and SUVs can kiss my @$$

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AgGolfer

Member
Feb 15, 2000
149
0
0
Can you explain the difference between an SUV and a truck? Nobody complains about how trucks can be dangerous.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
No Honda Civics were harmed in the typing of this post. Hope no one takes offense if I use the Civic as an example of a typical smaller car here...

One of the unfortunate parts of many SUV designs is the height of the bumpers. They are ostensibly at that height for approach/departure clearance when driving off-road. Simply put, they don't line up with the bumpers on smaller vehicles, or even some big ones (like mine). If I rear-end a Honda Civic with my station wagon, or with a Volkswagen Jetta etc, the bumpers will meet and will transmit the impact to the cars' frame (in my case) or its unibody crumple zones (in the case of the Honda). Right? And if I collide with the side of a Honda Civic, my bumper will meet the sturdy underframe/underbody areas of the Civic. Have a look at what a Ford Explorer's bumper would hit. From the side, it lines up at almost shoulder level for the occupant of a Civic, coming right through the door and window. From the rear, it is going to go right over the Civic's bumper, diminishing the effectiveness of the crumple zones. Likewise with a head-on collision. Imagine a Civic rear-ending a F150 pickup. I haven't tried it but I can visualize the rear bumper of the F150 coming right through the windshield of the Civic.

Maybe Civics and other passenger cars should have bumpers that are two feet tall from top to bottom, so they have a fighting chance of using their crush zones to protect their occupants? Or maybe SUV's should give up some of their approach/departure ground clearance and have their bumpers where they would do less harm. I recall a study, by the Department of Transportation maybe(?) saying something to this effect.
 

snut

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,415
0
0
I see these ppl buying SUVs and not taking them 4 wheeling pisses me, off. If their not going to go 4wheeling in a suv whats the point, then it becomes basally a lifted up van. Ppl should start considering vans insted. I own a toyota prerunner btw, and I take it 4wheeling and haul my mounbikes up to the trails
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
I hate it when people buy handguns and never shoot people. I mean whats the point of a handgun if you aren't shooting somebody with it?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
And that's any different from me driving an SUV to work how?
 

atom

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 1999
4,722
0
0
You know, if more SUV drivers (well, drivers in general actually) would learn how to use their fricken high beams properly, I wouldn't have that much of a problem. The height of the average SUV is conveniently the same height to completely blind me in the rear view mirror when the high beams are on. Arrgh!!!!!
 

snut

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,415
0
0
Your suppose to go 4wheeling with a suv. Why buy one when you can do the same with a van
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
And concealed handguns are supposed to be for personal protection right? How many times does somebody actually use a handgun for that purpose? Once, twice, maybe three times in there life?

Just because I own an SUV doesn't mean that it's sole purpose in life is to take it off roading. Just the same as a handgun, how many times out the guns life is it acutally used for it's intention?

My point rests.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
Alright, so wouldn't it make sense to say that people who don't drive SUV's the way they are intended suck, instead of saying that SUV itself sucks, right?

I mean, why blame a gun for killing someone when it was the person who pulled the trigger?

All I'm trying to get at is that people write off SUV's as these huge, bloated, offroad vehicles that never get used for their intended purposes.

Well, sorry to burst the bubbles of the city dwellers that live in mediterranian climates and never get sub 50 degree weather, but there are some of us that do live in places where the snowplows don't venture do go and do have to make 20 mile commutes to work in 2 lane highways.

Once you step out of your suburban shells shrouded with soccermoms driving 50k dollar Mercedes SUV's, you'll realize that there is a signifant number of us using and appreciating the functionality that SUV's provide us.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Tuffguy, <<are you going to tell me that people that drive SUVs are not a danger to others on the road? >>

I have not seen any studies or evidence to indicate that indeed SUV drivers are more of a danger to others on the road than is anyone else, nor have I seen any evidence that SUV drivers are somehow 'inferior' to drivers of other vehicles. I do know that once an SUV does get into an accident, it provides more protection to the occupants than a smaller vehicle (which stands to reason) -- regardless of how the accident came about. As such, it makes sense to have people drive an SUV if you want to decrease the risk of them getting hurt in an accident.
 

DataFly

Senior member
Mar 12, 2000
968
0
0
First off, let me say that I have no problem with people buying what they want, but steps should really be taken by SUV manufacturers to ensure compatability with cars in collisions. Mercedes' M-Class is the only one that I know of that is.

All-wheel-drive can be VERY useful when not driving off-road. Ask anyone who lives in a snowy area.


tagej
It's nice to hear that you bought your SUV with the safety of those close to you in mind. But don't you think that a Volvo (or at least an M-Class) would have been a better choice? It's safe for both its occupants and those in other cars.

Your &quot;class envy&quot; argument also makes no sense. What if someone had a Mercedes SL600 and didn't like SUVs? Maybe they should complain that people who whine about them going 100 on the highway are too poor to buy a &quot;real&quot; car? (I know that's not a perfect comparison...leave me alone)


If I had $80,000 to spend on a car I sure as hell wouldn't use it all on a house with wheels. I'd get an S8. It's safe for everyone, has Audi's all-whee-drive, and is a hell of a lot sportier. If I were planning on doing some offroading, I'd get an Allroad Quattro for half the price and spend the rest on a Porsche Boxster.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Just once, I'd like to see some PROOF from the let me run your life and decide for you SUV bashers that the average SUV owner is any more dangerous, (IE: Causes more accidents and injuries), then the average econobox owner. I'd bet it's actually the other way around.

Russ, NCNE
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0
Tomorrow I get to go back home from the dorms here at school after it snowed all week. When somebody can offer me a vehicle besides a SUV (Suburban in my case) that can carry a bike, 3 computers, a full stereo system, 2 big duffel bags of clothes, and assorted crap in sh!tty driving conditions, I'll look into it. Until then I'm sticking with a SUV.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I don't mind other people driving SUVs, but I don't want to be forced to drive one out of fear for my safety in case I get hit by an SUV. In my opinion, SUVs are used like cars now, and should be subject to same safety requirements.
Structurally speaking most cars are better then SUVs. Check out Link one and Link 2 about the offset crash tests. Car makers have been building cars for safety for years now, while SUV's are mostly built for ruggedness. It's easier to keep a small volume structure intact in a collision then a large one. Notice how all the SUV's that did well are based on a car platform, while truck based SUVs ranked as acceptable.
 

DataFly

Senior member
Mar 12, 2000
968
0
0
I do think that some people driving SUVs are not all familiar with the different driving envelope, however. These are the people who drive their SUV like the car they used to own (ie, taking corners fast) and wind up tipping the SUV, endangering other motorists. I don't have stats to prove this, but it does make sense. Why else would SUVs roll over more than other cars (this is statistically true)?

The &quot;average&quot; owner is not less competent/more dangerous, but the &quot;average&quot; gun owner does not go on shooting sprees, either.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0


<< let me run your life and decide for you >>


Russ, why don't you chill? Noone is trying to decide for you. There is a difference between discouraging people from buying SUVs and taking away their right to buy one, that has been lost on you.
 

TuffGuy

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
6,478
0
76
i welcome ANYONE of you SUV people to come ride in my 2000 Eclipse GT for a couple of days and then you'll see just what i'm talking about. NOT ALL suv drivers are bad, but a lot of them are inattentive and tend to move in and out of lanes without signaling or checking to see if there is anybody else there.

as for the gun analogy: nice comparison... but i think your original explanation worked a lot better.
 

SirFshAlot

Elite Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,887
0
0
TuffGuy,
I drive a Suzuki crotch rocket on the roads when whether allows, and SUV drivers are no less of a threat than the rice burners or any other specific car style. If you are in a vulnerable vehicle, you need to learn to drive defensively at ALL times, not just around bigger vehicles.

For those who keep whining about people that don't use their vehicles to their potential; just consider what you look for in your choices.......does style/looks have any weight at all???? If not, good for you, I applaud your boring nature, but for the rest of you that choose a car that fits your styling preferences, stop with the hypocrasy already. Do any of you have VR rated tires? 60 series? 50 series? Do you have to drive 100mph=? Or do you have tires that just plain look good? Rims? Chrome trim? Driving lights? Consider all the vain choices you make before you throw stones at soccer moms that like to go in the toughest looking vehicles on the road.
 

Doggiedog

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
12,780
5
81
Saturday 12/16 Boston Globe article on 2001 Ford Explorer:

AUTOMOBILIA
Ford lightens up on Explorer, for safety's sake

By Royal Ford, Globe Columnist , 12/16/2000


Mix immutable laws of physics with bad behavior, shake, rattle, and stir, and you've got an unstable, dangerous concoction.


That's my recipe, and I like to apply it to Sport Utility Vehicles.


Produce a heavy vehicle, put much of its weight above the axles, giving it a high center of gravity, settle it on a rigid ladder frame, and equip it with leaf springs that flex greatly so that unsprung weight can be violently released. Now, give that vehicle to drivers, far too many of whom will drive it very fast and push it through sharp corners and sudden lane changes.


The result: SUVs tip over far more easily and regularly than other automobiles.


When Ford introduced the Explorer, the world's most popular SUV, in 1990, it ran afoul of this rule. Trying to combine ruggedness, room, and creature comfort, they plopped a luxurious cabin atop a truck frame. Unfortunately, many yahoos were among the 3.5 million folks who have bought Explorers since.


Ford was not alone, and virtually every SUV built in a similar way has the same faults. Now, with SUV safety under continued question and the Explorer in the harshest light because of the Ford-Firestone tire debacle, Ford has introduced a new Explorer - one whose design acknowledges the faults of the past.


How was it done? From the ground up, according to David Rogers, a Ford engineer specializing in vehicle dynamics.


Ground up means starting with the vehicle's stance. Its track is 21/2 inches wider than in the past. Its wheelbase is 2 inches longer. This means more stability.


The rear end has been altered, with independent rear suspension. This means the frame at the rear no longer has to curl up and over (carrying weight with it) a bouncing rear differential and axle. Instead, this rear end is fixed, sits lower, and its axles feed from differential to wheels through ''portholes'' cut in the frame. The old bounce of leaf springs and rear end in unstable situations is gone.


Front and rear suspensions now include coil springs over shocks. Control arms steady the give and take of greater wheel travel.


Adding to the new Explorer's stability is that it is filled with lightweight materials - aluminum suspension components, aluminum automatic transmission, aluminum body parts, plastic intake manifolds, magnesium transfer case. A lighter car riding high is a far less tippy car.


Safety concerns about SUVs have focused a great deal on what happens to the occupants of smaller cars involved in collisions with the bigger rigs. But there have been concerns as well - mostly over side-impact crashes and rollovers - for the safety of those in these supposedly indestructible beasts.


For those inside, Ford has added impact rails to the doors; air bags surround front- and second-seat passengers.


Sensors detect the size of the people sitting in the front seats and, in the driver's case, how close they are sitting to the steering wheel. Air bags are deployed, then, with appropriate degrees of power. The sensors even monitor the severity of the crash to adjust deployment energy.


Of particular note are side curtain air bags that drop from the headliner when a sensor detects that the car has tipped too far and is about to roll over. These drop down and stay inflated for several seconds, cushioning the passengers' heads, but also helping to prevent anyone from being ejected through a window.


A sensor system monitors yaw, traction, and steering wheel input to determine if trouble is developing. It then employs traction control, the ABS, and the throttle to control the Explorer.


When crashes do happen, particularly frontal crashes, SUVs have often, because of their height, ridden up and into or over smaller cars and their rigid frames have demolished them. They like to call this, in the industry, a compatibility issue.


So let's just say Ford has made the Explorer more compatible.


The front frame rails have been lowered by 2 inches. Its front bumper now sits at about the same height as a Taurus. In addition, holes have been drilled into the front frame rails so they will crumple in a front-end crash - ''eating up energy'' as Stephanie Sweeney, Ford vehicle crash safety supervisor put it - and protect both the Explorer's occupants and those in other cars.


Love 'em or hate 'em, SUVs are not going away. But the new Explorer, far removed from the elegant box on a truck that was introduced in 1990, is one example of how they can become more compatible.


Royal Ford's e-mail address is


ford@globe.com.



Hopefully this is a start to more safer SUVs. Since SUVs aren't niche vehicles anymore and are driven like passenger cars they should be subject to the same rules and regulations. Mini-vans went through the same thing several years ago. They used to be classified as trucks but now are subject as cars and are required to have bumpers that match car bumpers. Its BS that they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations. They should be made safer not just for the occupants but for the people who might get into accidents with them. I was watching the news last night and there was a story on a highway around here (the Taconic highway) and how dangerous it is. They showed an accident last week which killed a really attractive 18 yr old girl who was broadsided in her Acura Legend by a Grand Cherokee. I have no doubt that if the Cherokee's bumper had been lower and not at shoulder height she might have survived the accident.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Well, sorry to burst the bubbles of the city dwellers that live in mediterranian climates and never get sub 50 degree weather, but there are some of us that do live in places where the snowplows don't venture do go and do have to make 20 mile commutes to work in 2 lane highways.



The funny thing is, my dad drove a 60-mile round trip every day in Alaska on Highway 9, through curvy, hilly roads with up to a foot of snow on top of ice... in a Mercedes 240D, a sturdy workhorse of a car with no fantastic ground clearance or four-wheel drive. He worked at the Seward branch of the Alaska Railroad and reported that he saw more four-wheel-drives off the road in the ditch than two-wheel drives.

One of the characteristics of rear-wheel-drive is that if the engine causes the drive wheels to break traction, either from excess drag or excess thrust, the steering wheels (the front) are still capable of rolling freely and steering the front of the car. With four-wheel-drive, if one suddenly drops throttle or gives the car too much throttle on a slippery surface, it's possible to lose traction on both axles and possibly all four tires in a really slippery situation... at which point the vehicle cannot be steered. To use the tires to steer, they must be rolling, not spinning out or skidding.

We did an interesting physics experiment in college in which we locked the axles on small car models and rolled them down a ramp with the wheels of the locked axle skidding. Very counterintuitive: the locked, skidding wheels always swing around to the front of the vehicle. I had this experience firsthand in a rear-wheel-drive car whose rear wheels broke traction on an icy downhill from too much engine drag. I shifted the car into neutral and the wheels, now free to roll, regained traction, allowing me to recover from the spin and steer to some crunchy snow in the middle of the road for sufficient traction to stop for the stop sign in the middle of the hill.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |