Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.

Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.

Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.

But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.

No comment needed...

See above.

I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.

"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.

You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.

Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.

I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.

Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...

With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.

In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.

In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.

And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my ass no
matter how much suspension I have...

nate

 

Can't address more than one thing per post now?
Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.

 

You still haven't answered the question Nate.

Ummm...the manufacturer specs the OEM tires. Tires do make a
difference. To claim otherwise is foolish.

Supplemental stability control systems are

Bullshit. They are an integral part of the handling characteristics of
many SUVs, and passenger cars.

And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they

It depends upon the system and the driver. BMW's DSC is quite
intrusive compared to some other systems.

Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid

Sure the weight bias and drive system are valid features to look at.
Vehicles with AWD handle differently than the same vehicles with RWD
and also have a different weight bias.

Focusing solely on the CG is myopic.

LOL. So if nobody's bitching about the price where di "every time I
hear someone bitch that they spend..." come from?

You're merely trying to change the discussion.

Oh bullshit Nate. You've made your silly generalizations and
assumptions since the beginning of this thread and never once
mentioned price, until recently when you apparently began to realize
the error of your ways.

Since you've once again made specious allegations that you can't back
up. As expected.

For shame indeed.

Ah, admitting your faults is a good thing Nate. Congrats!

Watch those assumptions!

Yes. A blast to drive. Both on-road and off-road.

I also don't see

Clearance issues on secondary roads. Low range.

Now towing I

So because I didn't mention it you assumed that I did no towing.

Where's the problem with that type of "thinking"?

Again, I never wrote that I made my decision solely based upon safety
as you claim. More misquoting on your part.

liability.

The fact remains that I drive an SUV with good wheel articulation
(multiple winner of Paris-Dakar unmodified production class) yet one
that also handles very well on the pavement.

And there are SUVs out there that handle even better off road while
handling better on-road as well.

Go figure.

Good job!

Apparently you have gotten some treatment for that assumption
affliction.

It's actually an ML55. The 5000 lb tow rating is a US thing. The same
vehicle with the same equipment is rated 7500 in Europe. As pictured I
was towing 5400 lb.

The design isn't close to a tradional car, unless you're defining
"tradional cars" as having a full ladder frame.

Which cars would that be? I also need more than "light off-roading"
capabilities but we can leave that for now.

However, since you apparently are doing some

Again Nate, your assumptions are getting the best of you.

You obviously aren't the least bit familiar with how the ML is
designed. It's not "one of the most car-like of the lot." Educate
yourself.

I usually do. Unfortunately, it was undrivable after a day at the
track (holed radiator) so it had to be rescued.

I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer

There are different flavors of "blast to drive."

The ML is fun on pavement but it is much more fun rallying off-road
than the pcar.

It's kind of hard to drift around loose gravel corners when you are
clearance-challenged.

 

See my other response.

See the other post Nate.

Yes, you will continue to be lumped in with the clueless trolls if you
keep making assumptions.

 

Nice backpeddle.

Yup. Do you?
No emergencies.
Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
Some people moderately inconvenienced.
Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
their gas gauges moved off "Full".

Actually, we could. We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
today.
Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
"Full"?

The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
They can.
Like I said.
That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.

Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?

Global warming is indeed an established fact.

What's not established is *why* it's happening.
There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
Such "facts" are extremely suspect.

 

Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.

I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?

 

Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.

 

Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.

However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.

Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
spread the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.

Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."

How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.

Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.

Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.

 

*bangs head on desk*

Here, let me help...

 

"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?

 

"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.

Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.

 

"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...

 

Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...

 

A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.

This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.

 

heres an anology you may understand...

if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.

yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.

so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.

comprehend now?

on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).

rhys

 

Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?

 

<snip>

Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts

http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm

http://www.habitablezone.com/currentevents/messages/296525.html

Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.

In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.

It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.

 

Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.


Matt

 

And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).

You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.

Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
they existed they would have to have been:
(1) Dissipated (by use)
(2) Moved and found (so far no)
(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
(4) Shot into space

All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
decided that they really didn't mean it.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Lloyd's trying to bait someone into challenging the "evolution" one -
he's thrown that out twice in less than 24 hours, and no-one's bitten.

And I though he was a master-baiter!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")