Re: Blame the faulty drivers of dangerous machinery. 4WDs most dangerouson road

[Resound]

"D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:43606124$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Resound wrote:
>> "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Resound wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>So exactly how would you suggest bulk goods are transported?
>>>>>
>>>>>In vehicles not driven by drug addicts.
>>>>
>>>>And those vehicle would be...?
>>>
>>>Who cares? Unlike the vociferous anti-4wders,
>>>I don't blame types of vehicles. It's the drivers
>>>that are the problem.
>>
>>
>> "> > does that go for truckies as well?
>>
>>>Stupid comment. There is a legitimate, necessary reason for truckies to
>>>sit
>>
>>
>> Not so. It's got nothing to do with transport of goods
>> anyway. As for the stupidity, ask that question of the
>> hundreds of people all around Australia who have had a
>> truckie drugged out of his brains drive ten tonnes of
>> metal through their lifes."
>>
>> Ah, so you don't have a problem with trucks then. But anyone who drives
>> one is obviously a drug addict.
>
> Do you have to work hard at being an idiot or does it come naturally.
> Only a very small percentage of truck driver take drugs.
> The vast majority of truck drivers don't drive interstate or work long
> hours.
> On a per kilometre travelled basis trucks are by far the safest vehicles
> on the road.
>
>
>
>
> Daryl

That was actually my point. Did you read the links? Did you actually take in
what was being said on both side? Or did the heady tang of sarcasm overwhelm
you completely? Noons is the one suggesting that truckies are exclusively
amphetemine fuelled maniacs.

 

[JD]

Noons wrote:

> dave wrote:
>> I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
>> energy?
>>
>> Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
>> too.
>
> I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
> type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
> PC brigade?

As far as I can see from the physics, the stopping distance is unrelated to
the size of the vehicle provided the brakes are scaled to the vehicle size
- and I suspect that is the case with any modern four wheel drive with
discs all round. The same increase in mass that requires more force to
decelerate at the same rate increases the weight on the tyres, and hence
the adhesion, in exactly the same proportion as the increase in mass.
Assuming the brakes are up to the job, and tyres are similar, the actual
stopping distance will depend on a lot of secondary effects, such as the
interaction of the road surface and the suspension, the presence or absence
of ABS, reaction time of the driver, the tread pattern, the road surface,
state of tyre wear, tyre pressure error, brake design etc, none of which
have any relation to the mass of the vehicle.
At high speeds, the cooling of brakes is more of a problem for very large
vehicles, but I doubt it is a consideration for any modern cars or four
wheel drives driven within the speed limit and in mountains encountered in
Australia, although it is in very mountainous areas and with heavy
vehicles.
JD

 

[D Walford]

Resound wrote:
> "D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:43605e57$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>>Resound wrote:
>>
>>>"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
>>>>>energy?
>>>>>
>>>>>Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
>>>>>too.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
>>>>type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
>>>>PC brigade?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about the
>>>same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although they'll
>>>have a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets a bit of
>>>a double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of course,
>>>you'll be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that weighs more
>>>than 2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of physics. And there
>>>ain't nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics. They've been fiddling
>>>with those since the 18th century. Weren't you paying attention in high
>>>school?
>>
>>You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has bigger
>>brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily increased
>>because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a shorter
>>distance than some much smaller cars.
>>Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
>>Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
>>increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a 4WD
>>will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even knows
>>he needs to brake.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Daryl
>
>
> Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
> braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably reluctant
> to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded comparisons such as
> "more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an
> emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the tyres up to the point of
> locking, that's all the braking you're going to get. Bigger brakes are great
> for stopping hard repeatedly because they're effective heat sinks and heat
> radiators. The real telling points are the type of tyres, brake bias and
> amount of weight transfer. You're saying that a vehicle that's front heavy,
> overweight, and driving on balloon like tyres designed to be a compromise
> between offroad and onroad behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE?


So smaller brakes and tyres would be better?
NRMA did some stopping distance testing and whilst in some circumstances
the Landcruiser took longer to stop there isn't much in it, at slower
speeds it matched the Commodore.
http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml
You also ignored what I said about reaction times but thats no surprise.



Daryl

 

[Peka]

> Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
> braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably reluctant
> to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded comparisons such as
> "more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an
> emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the tyres up to the point of
> locking, that's all the braking you're going to get. Bigger brakes are great
> for stopping hard repeatedly because they're effective heat sinks and heat
> radiators. The real telling points are the type of tyres, brake bias and
> amount of weight transfer. You're saying that a vehicle that's front heavy,
> overweight, and driving on balloon like tyres designed to be a compromise
> between offroad and onroad behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE?


So smaller brakes and tyres would be better?
NRMA did some stopping distance testing and whilst in some circumstances
the Landcruiser took longer to stop there isn't much in it, at slower
speeds it matched the Commodore.
http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml
You also ignored what I said about reaction times but thats no surprise.
Daryl

Yep, the difference in braking distances amounts to the difference between an alert driver and a typical driver.

 

[atec]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

>atec wrote:
>
>
>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>atec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mind you, I'd still be tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving
>>>>>>>the 4WD at home until the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I
>>>>>>>have a list of very good reasons to do so for anyone who's at all
>>>>>>>interested. Living 20-30km from work is no excuse either...that's how far
>>>>>>>most of us commute
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>I was talking to some mates about that one, with respect to jobs where
>>>>>employees start in a central location each day (have to check in) and
>>>>>then head out to different places; rather than those who travel to jobs
>>>>>directly from home, and particularly people who are in the CBD. It would
>>>>>make so much more sense if the company provided the vehicles and people
>>>>>caught public transport to the CBD. It would save the company heaps of
>>>>>money and mean that employees didn't have to get up so damn early to
>>>>>beat the traffic and could sleep on their way to work. (This is a bit
>>>>>Brisbane specific, where we have separate road for buses. Woohoo!)
>>>>>
>>>>>Tam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
>>>>that direction ,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
>>>out west... a few hours...
>>>
>>>Tam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.
>> or in my case with 500 kg or tools and another 300kg or materials ..
>>thats going to be hard on a bus.
>>
>>
>
>Right. So you ignored everything else I wrote. Cool.
>
>
Nah , just telling you Brisbane is one of the worst cities for public
transport in the western world I have ever seen , but if you are an
office nonworker then you will be fine .

 

[Resound]

"D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:43607690$0$13317$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Resound wrote:
>> "D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:43605e57$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>
>>>Resound wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the
>>>>>>kinetic
>>>>>>energy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
>>>>>>too.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
>>>>>type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
>>>>>PC brigade?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about
>>>>the same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although
>>>>they'll have a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets
>>>>a bit of a double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of
>>>>course, you'll be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that
>>>>weighs more than 2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of
>>>>physics. And there ain't nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics.
>>>>They've been fiddling with those since the 18th century. Weren't you
>>>>paying attention in high school?
>>>
>>>You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has bigger
>>>brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily increased
>>>because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a shorter
>>>distance than some much smaller cars.
>>>Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
>>>Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
>>>increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a 4WD
>>>will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even
>>>knows he needs to brake.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Daryl
>>
>>
>> Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
>> braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably
>> reluctant to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded
>> comparisons such as "more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes
>> mean very little in an emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the
>> tyres up to the point of locking, that's all the braking you're going to
>> get. Bigger brakes are great for stopping hard repeatedly because they're
>> effective heat sinks and heat radiators. The real telling points are the
>> type of tyres, brake bias and amount of weight transfer. You're saying
>> that a vehicle that's front heavy, overweight, and driving on balloon
>> like tyres designed to be a compromise between offroad and onroad
>> behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE?
>
>
> So smaller brakes and tyres would be better?
> NRMA did some stopping distance testing and whilst in some circumstances
> the Landcruiser took longer to stop there isn't much in it, at slower
> speeds it matched the Commodore.
> http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml
> You also ignored what I said about reaction times but thats no surprise.
>
>
>
> Daryl

Actually, what I said was that brake size (provided they're capable of
bringing the tyre to the point of lockup) would make no difference in a
single emergency stop. Tyres that are not designed as a compromise between
offroad and onroad behaviour would be an improvement. As they'd be lower
profile, you can call them smaller if you like. The brake tests are a lot
closer than I'd expected. I'd be interested to see the results across a
wider range of vehicles. Mind you, even if impact speeds are the same,
you're still hitting the other vehicle/pedestrian/whatever with about 1½ to
2 times the mass; so the total amount of energy that has to be absorbed by
the vehicles involved is that much higher. The increased visibility is only
a factor if there isn't someone in an equally high vehicle in front of them
and if they're actually paying attention. Again, you're an enthusiast. You
pay attention to what you're doing. Most drivers are idly watching the car
in front and sod all alse while thinking about something other than driving.

 

[Kim Hawtin]

Peka wrote:
> Kim Hawtin Wrote:
>>>>'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious
>>>>offroading myself
>>>>might have to find a Manx or summat.
>>>>maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...
>>>
>>>Yeah, bring an XC or Manx buggy "serious" offroading with us
>>>sometime, we'll come back for you at the end of the day,
>>>bring a trailer to take it home on.

no respect!

>>i've seen 2WD kombis in places they couldn't get a landcruiser.
>>little thing called weight manx buggy weighs 600-800KG w/70HP.
>>you'd be stunned the difference that makes =P

>I've seen Manx's in action, both good and bad. The one my mate has,

i have the beginings of one. slowly...

> which I wish he would get back on the road (7 year repainting project
> ffs), was awesome. Tyres make a big difference too (as does the driver)
> and he certainly had that covered. It would put a lot of 4WD's to shame.

a clueful driver goes a very, very long way.
understanding how the vehilce behaves and don't take unneccessary risks,
etc, etc.

> On the other hand, the one we helped on Moreton was a piece of useless
> ****, and would be better used as a boat anchor. My bro-in-law's RAV
> performed better....

eeww scathing. the poor old 40hp type1 motors are their own worst enemy
sometimes, but setup properly, you can do an awful lot with not very
much =) RAV4s are pretty horrid offroad in the traction department. my
old stock volvo 144 was better offroad! so this poor old buggy must have
been pretty horrid indeed!

now back on topic, cycling..um...hmmm...knees sore..fixie hurty =/

must get the fit right on that.

any advice on differnt setup for fixies from say my roadie that fits nicely?

cheers,

Kim

 

[Resound]

> PS, those pushbike-riding wankers who have their little (illegal) protests
> and block roads around Melbourne in peak hour do you a disservice.
>

Actually they're not illegal (which is rather the point) but I agree with
you.

 

[Kim Hawtin]

atec wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>> atec wrote:
>>> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>> Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
>>> that direction ,
>> I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
>> out west... a few hours...

a mate of mine lived near Indooroopili and there were two bus runs per
day. one to the CBD leaving around 830 and one from the CBD ariving
arroung 4pm!

so try working 8am-6pm with that level of service! pah!

> Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.

even central and inner burbs of Adelaide before 6am is completely void
of public transport =( want to get to work at 6am, "on yeer bike Jimmy!"

cheers,

Kim

 

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, EuanB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>TimC Wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-10-27, Bleve (aka Bruce)
>>>was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>>
>>>>Tim, you mentioned you had a number of incidents (not least of
>>>>which was the nasty crash just prior to the RTB)
>>>>
>>>>The thing to always be asking yourself is "how could I have avoided
>>>>the situation?". The horse has bolted from the stable, but you can
>>>>still learn from it and do what you can to minimise your risk next
>>>>time.
>>>
>>>I can learn from 3 of the 4 incidents in the past year. The first
>>>two, is to just let the ******* pass, and not warn them that they are
>>>about to run over you. Hmmm, not very satisfactory.
>>
>>With respect Tim, what the fsck are you talking about? it's better to
>>be accident free and let dicks go about their business than to be in
>>pain and in the right.
>>
>>There are plenty of occaisions where I yield when the person I'm
>>yielding too has a duty of care to yield to me but doesn't. I find it
>>a very satisfactory outcome that I can anticipate their errors and ride
>>in safety.
>
>
> Well, the first case was triggered by merely yelling "hey!" I could
> have yielded (if I had somewhere to go), and yelled "hey!", and they
> still would have gotten out of their vehicle and laid into me.
>
> So who do you know it's safe to yell out "hey!" to, in an attempt to
> get them to look next time, and who do you assume are out of their
> heads on drugs, and so just keep out of their way and hope that they
> don't run some little old granny off the road 100m down the track?
>
> Clearly an anamolous case, but still.
>

Some people are clearly nutters. Hell some people with perfectly ok
lives will blow themselfs up to do you harm. However they are the rare
case. You cant worry too much about em. They will come to an
unpleasant end with any luck at all without involving you.

Well unless you are Tim I guess.

 

[dave]

Noons wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>>Getting thrown up into the air, where some of the energy of the impact
>>can be disippated without injury, and crashing to ground (and
>>hopefully not getting run over by a truck following the impacting
>>vehicle) can well be less harmful that absorpting all of the energy of
>>impact in the few milliseconds it takes for an impact to happen.
>
>
> I'm quite sure those with head injuries from hitting the ground
> will agree with you...

silly argument. You hit your head in a 6 foot fall it will do all the
damage of .. a 6 foot fall. (survivable enough if you avoid hitting your
head) You hit your head on someones grill at 60 kph clearly it will
do more.

You may be just as dead.. but in the second case it will be messier.

 

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Kim Hawtin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>> Kim wrote:
>>>Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
>>>>Resound wrote:
>>>>>Go on, tell me I'm full of ****.
>>>>
>>>>No. What you stated isnt ****. Why did you take my comments so personal
>>>>I wonder.
>>>personnaly? ever been in a collision?
>>>
>>>>You dont seem the type to try and spin conclusions off cherry
>>>>picked results and then sweep the data under the mat -- as you've shown
>>>>by showing some actaul data in your response.
>>>>
>>>>Pity you generalised about maintenance costs of a 4wd though and fuel
>>>>consumption.
>>>
>>>costs a **** load more than my bike $500 total maintenance for 12
>>>months for two bikes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>My point is that those that rant and rave about these so called 4wds
>>>>being unique killer machines cos you cant see out the back is flawed as
>>>>there are plenty of cars that are worse than plenty of 4wds.
>>>
>>>stats are likely to be interpreted in *intersting ways*. 'nuf said.
>>>
>>>have you been cycling and hit by a large 4WD and left for dead on the
>>>side of the road? hmmmm .. ?
>>>
>>>*all* of the collisisons i have had in the last twelve months, i have
>>>been hit from behind or been hit while i was stationary at the lights
>>>or been hit while riding in a bike lane.
>>>
>>>of those 11 times, 10 were from large 4WDs. all my cycling is commuting
>>>from 6am-11am or 5pm-8pm weekdays. about 80% of my journey is in a bike
>>>lane or a dedicated bike path. i follow the same road rules. indicate,
>>>stop at lights and stop signs, the lot. even on my fixie. especially on
>>>the fixie.
>>
>> Every time my 4WD has been hit it's been a car, so they must be defective
>> vehicles, with less braking capability.
>
> interesting theory small (european) cars actually have a lot more
> braking capacity than are required. how the hell a lot of cars make
> it past the ADRs is mind boggling.
>
>>>>Having said that and to save you the trouble -- I can read and I can
>>>>see that a 4wd is THE worst of all. But again, that doesnt negate my
>>>>point.
>>>
>>>vehicular defects and design issues aside, the driver is responsible for
>>>their actions. they can not hide from that. blaming the vehlice is their
>>>own fault. they baught it, they're driving it. grow a backbone!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting that the landbruiser -- the one everyone loves to hate -- a
>>>>variant of it (100 series) beat ALL of the large cars tested. 80 series
>>>>didnt do to bad either.
>>>
>>>Prados count for 7 of the road abusers that that have hit me.
>>>then a couple of pajeros, a landcruiser and a falcon.
>>>interesting breakdown don't you think?
>>
>>
>> So you've only been hit by cars in the last 6 years then, what happened
>> previously?
>
> not been in a position to cycle before that, for about
> 10+ years, then i had a number of close calls,
> but never any collsions, much more rural area
> and a lot less traffic.
> 4WDs weren't fashoinable then.
>
>>>'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious offroading
>>>myself
>>>might have to find a Manx or summat.
>>>maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...
>>
>> Yeah, bring an XC or Manx buggy "serious" offroading with us sometime,
>> we'll
>> come back for you at the end of the day, bring a trailer to take it home
>> on.
>>
>
> i've seen 2WD kombis in places they couldn't get a landcruiser.
> little thing called weight manx buggy weighs 600-800KG w/70HP.
> you'd be stunned the difference that makes =P

Sorry I think you may have just had bad Landcruiser drivers, I'll put my
Patrol anywhere you can put a Kombi, even soft sand is no problem, bring
your Kombi muddracing, rock hopping or Hillclimbing some time, weight can
also be your friend.

> the other thing is, i don't mind to get out and push from time to time.
> i'm not a lazy fat ******* that needs oodles of horsepower to get my
> lame **** around.

When we get out it's to winch not push.

 

[atec]

Kim Hawtin wrote:

>atec wrote:
>
>
>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>atec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>>>Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
>>>>that direction ,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
>>>out west... a few hours...
>>>
>>>
>
>a mate of mine lived near Indooroopili and there were two bus runs per
>day. one to the CBD leaving around 830 and one from the CBD ariving
>arroung 4pm!
>
>so try working 8am-6pm with that level of service! pah!
>
>
>
>>Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.
>>
>>
>
>even central and inner burbs of Adelaide before 6am is completely void
>of public transport =( want to get to work at 6am, "on yeer bike Jimmy!"
>
>cheers,
>
>Kim
>
>
Many of the larger western cities I have worked in had services only
suspended for a couple of hours in the small hours , NY to Coney Island
at 5 am is possible .
even Wellington to Petone at 5 am... Brisbane to anywhere is damned
near impossible , but then Ozzies like driving more than many

 

[Kev]

Birdman wrote:
>
> Trikes and leadwings do
> >Motorcycle has reverse.

Bloke out this way used to use his old 1000 wing to launch his tinny off
the beach ramp

Kev

 

[Kev]

D Walford wrote:
>
> Resound wrote:
> > "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>dave wrote:
> >>
> >>>I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
> >>>energy?
> >>>
> >>>Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
> >>>too.
> >>
> >>I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
> >>type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
> >>PC brigade?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about the
> > same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although they'll have
> > a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets a bit of a
> > double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of course, you'll
> > be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that weighs more than
> > 2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of physics. And there ain't
> > nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics. They've been fiddling with those
> > since the 18th century. Weren't you paying attention in high school?
> >
> >
> You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has
> bigger brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily
> increased because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a
> shorter distance than some much smaller cars.
> Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
> Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
> increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a
> 4WD will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even
> knows he needs to brake.
>
> Daryl


If you've ever driven an 8 wheeler truck Daryl you'll know how savage
large vehicles can be on the body in a panic stop

Bloody Actros used to leave me with minor seatbelt bruises
ABS, EBS, Electronic air disc brakes on an 8 wheeler, pull up as quick
as any car
make sure the seat belts are in good nick though


Kev

 

[D Walford]

Kev wrote:
>

> If you've ever driven an 8 wheeler truck Daryl you'll know how savage
> large vehicles can be on the body in a panic stop
>
> Bloody Actros used to leave me with minor seatbelt bruises
> ABS, EBS, Electronic air disc brakes on an 8 wheeler, pull up as quick
> as any car
> make sure the seat belts are in good nick though

Do you mean 18 wheeler, but you know I drive one of those?
When my eldest son was still a learner I let him drive the 5 tonne Isuzu
I used to drive, I warned him about the air brakes but he still almost
managed to bounce his head off the windscreen the first time he touched
them, those brakes came on very hard at slow speeds and took a lot of
getting used to.
I've only ever managed to activate the ABS on the DAF once and it didn't
stop all that well but that's what happens when one of the trailer
brakes hoses falls out:-(
BTW I'm getting a brand new DAF next week, the contract where I work has
expanded so the boss is employing another driver, he gets my old truck
(only 92,000klms) and I get the new one



Daryl

 

[Noddy]

"Brash" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I still ride my motorbike when I'm not driving my 4WD or one of work's
> trucks. I ride a pushbike to and from work, without any problems. And I
> don't think I'm morally superior because of my choice of conveyance.

Jesus...

You cover all demographics and have nothing to complain about. You obviously
slipped through the government process of turning everyone into whinging
wimps during the '80's

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Actually they're not illegal (which is rather the point) but I agree with
> you.

Some are.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[[email protected]]

Resound wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Resound wrote:
> >> "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
> >> >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
> >> >>less visibility."
> >> >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
> >> >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
> >> >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.
> >> >
> >> > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
> >> > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?
> >>
> >> Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum
> >> distance
> >> at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle
> >> from
> >> the driver's seat, yes.
> >
> > Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
> > After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
> > totally pointless your idea.
> >
>
> "child sized object" def. Object the size of a child.
>
> Yeah ok, if you want to get picky, the size of kids most at risk, that is,
> the smallest, Call it 70cm. tall.

Alright, so use that figure. Now, what happens when the 70 centimetre
child has fallen on the ground or is riding a skate board? See how
bloody stupid and pointless your little caper has now become.

 

[Noons]

Resound wrote:

> Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
> braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably reluctant
> to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded comparisons such as
> "more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an
> emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the tyres up to the point of
> locking, that's all the braking you're going to get. Bigger brakes are great
> for stopping hard repeatedly because they're effective heat sinks and heat
> radiators. The real telling points are the type of tyres, brake bias and
> amount of weight transfer. You're saying that a vehicle that's front heavy,
> overweight, and driving on balloon like tyres designed to be a compromise
> between offroad and onroad behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE? I suppose the
> high centre of gravity and long travel suspension means that they corner
> harder than a road car too. Wishful thinking won't make it so, no matter how
> hard you screw up your eyes and promise Santa you'll be good.


Once again, showing total prejudice and complete and
utter ignorance of real facts.

Most 4wds in the market nowadays (and CERTAINLY most of the
so-called "toorak tractors") have ABS brakes. Which makes them
a lot better in braking distance than most sedans without them.

As confirmed by the multitude of bumps I've had to get fixed on
the rear of my Rav4 and the rear of the wife's Prado simply
because the idiots driving "safe" sedans behind us cannot break
in as short a distance.

Yes, I AM fully aware that ABS does not reduce absolute
braking distance. That's not what it does.

You really don't have a clue of reality, do you?
I suggest you stay on the physics department "research"
and leave real life to people who actually have to live it...