Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-21-2003, 05:42 PM
#1501
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On 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.
> 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.
10-21-2003, 06:15 PM
#1502
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
10-21-2003, 06:15 PM
#1503
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
10-21-2003, 06:15 PM
#1504
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
wrote:
>> Here's your first question:
>>
>> "Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>> track
>> ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>>
>> Here's my reply:
>>
>> "It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above"
>>
>> I hope that helps you.
>
>I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
silly claim.
I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
>>
>> are
>>
>>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
>>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
>> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
>> yourself.
>>
>> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
>> imagine it to be.
>>
>
>Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
>more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
>will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
etc. etc.
>>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
>>
>> hilarious
>>
>>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>>>
>>>"hilarious" how?
>>
>>
>> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
>> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
>> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
>
>It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>car that would be safer.
Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
me.
Talk about misdirection.
>It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
>of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>>
>>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
>> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
>> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
>> real world?
>>
>
>Of course not. But you do it anyway.
Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
quote. Thanks.
(hint: I haven't)
>>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
>>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>>>>
>>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>>>
>>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>>
>>
>> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
>> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>>
>
>It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
>vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
>with that statement, better bring on some facts.
Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
including price as a qualifier.
Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
For shame!
>>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
>>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
>>>>apparently just can't resist!
>>>
>>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>>>intervals, is all.
>>
>>
>> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>>
>> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
>> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>
>What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
>"truth," that's you not being well informed.
Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
get some help.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
the truth is.
Instead you continue to flail about making enormous assumptions.
At least you're consistent.
>>>>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.
Again, have someone help you with reading comprehension Nate. You're
apparently woefully under-equipped to discuss this subject.
>>><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.
"Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
piece of work.
I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
a blast to drive, etc. etc.
The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>>
>>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
>>
>> a
>>
>>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
>>
>>
>> Yes...and your point is?
>>
>
>That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
>you bought it for safety.
Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
safety? Quote please.
You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
>>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>>
>> don't
>>
>>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
>> not off roading.
>>
>
>Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
>important for all of these types of off roading.
Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
has poor high speed handling?
>> LOL.
>>
>> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
>> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
>> well.
>>
>
>LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
>be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
I understand your point.
Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
that fact?
>> 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.
Minivans by defintion are pretty shitty.
The last one that I had was "higher end" I belive, a Dodge Grand
Caravan AWD with the bigger engine.
>>>> 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?
Still afraid to answer the question, eh 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.
My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
car.
I meant it like this:
You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
"driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
capabilities/safety of my SUV.
If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
enjoy driving.
> But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>Scirocco or GTI...
See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
little friendly competition.
I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
around in on the track.
It's your choice.
http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
(just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
the SUV if that's your choice)
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
10-21-2003, 06:22 PM
#1505
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Supermarket Warriors...
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
10-21-2003, 06:22 PM
#1506
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Supermarket Warriors...
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
10-21-2003, 06:22 PM
#1507
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Supermarket Warriors...
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
i use mine to tow tons of metal around to ------ on the farm tracks, loads
of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
difference in fuel consumption.
rhys
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f952b01$0$19403$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West
Side
> farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$ozm3nh$wzt1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> [........................]
> >
> > But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> > THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> [...............]
>
>
10-21-2003, 06:57 PM
#1508
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
> >
> > Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> > reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> > in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> > better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> > restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> > least the innocent children would not be punished."
> >
>
> It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
> repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
> flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
>
> The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
> bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
> the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
> managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
>
> Ted
Gee - imagine that. Conservatives opposing the raising of taxes. How
unusual! Have you ever heard of such a thing!? To quote Mel Brooks:
"Wooof!".
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
10-21-2003, 06:57 PM
#1509
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
> >
> > Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> > reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> > in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> > better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> > restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> > least the innocent children would not be punished."
> >
>
> It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
> repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
> flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
>
> The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
> bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
> the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
> managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
>
> Ted
Gee - imagine that. Conservatives opposing the raising of taxes. How
unusual! Have you ever heard of such a thing!? To quote Mel Brooks:
"Wooof!".
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
10-21-2003, 06:57 PM
#1510
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
> >
> > Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> > reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> > in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> > better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> > restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> > least the innocent children would not be punished."
> >
>
> It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
> repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
> flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
>
> The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
> bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
> the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
> managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
>
> Ted
Gee - imagine that. Conservatives opposing the raising of taxes. How
unusual! Have you ever heard of such a thing!? To quote Mel Brooks:
"Wooof!".
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----