Brent P wrote:

> Unlike alot of SUV's etc, semi's tractors have a front bumper that
> is aligned with the structure of cars.

Exactly. They may crush cars into accordion shaped pieces of scrap-metal, but
at least they don't tend to submarine them.

> And based on personal experience
> what we need for protection is to bring back the side impact beam
> designs of the 1970s before CAFE and mix them into the more modern
> methods.
>
> Those big door beams of the 70s were over designed for the regulations
> but of course did a better job when implemented well. CAFE required
> shaving every pound so side impact beams got smaller.

They got dropped, from '82 until '97. A few models still had them but there was
no longer a mandate. And they certainly did work, witness the return of such a
requirement for '97. The old models used beams the size and shape of extra
frame rails, it should be possible to get equivalent levels of protection with
lighter tubular-section guard beams, as most are anyway nowadays. For that
purpose they'd be just as resistant with less mass. But perhaps they'd still
have to be a bit higher-gauge than current standards require--I've not reviewed
them in detail.

As far as I'm concerned the mass should be in the cage, not the doors; it's hard
on the hinges.


--Aardwolf.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
> easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
> truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
> an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
> on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

So you advertise them. People will buy what they're told they want. Those
that actually _need_ to haul big pieces of plywood around, might then still
buy trucks, but what's wrong with that?

--Aardwolf.

of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
like everybody else.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:HYmkb.2273$np1.35@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: >
: > Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
: > one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
: > horrendous experience against all odds?
:
: Well I'm not the average driver, so I was able to keep the SUVs on the
road
: and (amazingly) upright. Go figure. -Dave
:
:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:

>> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
>> directly
>> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
>I'm not aware of any that did.

I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
It had an EGR setup.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>>
>> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> the same thing others do.
>> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> ignores reality.
>
>No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>with driving a car.

No offense, but I was referring to reality.
You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
that driver uses wheile on the road.
Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?

>
>However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
>else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
>my fat ass out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
>vis-versa.
>
>In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.

Yes. That's reality.
>
>Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
>hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
>to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
>and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
>space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
>whereas someone else who has an econobox
>that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
>of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
>space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
>car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
>Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
>doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
>and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
>he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?

But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
Damage to the roads? Billy Bob's pickup and travel trailer (I have to
assume you're not thinking Billy Bob is driving a semi, because you
know semis pay far more in use taxes than light trucks) don't
materially harm the roads more than the fleas do.
And Billy Bob's truck has the same pollution control the fleas do.
Same Federal taxes? Maybe, maybe not. You can't say that the flea's
driver is paying the same, more, or less Federal tax than Billy Bob
based on vehicle choice. Billy Bob, in your scenario, IS paying more
gas tax.
>
>If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
>proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
>then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.

If I could do that, I'd have a job in government, and be set for life!

>
>But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
>trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
>road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
>costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
>pay for their "needs"

Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
Fuel? Possibly.
Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
presented, so that's already done.
Other costs?
>
>> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
>> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
>> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
>
>Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
>on the road, they are not "so popular"

That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
majority to be popular.
Remember, the Ford F-series is the biggest seller in the US. I'd say
that's a pretty good insdication that they are popular, wouldn't you?
>The reason they are popular
>at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
>around.

So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
>easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
>truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
>on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

Wait a minute...
Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
utility?
Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
for their utility?
>
>Ted
>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:59 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <sao1pvs52cf1ao6d810d1kudlp0fbmh02o@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>>
>>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>>metro.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think so.
>> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>>
>
>A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
>
The seat is connected to the vehicle's structure.
When the seat moves in relation to the cage, the cage is just
something else to hit.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:16:09 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
>> that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
>> and safety.
>
>Not really, as the relationship between accident avoidance ability and
>accident survivability is not linear. That is, with SOME certain SUVs, you
>might have a SLIGHTLY better chance of surviving a collision with SOME
>certain other vehicles. But then again, with any decent handling car (not
>necessarily a performance oriented car, either), your chances of avoiding
>the accident in the first place are much better, and your odds of surviving
>one are not significantly decreased.

Did you not read what I wrote?
That handling advantage is useless if it's not used.
>
>In short, the SUV bulk gives some drivers a false sense of security just as
>the better handling of cars gives some drivers a false sense of security,
>ALSO. But even a below-average driver will NEED to crank hard on the
>steering wheel EVENTUALLY, to save someone's life. This is an unavoidable
>eventuality, even if you drive your SUV as if it is the piece of chit that
>it is. So WHEN (not if) that moment comes, you're better off to be driving
>a car. -Dave
>
*IF* you recognize that moment, and actually take proper action.
Which is what I said above.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:46:04 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>>
>> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
Really?
Tell that to my SUVs.. I'm sure they'd like to know that they are
doing so well in the mileage department.
Where did you get this 8 mpg figure?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:08:24 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:

>Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
>number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
>you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
>inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
>center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
>they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
>vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
Failing that (which is the reality), I'd like to see a system that at
the least tests for some sort of driving ability, instead of the
present American system that seems to believe that driving is a
necessity, and passes everyone who knows their ZIP code (and has the
testers prompt those who are in danger of failing even that criteria).

>
> Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
> manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
> trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
> unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".

Y'know, that's something I was thinking, too. Many SUVs are suffering from
their own popularity. Would ANY SUV be appropriate for severe off-road use
if it was manufactured recently? I don't know. What I have noticed though,
is some of the larger SUVs are substituting soft-ride car suspensions for
the previous hardened truck suspensions. OK, so it's more appropriate for
the way the vehicle is actually used by most owners. But what about the few
who actually want to take the thing off-road? -Dave (would go off-road if
he owned an SUV)

>
> The forester is really just the newest version of subaru's station wagon.
> They might market it differently, but it's a station wagon. (unless I
> remembered wrong and now look stupid ) Not an evil thing, just a
> AWD wagon in the tradition of the original AMC eagle.

Yeah, I know it's a decent vehicle. But it's virtually identical to what
she's currently driving, so I don't see the point. -Dave

>
> Fast forward 15 years and there won't be any cars left to hear you tell
> it, they will all be destroyed by SUVs.
> --

I know you weren't responding to me. I think you are a bit confused. -Dave

> >
>
> Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> a plan. Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! But actually, we need the station wagons based on that
beast. Oh, and AWD wouldn't hurt, but just limited slip RWD would
uffice. -Dave

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:fhvkb.2379$Bg6.19572900@news-text.cableinet.net...
> of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
> like everybody else.
>

I guess I'm lucky to be alive then. (shudder) -Dave

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> fight against cancer.

And over the years, it probably has.

> Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> of times larger than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack, but the
> amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.

If I'm driving down the road at 60 mph with a severely dented fender,
and the oil light comes on, I would pull over immediately and invest in
whatever it took to get the oil pressure back up. The fender could cost
a couple of thousand dollars to repair and the oil light may take $2 in
motor oil to correct, but the urgency of the fender repair (i.e., cost
of not acting) was not nearly as great and was no reason to pull over.

We have to do both (anti-terrorism and anti-cancer). And in many ways,
terrorism is like cancer.

Speaking as the father of a childhood cancer survivor whose initial
statistical chances of survival were less than 35%...
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave C. wrote:

>>Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
>>manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
>>trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
>>unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".
>
>
> Y'know, that's something I was thinking, too. Many SUVs are suffering from
> their own popularity. Would ANY SUV be appropriate for severe off-road use
> if it was manufactured recently? I don't know. What I have noticed though,
> is some of the larger SUVs are substituting soft-ride car suspensions for
> the previous hardened truck suspensions. OK, so it's more appropriate for
> the way the vehicle is actually used by most owners. But what about the few
> who actually want to take the thing off-road? -Dave (would go off-road if
> he owned an SUV)
>
>

I'm not sure about that, I recall about 1990 or so (when I still lived
with my parents, and thus off-roading was an option for me) there was a
trend towards softer springs, even with aftermarket lift kits. The
theory was that this allowed for more traction in rock-crawling type
situations, and also a better ride on (relatively) high speed but still
rough trails. Is this still current thinking?

Now I do agree that a stiff chassis and strong axles and suspension are
a must, and I'm not sure how the "new" SUVs measure up...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
the various classes of cars.

Ed

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.

The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
vehicles.

Ed

I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop. For all of what has been said
here, it isn't difficult to drive a large vehicle.. but it may be impossible
to drive it quickly. Most bad drivers I have met are perfectly capable of
handling their vehicle at the sensible / legal speed, but seem to think they
are driving on a race track..


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:lbh4pv45ro2fl9tnglu4sg4c16knr819p0@4ax.com...
: Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
: number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
: you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
: inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
: center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
: they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
: vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
> each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
> > Ted
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>

You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.

CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.

When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
not play. And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
anything to help the work they were doing.

Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
double what we could get in years past.

Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.