[uucdigest]          Thursday, March 6 2003          Volume 03 : Number 6188



_________________________________________________________________
|
|  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] Portable air tanks
       [uuc] Re: [uucdigest] V3 #6185
       Re: [uuc] re: Dale's crash
       RE: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision (formerly WA state to 
regulate racing schoo
       [uuc] RE: BMWs getting too complicated
       Re: Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision 
       Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision (formerly WA state to 
regulate racing schoo

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:20:39 -0500
From: Barbara Zmiewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] Portable air tanks

Has anyone had experience with a portable air tank?  We have been
considering a 5 gallon air storage tank to use at the track for topping off
the tires.  The question I can't seem to get an answer for is how this
quantity of air translates into how many pounds in how many tires.  I
realize there are many variables at work here.  As for our specifics, we are
running 225x50x15 Kuhmos and usually have to add about 3-5 lbs per tire
after they cool down overnight.  Will a 5 gal. air tank hold enough air?

Thanks,
Barb
'90 M3
'88 M5
'02 Suburban

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:48:56 -0500
From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] Re: [uucdigest] V3 #6185

Mike, I'm the one who said they were different, so you are agreeing with me.
I misunderstood John's statement to mean that Brake-Assist and ABS had
opposite functions, which they do not.  The primary technical action of
Brake-Assist is the opposite of ABS, but the total effect of Brake-Assist is
very similar to ABS.

When you stomp on the brake pedal, you pressurize the brake system.  ABS
releases pressure numerous times in succession.  You are pressurizing, ABS
is releasing.  The result is pumped or pulsed brakes.  The Brake-Assist
pressurizes (similar to if you had stomped on the brake pedal) the brake
system, causing the ABS to activate.

It seemed to me that John was saying that when the Brake-Assist function
activated it was the opposite of ABS.  This is simply not true.
Brake-Assist activates the ABS, so the symptoms you feel are the ABS
functioning.  That is why I said Brake-Assist was a different device than
ABS, that functioned differently, but was not the opposite.

In fact, John was NOT saying Brake-Assist and ABS were opposite.  He was
stating that their technical action taken on the brake system was opposite.
This is true.  Brake-Assist pressurizes the brakes causing the ABS to
activate.  ABS releases pressure, allowing the brakes to pulse and work more
effectively.  We are all correct, just not understanding what each other
means.

Stan


> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:29:44 -0500
> From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist
>
> Uh, I would argue they are different
>
> ABS releases pressure and pumps the brakes
>
> Brake assit. applies maxium braking pressure to insure ABS starts to
> function
>
> Big difference there and I would say they are very different.
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist
>
> > Ummmm, yeah sure, so long as saying that something is OPPOSITE is the
same
> > as saying it is a different device ...
> > In response to the symptoms described he says, "This is not ABS doing
> this."
> > Actually, it is ABS.  ABS that was triggered by the Brake-Assist.
> > Simply, no he did not say the same thing.
> > The ARTICLE on the other hand, does say almost exactly what I said.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > mike wrote
> > > uh, didnt john say the EXACT same thing?
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > > - ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Stan Jackson Jr>
> > > > 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: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:49:16 -0500
From: "Michael McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] re: Dale's crash

I dunno about that. I don't think he'd undo his seat belt. I dunno if they
would break either. They definately would not break if they had not been
stressed before. I don't know if they have any seatbelt shelf life or max
load stuff in nascar. FIA gives you something like a 5 year shelf life and
one crash. track marshals come and cut off the tag on the belt after a
crash, forcing you to install new belts.
earnhardt had had his bell rung quite a few times before that. physically he
was kinda weak. Nascar people are not concerned with safety, or at least
were not then. That or they just don't understand. Tube framed cars built in
that manner are just dangerous. they don't absorb any energy in a crash. the
first thing that truly deforms and absorbs energy is the driver. That's why
they've killed a bunch of them in the past few years.
They are crappy cars with crappy seats, and weak seat belts with poor latch
designs. And all are mandated as such by nascar. Throw that in with drivers
that aren't too safety concious and you get a bunch of people wearing poorly
designed heavy helmets and single layer suits. Its impossible to tell them
that a lighter helmet that is properly designed could save their life. Takes
having them see the effects (breaking of necks) to convince them otherwise.
Kill a few of them off and they start changing their tune though. Sales of
the HANS device went up... Earnhardt wasn't wearing a hans. might have saved
his life.

- -Michael McCoy

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:34 AM
Subject: [uuc] re: Dale's crash


> I was talking with a very NASCAR savvy friend the other day, and we both
> agree on this point:
>
> Earnhart's crash was nowhere as hard or severe as hundreds of other
> NASCAR wrecks that the driver has walked away from.  I've looked at the
> tape of that accident dozens of times and there is NO WAY I am convinced
> that if he was properly belted in he would have been hurt.
>
> I believe that he had COMPLETELY UNDONE the harness as he'd just driven
> a long, hard 500 mile  race and the finish line was in sight.  That's
> just my opinion, and NASCAR is going after Bill Simpson in a witchunt so
> they can absolve themselve of blame in their No. 1 driver's death.
>
> Bill M.
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:00:30 -0500
From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision (formerly WA state 
to regulate racing schoo

I'm not a lawyer either, and I do find your argument compelling, but not
completely convincing.  There are private golf clubs that discriminate.
These are businesses.  Are you saying that the state could regulate away
that discrimination but simply has chosen not to do so?  Businesses face
taxes, zoning, and a few other "general" types of laws.  But I'm not sure
that the state has the right to regulate within the business' activities
under the circumstances of a racing school.

Stan

Bill Matthews wrote:

> > From: Stan Jackson Jr.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether the legislation enacted is even constitutional.  A
> > Racing School is a private event being held on private property.
> > So long as
> > the activity is not illegal, and is not public, I'm not sure there is
> > anything the state can do.  Anyone else?
> >
> At the risk of perpetuating a thread that may have already gone on too
> long....... A Racing School or Driving Event is part of a business. The
> track is a business and the school or DE is a business even if in the case
> of the DE the organization is a non-profit club (non-profits are just
> another kind of business). The State has an interest and right to regulate
> businesses in it's jurisdiction.
>
> That the State has the common sense to do it appropriately or in the real
> public interest is another question.
>
> Bill Matthews
> 00 M Geeze
> not a lawyer but I plan on staying at an HIE in the near future
>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:11:28 -0500
From: "K.C. Boyce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] RE: BMWs getting too complicated

> Oh, and the dual zone temperature settings had been
> fitting compared to pissing/no-pissing sections of a
> public pool. E46 did away with those.

Yeah, but my wife likes it.  First time she sat down in my car, she said
"Oh, cool -- I get to choose my own temperature?"

FWIW, I'm in Alex's camp on the whole HVAC/Climate Control issue.  I
really enjoy not having to fuss with it & know that the car will do my
bidding and keep me comfortable.

   KC Boyce
   '97 M3/4
   E30 Eta Page: http://www.e30eta.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:32:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision 

Stan,

I'm certainly no expert in Constitutional law (or for that matter any other kind of 
law) but I don't think your interpretation is correct - the racing school is a 
business, and the government regulates all kinds of businesses.  I think your 
definition of private is a little too broad.  If any member of the public can pay a 
fee and participate I think it's "public".  For example, amusement parks are subject 
to government regulation in the interest of public safety.  For BMWCCA OT events there 
might be a loophole if only BMWCCA members are allowed to participate.  I suppose you 
could also establish a club for a given event that participants must "join" for a 
nominal fee.  I think there's probably also a legal distinction to be made between 
CCA-type events and events run by a business for profit.

Brian

- -------Original Message-------
From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/06/03 12:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision (formerly WA state 
to regulate racing school

> 
> I'm not sure whether the legislation enacted is even constitutional.  A
Racing School is a private event being held on private property.  So long
as
the activity is not illegal, and is not public, I'm not sure there is
anything the state can do.  Anyone else?

Stan


> From: Brian Daley wrote:
>
> Yeah it's scary, especially considering that nothing I've seen so far
> suggests that any kind of regulation would have prevented the accident.
>  Until I read the web page I assumed that the accident resulted from
> some kind of negligence or failure on the part of the racing school -
> that doesn't seem to be the case.  Kinda reminds me of the people who
> wanted to force skiiers to wear helmets after Sonny Bono and
> what's-his-name Kennedy died in skiing accidents within a couple weeks
> of each other.  Of course politicians are much less interested in
> actually solving problems than in creating the appearance that they're
> taking action to solve the problem.  Of course they can never admit that
> more laws can't solve every problem in life.  Look at the recent DC
> sniper case.  The politicians were all screaming for more gun laws.  How
> about making a serious effort to enforce the hundreds (thousands?) of
> gun laws already on the books?  That doesn't make for good TV though.
>
> Brian Daley
>
> Al Buchanan wrote:
>
> >That you, Erick, for the reference to Ashley Bergman's memorial web
page.
> >It's pretty scary that one, isolated incident has the potential to
affect
an
> >entire industry statewide.
> >

> 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:32:11 -0500
From: "Bill Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] Reconstructing Ashley Bergman's fatal collision (formerly WA state 
to regulate racing schoo

From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not a lawyer either, and I do find your argument compelling, but not
> completely convincing.  There are private golf clubs that discriminate.
> These are businesses.  Are you saying that the state could regulate away
> that discrimination but simply has chosen not to do so?  Businesses face
> taxes, zoning, and a few other "general" types of laws.  But I'm not sure
> that the state has the right to regulate within the business' activities
> under the circumstances of a racing school.
>
> Stan

Under the guise of "public safety" the state has a very broad right to
regulate. For instance, as specific as the type of foam insulaton used for
sound proofing on a stage in a night  club in R.I. An unforetunate example
of failure to enforce existng regulations and an example of falsely
assumning regulation alone will protect us.

It's up to the enthusiasts (us) to help ensure that any schools, events or
DE's that we participate in or organize are done in as safe a way as
possible to keep the government out of our recreation. Don't think that
local governments can't or won't come in to regulate our sport if the
headlines are large enough, because they will.

Bill


>
> Bill Matthews wrote:
>
> > > From: Stan Jackson Jr.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure whether the legislation enacted is even constitutional.
A
> > > Racing School is a private event being held on private property.
> > > So long as
> > > the activity is not illegal, and is not public, I'm not sure there is
> > > anything the state can do.  Anyone else?
> > >
> > At the risk of perpetuating a thread that may have already gone on too
> > long....... A Racing School or Driving Event is part of a business. The
> > track is a business and the school or DE is a business even if in the
case
> > of the DE the organization is a non-profit club (non-profits are just
> > another kind of business). The State has an interest and right to
regulate
> > businesses in it's jurisdiction.
> >
> > That the State has the common sense to do it appropriately or in the
real
> > public interest is another question.

------------------------------

End of [uucdigest] V3 #6188
***************************

|
| 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
|__________________________________________

Reply via email to