Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>
>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>
>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>
>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> global warming is a Joke ! A total enviro-wacko BS theory.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>
>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>
>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>
>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> global warming is a Joke ! A total enviro-wacko BS theory.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
> news:xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04...
>
>>Aardwolf 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.
>>>
>>
>> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>>its time for emissions inspection.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet and
> I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
>
>
>
I have never tried that.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
> news:xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04...
>
>>Aardwolf 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.
>>>
>>
>> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>>its time for emissions inspection.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet and
> I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
>
>
>
I have never tried that.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
> news:xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04...
>
>>Aardwolf 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.
>>>
>>
>> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>>its time for emissions inspection.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet and
> I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
>
>
>
I have never tried that.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:ntbapvo1o3pcck7fqf8o365sudq36e0soo@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>>>SUVs.
>>>
>>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>On an individual basis, maybe.
>>It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
>>smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
>>I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
>>near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
>>exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
>>These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
>>avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
>>In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
>>that.
>
>
> Move to Atlanta, you'll see lots of both doing that.
>
>
Amen, Atlanta is full of these hoodlums.

I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
> exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
> These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
> avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:ntbapvo1o3pcck7fqf8o365sudq36e0soo@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>>>SUVs.
>>>
>>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>On an individual basis, maybe.
>>It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
>>smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
>>I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
>>near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
>>exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
>>These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
>>avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
>>In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
>>that.
>
>
> Move to Atlanta, you'll see lots of both doing that.
>
>
Amen, Atlanta is full of these hoodlums.

I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
> exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
> These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
> avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.

 

FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:ntbapvo1o3pcck7fqf8o365sudq36e0soo@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>>>SUVs.
>>>
>>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>On an individual basis, maybe.
>>It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
>>smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
>>I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
>>near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
>>exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
>>These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
>>avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
>>In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
>>that.
>
>
> Move to Atlanta, you'll see lots of both doing that.
>
>
Amen, Atlanta is full of these hoodlums.

I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
> exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
> These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
> avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.

 

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> 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.

I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.

>
>
>
>><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.
>

Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.

>
>>>>>>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.

It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
car that would be safer.

It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
of vehicle safety - which makes sense. A more expensive vehicle will
generally have had more care spent in its engineering and therefore will
be safer for its occupants. It's also fairly well established that
price point for price point, cars are generally *safer* for their
occupants than SUVs. I believe there was an actual formal study on this
topic posted here (RAD) a while back.

>
>
> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>
>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>
>
> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> real world?
>

Of course not. But you do it anyway.

>
>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>
>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>
>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
>
> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>

It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
with that statement, better bring on some facts.

>
>>>>>>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.

What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
>
>>>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.
>

If you'd be so kind as to present some facts, I'd be willing to discuss
them with you.

>
>
>><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.
>

Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
dishonesty you keep displaying.


>
> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>
>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>
> a
>
>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>
>
> Yes...and your point is?
>

That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
you bought it for safety.

>
>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>
> don't
>
>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>
>
> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> not off roading.
>

Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
important for all of these types of off roading.

> LOL.
>
> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> well.
>

LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."

Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.


> 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.
>

Must have had a fairly shitty minivan, then.

>
>>> 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.
>

The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
my point. However, you may be surprised at what you can do with that
chassis with good tires and fat sway bars. Now I'm not going to try to
pretend that it will keep up with a good modern car through the twisties
(like you do with your SUV) but it ain't entirely the pig you think it
to be. But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
Scirocco or GTI...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> 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.

I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.

>
>
>
>><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.
>

Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.

>
>>>>>>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.

It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
car that would be safer.

It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
of vehicle safety - which makes sense. A more expensive vehicle will
generally have had more care spent in its engineering and therefore will
be safer for its occupants. It's also fairly well established that
price point for price point, cars are generally *safer* for their
occupants than SUVs. I believe there was an actual formal study on this
topic posted here (RAD) a while back.

>
>
> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>
>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>
>
> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> real world?
>

Of course not. But you do it anyway.

>
>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>
>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>
>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>
>
> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>

It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
with that statement, better bring on some facts.

>
>>>>>>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.

What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
>
>>>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.
>

If you'd be so kind as to present some facts, I'd be willing to discuss
them with you.

>
>
>><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.
>

Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
dishonesty you keep displaying.


>
> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>
>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>
> a
>
>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>
>
> Yes...and your point is?
>

That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
you bought it for safety.

>
>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>
> don't
>
>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>
>
> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> not off roading.
>

Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
important for all of these types of off roading.

> LOL.
>
> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> well.
>

LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."

Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.


> 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.
>

Must have had a fairly shitty minivan, then.

>
>>> 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.
>

The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
my point. However, you may be surprised at what you can do with that
chassis with good tires and fat sway bars. Now I'm not going to try to
pretend that it will keep up with a good modern car through the twisties
(like you do with your SUV) but it ain't entirely the pig you think it
to be. But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
Scirocco or GTI...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.