# SUV's and winter driving-



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

How about a little pot stirring today:

Driving back from VT last night, 91 froze into a skating rink between 93 and approximately exit 3.  Also hit a couple very heavy snow squalls and big winds.

We drove by 10 single vehicle MVA's... 6 were SUV's and another 1 was a pickup.  And another was a VW van.

Q: Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this or was it coincidence?  List your reasons (preferably in a coherent manner) with your opinion.


----------



## Greg (Feb 11, 2008)

Because _everyone _that drives an SUV is an idiot? :roll:


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Addendum:  vehicle traffic was roughly 65-75% car, 20-30% SUV/truck and 5% truck/trailer from a couple of counts I did sitting in traffic.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 11, 2008)

One conclusion I've drawn is that I don't know what "MVA" stands for.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> Because _everyone _that drives an SUV is an idiot? :roll:



I didn't see any reasons accompanying this opinion?


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> One conclusion I've drawn is that I don't know what "MVA" stands for.



Motor Vehicle Accident.


----------



## Greg (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> I didn't see any reasons accompanying this opinion?



It was made tongue in cheek. I own two SUVs.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> Motor Vehicle Accident.




Oh, thanks.

A second conclusion I've drawn is that you're a rubbernecker.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> It was made tongue in cheek. I own two SUVs.



So then is your answer that, no, there are no conclusions to be drawn from my experience?


----------



## Greg (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> So then is your answer that, no, there are no conclusions to be drawn from my experience?



Well, I guess your point is that an SUV instills false confidence in its driver. Gee, thanks Captain Obvious...


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Oh, thanks.
> 
> A second conclusion I've drawn is that you're a rubbernecker.



I wasn't driving, my friend Nate was.  Trust me, after 5 years of being the guy placing the cribbing, running the hydraulic pump, operating the cutters, spreaders and rams, etc. ad naseum, there isn't much in an accident scene I haven't already got a good look at up close and personal.  Especially after knowing what it feels like being the point of attention for the 'Oh My God' Squad.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> Well, I guess your point is that an SUV instills false confidence in its driver. Gee, thanks Captain Obvious...



I made no point at all in my OP.  I merely conveyed my experience and asked a perfectly honest and valid question in an attempt to create discussion.  I have an opinion of course, but I have yet to express it.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 11, 2008)

I saw a ford explorer in the guide rail on the way to work this morning.  It is compelling but I have been an SUV since the Bronco II days and have never spun off the road.
Now that i think about it I saw a malibu in the ditch.  May be its is our heightened awareness to the stereotype about SUVs' so whenever we see one in a ditch it sticks in our heads.


----------



## Greg (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> I made no point at all in my OP.  I merely conveyed my experience and asked a perfectly honest and valid question in an attempt to create discussion.  I have an opinion of course, *but I have yet to express it*.



So...what is it?


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> I saw a ford explorer in the guide rail on the way to work this morning.  It is compelling but I have been an SUV since the Bronco II days and have never spun off the road.
> Now that i think about it I saw a malibu in the ditch.  May be its is our heightened awareness to the stereotype about SUVs' so whenever we see one in a ditch it sticks in our heads.



My count was corroborated by two others in the vehicle with me last night.  It's accurate, trust me.  I only post the topic now, because this is the first time I was able to observe a multitude of weather related accidents all in the same night as and observe the relative make up of the traffic driving on the same night.  Personal quantitative observations in such volume is rare in matters such as these.


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> Well, I guess your point is that an SUV instills false confidence in its driver. Gee, thanks Captain Obvious...


 

Is he related to Ty? :lol:


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> So...what is it?



I don't want the opinion of the heretofore impartial questioner to taint the color of the thread before giving enough time for a multitude of other opinions.


----------



## Greg (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> I don't want the opinion of the heretofore impartial questioner to taint the color of the thread before giving enough time for a multitude of other opinions.



Riiiight...

Here's my story. When I was driving to Vermont on Thursday night, we hit a stretch of freezing rain in Northern Mass on 91. I believe there were three *cars *in the ditch. One guy was actually trying to shovel a path out. If they only had 4WD, they could have easily just driven out. Suckers... :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg said:


> Well, I guess your point is that an SUV instills false confidence in its driver. Gee, thanks Captain Obvious...




kind of like helmets on skiers


----------



## Brettski (Feb 11, 2008)

I drove my Daughter up to a skating competion this Sunday Morning at 6:30am to Wesleyan  college in Middletown Connecticut....very pretty area....I hear it's 40k a year....eeek

About a 2 hour run

All of I95 was black ice

We counted 35 wrecks

Didn't matter what kind of car it was...if you're driving too fast for the conditions you're asking for trouble

The cops couldn't keep up

What a mess

Oh, and my Daughter's syncro team placed 1st...again

National in 2 weeks...up in RI...don't know if I mentioned it before, but the won Easterns as well

This one was just a warm up competition


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 11, 2008)

I think both Marc and Greg are right.  SUVs are safer, but the roads still are too dangerous.  If everyone had SUVs things would warm up enough so that it wouldn't snow and then driving would be safer for everyone.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

I can't be right, CBMP, I haven't offered an opinion yet.  I have only posted fact and posited a question.

And I think people here are having a hard time following the directions in the OP:



Marc said:


> Q: Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this or was it coincidence?  List your reasons (preferably in a coherent manner) with your opinion.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 11, 2008)

Driving back from Mt Snow Saturday night, I was in the lead in a TSX, my brother in law behind, driving a Jeep Cherokee, in 4WD. When we made the turn off 100 (or 9, I forget) to get to the onramp for 91, I made the turn no problem, he spun around 180 degrees. It is possible he was hurrying more to beat the oncoming traffic, it is possible I'm a better driver, it is also possible the light front wheel drive did a better job of it than the heavy 4 wheel. Personally, I think that I'm a slightly better driver (I tend to think further ahead than he does), that he was hurrying a bit, and that he figured he could because he was in the Jeep.

I also saw more SUV's on the side of 91 than I did cars (4 vs 0). I would say that there is quite likely a confluence of events that leads to that- mostly related to the perception of safety that SUVs give drivers. Kind of like helmets. Yeah, I went there. Marc, you want to stir a pot, you've got to go all the way with it.


----------



## jillybeans (Feb 11, 2008)

Yeah we were headed down the Everett Turnpike/93 in the Manchester area last night as well and hit the snow squals further up on 93, then stopped for a quick dinner and hit black ice on 93 (then somehow got disoriented and ended up back on 93 N) and had to turn around and go back thru it but this time took Everett Turnpike instead of 93, much better.  Anyways our count (and I was the passenger, so I could count) was in a 2 mile stretch, about 20+ cars total in accidents, 5+ in the ditch just on our side, one rolled over on the other side and the rest all fender benders, like a chain reaction... and about 5 of those from the chain reaction fender benders were all facing the opposite direction into oncoming cars... Most of these were sedans/cars, but the ones in the ditch and flipped over were SUVs.  
Then of course you have the idiots that come flying past you as soon as traffic cleared up despite the fact that they just saw 20 cars on the side of the road... RIDICULOUS!!!


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

+1 cookie for ctenidae for being the only poster in the thread thus far to successfully read, understand and follow the directions as posted.  Talk about your all time surprises.


----------



## bvibert (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> +1 cookie for ctenidae for being the only poster in the thread thus far to successfully read, understand and follow the directions as posted.  Talk about your all time surprises.



I once ate a cookie while driving a SUV.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

-1 cookie for Brian.  Should be easy enough, PM to Carrie soon...


----------



## bvibert (Feb 11, 2008)

The SUV I was driving spun 3 times and then did 2 barrel rolls before landing back on it's tires in the woods.  I was able to drive away due to the superiority of the 4WD system...  Never dropped the cookie either...


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 11, 2008)

I like cookies.


----------



## Paul (Feb 11, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> I like cookies.








I like money.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> Q: Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this or was it coincidence?  List your reasons (preferably in a coherent manner) with your opinion.



Yes:  It's not driving an suv in the snow that's a problem it's stopping.  Someone who is not used to driving in the snow but is driving in an suv will have a false sense of security.  As soon as there is a problem, said driver, will immediately hit the breaks.  Inertia on a heavy truck will prevail and....boom.


----------



## Marc (Feb 11, 2008)

Beano: Thanks for your opinion.  Do you or have you owned an SUV?


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> Beano: Thanks for your opinion.  Do you or have you owned an SUV?




Today:

Toyota Corolla 

Land Rover Freelander

Tomorrow:  Subaru Outback


----------



## Brettski (Feb 11, 2008)

I take NJ Transit

I win in an accident


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

BeanoNYC said:


> Yes: It's not driving an suv in the snow that's a problem it's stopping. Someone who is not used to driving in the snow but is driving in an suv will have a false sense of security. As soon as there is a problem, said driver, will immediately hit the breaks. Inertia on a heavy truck will prevail and....boom.


 
You think you're smart, doncha? :dunce:


----------



## aoneil (Feb 11, 2008)

People who own SUVs aren't better drivers or worse.  However, worse drivers (who don't realize that being able to get traction and go faster doesn't correspond to an equal ability to stop) have more opportunity to make things bad for others.

   I have an older Honda CR-V and I'm able to get where I need to go.  I see a lot of people in big SUVs on the side of the road during bad weather  - usually plowed into something.   Like most other things, I'm most worried about avoiding the other people when driving rather than my ability to start or stop.   Yes, it's a lot like going skiing.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 11, 2008)

I can't wait until gas prices hit like 8 bucks a gallon and then there won't be so many SUV eco-disasters on the road..


----------



## Bumpsis (Feb 11, 2008)

aoneil said:


> People who own SUVs aren't better drivers or worse.  However, worse drivers (who don't realize that being able to get traction and go faster doesn't correspond to an equal ability to stop) have more opportunity to make things bad for others.
> 
> I have an older Honda CR-V and I'm able to get where I need to go.  I see a lot of people in big SUVs on the side of the road during bad weather  - usually plowed into something.   Like most other things, I'm most worried about avoiding the other people when driving rather than my ability to start or stop.   Yes, it's a lot like going skiing.




Actually, according to motor industry's internal market research, SUV drivers tend to be worse drivers (vs. sedan, minivan), or at least, as statistical group, they lack confidence in their own driving skills. That's probably one of the reasons why they would surround themselves with a lot of metal and rubber that sits high off the ground. Source: "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher. It's great book about how SUVs came to be such a smashing marketing success.

I think that this book ought to be a required reading by anyone who drives or is thinking about getting an SUV, especially one of the truck based creations. To me, an SUV represents an automotive version of "Emperor's new clothes". It promisses many things, the chief among them being safety, yet, in reality it only delivers false sense of security and through that very function, makes the vehicle unsafe,especially in iffy weather conditions.

This is not say that an SUV can not be driven in a safe manner, but it all depends on the driver. Still, I think that everybody's margin of safety on the road would go up by a bit if these automotive abominations would disappear from the roads.


----------



## ckofer (Feb 11, 2008)

Marc said:


> How about a little pot stirring today:
> 
> Driving back from VT last night, 91 froze into a skating rink between 93 and approximately exit 3.  Also hit a couple very heavy snow squalls and big winds.
> 
> ...



*Obviously they were reading the warning decals on their visors instead of watching the road. Were they wearing helmets?*


----------



## snoseek (Feb 11, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I can't wait until gas prices hit like 8 bucks a gallon and then there won't be so many SUV eco-disasters on the road..



Me too.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

Bumpsis said:


> Actually, according to motor industry's internal market research, SUV drivers tend to be worse drivers (vs. sedan, minivan), or at least, as statistical group, they lack confidence in their own driving skills.




Source?


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Driving back from Mt Snow Saturday night, I was in the lead in a TSX, my brother in law behind, driving a Jeep Cherokee, in 4WD. When we made the turn off 100 (or 9, I forget) to get to the onramp for 91, I made the turn no problem, he spun around 180 degrees. It is possible he was hurrying more to beat the oncoming traffic, it is possible I'm a better driver, it is also possible the light front wheel drive did a better job of it than the heavy 4 wheel. Personally, I think that I'm a slightly better driver (I tend to think further ahead than he does), that he was hurrying a bit, and that he figured he could because he was in the Jeep.
> 
> I also saw more SUV's on the side of 91 than I did cars (4 vs 0). I would say that there is quite likely a confluence of events that leads to that- mostly related to the perception of safety that SUVs give drivers. Kind of like helmets. Yeah, I went there. Marc, you want to stir a pot, you've got to go all the way with it.




Another big factor that might be at work here is the tires.  Do you have snow tires on your TSX?  Does your brother-in-law have worn out all-season radials?


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> kind of like helmets on skiers





ctenidae said:


> I would say that there is quite likely a confluence of events that leads to that- mostly related to the perception of safety that SUVs give drivers. Kind of like helmets. Yeah, I went there. Marc, you want to stir a pot, you've got to go all the way with it.




Comparing the sense of security an SUV gives its driver and a helmet gives a skier just doesn't work.  I think Marc's point is that an SUV gives the driver a complete and false sense of security, while a helmet only protects your head and, if anything, probably reminds you to be more cautious.  

In other words, when driving in an SUV, you're surrounded by 4 or 5,000 hulking pounds of metal, while when skiing with a helmet, the rest of your body is exposed and can be injured at any moment.


----------



## Marc (Feb 12, 2008)

CBMP:  Marcie no make a point yet, 

I really am only interested in others' opinions about this.  It can be an emotional subject, when it probably shouldn't.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 12, 2008)

Bumpsis said:


> Actually, according to motor industry's internal market research, SUV drivers tend to be worse drivers (vs. sedan, minivan), or at least, as statistical group, they lack confidence in their own driving skills. That's probably one of the reasons why they would surround themselves with a lot of metal and rubber that sits high off the ground. Source: "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher. It's great book about how SUVs came to be such a smashing marketing success.
> 
> I think that this book ought to be a required reading by anyone who drives or is thinking about getting an SUV, especially one of the truck based creations. To me, an SUV represents an automotive version of "Emperor's new clothes". It promisses many things, the chief among them being safety, yet, in reality it only delivers false sense of security and through that very function, makes the vehicle unsafe,especially in iffy weather conditions.
> 
> This is not say that an SUV can not be driven in a safe manner, but it all depends on the driver. Still, I think that everybody's margin of safety on the road would go up by a bit if these automotive abominations would disappear from the roads.




I think you should read it and give all us SUV drivers a summary.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 12, 2008)

This is very hard to answer since all SUV are not created equal....Some suck in offroad conditions/Snow some are really good...just like cars some good some bad. My personal experence is that I am safer in my Land Rover then in any car. Stopping is never a problem due to the SUV is set up with hill decent breaking and in a bad situation I just keep off the breaks and let the engine do the work. Its also equiped with a locking center differential. The back end of the SUV has never come out on me but if it does it easy enough to turn the wheel and gas it to bring it out of the spin...With the right driver an SUV is WAY safer!!


----------



## Brettski (Feb 12, 2008)

Safest thing is to not to put in a situation that's not safe

In any case, I have rented several SUV's for kicks, and one thing that I noticed is that there is no road feel in them..unlike an old 80's era suburban, which was truely a truck


And as for people following too close...slow down even more, they will pass you

I find that good driving habits are followed by others

For example, I had one guy follow me all the way up I95 for like an hour...keeping way back off my tail doing a constant 50, while the other idiots (suv, van, truck, car, didn't matter that day) were buring their vehicles into every known object


----------



## Bumpsis (Feb 12, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> I think you should read it and give all us SUV drivers a summary.



Yeah, I know, I tend to pontificte on this subject but I just think these machines are so .....unnecessary and create a serious threat to lower riding cars as well as the SUV drivers/passangers.

The potential for death and injury inflicted on occupants of a sedan (in case of colission) is just so much higher, simply because the SUV sits much higher and thus bypasses a lot of the crash safety devices that are part of of a modern sedan. So one's automotive choice really has significant implications as to how toxic one chooses to be.
At the same time various stats show that overall, the SUV is far from being safe to its drivers and occupants.

As far the summary is concered, the New Yorker had an article about the book. Here's a link:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/01/12/040112fa_fact_gladwell
It's only an abstract of the full article - sorry.

Again, I don't mean to preach, ponitificate and such but just hope to stimulate a reflection.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 12, 2008)

Bumpsis said:


> Yeah, I know, I tend to pontificte on this subject but I just think these machines are so .....unnecessary and create a serious threat to lower riding cars as well as the SUV drivers/passangers.
> 
> The potential for death and injury inflicted on occupants of a sedan (in case of colission) is just so much higher, simply because the SUV sits much higher and thus bypasses a lot of the crash safety devices that are part of of a modern sedan.


This is one reason I drive an SUV...SUV are going to be around for a long time and I don't want to be in a car if one hits me.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 12, 2008)

ALLSKIING said:


> This is one reason I drive an SUV...SUV are going to be around for a long time and I don't want to be in a car if one hits me.



What are you going to do when GM rolls out the new Abrams M1-A1 four door?


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 12, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> What are you going to do when GM rolls out the new Abrams M1-A1 four door?


Ha!! Well then I will just get myself one of these..


----------



## jack97 (Feb 12, 2008)

ALLSKIING said:


> This is one reason I drive an SUV...SUV are going to be around for a long time and I don't want to be in a car if one hits me.





ctenidae said:


> What are you going to do when GM rolls out the new Abrams M1-A1 four door?



The abram is to low, its design to have a low profile. I was thinking about the new personnel carriers, they have a higher height profile along with an outer fence to take on grenade launched weapons. Now the trick is to convince the average household that they need that level of safety.....and I'm sure with enuf kick backs, these new models can get exemption on emission and mile/gallon restrictions.


----------



## aoneil (Feb 12, 2008)

The thinking that SUV's are safer just because they're bigger isn't necessarily true.  A lot of SUVs (particularly domestics) get really lousy crash test ratings - it's more about how the car is designed, crumple zones, etc.  Of course, if you're driving in a little tin can, you're screwed either way. 

    I keep thinking about a guy driving a big SUV (I say "big SUV" because my CR-V is a "little SUV" with a 4-cylinder engine I fondly call the gutless wonder) being asked about how he was dealing with the higher gas prices in filling up his boat.  He told the anchor "yeah, it's expensive, but my wife drives it and it's safer" and all I could think was if that's his argument for pissing away his money on gas, he should've spent the money on a Volvo or something else with a much better crash rating than the GM product he was filling up.  

     Full disclosure: I worked for GM one summer in college (line worker) and did some time as a contract programmer (engineer) at another GM plant.  So I have a unique perspective on how screwed up their product and manufacturing process can be.


----------



## aoneil (Feb 12, 2008)

jack97 said:


> The abram is to low, its design to have a low profile. I was thinking about the new personnel carriers, they have a higher height profile along with an outer fence to take on grenade launched weapons. Now the trick is to convince the average household that they need that level of safety.....and I'm sure with enuf kick backs, these new models can get exemption on emission and mile/gallon restrictions.



    Then they'll want "rebate" checks to afford the gas for them.  :flame:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

aoneil said:


> A lot of SUVs (particularly domestics) get really lousy crash test ratings



Sources?  (In particular, the domestic vs. import comparison.)




aoneil said:


> Full disclosure: I worked for GM one summer in college (line worker) and did some time as a contract programmer (engineer) at another GM plant.  So I have a unique perspective on how screwed up their product and manufacturing process can be.




Hmmm....I'm sure your summer internship in college really provided you with enough valuable insight to make such sweeping generalizations.

:flag:


----------



## bvibert (Feb 12, 2008)

I think Marc is right.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I think Marc is right.



What was his point?


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I think Marc is right.




ITA


----------



## billski (Feb 12, 2008)

Without data to corroborate, I hypothesize that while there are equally incompetent drivers behind all types of vehicles, SUVs, especially older ones without stability control are much easier to get into trouble than an automobile.  thoughts?


----------



## billski (Feb 12, 2008)

> Sources?


here's your data: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/ictl_pdf/ictl_0906.pdf 
Draw your own conclusions!

http://www.iihs.org/
these are the people who have to pay for all the stupid mistakes people make
There is enough data to keep you occupied for the remainder of sliding season!

"
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. This has been true in the past and continues to be so. In 2005, 60 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 46 percent of deaths in pickups and 24 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.
         Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. Light trucks are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to rollover than a lower riding vehicle.
         Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Drivers of these vehicles may be more aggressive in hazardous weather, increasing their chances of sliding off the road and rolling over. Pickups and SUVs also are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently.3 Lower belt use among pickup occupants means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur."


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Feb 12, 2008)

billski said:


> here's your data: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/ictl_pdf/ictl_0906.pdf
> Draw your own conclusions!




Thanks.  Good link.

I just note in passing that no American SUVs were below-average or worse in terms of injury risk....


----------



## Marc (Feb 12, 2008)

Good contribution, billski.  Good to have some hard data.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 12, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Thanks.  Good link.
> 
> I just note in passing that no American SUVs were below-average or worse in terms of injury risk....



I'd call that a function of the number of American SUVs more than of quality. If you are the majority, then you set the average, pretty much. Could also be that America is the greatest country on earth. :flag: God drives a 4X4.

Is it possible for Jesus to freeze a road so slick even He couldn't get traction?


----------



## bvibert (Feb 12, 2008)

I think it's a matter of who is more likely to use driving gloves.  Clearly the Neanderthals that drive SUVs are much less likely to do so, thus causing more out of control situations.  It's proven fact, go look it up.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I think it's a matter of who is more likely to use driving gloves.  Clearly the Neanderthals that drive SUVs are much less likely to do so, thus causing more out of control situations.  It's proven fact, go look it up.



Those things are ugly.  Crap I drive a SUV!  I am screwed and just proved you right.  I drive SUV with no gloves.....:smash:

The reason I think you see more SUV's crashed in bad weather is that there are way more of them out there.  They are much better in the snow if driven properly, so they are more likely to be out there than the people who know that their car is not good in the snow.

When I get snow, I usually head for some big parking lots to practice my snow driving.  when my car starts sliding, I know how to correct it.  It was the same when I had a Ford Escort, I knew how to control it because I practiced in it. When i take my dad's truck out in snow, I hate driving it, as I am not used to having no traction on the rear wheels.  If I drove it alot, I am sure I would be more comfortable.


----------



## koreshot (Feb 12, 2008)

Hawkshot99 said:


> They are much better in the snow if driven properly.




Can you please explain better?  I am asking because Petter Solberg and the rest of the WRC organization might disagree with that statement.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 12, 2008)

koreshot said:


> Can you please explain better?  I am asking because Petter Solberg and the rest of the WRC organization might disagree with that statement.



I don't know- it seems logical to me that a _properly driven_ 4WD vehicle would, in fact, be better in poor conditions than most other vehicles, also _properly driven_. The crux of the problem here, though, is that most SUVs are not properly driven.


----------



## aoneil (Feb 12, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Is it possible for Jesus to freeze a road so slick even He couldn't get traction?



   He doesn't need traction.  He can walk on water, too.  :blink:


----------



## koreshot (Feb 12, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> I don't know- it seems logical to me that a _properly driven_ 4WD vehicle would, in fact, be better in poor conditions than most other vehicles, also _properly driven_. The crux of the problem here, though, is that most SUVs are not properly driven.



Well, he said SUV, not 4wd.  I would take a 4wd car over a 4wd SUV for snow safety any day.  More mass needs more traction to stop and turn - traction is very limited in the snow - it really boils down to basic physics.

Furthermore, I would rather be in a 2wd _car_ with snow tires over any SUV on regular all seasons.  Lower weight and better traction is the way to go IMO.

All things being equal, a completely factory SUV and a factory car, I suppose the SUV would be better simply due to the fact that it has more all terrain tires and the 4wd lets you get out of a jam better.  Then again, Marc saw all those SUVs on the side of the road not because they were unable to get out of a situation, but because they didn't have the traction to slow their mass.

I feel like i type this same message once a month cause thats how often this topic seems to come up .


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

koreshot said:


> Can you please explain better?  I am asking because Petter Solberg and the rest of the WRC organization might disagree with that statement.



Lets keep this to normal vehicles.

Advantages of SUV:
-Ground clearance
-4WD is better than 2WD(If a person would throw snows on their 2WD car, they  most likely would put them on their SUV.  So tires is not in question here)(Although factory SUV tires are usually better in snow than factory car tires)
-If you do get in a accident, more their to protect you.


----------



## ckofer (Feb 12, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> I don't know- it seems logical to me that a _properly driven_ 4WD vehicle would, in fact, be better in poor conditions than most other vehicles, also _properly driven_. The crux of the problem here, though, is that most SUVs are not properly driven.



Wow this could work its way back to the Subaru thread. Low to the ground (but not so low you can't overcome small snowbanks) is a good thing in slippery conditions.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 12, 2008)

koreshot said:


> Well, he said SUV, not 4wd.  I would take a 4wd car over a 4wd SUV for snow safety any day.  More mass needs more traction to stop and turn - traction is very limited in the snow - it really boils down to basic physics.


Not really...SUV made for offroad have things like hill decent that use the engine to brake..ect. Its really not that black and white.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 12, 2008)

I passed three suv's that bit the dust this morning on berthoud pass. One of them came very close to taking me with them. To be fair there was probably a pretty high concentration of them. I would have stopped to help if the road wasn't so crazy....


----------



## koreshot (Feb 12, 2008)

ALLSKIING said:


> Not really...SUV made for offroad have things like hill decent that use the engine to brake..ect. Its really not that black and white.



Wow.  Just wow.

Marc, I think you have your answer.


----------



## koreshot (Feb 12, 2008)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Lets keep this to normal vehicles.
> 
> Advantages of SUV:
> -Ground clearance
> ...



I don't completely disagree with your points.  There are some advantages to SUVs, but I don't think that a family sedan on snow tires gives up much in safety to an SUV on snow tires.  Multiple publications have done back to back tests with AWD vs. RWD vs. FWD cars to confirm this.  Generally speaking 2wd vs 4wd from a purely safety perspective don't differ very much.  

Yes 4wd will help you in some situations but the vast majority of snow accidents happen when the driver is doing his darnest to brake in time or make a turn before sliding off the road or intended path.  In both of these situations, the critical component is the amount of traction available to guide the car to its intended path/speed.  Other factors do play a role, but it seriously boils down to this major thing.  No AWD system, no engine braking, no ABS/EBD/CBC/DSC/VSC/ESC is going to save you if you are going too fast.  You can't create braking or lateral force out of thin air or electricity.  It really is basic physics.  You can take the traction that you have and use it better, but if you substantially overcook a braking point or a turn, those mechanical and electronic nannies are just delaying the inevitable.

I am sure Marc, being the mechanical engineer, can do a more clear and scientific analysis of this.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 13, 2008)

koreshot said:


> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> Marc, I think you have your answer.


Wow?? Do you even get my point? I guess not :roll:


----------



## bvibert (Feb 13, 2008)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If a person would throw snows on their 2WD car, they  most likely would put them on their SUV.



I don't agree with that, most people I know with a 4WD SUV think they don't need snow tires because they have 4WD...


----------



## koreshot (Feb 13, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I don't agree with that, most people I know with a 4WD SUV think they don't need snow tires because they have 4WD...



I agree with that.  Most people with SUVs and 4wd cars I know think they are "covered" for the winter cause they have 4wd.  I have a small 4wd car and a tiny Fwd car and I have snow tires for both.  There is no substitute for traction.


----------



## bvibert (Feb 13, 2008)

I would have snow tires on both our cars (FWD car and 4WD SUV), but we couldn't afford it this year.  If I had the choice of only outfitting one car it would be the FWD though since the SUV has pretty aggressive AT tires on it.

I know we just have to take it a little slower when it's snowing (not that I necessarily do.. )


----------



## ckofer (Feb 13, 2008)

Do we suppose that some of the folks tipping over SUVs wouldn't have even driven in bad weather at all in a "regular" vehicle?


----------



## severine (Feb 13, 2008)

ckofer said:


> Do we suppose that some of the folks tipping over SUVs wouldn't have even driven in bad weather at all in a "regular" vehicle?


I think that's a fair assessment.  It's more the driver than the vehicle, IMHO.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Feb 13, 2008)

severine said:


> I think that's a fair assessment.  It's more the driver than the vehicle, IMHO.



I think you are right


----------



## severine (Feb 13, 2008)

You know, I posted the above without reading the first 6 pgs of this thread.  Geez, guys.  Like to beat dead horses?


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 13, 2008)

severine said:


> You know, I posted the above without reading the first 6 pgs of this thread.  Geez, guys.  Like to beat dead horses?



Welcome to Alpinezone.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 13, 2008)

severine said:


> You know, I posted the above without reading the first 6 pgs of this thread. Geez, guys. Like to beat dead horses?



Welcome to Alpinezone.


----------



## ckofer (Feb 13, 2008)

severine said:


> You know, I posted the above without reading the first 6 pgs of this thread.  Geez, guys.  Like to beat dead horses?



*Live horses kick back. 

*




* 
Actually, I just wish that SUV's would not use so much fuel. *


----------



## severine (Feb 13, 2008)

ckofer said:


> *Actually, I just wish that SUV's would not use so much fuel. *


I agree.  My Blazer may not be fuel efficient but there are plenty of AWD vehicles that don't get much better fuel mileage.  And in the end, what I would theoretically save on gas would go toward a higher car payment or premium fuel = no savings.


----------



## koreshot (Feb 13, 2008)

severine said:


> I agree.  My Blazer may not be fuel efficient but there are plenty of AWD vehicles that don't get much better fuel mileage.  And in the end, what I would theoretically save on gas would go toward a higher car payment or premium fuel = no savings.



Used cars are the greenest cars anyway   - drive that thing till it dies.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 13, 2008)

case in point....my buddy has an Expedition, he wife was driving it yesterday in the snow and called the office....was complaining that the truck was all over the road, she felt unsafe yada yada yada.....and him not being them most technical guy around was trying to calm her down....so i yell over.."is it in 4 wheel drive???"  he looks at me like a deer in headlights....huh??  his response.."its a truck with 4 wheel drive, what do you mean?".....yea, it has 4 wheel drive, but its not activated till you flip the switch!!!  Until you activate the 4x4, you might as well be in a rwd bmw........I think thats why alot of suvs go into ditches, they dont actually put it into 4x4 mode....esp the soccer moms (no offense) they just dont think or even know the switch is there....


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 13, 2008)

on the flip side, my other buddy was driving with me last night in about 3" of snow/ice non-plowed roads and he was blown away by the quattro....


----------



## SkiDork (Feb 13, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> Until you activate the 4x4, you might as well be in a rwd bmw........I think thats why alot of suvs go into ditches, they dont actually put it into 4x4 mode....esp the soccer moms (no offense) they just dont think or even know the switch is there....



These days most SUVs have automatic 4WD, I know my '04 Burban does


----------



## severine (Feb 13, 2008)

SkiDork said:


> These days most SUVs have automatic 4WD, I know my '04 Burban does


Remember that the majority of people are not driving a new/newer vehicle.  And for reference, my 98 Blazer requires you to push a button for LO or HI 4WD.


----------



## billski (Feb 13, 2008)

leave it to Americans, not to read the owner's manual....


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 13, 2008)

my 04 Nissan had AWD as well as 4x4 hi/lo  but my buddies 07 Expedition is RWD until you activate 4x4


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 13, 2008)

billski said:


> leave it to Americans, not to read the owner's manual....



I keep the owners next to the toilet.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 13, 2008)

SkiDork said:


> These days most SUVs have automatic 4WD, I know my '04 Burban does



My mother had a 03' Trailblazer that had 2HI/Auto 4WD/4HI/4LO.  On snow roads I tested out the different settings.

The Auto 4WD when you stomped on the gas, the back end came around like I was doing donuts.  4HI when I stomped on it It just hooked up and pulled forward straight.


----------



## ckofer (Feb 14, 2008)

BeanoNYC said:


> I keep the owners next to the toilet.



*I'll bet if it wasn't so cryptic on factory car radios to reset the clock on many of them, the owners manual would never get opened.*


----------

