Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:46:42 -0700
Reply-To: Michael Harrnacker <harrnack@IN-TCH.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Michael Harrnacker <harrnack@IN-TCH.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon Vs Volvo Crash Photos
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>I though that the reason that SUV are dangerous is that they readily roll
>over? right? Makes sense. Look at a Bronco II: high, skinny, short wheel
>base and with tall tires. Or the Explorer, same thing but a little longer.
>Or the Toyota 4-runner.. the list keep going.
This isn't so. While certain groups try to sell this line...government
investigations have shown that SUV, with some exceptions, don't all have a
prediliction to rollover sooner than cars. Yes, Bronco IIs were one of the
investigated exceptions (Ford was aquitted, I think?). But the longer
wheelbase Explorer has never been accused of being a rollover risk.
There was some article I read a few years ago (in Car and Driver?) where
they had a tipping table that they could attach cars to and then tip them
(safely) to see at which angle of incline the car's high-sided wheels left
the table. The result were that some cars tipped before SUVs or minivans,
but all were between 40 and 45 degrees of angle before tipping.
Some of the tipping issues, I think, are caused by the likelihood of who
would be driving the cars. For years, Jeep had to defend these allegations
about its CJ being a tipping hazard. But look at who bought the things
(generally). Young men, who often drive beyond the limits of their control
(or their cars). If teenage guys and girls were really attracted to Lincoln
Town Cars, and could afford them, the TC would quickly rise to the top of
the list of insurance industry "dangerous" cars.
Michael B. Harrnacker
89 Weekender "Nameles"
91 Golf "Miami"
http://ruralinstitute.umt.edu/vwbus
vanagon@rudi.montech.umt.edu
"Never miss a good chance to shut up."
-----Original Message-----
From: Pollard, Matthew <Matthew.Pollard@OREADCA.COM>
To: vanagon@VANAGON.COM <vanagon@VANAGON.COM>
Date: Friday, November 20, 1998 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Vanagon Vs Volvo Crash Photos
>I though that the reason that SUV are dangerous is that they readily roll
>over? right? Makes sense. Look at a Bronco II: high, skinny, short wheel
>base and with tall tires. Or the Explorer, same thing but a little longer.
>Or the Toyota 4-runner.. the list keep going.
>take care
>67 bug (probably a death trap in an accident)
>84 Bus (better for accidents)
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sam Scholten [SMTP:scholten1@MARSHALL.EDU]
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 5:59 AM
>> To: vanagon@VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Re: Vanagon vs Volvo Crash Photos
>>
>> Problem- some folks can only afford to buy, insure, and run an '83
Subaru.
>> I'm a grad student; I should know. So, if that's all you can afford, then
>> you're SOL as safety goes, right? That's f*cked up.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Robert A. Alexander wrote:
>>
>> > Kent - Some of the more radical "do-gooders", if you have watched the
>> > national news, lately, are upset that SUV's, being heavier than than
the
>> > FWD tin-boxes, are becoming the "killers-on-the-highway", SO the
>> > "do-gooders" are advocating that that we all should have an, uh,
"equal"
>> > chance to be killed in an automobile accident via requiring us to
accept
>> > tin-can vehicles to drive around!!!
>> >
>> > After taking a look at the URL showing the result of a Vanagon & a
Volvo
>> > head-on collision, I'm convinced that me five GORGEOUS daughters will
be
>> > better off driving either Vanagons, MACK dump trucks OR backup vehicles
>> > such as my old '76 GMC long-bed pickup truck!!! Personally, I would
>> > prefer to buy all five of me babes '38 Dodge dump-trucks to drive
>> > around, BUT they think they need BMW or SAAB convertibles!!! I'm busy
>> > trying to convince them that '38 Dodge dump trucks will allow them to
>> > haul around MORE of their friends, in greater safety!
>> >
>> > I'm curious, though! How many of you folks out there really agree with
>> > the traffic NUTS that SUV's present a "PROBLEM" because they "outweigh"
>> > smaller vehicles and give an "unfair" survival advantage to those in
the
>> > SUV??? I think these ASSHOLES need to move to UGANDA!
>> >
>> > BOB - WA4RRN
>> > '85GL
>> > http://www.impeachment.org
>> >
|