What happed to all the Hummers?

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Having spent a decent slice of my 29 year USMC career in the Motor Transport field, including a good bit of time commanding a unit that included a bunch of "wonderful" HMMWVs

As one who has spent most of his two careers, military and civilian, upholding justice and the rule of law, I never thought I'd find myself thinking this: "hey, there just may be a place in our society for motor vehicle arson. . ."

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
"The Worst"



Important distinction to be made here: "The Worst"..."in its type/weight class"

Both the NHTSA and IIHS crash-test ratings are comparable only to vehicles within the same weight class as the tested car (+/- 200lbs, I believe). If vehicle weights are dissimilar, the results could be very different.

Take-away: The H3 used as an example here may still be safer than most cars when it comes to overall death rate in all tested types of crashes. The text and video above neither prove nor disprove this.

 

[moving2]

...an IIHS 5-star rated Honda Fit may not be as safe overall as a 4-star rated Chevy Suburban, for example.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I would always see H2 Hummer limousines in Miami Beach with 24 inch chrome wheels and I always thought they looked so ridiculous it wasn't even funny.


I saw 3 of those last night on Ocean Drive in Miami Beach...A bunch of spoiled brats were yelling out the windows and the sunroof.

I see several everyday on I-95 and will have to say every Hummer I see is in excellent condition and clean as can be...I never see them speeding and the owners drive them very carefully unlike the bulk of the lunatics down here.


They probably can't afford the gas to drive them any faster than 55 mph

Reminds me of when I was coming into the city just before some local classic car show; I was in no rush and doing maybe 70 mph (about 15 over the speed limit, normal here) while blowing past muscle car after muscle car that appeared do be going 10 mph under (I wasn't the only one passing them).

I figured they couldn't afford the gas to drive any faster (and I consider driving under the speed limit on the highway, in perfect weather, a crime against these beauties who, if they could talk, would be screaming more pedal!).

-Spyder

 

[Jeepster_nut]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Have you seen the cartoon lampooning male Hummer drivers?
The tag line is "Now everyone will know."
The point being that the average male driving a Hummer is somewhat lacking as a man, so to speak.



[img:left]http://scaryideas.com/content/4714/[/img]

 

[Audi Junkie]

A poor crash result is a poor crash result.

lol at thinking a vehicle that can't stop and when it finally impacts is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk


Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded (back at you).

I guess my counter-point would be that if a substantial number of H2 or H3 buyers weren't trying to falsely cloak themselves in a military mantle, then why wouldn't they just buy a Tahoe/Suburban, or a Colorado, or a Trailblazer, etc.? A few years back, another member poked fun at H3 buyers with words to the effect of, "congratulations H3 buyers -- you've just bought a Chevy Colorado wearing a $15k Haloween costume". Now that may be a tad in-your-face harsh, but I do think it sums up these vehicles pretty well.

The last thing I ever thought I would find myself defending is Hummers (the four wheeled kind, anyway), but here goes

(we need a trainwreck smilie)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the H3 is merely a Colorado/Tahoe whatever in a $15K Halloween costume, my response would basically be, so?

$15K may be a lot of money to some people, it may not be a lot of money to others. Maybe (perish the thought) they actually like the vehicle. The H3 is the only one I've been in, and I thought it was a nicely appointed truck.

People have unique automotive tastes that can be inexplicable to others ( that's a lot of the fun ). I like british cars, so I buy Jaguars. German cars don't interest me so I don't buy BMW's or Mercedes'. That may sound crazy to others, but it's my money, and I don't care what anyone elese thnks about it. My instinct is that the Hummi owners who are not paramilitary poseurs feel pretty much the same way - they liked it, they bought it, they don't give a rats rear end about what others think of it (I'll concede some may be bought by poseurs, but I doubt most poseurs have that kind of money).

Putting lipstick on a pig to make some extra money off it is hardly unique to old GM - Ford tarts up their cars and calls them Lincolns, Toyota does it with Camry's and calls them a Lexus, VW does it and calls it an Audi, and I'm sure there are others. It seems like it is a good business practice while it lasts.



Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Now, as for that pink thing -- ......


I have my limits, I'm going to let someone else try to defend that thing, or spelling "customs" with a "Z".

Originally Posted By: ekpolk


As for your last, I think you've come full circle and agreed with me. Sure, if you need the capability, a Rover would be a fine choice -- especially because it comes without the added, superflous costume.

Sure, If I was in the market for an upscale SUV, I'd look hard at a Land Rover. I like british cars. But Land Rovers and Land Cruisers earned their cred in the african wilderness. Seems to me the same snarky comments can be made about those drivers, that they're just Bwana wannabe's tooling around in their urban luxo mobile.

How's that?

edit: Isn't there a Lexus that is just a tarted up Land Cruiser?

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
A poor crash result is a poor crash result.

lol at thinking a vehicle that can't stop and when it finally impacts is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.



Audi Junkie- first of all, for someone who claims to be "not interested" in this discussion, you're pretty persistent in posting (and ignoring inconvenient things, you know, like facts- i.e., the facts in my previous posts, to which you have yet to respond). LOL. Honestly, at least put some effort into it next time. LOL.

Here we go:

1.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] vehicle that can't stop and [...]


Umm...I believe you're referring to the H2 stopping distance quoted earlier? This is the crash test of an H3. Sorry, try again.


2.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
A poor crash result is a poor crash result.


Uhh no, no it's not. And IIHS says so themselves. Let me know which part of this is confusing for you:

a) "The Institute began frontal offset crash testing in 1995. In the Institute's 40 mph offset test, 40 percent of the total width of each vehicle strikes a barrier on the driver side. The barrier's deformable face is made of aluminum honeycomb, which makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight, each going just less than 40 mph. Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."

b) Because crash test ratings cannot be compared across vehicle weight classes, nothing you have posted so far speaks to the relative safety of a Hummer vs. a car. This is supported by IIHS' own statements above. Do you not agree with the IIHS' own statements regarding their crash tests? Can you argue any of your points regarding the relative crash safety of any Hummer vs. a car using actual crash/fatality rate data, or only with more of your guesses and incorrect assumptions?

c) Does it make sense to you that a 5 star crash test rating on a Honda Fit and a 5 star crash test rating on a Chevy Suburban does not imply they are comparable, overall, in crash safety? Why or why not?

d) These aren't rhetorical questions, and neither were any of the other questions I've asked of you in prior posts. Any chance I might get some answers someday?

e) Sorry, Audi Junkie, try again.

f) Talk about LOL.

 

[LS2JSTS]

moving2...I applaud your efforts and the wealth of facts and data you have brought to this argument. But it is clear the facts just get in the way of certain people and their agenda.

They dont know, and they dont want to know.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."

Hmmm, seems rather conclusive, but then I never went to college like all the smart folks here.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."


SteveSRT8- exactly, and since we don't know what the crossover point is (e.g., a 3-star rated large SUV is equivalent to a 5-star rated small car) we cannot conclude anything about the relative safety of a Hummer vs. a car from the crash test video posted by Audi Junkie. We can, however, look at the fatality rate data of vehicle classes and draw broader conclusions, which I did earlier, and to which Audi Junkie conveniently avoided responding. He said he was "not interested". I guess that explains his persistence in this thread?

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Win
...

Assuming for the sake of argument that the H3 is merely a Colorado/Tahoe whatever in a $15K Halloween costume, my response would basically be, so?

$15K may be a lot of money to some people, it may not be a lot of money to others. Maybe (perish the thought) they actually like the vehicle. The H3 is the only one I've been in, and I thought it was a nicely appointed truck.

People have unique automotive tastes that can be inexplicable to others ( that's a lot of the fun ).

That's certainly valid, but I still can't get past the idea that if you can have the same mechanical capability (and in fact, most of the same mechanicals) in a vehicle that costs $15k less, why would any rational person choose to pay $15k more for an odd assortment of function-free, pretentious decorations???? Certainly, I cherish the fact that we live in a country where, if I want to, I can burn $15k in cash in my front yard if I want to -- but why?

Originally Posted By: Win
I like british cars, so I buy Jaguars. German cars don't interest me so I don't buy BMW's or Mercedes'. That may sound crazy to others, but it's my money, and I don't care what anyone elese thnks about it. My instinct is that the Hummi owners who are not paramilitary poseurs feel pretty much the same way - they liked it, they bought it, they don't give a rats rear end about what others think of it (I'll concede some may be bought by poseurs, but I doubt most poseurs have that kind of money).
But let's analyze for a moment. Considering that the H2 offers little, if anything, beyond the Tahoe, other than phony plastic paramilitary decorations, what reason would there be to like it over the Tahoe, apart from its silly paramilitary decorations? Yes, I respect anyone's right to burn their cash on such a vehicle, but that doesn't mean that they can't be called out on their choice.

Originally Posted By: Win
Putting lipstick on a pig to make some extra money off it is hardly unique to old GM - Ford tarts up their cars and calls them Lincolns, Toyota does it with Camry's and calls them a Lexus, VW does it and calls it an Audi, and I'm sure there are others. It seems like it is a good business practice while it lasts.
Of course they do. But in these instances of tarting up, the maker offers unvarnished (well, maybe heavily varnished...) extra cushy luxury. Luxury, paradoxically perhaps, is just luxury. You pay more for more comfort and pampering. Everyone can see and understand that. The Hummer variety of tarting up is more sinister. In the Hx vehicles, you find totally phony military styling cues designed to make the vehicle look like something it totally is NOT. Big difference in my eyes.



Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Now, as for that pink thing -- ......


I have my limits, I'm going to let someone else try to defend that thing, or spelling "customs" with a "Z".
I'm right with you on this one. I wonder whether that H1 felt any pain when they applied the pink paint????

Originally Posted By: Win
edit: Isn't there a Lexus that is just a tarted up Land Cruiser?
Yes, indeed. the LX series Lexus is actually very similar to the LC except for a bunch of superficial details, and the Lexus has a softer suspension (a good clue...).

 

[moving2]

Still not sure about larger vs. smaller vehicle safety?

Let's see what else the IIHS has to say about crash compatibility between larger and smaller vehicles:

1. "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
lol at thinking a vehicle that [...] is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.


Audi Junkie- based on your "lol" above, I take it you disagree with the senior VP of vehicle research for IIHS as to what you can conclude from crash test ratings across different vehicle classes? Hmm...I think I'll stick with Zuby's take.

2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."

From the IIHS summary:

3. "These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models."

4. "Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants."

5. "Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle."

6. "Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection."

7. "Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes."

8. "Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place."

...you listening here, Audi Junkie?

"...Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones."

Please note again that the IIHS didn't even choose large cars, (much less SUVs, which have a lower overall fatality rate than cars), for a specific reason:

10. "It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes..."

 

[moving2]

Ah, it seems I left out #9:

9. LOL.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk


why would any rational person choose to pay $15k more for an odd assortment of function-free, pretentious decorations???? Certainly, I cherish the fact that we live in a country where, if I want to, I can burn $15k in cash in my front yard if I want to -- but why?


I'm guessing the owners perceive a value and utility that most other persons do not perceive with the vehicle. I just don't know that much about them other than I thought that the H3 was a nice truck. I'm not really in favor of burning $15K that I don't have to, that's still real money around here, but it's not my $15K and it may not be a big deal to someone else.

These things may also qualify for that instant depreciation deduction - that may make that $15K look less onerous if you're a small business person.

Originally Posted By: ekpolk

But let's analyze for a moment. Considering that the H2 offers little, if anything, beyond the Tahoe, other than phony plastic paramilitary decorations, what reason would there be to like it over the Tahoe, apart from its silly paramilitary decorations? Yes, I respect anyone's right to burn their cash on such a vehicle, but thatdoesn't mean that they can't be called out on their choice.


I'm not really familiar with the H2 or the Tahoe so I took a look at Wikipedia ( not the best source, I know, but it's about as much interest as I can muster for this ) and it does appear that there are mechanical differences between the H2 and the other light trucks, particularly subsequent to 2007 MY. H3 was less clear, but the one I was in was definitely a well appointed, nice truck. The large fender flares suggest to me that it has a greater mud, snow, water crossing utility than it's siblings. That may or may not be important.

By all means, grief people over their choice of this vehicle, that's a lot of the fun of car boards. I just don't think they're gonna care is all I'm saying.

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Luxury, paradoxically perhaps, is just luxury. You pay more for more comfort and pampering. Everyone can see and understand that. The Hummer variety of tarting up is more sinister. In the Hx vehicles, you find totally phony military styling cues designed to make the vehicle look like something it totally is NOT. Big difference in my eyes.



The H3 I was in would definitely qualify as a luxury SUV.

Other than the obvious knock off of the grill and name they don't look much at all like the military vehicles to me - I don't really think military when I see them.

 

[moving2]

And if I need to further beat a dead horse:

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

lol at thinking a vehicle that [...] is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.


"The safest"? Compared to what? And who said that? Nice job on the straw man, Audi Junkie, but I'm afraid that's not at all what I said. Try reading my post again and see if you can spot your error. I'll even make it easy for you- I've added/modified bold and italics (to an extreme) for emphasis.

Originally Posted By: moving2

Take-away: The H3 used as an example here may still be safer than most cars when it comes to overall death rate in all tested types of crashes. The text and video above neither prove nor disprove this.


See it now?

And so I ask again: Audi Junkie- can you argue any of your points regarding the relative crash safety of any Hummer vs. a car using actual crash/fatality rate data, or only with more of your guesses and incorrect assumptions?

 

[Audi Junkie]

So, crashing two vehicles into an object at the same speed is an unfair comparison?

I guess you got me.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, crashing two vehicles into an object at the same speed is an unfair comparison?

I guess you got me.


LOL. The funny thing is, I did get you- very badly and repeatedly, but you seem unable to comprehend why. It's obvious you've ignored the contents of my post yet again, and now you're sleepin' on the job, too?

I mean seriously, did you even READ this?

Originally Posted By: moving2
IIHS explains "The barrier's deformable face is made of aluminum honeycomb, which makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight,


Does cutting a quote up make it easier for you to understand, or are you simply not reading any of this? Note the crash is meant to simulate a multi-vehicle crash between vehicles of the same weight...IIHS has said you cannot compare results between vehicle classes and they've explained why:

Originally Posted By: moving2
"...each going just less than 40 mph. Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."


So please explain what you don't understand. IIHS has explained it to you, I've explained it to you, and the fact still remains:

Originally Posted By: moving2

b) Because crash test ratings cannot be compared across vehicle weight classes, nothing you have posted so far speaks to the relative safety of a Hummer vs. a car. This is supported by IIHS' own statements above. Do you not agree with the IIHS' own statements regarding their crash tests? Can you argue any of your points regarding the relative crash safety of any Hummer vs. a car using actual crash/fatality rate data, or only with more of your guesses and incorrect assumptions?


And since you're apparently too lazy to read any of this, much less the points in my previous posts, I'll simply rest my case until you:

1. read the IIHS's own description of their tests and why they cannot be compared across vehicle classes and explain what in the world is so confusing to you

2. Actually read and try responding to the many points I've made in prior posts, all of which you've conveniently ignored, feigning disinterest, while your continued presence in this thread would indicate otherwise.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, crashing two vehicles into an object at the same speed is an unfair comparison?

I guess you got me.


Audi Junkie- I guess you missed this from my other post, along with COUNTLESS other points, as well:

Originally Posted By: moving2

1. "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."


Audi Junkie- so you disagree with the senior VP of vehicle research for IIHS on this because of...what again?

Seriously, please try reading the posts to which you're responding before posting next time. Otherwise, I can get by from here by simply quoting old posts of mine over and over again, and that's just boring.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, crashing two vehicles into an object at the same speed is an unfair comparison?

I guess you got me.


Come on man, start quoting Wikipedia! You know that always helps when you are in one of these situations!