Road Cycling · Public discussion

nice SUV article

Started by Monty Montgomer · · Last activity · 220 posts · 10,957 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
23 January 2003
Last activity
2 February 2003
Original author
Monty Montgomer
Posts
220
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
10,957
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 220
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "rnh17" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    No, but the government determines what can be sold. How can you discuss this right to buy vehicles
    without intelligently discussing what dealers have a right to sell?


    That is correct, just like they regulate the sale of food and drugs and quite a number of things to
    make sure that they at least meet some minimum standards.

    There are plenty of vehicles to choose from, but it would seem that many people want trucks and SUVs
    and high performance cars instead of economy vehicles. Isn't it great to be able to get a big SUV if
    that is what you want, or do you advocate restricting the sale of SUVs?

    I would really like to know if the anti-SUV group advocates restricting the sale of SUVs or doing
    something to make it more difficult to own or use one. I am more inclined to want to increase the
    types of vehicles available instead of reducing the number. I don't have an SUV, but I see know
    reason to prevent anyone from buying one.

  2. "Mark Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    SUVs are not bad just because some people don't like them. I don't want one because they don't fit
    my vehicle needs, but if I needed one, I wouldn't hesitate a second to go buy on.

    That's the thing for many of us. There are some people for whom an SUV is a reasonable vehicle, just
    like a pickup truck is a very useful vehicle for a truck farmer or a construction foreman.

    But there aren't many of these SUV-needing people. Certainly not nearly so many as are clogging up
    the roads with these behemoths currently.

    Our dependence on oil imports has a lot of political implications, and a lot of these implications
    are bad ones.

  3. Mark Jones <[email hidden]> wrote: [...]
    : OK, so I can't drive a AA Fuel dragster on the street.

    : The restrictions are not all that severe concerning what can be driven on the street. It might as
    : well be called a right when you consider how easy it is to get a license.

    Maybe that ease of access should be re-examined.

    : I don't believe that anyone has been duped. The auto makers keep making more varieties of SUVs
    : because demand is high and so are profits. You should realize that people buy what they want. It
    : just so happens that many of them want SUVs and huge trucks.

    That is incorrect. Autocorps are not receiving windfall profits from sales
    volumes but from each unit sold. The SUV is a huge money maker per unit.

    : I wanted a truck for a long time before I bought it. I walked onto the car lot and pointed at the
    : one I wanted and drove away with it. No arm twisting or trying to sell me something else.

    That is a rather narrow definition of demand manipulation is it not?

    --
    'People think I'm insane because I am frowning all the time All day long I think of things
    but nothing seems to satisfy' 'Make a joke and I will sigh And you will laugh and I will
    cry' -Black Sabbath

  4. Mark Jones said:
    Quoted message said:

    Right. That's what I said. [SUV's] bad for lots of other reasons.


    Only in your narrow little mind.

    And in the narrow little minds of millions of others in the US and worldwide. Still, you have to
    admire the manufacturers: they can persuade people to part with ten grand more than a large, safe
    wagon for something with less interior space and substantially worse safety, then persuade the
    richest ones to part with another ten grand again to make it nearly as safe as the cheaper car.
    Brilliant! Takes us right back to the glory days of US automobile manufacture, when dual-circuit
    brakes, seat belt mounts and collapsible steering columns were deleted from the Mk 1 Mustang to save
    production cost.

    No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on aircraft to
    standard fitment on *most* cars.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  5. Mark Jones said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Just so. And perish the thought that the responsibilities that go with that right should ever be
    acknowledged, let alone emphasised. As long as the ill-effects of greater pollution and increased
    crash damage fall on other people, why should SUV drivers worry?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  6. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...
    | On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:51:49 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    |
    | >> Right. That's what I said. [SUV's] bad for lots of other reasons.
    | >Only in your narrow little mind.
    |
    | And in the narrow little minds of millions of others in the US and worldwide. Still, you have to
    | admire the manufacturers: they can persuade people to part with ten grand more than a large, safe
    | wagon for something with less interior space and substantially worse safety, then persuade the
    | richest ones to part with another ten grand again to make it nearly as safe as the cheaper car.
    | Brilliant! Takes us right back to the glory days of US automobile manufacture, when dual-circuit
    | brakes, seat belt mounts and collapsible steering columns were deleted from the Mk 1 Mustang to
    | save production cost.
    |
    | No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on aircraft
    | to standard fitment on *most* cars.
    |
    | Guy

    "...No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on
    aircraft to standard fitment on *most* cars...."

    IIRC, the anti-lock brake system for motor vehicles appeared on a Mercedes-Benz passenger bus in the
    early '70s. Like their other safety developments, including the airbag, I believe, this big, evil,
    manipulating, mind-controlling corporation didn't patent the devices, so that others might benefit
    from the technology.

    So I, for one am curious: What airplane was flying in 1900 with anti-lock brakes?

    Facts can be inconvenient things sometimes, no matter how good it feels to rant. ED3

  7. Mark Jones said:

    The government doesn't show up at our door and tell us what to buy.

    No, the car makers do that for them.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  8. III said:

    "...No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on
    aircraft to standard fitment on *most* cars...."

    Quoted message said:

    IIRC, the anti-lock brake system for motor vehicles appeared on a Mercedes-Benz passenger bus in
    the early '70s. What airplane was flying in 1900 with anti-lock brakes?

    A passenger bus in the 1970s is not quite the same thing as being standard equipment on *most* cars,
    though, is it?

    In 2003 you can still buy cars made by Ford, for example, without ABS
    - although this will probably change in the next coule of years. ABS was fitted to passenger
    aircraft in about 1930. Not standard fitment, my mistake.

    As to whether car companies are warm, cuddly, generous types who do all int heir power to ensure
    passenger safety - well, you'd have to argue that out with Ralph Nader.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  9. Mark Jones said:

    I would really like to know if the anti-SUV group advocates restricting the sale of SUVs or doing
    something to make it more difficult to own or use one.

    I'm all for attaching an ever increasing social stigma to SUV's. This can be done through
    vehicles like -- ranting on Usenet, letters to the editor, public awareness advertising, etc. No
    law required.

    What I would like to see the law do is:

    : Differentiate between legitimate commercial and non-commercial SUV usage/ownership.

    Then, for NON-commercial SUV's:

    1: bring SUV's under CAFE standards.

    2. require SUVs to meet all passenger car safety standards.

    3. required SUV's to be impact-compatible with automobiles;
    i.e. bring bumper height down, reengineer them to eliminate SUV-rideover in accidents with "generic"
    passenger cars.

    4. require SUVs to be crash tested and their test data published.

    The astute reader will note that none of these suggestions make SUV ownership more difficult, and do
    not legislate SUV owners' behivior.

  10. Mark Jones said:
    Quoted message said:

    smart.comsmart.com


    I took an extended look at it and came to the conclusion that it looks like a kid's toy.

    It's the perfect town car. You can park it tail-in to the kerb and it doesn't stick out further than
    a standard parking bay - you can get two or three into one regular size onstreet parking bay. Also
    worth remembering that the bulk of those seven-seat SUVs commuting into Anytown, USA, are carrying
    one person. The Smart has room for that plus one passenger.

    Quoted message said:

    A top speed of 83.9 mph is kind of weak.

    Just remind me what the speed limit is again?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  11. Mark Jones said:

    Just because you don't understand auto enthusiasts doesn't make you right and them wrong.

    Auto enthusuiasts <> SUV enthusiasts. I'm an auto enthusiast - I've rebuilt cars from the ground
    up, including transmissions. I wouldn't buy an SUV because they offer worse handling, worse
    roadholding and worse rollover protection than a car weighing a third less and going half as far
    again on the same amount of fuel, but which is still easily capable of carrying a family and its
    "stuff" in comfort.

    From an engineering standpoint they suck badly - either they are optimised for driving on road, in
    which case they are so severely compromised offroad as to be useless (and still less good on road
    than a normal car), or they are optimised for offroad performance, in which case they handle like a
    barge. This can be offset to a degree by bolting on complex active suspension, but this still leaves
    them less safe than a standard car - and much more expensive.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  12. "Barry Gaudet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    That is incorrect. Autocorps are not receiving windfall profits from


    sales

    Quoted message said:

    volumes but from each unit sold. The SUV is a huge money maker per unit.


    That is exactly what I meant. It is a combination of high volume and high unit sales profit that
    tells me that SUV's aren't going away.

  13. Mark Jones said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    A top speed of 83.9 mph is kind of weak.


    Just remind me what the speed limit is again?


    70 mph. I don't want it to take forever to get up to speed.

    To be fair the Smart is not a highway car, it's a car designed for use round town - and it's pretty
    good for that.

    Obviously if you want fast, the Caterham Superlight is the only option.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  14. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    A top speed of 83.9 mph is kind of weak.

    Just remind me what the speed limit is again?


    70 mph. I don't want it to take forever to get up to speed.

  15. "Edward Dike, III" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...
    | On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:51:49 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    |
    | >> Right. That's what I said. [SUV's] bad for lots of other reasons.
    | >Only in your narrow little mind.
    |
    | And in the narrow little minds of millions of others in the US and worldwide. Still, you have to
    | admire the manufacturers: they can persuade people to part with ten grand more than a large,
    | safe wagon for something with less interior space and substantially worse safety, then persuade
    | the richest ones to part with another ten grand again to make it nearly as safe as the cheaper
    | car. Brilliant! Takes us right back to the glory days of US automobile manufacture, when
    | dual-circuit brakes, seat belt mounts and collapsible steering columns were deleted from the Mk
    | 1 Mustang to save production cost.
    |
    | No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on
    | aircraft to standard fitment on *most* cars.
    |
    | Guy

    "...No wonder it took seventy years for anti-lock brakes to make it from standard fitment on
    aircraft to standard fitment on *most* cars...."

    IIRC, the anti-lock brake system for motor vehicles appeared on a Mercedes-Benz passenger bus in
    the early '70s. Like their other safety developments, including the airbag, I believe, this big,
    evil, manipulating, mind-controlling corporation didn't patent the devices, so that others might
    benefit from the technology.

    So I, for one am curious: What airplane was flying in 1900 with anti-lock brakes?

    Facts can be inconvenient things sometimes, no matter how good it feels to rant.

    Anti-lock brakes were first patented in 1938 to help aircraft land. They were introduced on a
    passenger car by MB in 1978.

    The statement isn't too far off. Anti-lock brakes are still in the process of becoming "standard
    fitment on *most* cars". They are standard on all Volvo's and MB's, but look at GM.

    "And in 2002, General Motors Corp. officials said they'd no longer put ABS as a standard feature on
    most of its 58 vehicles, starting in the 2003 model year. ABS would be offered as an option,
    instead. The company said the move was intended to keep it competitive in price with other
    automakers' vehicles. GM added that its Cadillac, Saab and Corvette vehicles would continue with
    standard ABS and would not be part of the change."

    It's 65 years and counting. Maybe at 70 years they will be standard on most cars.

  16. "max" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    What I would like to see the law do is:

    : Differentiate between legitimate commercial and non-commercial SUV usage/ownership.

    Then, for NON-commercial SUV's:

    1: bring SUV's under CAFE standards.

    2. require SUVs to meet all passenger car safety standards.

    3. required SUV's to be impact-compatible with automobiles;
    i.e. bring bumper height down, reengineer them to eliminate SUV-rideover in accidents with
    "generic" passenger cars.

    4. require SUVs to be crash tested and their test data published.

    The astute reader will note that none of these suggestions make SUV ownership more difficult, and
    do not legislate SUV owners' behivior.


    The most difficult thing will be drawing the dividing line between what is called an SUV and what
    is a truck.

    SUVs are often built on a truck frame and there are 4 door trucks with little or no bed, so it is
    going to be difficult to settle on an exact definition. I have seen some trucks that blur the line
    to the point where it is hard to know whether to call it a truck or an SUV.

    What do you do if a vehicle is designed so you can manipulate the rear roofline so you have a truck
    bed or an enclosed area? It could be considered both a truck and an SUV.

    In Kansas City, 4 door trucks are becoming very common and are taking the place of a lot of SUVs.
    This trend has been slowly developing, but is becoming more obvious all the time.

  17. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Obviously if you want fast, the Caterham Superlight is the only option.


    I haven't seen these offered for sale in the U.S.

    What kind of price tag do they carry?

  18. In Zoot Katz said:

    Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:54:12 -0600, <[email hidden].

    net said:

    The government doesn't show up at our door and tell us what to buy. We go to the car dealer and
    get what we want based on our ability to pay for it. This is our right as consumers in a market
    based economy.

    Why can't people buy cars like these?

    smart.comsmart.com

    I think I can't buy one because they don't sell 'em in the US, or do they?

    Cool car though - it would take care of 90% of what I do with a car. What are the bicycle
    rack options?

    One other thing, since this thread has dealt a bit with auto makers trying to tell buyers (please
    don't call me a consumer - I'm not planning to eat the car) what to do, I got this message when I
    tried to connect to the web site with my Safari browser: "Dear Mac user, this site runs best with
    Internet Explorer 5.0".

  19. Mark Jones said:
    Quoted message said:

    Obviously if you want fast, the Caterham Superlight is the only option.

    Quoted message said:

    I haven't seen these offered for sale in the U.S. What kind of price tag do they carry?

    caterham.co.ukcaterham.co.uk - any car which can do 0-60 in 3.6s on a 1.8 litre engine has to be a
    force to be reckoned with. The basic Superlight is about £23,000 (UK) - and let me tell you, your
    [censored] is about six iches off the ground and it accelerates so fast you think your bellybutton is
    rubbing on your backbone. Those things are 100% awesome, and they handle like a track car. Actually
    they *are* a track car :-) Roofs are for wimps :-D

    The only thing I've ever experienced that came anywhere close was a Lotus Esprit S4 Turbo. Which is
    a slug by comparison, 0-60 takes nearly 5 seconds.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.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.

  20. Mark Jones said:


    "Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Mark Jones said:


    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.

    ???

    A right to drive whatever they want? Bulldozers? Open-wheeled racers? Go-carts? Vehicles which
    are ten feet wide? Vehicles without brakes?

    What an immensely silly idea! No such "right" exists. The motor vehicle laws of every state make
    this plain.

    We have the right to buy any vehicle we want that has been certified for sale in the U.S. and that
    the car companies have decided they want to offer for sale. If it is on the car lot and we have
    enough money, we can buy it.

    You're finally getting some accuracy in your statements.

    Quoted message said:

    If you are going to respond, at least make some sense.

    My statement was a direct response to what you posted. You need to learn to express yourself
    correctly.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.