[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif 28 per 100 is 28% 28 per 1,000 is 2.8% 28 per 10,000 is .28% 28 per 100,000 is .028% Mathematics education clearly is not what it used to be !

Wow how did I manage to do that....thanks for the catch. I think my IQ is dropping just from reading the OP's posts.

Anyways, that's why I'm training to be a concert pianist.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My parents do own the A8L and the R8 (obviously), but I own one of the SUV's, which gives me just as much right as anyone to talk about this. Notice I use the word "we" and "my family" when talking about the cars? I never meant "my family" to mean my kids, last time I knew, family included parents. I even mentioned my uncle in one of my posts.

I just said it was funny and perhaps slightly misleading. Not wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thankfully, it won't take the lives of other people who value their family enough to buy them a SUV. Natural selection at its finest, I guess.

Elitism much? SUVs cost more, in both initial and upkeep costs than cars do. Even the best "good mileage SUV" averages about 30MPG (source). And that's a Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD. Hardly a capable vehicle for anything serious. The best 8 cylinder 4WD full size SUV (Nissan Pathfinder) only gets 14/20. Now look at the full size sedans. Toyota Avalon, Ford Five Hundred (now the new Taurus), Chevy Impala... all around 20/28 MPG. And can carry 5 adults in comfort.

Not all of us have the bankroll to afford a Porsche Cayenne (which is an amazing vehicle, I'll give you. I still think it's a travesty and Dr. Ferdinand would cringe, but that's up to you to decide) nor the gas or maintenance it demands. My Prelude takes premium, and even with a 12 gallon tank, $3.81 hurts. That's $42 a fill-up. I get about 25/28 MPG and have a hell of a lot more fun than anyone driving an SUV. Especially when I smile and park in the compact car only spots as they angrily drive off.

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elitism much?

It was supposed to be sarcasm.

Quote:

SUVs cost more, in both initial and upkeep costs than cars do. Even the best "good mileage SUV" averages about 30MPG (source). And that's a Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD. Hardly a capable vehicle for anything serious.

Yet the Escape outsells every single other SUV year after year. As for cost, I could be wrong on this, but I believe that SUV's hold their value longer. SUV's bottom out higher than your average car does on the used market, I think.

Quote:

Not all of us have the bankroll to afford a Porsche Cayenne (which is an amazing vehicle, I'll give you. I still think it's a travesty and Dr. Ferdinand would cringe, but that's up to you to decide) nor the gas or maintenance it demands. My Prelude takes premium, and even with a 12 gallon tank, $3.81 hurts. That's $42 a fill-up. I get about 25/28 MPG and have a hell of a lot more fun than anyone driving an SUV. Especially when I smile and park in the compact car only spots as they angrily drive off.

All fair points. But to be fair, during the winter, I smile and park on top of the giant snow bank created by the parking lot plows while the compact cars drive off angrily.

 

[Stephonovich]

EDIT: Removed as mods would probably shut the thread down.

As to the snowbank, erm, seems like a bad idea to me. I lived in Nebraska for 8 years, and distinctly remember high centering my dad's F-150 (which I guarantee had more clearance and less weight than an SUV) on a snowbank. One humbly accepted tow chain later, I learned that tires tend to sink through snow, and 4WD doesn't mean you're invincible. Or I suppose the snowbank could start melt unevenly and it'd roll off. That'd be pretty funny, actually.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just pointing out how asinine the OP's assumptions are. And thank you for serving our country, even though I get the feeling you are trying to insinuate that you see action, which you don't, serving in the sub base. If either of us were old enough, I would buy you a drink regardless.

True statement, I don't. I'm on PCU 780, the latest and greatest in the Navy's submarine arsenal. Virginia class subs are THE S***. It won't be in service until April 2011. And no, the sub base is not a pretty cool place. It's an unsightly hodge podge of ancient buildings, shipyard horrors, and a building numbering system that defies logic. (seriously, Building 87 is next to building 73? C'mon...)

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich /img/forum/go_quote.gif True statement, I don't. I'm on PCU 780, the latest and greatest in the Navy's submarine arsenal. Virginia class subs are THE S***. It won't be in service until April 2011. And no, the sub base is not a pretty cool place. It's an unsightly hodge podge of ancient buildings, shipyard horrors, and a building numbering system that defies logic. (seriously, Building 87 is next to building 73? C'mon...)

To me, any place that essentially gave birth to our entire nations sub force is a cool place, for history alone. I would not want to work there, but the history is cool nonetheless.

And by the way, I probably shouldn't have made that crack about you seeing action (as I didn't mean to demean the work of the people that don't), just as you shouldn't have made the crack about the better person. One ninja edit for another, I guess.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 15in of snowfall is not massive. Try three feet. Ground clearance is everything when you get real snowfall. I guarantee you your car would not be able to get through the same kind of snow a suv would. It is simple physics. I am saying that that gas guzzling SUV's which you attack are actually far safer than the econobox, good mpg suv's that are the most popular. So if you want to make the roads safer, go after the more popular and more dangerous SUV's (even though they get great mpg), not the gas guzzlers. You won't do that though, because it is not popular to rail against cars with good mpg and it won't give you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside. Or the winner of the transsyberia rally, yet again. Porsche Cayenne S Transsyberia: factory-built rally machine - Autoblog If winning the transsyberia rally is selling out, then I hope other companies follow suit! I don't think you understand how utterly this car would destroy yours in any test of performance, including the slaom. 700ft slalom: 63.5mph ROADandTRACK.com -- Road Tests - Chariots With Fire (11/2006) Your car would probably take a good 8 seconds just to hit 60mph. Or how about this: BMW X5 4.8is 63.7mph through slalom Your honda cannot touch that, like it or not. Not without some serious modifications. Period. When your car would be accelerating up to 60mph, the Porshce would be done with the course AVERAGING 63mph. When we are talking about the difference between 500hp and 400hp, it won't matter much. But when the honda has 92hp and the Porsche has 521, well, THAT makes a difference. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Find a slalom time on a non modified honda that bests the Porsche. The would would be a much better place if nobody drove. How about you start? You have got to be kidding me, that is so illogical. First, of course cars are safer than SUV's in car vs car collisions, as to date there has never even been a car vs car collision involving a SUV What you are doing is the very definition of twisting your own words. Let's break down your numbers for a minute. That is a .0101% chance of dying in a rollover. That is a .028% chance of death. As for the overall safety vs a car, I will quote your own study: Mathmatically, taking into account the increased chance of death in an SUV due to a rollover, SUV to SUV collison, or SUV to object collision, and also factoring in the increased chance of SURVIVAL in SUV to CAR collisions, which are BY FAR the most statistically common types (after all, there are only 16 million SUV's on the road and 130 million passenger cars), it is clear that your overall chance of survival on the road is mathmatically far higher in the SUV. No matter how you cut it, that's how the numbers work out. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you won't be able to. Remember, proof involves numbers. Thankfully, it won't take the lives of other people who value their family enough to buy them a SUV. Natural selection at its finest, I guess.

I don't doubt your figures and numbers, but you are making one large assumption here.

That is that driving skill and ability are the same across all drivers.

I'll probably get pasted for making a broad assumption, but it's one that's shown up over my life of driving. I've been at it for 20 years and have put down probably 350,000 miles across most of the US. I love to drive.

SUV drivers strongly tend to be bad drivers. Most are hugely insecure, stomp the brake at the first slightly disturbing thing, are often on cell phones and/or otherwise distracted, tend to drive aggressively, and really have no clue about how to handle their vehicle in an emergency situation.

If someone doesn't know how to drive a car to its fullest, then all those capabilities and numbers mean NOTHING. An idiot can cut his hand off on the finest $20,000 tablesaw, and it's no different with cars.

You seem to like the Cayenne a lot. Let me tell you, their owners tend to be the typical bubblehead soccermom and toolhead management type. Popular where I live, and I get to take them on daily in the commute. I take a route along the beach and down a road notorious for drag racing. My cars, with lesser stats, smoke them 99% of the time. Why? Because their drivers don't know what they're doing. Oh, a little curve to the left? PANIC!!!

These figures might be turned in by professional drivers, but it's not like that in the real world. People who buy for vanity, insecurity and ego make for terrible drivers. I know that's not all of them. But most. Probably 90% of more from what I've seen.

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfusion770 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're telling me that with snow tires on your car, and in poor weather conditions, you feel secure enough to drive faster than SUV drivers? That's the false sense of security that causes accidents, whether in a car or an SUV. No matter what you are driving you need to be cautious in poor weather. Accidents happen, but often it's the carelessness of the driver that causes them.

Yep, I can go faster than them.

Quote:

Regardless of anything else, tire size, ground clearance and 4 wheel drive give SUVs a clear advantage over your snow tires.

Uh, no it doesn't. Tire size, meaning bigger tires, are actually BAD in snow. you want narrow skinny tires with aggressive snow tread for the best traction in snowy conditions. Go look at what a rally car is using in the white stuff. Ground clearance doesn't really help if it's not a limiting factor, and it never has been here. 4wd, again, while good for accelerating, does not help you brake or turn better than a rwd or fwd vehicle. Since my cars outhandle and outbrake SUVs stock, with snow tires they easily out perform them in snowy conditions.

 

[averydonovan]

I just don't like most SUVs simply because they don't appeal to me and I hate trying to deal with the largest of them on the road. I'd much rather own a minivan than an SUV since they are more efficient as far as interior room compared to exterior size and fuel efficiency. If someone wants to drive a Suburban or an H2, it's your choice.

Right now I drive a large car, a Buick LeSabre, and love it. It gets pretty damn good gas mileage, is comfortable as can be, has great acceleration, and I can intimidate other drivers when they refuse to let me merge into the lane I need. The thing is a beast to park and people constantly try to pass me on the highway just because it's a Buick, but otherwise I don't have any real complaints.

I honestly don't think I could drive a smaller car since the fuel economy gains are far from proportional to what they should be, and I'd be giving up way too much comfort and interior room. A Chevy Aveo, for example, gets maybe 5MPG more than my car despite being half the size, weight, and having half the engine size. And the higher insurance premiums would eclipse the small amount I would save in gas. Too many tradeoffs and not enough benefits, I'll skip.

When people that drive small cars have driven mine or at least ridden in it, find out what kind of acceleration it has, feel how comfortable it is, and hear about what fuel economy I get they tend to tell me that'd I'd be stupid to ever consider giving up my vehicle for a smaller one. And there's a little envy in their voice when they say that. Small does not necessarily mean efficient, and large does not mean inefficient.

We all have our preferences in vehicles, and some of us are strongly attached to what we drive. So long as you drive safely then I don't much care, even if I get irritated with a large truck or SUV's headlight glare or having a motorcycle weaving in and out of traffic determined to cause a crash. I think issues like having drivers holding up cellphones to their ears while driving are far more serious.

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't doubt your figures and numbers, but you are making one large assumption here. That is that driving skill and ability are the same across all drivers. I'll probably get pasted for making a broad assumption, but it's one that's shown up over my life of driving. I've been at it for 20 years and have put down probably 350,000 miles across most of the US. I love to drive. SUV drivers strongly tend to be bad drivers. Most are hugely insecure, stomp the brake at the first slightly disturbing thing, are often on cell phones and/or otherwise distracted, tend to drive aggressively, and really have no clue about how to handle their vehicle in an emergency situation.

People that drive older honda civics tend to be bad drivers. Most are hugely insecure and reflect this thorugh the overwhelming amount of aftermarket exhausts and whale tail spoliers they install, never use the breaks, are often on cell phones, tend to drive aggressively, and have no clue how to handle their car in emergency situations.

People that drive station wagons tend to be bad drivers. Most are distracted by their five kids screaming in back, on the cell phone to the soccer coach, tend to drive obliviously, and have no clue how to use their cars in emergency situations.

People that drive BMW's, Audi's and Mercede's tend to be bad drivers. Most are distracted by their client in the backseat, or distracted on the cell phone to the stock broker. They drive aggressively, fearing to be late for work, and have no clue how to handle their vehicle in emergency situations.

People that drive Buicks and Lexus' tend to be bad drivers. They tend to be old, with impaired eyesight, vision, and reaction times. They are distracted by the pretty yellow and red signs, which they can't read until they are 10 feet away, and they tend to drive unsafely below the speed limit. They have have no clue how to handle their vehicle in emergency situations.

In my experience, granted much smaller than yours, people in general all seem to suck just as much. You just notice the SUV's more because they are bigger and you are more scared of them.


Quote:

If someone doesn't know how to drive a car to its fullest, then all those capabilities and numbers mean NOTHING. An idiot can cut his hand off on the finest $20,000 tablesaw, and it's no different with cars.

I agree completely. But with cars, the more expensive ones have idiot aids to help prevent that from happening. Sure, you can still pull it off, but it's harder and more safe if it does happen. To use my earlier example, you can't deny that having Brembo's as opposed to drum breaks would increase the safety of the car.

Quote:

You seem to like the Cayenne a lot. Let me tell you, their owners tend to be the typical bubblehead soccermom and toolhead management type. Popular where I live, and I get to take them on daily in the commute. I take a route along the beach and down a road notorious for drag racing. My cars, with lesser stats, smoke them 99% of the time. Why? Because their drivers don't know what they're doing. Oh, a little curve to the left? PANIC!!!

Again, good point.

Quote:

These figures might be turned in by professional drivers, but it's not like that in the real world. People who buy for vanity, insecurity and ego make for terrible drivers. I know that's not all of them. But most. Probably 90% of more from what I've seen.

But nobody is a professional driver on the road, thus negating the point that the performance figures are turned in by professional drivers.

 

[appophylite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You feel snowmobiling is safer than commuting...Your credibility is ZERO.

Have you ever driven a snow-mobile? Or even gone tandem on one with someone who can operate one? If you have any experience with a snow-mobile (just driving and handling one), you'd know that Computerpro3 is on the ball with his assessment. The only way to actually die riding a snow-machine due to your own fault would be doing something stupid, that they shouldn't (which people can do with cars too), driving while drunk, which probably will lead to doing something stupid anyhow (also can be done with a car), or by getting lost and getting hypothermia or an injury that can't be treated on site.

 

[cash68]

Yes, I have. I grew up riding them. I don't know how anybody can say they are safer than a car. You're expose, you aren't buckled, you have a helmet, and you're speeding without a speed limit across frozen lakes and land on snow and ice with a lot of trees and other snow mobiles.

 

[boomana]

Dang, Cash68, for someone who has only been on this forum a short time, you sure like arguing and calling people names.

I'm not a fan of SUVs and would never own one, but I also have no need for one. I do have friends who own them, and none chose to drive them to be fashionable. They are not under the delusion that SUVs are safer than other vehicles. They are not insecure or vain, are not nervous about their marriages, are not soccer moms, and not any of the other outrageous statements you chose to quote in your essay as a defense of your position. I'm aware you were quoting another, but you chose those words out of all possible quotes you found while researching. I think folks are reacting to that kind of negligent and inflammatory bias, and I agree with them. To lump all SUV owners into one category, call them *******s, and say that you hate SUVs is over-the-top and overshadows any good points you made.

As was said to you in other thread, chill out.

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I have. I grew up riding them. I don't know how anybody can say they are safer than a car. You're expose, you aren't buckled, you have a helmet, and you're speeding without a speed limit across frozen lakes and land on snow and ice with a lot of trees and other snow mobiles.

Or riding on goverened, groomed trails with speed limits, two lanes, and intersections. You generalize everything, don't you. Let me guess, flying on a commercial airline is dangerous because people that fly Cessnas alone in storms tend to crash a lot, correct?

That is about how relevant all of your claims are.

I have a feeling that you are lying about growing up with snowmobiles too, as someone who has really done so would have much more respect for the industry and sport. Plus you would know about things like tek-vests.

 

[Kirosia]

At least his sister is hot.