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 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
Lloyd,
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd,
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd,
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I've an SUV, and it spends a lot of time offroad.
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I've an SUV, and it spends a lot of time offroad.
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I've an SUV, and it spends a lot of time offroad.
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.
rhys
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:g629pvgthj7eu26s5pv23hbfcksa4b110u@4ax.com...
> 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!
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
