> No I am 100% correct. FMVSS requires stability control. So, we have the DOT, Department of Transportation, the NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis

> No I am 100% correct. FMVSS requires stability control. So, we have the DOT, Department of Transportation, the NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the FMVSS, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Then at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/fmvss https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/fmvss is the 49 CFR Part 571 Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles As I read this, it is only for "heavy vehicles", "This proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 136 to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on truck tractors and certain buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds). ESC systems in truck tractors and large buses are designed to reduce untripped rollovers and mitigate severe understeer or oversteer conditions that lead to loss of control by using automatic computer-controlled braking and reducing engine torque output." It is not clear that that regulation ever got implemented. And it is less clear that it got implemented for passenger cars. Okay, I did a Google search and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control with "When ESC detects loss of steering control, it automatically applies the brakes to help steer the vehicle where the driver intends to go." Also "ESC has been mandatory in new cars in Canada, the US, and the European Union since 2011, 2012, and 2014, respectively." So, yup, I'm driving and the ESC gets confused and applies brakes at some of my wheels and reduces my engine power. No thanks. Sounds like the DOT, NHTSA, and the FMVSS went all obsessive and compulsive. And maybe they made the stockholders of Bendix really happy. I'd like to see some statistics, (1) when the ESC, electronic stability control, helped and when (2) when it failed and caused an accident. I quit reading at the claim of 1000 chips in a passenger car. For your > Besides safety rules, new vehicles are also legally required to meet stringent emissions and fuel economy requirements. As a practical matter that also requires computers. I agreed that computer based engine controls are good. They are terrific. To see some of why, just get a little understanding of what we put up with before, with carburetors, chokes, ignition points, centrifugal advance springs and weights, etc. E.g., for a carburetor, it sits on top of the intake manifold. It has several ounces of gasoline in its float bowl. Turn off a hot engine, and heat from the hot cylinders conducts to the float bowl and boils and evaporates the gasoline then heats the carburetor and warps its shape changing its fuel/air mixtures. The worst is the choke: For a cold engine, just block the flow of air into the carburetor and suck in lots of raw gas. In cold weather with a cold engine, only a little of the gas evaporates and creates a combustible mixture, and the rest is wasted, washes down the cylinder walls and into the oil pan, dilutes the oil, and shortens engine life. And the ignition system: Maybe occasionally it delivers a good spark at the right time! These are some of the worst problems, but there are more. Computer controlled fuel and ignition deliver a good mixture, hot or cold engine, hot or cold weather, sea level or high altitude, and a good spark on time. Engines get to last about twice as long, 200,000+ miles. But computer controlled engines don't require anything like the "1000 chips". Add in ESC and still are far short of 1000 chips. So, your > No I am 100% correct. is an exaggeration! 1000 chips? For a car? GADS! The chips are "40%" of the cost of a car? Double gads! How to save nearly 40% of cost of a car? Sure, get rid of nearly all the "1000" chips. For ESC, good to see that if there is any question, should be able to disable the thing just by cutting some signal wires. Same for anti-lock brakes. I've driven about 1 million miles to the present without an accident and without any of that fancy stuff for the brakes. Okay, I'll go along with the dual master cylinder requirement. For the rest, no thanks. Congress and the DOT, NHTSA, and FMVSS -- politicians get into mechanical engineering. Not good. Looks like my 2001 Yukon is a jewel of special value!!!! For a car of 2011 or later, looks like I will need a list of the wires to cut to disable nearly all the electronics. I don't want some computer applying my brakes or keeping me from applying my brakes. 1000 chips in a car -- still sounds like way too many. The chips 40% of the cost of a car? Yup, sounds like a great, fast, easy way to lower the cost of a car by about 35%! Cars are a very competitive, price sensitive market -- 35% off the price is a great way to get a lot more market share!! Yup, even in my 2001 Yukon, when I pull into my garage, the headlights come on automatically!!! Sick-o. Demented. Deranged. Delusional. And if it fails, it could leave the headlights on too long and run the battery down. Fortunately, I have plenty of means to recharge the battery. Dead batteries? I remember. That's how I got to college. When my battery went dead, I pushed the car down out of my driveway -- got it rolling and then jumped in. Once out of the driveway I rolled and steered it so that it was headed downhill on the street. Then pushed the car, got it rolling, and then reached in and swatted the gear shift lever to put the transmission in third gear (test question, why not first gear?), kept pushing, and as the engine began to start jumped in, pulled the door shut, put the transmission back in neutral, let the engine get going fully, and then drove to college. And I need computers in my car? Laugh of the millennium! Politicians, keep your dirty, crooked, paid off, incompetent, fumbling hands OFF my cars.