You sure are right about how quiet
EVs are. I actually like driving them becasue they are so quiet.
Of course, that's because the tires cost $500 apiece and only
last about 15,000 miles (vs 40,000 miles or more from regular,
$100 tires.)
And as for Suburban/Accord collisions, the laws of nature dictate
that a large mass will put a big hurt on the smaller object. But,
as always, things aren't always that simple. Physicists talk in
terms of "perfectly elastic" and "perfectly
inelastic collisions." Vehicle collisions are alway of the
ineleastic variety, which means that structural crumple zones,
angle of impact, relative speeds and also differences in mass
between the 2 vehicles mean that the Accord driver has a much
better chance of surviving such a collision than one would think.
The Accord might be easily destroyed in such a collision, but the
driver will probably survive. This is due to both advances in
vehcle safety systems (air bags, seat belt pretensioners and
computer-based crash testing.) Also, advances in suspension and
stability control system technology and tire design (Firestone
notwithstanding) mean that collisions actually happen less
frequently because even poor drivers' skills are enhanced (or,
their stupidity is addressed) by these systems.
As for asrodynamics, again, its not as simple as it seems. While
it is (nearly) axiomatic that a barn door won't get fuel economy
anywhere near as good as an arrow, large SUVs aren't as bad as
you would think. Even the jumbo-sized Ford Excursion does have an
advanced aerodynamic profile. Most aerodynamic drag comes from
such things as side mirrors, grille openings and undercarriage
turbulence. And while nobody would argue that the Excursion is
sleek, its biggest enemy is its mass - not its size or
aerodynamic profile. At nearly 8,000 lbs., it takes a lot of
juice to keep Excursion moving. However, to do what it was
designed to do it MUST weight a lot. It was designed to tow the
family boat/horse trailer/travel trailer/jet ski trailer, etc.
And to safely tow 12,000 lbs it needs to have a certain mass to
insure proper control while steering and braking. Its simple
physics, really.
And most SUV owners will tell you that, while they actually DO
need the size (try going somewhere with 2 children and 2 mom and
dad without a large vehicle), they do agree that its a bit
wasteful to drive it solo as a commuting vehicle. But those who
criticize them must understand 2 very simple things: 1. Most SUV
owners have children and actually NEED the size, and 2. commuting
is only ONE of the uses for the vehicle. Most people can't afford
an extra "commuting" car and the SUV, when carrying
people, puts even the best hybrid to shame in terms of the cost
of carrying one person (or one "unit of weight" one
mile down the road.)
And I've
always wondered: Why pick on SUVs? Why not minivans? They're big,
generally empty and generally all get less than 20 mpg (with few
exceptions.) And what about full-sized vans? Talk about
aerodynamic bricks and gas-pigs!! And I think I've stumbled on
the answer:
Jealousy.
SUVs cost more than Honda CIvics and Accords. Sometimes a LOT
more.
SUVs have also become a sort of status symbol. Not so much for
their cost, but for their personal identity/imagery. SUVs are youthful (Xterra,
Tahoe, Avalanche), or they exude power and and "I've
arrived" feeling (Excursion, Escalade, Suburban.) And SUVs
also emote freedom, as if the owner is saying "I work this
hum-drum job, but I can jump in my Pathfinder and head for the
hills to escape this jungle." Most don't, but its the idea
that you could that makes all the difference.
And another thing my market research shows (and this may surprise
you as well as SHOCK feminists): The #1 customer for the
hyper-macho Nissan Xterra is.... Women between 25 and 40. (60% of
Xterra buyers fit this profile.) Why do they chose Xterra (and
other SUVs, too)? They like the macho imagery. But mostly because
they like the sense of safety and security. If the weather gets
bad, or there's a natural disaster, or they find themselves in a
bad neighborhood during the next riot, they can put that sucker
in 4x4, jam down the pedal and get themselves and their kids to
safety.
Try doing THAT in an Accord.
And one final thing in this line of thought. Most antiSUV
"tree huggers" live in warm climate places like
California. They have never faced a real winter. I'm taliing 4-6
months of cold, ice, snow and truly dangerous driving conditions.
Sure, they've gone to Big Bear or Aspen for a week of skiing. But
they've never driven through a Midwest ice storm or blizzard
where the roads get so bad you can bend the steering wheel from
gripping it too hard from fear.
I've spent several hours stuck in a snow drift in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula - which is the offical "middle of
nowhere" - waiting for someone to come help me get un-stuck
before night fell and temperatures dropped to 30 below zero. How
I wish I had a 4x4 then. I would have done ANYTHING to have been
driving an Expedition, Pathfinder, Suburban, etc. (I was driving
between Brevort and Germfask, Michigan.) Fuel economy, C02, and
(the farce formerly known as global warming) "Climate
Change" were the very last things on my mind.
And what rescued me?
A guy in a 4x4 Suburban.
And finally, about the US being the world's policeman. I agree,
we shouldn't, for a number of reasons. And as much as we want to
end all strife and exploitation around the world (being the most
generous and compassionate nation in the history of the world and
all...) we also have an obligation to our OWN people. Our
security and prosperity are ensured to a large extent through the
free flow of inexpensive oil at market prices. And increased fuel
taxes do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but hurt lower-income drivers and
give stupid, corrupt politicians even MORE money to piss away on
idiotic things. Never forget what oil as a global commodity
really means.
Let's keep this rolling.
hey Wc:
i should post some kind of newsgroup cause it would be great if
other people could respond and share ideas without having just me
in the debate. i'll look into it.
i understand your point about collisions, but i got an email from
a former cop just today who says he's seen a lot of accidents
where the people in the smaller car were creamed. personally, i'd
be devastated if my vehicle crushed someone whether or not it was
my fault. and if the roads keep filling up with trucks, what
about those of us who drive smaller cars?
jealousy, perhaps but also intimidation. should we all upsize to
keep up with the other guy?
some folks need the big ride, but plenty of families do fine with
smaller cars. some folks need the excursions but most don't.
perhaps its a status symbol, like the utility restaurant style
home kitchen. and everything these days is Extreme... kids even
have extreme jell-o. 99% of the time, SUVs are the adult version
of extreme jell-o. if gas prices went up, the majority of people
who own suvs would re-asses their "needs".
climate change isn't just some tree-hugger's dream. check out
scientific american or discovery, or national geographic, or any
other reputable science journal. there will always be debate, but
most of the scientific community is voicing concern about the
rapid changes. who knows, the polar and glacial melting may lead
to colder oceans and extreme cold. either way, hot or cold,
extremes don't do living organisms like us any good. but why blow
off the majority of the world's thinking as if its some pipe
dream?
its cool that an suv pulled you out of the snow that night.
trucks are a good thing. but we do live in so cal, and it's not
just us spoiled golden state tree huggers - so cal is loaded with
more suvs than just about any place in the country, let alone the
world. we work our jobs in a metropolis cause you make money in
the city... then drive around the big wannabe cause we can afford
it. meanwhile folks in montana and up state maine are doing fine
without them... sure there's trucks and suvs in every state, but
there are even more here in so. cal where almost all of us don't
need them....
perhaps raising the price of fuel would screw everything up, but
i see it differently - high tech US companies developing cleaner
cars because consumers want them, and in the case of taxing fuel,
perhaps that money could go toward paying teachers more so that
teaching doesn't have to mean living in poverty... honestly, i
don't know and i can't open too many cans of worms. the free
trade of oil may be what makes the world turn, but the pollution
may grind all kinds of things to a halt...
off to a movie and running late.... your letters are awesome.
the pig
www.gaspig.com
THIS CHAIN OF LETTERS CONTINUES..... READ MORE