nice SUV article

[Stephen Harding]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> > Get with the program, learn the template. It'll save you a lot of painful and difficult
> > thinking.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that a 'luxury' SUV is an inelegant, inefficient, unsafe, and uncouth
> vehicle. If I had fifty g's to drop

The "unsafe" quality is defined for the vehicle due to its higher rollover potential.

Welcome to the world of physics. That world also says it's a safer vehicle because it has more mass
or weight, so it is less damaged in impacts than a smaller, lower mass vehicle.

I suppose airplanes are quite unsafe vehicles as well. They tend to kill everyone on board of they
lose an engine and crash. Boats can sink. Nature of the beasts.

"Uncouth" vehicle. Well not certain how badly SUVs violate the Federal Uncouth Standards. We all
know how much money Detroit makes by slipping around those regulations.

> on an auto, and didn't want to take it off-road, I'd look for something with a bit more class--and
> something that didn't handle like a whale on quaaludes.

If I had $50K available to me, I'd not spend it on a vehicle of any type. On the other hand, if you
won the lottery, and decided a Lamborghini was just the ticket for your love life, I'd really not
stand in your way.

The concept of a vehicle designed and licensed to be driven on public roads, and having a top speed
of 160 mph is ludicrous to me...but it would be your money, so ca va.

SMH

 

[Max]

John Everett <[email protected]> wrote:

> I should point out that in addition to going to the grocery store, my Mercedes has twice been over
> the Continental Divide in Colorado on dirt tracks [...]both rough dirt tracks. [...] I did
> recently move a large table saw.

heh. Was it a Delta or a Black and Decker??

> John "Enjoying My SUV on the Flatlands of Aurora, Illinois" Everett

Hey! Me too! (the aurora part) Do you ever ride the 10-mile loop near Prestbury/deerpath etc?

.max

--
the part of <[email protected]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

 

[Mike Latondress]

"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> If GM can turn a huge profit selling these, it just means that they have a vehicle that people
> want and are willing to pay the extra money for.
>
And it also proves that Mr. Barnum was right.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:50:47 GMT, <[email protected]>, Mike Latondresse
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> If GM can turn a huge profit selling these, it just means that they have a vehicle that people
>> want and are willing to pay the extra money for.
>>
>And it also proves that Mr. Barnum was right.

I thought Chrysler named the "PT Cruiser" in his honour.
--
zk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:58:45 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Quote: "Like every muscle car before it, SUVs are big, dangerous and superfluous, but they're
>> also poetry made of metal" - If so, the poetry is undoubtedly written by William Topaz
>> McGonagall :-/

>Just because you don't want one doesn't make them a bad thing.

Um, I don't think there's much doubt about them being a bad thing. SUVs (as opposed to trucks and
honest-to-God 4WDs like the Land Rover) do everything that other cars do, only less efficiently and
less safely. They do afford comedy potential when their owners try to use them offroad and find they
can't hack it, though.

And "poetry?" They're about as poetic as my ageing Volvo 940, only with worse aerodynamics. Poetry
is a Ferrari Testa Rossa, or a Caterham Superlight - a road legal track car which handles like a
rocket propelled roller skate. 0-60 in 3.4s. With a 1.8 litre engine! Now that's /proper/
engineering.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:58:45 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Quote: "Like every muscle car before it, SUVs are big, dangerous and superfluous, but they're
> >> also poetry made of metal" - If so, the poetry is undoubtedly written by William Topaz
> >> McGonagall :-/
>
> >Just because you don't want one doesn't make them a bad thing.
>
> Um, I don't think there's much doubt about them being a bad thing.
There is plenty of doubt when a bunch of people start to whine and complain about people wanting to
buy a big heavy vehicle just because these complainers don't want people using lots of gasoline.

People have lots of vehicle choices today and I heartily approve of this. It is great to have
so many vehicles to choose from, including high performance cars, trucks and SUVs. The more
the merrier.

I also like the fact that I have so many choices in bicycles. I don't need someone complaining just
because they would make a different choice.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Mike Latondresse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > If GM can turn a huge profit selling these, it just means that they have a vehicle that people
> > want and are willing to pay the extra money for.
> >
> And it also proves that Mr. Barnum was right.
Just because you don't want one doesn't make the people that do, "suckers". You might be willing to
pay a lot for a bicycle while others would think that you are a sucker for spending a lot of money
on a bicycle. Neither position is valid.

 

[Chronos]

SUVs are highly useful vehicles. Not everyone needs one, but for many, they are very helpful. I do a
lot of work that requires me to carry a lot of cargo. From time to time I need to be able to go off
road. Oh, and it is very handy in carrying my bikes.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> People have lots of vehicle choices today and I heartily approve of this. It is great to have so
> many vehicles to choose from, including high performance cars, trucks and SUVs. The more the
> merrier.
>
> I also like the fact that I have so many choices in bicycles. I don't need someone complaining
> just because they would make a different choice.

Bicycles don't put my family in more danger when driving (because of gross overweight and excessive
height), aren't extra-deadly to passengers (because of front cattle-basher bars), don't glare their
headlights in my mirrors (again, due to increased height), don't make it difficult to see other
traffic (due to blacked out windows and extra height), don't exceed the driver's ability to park
within the lines of a parking lot, etc.

If you bought a bicycle that did those things, I'd complain about that choice too.

And, regarding motor vehicles in general: I'd say, these days, the _less_ the merrier!

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

John Everett wrote:
>
>
> I usually don't get involved in these philosophical debates, but I bought my SUV (Mercedes ML 320)
> because it could carry my bikes standing up (on a glider board) in the back. Note that as a Toyota
> fan I would have bought a Lexus RX300, but its cargo space isn't tall enough.

That's kind of funny. I've carried a couple bikes upright in a 1985 Honda Civic station wagon. I had
to take off the front wheels and lower one seatpost, but that makes more sense to me than buying a
bloated vehicle. The Honda did well towing a trailer too, when I needed to carry really big stuff.

> I should point out that in addition to going to the grocery store, my Mercedes has twice been over
> the Continental Divide in Colorado on dirt tracks, once over the Jemez Mountains from Los Alamos
> to Cuba, NM on dirt; and into both Chaco Canyon and Canyon de Chelly, both rough dirt tracks.

Son of a gun! We were at Chaco Canyon and Canyon de Chelly last summer. Saturn station wagon (small
version) towing a tent camper. We got over 25 mpg even with the camper and bikes. How'd you do?

> While I haven't moved a lawn mower or garden tiller, I did recently move a large table saw.

The Saturn is what we used to move my daughter home from college, including a huge sofa, using a
trailer. Table saw? Pshaw!

> John "Enjoying My SUV on the Flatlands of Aurora, Illinois" Everett

Sounds like something you use 365 days per year, and weakly justify perhaps two of those days.

Things like that are an individual's choice, but without the "image" thing fed by advertising, I
think most people would choose smarter.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> SUVs are not bad just because some people don't like them.

Right. That's what I said. They're bad for lots of other reasons.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:35:50 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Um, I don't think there's much doubt about them being a bad thing.

>There is plenty of doubt when a bunch of people start to whine and complain about people wanting to
>buy a big heavy vehicle just because these complainers don't want people using lots of gasoline.

The fact that people complain about the ridiculous gas-guzzling of SUVs doesn't negate their *other*
bad points.

It is not a matter of patriotic duty to burn as much oil as possible in your lifetime, and to
compensate for the shortening of that lifetime through lack of exercise by burning fuel
faster while you
live.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> A luxury SUV is a plush riding, comfortable vehicle that is fairly efficient given its weight.

So is the Queen Mary. I remain unimpressed.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

> If I had $50K available to me, I'd not spend it on a vehicle of any type. On the other hand, if
> you won the lottery, and decided a Lamborghini was just the ticket for your love life, I'd really
> not stand in your way.

Don't know. the constraint on vehicle was implicit in my statement. I'd probably get something less
ridiculous than a Lamborghini, as those tend to have rather large turning radii in small spaces and
are definitely not much fun to drive in heavy traffic, or park.

Me, I'd go for a nice rally car. Subaru WRX would do, and pocket the difference. If not, then crack
on and let me have a non-SUV benz.

>
> The concept of a vehicle designed and licensed to be driven on public roads, and having a top
> speed of 160 mph is ludicrous to me...but it would be your money, so ca va.

See above, I don't disagree. But I'm a bit amused that SUVs are regulated as 'light trucks,' a
designation originally intended to help out farmers. I'd interpret the SUV as a very clever attempt
to get behind passenger-vehicle regulations on emissions and crash safety.

For the record, I'm not a big-car opponent. I can see a lot of use in having that much carrying
volume. My dad has a 12 year old GMC safari van which we've used for carrying *everything*. And I
thumbs-up big F350's which are obviously working trucks--ladder racks, boxes of tools, etc. When
nothing else will do the job, I do not object to trucks--I do object to
trucks-as-passenger-vehicles. My consolation is that the days of this trend are numbered as rising
fuel prices--or proactive fuel-consumption regulation, as seems to be likeliy in California--will
price these out of practicality.

Incidentally, riding around on my bicycle, I notice that the high viewpoint so often beloved of SUV
drivers is really not significantly higher than that of an upright cyclist. Getting into a little
car (or a recumbent, but I haven't tried the recumbent option yet) after that takes some
readjustment...

-Luigi

>
>
> SMH

 

[Mark Jones]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Bicycles don't put my family in more danger when driving (because of gross overweight and
> excessive height), aren't extra-deadly to passengers (because of front cattle-basher bars), don't
> glare their headlights in my mirrors (again, due to increased height), don't make it difficult to
> see other traffic (due to blacked out windows and extra height), don't exceed the driver's ability
> to park within the lines of a parking lot, etc.
>
> If you bought a bicycle that did those things, I'd complain about that choice too.
No, you just want to complain about people who want to buy something you don't like or support.

I can't see paying the high price for an Escalade or Navigator, but I have no problem with anyone
who wants one.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > SUVs are not bad just because some people don't like them.
>
> Right. That's what I said. They're bad for lots of other reasons.
Only in your narrow little mind.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is not a matter of patriotic duty to burn as much oil as possible in your lifetime
You are right. It has nothing to do with patriotic duty, but rather it is about an individual's
right to buy and drive whatever they want to drive.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Just because you don't want one doesn't make the people that do, "suckers".

No, it's _other_ things that make those people suckers.

(I'm hoping repetition will help this concept will sink in!)

> You might be willing to pay a lot for a bicycle while others would think that you are a sucker for
> spending a lot of money on a bicycle. Neither position is valid.

The main difference is the bicycle is a benign choice. The SUV is not. It negatively affects others.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Mark Jones]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > A luxury SUV is a plush riding, comfortable vehicle that is fairly efficient given its weight.
>
> So is the Queen Mary. I remain unimpressed
It isn't meant to impress you. The Queen Mary does indeed serve its purpose in a luxurious manner. A
luxury vehicle of any type is not designed for mere utility, but rather to transport the occupants
in a comfortable and enjoyable environment.

Just because you don't find it enjoyable does not invalidate it for those who do enjoy it. Step
outside your academic environment and you might just find that your views are not widely shared.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:54:14 -0600, <[email protected]>, "Mark Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You are right. It has nothing to do with patriotic duty, but rather it is about an individual's
>right to buy and drive whatever they want to drive.

Try rephrasing that so it's somewhat more accurate.

The so-called right to drive, is a privilege. There are restrictions on what one may operate on our
public roads. Consumers have been duped into believing they want to drive a truck.
--
zk