Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1671
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................
#1672
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................
#1673
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95ecc7@news.iconz.co.nz>, rnf2 wrote:
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
#1674
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95ecc7@news.iconz.co.nz>, rnf2 wrote:
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
#1675
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95ecc7@news.iconz.co.nz>, rnf2 wrote:
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.
#1676
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<8cabpv0ojpogehgvc6jed08noie0rkvp97@4ax.com>. ..
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
#1677
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<8cabpv0ojpogehgvc6jed08noie0rkvp97@4ax.com>. ..
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
#1678
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<8cabpv0ojpogehgvc6jed08noie0rkvp97@4ax.com>. ..
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >> track
> >> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.
>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.
Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.
>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.
Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.
>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.
>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)
No comment needed...
>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!
See above.
>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>
I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>
"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>
You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.
> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?
Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.
>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?
I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>
> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin
Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...
With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.
In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.
In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.
And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my *** no
matter how much suspension I have...
nate
#1679
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Lloyd,
>>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>>
>>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> fathers.
>>
>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>republican.....
>
> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now that
> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has done.
Can't address more than one thing per post now?
Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Lloyd,
>>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>>
>>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> fathers.
>>
>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>republican.....
>
> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now that
> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has done.
Can't address more than one thing per post now?
Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
#1680
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Lloyd,
>>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>>
>>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> fathers.
>>
>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>republican.....
>
> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now that
> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has done.
Can't address more than one thing per post now?
Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Lloyd,
>>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>>
>>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> fathers.
>>
>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>republican.....
>
> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now that
> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has done.
Can't address more than one thing per post now?
Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.