Nate Nagel

John T. Waisanen wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>> handling for crash safety.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>
> nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
>
> john
>

I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
posting there semi-regularly.

I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

John T. Waisanen wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>> handling for crash safety.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>
> nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
>
> john
>

I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
posting there semi-regularly.

I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

John T. Waisanen wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>> handling for crash safety.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>
> nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
>
> john
>

I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
posting there semi-regularly.

I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.

nate

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

Brent P

In article <3F907AED.1237EFE8@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> and drive them were younger and driving them.

> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.

It has to do with far more factors than weight. Design plays a very
big roll. This is why I'd rather be in a 5000lb car than a 5000 lb truck
if I were to crash. So there is no real scaling with weight, there are
too many factors to consider. The one generality that is clear is the
structures that protect the passengers in cars like the crown victoria,
the old caprices, etc are where the extra mass ends up, even if it's
there just to hold the car together and make bigger. In light trucks
alot of that extra mass goes to things that don't help in a crash. Such
as suspension arms that can hold up to off road use.

> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?

I would expect fewer deaths if CAFE was abolished and traditionally
sized cars returned with all the benefits of modern knowledge.

Brent P

In article <3F907AED.1237EFE8@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> and drive them were younger and driving them.

> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.

It has to do with far more factors than weight. Design plays a very
big roll. This is why I'd rather be in a 5000lb car than a 5000 lb truck
if I were to crash. So there is no real scaling with weight, there are
too many factors to consider. The one generality that is clear is the
structures that protect the passengers in cars like the crown victoria,
the old caprices, etc are where the extra mass ends up, even if it's
there just to hold the car together and make bigger. In light trucks
alot of that extra mass goes to things that don't help in a crash. Such
as suspension arms that can hold up to off road use.

> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?

I would expect fewer deaths if CAFE was abolished and traditionally
sized cars returned with all the benefits of modern knowledge.

Brent P

In article <3F907AED.1237EFE8@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> and drive them were younger and driving them.

> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.

It has to do with far more factors than weight. Design plays a very
big roll. This is why I'd rather be in a 5000lb car than a 5000 lb truck
if I were to crash. So there is no real scaling with weight, there are
too many factors to consider. The one generality that is clear is the
structures that protect the passengers in cars like the crown victoria,
the old caprices, etc are where the extra mass ends up, even if it's
there just to hold the car together and make bigger. In light trucks
alot of that extra mass goes to things that don't help in a crash. Such
as suspension arms that can hold up to off road use.

> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?

I would expect fewer deaths if CAFE was abolished and traditionally
sized cars returned with all the benefits of modern knowledge.

Brent P

In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
> worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
> the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
> (The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
> official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
> more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
> than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!

Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
previous threads with cite)

Brent P

In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
> worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
> the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
> (The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
> official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
> more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
> than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!

Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
previous threads with cite)

Brent P

In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
> worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
> the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
> (The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
> official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
> more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
> than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!

Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
previous threads with cite)

Brent P

In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum

Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.