| Author | Message | ||
| Craig A (Milo)
Member Username: Milo Post Number: 265 Registered: 4-2003 |
Real HUM-Vs are awesome. I expect the driver of that one could have kept going if he wanted to.  | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 679 Registered: 9-2002 |
hehe, a little levity:  | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
New member Username: Dgs Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2003 |
"when a car or tuck hits a wall at 55mph, the car stops, but you keep going at 55 into either the seatbelts or through the windshield" That's where crumple zones come in. The front bumper stops, but the cabin keeps going just long enough to (a) compress the crumple zone, and (b) reduce the deceleration load on the occupant. In a stiff, rigid structure, everything stops except the occupants, who are on their own. "What pisses me off is that some people have SUV's that dont need them." It's the illusion that big SUVs are "safer" that make people think they need them. Cargo is often an excuse. Need to take home a television? I recently replaced my LR console 25" TV ... after 16 years. If you buy the "might have cargo" requirements, we'd all be driving Winnebagos. Or moving vans. In the case of the TVs, the original and the replacement 16 years later both came home in the trunk of the Alfa Spider. (That's what bungee cords are for.) ;^) | ||
| Scott Larmer (Larmer)
New member Username: Larmer Post Number: 13 Registered: 5-2003 |
enjoy  | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 3176 Registered: 6-2001 |
JT, exactly, look at a bowling ball and a pin. When the bowling ball hits the pin, the ball's (SUV's) momentum is hardly altered, but the momentum of the pin (Smaller car) undergoes a huge change. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 3175 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mike, the kinetic energy of the truck wont affect the occupants, its the kinetic energy of the occupants themselves (and their internal organs) thats the problem. when a car or tuck hits a wall at 55mph, the car stops, but you keep going at 55 into either the seatbelts or through the windshield. However, the heavier truck will do alot more damage to whatever it hits because it has a higher kinetic energy because it has more mass. What pisses me off is that some people have SUV's that dont need them. WTF are people down south who dont have to worry about snow, and dont go offroading need one for? Its not like they are fun to drive like a sportscar (which i guess justifies the gas use). they are pointless in that case. | ||
| Craig A (Milo)
Member Username: Milo Post Number: 264 Registered: 4-2003 |
JT, Hence the initial idea of the thread.... SUVs suck. | ||
| JT (Mightymagician)
Junior Member Username: Mightymagician Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2002 |
youre right about the energy comments. the scary thing is the suv built with its stiff truck like frame hits a car and pushes some of the crash energy back into the other vehicle, leaving the smaller car to deal with absorbing it and increasing the likleyhood of injury or worse to that driver. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 215 Registered: 12-2002 |
You can't change the laws of physics. The idea that a bigger vehicle is somehow safer is just untrue. There is a certain amount of kinetic energy that has to go somewhere when a vehicle crashes. That energy can go into propelling your body out of the car, deformation of your body and skeleton against the seatbelt, deformation of the car, etc. I crashed in a Viper pretty hard last year. I hit a concrete bridge support going about 85mph, and proceeded to flip down the highway and crash through TWO of those big metal light poles they have on the highway. I was unharmed. The car was destroyed. The car took the beating so I didn't have to... it crumpled and deformed and spewed out parts so I didn't have to. Ever wonder why F1 cars these days appear to explode when they hit something? You WANT that kinetic energy to be used making parts fly and such rather than crushing you. So next time you see an SUV crashed that appears "in pretty good shape", there is a good chance the driver suffered the effects of that. Thinking a physically larger vehicle is "safer" due to it's size is just illogical thinking. I'd MUCH rather be in a top rated (in terms of safety) car in a severe crash than a medium rated SUV. I'd rather crash hard in a MB S600 than a Ford Explorer any day. | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 362 Registered: 12-2001 |
One of our local papers had an article on the H2, and they had one owner who had a list of reasons why the H2 was actually GOOD for the enviornment! | ||
| Craig A (Milo)
Member Username: Milo Post Number: 260 Registered: 4-2003 |
One other point I should bring up... I typically don't berate SUV owners for burning up so much gasoline being that I have a sports car. But even my 348 is getting about 20MPG. | ||
| Craig A (Milo)
Member Username: Milo Post Number: 259 Registered: 4-2003 |
Noelrp, Your SUV has all the safety equipment that opponents are calling for to become standard equipment on all SUVs. I agree with all this equipment your SUV is better equipped to save your life. But your SUV is rare in that it has these safety features. I've seen some pretty bad wrecks in S2000s and in some of them I am truly, truly amazed that the occupants walked away from a car that was totally obliterated. True I can't fight the laws of physics but I'd still take my chances in my Accord against an SUV or Pickup. Course with your thinking PeterS maybe we should all drive tanks? And don't get me started on what natural resource hogs these things are. But I don't blame SUV owners for this. I blame the automakers for this one. There is technology out there right now that will allow an SUV to get 30-40MPG but since customers aren't demanding it the automakers won't install it. | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
New member Username: Dgs Post Number: 31 Registered: 5-2003 |
"So much anger about SUVs, life must be good. ... And keep on complaining, I can't hear you way up here with the windows rolled up and the a/c on." Somehow I just can't see Ferrari enthusiasts having the "don't know, don't care" approach to driving _anything_. ;^) But look around any parking lot: How many SUVs have crumpled right rear (blind) corners? It's not the basic concept of a utility vehicle that bothers me. It's the dweebs in a big empty box crunching up everything in the parking lot rather than learning to drive that bother me. | ||
| will h (Willh)
Junior Member Username: Willh Post Number: 90 Registered: 3-2003 |
So much anger about SUVs, life must be good. I guess it's down to me to speak for the SUV driving pigs. I have a 3/4 ton '96 Suburban with 108k miles. I have used it to tow race cars (including my Challenge car), to haul bikes & kids, dogs, etc. No mechanical problems, other than ordinary wear and tear. All in all, a great expenditure of about $36k new. I co-own a company that owns SUVs - our employees need them to reach off-road locations & haul things. Another great expenditure. My wife and I donated our previous Suburban to charity. Sometimes, I drive the Suburban around town - it's comfortable, I like it. Great in snow. I take it easy. I'm even careful not to change lanes right in front of someone's low slung sports car - know how I hate stone chips. Even if gas goes to $3 a gallon, I'll still drive it. Call it insanity if you like. And keep on complaining, I can't hear you way up here with the windows rolled up and the a/c on. As my daughter used to say, "nanny nanny boo boo." Cheers, Will | ||
| Noelrp (Noelrp)
Member Username: Noelrp Post Number: 267 Registered: 8-2001 |
"SUVs are not as safe as you think. I'd rather be in my Accord with all the crumple zones and air bags." I dont know about this statement. I drive an ML320, I would take my kids in the ML than a Honda Accord simply because of the engineering and technology that the ML has over *most* modern cars. 4ETS, BAS, ESP 6+ airbags, etc. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1592 Registered: 10-2002 |
Nika My wife's Turbo Cayanne has adjustable ride height. 5.5-11.5 inches. It makes a huge difference. That said people do tend to forget that you can't contrivene the laws of physics. Best | ||
| Nika (Racernika)
Intermediate Member Username: Racernika Post Number: 1001 Registered: 12-2001 |
Too many people drive SUV like sports cars - there's the problem. A higher center of gravity and rollovers can be a factor. | ||
| PeterS (Peters)
Member Username: Peters Post Number: 680 Registered: 1-2003 |
craig...In your Honda Vs a larger truck? Hummmm. Thats a hard one to swallow. I agree that a car will manouver (SP?) better around incidents than a larger truck. Now you have prompted me to do some research that I don't have time to do! | ||
| Craig A (Milo)
Member Username: Milo Post Number: 258 Registered: 4-2003 |
SUV rollover crashes accounted for something like 50% of fatalities last year. They are so unsafe that opponents of the behemoths are calling for legislation to force car makers to install stabilization systems on the vehicles. The article I read (which I have searched feverishly for but can't find) relayed a story of a women who crashed her SUV an hour after taking delivery. She lost control of it, crossed the median, went air born and landed on minivan. Killed herself and the four people in the van. They feel a stabilization system would have allowed her to maintain control of the vehicle. SUVs are not as safe as you think. I'd rather be in my Accord with all the crumple zones and air bags. | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
New member Username: Dgs Post Number: 30 Registered: 5-2003 |
Peter: Therein lies the problem. Manufacturers like SUVs because they're cheap to build, are considered "trucks", when it comes to emissions standards and safety tests, and people will pay more for SUVs than for most trucks, because they're under the illusion that they're "safe", just because they're big. Would you say that a pickup truck is "safer" than a car? Not by the testing standards. At highway speeds, safety comes from crumple zones and other safety designs required on all cars ... but not on trucks. SUVs aren't held to the safety standards we impose on a Yugo. A big plastic box isn't all that safe ... particularly in a "t-bone" impact. Check out those morbid "crashed ferrari" sites -- notice how many of them have _intact_ cabins? That's crashworthiness design at work. (Another spinoff of the racing industry.) ;^) And a big heavy box on a crude suspension isn't able to drive around a crash. But then, for drivers who have no confidence in their ability to drive around a crash anyway ... Have you ever seen an SUV ad where people are actually paying attention to their driving? For that matter, how often do you see an SUV in traffic with any cargo at all in it? There are some decent purpose-built machines in this category. But even the Range Rover was designed as an estate wagon, not a highway cruiser. But most SUVs are simply a way to exploit both a loophole in federal regulations and the gullibility of the consumer. Now that the Feds are talking about new regulations for SUVs, notice the number of vehicles (like the Honda Element) that deny being in _any_ category. "Sport Utility Vehicle" -- like MRE, three lies in one acronym. (Okay, score one "hit" for the trollmeister.) | ||
| Vincent (Vincent348)
Member Username: Vincent348 Post Number: 545 Registered: 4-2003 |
Thanks Jordan, Glad that was cleared up for me LOL | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 675 Registered: 9-2002 |
Peter you can get more safty in a new OR used German panzer sedan from BMW or Mercedes. | ||
| PeterS (Peters)
Member Username: Peters Post Number: 679 Registered: 1-2003 |
There is only one thing I really dred in owning my 308....Thats being hit. Head on, you are toast, T-Boned, say hi to a wheelchair for good. Rear ended? Your neck and back are finished...Yes, SUV's may be getting our of hand, but they provide safety you can not get in a normal size car, especially a smaller one. My Explorer gives me this. I only pray that I am driving that truck if some idiot on his cell phone hits me someday when his Starbucks grande mocha frappachino-carmel-machiado-wackahoochie with non-fat cream spills in his lap. | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Intermediate Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 1217 Registered: 12-2002 |
Why of course Vincent | ||
| Vincent (Vincent348)
Member Username: Vincent348 Post Number: 539 Registered: 4-2003 |
Ferraris are so much more useful? | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Intermediate Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 1054 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Stupid Useless Vehicles" LOL!!!  | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 669 Registered: 9-2002 |
Come on now, not ALL SUVs suck. Though I like cars, I still love range rovers. Sure daily beater that makes runs to the grocers is werid...but like sports cars if used for its use once in a while it can provide the owner with great pleasure. | ||
| Kendall Kim (Kenny)
Junior Member Username: Kenny Post Number: 66 Registered: 9-2001 |
OMG,,, Hi2U2 !!! | ||
| Tony Roberts (Pantera)
Junior Member Username: Pantera Post Number: 78 Registered: 6-2003 |
Eric, Well said! | ||
| Tony Roberts (Pantera)
Junior Member Username: Pantera Post Number: 77 Registered: 6-2003 |
Dave, I like you so much better when you agree with me, please no more assclown's! | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 360 Registered: 12-2001 |
Stupid Useless Vehicles | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1842 Registered: 1-2002 |
Probably when gasoline goes above $3 a gallon, I suspect. Only pain in the wallet will do it... | ||
| Tony Roberts (Pantera)
Junior Member Username: Pantera Post Number: 76 Registered: 6-2003 |
When will this insanity end? |