On 22 Oct 2003 07:49:52 -0700,
[email protected] (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel
<
[email protected]>
>> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice
misdirection.
>>
>> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
>> silly claim.
>>
>> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.
>
>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.
You still haven't answered the question Nate.
>> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed.
Or
>> >>
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market
that has
>> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of
it's
>> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to
educate
>> >> yourself.
>> >>
>> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as
you
>> >> imagine it to be.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will
handle
>> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as
there
>> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver
inputs.
>>
>> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
>> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
>> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
>> etc. etc.
>
>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.
Ummm...the manufacturer specs the OEM tires. Tires do make a
difference. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Supplemental stability control systems are
>nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
>characteristics of a vehicle.
Bull****. They are an integral part of the handling characteristics of
many SUVs, and passenger cars.
And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
>actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
>control the vehicle.
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
>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.
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.
>> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I
hear
>> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because
they
>> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money
for a
>> >car that would be safer.
>>
>> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
>> me.
>>
>> Talk about misdirection.
>
>Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
>apples.
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.
>> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good
metric
>> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>>
>> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>>
>> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!
>
>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.
Oh bull**** 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.
>> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
>> >>
>> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations
about
>> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in
comparison to
>> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match
the
>> >> real world?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>>
>> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>>
>> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate?
Please
>> quote. Thanks.
>>
>> (hint: I haven't)
>
>No comment needed...
Since you've once again made specious allegations that you can't back
up. As expected.
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all
SUVs
>> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>> >>>
>> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very
confused,
>> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but
multiple
>> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to
argue
>> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>>
>> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
>> including price as a qualifier.
>>
>> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
>> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>>
>> For shame!
>
>See above.
For shame indeed.
>> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving"
certainly
>> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which
you
>> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
>> >>>
>> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
>> >>>intervals, is all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
>> >>
>> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense
to
>> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
>> >
>> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's
not
>> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>>
>> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you
with
>> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if
you
>> get some help.
>>
>> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings
out
>> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned
about
>> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining
what
>> the truth is.
>>
>
>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.
Ah, admitting your faults is a good thing Nate. Congrats!
Watch those assumptions!
>
><snip>
>
>> >>>
>> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your
message,
>> >>
>> >> but
>> >>
>> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
>> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that
you
>> >>>could afford?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very
safe and
>> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that
might, or
>> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can
think of
>> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't
mentioned
>> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just
liked
>> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind,
that's
>> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the
intellectual
>> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>>
>> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
>> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
>> piece of work.
>>
>> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to
remote
>> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
>> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because
it's
>> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>>
>> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>>
>
>"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe.
Yes. A blast to drive. Both on-road and off-road.
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.
Clearance issues on secondary roads. Low range.
Now towing I
>can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.
So because I didn't mention it you assumed that I did no towing.
Where's the problem with that type of "thinking"?
>> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
>> >>
>> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to
allow
>> >>
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road
performance?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes...and your point is?
>> >>
>> >
>> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet
claiming
>> >you bought it for safety.
>>
>> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
>> safety? Quote please.
>>
>> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by
misquoting
>> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form
Nate.
>>
>
>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.
Again, I never wrote that I made my decision solely based upon safety
as you claim. More misquoting on your part.
>
>> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty
much
>> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
>> >>
>> >> don't
>> >>
>> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock
crawling it's
>> >> not off roading.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation
is
>> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>>
>> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel
articulation,
>> say something that is very competitve in something like
Paris-Dakar,
>> has poor high speed handling?
>
>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.
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.
>> >> LOL.
>> >>
>> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty
for my
>> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling
as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >
>> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>>
>> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring
your
>> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>>
>> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
>> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling
vehicle may
>> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>>
>> I understand your point.
>>
>> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't
use
>> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I
know
>> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
>> that fact?
>
>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.
Good job!
Apparently you have gotten some treatment for that assumption
affliction.
><snip>
>
>> >> This is the best part I think.
>> >>
>> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and
because
>> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail
about
>> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your
myopic
>> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one
with
>> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can
chat
>> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
>> >>
>> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
>> >>
>> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
>> >> choice.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a
40 year
>> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just
illustrates
>> >my point.
>>
>> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your
old
>> car.
>>
>> I meant it like this:
>>
>> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
>> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
>> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>>
>> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would
enjoy a
>> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
>> enjoy driving.
>>
>> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
>> >Scirocco or GTI...
>>
>> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
>> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for
a
>> little friendly competition.
>>
>> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually
play
>> around in on the track.
>>
>> It's your choice.
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>>
>> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off
of
>> the SUV if that's your choice)
>>
>> pete fagerlin
>
>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.
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.
>
>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.
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
>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.
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.
>In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
>drive *that?*
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
>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.
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.
