These things are less safe, yet I see people driving aggressively and recklessly more than ever.
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
85 points (97.8% liked)
World News
32324 readers
820 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
because they’re safer for the drivers
Not if they crash into stationary objects like rocks, etc. In that case the amount of force the driver will experience will be 2-3 times higher compared to the amount of force a driver of a normal sedan will experience if he had the same accident.
But yeah, those trucks are getting ridiculously big and heavy. They are not only bad for the environment, they are bad for the roads and other drivers and pedestrians. I am living in Europe and it is really infuriating that those cars are like 1.5 times a normal car and then you can't even find a parking spot.
Not if they crash into stationary objects like rocks, etc. In that case the amount of force the driver will experience will be 2-3 times higher compared to the amount of force a driver of a normal sedan will experience if he had the same accident.
this is not true, the deceleration (g force) imparted to passengers should be the same in either case. (all other things being equal, initial speed, crumple zones, etc). adding more mass to the car is irrelevant to the driver if you're hitting a truly immovable object.
force = mass x acceleration.
giant vehicles have more mass.
yes, the force applied to THE ROCK will be much higher, but the car's mass is not relevant to the driver's reference inside the car.
It's actually safe for the driver but unsafe for everyone else. Flip easier than sedan though.
I went to this train and automobile museum place in Maine. Podunk little place, but pretty cool and they really did have a lot of old cars to look at.
What shocked me was the size of the cars. Like huge ford expedition max trunk bigger than a pickup’s bed size.
Then I thought about the cars of the 70s and 80s. My old man’s Cutlass Supreme could easily fit 6 and had a huge trunk. God help you if your auntie drove a station wagon - there might have been a dozen kids piled into that sucker going to the beach.
Then I look at current suvs. They are pretty small comparatively speaking. I can’t get 5 into my grand Cherokee comfortably. Ya there are some huge suvs, but they aren’t the norm. The mini suvs are more common.
My unpopular opinion - the new “car” is an suv. And they have gotten smaller over the years, not bigger.
I disagree. They have gotten smaller on the inside. Totally agree in that. But the rest of the vehicle is definitely larger...and heavier. Look at a corolla today vs. there 80's. It's the size of a Camry back in the day. Trucks and SUVs, too. They don't fit in garages now. Remember mini trucks? Well no more.
I think to meet safety standards, they have more crumple zones. Plus they have more features, which take up space the passengers would normally use. Finally I think people just like larger vehicles. Maybe they feel safer, even if they aren't or they like the intimidation factor. I don't know.
Trucks are larger because of the footprint of the wheels is large enough, they have to meet different efficiency standards. But I think a lot of that was driven by manufacturer.
also SUVs became the new minivan because minivans aren’t cool. with an suv you can cosplay as an off-roader who goes mountaineering on the weekends and drives uphill through snow both ways to work and back.
I agree, but I was making a different point. I think most people drove larger CARS, but today most people drive SUVs. And today’s SUVs are smaller than the cars of the past. Yes any particular model seems to have gotten bigger - but I think people in general are in smaller vehicles than they were when I was a kid.
I drove a 73' Impala in HS, that thing was bigger than a F250 today...
Maybe that perception is skewed by America's culture of having ridiculously large cars. European cars were always smaller, but nowadays it's getting pretty hard to buy something other than an SUV here, too.
I shouldn't need to say that not only natural gas bad, but oil also bad
I see. I'm confused by this too. When I was young vans were popular and station wagons were definitely more prominent. Vans fell out of popularity presumably because they were built on a truck chassis. Minivans drove better. Station wagons also fell out of favor. I guess because they were too family truckster.
So what happens? SUVs become popular which are basically station wagons built on a truck chassis. Go figure.
Station wagons were subject to sedan emissions standards. SUVs wer subject to truck emission standards.
Idk if it's still on but at some point in Poland people were installing grates in the back of front seats because it legally made the car (even something like Daewoo Tico) into a truck which allowed tax benefits.
But few people but a car based on emissions, so why then did SUVs become popular? Or is it the case of manufacturers wanted us to like SUVs, so they made that happen.
People don't buy cars based on emissions. Car makers make them based on emissions because lower requirements are easier to meet while including things people do want.
Literally cooking the planet for next quarters metrics.
I think we're saying the same thing.
The easy answer is because that’s all they freakin’ make now.
As Kongar said, I agree, the new car is an suv. Which... Is by and large not great, but also what's an SUV now?
When I was a kid by parents had one of the original Nissan Pathfinders. The one with the spare wheel that swung away, definitely 4wd, and so forth. OJ Simpson ran from the cops in a white Bronco.
Those were SUVs. Today's monster Expeditions and Suburbans are SUVs.
At introduction, the Subaru Outback was a station wagon. Now... It's an SUV? I have a 2022. No, it's not small, but I have a kid and we use the trunk space and the awd all the time. Winter sucks here, and there are dirt roads. But to me it's a car. But on paper it's an SUV.
I am sure there's a real distinction, but... Next to a Tahoe or a Grand Cherokee it is absulotely not an SUV. It's a car with awd and a beefy-ish suspension.
I am sure there's a real distinction
Body-on-frame with a pickup truck chassis vs. unibody construction.
That was a popular distinction maybe 20 years ago, but the line is fuzzed and functionally, the term "crossover (CUV) is dead. But, like all terms automotive, it's just marketing." Crossover" seemed friendlier to women to get them to drive tall cars. Now everything is classed as a [size] suv. Some classic suv examples were always unibody like the jeep Cherokee. Edit: I see now your other comment touches on offroad capability. So does a 2wd "suv" (by your definition) then get declassified? Does a body-on-frame tall wagon with viscous coupling awd get declassified?
And no (takes a deep breath to survive an emotional down vote onslaught), there is no legal difference between 4x4, 4wd, or awd. A manufacturer can choose any term to apply to any type of 4-wheel locomotion. Every definitive trait has some counter example that still counts because people "feel" it's good enough.
"Crossover" was essentially "minivan without sliding doors."
4x4 generally means "you have a second gear selector to choose 2wd or 4wd Hi or 4wd Lo," whether that selector is a mechanical lever or a switch.
"Full time 4wd" and AWD mean that the car is always driving all four wheels, there is no selector to switch to 2wd, and usually with the primary being front wheel drive, with a teeny driveshaft sending a small percentage of the power (like 20% or 30%) to the rear wheels (though that may change based on traction control sensor inputs).
I apologize for the length of the previous sentence.
The 3rd gen Suzuki Grand Vitara had full time 4WD with low range, a center LSD, and a center locker
Every definitive trait has some counter example that still counts because people “feel” it’s good enough.
There's an aphorism in statstics / science: "all models are wrong, but some are useful." I feel that the distinction between genuine off-road-capable SUVs and crossovers/tall cars/glorified station wagons or minivans is useful, even if it isn't completely definitive. Generally speaking, if it's a unibody vehicle it probably isn't very good off-road, and therefore doesn't really deserve to be called an "SUV."
So does a 2wd “suv” (by your definition) then get declassified?
A 2WD SUV is less general-purpose, but I think they still have enough potential to count (think desert-racing prerunners, which are often 2WD but legitimate off-road vehicles).
Plenty of large SUVs are unibody.
Plenty of large "tall station wagons" are unibody. About the only legitimately capable offroad 4x4s I know of that are unibody are the Jeep Cherokee (the old one) ~~and maybe something like a Suzuki Jimny~~ (edit: nope, even that tiny thing is body-on-frame).
(Consider the difference between a (unibody) Toyota Highlander and a (body-on-frame) Toyota 4Runner, for example: only the latter is a "real" SUV, in terms of being capable off-road.)
You've unilaterally decided that "AN SUV MUST BE BODY ON FRAME!" and that's just not the case.