Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#651
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>
> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> the same thing others do.
> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> ignores reality.
No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
with driving a car.
However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
vis-versa.
In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
whereas someone else who has an econobox
that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
pay for their "needs"
> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
around.
Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
Ted
#652
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>
> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> the same thing others do.
> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> ignores reality.
No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
with driving a car.
However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
vis-versa.
In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
whereas someone else who has an econobox
that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
pay for their "needs"
> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
around.
Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
Ted
#653
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
How about a "sports tourer"?
They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
--Aardwolf.
#654
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
How about a "sports tourer"?
They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
--Aardwolf.
#655
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
How about a "sports tourer"?
They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
--Aardwolf.
#656
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> Unlike alot of SUV's etc, semi's tractors have a front bumper that
> is aligned with the structure of cars.
Exactly. They may crush cars into accordion shaped pieces of scrap-metal, but
at least they don't tend to submarine them.
> And based on personal experience
> what we need for protection is to bring back the side impact beam
> designs of the 1970s before CAFE and mix them into the more modern
> methods.
>
> Those big door beams of the 70s were over designed for the regulations
> but of course did a better job when implemented well. CAFE required
> shaving every pound so side impact beams got smaller.
They got dropped, from '82 until '97. A few models still had them but there was
no longer a mandate. And they certainly did work, witness the return of such a
requirement for '97. The old models used beams the size and shape of extra
frame rails, it should be possible to get equivalent levels of protection with
lighter tubular-section guard beams, as most are anyway nowadays. For that
purpose they'd be just as resistant with less mass. But perhaps they'd still
have to be a bit higher-gauge than current standards require--I've not reviewed
them in detail.
As far as I'm concerned the mass should be in the cage, not the doors; it's hard
on the hinges.
--Aardwolf.
#657
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> Unlike alot of SUV's etc, semi's tractors have a front bumper that
> is aligned with the structure of cars.
Exactly. They may crush cars into accordion shaped pieces of scrap-metal, but
at least they don't tend to submarine them.
> And based on personal experience
> what we need for protection is to bring back the side impact beam
> designs of the 1970s before CAFE and mix them into the more modern
> methods.
>
> Those big door beams of the 70s were over designed for the regulations
> but of course did a better job when implemented well. CAFE required
> shaving every pound so side impact beams got smaller.
They got dropped, from '82 until '97. A few models still had them but there was
no longer a mandate. And they certainly did work, witness the return of such a
requirement for '97. The old models used beams the size and shape of extra
frame rails, it should be possible to get equivalent levels of protection with
lighter tubular-section guard beams, as most are anyway nowadays. For that
purpose they'd be just as resistant with less mass. But perhaps they'd still
have to be a bit higher-gauge than current standards require--I've not reviewed
them in detail.
As far as I'm concerned the mass should be in the cage, not the doors; it's hard
on the hinges.
--Aardwolf.
#658
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> Unlike alot of SUV's etc, semi's tractors have a front bumper that
> is aligned with the structure of cars.
Exactly. They may crush cars into accordion shaped pieces of scrap-metal, but
at least they don't tend to submarine them.
> And based on personal experience
> what we need for protection is to bring back the side impact beam
> designs of the 1970s before CAFE and mix them into the more modern
> methods.
>
> Those big door beams of the 70s were over designed for the regulations
> but of course did a better job when implemented well. CAFE required
> shaving every pound so side impact beams got smaller.
They got dropped, from '82 until '97. A few models still had them but there was
no longer a mandate. And they certainly did work, witness the return of such a
requirement for '97. The old models used beams the size and shape of extra
frame rails, it should be possible to get equivalent levels of protection with
lighter tubular-section guard beams, as most are anyway nowadays. For that
purpose they'd be just as resistant with less mass. But perhaps they'd still
have to be a bit higher-gauge than current standards require--I've not reviewed
them in detail.
As far as I'm concerned the mass should be in the cage, not the doors; it's hard
on the hinges.
--Aardwolf.
#659
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
> easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
> truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
> an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
> on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
So you advertise them. People will buy what they're told they want. Those
that actually _need_ to haul big pieces of plywood around, might then still
buy trucks, but what's wrong with that?
--Aardwolf.
#660
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
> easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
> truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
> an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
> on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
So you advertise them. People will buy what they're told they want. Those
that actually _need_ to haul big pieces of plywood around, might then still
buy trucks, but what's wrong with that?
--Aardwolf.