Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*
Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>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?
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.
Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?
"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.
>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)
And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.
LOL. What a sad little whiner.
If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.
Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.
Thanks.
wrote:
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*
Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>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?
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.
Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?
"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.
>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)
And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.
LOL. What a sad little whiner.
If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.
Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.
Thanks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*
Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>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?
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.
Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?
"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.
>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)
And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.
LOL. What a sad little whiner.
If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.
Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.
Thanks.
wrote:
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*
Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>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?
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.
Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?
"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.
>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)
And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.
LOL. What a sad little whiner.
If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.
Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.
Thanks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Most car magazine writers ohh and ahh about the power and performance when
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Most car magazine writers ohh and ahh about the power and performance when
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Most car magazine writers ohh and ahh about the power and performance when
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.
Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's
rhys
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9467AC.5050907@computer.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>
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 wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
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 wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
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 wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.
Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>
Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>
Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:07:21 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
to
>>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
cluelessness?
>>
>>
>>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>>
>> everything
>>
>>>to do with physics.
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
>Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
fact
>that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
replying)?
">>>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? "
>> Is it not also a
>>
>>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
and
>>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>>
>>
>> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
think
>> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
least
>> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
upon
>> your posts.
>
>Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.
LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?
Even if you can cherrypick
>some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
>SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
>are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
>necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.
Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
shape"?
>>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
safety
>>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>>
>> classified
>>
>>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
car,
>>
>> as
>>
>>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
addressed
>>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>>
>>
>> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
>> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>>
>
>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.
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.
>
>>
>>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>>
>> discuss
>>
>>>driving at some point.
>>
>>
>> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>>
>> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
>> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
someone
>> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
>> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
>> very amusing though.
>>
>
>Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
>way?
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 enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
>flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
>sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
>crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
on
>public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
>However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
because
>you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
>belongs in a newsgroup about driving.
It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).
The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
>leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
people
>who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
>driving as much as possible.
At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.
Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
insulated from the task of driving?
Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
to
>>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
cluelessness?
>>
>>
>>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>>
>> everything
>>
>>>to do with physics.
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
>Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
fact
>that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
replying)?
">>>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? "
>> Is it not also a
>>
>>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
and
>>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>>
>>
>> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
think
>> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
least
>> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
upon
>> your posts.
>
>Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.
LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?
Even if you can cherrypick
>some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
>SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
>are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
>necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.
Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
shape"?
>>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
safety
>>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>>
>> classified
>>
>>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
car,
>>
>> as
>>
>>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
addressed
>>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>>
>>
>> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
>> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>>
>
>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.
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.
>
>>
>>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>>
>> discuss
>>
>>>driving at some point.
>>
>>
>> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>>
>> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
>> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
someone
>> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
>> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
>> very amusing though.
>>
>
>Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
>way?
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 enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
>flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
>sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
>crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
on
>public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
>However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
because
>you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
>belongs in a newsgroup about driving.
It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).
The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
>leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
people
>who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
>driving as much as possible.
At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.
Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
insulated from the task of driving?
Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:07:21 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
to
>>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
cluelessness?
>>
>>
>>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>>
>> everything
>>
>>>to do with physics.
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
>Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
fact
>that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
replying)?
">>>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? "
>> Is it not also a
>>
>>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
and
>>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>>
>>
>> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
think
>> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
least
>> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
upon
>> your posts.
>
>Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.
LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?
Even if you can cherrypick
>some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
>SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
>are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
>necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.
Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
shape"?
>>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
safety
>>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>>
>> classified
>>
>>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
car,
>>
>> as
>>
>>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
addressed
>>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>>
>>
>> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
>> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>>
>
>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.
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.
>
>>
>>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>>
>> discuss
>>
>>>driving at some point.
>>
>>
>> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>>
>> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
>> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
someone
>> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
>> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
>> very amusing though.
>>
>
>Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
>way?
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 enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
>flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
>sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
>crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
on
>public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
>However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
because
>you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
>belongs in a newsgroup about driving.
It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).
The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
>leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
people
>who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
>driving as much as possible.
At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.
Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
insulated from the task of driving?
Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
to
>>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
cluelessness?
>>
>>
>>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>>
>> everything
>>
>>>to do with physics.
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
>Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
fact
>that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
replying)?
">>>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? "
>> Is it not also a
>>
>>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
and
>>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>>
>>
>> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
think
>> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
least
>> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
upon
>> your posts.
>
>Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.
LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?
Even if you can cherrypick
>some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
>SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
>are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
>necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.
Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
shape"?
>>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
safety
>>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>>
>> classified
>>
>>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
car,
>>
>> as
>>
>>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
addressed
>>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>>
>>
>> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
>> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>>
>
>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.
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.
>
>>
>>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>>
>> discuss
>>
>>>driving at some point.
>>
>>
>> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>>
>> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
>> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
someone
>> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
>> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
>> very amusing though.
>>
>
>Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
>way?
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 enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
>flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
>sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
>crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
on
>public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
>However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
because
>you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
>belongs in a newsgroup about driving.
It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).
The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
>leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
people
>who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
>driving as much as possible.
At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.
Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
insulated from the task of driving?
Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!