Mazda 3 Forums UK

General Category => Mazda News => Topic started by: sk4tec on January 03, 2011, 01:18:45 AM

Title: 3 Facelift??
Post by: sk4tec on January 03, 2011, 01:18:45 AM
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/254495/ (http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/254495/)
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 03, 2011, 03:57:52 PM
Hmm..... this should be interesting.

Maybe sami can confirm?
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: daunorubicin on January 03, 2011, 09:44:46 PM
Might be the new engines, the Sky G and Sky D
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/69B30BC850BFECFDCA2577030000E6B2 (http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/69B30BC850BFECFDCA2577030000E6B2)

Or possibly a new front grill...
http://forums.subdriven.com/showthread.php?4538762 (http://forums.subdriven.com/showthread.php?4538762)  ;D
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Willpower on January 03, 2011, 10:13:55 PM
Actually I prefer this one  (with a subtle colour change of course)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Mindis on January 03, 2011, 10:21:12 PM
If we are going this way  ;D

 (http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy326/mindismoni/p1.jpg)
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 04, 2011, 01:57:16 AM
If they put the sky engines in the facelift version, it will instantly knock a huge chunk of value off any of the original 2nd gen cars
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: daunorubicin on January 04, 2011, 12:49:54 PM
Another thought occurs... If the AA are to be believed then Day Time Running Lights (DRLs) will be mandatory on all new cars from February 2011.
If the Mazda 3 MK2 doesn't currently have DRLs then a facelift might be required to fit them so they can be sold. This may or may not coincide with the new engines.

No requirement to fit DRLs on existing cars and no requirement for cars without DRLs to run with dipped headlights on at all times.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html)
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 05, 2011, 05:31:18 AM
Yeah, I think the regs state that any car which is built from feb 2011 onwards must have drls.

Doesn't matter if the car was designed before then. I've been trying to find what the mazda DRL's look like, but can't find anything... makes me wonder.

I like the BMW ones, but the audi stuff is chav.

DRL's wil increase fuel consumption though, especially if they are bulbs as opposed to LED's...   petrol already costs enough.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 05, 2011, 03:15:37 PM
The DRL regs state they must be low-energy ones, so they can't simply wire up the dipped headlight bulbs to be always on.  In addition they should go off when the headlights are on.

See here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1394&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en).
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 05, 2011, 11:50:37 PM
The DRL regs state they must be low-energy ones, so they can't simply wire up the dipped headlight bulbs to be always on.  In addition they should go off when the headlights are on.

See here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1394&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en).

Yeah, I've read an article which cited a study that said it's between a 0.5 and 1.5 percent effect on economy.

At worst, it'll cost the average motorist £20-£30 a year....

Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 06, 2011, 08:46:46 AM
IMHO they'll use less power than your radio.  Surely no-one avoids using that to increase economy.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 06, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
IMHO they'll use less power than your radio.  Surely no-one avoids using that to increase economy.

Yes, but they'll use it in addition to the radio....

I'm not saying that I'd not use them (I wouldn't have a choice). If they look nice, I'll probably pay to install them.

However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 06, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 06, 2011, 04:13:11 PM
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D

If by Daily Mail, you mean logical, then yes.

I don't think it's a case of it outweighing the cost, but how easy is it to say for sure that DRL's prevented an accident, ergo, had they not been on an accident would have occurred.

Surely saying that DRL's decrease accidents is a kin to saying speed cameras stop people speeding or that speed humps reduce accidents.... the speeds humps probably do, but the cameras...?

The basic logic is that DRL's make vehicles more visible in countries that are well inside the northern hemisphere - most of Scandanavia and Canada would be good examples; these countries have a low level of natural light during the day.

DRL's in the UK aren't really needed most of the time, sure we have days when natural light is low, but on a whole...


Yes, no doubt the fuel usage on an individual basis is quite small when compared to radios and climate control, but to quote a clever chap I know, 'that be some daily mail thinking'

You have a choice as to whether you have climate control or the radio on, but you have no choice over the DRL's.

Erm, as for reputable sources, well if you mean whitepapers...

There are several that relate to DRL's causing various types of visual distress  here  (http://www.dadrl.org.uk/DRLstudies.html)

Here is a quote I pulled of the same site....

“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity of other road users without DRL will suffer.  The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23 per cent of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32 per cent of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’.  Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.

“Although the counter argument would be that DRL may make it easier for cyclists to spot cars, enabling them to plan an ‘escape route’ to prevent an accident if the car were to pull out, it does not address the issue of drivers making poor or incomplete observations and failing to spot a cyclist."
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) “Care on the Road” newsletter February 2007


The site is obviously against DRL's, so take it with a pinch of salt... but there you go.


Yup the wooden block sounds good to me....

Just to clarify,I don't think that DRL's will decrease accidents in the UK, but those beemer ones look chuffing pimp.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 06, 2011, 05:04:07 PM
I think it will.  Odd argument to state that because some folks won't have DRL, they'll be proportionately more likely to have an accident.

As you say, hard to tell really as so many other things are also being introduced to try to drive down the accident rate.

I think that bikes (motor and cycle) will also be forced to use some from of DRL in the future as well.  We all know just how easy it is to not "see" a cyclist.  If I was still cycling I've no doubt I'd be running pair of the brightest flashing DRL's you can get.

As an aside, maybe the anti-DRL brigade should consider aircraft.  I've no idea how long they've had to have nav and anti-coll lights, but I 100% know for sure they have saved lives.  When I was serving in the RAF in the eighties there were a number of mid-air collisions that the accident board felt could have been avoided with better anti-coll lights on the Tornados.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Mindis on January 06, 2011, 10:48:32 PM
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D

+1   sometimes is very hard to see grey cars through mirror then it's raining
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: daunorubicin on January 07, 2011, 02:56:46 PM
I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 07, 2011, 07:18:13 PM
I think it will.  Odd argument to state that because some folks won't have DRL, they'll be proportionately more likely to have an accident.

As you say, hard to tell really as so many other things are also being introduced to try to drive down the accident rate.

I think that bikes (motor and cycle) will also be forced to use some from of DRL in the future as well.  We all know just how easy it is to not "see" a cyclist.  If I was still cycling I've no doubt I'd be running pair of the brightest flashing DRL's you can get.

As an aside, maybe the anti-DRL brigade should consider aircraft.  I've no idea how long they've had to have nav and anti-coll lights, but I 100% know for sure they have saved lives.  When I was serving in the RAF in the eighties there were a number of mid-air collisions that the accident board felt could have been avoided with better anti-coll lights on the Tornados.

(http://www.xdcycle.com/discount-motorcycle-accessories/images/T/kawasaki-zx6r-led-drl-halo-eyes-2003-2006.jpg)

Speaking about cycling... I'm thinking about getting a new bike and cycling instead of driving - having this car has made my belly grow.

That is my major issue though... it's already hard enough to see motorbikes and bicycles, if (in ten years) the majority of cars have DRL's, it will be much harder to see motorbikes and cyclists.

I think there should be a minimum standard for cycle lights, as many of them are not bright enough. If they aren't as bright or brighter than the cars in front of you, it's likely they'll blend in....

Perhaps a different colour rear light for cyclists would be good... green would be good.

Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me ifI'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?


I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 07, 2011, 07:18:48 PM
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D

+1   sometimes is very hard to see grey cars through mirror then it's raining

I agree, but in fairness, you should have your sidelights on in the rain anyway
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 07, 2011, 07:24:29 PM
I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!

It's a very good idea, but in my opinion the logic is flawed.

If a car is close enough to hit a pedestrian should they attempt to cross the road, then surely  the pedestrian would be able to tell whether the car is moving without the assistance of DRL's?

If the issue is judging whether a car is moving from a distance, thens sure, it is useful... but then, the car isn't a danger anyway.

I've never struggled to tell whether a car is moving or not.... my vision is crap too!!

Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 07, 2011, 07:42:38 PM
Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me if I'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?

Pretty much the strobing anti-colls IMHO.  I remember seeing a diagram showing the size of another Tornado when coming at you head-on at 600 knots.  At 2 seconds to go it was a fly-spec on the windscreen.  At 1 second it was an orange.


I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....

Well those that currently don't have DRL but will do so in the future will be moved from the "high" risk category to a lower risk category.  It doesn't follow to me that those without DRL then face a riskier life.  If somehow it does then natural selection will ensure a swift elimination  ;)
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 07, 2011, 10:11:23 PM

Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me if I'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?

Pretty much the strobing anti-colls IMHO.  I remember seeing a diagram showing the size of another Tornado when coming at you head-on at 600 knots.  At 2 seconds to go it was a fly-spec on the windscreen.  At 1 second it was an orange.

I'm quite interested in Aircraft and stuff, so that's pretty interesting. I was in the cadets for ages, did wanna join the RAF as a pilot, but had Asthma as a kid, so could only join as everything but a pilot.

Two of my Uncles were in the RAF in the 80's, Dave Stephens and David Daglish - one was RAf Police the other was a Painter (Aircraft).


I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....



Well those that currently don't have DRL but will do so in the future will be moved from the "high" risk category to a lower risk category.  It doesn't follow to me that those without DRL then face a riskier life.  If somehow it does then natural selection will ensure a swift elimination  ;)
O0Natural selection indeed...

I think cyclists and motorbike riders will be at a higher risk as they'll not be relatively inconspicuous in comparison to cars and more so to cars with DRL's....

If fuel prices continue to rise the problems may even out as the roads will be less congested... or it'll be even worse as we'll all be driving our Nissan Leafs into trees whilst trying to avoid the cyclist who didn't hear us coming as our car runs on fairy dust.


Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: daunorubicin on January 08, 2011, 11:13:47 AM
I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!
It's a very good idea, but in my opinion the logic is flawed.

If a car is close enough to hit a pedestrian should they attempt to cross the road, then surely  the pedestrian would be able to tell whether the car is moving without the assistance of DRL's?

If the issue is judging whether a car is moving from a distance, thens sure, it is useful... but then, the car isn't a danger anyway.

I've never struggled to tell whether a car is moving or not.... my vision is crap too!!

Try reading http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm)
My logic may be flawed (plus my eye sight ;D ) but I don't understand the hostility to DRLs?
There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 08, 2011, 01:50:34 PM
Quote from: daunorubicin

Try reading http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm)
My logic may be flawed (plus my eye sight ;D ) but I don't understand the hostility to DRLs?

I quite like them as far as style goes... especially the BMW ones, but I don't think they'll make the UK's roads much safer. Countries like Canada and the Scandanavian ones who are really far North and consequently have very poor levels of natural light have apparently benefited from them, but the UK has a relatively normal level of natural light.

As for the eyes - I feel your paint matey... The sun is my driving enemy. Had some contacts for months, but haven't tried them yet... I'll stick to my austin powers specs. O0

There's no argument that  lights make a vehicle more visible in situation where it is a) really sunny or b) really dark.


Quote from: daunorubicin

There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

If you add up the extra fuel burnt by all the cars in the country with DRL's,the carbon emission would be far from negligible IMO. There are leafs a'fallin' of them trees as we speak :P

As for the carbon emissions needed to make a new car, well obviously not everybody who doesn't have DRL's will crash. Not everybody who has a crash will get a new car in replacement...

Given that all new cars from now on need DRL's, if someone crashes  in a non DRL's car, they will likely get a used replacement or a new car with DRL's and we'll all be safer :P

Quote from: daunorubicin
Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.

The studies show that they fail to judge distance. I though the DRL's were meant to help them judge motion, not distance....
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 08, 2011, 04:51:59 PM
I quite like them as far as style goes... especially the BMW ones, but I don't think they'll make the UK's roads much safer. Countries like Canada and the Scandanavian ones who are really far North and consequently have very poor levels of natural light have apparently benefited from them, but the UK has a relatively normal level of natural light.

Do you know that where I live (Aberdeenshire) is further north than most of the inhabited parts of Canada, 800 miles further north than Toronto and only 120 miles south of Oslo and Stockholm?  Grab a globe and have a look, the UK is quite far north as far as inhabited places go.

Quote from: daunorubicin
There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

If you add up the extra fuel burnt by all the cars in the country with DRL's,the carbon emission would be far from negligible IMO. There are leafs a'fallin' of them trees as we speak :P

As for the carbon emissions needed to make a new car, well obviously not everybody who doesn't have DRL's will crash. Not everybody who has a crash will get a new car in replacement...

I have no way to relate it to extra fuel consumption, but DRL's will run at about 5W max load.  This is less than a radio and is very small related to the normal running load of a car.  Any extra fuel used will be infinitesimally small. Given that they will be fitted to newer vehicles which are more efficient than the vehicles they replace the net result will be that DRL's won't increase fuel usage across the nations vehicles.

Quote from: daunorubicin
Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.

The studies show that they fail to judge distance. I though the DRL's were meant to help them judge motion, not distance....

AFAIK the human eye has evolved to be sensitive to movement (to spot potential predators on the plains of Africa).  If the other vehicle is heading straight towards (or away) then judging the rate of closure is an acquired skill rather than a natural ability.  A similar issue occurs when vehicles are approaching at right angles to each other, if both a moving at a similar speed then there is very little relative movement between them and the eye doesn't tend to pick the other vehicle up.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: The Bun-yip on January 09, 2011, 11:10:07 AM
Whilst I would not not expect unbiased information from a commercial organisation Osram has some interesting things to say about DRLs here.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/index.html)

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Why_should_I_use_light_at_day/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Why_should_I_use_light_at_day/index.html)

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Legal_requirements/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Legal_requirements/index.html)

I will be happy to fit some suitable LED DRLs to my 1st Gen in due course.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: shearer27 on January 09, 2011, 07:41:13 PM
Why bother with DRL's as everyone seems to drive with fogs on nowadays whatever the weather!
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: daunorubicin on January 09, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
Why bother with DRL's as everyone seems to drive with fogs on nowadays whatever the weather!
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Willpower on January 10, 2011, 01:00:54 AM
I was travelling to a 24hr Supermarket recently. When I pulled into the car park and parked up, I was approached by a Police officer who informed me that I should not be driving with the foglights on unless there was fog and that when I started off again I was to ensure that they were switched off. Knowing that they usually park and wait on a nearby roundabout I obviously obliged.  
So just to put this into perspective, it is illegal to drive with foglights on unless the weather warrants it. Now this is purely arbitrary and down to the discretion of the driver. However it's also down to the discretion of the Police officer who stops you. So be warned.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Metric on January 14, 2011, 12:59:17 PM
Getting back on topic - if there is to be a facelift as "Autocar" have flagged up for June this year, what would you like to see changed, improved or added?

My suggestions, a six speed gearbox for all models and get rid of that stupid front grille.

And, as a bonus, bring back the sedan please!


Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 15, 2011, 05:10:56 AM
I was travelling to a 24hr Supermarket recently. When I pulled into the car park and parked up, I was approached by a Police officer who informed me that I should not be driving with the foglights on unless there was fog and that when I started off again I was to ensure that they were switched off. Knowing that they usually park and wait on a nearby roundabout I obviously obliged.  
So just to put this into perspective, it is illegal to drive with foglights on unless the weather warrants it. Now this is purely arbitrary and down to the discretion of the driver. However it's also down to the discretion of the Police officer who stops you. So be warned.

I got pulled over this a few months ago... the copper let me off though.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 15, 2011, 05:14:52 AM
Whilst I would not not expect unbiased information from a commercial organisation Osram has some interesting things to say about DRLs here.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/index.html)

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Why_should_I_use_light_at_day/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Why_should_I_use_light_at_day/index.html)

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Legal_requirements/index.html (http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Legal_requirements/index.html)

I will be happy to fit some suitable LED DRLs to my 1st Gen in due course.

I like the first linke, but my only concern is that not all the DRL's I've seen are that bright and as such are harder to see....

those ones are good though...... led's look better.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 15, 2011, 05:34:53 AM


Do you know that where I live (Aberdeenshire) is further north than most of the inhabited parts of Canada, 800 miles further north than Toronto and only 120 miles south of Oslo and Stockholm?  Grab a globe and have a look, the UK is quite far north as far as inhabited places go.

So they'd be good for the parts of the Uk that are furthest north, but less effective in the majority of the UK? Less effective is unfair, perhaps less prominent?

Quote from: 185sport


I have no way to relate it to extra fuel consumption, but DRL's will run at about 5W max load.  This is less than a radio and is very small related to the normal running load of a car.  Any extra fuel used will be infinitesimally small. Given that they will be fitted to newer vehicles which are more efficient than the vehicles they replace the net result will be that DRL's won't increase fuel usage across the nations vehicles.

It will be a small amount of fuel on an individual basis... however, my point is that the country (or europe) as a whole will burn significantly more fuel due to all the DRL's on cars.

No doubt compared to todays economy figures there will be no loss.... however it will still have a negative effect on the economy of newer cars; I'm not sure it's fair to use todays cars as a benchmark for measuring tomorrows cars....



I'm not saying that DRL's will impact drivers on an individual basis, merely that we (as a country or even the EU) will burn significantly more fuel on an annual basis than we would if we didn't use them.


Quote from: 185sport
AFAIK the human eye has evolved to be sensitive to movement (to spot potential predators on the plains of Africa).  If the other vehicle is heading straight towards (or away) then judging the rate of closure is an acquired skill rather than a natural ability.  A similar issue occurs when vehicles are approaching at right angles to each other, if both a moving at a similar speed then there is very little relative movement between them and the eye doesn't tend to pick the other vehicle up.

How will some DRL's help someone judge that rate of closure though? 
What you are saying with regards to closure is more relevant at higher speeds... two eurofighter travelling at 500 knots towards each other....

It's not quite the same as ned in his corsa (30mph) driving towards billy (03mph) the schoolboy... a bit easier to judge
DRL's are (apparently) there to make a car more obvious, not to help people judge it's speed.

I'm not saying that DRL's don't make cars more visible; lights on is better than lights off. I just don't buy the idea that someone can't see a car without them on and make a judgement as to whether they'll get run over if they step out.

I will concede that if you don't look properly before crossing the road, DRL's could help you see a car easier peripherally...
However, a better was to solve this would be to change pedestrian' attitudes and behavior  towards crossing the road - not an enviable task.

One thing that always annoys me is people who just walk out at zebra crossings, especially at night..... do you want to be ran over?

Right I'm off to have my hunter skill flex at the local zoo...
apologies for the late reply BTW :)
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 15, 2011, 10:15:57 AM
It will be a small amount of fuel on an individual basis... however, my point is that the country (or europe) as a whole will burn significantly more fuel due to all the DRL's on cars.

This is the bit that I have an issue with, any extra fuel used will be insignificant when set against the total amount of fuel used, and as economy on newer cars with DRL will (generally) be better than the car they replace then it really won't matter.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 20, 2011, 07:32:26 AM

It will be a small amount of fuel on an individual basis... however, my point is that the country (or europe) as a whole will burn significantly more fuel due to all the DRL's on cars.
This is the bit that I have an issue with, any extra fuel used will be insignificant when set against the total amount of fuel used

In relation to the total amount of fuel used by the country it will be, but as a stand alone qunatity of fuel it will be a huge amount. Everything is relatively small to something, but we aren;t talking about relativity.

Quote from: 185sport
and as economy on newer cars with DRL will (generally) be better than the car they replace then it really won't matter.

Yeah, I know this. However, just because it will still be better than the car it replaces, doesn't mean that the extra fuel burnt wont matter.

Oil is a finite resource, so we should do everything we can to preserve it. Sure cars can run on electricity and horse piss, but could we fuel a eurofighter or jumbo jet on it?

Aircraft are more becoming more economical, but there's still lots to be done.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 20, 2011, 10:04:33 AM
I'm just picking on the argument against use of DRL because of the "extra" fuel used.  Yes, if it's all added up it may be a few tanker loads per year, but the same amount could be saved by turning off all car radios, and no-one is suggesting that's worthwhile.
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 20, 2011, 10:47:23 AM
I'm just picking on the argument against use of DRL because of the "extra" fuel used.  Yes, if it's all added up it may be a few tanker loads per year, but the same amount could be saved by turning off all car radios, and no-one is suggesting that's worthwhile.

Yeah, but drivers have a choice as to whether they want to use the radio; they don't with the lights.

If we were to go down that route, why don't we take out heated seats and only have the aircon for demisting?
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: 185sport on January 20, 2011, 11:42:26 AM
We'll just have to disagree whether the minute amount of extra fuel used is a reason for not installing DRL's. ;D
Title: Re: 3 Facelift??
Post by: Anth on January 20, 2011, 05:08:44 PM
We'll just have to disagree whether the minute amount of extra fuel used is a reason for not installing DRL's. ;D
aha indeed ...

I don't think it's a fair reason for not having them, as I'll want them if they look cool  O0