Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>you to believe.
If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>you to believe.
If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.203625@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================== ==============
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================== ==============
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"