[Shotimes] Now (OT), was 16x7 or 16x7.5 ?
Arjun Khosla
shojun@mtrs.org
Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:11:22 -0700
Two things easily explain why passenger cars are safer for their
occupants than SUVs: crumple zones and center of gravity. That's what
it really boils down to.
Crumple zones (ie, sheetmetal getting crushed in an impact) absorb the
energy in an impact so that your body doesn't have to. SUVs are built
truck-tough, thus smashing your body in a crash rather than the truck
itself. An NHTSA study referred to in one of the links in my message
below compared SUVs to cars of the same weight by crashing them into
each other-- and it found the cars to be safer to their occupants
because of the high CoG and lack of crumple zones in the SUVs.
The high center of gravity in SUVs increases the likelihood of
rollovers, and you're much more likely to sustain severe injury if your
truck starts rolling than if your car crumples into something.
Stick with the Taurus if you want to keep yourself safe.
Regards,
-Arjun
Ron Porter wrote:
>I know once I was out of school many years ago, "new math" started to be
>taught, so we now have masses of people who can't make change without a
>calculator.
>
>I guess they also started teaching "new laws of physics", as well as "new
>logic". The convoluted argument below is why I feel that what the safety and
>ecological fanatics try to say has no value whatsoever. It flies in the face
>of what people already know, and no twisting of statistics can change the
>inherent lower level of safety of smaller vehicles.
>
>Ron Porter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
>On Behalf Of Arjun Khosla
>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:24 PM
>To: shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] Now (OT), was 16x7 or 16x7.5 ?
>
>
>SUVs are definitely not safer than other cars on the road-- it starts
>off with them being classified as "light trucks". Legislation says that
>because they're not passenger cars, they don't have to meet the same
>passenger-safety criteria. Because they're built truck-tough, their
>frames won't crumple as easily in collisions, which means more force is
>tranferred to the SUV's occupants in a crash than if they were driving
>in a car. Because they've got high centers of gravity, they're more
>likely to rollover in a crash. Because they apparently aren't
>passenger-carriers, most don't have much side-impact protection. The
>driver death rates in SUVs are comparable to those of small cars.
> Mid-size (eg, SHO) and large cars have lower driver death rates. If an
>SUV hits a car, its occupants are at least 4 times more likely to die
>than those in an SUV (27 times more likely in the event of an SUV
>side-impacting a car), and chances are those people would survive if
>they were hit by a car rather than an SUV. The NHTSA says that
>occupants of a struck car are twice as likely to die if they're struck
>by an SUV than by another car (even if the SUV weighs the same as the car).
>
>So if you choose an SUV based on safety, you're just as likely to die at
>the wheel than if you were driving a Mazda Protege, for example (note:
>giant SUVs like the Excursion are actually safer-than average for their
>drivers because of their ability to smash through anything). You'd
>personally be safer driving a mid-size or large sedan. You're also
>twice as likely to kill somebody else if you crash into them.
>
>SUVs are not safer. Not for their occupants, not for the occupants of
>other cars.
>
>Some links:
>https://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/
>http://www.suv.org/safety.html
>http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/risks.htm
>
>I'll ignore the SUV's poor gas mileage and the fact that only 5% of them
>are ever taken off-road...
>
>Regards,
> -Arjun
>
>
>Ron Porter wrote:
>
>
>
>>No, I don't, as there is no such thing as a "gas guzzling" ANYTHING.......
>>
>>As you may have noticed, I have made this an OT topic. If anyone wants to
>>respond, do it to me privately, as this is a definite OT topic.
>>
>>Whenever I see "gas guzzling" or "urban sprawl", etc, in anything I read,
>>
>>
>it
>
>
>>is a liberal, socialist, middle-class-values-hating, ignorant comment.
>>
>>OK, as my friends do, they haul 6 passengers to soccer practice with gear.
>>What "guzzles gas" more? One Explorer hauling these 7 people (6 kids +
>>driver) & gear getting 15 mpg, or three Honda Civics hauling these 6 people
>>plus three drivers getting 30 mpg each hauling the same stuff?? Sorry,
>>
>>
>this
>
>
>>40-50 mpg BS is only highway miles, not around-town reality.
>>
>>SUVS are useful vehicles, plus are safer than other cars. "Gas Guzzling" is
>>fightin' words for those of us with any sensibility, unlike "pie in the
>>
>>
>sky"
>
>
>>liberals.
>>
>>Sorry, you obvious touched one of my "hot buttons".
>>
>>Ron Porter (RNC Member since the '80s, and damn proud of it!!)
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Carl Prochilo [mailto:gr8sho@prochilo.myserver.org]
>>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:09 PM
>>To: Ron Porter; shotimes@autox.team.net
>>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 16x7 or 16x7.5 ?
>>
>>Do you have the same problem up there
>>seeing all these ugly gas guzzling SUVs with 30" wheels with the spinning
>>centers?
>>_______________________________________________
>>Shotimes mailing list
>>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes