Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Bravo!

Old 03-10-23, 01:34 PM
  #1  
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
 
Korina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,811

Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930

Liked 1,628 Times in 966 Posts
Bravo!

Korina is online now  
Likes For Korina:
Old 03-10-23, 07:28 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Liked 1,057 Times in 636 Posts
Originally Posted by Korina
What a bunch of drivel by some one that just has been brain washed about SUVs. I assume he loves tiny little 4 cyl front wheel drive tin cans. Four cyl are a horrible engine that has both a vertical and a horizonal shake. The belong on ag equipment.

When talking SUVS we are a heavy duty full frame vehicle. They have double A frame front suspension, and have two levels of road noise isolation. Then there are all the look alike CUVs that are a front wheel drive tin can. The only real vehicle that you can buy that is not too big is the smaller Pickups like a Chevy S-10 and its follow ons.

This poster can say what ever he wants, but lets do a head on crash test with a Honda civic and the hated Caddy version of the Suburban and lets see who walks away!!!!

But remember if a cyclist is hit by a Civic doing 70 he will be just as dead as if he were hit by a Suburban!!!!!

Last edited by rydabent; 03-10-23 at 07:33 PM.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-10-23, 08:35 PM
  #3  
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
 
Korina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,811

Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930

Liked 1,628 Times in 966 Posts
[MENTION=191655]rydabent[/MENTION], I'm guessing you didn't watch the video and are basing your opinion on the title. That's your prerogative.
Korina is online now  
Old 03-11-23, 11:59 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: lost
Posts: 541
Liked 98 Times in 49 Posts
SUVs for me are an upright version of station wagons of the past. The cargo area in the wagons being short in height, more difficult to use. I bought a SUVs instead of, do they still call them pickup truck? To transport items I want to stay dry depending on the daily weather conditions. Imagine the up-row if station wagons still prowled the streets!
Gyro is offline  
Old 03-11-23, 05:06 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,110
Liked 809 Times in 562 Posts
Originally Posted by Korina
[MENTION=191655]rydabent[/MENTION], I'm guessing you didn't watch the video and are basing your opinion on the title. That's your prerogative.
Sadly, their prerogative is why we can't have nice things. Like a planet, to name only one ...
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 03-11-23, 08:24 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,776

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Liked 3,251 Times in 2,064 Posts
problem with a lot of compact vehicles is how susceptible the driveline is to poor road conditions. Most larger vehicles can take the potholes, washboard run roads better & go longer without needing maintenance. I don't view SUVs such as the JGC & Aviator as a behemoth on wheels. The late model "electric" Hummer is a massive turd though. That thing weighs about a ton more, has less capability, & looks horrid.
__________________
-YMMV
Troul is offline  
Old 03-11-23, 09:16 PM
  #7  
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,537

Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.

Liked 343 Times in 227 Posts
"SUVs and Light trucks are marketed to '@-h0le$' who are:

Obsessed with status,

Self-centered,

Likely bad drivers,

Fearful Poseurs who are impressionable, AND

Easily manipulated by marketing."


I can't argue with any of that.I know plenty of them.

Excellent production. Thanks for posting that!

(I also enjoy my farm/paramilitary vehicle driving friends are the first to cry like babies when fuel prices rise. They are the CAUSE of it! At least at the supply and demand end of the process. Hilarious)

Last edited by JoeyBike; 03-12-23 at 05:56 PM.
JoeyBike is offline  
Likes For JoeyBike:
Old 03-11-23, 10:41 PM
  #8  
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
 
Korina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,811

Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930

Liked 1,628 Times in 966 Posts
Originally Posted by Troul
problem with a lot of compact vehicles is how susceptible the driveline is to poor road conditions. Most larger vehicles can take the potholes, washboard run roads better & go longer without needing maintenance. I don't view SUVs such as the JGC & Aviator as a behemoth on wheels. The late model "electric" Hummer is a massive turd though. That thing weighs about a ton more, has less capability, & looks horrid.
And of course it's the giant vehicles that are tearing up the roads. Circle of life.

I read somewhere that the batteries for the massive turd could power 380 e-bikes, a much better use.
Korina is online now  
Likes For Korina:
Old 03-11-23, 10:58 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,776

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Liked 3,251 Times in 2,064 Posts
Originally Posted by Korina
And of course it's the giant vehicles that are tearing up the roads. Circle of life.

I read somewhere that the batteries for the massive turd could power 380 e-bikes, a much better use.

it's the answer from the people to the government demonstrating where the taxes are not going.
Seeing an owner of such turd freely wanting to charge those many e-bicycles would be a rare sight.
__________________
-YMMV
Troul is offline  
Old 03-12-23, 09:37 AM
  #10  
Cop Magnet
 
JW Fas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 340
Liked 287 Times in 133 Posts
Originally Posted by Troul
problem with a lot of compact vehicles is how susceptible the driveline is to poor road conditions. Most larger vehicles can take the potholes, washboard run roads better & go longer without needing maintenance. I don't view SUVs such as the JGC & Aviator as a behemoth on wheels. The late model "electric" Hummer is a massive turd though. That thing weighs about a ton more, has less capability, & looks horrid.
Smaller cars wouldn't have much of a problem dealing with potholes if manufacturers weren't fixated on equipping new cars with large diameter wheels and [expensive] low profile tires. They do it because they make the car look better, and they rake in a higher margin. Ultimately, it comes at the cost of less shock absorption.
JW Fas is offline  
Likes For JW Fas:
Old 03-12-23, 05:52 PM
  #11  
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,537

Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.

Liked 343 Times in 227 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
Ultimately, it comes at the cost of less shock absorption.
In fairness, the profile tires are lighter and rate higher pressures which improves fuel efficiency. Same as road bikes with 100+ PSI tires accelerate easier and roll with less effort at speed. I get your point, but it's not just for show. Those "Indy" profile tires were designed for race cars driven on perfect surfaces. Cheers.
JoeyBike is offline  
Old 03-13-23, 09:59 AM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,776

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Liked 3,251 Times in 2,064 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
Smaller cars wouldn't have much of a problem dealing with potholes if manufacturers weren't fixated on equipping new cars with large diameter wheels and [expensive] low profile tires. They do it because they make the car look better, and they rake in a higher margin. Ultimately, it comes at the cost of less shock absorption.
when a regular trailer bends its rim, axle, or destroys a fender when banging into a pothole, I dont think the 195/60r15 are the issue.
__________________
-YMMV
Troul is offline  
Old 03-13-23, 08:48 PM
  #13  
Cop Magnet
 
JW Fas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 340
Liked 287 Times in 133 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
In fairness, the profile tires are lighter and rate higher pressures which improves fuel efficiency. Same as road bikes with 100+ PSI tires accelerate easier and roll with less effort at speed. I get your point, but it's not just for show. Those "Indy" profile tires were designed for race cars driven on perfect surfaces. Cheers.
The low profile tires have to be run at a higher pressure to compensate for the less air volume. Plus, they are typically wider than standard tires to provide an adequate contact patch. They do offer slightly better cornering due to less sidewall deflection, but that's one of the few advantages. While they might offer slightly less rolling resistance on perfectly smooth surfaces, the wheel/tire combo is heavier than a smaller diameter wheel with standard profile tire. This greater mass and rotational inertia yields worse gas mileage in city driving.
JW Fas is offline  
Old 03-14-23, 05:00 AM
  #14  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Troul
problem with a lot of compact vehicles is how susceptible the driveline is to poor road conditions. Most larger vehicles can take the potholes, washboard run roads better & go longer without needing maintenance. I don't view SUVs such as the JGC & Aviator as a behemoth on wheels. The late model "electric" Hummer is a massive turd though. That thing weighs about a ton more, has less capability, & looks horrid.
On the other hand, SUVs are more prone to rollover, need greater braking distances, and are more deadly to people outside of the vehicle.

I don't think there's a case to be made for this size inflation making us safer as a society.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 03-14-23, 05:14 AM
  #15  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
What a bunch of drivel by some one that just has been brain washed about SUVs. I assume he loves tiny little 4 cyl front wheel drive tin cans. Four cyl are a horrible engine that has both a vertical and a horizonal shake. The belong on ag equipment.

When talking SUVS we are a heavy duty full frame vehicle. They have double A frame front suspension, and have two levels of road noise isolation. Then there are all the look alike CUVs that are a front wheel drive tin can. The only real vehicle that you can buy that is not too big is the smaller Pickups like a Chevy S-10 and its follow ons.

This poster can say what ever he wants, but lets do a head on crash test with a Honda civic and the hated Caddy version of the Suburban and lets see who walks away!!!!

But remember if a cyclist is hit by a Civic doing 70 he will be just as dead as if he were hit by a Suburban!!!!!

What kind of argument is that? First of all, the driver of the Civic would be a hell of a lot safer if they weren't having to face a huge fleet of oversized vehicles every time they drove. That's the point of the video, going to the small truck as the default vehicle is a disaster for a lot of reasons.

Second, so what if a Civic going 70 mph is deadly vs. a cyclist/pedestrian? Anything going 70 mph with significant mass is going to cause you injury. What you find if you lok at the stats is that SUVs are deadlier at the speeds you're more likely to get hit because of their mass and their height. I haven't checked their source, but the video cites a figure of 3x more likely to die when hit by a light truck than a car.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 03-14-23, 10:27 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,776

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Liked 3,251 Times in 2,064 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
On the other hand, SUVs are more prone to rollover, need greater braking distances, and are more deadly to people outside of the vehicle.

I don't think there's a case to be made for this size inflation making us safer as a society.

I didn't intend to come-off as making a case, as I'd much rather have something not heavy & large for an automobile.

I'd prefer to have a decently sized aspect ratio no matter the wheel size, nothing as much as what 4x4's have, but not as little as a compact sedan. Sadly, OEMs produce what they produce & rely on the suspension to create a comfortable ride & to take on the road blows.
If the big SUV's could go on a diet & drop 40%+ of the weight, the stopping distance could be reduced. For that matter, if all current passenger vehicles lost 40%+ weight, it'd not only help reduce braking distance, but lessen the pavement pounding, potentially increase MPG, reduce materials during production, & other possible positives.
__________________
-YMMV
Troul is offline  
Likes For Troul:
Old 03-14-23, 11:43 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Bald Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,765
Liked 1,731 Times in 815 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
The low profile tires have to be run at a higher pressure to compensate for the less air volume.
Really? Can you explain why Toyota lists the same tire pressure on everything from a standard 16 inch diameter wheel with standard tire profile to the optional 19 inch diameter wheel with low profile tire?
Bald Paul is offline  
Old 03-14-23, 02:27 PM
  #18  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Troul
I didn't intend to come-off as making a case, as I'd much rather have something not heavy & large for an automobile.

I'd prefer to have a decently sized aspect ratio no matter the wheel size, nothing as much as what 4x4's have, but not as little as a compact sedan. Sadly, OEMs produce what they produce & rely on the suspension to create a comfortable ride & to take on the road blows.
If the big SUV's could go on a diet & drop 40%+ of the weight, the stopping distance could be reduced. For that matter, if all current passenger vehicles lost 40%+ weight, it'd not only help reduce braking distance, but lessen the pavement pounding, potentially increase MPG, reduce materials during production, & other possible positives.

The high ground clearance is also a factor in why light trucks are so lethal to others--you're way more likely to die if the front of the vehicle strikes you in a vital organ vs. cutting you off at the legs. Can you keep the front of the hood/bumper as low as a sedan while increasing the aspect ratio? Honest question, I haven't a clue.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 03-14-23, 02:34 PM
  #19  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Bald Paul
Really? Can you explain why Toyota lists the same tire pressure on everything from a standard 16 inch diameter wheel with standard tire profile to the optional 19 inch diameter wheel with low profile tire?
What's the math on calculating the air volume? Does bigger wheel/lower profile = smaller wheel/higher profile? I have no geometry skills, so hell if I know.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 03-14-23, 03:10 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,776

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Liked 3,251 Times in 2,064 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
The high ground clearance is also a factor in why light trucks are so lethal to others--you're way more likely to die if the front of the vehicle strikes you in a vital organ vs. cutting you off at the legs. Can you keep the front of the hood/bumper as low as a sedan while increasing the aspect ratio? Honest question, I haven't a clue.
The 'nose' can be engineered to slope a bit (ford aerostar, Chevy APV) but that design isn't attractive to todays folks.
__________________
-YMMV
Troul is offline  
Old 03-15-23, 06:27 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Bald Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,765
Liked 1,731 Times in 815 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
What's the math on calculating the air volume? Does bigger wheel/lower profile = smaller wheel/higher profile? I have no geometry skills, so hell if I know.
It's far too early in the morning for those calculations (I haven't even finished my coffee.)
But, imagine on the left is the cross section of a tall tire on a small wheel, and the right is a low profile tire on a larger wheel. Here's a hint: the rectangles (tires) are all the same.
Bald Paul is offline  
Old 03-15-23, 06:36 AM
  #22  
Cop Magnet
 
JW Fas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 340
Liked 287 Times in 133 Posts
Originally Posted by Bald Paul
Really? Can you explain why Toyota lists the same tire pressure on everything from a standard 16 inch diameter wheel with standard tire profile to the optional 19 inch diameter wheel with low profile tire?
I don't know why Toyota chose the exact same PSI for each tire size, because it's a stupid idea. Most of the time you have to run a low profile tire at higher pressure than a standard profile tire.
JW Fas is offline  
Old 03-15-23, 08:14 AM
  #23  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
I don't know why Toyota chose the exact same PSI for each tire size, because it's a stupid idea. Most of the time you have to run a low profile tire at higher pressure than a standard profile tire.

Cursory google searching will show you that isn't a universal rule or even close to one. I suspect Toyota would have very good reasons for this as they would face enormous liability if they are making bad recommendations. There's no way they would make recommendations without having studied the hell out of the issue.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 03-15-23, 01:16 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Bald Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,765
Liked 1,731 Times in 815 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
I don't know why Toyota chose the exact same PSI for each tire size, because it's a stupid idea.
Yeah, those automotive designers and tire engineers over at Toyota don't know what they're talking about. They really need to cruise the forums on the internet to listen to the experts.
Bald Paul is offline  
Old 03-17-23, 02:02 AM
  #25  
Along for the ride
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: PNW US
Posts: 249
Liked 223 Times in 114 Posts
Originally Posted by Bald Paul
It's far too early in the morning for those calculations (I haven't even finished my coffee.)
But, imagine on the left is the cross section of a tall tire on a small wheel, and the right is a low profile tire on a larger wheel. Here's a hint: the rectangles (tires) are all the same.
True, but this requires the tire width to increase a lot more than is typically the case. In the Camry tire sizes listed above, the widths vary from 205 - 235 mm while the sidewall heights vary from 94 mm to 133.25 mm (assuming I'm remembering how to read tires right, literally one of the worst measurement standards ever conceived). So widths vary by 30mm while heights vary by 39.25mm, meaning that the volumes don't remain consistent even though the recommended tire pressures are the same.

For the record, big SUVs suck whether or not low profile tires and their relative pressures have anything to do with anything.
retswerb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.