 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / October 2006Slightly OT: one for the anti 4x4s?
Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a Shogun. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6063978.stm Fortunately the girl survived and is recovering well, but I wonder if the anti 4x4 lobby will pick up on this, especially being outside a school in the middle of London. Not helped by the fact that 2 of the occupants decided to run off! Glad to see the BBC haven't played on the anti 4x4 rubbish, looks as if they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness... -- Thanks, Paul >Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a >Shogun. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments >about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness... yeah, nicely unbiassed. Mind you, it was probably one of the parents - schoolmums taking off from outside school at 3pm have nothing on the old-fahioned Le Mans starts...  SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic face by frightening people in the street. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. > yeah, nicely unbiassed. > > Mind you, it was probably one of the parents - schoolmums taking off from > outside school at 3pm have nothing on the old-fahioned Le Mans starts... Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback? It punted her through the air, it seems - which, although it can't be much fun, is a whole lot better than being sliced off at the knee or run over. DaveP > Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit > by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback? Probably not, given that cars tend to hit the legs, where the vital organs aren't located, whereas with a 4x4 the impact area is much more likely to hit the abdomen where all the messy squidgy stuff is. Being hit by a 4x4 is almost always going to be worse than being hit by a car at the same speed just because of that, I know that people batter on about "common sense" in this group a lot and I tend to sneer at the idea, but sometimes a dose of it can be useful. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit > > by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback? > > Probably not, given that cars tend to hit the legs, where the vital > organs aren't located, whereas with a 4x4 the impact area is much more > likely to hit the abdomen where all the messy squidgy stuff is. But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument is generally regarded as a Bad Thing. > Being hit by a 4x4 is almost always going to be worse than being hit > by a car at the same speed just because of that, I know that people > batter on about "common sense" in this group a lot and I tend to sneer > at the idea, but sometimes a dose of it can be useful. Indeed....... Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to > cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't > squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument > is generally regarded as a Bad Thing. This will also happen if you get smacked into by a 4x4 though. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to > > cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't > > squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument > > is generally regarded as a Bad Thing. > > This will also happen if you get smacked into by a 4x4 though. Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess there are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how none of the bus/lorry/transit van types attract as much - if any - attention compared to that focused on 4x4's. One would almost think that there's an agenda out there somewhere.... Steve Steve <steve@DELETEMEFIRSTzord.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny about: > Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess > there are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve I doubt this one would have made the press but for the CCTV image and the blood-thirsty press. I'm pleased she came off with relatively minor injuries, and sickened yet again that the press feel the need to glorify the story with such imagery. I constantly have dealing with the press and unless I'm working nights generally get four or five calls a day, the levels that some of them will stoop to to get what they deem to be a "scoop" is sad to say the least. There are some that will do a cracking job with an article and others who have mis-quoted me to the point that they are now on my list of peeps who get jack. I'm all for news, just not political biased crap which pretty much rules out most Newspapers apart from the TV listings and Classified's which is probably the only reason I let our local rag cast a shadow on my door mat..... Oh then again I'd be stuffed for masking off too. Lee D > Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess there > are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how none of the > bus/lorry/transit van types attract as much - if any - attention compared to > that focused on 4x4's. One would almost think that there's an agenda out > there somewhere.... Steve, are you suggesting that the media in this country is packed with lying tosspots sensationalising everything as much as they can so that they can sell more copies which they need to do in order to try to sell more advertising because the cover price that the punter pays doesn't cover the cost of the paper and even then most papers make a loss which is why they're owned by media tycoons who use them to pedal opinion and infuence by distorting and selecting stories to further their own aims and not to inform the people who read the things but instead to try to push those people to whinge about this or that depending on what business interest or political interest is uppermost in the owner's and therefore editor's and therefore journalists mind and so they pack the paper with woe stories to keep people thinking that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and that the paper is on their side and will help them and tell them the only real truth while the rest of the world is being fooled like some kind of bonkers religion? Sorry all, need to drink weaker coffee I think. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >Steve, are you suggesting that the media in this country is packed >with lying tosspots sensationalising everything as much as they can so [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Sorry all, need to drink weaker coffee I think. Very eloquently put Ian, it's gone into my keep file. SignatureJohn Lubran Being hit by a schoolbus or a refuse truck isn't going to be any better either, so should they be banned from going anywhere near schools, don't see anyone complaining about them ? SignatureSeries 3 Rust and Holes > Probably not, given that cars tend to hit the legs, where the vital > organs aren't located, whereas with a 4x4 the impact area is much more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > batter on about "common sense" in this group a lot and I tend to sneer > at the idea, but sometimes a dose of it can be useful. > Being hit by a schoolbus or a refuse truck isn't going to be any better > either, so should they be banned from going anywhere near schools, don't see > anyone complaining about them ? Indeed, however as far as I'm concerned the majority of the damage is done by the majority of the people, 10 cars are more likely to kill kids at schools than 1 4x4 or 0.5 school busses but you're not going to get politicians, local councillors or pressure groups campaigning about the majority of the people! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > yeah, nicely unbiassed. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fun, is a whole lot better than being sliced off at the knee or run > over. That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed in 4x4 debates. > DaveP Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed > in 4x4 debates. This applies to both sides of course. I expect you'll be able to tell us all how a heavy 4x4 can stop much faster than a more conventional car too. I appreciate that 4x4s are more dangerous to pedestrians than most normal cars, I just don't care. Why bother trying to fool yourself with pseudo-science arbitrarily labelled as "common sense"? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed > > in 4x4 debates. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I expect you'll be able to tell us all how a heavy 4x4 can stop much > faster than a more conventional car too. It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are usually a softer compound than car tyres, and therefore have a higher friction coeficient - and, of course, the braking system is designed (on proper 4x4's) with towing in mind. The braking ability is designed in, not an accidental outcome. A partly loaded 44 ton truck (i.e. loaded enough to stop the trailer wheels locking up) will out-stop most cars. Easily. > I appreciate that 4x4s are more dangerous to pedestrians than most > normal cars, I just don't care. Why bother trying to fool yourself > with pseudo-science arbitrarily labelled as "common sense"? I'm fooling no one, it's the driver and the pedestrian that makes a vehicle dangerous or not, whether it be a Micra or a 44 tonner. The drive train configuration has nothing to do with it (well, actually if probably does, but in the 4x4's favour). Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are > usually a softer compound than car tyres, They don't have stipes, they have solid blocks instead, which grip the road less as the blocks have much less give in them. This of course refers to mud tyres, not road tyres like ATs. Most ATs will put less rubber down than a proper road tyre of course, which will lessen grip. > and, of course, the braking system is designed (on proper 4x4's) > with towing in mind. The braking ability is designed in, not an > accidental outcome. The same is true of cars, which on average are lighter, more dynamically stable and have a lower centre of gravity so I doubt that the average car would be out-stopped by the average 4x4. > A partly loaded 44 ton truck (i.e. loaded enough to stop the > trailer wheels locking up) will out-stop most cars. Easily. Naah. HGV braking systems are shite compared to cars, the government even paid shedloads of loot some time ago to investigate why this is, URL below (it's a summary); http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=7944 Accidents involving lorries smacking into the back of queues are pretty common too because of the long stopping distances of lorries, coupled with lorry drivers not paying attention. Given however that you've stated that lorries can stop faster than cars, can you provide any figures? I tried to find some but can't find anything which was surprising as I thought driver training information would have something, although it's going to change so much from one vehicle to the next. However a dynamically unstable vehicle like a lorry isn't going to like stopping, the rear tyres for a start are going to lose most of their grip due to the high centre of gravity shifting the weight so far forwards. Then there's the load moving, and the SHITE tyres lorries use! > I'm fooling no one, it's the driver and the pedestrian that makes > a vehicle dangerous or not, That's not what I was talking about, it was the bit about being hit by a car being worse than being hit by a 4x4. On average that's not the case, although you could of course compare a volvo V90 or whatever versus an old Jag XJS. Like for like though it's better to be hit as low as possible. > The drive train configuration has nothing to do with it (well, > actually if probably does, but in the 4x4's favour). Ah yes, having four-wheel drive gives the tyres more grip eh! Hmm.... SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >Naah. HGV braking systems are shite compared to cars, the government >even paid shedloads of loot some time ago to investigate why this is, >URL below (it's a summary); ferfexache. it's 'cos the fuckin' thing weighs about 30 times as much.... duhhh! but yes - someone staged it on telly, cooking VW glof compared with 38T artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK) and from 40 the artic takes about twice the distance to stop. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink; Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by; Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710) > ferfexache. it's 'cos the fuckin' thing weighs about 30 times as much.... I don't think it was that simple. The technology for HGVs hasn't come on much, many use drum brakes and the pneumatic actuators add about 0.2 seconds to the response time. However I think that the weight is more likely to be the cause, but Richard seems to think that an HGV can out-brake a car, which I didn't think he'd go for but now he has, I'm trying to winkle out of him just exactly why that is. > but yes - someone staged it on telly, cooking VW glof compared with 38T > artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK) > and from 40 the artic takes about twice the distance to stop. I'd read that it takes up to 3 times longer for a truck to stop than it does for a car, but no idea on what conditions that "test" was done so the 3x figure is a bit up in the air really. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > ferfexache. it's 'cos the fuckin' thing weighs about 30 times as much.... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think he'd go for but now he has, I'm trying to winkle out of him just > exactly why that is. Just depends if he calls his series Landrover a car. ;-) Martin > > but yes - someone staged it on telly, cooking VW glof compared with 38T > > artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it does for a car, but no idea on what conditions that "test" was done > so the 3x figure is a bit up in the air really. >> ferfexache. it's 'cos the fuckin' thing weighs about 30 times as much.... > >I don't think it was that simple. The technology for HGVs hasn't come >on much, many use drum brakes and the pneumatic actuators add about >0.2 seconds to the response time. modern ones have discs, and ABS. But you have 30 times the mass (roughly) and thus have to dissipate 30 times the energy, at the same speed. The brakes slow the vehicle by, for the most part, converting the kinetic energy to heat. Based on the test I saw, the brakes on the truck might well be 15 times as good at that as the car was. Now, if the truck's unladen, it only weighs about 10 times what the car does, then it's got effectively better brakes, provided the limiting factor isn't tyre grip. >However I think that the weight is more likely to be the cause, but >Richard seems to think that an HGV can out-brake a car, which I didn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it does for a car, but no idea on what conditions that "test" was done >so the 3x figure is a bit up in the air really. probably depends on load and so forth - mind you, braking distance is very dependant on technique. I demonstrated this in a friend's car - she'd scared herself by standing on the anchors on a damp road and getting not much response. Took it out up a dry road and demonstrated: hit the brake pedal very hard very fast (as you tend to if you get a sudden panic-stop moment), the front tyres lock up and skid, with little transfer of weight. hit the brakes more progressively, so the weight transfer happens before you apply full braking force, and you can stop it a LOT quicker, and it takes a lot more deceleration to hit the point where the fronts lock up. 'course, with ABS, this doesn't apply in the same way, as it doesn't lock up and slide. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed." Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. > Took it out up a dry road and demonstrated: hit the brake pedal very > hard very fast (as you tend to if you get a sudden panic-stop > moment), the front tyres lock up and skid, with little transfer of > weight. Heh. Trying to stop my Defender with a stuck piston on one front caliper, in the wet, with an unladen rear, on cheap mud pattern tyres, when a deer jumped out in the road... It's amazing what you can learn when you need to ;-) I certainly learned though, the next animal that jumped out on me got flattened :-P As for ABS versus non-ABS, I keep hearing conflicting reports of whether ABS stops you faster or not, but one concrete advantage certainly seems to be that you can generally keep control of the car much more easily, barring weight transfer unsettling the rear of course. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >As for ABS versus non-ABS, I keep hearing conflicting reports of >whether ABS stops you faster or not, but one concrete advantage >certainly seems to be that you can generally keep control of the car >much more easily, barring weight transfer unsettling the rear of course. depends on the conditions - on loose gravel and dry snow, a locked wheel gives maximum braking, for example. Weight transfer seems to work better with ABS, presumably because the front wheels don't lock too early and then not provide any more retardation. Having said that, when the sierra had working ABS, I think I only invoked it twice without trying - it did stop PDQ on those occasions, mind. It also failed to stop noticeably on more-or-less ice (shiny packed snow) when I went out testing it, but then it'd have done that without the ABS as well. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee" John Donne (1571? - 1631) Devotions, XVII > >As for ABS versus non-ABS, I keep hearing conflicting reports of > >whether ABS stops you faster or not, but one concrete advantage [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > failed to stop noticeably on more-or-less ice (shiny packed snow) when I > went out testing it, but then it'd have done that without the ABS as well. ABS just looks for a wheel rotating at a different speed to the avarage of the rest, and applies/releases the brake to get it back in sync. Most systems will realise that since the car is moving all the wheels should be rotating, and does the same to avoid skidding. It will cetrainly provide the best possible braking in almost all conditions (though some systems cannot cope with loose gravel under all 4 wheels - LR's can - another LR world first at the time) - however, it can't perform mircles (despite Audi/BMW owners seeming to think so). There are, as Austin says, some circumstances where a skid may be desirable, just what those are is a subject of some debate. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > >Naah. HGV braking systems are shite compared to cars, the government > >even paid shedloads of loot some time ago to investigate why this is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK) > and from 40 the artic takes about twice the distance to stop. But was the test vehicle patrially loaded, or fully loaded? There's a significant difference. "Tests" staged on TV programs are notable only for their lack of rigour (in the scientific sense), as indeed are most auto magazine tests (they usually don't compare like with like, e.g. was the Golf loaded to it's maximum capacity, and was the truck). The one they almost always fall for is at vehicle launches, where the "new" vehicles is given the best possible tyres and the "rivals" the worst ones they can get away with. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > > It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are > > usually a softer compound than car tyres, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > The drive train configuration has nothing to do with it (well, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > actually if probably does, but in the 4x4's favour). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Ah yes, having four-wheel drive gives the tyres more grip eh! Hmm.... No, having a 4x4 drive drive train gives (or can give, depending on the design) more control - which is why I said what I've underined above. Anyway, going by your comments about truck tyres, and the stuff about tread patterns (if you mentioned wet conditions you'd have a point) I think I'll give up. The info I have comes from Tedley, who was the vehicle dynamasist at Rolls-Royce Motor Cars when I worked there, and Marky-Mark who was tyre technician for a Word Rally Champoinship Team (they won) and is currently preparing to go to Brazil for his current job as tyre technician for a Formula One team, gaining these posts on secondment from Michelin (Stoke) - which specialises in truck and, until recently, 4x4 tyres (of which I have a set development OR's on my 110 at the moment for evaluation). Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > No, having a 4x4 drive drive train gives (or can give, depending > on the design) more control - which is why I said what I've > underined above. Not really, if you've got the brakes on then the only way a 4x4 drivetrain can affect things is if it locks all the diffs giving you a form of traction control, but only one vehicle that I know of does that, the Volvo C303. We are talking about stopping distances remember, so throwing in stuff about getting more grip going round corners is a whole different argument. > Anyway, going by your comments about truck tyres, and the stuff > about tread patterns (if you mentioned wet conditions you'd have > a point) I think I'll give up. Why mention wet conditions? Tyres aren't equal in the dry. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > No, having a 4x4 drive drive train gives (or can give, depending > > on the design) more control - which is why I said what I've [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > form of traction control, but only one vehicle that I know of does > that, the Volvo C303. Er, so what about the engine? It has no effect of braking control? A center diff (unlocked) has no impact on braking? Brakes don't operate in isolation from the rest of the vehicle. Try taking a shock absorber off and see what happens to your brakes! > We are talking about stopping distances remember, so throwing in stuff > about getting more grip going round corners is a whole different argument. Who said anything about corners? Not me.... > > Anyway, going by your comments about truck tyres, and the stuff > > about tread patterns (if you mentioned wet conditions you'd have > > a point) I think I'll give up. > > Why mention wet conditions? Tyres aren't equal in the dry. No I really do give up! Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > Er, so what about the engine? It has no effect of braking control? Not as much as the brakes!! And if you're stopping hard then engine braking isn't of much interest unless of course your brakes are so screwed that they can't slow you down enough. > Try taking a shock absorber off and see what happens to your brakes! That's very different to the engine, the shock absorbers help keep the wheels on the ground, but when the brakes are on hard, a 4x4 drivetrain isn't going to be affecting things much, if at all. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> Er, so what about the engine? It has no effect of braking control? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wheels on the ground, but when the brakes are on hard, a 4x4 > drivetrain isn't going to be affecting things much, if at all. The only effect I can see for a four wheel drive drive train (and then only for constant four wheel drive and in gear)is to even out braking effort to some extent - if one wheel locks it increases the braking on the other three through the drive train, but I would not expect the effect to be noticeable. JD > three through the drive train, but I would not expect the effect to be > noticeable. Especially not with the clutch in, which most would have in an emergency stop situation. The Volvo C303 has a nice system, when you whack the brakes on it engages drive to the front axle, which is the Defender equivalent of locking the centre diff. This helps to prevent the rear wheels locking which is a problem in an empty load-carrying vehicle, especially a forward control like the C303. There are more modern systems which are better of course, but for a 1960's truck it was a good idea. That's a situation where a 4x4 drivetrain has been designed explicitly to help under braking, but it's the only one that I'm aware of. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > >> Er, so what about the engine? It has no effect of braking control? > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > noticeable. > JD Ten Jolly Junior points and a Gold Star to that man! Only the effect is quite (relatively speaking) marked - the inertia in a (particularly steel) wheel and tyre can be quite significant, as the diffs etc all count and provide something of a damping effect when a wheel is thinking about locking up. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > Ten Jolly Junior points and a Gold Star to that man! Only the effect > is quite (relatively speaking) marked - the inertia in a > (particularly steel) wheel and tyre can be quite significant, as the > diffs etc all count and provide something of a damping effect when a > wheel is thinking about locking up. With the effect, if any, being even more marginal at low speeds of course due to the reduced inertia.. Plus of course if a car has ABS it's not relevant at all, and if it doesn't have ABS it's only relevant if the driver has managed to get the braking into a zone in which such a marginal effect comes into play - close enough to the tyres unsticking that it makes a difference. Not even F1 drivers can always prevent a wheel locking during a race when they're expecting to brake hard and they've practiced like mad on that same bit of track so your average driver wrangling kids won't manage it. They're going to either brake less than they could, or to just mash the pedal and lock up, not get it to a point at which inertia of drive shafts becomes relevant! All in all, no a 4x4 drivetrain has no noticeable effect on braking, certainly not enough to compensate for things like the additional weight transfer to the front due to higher centre of gravity, and all the other stuff that the average 4x4 has to put up with that the average saloon car doesn't. I'm perfectly happy to know that my vehicle is more hazardous to a pedestrian than the average saloon car, given the chances of me hitting someone it's not something I can be bothered to worry about. There are far more lorries on my tiny local roads than 4x4s and they come round the corners on the wrong side of the road, which is rather scary.... SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Ten Jolly Junior points and a Gold Star to that man! Only the effect > > is quite (relatively speaking) marked - the inertia in a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > come round the corners on the wrong side of the road, which is rather > scary.... I'll let Marky-Mark know they've got it all wrong. He's going to be very disappointed! Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > I'll let Marky-Mark know they've got it all wrong. He's going to > be very disappointed! OK, my consultancy rates are reasonable ;-) Bear in mind though that at the level of a racing outfit, small differences count but they don't at the level we were talking about, and I've been saying that any differences are going to mean bugger all on the school run! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > ... > and I've been saying that any differences are going to mean bugger all > on the school run! Make the little buggers walk - or if they're too far then give Austin the work. School run indeed - whatever next? SignatureWilliam Tasso Land Rover - 110 V8 Discovery - V8 >That's very different to the engine, the shock absorbers help keep the >wheels on the ground, but when the brakes are on hard, a 4x4 >drivetrain isn't going to be affecting things much, if at all. the viscous diff on the classic RR T-boxes probably transfers some torque under braking, in a situation where one or more wheel would otherwise lock... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25 I have proof that my limo was able to stop quicker than the sandhurst trained a-hole in a hot hatch who slammed into the back of me some years ago. He mouthed off in superior manner at me, as these upper class idiots are apt to do, but I won the insurance excess off him in court. Larry SignatureSeries 3 Rust and Holes >It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are >usually a softer compound than car tyres, and therefore have a >higher friction coeficient - and, of course, the braking system >is designed (on proper 4x4's) with towing in mind. The braking >ability is designed in, not an accidental outcome. There is a big tyre test in one of the old landy mags currently in my excremeditation chamber. I'm pretty sure it shows that the best offroad tyres had the longest stopping distance. I think there was quite a bit in it and the knobbliest one was close to double the distance of the most 'road' one. > >It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are > >usually a softer compound than car tyres, and therefore have a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > knobbliest one was close to double the distance of the most 'road' > one. It depends on the conditions - knobbly tyres can be fantastic in the dry, but leathal in the wet, and to an extent the reverse can be true. My first bike was a Suzuki TS100 which came with knobbly tyres which where factastic in he dry but hopeless in the wet - the same goes for the XCL's I had on Knobby. Yet the OR's I had on the 90 were great in the wet but somewhat iffy in the dry. It's impossible to generalise. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive "Pacman" wrote... > Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a > Shogun. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments > about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness... Some years ago I was trying to pull out of an entrance to a Garden Centre when a young lady ran past me and we watched in horror as she continued straight across the main road, she was hit by a normal car and flew through the air just as this girl did. (she was from Greece and looked the wrong way!) I've also had someone run across the road from behind a stationary vehicle into the side of my car and they too somersaulted back across the road I was told. What does it matter it was a 4x4, the body will fly and somersault no matter what hits it. SignatureRegards Bob H 1986 90 hardtop 2.5 petrol 330i sport. > What does it matter it was a 4x4, the body will fly and somersault no matter > what hits it. Indeed, I was tempted to rattle off a letter to the beeb about it, given that they know full well that there's an anti-4x4 lobby out there and that any shot of a 4x4 causing damage that cars also cause is just throwing fuel on the fire. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a > Shogun. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Paul Interesting one on anti-4x4 that you may not have got over there. Here (Australia) there has been a lot of bad press about suburban 4x4s backing over small children in the driveway (usually the driver's kids). And "everyone knows that 4x4s have worse rear vision than ordinary cars". This has now pretty much gone quiet after a local motoring organisation carried out some scientific testing - and showed that (as you would expect) rear visibility has nothing to do with how many wheels are driving; in fact, while there is no real correlation, with good and bad in all types, nearly all four wheel drives are better than the top selling family cars, Commodore and Falcon (a tribute to current styling fashions!) and the top car with perfect rear visibility is a four wheel drive (Lexus I seem to remember) thanks to a reversing camera. Now there is a proposal in my state (NSW) to make these compulsory on all new vehicles. JD >(Australia) there has been a lot of bad press about suburban 4x4s backing >over small children in the driveway (usually the driver's kids). And >"everyone knows that 4x4s have worse rear vision than ordinary cars". This >has now pretty much gone quiet after a local motoring organisation carried >out some scientific testing - and showed that (as you would expect) rear >visibility has nothing to do with how many wheels are driving Some cars have absolutely appalling rear visibility. In the US most drivers don't seem to reverse unless there is no option, and given the view out of the rear of the last car I hired over there (a chevolet of some flavour) I can see why. Being a saloon it had a relatively high rear window, at a very flat angle which would have been hard enough to see out of to start with (couldn't have seen a bollard when reversing, for example), then they put a spoiler across it! Talk about a tool not fit for the job. I have much better visibility out of the back of the 101. Lizzy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.