"marshknute" (marshknute)
03/09/2016 at 12:16 • Filed to: None
3
19|
"marshknute" (marshknute)
03/09/2016 at 12:16 • Filed to: None | 3
| 19 |
Because that “60% rule” make zero sense to me. 60% of what? What rectangles? What is a reference axis? Why dos it have to do with LED’s? Huh?!?!? It’s completely indecipherable to anyone who isn’t a lawyer.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Party-vi
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:19 |
|
One is a VW and one just uses VW parts and engineering.
Rico
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:22 |
|
Who do we have to petition to get these bullshit, archaic, technology stifling NHSTA/Fed regulations changed? I think that is more important than any 25 year import ban.
Nibbles
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:23 |
|
Because fuck you, that’s why
Nah, I’m joshin’ ya. It’s because...
...yeah, I don’t get it either
BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest.
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:24 |
|
60% of the whole brake light.
bob and john
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:28 |
|
give me a minute to draw it out
BvdV - The Dutch Engineer
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:29 |
|
well if I remember correctly, and read the article well, it has to do with the width of the car and the light surface being small. These rectangles are drawn on the reference plane, which is the back view of the car. However, judging from only the small part of text is hard since UNECE documents are very complex, the first parts are explanatory which is really needed. So i’m not really sure if the correct conclusion was drawn from this in the article.
Justin Hughes
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:32 |
|
|
bob and john
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:36 |
|
okay, with with the bugatti, you lok at the X and Y the light covers 100 of the X and Y
if the VW wanted a single head light, the light area MUST be 60% of the X times Y area. which the horse shoe design does not
by breaking it up, each section is considered separately. So now each light covers 60% of the area
Milky
> bob and john
03/09/2016 at 12:38 |
|
Ohh! Also thats stupid as hell.
Jayhawk Jake
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:42 |
|
Look at the car directly from the ass. Draw a rectangle that surrounds what lights up. Is that at least 60% of the box that surrounds the whole light? Then you’re good. At least that’s how I interpret it, which means it still makes no fucking sense why the Chiron can do it but the XL1 can’t.
I also don’t see why any of this shit matters. It has normal lights on the edges of the bar. Surely THOSE are the tail lights, not the bar?
|
Jayhawk Jake
> bob and john
03/09/2016 at 12:44 |
|
This is what I thought. I don’t understand why the hell the box in 2 would be considered the apparent surface though.
450X_FTW
> marshknute
03/09/2016 at 12:49 |
|
60% of the time, the brake lights have to be on, all the time
|
450X_FTW
> bob and john
03/09/2016 at 12:55 |
|
So based on your post its, because VW made there’s with the vertical pieces, they increase the overall rectangle area,therefore increasing the amount of lights need to meet the 60% coverage?
|
bob and john
> 450X_FTW
03/09/2016 at 13:00 |
|
yep. each single light piece need to cover 60% of the area made by the x times Y of it.
by breaking it up, each light needs to cover a much much smaller area
Sam
> Rico
03/09/2016 at 13:03 |
|
Yeah, and unlike the import ban, there’s actually a chance for it to be changed within 10 years.
|
450X_FTW
> bob and john
03/09/2016 at 13:14 |
|
Well that law is stupid. and confusing.
Funktheduck
> bob and john
03/09/2016 at 13:43 |
|
Thank you. I'm good with math but not legalese so that FP post didn't help at all. Now I get it.
|
bob and john
> 450X_FTW
03/09/2016 at 15:03 |
|
very. like most laws
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> 450X_FTW
03/09/2016 at 16:09 |
|
