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

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
>
> routinely repeats.
>
>>>Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>
>>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
>
> obvious.
>
> Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
> of drivel.

Show me some proof that my "gross generalization" is wrong.

>
>
>>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
>
> rant
>
>>at this point.
>
>
> You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
> the same trait actually.
>
> This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>
>>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>>obscure to the general public?
>
>
> When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
> and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
> of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
> hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
> questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
> the clueless trolls.
>
>
>>*bangs head on desk*
>
>
> It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
>
> Try something different.
>
>

It may surprise you to learn that I've driven just about every SUV on
the market as of a year or two ago, on a test track no less. Are you
going to persist in calling me clueless with no proof, or are you going
to put up or shut up?

nate


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

 

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

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
>
> routinely repeats.
>
>>>Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>
>>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
>
> obvious.
>
> Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
> of drivel.

Show me some proof that my "gross generalization" is wrong.

>
>
>>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
>
> rant
>
>>at this point.
>
>
> You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
> the same trait actually.
>
> This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>
>>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>>obscure to the general public?
>
>
> When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
> and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
> of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
> hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
> questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
> the clueless trolls.
>
>
>>*bangs head on desk*
>
>
> It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
>
> Try something different.
>
>

It may surprise you to learn that I've driven just about every SUV on
the market as of a year or two ago, on a test track no less. Are you
going to persist in calling me clueless with no proof, or are you going
to put up or shut up?

nate


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

 

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

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
>
> routinely repeats.
>
>>>Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>
>>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
>
> obvious.
>
> Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
> of drivel.

Show me some proof that my "gross generalization" is wrong.

>
>
>>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
>
> rant
>
>>at this point.
>
>
> You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
> the same trait actually.
>
> This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>
>>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>>obscure to the general public?
>
>
> When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
> and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
> of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
> hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
> questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
> the clueless trolls.
>
>
>>*bangs head on desk*
>
>
> It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
>
> Try something different.
>
>

It may surprise you to learn that I've driven just about every SUV on
the market as of a year or two ago, on a test track no less. Are you
going to persist in calling me clueless with no proof, or are you going
to put up or shut up?

nate


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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>

Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
safety ratings. Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.


It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.

nate

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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>

Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
safety ratings. Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.


It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.

nate

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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>

Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
safety ratings. Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.


It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.

nate

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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
>>and tow a trailer with it?
>
>
> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>
> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.

I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)

nate

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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
>>and tow a trailer with it?
>
>
> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>
> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.

I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)

nate

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

 

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
>>and tow a trailer with it?
>
>
> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>
> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.

I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)

nate

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

 

The Mog's a great off roader, I've ridden in them during my years as a
cadet, the army can drive them all over the landscape where a Landrover or
other SUV cannot go.

yet even they can become civilised. I've seen them on lowered suspensions
with a campervan body on the back. even with the lowering they can outdo
SUVs.

rhys

"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f9653a7$0$586$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
> You need another product from the DC Group:
>
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/d/e...u3000u4000.htm
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:3f95b10c@news.iconz.co.nz...
> > 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
> ....................................
>
>
>