I was just watching Dave on the box and they had an episode of Fifth Gear from 2003 in which they swerved a Discovery at 45mph and it rolled over. Thankfully, it was driven by a stunt guy complete with hemelt & full safety gear and they had added a roll-bar to the Discovery.
Anyhow, at the end of the prog Tiff said that no roll-over tests existed yet to test all 4x4s but that such a test was needed. So, my question is whether five years on whether such a test now exists to test the safety of 4x4s in swerves, etc, for roll-over?
Anyone know?
Thanks,
T.
|
|
AFAIK Swedish motoring correspondents use the "moose avoidance test" on any new cars they drive which IIRC caused MB a little embarrassment when they had to delay the launch of the A class when it failed. I don't think NCAP conduct such a test for 4x4s but any vehicle with a high centre of gravity would be susceptible to roll-over in an emergency manouvre. The US Consumers' Union rated the Suzuki SJ "Not Acceptable" in their handling test as it was susceptible to roll-over in an emergency.
|
The whole premise of this approach is wrong. The fact that you can roll something over doesn't make it dangerous There'd be almost none of the existing commercial vehicles on the road if everything had to handle like a conventional car.
You can drive anything like an idiot, and in the real world plenty of cars roll - all it takes is a kerb or a soft verge.
|
You can drive anything like an idiot, and in the real world plenty of cars roll - all it takes is a kerb or a soft verge.
Indeed. I saw the programme when first transmitted and then manoeuvre was one that no person with any sense would have done. And it trashed what looked like a good car.
Anything taller stands more chance of falling over. Hardly rocket science!
|
>>Anything taller stands more chance of falling over. Hardly rocket science!
Very true but unfortunately many of the drivers of 4x4s don't seem to understand this and drive them like cars. Ironic when they've probably bought them for the percieved extra safety for their children. They probably are safer in a typical urban prang but would be much more likely to have problems at speed than a car.
|
|
Let's hope NowWheels is on holiday.
|
Let's hope NowWheels is on holiday.
Oh Lord yes. Mods please lock the thread!
|
|
|
Let's hope NowWheels is on holiday.
:) I was away on business for a week, but am now back.
The problem is not the 4X4s; they are vehicles designed for a particular purpose, and the high centre-of-gravity etc which makes them susceptible to roll-over is a side-effect of the characteristics necessary for off-road use. That's just a design trade-off, in much the same way as a sports car needs to be low and sleek and therefore does not have a boot capable of carrying a washing machine.
What is a problem is that too many drivers have persuaded themselves that it's clever or fashionable or whatever to use an off-road 4X4 when they need a car, and then proceed to drive it like a car. A few pro-4x4 members of the backroom throw up their arms in horror when anyone suggests that a 4X4 is irresponsible because its design endangers other road-users, but hopefully greater awareness of these fashion items endanger the occupants may help the 4X4-used-as-a-car to go the way of the big American manufacturers which popularised them.
|
|
|
|
Very true but unfortunately many of the drivers of 4x4s don't seem to understand this and drive them like cars. Ironic when they've probably bought them for the percieved extra safety for their children.
Yes, very safe for their kids. But what about my kids when some 4x4 schoo-run-mum, whose previous driving experiences was in a FWD hatchback, loses control and ploughs into my car?
I firmly believe that there should be a graduated drivers test for various passenger vehicles, based on weight, horsepower etc - bit of a pipe dream, I know.
|
|
Ian (Cape Town), I am most grateful to you for proving finally that it isn't just me! I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tinyurl.com/6aceqn
|
It's not the height of the bodwork but the centre of gravity that matters.
It used to be pointed out that four wheel drive vehicles like the LandRover actually had very low centres of gravity, because of all the extra weight low down from gearboxes, axles etc.
I remember years ago being scared stiff riding with someone who flung his old LandRover round bends in the Scottish Highlands as if it was a sports car. Four-wheel drifts with the tyres squealing. At one point he drove off the road without slowing and took a short cut across a patch of rock-strewn wasteland.
|
IIRC studies in the US showed HIGHER fatality rates in SUV/4X4s in accidents.
Not as safe as people like to think.
|
4x4 vehicles are just a fashion statement which looks to be on the wane,thankfully.
One question for enthusiasts of these grotesque things is why every farmer I know (and I know a lot of them) all have a normal car whenever they need to travel any distance.
They hate the shaken and stirred suspension,the noise,the high cost of tyres and upkeep. They were designed for use on fields,and thats where they belong.
I`m with you all the way NowWheels!
|
What drivel from the anti brigade as usual.
90% could manage perfectly well with a city car or a Berlingo. The "you should only have a xxxx if you need one" argument applies to just about every car owned by members of this forum; the difference being that some people do need a 4x4; being generous, very few of the rest need a car that weighs more than 1200kg or with more than 100bhp (which actually makes the new Berlingo a bit more bloated than it needs to be).
The US data are almost entirely inapplicable to UK; recent statistics show that 4x4s are less likely to be involved in accidents but cause more damage; the incremental damage level IIRC was not especially material - maybe 20% higher not 2 or 3 times higher - a level likely to be within the range of other specific types and models if the analysis was available.
No I am not going to root out chapter and verse - the misplaced smugness of the knockers is very tedious. I'm sorry I got sucked in again.
Edited by Manatee on 24/11/2008 at 23:41
|
What drivel from the anti brigade as usual.
"you shouldonly have a xxxx if you need one" argument applies to just about every car owned by members of this forum.
100% manatee.
I have nothing against 4x4s per se.
BUT my argument is the same for 4x4s, ferraris, motorcycles, speedboats etc - by all means if you want one, or think you need one, buy one.
But learn how to operate them properly.
And the argument that 4x4s are less likely to be involved in accidents - yes, I'll accept that. But the same applies - how many of those accidents are caused by morons who don't understand the systems, weight distribution, roll-and-slip factors, barking distances etc etc etc, which obviously vary immensely from a family hatchback?
|
>> What drivel from the anti brigade as usual. "you should >> only have a xxxx if you need one" argument applies to just about every car >> owned by members of this forum. 100% manatee.
Seconded.
BUT my argument is the same for 4x4s ferraris motorcycles speedboats etc - by all means if you want one or think you need one buy one.
Indeed. The "anti 4x4" argument tends to be specific to 4x4s. The "pro 4x4" argument tends not to be. It's usually an "anti the acceptability of interfering in other people's freedom of choice" argument. Since those two positions are not simply polar opposites the debate is complicated and prone to yielding more heat than light.
But learn how to operate them properly.
Yes.
barking distances
Woof.
|
|
|
|
The US data are almost entirely inapplicable to UK; recent statistics show that 4x4s are less likely to be involved in accidents but cause more damage; the incremental damage level IIRC was not especially material - maybe 20% higher not 2 or 3 times higher
So a heavy, high-COG, ladder-frame chassis 4X4 in the UK has a completely different set of handling characteristics in the UK than it does in the USA, and a completely different set of results in an accident?
It's interesting to hear that the laws of physics apparently work differently on the two sides of the Atlantic. This assertion might be a little more credible if accompanied by some references.
|
So a heavy high-COG ladder-frame chassis 4X4 in the UK has a completely different set of handling characteristics in the UK than it does in the USA and a completely different set of results in an accident? It's interesting to hear that the laws of physics apparently work differently on the two sides of the Atlantic. This assertion might be a little more credible if accompanied by some references.
Feasible, feasible.
After all, their gallons are different, aren't they? :>)
But maybe - and referring to my earlier post - the average Yankee SUV driver has more experience in driving larger vehicles than the average anglo, who has graduated from the FWD hatchback? From what I've seen, lots of 16 year olds learn to drive on F250 pick-ups and Jeeps, hence know the inherent dangers of the high centre of gravity vehicle?
|
But maybe - and referring to my earlier post - the average Yankee SUV driver has more experience in driving larger vehicles than the average anglo who has graduated from the FWD hatchback? From what I've seen lots of 16 year olds learn to drive on F250 pick-ups and Jeeps hence know the inherent dangers of the high centre of gravity vehicle?
That sounds like a possibility, but the claim being made is not that American SUVs are safer, but that UK SUVs are safer.
|
|
The braking and suspension systems are certainly more sophisticated on most european-made and japanese 4x4s than on most US-made ones. I would imagine this would give them better handling characteristics. Compare a Rangerover and the average Chevy SUV. Worlds apart.
|
|
|
That sounds like a possibility but the claim being made is not that American SUVs are safer but that UK SUVs are safer.
Looking back through this thread, the first claim seems to have been that "studies in the US showed HIGHER fatality rates in SUV/4X4s in accidents" and the second that "recent statistics show that 4x4s are less likely to be involved in accidents".
I don't think those two have to be incompatible. If a 4x4 driver is less likely to be involved in an accident than a car driver, but when an accident does happen the 4x4 driver is more likely to be killed, then both those statements could be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
