Why is the Hummer hated?!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarge @ Sep 13 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]511964[/snapback]</div>

The 3% seems a slight paraphase of the source below:
April 20, 2004, WSJ
The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. May Set Criteria For Seat Belts in Rollovers"
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is looking at establishing a performance requirement for seat belts in rollover crashes. Currently there are none.
Mr. Tyson's comments came in response to a new report from Public Citizen charging that seat belts aren't adequately protecting people in rollovers. Some 2,000 belted occupants are dying in rollover crashes a year, with about half of them partially ejected from the vehicle, the report says. The primary benefit of a seat belt in rollovers is to prevent ejection. The report blames poorly designed and performing seat belts.
The Public Citizen report comes as it and other consumer-safety groups are trying to keep pressure on Congress to enact new auto-safety measures as part of the massive highway bill. The Senate version of the bill included numerous safety provisions, such as new standards for roof-crush and seat-belt performance in rollovers. Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen and a former NHTSA administrator, said rollovers should be highly survivable crashes, because the force is spread out over several seconds, compared with the quick smash in, say, a frontal collision. But because of antiquated roof-crush standards and poorly designed seat belts, they have become a particularly lethal type of crash. Rollovers account for 3% of accidents, but one-third of occupant fatalities.
reproduced at http://www.vehicle-injuries.com/suv-safety-news-2004.htm

Though my favorite article on the misperception of SUV safety (which I learned of from a Priuschat posting by NuShrike) is the Big and Bad article by Blink author Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

 

I don't like the color.

 

I don't like the color.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 13 2007, 08:18 AM) [snapback]511841[/snapback]</div>

Hmm, what if Australia went into a conflict with the very country supplying a critical military component? I would be concerned.

The primary purpose of sourcing most components of our nations military is to ensure the reliable supply of the components (and their corresponding spare parts) in the event of a major worldwide type of military operation (such as WWII). Oh sure, politics plays a big role in landing military contracts too (think Ted Kennedy, Lynn MA, jet engines...both Republicans and Democrats will grab that pork faster than a starving dog). Just a few generations ago we were enemies with Japan and allied with Russia. Now the converse is true.

The world situation is always in flux (has been that way ever since recorded history) and it is considered unwise to rely on other countries for most of your military hardware.

Case in point. Just a few decades ago Iran was considered an ally to the US. We sold to them many advanced F-14 fighter jets. Now that Iran is seen as more of a threat to the US as each day passes, the US has made considerable strides to destroy all US based F-14's (now considered an obsolete fighter for the US) which were in "mothball" reserve to prevent the supply of spare parts reaching Iran necessary to operate Iran's remaining F-14's.

I used to fly military and I can assure you a ready supply of spare parts is critical to keeping complex military aircraft flying and mission operable. The day will come soon when Iran will be lucky to even start its last F-14 without the necessary supply of spare parts much less launch any sort of operational offensive.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 13 2007, 08:18 AM) [snapback]511841[/snapback]</div>

Hmm, what if Australia went into a conflict with the very country supplying a critical military component? I would be concerned.

The primary purpose of sourcing most components of our nations military is to ensure the reliable supply of the components (and their corresponding spare parts) in the event of a major worldwide type of military operation (such as WWII). Oh sure, politics plays a big role in landing military contracts too (think Ted Kennedy, Lynn MA, jet engines...both Republicans and Democrats will grab that pork faster than a starving dog). Just a few generations ago we were enemies with Japan and allied with Russia. Now the converse is true.

The world situation is always in flux (has been that way ever since recorded history) and it is considered unwise to rely on other countries for most of your military hardware.

Case in point. Just a few decades ago Iran was considered an ally to the US. We sold to them many advanced F-14 fighter jets. Now that Iran is seen as more of a threat to the US as each day passes, the US has made considerable strides to destroy all US based F-14's (now considered an obsolete fighter for the US) which were in "mothball" reserve to prevent the supply of spare parts reaching Iran necessary to operate Iran's remaining F-14's.

I used to fly military and I can assure you a ready supply of spare parts is critical to keeping complex military aircraft flying and mission operable. The day will come soon when Iran will be lucky to even start its last F-14 without the necessary supply of spare parts much less launch any sort of operational offensive.

Rick
#4 2006

 

ok got the video and ok I called BS and you proved it not to be. don’t get to upset. I will admit it looks like you didn’t take damage I agree and yes hummers are tuff. that truck wasn’t going all that fast and to take that kind of damage makes me wonder about the trucks quality. it didn’t look like the truck took a lot of damage but I think that was the camera angle.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 13 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]512013[/snapback]</div>

i heard the 33% thing or whatever it was on NPR the other morning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 13 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]512013[/snapback]</div>

i heard the 33% thing or whatever it was on NPR the other morning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 12 2007, 03:27 AM) [snapback]511133[/snapback]</div>

this is really what set me off “dude†watch your own video your right rear wheel lifted off the ground and u didn’t feel the impact??? not trying to start a fight but jeeesh

 

ok got the video and ok I called BS and you proved it not to be. don’t get to upset. I will admit it looks like you didn’t take damage I agree and yes hummers are tuff. that truck wasn’t going all that fast and to take that kind of damage makes me wonder about the trucks quality. it didn’t look like the truck took a lot of damage but I think that was the camera angle.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 13 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]512013[/snapback]</div>

i heard the 33% thing or whatever it was on NPR the other morning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 13 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]512013[/snapback]</div>

i heard the 33% thing or whatever it was on NPR the other morning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 12 2007, 03:27 AM) [snapback]511133[/snapback]</div>

this is really what set me off “dude†watch your own video your right rear wheel lifted off the ground and u didn’t feel the impact??? not trying to start a fight but jeeesh

 

The father of the H1 was designed for the military and their needs as they saw them. The Hummer is wide so that it is stable and can run in the same tracks as the M1 Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Hummer can fill many roles that the military had needs for; TOW missile launcher, Anti-Aircraft, Ambulance, Command Center, scout vehicle, ect. Road side bombs and calling on them to operate without heavy armor backup has gotten our men killed, the Hummer is not perfect.
The average Joe has no need to drive a H1 on our public roads, driving one is an exercise in dealing with all of its shortcomings; too wide, interior room intruded on by the drivetrain tucked up into it, poor handling on the road, poor acceleration, poor highway performance, the list goes on and on. You chose to purchase it for what ever reason you had at the time and if you still love it today then great for you! Running your Hummer on Biodiesel is like farting in the wind negatives, very little is changed by your efforts, you said that "you don't put that many miles on it anyways."
The Austrailian Military vs the U.S. Military; lets just say that we are friends, don't get into a pissing contest.

 

The father of the H1 was designed for the military and their needs as they saw them. The Hummer is wide so that it is stable and can run in the same tracks as the M1 Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Hummer can fill many roles that the military had needs for; TOW missile launcher, Anti-Aircraft, Ambulance, Command Center, scout vehicle, ect. Road side bombs and calling on them to operate without heavy armor backup has gotten our men killed, the Hummer is not perfect.
The average Joe has no need to drive a H1 on our public roads, driving one is an exercise in dealing with all of its shortcomings; too wide, interior room intruded on by the drivetrain tucked up into it, poor handling on the road, poor acceleration, poor highway performance, the list goes on and on. You chose to purchase it for what ever reason you had at the time and if you still love it today then great for you! Running your Hummer on Biodiesel is like farting in the wind negatives, very little is changed by your efforts, you said that "you don't put that many miles on it anyways."
The Austrailian Military vs the U.S. Military; lets just say that we are friends, don't get into a pissing contest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 12 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]511662[/snapback]</div>

Let me say I love the the idea of biofuels, but its naive to think that this is a miracle cure for a dirty diesel engine. For the most part, running SVO is better than dino-diesel, but less clean than biodiesel emissions wise which we've already shown are much less clean than a hybrid.

Reduction relative to dino-diesel:
----------CO---------HC-------NOx------PM
B100----48%-------67%-----+10%--- 48%
V100----23%-----10.7%------2.8%----0%?

source for biodiesel: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf
source for SVO: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/30/na...ie-oil-emissio/

So other than a slight improvement in NOx, SVO (V100) seems to be significantly dirtier than straight biodiesel (B100). I believe this gets worse when you talk about WVO, as even after filtering and settling there is a fair amount of impurity in the oil due to fine grain residual particles and molecular changes in the oil itself after sustained high temperature exposure.

This brings us to CO2. Some claim biofuels are "carbon nuetral", some claim they are not. Myself I really like the idea, but I'm very concerned about the environmental consequences of large scale adoption. As an example, when it comes to buying fuel, most people are going to pick the cheapest source available. The cheapest way to get veggie oil is from foreign palm plantations. Palm oil production is quickly turning a number of developing nations into yet another environmental disaster area: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0425-oil_palm.html

Cutting down or burning 10s of millions of acres of rain forest that would have continued taking CO2 out of the air for 100s or 1000s of years, planting it with palm trees, abusing the heck out of the land and leaving it dead and depleted after 25 yrs doesn't sound very neutral to me. Despite the scale of the these operations, the current annual production of palm oil from Indonesia would satisfy the current US oil demand for 4 days. Given that palm oil is 100 times more area efficient than soy, and 300 times than corn, you can quickly start to get a sense of just what kind of massive consumption of resources would be required to shift our current consumption to vegetable oil. There are relatively clean, sustainable ways to produce biofuels, but there is currently no economic incentive to use them. This issue probably tosses the economic security back into play as well. Whose going to pay US growers $3 a gallon for corn or canola oil when you can buy palm oil from SE Asia for $1.30? There's a nice stable part of the world to be dependant on :blink:

To call SVO, WVO, or even biodiesel "carbon nuetral" seems to me to be pretty misleading. Right up there with buying carbon offsets (not green energy credits, the we'll plant a tree somewhere in the amazon and offset your entire carbon footprint for $10 kind). Its probably still better carbon wise than gasoline, but does it make up for all its other problems with enough margin to justify driving a 15mpg vehicle?

I'm glad that on some level you realize this and drive your Hummer as little as possible B) Now I just have to figure out what to do about my D#mn Land Rover

Rob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 12 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]511662[/snapback]</div>

Let me say I love the the idea of biofuels, but its naive to think that this is a miracle cure for a dirty diesel engine. For the most part, running SVO is better than dino-diesel, but less clean than biodiesel emissions wise which we've already shown are much less clean than a hybrid.

Reduction relative to dino-diesel:
----------CO---------HC-------NOx------PM
B100----48%-------67%-----+10%--- 48%
V100----23%-----10.7%------2.8%----0%?

source for biodiesel: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf
source for SVO: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/30/na...ie-oil-emissio/

So other than a slight improvement in NOx, SVO (V100) seems to be significantly dirtier than straight biodiesel (B100). I believe this gets worse when you talk about WVO, as even after filtering and settling there is a fair amount of impurity in the oil due to fine grain residual particles and molecular changes in the oil itself after sustained high temperature exposure.

This brings us to CO2. Some claim biofuels are "carbon nuetral", some claim they are not. Myself I really like the idea, but I'm very concerned about the environmental consequences of large scale adoption. As an example, when it comes to buying fuel, most people are going to pick the cheapest source available. The cheapest way to get veggie oil is from foreign palm plantations. Palm oil production is quickly turning a number of developing nations into yet another environmental disaster area: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0425-oil_palm.html

Cutting down or burning 10s of millions of acres of rain forest that would have continued taking CO2 out of the air for 100s or 1000s of years, planting it with palm trees, abusing the heck out of the land and leaving it dead and depleted after 25 yrs doesn't sound very neutral to me. Despite the scale of the these operations, the current annual production of palm oil from Indonesia would satisfy the current US oil demand for 4 days. Given that palm oil is 100 times more area efficient than soy, and 300 times than corn, you can quickly start to get a sense of just what kind of massive consumption of resources would be required to shift our current consumption to vegetable oil. There are relatively clean, sustainable ways to produce biofuels, but there is currently no economic incentive to use them. This issue probably tosses the economic security back into play as well. Whose going to pay US growers $3 a gallon for corn or canola oil when you can buy palm oil from SE Asia for $1.30? There's a nice stable part of the world to be dependant on :blink:

To call SVO, WVO, or even biodiesel "carbon nuetral" seems to me to be pretty misleading. Right up there with buying carbon offsets (not green energy credits, the we'll plant a tree somewhere in the amazon and offset your entire carbon footprint for $10 kind). Its probably still better carbon wise than gasoline, but does it make up for all its other problems with enough margin to justify driving a 15mpg vehicle?

I'm glad that on some level you realize this and drive your Hummer as little as possible B) Now I just have to figure out what to do about my D#mn Land Rover

Rob

 

BTW, just to show I feel your pain....

Despite all the concerns voiced above, if LR ever got off their rear ends and reintroduced the Defender tdi over hear, I'd have a _really_ hard time not buying one and running it on biodiesel.

http://www.landrover.co.uk/gb/en/Vehicles/...er_overview.htm

There were serious rumors going around about a 2008 relaunch, but I have a feeling the new diesel requirements may have killed it (although it looks like the new model does have a crd vs tdi.....).

Rob