Fifth Gear - More Anti Bias

S

Steve Taylor

Guest

• May 4, 2006

• #21

Nigel Hewitt wrote:

> Maybe that's why I got the Rangie. Cut that up in a white van and
> you'll know about it.
Ah but with a 101 we can cut you up....

Steve

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• May 4, 2006

• #22

On 2006-05-04, Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah but with a 101 we can cut you up....

.... going downhill with a tailwind...

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

H

hugh

Guest

• May 6, 2006

• #23

In message <[email protected]>, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> writes
>Piers wrote:
>> I totally agree, they deliberately chose a type of accident that
>> avoided the Disco's chassis coming into play. In the actual programme
>> they pointed out that the Land Rover's "stiff chassis" was virtually
>> undistorted! A direct head-on crash would have given very different
>> results, but that's not what they wanted to show on TV and Renault
>> probably wouldn't have given them a brand new Espace if it didn't help
>> sell them...
>
>It is widely known that 4x4's do not actually perform particularly
>well in crashes because they have a solid (and very stiff) chassis.
>Don't know why anyone here is complaining. I didn't see the feature
>as particularly biased, they even said that they didn't know what
>the outcome would be because no-one had actually done this type of
>test before. Maybe if they had crashed an Espace into a DIII it
>would have been different, but you can't get a DIII for anywhere
>near the money of an Espace and they were trying to compare two
>similarly priced 'family' vehicles - their reasoning was valid.
>If they put a Metro up against the Disco it wouldn't exactly have
>been fair would it?! (although I agree that 10k for a D1 is a bit
>OTT, but even a DII would have had the same result being all but
>identical in the chassis department)
>
>The reason they did a 40% head-on collision is because that is what
>most accidents are like - it is pretty rare for cars to meet exactly
>100% head-on - people usually make some sort of effort to avoid an
>oncoming car instead of running straight into it! LOL Even driving
>a Disco I somehow doubt that you would deliberately aim for a 100%
>head-on collision if you were in that situation because you thought
>that you would come off better when you hit the other vehicle!!
>
>What I found scary is that it was only 40MPH and that was the result,
>I mean, I travel around town at that sort of speed all day, it has
>certainly slowed me down!
>
>Of course (despite being a big LR fan) I may be slightly biased
>the other way, already owning an Espace for ferrying the family
>around in!
>
>Matt
So the message is if you drive a LR and you must have a head on
collision make sure its 100% especially if you are about to hit an
Espace. LOL

--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

 

A

AJG

Guest

• May 6, 2006

• #24

In message <[email protected]>, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> writes
>On 2006-05-04, Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ah but with a 101 we can cut you up....
>
>... going downhill with a tailwind...

and ear defenders ...

--
AndyG