C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #21

> Think about a small plane, which is more likely to tip over on the
> runway, one with wings, or one without? The problem is not a higher
> center of gravity, it is the inertia acting on it.

If the center of gravity is the same, the plane without the wings will be more likely to
tip over. The wings increase the moment of interia and make the plane roll slower. Think
about high wire walkers...

Ed

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #22

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
> thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.
> --

One problem -I am not likely to try and roll one on a test drive.

The magazines that depend on advertising for a living aren't likely to try and roll
them either. Journalist who want to be invited to cool trips and get inside
information aren't exactly impartial observers and probably don't spend a lot of time
trying to turn one over.

Personally, I doubt that the X5 is particularly dangerous. However, an X5 in the hands
of someone who thinks it is a BMW sedan might be dangerous.

I still think the introduction of Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche faux SUVs has to mark the
beginning of the end of the SUV craze. I cannot see how anyone can justify maintaining
a separate CAFE category for vehicles that are so obviously not intended for off road
or commercial use. Once the separate CAFE category goes away, SUVs will become more
and more like cars and people will come to realize they are just buying station
wagons. I've always known my SUV was a station wagon, and can live with the idea. As
soon as the trendy people realize they are driving their Mother's car, they'll start
looking for something else to drive.

Ed

 

D

daytripper

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #23

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:28:25 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
>> I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
>> thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.
>> --
>
>One problem -I am not likely to try and roll one on a test drive.

Why? That's be the best time to try...

 

G

GRL

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #24

I've subscribed to CR for decades, in spite of detesting their politics,
precisely because you can count on them for an honest, fair, and financially
disinterested (no advertising) appraisal of products and on their frequency
of repair data for an appraisal of how well a product holds up in owners
hands. Nobody does it better overall. (The buff books do better reviews from
the standpoint of whether a car is fun to drive, but they tell you
essentially nothing about reliability. Their long-term tests have far too
small a sample size to be significant statistically.)

You give one instance where you say CR "blew" a review: Bayliner boats.
Bayliners are entry level boats and lots of people buy them for just that
reason - cheap and lots of bang for the buck. If they are as bad as you seem
to think, they should have gone out of business long ago. Did they? Further,
I don't recall having seen a review of runabouts in CR in decades, if ever.
When did they review Bayliners?

How about another example of when they blew a review? Something in the last
decade or so.


- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:vjoic6fqquov2b@news.supernews.com...
>
> "GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote in message
> news:vjobc6keulao7b@corp.supernews.com...
> > Let's see, Consumer Reports wrote that the BMW 5-Series is their
favorite
> > sedan of all time with a great engine, good economy, great handling, and
a
> > smooth ride. You say that no one with a brain trusts CR. So you're
saying
> > the 5-Series must suck because CR liked it and no one with a brain
trusts
> > them, right? Boy are you going to get flamed. Pretty ballsy to say that
in
> > this news group.
> >
> CR recommended Bayliner boats (which are really bad), they made other
really
> bad recommendations as well. I will not even go into the details where CR
> screwed up. I do not own a BMW - I would not based on some of the
mechanical
> reliability issues that I see with them (especially 2002 and up models,
> earlier models are rock solid in my book), and also the IDrive system
which
> is a total disaster. However, I still think CR is really lousy. Based on
> their subscription rates dropping, I am not the only one that feels this
> way.
>
>
>
>

 

G

GRL

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #25

Well put.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
<mandycan> wrote in message
news:fneojvspqehiscq7t70saqgj2iqgnq55ls@4ax.com...
> It'll be interesting to watch the BMW apoligists try to deal with this
> one. Too many of them feel that BMW can do no wrong. Clearly, they
> make great passenger cars. Arguably the world's best passenger cars.
> I'm proud and grateful to own and drive one.
>
> But, the fact is, for all their virtues, there is a not not to like
> about them. But the BMW apologists consider it heresy to utter the
> remotest criticism of their sacred machines. Face it, folks, it's a
> car and a car company. They do a helluvalot of things right; but they
> also do a helluvalot of them wrong. It's just possible the X5 falls
> much more strongly into the latter category. What is a
> performance-based passenger-car company doing making a small truck
> anyway?
>
> I've never driven one, but I did follow one on a two lane coastal
> highway one day. The guy driving refused to let me by despite my
> repeated flashing of headlights everytime we passed one of those
> "slower traffic use turnouts" signs. Every little straightaway he'd
> give it all it had to try to put distance between us. I'd just hang
> back hoping for enought break to get by the fool because every time
> the road changed to a bit of a challenge, he'd have to slow to a near
> crawl. Ok, the fool probably couldn't drive for ****, but the car was
> obviously not up to CA Hwy 1 either.
>
> I'd never own an SUV, BMW's or anyone else's. I like to drive too much
> for that. But, I have no doubt there are much better handling SUVs
> than the X5 and CR is spot on with this one.
>
> Oh yeah, did I mention that I was driving the V6 Accord that day?
>
>
>
> mandycan
> (can you?)
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:04:50 -0500, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rollie Pollie" <Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header> wrote in
> message
> >news:0DCLQFSO37847.9899537037@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> >> According to Consumer Reports current edition:
> >>
> >> The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one
> problem.
> >> It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling
> course.
> >>
> >> BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.
> >>
> >> Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions:
> minimum load.
> >> Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof
> rack load)
> >> and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the
> steering
> >> wheel.
> >>
> >> Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the
> advice of
> >> your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A,
> you would
> >> not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these
> cars! If
> >> you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers
> are going
> >> to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring
> in the
> >> big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like
> and skin
> >> you alive.
> >>
> >> We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some
> margin
> >> of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't
> have
> >> electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need
> it.
> >Any
> >> vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going
> to
> >repeal
> >> the laws of physics.
> >
> >
> >I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer
> reports.
> >
>

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #26

In article <3F3DA1B7.DFBDB1D7@mindspring.com>,
cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>
> > Think about a small plane, which is more likely to tip over on the
> > runway, one with wings, or one without? The problem is not a higher
> > center of gravity, it is the inertia acting on it.
>
> If the center of gravity is the same, the plane without the wings will be more likely to
> tip over. The wings increase the moment of interia and make the plane roll slower. Think
> about high wire walkers...
>
> Ed
>
>

Uh, unless I'm mistaken, wire walkers can move their balancing pole
independently of their body, (most) planes can't do that.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #27

In article <3F3DA43F.F203146F@mindspring.com>,
cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
> > thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.
> > --
>
> One problem -I am not likely to try and roll one on a test drive.

So you are planing to try to troll one once you buy it? I just don't
see the relevance of these tests. I've seen both a BMW 5 series and a
Porche 911 Turbo roll on a nice smooth banked turn at the track. Where
is the CR rollover test on these?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #28

In article <vjrap7i92enl75@corp.supernews.com>, GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM
says...
> I've subscribed to CR for decades, in spite of detesting their politics,
> precisely because you can count on them for an honest, fair, and financially
> disinterested (no advertising) appraisal of products and on their frequency

LOL! If they had advertisers at least then we would know what their
agenda is for sure. Instead they are subject to any number of personal
or under the table influences that we are not privy too. However to say
they are not interested in financial gain is laughable.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

D

Dave Plowman

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #29

In article <MPG.19a77015106d0f57989d94@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Perhaps you are too naive to know why these organizations exist. To
> sell magazines, and now, online subscriptions.

And who gets the profit from these sales?

--
*Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard? *

Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

D

Dave Plowman

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #30

In article <MPG.19a7712bebe0cc85989d96@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > CR is not perfect and I often disagree with their opinions. However, I
> > don't think they are any more likely to be dishonest than the other
> > sources of information. I am certainly more inclined to trust their
> > test results than those of enthusiast magazines.

> I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
> thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.

Where would the average person get the opportunity to test for likely roll
over during a test drive? Or for any of the other many things a good
magazine or organization will test properly?

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

D

Dave Plowman

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #31

In article <vjrap7i92enl75@corp.supernews.com>,
GRL <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote:
> I've subscribed to CR for decades, in spite of detesting their politics,
> precisely because you can count on them for an honest, fair, and
> financially disinterested (no advertising) appraisal of products and on
> their frequency of repair data for an appraisal of how well a product
> holds up in owners hands. Nobody does it better overall. (The buff books
> do better reviews from the standpoint of whether a car is fun to drive,
> but they tell you essentially nothing about reliability. Their long-term
> tests have far too small a sample size to be significant statistically.)

In one. You'd think those that constantly criticise such organisations
were forced to pay for them out of their taxes instead of them being paid
for solely by their members. But in any case, they prefer to read what
they *want* to be told about a product they've already bought or are going
to buy in a specialist mag. Which is good news for those specialist mags,
as *proper* objective testing don't come cheap...

Every car mag gets their test car from the maker's test fleet. That they
sometimes have faults is surprising, to say the least. A consumer
organisation buys the cars in the normal way like you or me. Which is more
representative?

> You give one instance where you say CR "blew" a review: Bayliner boats.
> Bayliners are entry level boats and lots of people buy them for just
> that reason - cheap and lots of bang for the buck. If they are as bad as
> you seem to think, they should have gone out of business long ago. Did
> they? Further, I don't recall having seen a review of runabouts in CR in
> decades, if ever. When did they review Bayliners?

> How about another example of when they blew a review? Something in the
> last decade or so.

Just about everyone has a couple of examples to trot out to 'prove'
consumer organisations are crap. Out of the thousands of products they've
tested. Perhaps they are perfect in their own work?

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

D

Dave Plowman

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #32

In article <MPG.19a797f825f2a20b989d98@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I've seen both a BMW 5 series and a Porche 911 Turbo roll on a nice
> smooth banked turn at the track. Where is the CR rollover test on
> these?

Are they sold as race cars, or even hinted as being suitable for track
use? Does their factory warranty cover such use?

I complained to the factory that my Rolls Royce didn't work too well as a
snow plough. And was even worse as an earth mover.

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

V

Verolom

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #33

This is really becoming an argument for or against SUVs (or BMWs) not
whether the X5 is "tipsy" or not. Chris is right, if you want to know how a
car/truck handles, go test drive one and push it hard. Any vehicle can roll
over, the question is does the driver know how that happens and when it
happens as the vehicle is pushed to its limits.

I drive an X5 3.0i without the sports package. Yes, the suspension is soft,
and yes, the 17" tires with high walls tend to flex quite a bit under the
5000 lbs weight of the vehicle, and yes, it rolls more that I would like it
to do. Have I ever been really too close to rolling it over? No. Have I
ever pushed the limits and driven it like a maniac? You bet, I live in NJ,
that is usually how my daily commute is. But with all the pot holes and
uneven pavement, I'd much rather have a softer suspension and a nice and
relaxing drive, rather than rattle my bones or be a rally driver.

I have not read the CR results, but I bet they did not test an X5 with the
sports package. The sports package will give you three things, higher
profile 18" tires, much stiffer suspension and a self leveling rear axle.
If you roll over a sports package X5 you are definitely not driving safely.
The X5 4.4i comes standard with all that.

 

F

fbloogyudsr

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #34

"Verolom" <verolomni@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote
> I have not read the CR results, but I bet they did not test an X5 with the
> sports package. The sports package will give you three things, higher
> profile 18" tires, much stiffer suspension and a self leveling rear axle.
> If you roll over a sports package X5 you are definitely not driving
safely.
> The X5 4.4i comes standard with all that.

Actually, I would guess it's the other way: the sports package equipped
X5 is probably *more* likely to roll. The reason is that it has more grip
and is stiffer, which means that transient movements on the roll axis are
more severe. Car & Driver did a test a couple of years ago with X5's
and ML55 that showed that effect, especially with some tuner-modified
ones with very stiff suspensions.

Floyd

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #35

In article <4c22c5f45adave.sound@argonet.co.uk>,
dave.sound@argonet.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.19a77015106d0f57989d94@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Perhaps you are too naive to know why these organizations exist. To
> > sell magazines, and now, online subscriptions.
>
> And who gets the profit from these sales?
>
>

The CEOs, mostly. Who else?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #36

In article <4c22c642e1dave.sound@argonet.co.uk>,
dave.sound@argonet.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.19a7712bebe0cc85989d96@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > CR is not perfect and I often disagree with their opinions. However, I
> > > don't think they are any more likely to be dishonest than the other
> > > sources of information. I am certainly more inclined to trust their
> > > test results than those of enthusiast magazines.
>
> > I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
> > thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.
>
> Where would the average person get the opportunity to test for likely roll
> over during a test drive? Or for any of the other many things a good
> magazine or organization will test properly?
>
>

Uh, if you can't make it tip in a test drive then you can't make it tip
period. Are you some kind of pussy who just accepts what the salesmen
says when you are about to hand him $60,000 for something? If you don't
drive it like you are going to drive it after you buy it then what the
hell is the point of a test drive.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #37

In article <4c22c868bbdave.sound@argonet.co.uk>,
dave.sound@argonet.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.19a797f825f2a20b989d98@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I've seen both a BMW 5 series and a Porche 911 Turbo roll on a nice
> > smooth banked turn at the track. Where is the CR rollover test on
> > these?
>
> Are they sold as race cars, or even hinted as being suitable for track
> use? Does their factory warranty cover such use?
>
Yes and yes. Do you think factory installed 5 point harnesses are for
grocery shopping?

> I complained to the factory that my Rolls Royce didn't work too well as a
> snow plough. And was even worse as an earth mover.

I suspect they called you an idiot.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #38

In article <vjsld8f0rsrla1@corp.supernews.com>, fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com
says...
> "Verolom" <verolomni@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote
> > I have not read the CR results, but I bet they did not test an X5 with the
> > sports package. The sports package will give you three things, higher
> > profile 18" tires, much stiffer suspension and a self leveling rear axle.
> > If you roll over a sports package X5 you are definitely not driving
> safely.
> > The X5 4.4i comes standard with all that.
>
> Actually, I would guess it's the other way: the sports package equipped
> X5 is probably *more* likely to roll. The reason is that it has more grip
> and is stiffer, which means that transient movements on the roll axis are
> more severe. Car & Driver did a test a couple of years ago with X5's
> and ML55 that showed that effect, especially with some tuner-modified
> ones with very stiff suspensions.
>
> Floyd
>
>
>

Makes you wonder how I've gotten along all these years with my 4 Runner
and not rolled it.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 19, 2003

• #39

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <3F3DA1B7.DFBDB1D7@mindspring.com>,
> cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Think about a small plane, which is more likely to tip over on the
> > > runway, one with wings, or one without? The problem is not a higher
> > > center of gravity, it is the inertia acting on it.
> >
> > If the center of gravity is the same, the plane without the wings will be more likely to
> > tip over. The wings increase the moment of interia and make the plane roll slower. Think
> > about high wire walkers...
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
>
> Uh, unless I'm mistaken, wire walkers can move their balancing pole
> independently of their body, (most) planes can't do that.
>

True, but the pole also increase the moment of inertia of the wire walker and this makes
rotational changes slower. Of course once they start to rotate, it is harder to stop the
rotation. So if we go back to planes, I contend that the presence of wings increases the
moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis. This makes the plane roll slower about this
axis and therefore less likely to tip onto a wing. However, once it starts tipping, then the
higher moment of inertia will also make it harder to stop the tipping by taking corrective
action.

Regards,

Ed White

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 19, 2003

• #40

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Makes you wonder how I've gotten along all these years with my 4 Runner
> and not rolled it.

Maybe you aren't really trying. 4Runners have one of the highest rollover death
rates of any vechicle sold in the US. It is much higher than Ford Explorers, yet
the press has never even mentioned it in their frequent attacks on SUVs.

Regards,

Ed White