LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI take it sports cars are up for banning as well? People obviously dont need them, few do track days, many can only carry two people, crap mpg, etc.
I take it sports cars are up for banning as well? People obviously dont need them, few do track days, many can only carry two people, crap mpg, etc.
Nope, different kettle of fish.
Sports cars only carry two people... fair enough, but at least they're always running at 50% capacity! Unlike a 7 seat 4x4 with Mum and kid... for half an hour on the school run.
Fair enough, lots of folks don't do track days, but a sports car is primarily deisgned to be driven on roads, not off them, so it's doing the job it was built to do, all the time!
And, (and this is the most important point), sports cars are low and light... the driver of one of these is going to come off just as badly as anyone else in a crash, perhaps even worse given the amount of glass fibre in one of those cars... So the only person suffering from his/her status symbol, is the driver...
Originally Posted by Dareos
So two vehicles that do say 25mpg, one carries 2 people,, the other can carry 7. The two person one is better because it mostly runs at 50% capacity? That makes no sense. If one person is onboard they are both doing 25mpg per person, but the suv is able to carry more when required.
Modern 4x4 are primarily designed for on road use, they frequently have variable suspension and a transfer box that makes them reasonable off-road, they also come with road biased tyres. You will note that many non suvs also have a 4x4 drive-train for on road use, this helps handling. SUV like the disco 3 have active suspension and drive-train, it works both in an on road and off road configuration. Giving good road handling, and good off road abilities. One example of this is the overfinch range rover its the 2nd slowest thing stig has shoved around the track, but its quicker than a DB5, and only 7.5 sec of a civic type r.
With all these nasty 4x4 around killing people, it seems strange that road traffic deaths were the lowest in 2004 since records began.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_038646.hcsp
But a variety of anti 4x4 websites claim that 2003 or 2004 (think they get the date the stats are released mixed up with the year they were gathered) stats prove that 4x4 are responsible for a huge rise in deaths. Independent figures point to road deaths not changing much over several years.
Yep, and the more weight in the car the more the MPG goes up, so the SUV has to run at 1/7 of it's capacity to get down to 25mpg, the sports car runs at a minimum of 50% capacity... So with one person onboard, they do have the same mpg, but there's no way on earth it's possible for them to have anything other than worse mpg the more people you load in them...
But it's a flawed argument anyway as I rarely see a 4x4 with anything other than a mother on her way to the school...
Why? Has Tony B suddenly teleported us all to Baghdad? Are the roads not actually roads anymore but a mass of rubble and shell holes? Or did the Earth's gravity suddenly take a 45 degree shift and now we all have to deal with one in one gradients?
I think the answer to all those questions (other than the first one) is a big 'No', so why do you need a dirty great big road going vehicle? You don't.
So? I don't care, the bloody things should be for the use of farmers, folks who have to off-road ocassionaly but can't afford two cars and the outdoor types who might actually get some use out of them...
An SUV is by it's very a moniker a SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLE! It's meant for Sports recreation and for humping bog loads about, that's what its name is!
Of course, for what I see them being used for School Home/Into Town I can easily create a new acronym but the autocensor will kill it.
Not strange at all, as I said, fewer people are dying cos at least one of them is guaranteed to go over the top...
Aye and stats can say this that and all the other.
You know, statistically, you're more likely to get molested by a Scottish bred weasel than you are to be run over by a left handed lawnmower. Likewise, it's more likely that being a hit by a 4x4 will occur sometime between either 8.30-9.30am or 3.00-4.00pm.
Oh, and if anyone else wnats to quote travel stats, don't bother, I won't read them, nor will I pay them the blindest bit of attention, cos you see, I've figured something out... We use statistics not to make a point or prove a rule, but to reassure ourselves of what we want to believe anyway.
For example, take commercial air travel. Those things go fast. Really fast. In the war between the ground and pressurised aluminium tubes travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, the ground has yet to lose... come to think of it, the sea isn't doing too bad a job either.
You see, we all take a massive gamble everytime we fly. We take a gamble of the pilot being competent, sober and not at all on drugs. We take a gamble on the fact that the airline that employs the pilot keeps a tab on those kind of things... and on the important things like wings and wheels and engines and doors being properly serviced so that bits don't break and fall off whilst we're 7 miles high over the Atlantic.
We don't actually KNOW for ourselves that all the stuff that could go wrong has been checked so that it WON'T go wrong... we just blindly trust the airline to have done it all for us.
And most of the time they do.
Which is why, statistically, air travel is the safest form of travel there is.
But what about when the airline doesn't do its job properly?
No airline can claim a 100% safety record, even Quantas, made famous by the film Rainman for never crashing, has since crashed.
So we know that all airlines crash at some point, but is flying still the safest form of travel?
Ok, quick comparison and you can join at home on this one.
Get a sheet of paper and write down on it how many car crashes you've been in. I'm not talking about minor bumps and scraping a wing mirror. I'm talking about crashes that have made continuing your journey impossible. Once you written that down, go off and ask other people for the number of crashes they've been in. I've been in four, no, five serious crashes serious enough to stop my journey.
So, now you should have a bit of paper with some numbers on it, yes?
Draw a line down the middle.
Now write down how many plane crashes you've been in. Again, we're talking crashes that have made continuing you're journey impossible. And again, go off and ask other people for their figures too.
So now you've got a bit of paper with perhaps the number in double figures for cars and probably not even 1 for planes, yes?
So flying is safer, yes?
Sure, except for one very, very important thing.
People survive car crashes, that's why they can tell you about them.
The survival rate for plane crashes is substantially lower, so although planes crash less often, there's far fewer people standing around afterwards to argue who's right of way it was or swap insurance details with... of course, statistically, you're safer up there than you are down here... for one thing, not many Scottish bred weasels have figured out how to fly, so at least you won't get molested...
4x4's are far more dangerous (for the other party) in crashes. I had it all explained to me in a Trauma lecture whilst I was working in a&e. Their weight gives them so much more energy that even modern cars with crumple zones etc come off very badly. Safe for the occupants, deadly for those on the recieving end.
Not around too often!
man if you really want a true off roader then get the best off roader on the planet the king of all off roaders the toyota land cruiser. i own one and let me tell you i have driven the bmw, land rover, rangerover, nissan patrol, porchecayeen, to tel you the truth the best was the land cruiser.
why is it the best off roader? of course it isnt, bar a defender the discovery is by far the best it has all been explained to me why by my dad, and brilliant nick spot on too *remebers not to start argument with nick* most people do not need them,we had a disco and a jeep for a while because we lived on a farm and when my dad needed to get into a field or come up the stone track daily to get home that was made purley of flint and would have ruined other cars after weeks i agreed with his logic, and i think that in that case its ok, as soon as we moved away he sold it and bought a saloon. i sad why did you sell it? he said its a waste of money its ugly and its slow why would i want it? and the more i thinkabout it why would you want one? they are ugly,slow and expensive. and for those about to say yes but the rangerover sport has a 4.2 supercharged v8 but its slower than a civiv,a bmw saloon and slower than most things that have a decent engine. and why is it buysiness man and mothers that like them? i dont get it you can buy a hell of a lot nicer faster car for 60 grand than a top rangerover. but no atter how high u put taxes there wi8ll be rich peple that buy ther wivs 4x4 cars and wont think about the cost. just when i see those footballers driving rangerovers it makes me laugh they get enough cash to buy one in one week, please buy a lambo not a hyped up trailer tower :S
Listen If You Are Like Me Living In The Desert And Have To Go To The Farm Every Single Friday On Those Rocky Terrain Or Sand Terrain And Some Times Sand Dunes Or Get Stuck In The Sand You Will See How Many People Have To Cross Those Terrains With Different Cars Every Friday With Different Models. All Fails Except The Land Cruiser. The Land Rover Discovery Fails In The Sand And The Rocks And The Land Cruiser Is The Savior That Has To Pull All The Cars Out And The Worst Performer Would Be Those Ugly Bulky Gmc And Chevrolet Suvs. Also When I Was Studying In The Us In Colorado (one Of The Most Coldest And Snowiest On Earth) I Wanted To Buy A Car That Can Deal With Snow So I Asked An American Rally Driver A Friend Of Mine And He Recommended The Land Cruiser As The Best Performer For Difficult Terrain And Stated That The Landcruiser Is The First 4x4 Car That Servived In Antarctica. Also The Land Cruiser Has Two Tanks In It. When The First Tank Is Empty Just Press The Button And Automatically Will Switch To The Other Tank. And Tell Me What Is The Use Of Getting Small Saloons Car?. Because It Is Faster? I Dont Think So. Why Do You Need A Faster Car? No Body Is Going To Race In A Traffic. If You Tell Rally Proffecional Driver That You Sold Your 4x4 And Bought A Saloon He Will Laugh. Because Today Most Of The 4x4 Cars Have Saloon Engines.
*enter carriage return here*
i hpe all of have understood the laws of off roading. and to understand that the land cruiser is the best of all and will be the best unlike that ugly range/land rover
I'm not, I live in a village in the middle of England... not a desert in sight... in fact, there's bugger all sand here unless I go to the local quarry, but even that's mainly chalk, so why do I or anyone here need a 4x4?
Like I said, no sand here. But, to be fair, that's exacty the reason to have a 4x4 off roading monster, cos you've got rugged, OFF ROAD terrain to cope with, so by all means get an off roader, it's what they were built for.
I bet they do, so if I was out there, I'd no doubt leap into a Land Cruiser first chance I get... but I'm not out there in the rocks and sand, I'm in Bedfordshire with roads and hills and the ocassional terminally startled squirrel... So I don't need a Land Cruiser... and if I don't need one, (and I consider myself to be pretty much the average bloke), why does anyone else who does the same sort of driving as me?
Hang on, you're not a Toyota salesman are you? And before you go off relating all sorts of stories about Land Cruisers saving other 4x4s, don't forget that even though a Land Cruiser is good in a field, the same can be said of a tractor... or, if you're really poor, two oxen..
Erm, Colorado isn't the most snowiest and coldest on Earth... you don't saying exactly what, so I presume you mean place, but you'd be wrong... If you mean US State, that'd be Alaska, or if you mean something else, then I'd try speaking to anyone from Canada... Winnipeg is pretty damn cold in winter... But again, neither Winnipeg or Colorado are anywhere near Bedfordshire, which, if memory serves me correctly, has had precisely 8 snowflakes in the last two years...
And asking an American rally driver? An American rally driver? I didn;t know they had them... I have to admit this is a first for me, I thought American drivers either liked driving round and round left handed loops and calling it NASCAR, or driving round and round left hand loops faster and calling it IndyCars... Since when did the American's ever do rally driving to some success, other than the chase scenes in the Dukes Of Hazzard? I'm sure if they introduced bows, arrows and explosive moonshine to the World Rally Championship, we'd have our US cousins clamouring to drive, but as we don't, they're not... Now, if you'd asked a Finn or a Brit about it, I'd accept their ideas...
Oh, and the first car to survive use in Antartica was the Arrol-Johnston vehicle used by Shackleton in 1907... followed by a Baby Austin 7 in 1927 and a Volkswagen Beetle in 1963... Google is your friend for that one... I'm not surprised your American rally driver friend got that wrong though, most Americans won't know where Antartica is... Actually, that's probably why there's so few American rally teams... it's a problem with any map outside of your country's own borders...
Two tanks? How's that any good? Have you seen the price of fuel now? And why not have just one big tank? In fact, why not have a smaller car that's more fuel efficient and have a smaller tank... oh wait...
Well yes, there are, or Ferrari would be making 4x4 soft-roaders...
So it's better to sit in the traffic in a 4x4 then? Minor flaw in the argument there... If we're in a traffic jam, or comparing speeds of stationary vehicles, I'd be fairly sure a skateboard is going to do just as well... in fact, I'll go for the skateboard as the fuel consumption is mcuh lower than anything you care to name... Ok, I haven't got aircon or a stereo but I can pull a 720 ollie off the Armco while I'm waiting.
No, he won't. He will perhaps chortle a little if you let on that you took advice from a US rally driver and he may even supress a guffaw at the notion that Colorado is the coldest place in the world. He might even have a sly snigger at the thought that a 4x4 is better in a traffic jam but he certainly won't laugh if you tell him you sold your 4x4 because you realised that you only drove on roads that sometimes got a little icy, rarely had any snow on them, never had rocks and sand over them and weren't in actual fact anything other than bog standard roads in a temperate climate country.
Now I could ask you to name one, but I'm not going to because I really can't be bothered. I know for a fact that they lump big powerful engines into saloons and they take the same engine and lump it into 4x4s too, that's only proper business sense and about as shocking a relevation as saying John Prescott is a fat git.
I'm not sure what the point is that 4x4s have saloon engines, so what? My gripe wasn;t with 4x4s having saloon engines, it was always, and still is, with those daft people who buy a 4x4 either for the sake of status, fashion or 'to feel safe when driving'. A side effect of having a 4x4 is that they need fairly meaty large engines to make them go at speeds respectable enough so that horseboxes won't try and overtake them, so there's the extra effect of not only needlessly owning a huge car that they never make the full use of, but also of burning more petrol just as needlessly too.
Oh and one last question... just WHY is the cold weather performance of a Land Cruiser in the Antartic relevant to someone who lives in the desert where it's baking bloody hot?
Last edited by Nick; 21-08-2006 at 12:48 AM.
rofl, if there is a comeback from that mohammed il buy you lunch, i dare say you just got sat down..
nick, you have excellent writing skills..
Nick I agree 100% with you.
Loads of my mates are farmers who NEED 4 x 4's. They won't touch 99.9% of the market of the 4x4's. In fact most of them will use old jeeps and Land Rovers to do the "proper" "dirty work"
Is a 4x4 safer than say (which annoy me only less slightly): a people mover??
Nope
The 4x4 does not have crumple zones. Instead in a crash it crunches - but in a solid way. That means instead of the car crumpling....it TRAPS you in it. My mates a full-time fireman and whenever he hears that a 4x4 is involved in an RTA he knows he's cutting someone free...most likely with crushed legs
4x4's in car parks. Oh dear. People NEED to go on a course to drive these things. Not only can they have a huge amount of trouble seeing the little *scamp* running across in front of them chasing his equally *scamp*y brother, they have no concept of the terms "parking space", "give way" or "where the kern is". I was once strolling casually though a sainsbury's car-park when a 4x4 mounted the kirn and actually HIT MY TROLLEY. I was on the paved bit in the middle of the two car spaces and they'd plowed over the barrier tree and hit my trolley. It all happened so quickly I didn't even have the time to shout at the stupid scared looking women behind the wheel.
Take into account 4x4's driving caravans dangerously down the motorway and you have triple trouble. That is: the car toppling over at speed in the wind, the driver not having a clue how to drive the stupidly huge badly weighted car and the caravan making it all 120% worse.
I'm gonna stop now but.....I could go on
Mohammed is correct on one thing, many 4x4 engines do come from saloons. Discovery diesel is used in jag, freelander diesel was used in a rover 75.
I think Nick really nailed his dislike in the last post, its not the vehicle he dislikes, its the drivers. Personally I see somebody dropping a kid of at school in a RX8 and think, what a plank.
Dont worrk Nick when sports cars are trendy they will be driving those badly instead.
Last edited by Flibb; 21-08-2006 at 11:12 PM.
What's wrong with an RX-8? Other than the fact it goes through oil like kate moss does "snow" due to it's rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishel rotary engine?
Oh, and Nick did give credit to mohammed for the saloon engines in 4x4's comment.. Did you miss that in your hurry to post some form of rebuttal?
Nick chap, your writing wouldn't be at all out of place in the Sunday Times motoring suppliment, right next to Jeremy Clarkson
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
More of a risk is the unsheilded pedestrian - because of the additional height of a 4x4, you get hit much closer to your centre of mass...consider this, a low car will hit the legs, knock them out from under you, you hit the bonnet and bounce up and over, not nice, but preferable to a 4x4, that is so high that you get struck in the middle, your legs go under, your body over.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote