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 Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
Than what? Your MB?
>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
cheaper to buy than using our own.
Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
Where?
>hurts our balance of payments,
Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
countries if it means our children are safe.
>and increases global warming.
That's truly laughable.
What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
many mammoths?
Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
fault completely ignore the past?
>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>around with American flags on their SUVs.
It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
wrote:
>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
Than what? Your MB?
>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
cheaper to buy than using our own.
Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
Where?
>hurts our balance of payments,
Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
countries if it means our children are safe.
>and increases global warming.
That's truly laughable.
What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
many mammoths?
Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
fault completely ignore the past?
>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>around with American flags on their SUVs.
It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:38:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:38:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:38:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
wrote:
>In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>>> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>> >>
>>> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>>> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>> each
>>> >> year
>>> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>>> >> one
>>> >> thing are balanced by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>>> problem--probably
>>> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>simply
>>> do
>>> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>Charger,
>>> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>drivers
>>> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>new
>>> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>> >
>>> >--Aardwolf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>>
>>1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make
>up?
>>
>>2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the
>magnitude of
>>the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not
>false.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
>claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
As usual, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>
> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
> 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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> 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
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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>
> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
> 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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> 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
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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>
> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
> 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?
<snip>
> >
> >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)?
>
See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.
<snip again>
> 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"?
There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?
>
> >>>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.
"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.
>
> 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).
>
I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
<quote>
From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
</quote>
You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
>
> 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?
If the foo *****...
nate
>
> 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 21 Oct 2003 08:29:29 -0700, njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 21 Oct 2003 08:29:29 -0700, njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 21 Oct 2003 08:29:29 -0700, njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I
was
>> replying)?
>>
>
>See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
>crystal clear.
Nate, you asked two seperate questions.
Here's your first question:
"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
Here's my reply:
"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?
See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"
I hope that helps you.
><snip again>
>
>> 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"?
>
>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
are
>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>a lower CG than a passenger car?
The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.
Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.
>> >>>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.
>
>"hilarious" how?
Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>vehicle with a $15K one?
Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?
>> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>> into the same group does it Nate?
>>
>> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>>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'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>intervals, is all.
What misinformation would that be Nate?
I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> 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).
>>
>
>I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
>same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.
Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.
How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?
The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.
><quote>
>
>From: P e t e F a g e r l i n (pete@petefagerlin.com)
>Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
>drivers
>
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
>rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
>Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST
>
>
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>Georgoudis) wrote:
>
>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>car.
>
>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>bought a very safe SUV.
>
>Go figure.
>
></quote>
>
>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
but
>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
>could afford?
Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.
No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
a
>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Yes...and your point is?
>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
don't
>argue about safety is because they know this.
Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.
LOL.
My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.
Go figure.
Good ground clearance,
>soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
>detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
>operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
>factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
>suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
>well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...
Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.
My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.
It handles much better.
Go figure.
>> 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?
>
>If the foo *****...
Nice attempt at a dodge.
Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?
Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?
That's certainly plausible given your other posts.
>> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>>
>> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
This is the best part I think.
Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.
