 M3 #121 IS > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:32:27 -0500 From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist uh, didnt john say the EXACT same thing? Mike - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:27 PM Subject: RE: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist > Not exactly. Brake-Assist is not the same as ABS nor is it the opposite of > ABS. Any more than the brake calipers are the same or the opposite of ABS. > They are different devices performing different functions. > > Brake-Assist senses when the driver *appears* to be panic braking and > increases the braking force to the extent necessary to trigger the ABS. > > Stan > > > > From: "John Coffin wrote: > > I think some are confused. This is not ABS doing this. Mercedes has a > new > > feature which pressurizes the brakes (opposite of ABS) if it senses a hard > > stop. Kinda of like power steering. I was wondering how this would apply > > in the real world. > > > > Here is more info > > http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010501.htm > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:28 -0800 From: "Kevin Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] P38 Remote & Key I just put a hide-a-key under the P38 and I remember hearing about a problem that someone had when they opened a vehicle that had been locked with the remote using the key. Was this a strange problem or is it always a problem to unlock a newer Range Rover with the key if the remote was used to lock it? Kevin Kelly ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:38:46 -0500 From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist What happens when you lift your foot? Doesn't it disengage? I think it's just a matter of getting used to it. As you do, you'll learn to lift earlier than you may otherwise. Of course, the day you do will be the day the ABC decides to fail, and you'll rear-end someone....... ;-) - ----------------------------------------------------- BMW Special Tool Rentals Pay per incident tech support - ----------------------------------------------------- Brett Anderson KMS (440) 338 1650 www.koalamotorsport.com OSS committee member - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bora Akyol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BMW being a sportier company than Mercedes must have tuned it less > aggressively, on the MB the damn thing just comes on any time I get on the > pedal hard. I think on the track it may be less of a problem since brake > application is smoother, but on the street when some **hole cuts me off, and > I brake hard the brake assist cuts in and makes me stop in unbelievably > short distances (this is all good) but then I almost always end up getting > real close to rear ended since people follow so close. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:43:33 -0500 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] WAS inexpensive helmets, NOW roll bars and harnesses Well said, Dennis! I'm a big fan of harnesses and rollcages, but for somewhat different reasons. A harness makes most people a better, safer driver because they are more firmly held in place. Harnesses provide significantly superior protection to stock seatbelts in virtually any non-rollover accident. Non-rollover accidents are more common than rollover accidents -- choosing a harness even without a rollbar or rollcage seems like an easy one to me. Even in rollover accidents you will still often (perhaps usually) be safer with the harness. If you are so paranoid about being caught in a rollover with a collapsed roof while wearing a harness -- get a damn rollbar or rollcage! Don't reduce your safety in the more common situations to make yourself safer in the less common ones! This is more extreme, but it is very much the same thing: "I don't wear seatbelt because I don't want to drown or burn to death in an accident." I see rollbars as marginal protection in a rollover. I've seen more than one car with a roof that went in esentially a straight line from the rollbar to the dashboard. Did the rollbar save the occupants? Just barely, and they may have still suffered minor injuries. With a rollcage, you are much better protected. I think that rollovers are more common than most people believe, so I really like having the full cage. I even prefer it on the street, but providing adequate head protection from the bars is an issue there. So, I think that rollovers are more common than most people realize, yet I still think that harnesses are better to have even without a rollbar/rollcage. Stan >Dennis Liu 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 ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6183 *************************** | | 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 |__________________________________________
