AZGuy....this is what Jim wrote: "Sean, the rollover issue is neither a function of wheelbase, track nor centre of gravity - it is totally operator driven. It is entirely possible to roll any vehicle ever made.... we just need to be stupid enough to get there."
Jim is explaining that none of those factors (wheelbase, track, center of gravity) are the cause of a rollover. there isn't a threshold where once crossed, a certain dimension of the truck makes a rollover inevitable. he explained that the driver is the deciding factor in when a car rolls over, NOT the car's dimensions (though obviously they can affect how hard it is to roll a car over). what part of what he wrote denied the physics of rolling a car over? or were you upset by his use of the word "stupid?" have you rolled a car yourself and take offense at being labeled 'stupid?' for what it's worth, my sister rolled her saturn sc off the freeway, yet i've never rolled my 94 explorer...i certainly wouldn't call mid-90's saturns rollover-prone. besides, he is not 'backpedaling' as you call it, but clarifying the points you seemed to disagree with.
john
p.s. please don't flame jim warman any more; we like having him around here.
Second - Considering that the 2002/2003 explorer has a wider wheelbase, bigger/wider tires, and an independent rear suspension with pretty healthy stabilizers - the level of stupidity on the part of the driver would have to be much higher to apply enough steering/speed related input to flip the vehicle.
I have had a '98, '00 and now an '03 - you really have to try to flip this baby - > > Parse your prior comments all you like, it doesn't change your
And I'm still sticking by my original claim...... It is you thatr made the original claim that the laws of physics has been repealed and and I fail to see hw you managed to assume that.....
Without someone behind the wheel, it is extremely hard to imagine any laws of any sort applying to the motor vehicle. Once somebody gets behind the wheel, we can now apply "input". The package we are applying input to will have physical properties to which the laws of physics shall apply. In one form, this package will require a great deal of 'negative' input before it becomes troublesome..... in another form, this package might require very little 'negative' input before the trouble starts.
In either case, no one has repealed the laws of physics..... If I state that something tall and skinny falls over more easily than something short and fat, am I backpedalling? I don't need to parse squat and I am not trying to distance myself from any statements.... Any and all motor vehicles are subject to the exact same laws of physics..... it is up to us as operators to decide whether we are going to try and disobey these laws. Cars don't rollover... people make them do it - most times, against the cars wishes....
I know what he wrote. His statement is factually incorrect. The rollover issue is NOT totally operator driven. That would be like saying getting only 13 mpg is totally operator driven regardless of what engine you have or have heavy the car is, etc. There are some cars that you'd have to punch a hole in the gas tank to make them get that poor of gas-mileage because gas mileage is NOT totally operator driven. The operator can influence the gas mileage but the basic physics of the vehicle define the envelope. Same for rolling over.
He's not explaining, he's merely asserting. And his assertion is wrong. That's because rollover is NOT totally operator dependent. Just because any vehicle can be made to roll, even if you have to spin it over a 9" tall curb at 90 mph, does not change the fact that those factors other then the driver ARE pertinent factors in determining whether it rolls or not. You can't separate the two (vehicle, driver) and pretend only one has influence - both influence the result whether you like it or not. That's just a fact. You might as well try and argue that because Mario Andretti can make his race car take a curve at 180mph he can take a Ford Focus and do the same with it. You'd be operating under the JW theory that physics has nothing to do with a vehicles performance but that it's TOTALLY operator dependent and that the right operator can make a Focus do 180 mph in the turn at Daytona.
There you are, just like JW, you admit the truth even as you deny it - the PHYSICS DO play a part in the rollover issue, it is NOT totally operator dependent.
The statement that nothing about the vehicles size, weight, or any other aspect of its design has anything to do with the rollover issue, that's it's TOTALLY operator dependent.
I don't recall him using the word stupid. But thanks for taking this discussion personal by trying to smear me and my motives. And no, I've never rolled anything.
Under the JW theory there can be no such thing as a roll over prone vehicle since NOTHING about the vehicle has anything to do with the rollover issue. Rollovers, per the JW theory, are TOTALLY a function of the driver and have zero to do with the vehicle. So I'm left wondering, why did you think to talk about the SC as not being roll-over prone? That would suggest that you believe the roll over issue is influenced by the vehicle, i.e. some vehicles are roll over prone. But since you are attempting to argue the JW theory that nothing about the vehicle has anything to do with the roll over issue, why would the "roll over proneness" of a vehicle even enter your mind?
All I see is him changing his story when the inconsistency is pointed out. If you see it differently, that's your right.
Are you now the self-appointed moderator of this group? I have not flamed anyone. But again, thanks for another attempted smear.
if mario andretti managed to roll his focus because he took a turn at
180 mph, it's his fault, isn't it? i don't mean to be redundant, but a focus isn't going to just roll over unless the driver does something to cause that to happen. a focus will roll over under different conditions than an explorer, obviously, but under appopriate conditions, neither should roll.
i haven't seen or heard of any explorers rolling over, sitting in their driveway. most of those accidents were while driving, no? ;-) then again, it's perfectly easy to drive a huge, top-heavy, narrow-tracked explorer without rolling it even though its physics seem to make it want to roll. it's not the car, it's the way it's being driven--if you drive any car beyond its limits, you can make it roll over.
a few lines ago you said "i know what he wrote" but here you seem to have forgotten what he wrote. ("It is entirely possible to roll any vehicle ever made.... we just need to be stupid enough to get there.") this is not a smear campaign; i'm not labeling or characterizing you, nor am i making assumptions about how you drive; i just thought that perhaps you responded the way you did to jim because you felt he had been unnecessarily harsh to use the word "stupid."
no; just that rolling a vehicle is a function of the driver no matter what the vehicle is, or how "roll-over-prone" it is.
again, i'm making no attempt to either 'moderate' this group or smear anyone. i would just hate to see jim disappear because of the way his advice is received by others, because he is a tremendous asset to this NG.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. If Mrio took an F1 car through the same turn at the same speed, it may not roll. (This assumes that the turn is such that neither will just spin out.) The fact is that the driver has a lot to do with a car rolling, but the design of the car will determine how easily it rolls, given the same input as another of different design.
A loaded cement truck will roll much easier than a Corvette, given identical input from the driver. Obviously, any driver who drove a cement truck like a Corvette deserves to roll, but the fact remains that the cement truck is much easier to roll than the Corvette, due to the design, including wheelbase, track, height of COG, and other factors. To say that rolling is *solely* due to the driver is wrong. To say that the driver is responsible when a vehicle rolls is much closer to reality.
you're right. a cement truck is *easier* for a driver to roll. but when it ACTUALLY rolls is a function of the driver. it's the driver's responsibility to recognize the differences, and NOT give identical input as when driving a corvette, because they are not the same vehicle. after all, there isn't a single car ever made that can roll by itself when it's not being driven...
if a cement truck rolls because the driver was driving it like a corvette, would anyone honestly blame the truck? it is the driver's fault, when not driving within a vehicle's physical limits.
Bill.... many moons ago, during one of many mid-life crises, I had a '88 Mustang 5.0. Rock solid, turned very well considering the V8 up front but my loving bride was scared witless driving it on our treacherous winter roads. She finally convinced me that an Aerostar was what we needed (must have been a weak moment on my part). There were times that I would drive the Aerostar into a corner thinking I was still in the Mustang..... needless to say, the Aerostar was quick to make me re-assess my actions and I would have to adjust my driving style in very short order.
Here-in lies what appears to be a big secret or misunderstanding..... driven like an Aerostar, the Aerostar is very stable, very predictable and nearly forgiving...... driven like a Mustang, it is one scary piece of crap. Many years ago, I took a respite from this trade and tried my hand at owning a semi - one outfit I contracted to had a fleet of dry bulk trailers hauling salt, fertilizer, cement and such......
formatting link
looked like these. Themajority of the load is carried very high in the trailer but we seldom seethese things laying on their sides. Could it be that the trailer isdisregarding the laws of physics? Unlikely, swince the trailer is devoid ofcognisant thought and can only react to the input of the guy in the truck(and, naturally, what he does with what's going on in front of the truck). These things don't roll until we tell them to... period. What we do, how we react to a situation... that's the deciding factor - nothing more, nothing less. Face it folks.... WE ARE responsible for our own actions. We cannot visit our own folly on to some other party. Many vehicles will do the "twisty bits" extremely well...... many vehicles need us to exhibit restraint when we encounter the "twisty bits".......... As motoring adults, it is important that we learn how to recognize the feedback we get from our vehicles. Though I have driven some vehicles that are relatively unforgiving, all of them offer up warning signs as we approach impending doom. If we ignore this feedback, we are sure to find out what the consequences are.
All I can ask is WTF is so hard to understand?
-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
"Bill Funk" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Itr's not really hard to understand. There is a big difference between saying that the design has nothing to do with rolling a vehicle, and saying the driver is responsible when a vehicle rolls. Given the poor understanding of physics by a lot of drivers (as evidenced by the stupid things people do, obviously thinking physics don't count), is rather disingenious to think that the various design parameters of a vehicle have nothing to do with a vehicle rolling.
Note, I'm not saying the driver doesn't bear the responsibility for the roll, I'm saying that the parameters have a lot to do with why the input the driver has will result in a roll in some vehicles, and not in others.
Since I started this I'll try to end it using your own argument.
Instead of using an Aerostar + a Mustang in the story above, use a pre-new design explorer and a post new-design explorer.
If you drive the post design explorer around a corner just as you had the old one and discovered that it was no where near as likely to roll over, than you could conlcude that the new design was the reason. Everything else being equal.
Which would answer my original question which I'll repeat:
My question is, what improvements have been made in the 4 model years? Didn't they increase the wheelbase to counter the rollover issue after
1999?
Forget the red herring about "driver input" or the hair across your ass that you have about explorers rolling over. The question was, is the new design less likely to roll over than the old design. Using your story about the Aerostar and the Mustang but inserting the 2 designs of the exlporer instead the answer can be determined.
Without any irrational bullshit about design having nothing to do with rollovers.
OK, Bill, I can meet you part way....... yes, the vehicle design and it's dynamics will decide how easy a vehicle will get out of shape - but it just isn't going to get out of shape without the driver telling it to. A modern day conumdrum.... what came first, the idiot or the truck???
Seriously, we can debate this subject for a long time with no progress or anyone switching "sides". But I think that we can all agree that the key ingredient is people....
Sean.... the track appears to have been widened (this is more a function in rollovers than wheelbase).... the fully independent rear suspension has an effect on stability more through the reduction in unsprung weight than any other. Wider tires with a lower profile help.
I can't speak for the 'predictability' of the experience - this counts for a lot.... some vehicles are quite forgiving.... plenty of warning and lot's of time for "disaster recovery" - others can be quite vicious with little warning before things get real bad.
The answer to your question is likely going to be nearly as ignorant (I'm like that) as my original. While rollover resistance is likely better than the original Exs, it still pales in comparison to other types of vehicles. It is of little import that we can now navigate a corner 10 mph faster - the idea is to avoid approaching untenable circumstances.
There is no real tried and true answer to your question.... yes, I believe the new Exs exhibit better manoeuvering stability than the early ones but it's very hard to quantify the improvements..... We are still stuck with the "why would there be a rollover?" question. If we drive our vehicles within their design limits, there should be little in the way of problems - and this is where many vehicles have earned a bum rap.
Sorry, man, I still don't know exactly what you want to hear.... an SUV, with it's higher profile, extra ground clearance and so on is going to drive like a SUV. It will ALWAYS be easier to roll than a car....
I certainly wouldn't agree with that. We can't "redesign" the people. Posters can call everyone who doesn't drive as well as you think they should stupid, and they can post endless threads about how awful SUVs are because of whatever hair they happen to have up their ass. None of that is going to change a thing to any significant degree.
But we can redesign the vehicle by better taking advantage of what we (at least some of us) know about physics. As has been demonstrated many times over, the same basic "box" can be made to perform on either end of the rollover proneness scale. BMW produced an SUV that will outperform most cars on the road for handling; Suzuki produced an SUV that would tip over if you sneezed while cornering.
The key ingredient is the design of the vehicle but I have no illusions we will all agree on that.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.