Go Back   Team-BHP > Under the Hood > Technical Stuff


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd August 2006, 21:18   #31
Senior - BHPian
 
The Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,116
Thanked: 58 Times
Default

Seems like RAM is arguing and standing by something that he hasnt perceived right! Dude, first try and understand taht track to height is NOT the only contributor to good handling, it might just about be 40%-50% responsible...having said that we still have 60%-50% for other things like suspension, kerb weight distribution etc...
The Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 22:52   #32
Team-BHP Support
 
Rtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bombay
Posts: 5,769
Thanked: 212 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram
Then why are these so-called "trucks" licensed for use as private cars with private car driving licenses?
I didn't make the law Ram. But, if you want me to guess, its because the multi-billion dollar car companies have enough clout to prevent any change in the definition of a truck to happen. If that ever did happen, the SUV's would have to meet stricter emmissions norms, crash tests, fuel consumption requirements (to prevent the guzzler tax) etc etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram
Exactly Where did I say, "all these tall boy's should be taken off the streets"?

All I said is, "We don't have any regulatory body with the backbone to test all our Far East tall boys and outlaw the sale of those that fail.
Your post made it seem that that's what you were trying to imply.

What test do you want the regulatory body here to conduct? And if they do outlaw the cars that would fail (most of the tall boys as per your assumption), would you pay an extra 2 to 3 lakhs or whatever amount it may be in order for the companies to incorporate the stability gizmo's like Mercedes did with their A class. Would you buy a Santro for 6 or 7 lakhs? Would the Maruti 800, yes the same one you have been driving for years up and down the expressway, be allowed to be sold in our market in this day and age? I wonder what the NCAP ratings for a side impact test on the M800 would be! Why doesn't our Govt. make airbags mandatory? The number of head-on collisions far outnumber roll-over incidents I'm sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram
Why should our stds be any less stringent than the Germans, the Swedes, the Finns or the French? Why should India compromise and be short-changed?
Why do you say we are being short changed? The Santro, Wagon R, Swift and Getz are all sold in France and Germany. Same body shape. And we all know the speeds they average there would be far far greater than anything here, so if these cars were rolling deathtraps, don't you think it would have surfaced by now?

We are not being short changed by manufacturers putting these cars on sale in India. Where we are being jiffed, is the equipment levels. Like I said, where are our airbags and ABS in these cars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram
Rtech: I am politely curious to understand why you would not agree with my list 100% ?
I think this post of mine sums up why I do not agree with your list. Also, real life experience tells me the Lancer is way more stable than any Ikon I have ever driven!

Your theory is spot on, however real life changes the outcome.
Rtech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 23:27   #33
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Mpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 10,432
Thanked: 1,682 Times
Default

In Ram's defence, he's not totally off-track. Just that CG height should have been used instead of vehicle height. Like I said, NHTSA here has a similar metric called SSF that they have been using to rate vehicles.

Only problem is that C.G height is not something that a company will disclose to you.

Read on

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pages/TOC.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram
Then suspension-type has an impact on stability,
however this impact is small compared to that of the stance of the car:
its aspect-ratio of height to width!
Suspension is the only savior for high CG vehicles like trucks and double decker buses. No wonder they ride so stiff.
Mpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 23:53   #34
Senior - BHPian
 
Shan2nu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hubli - Karnata
Posts: 5,525
Thanked: 87 Times
Default

Quote:
In Ram's defence, he's not totally off-track.
Nobody says he's completely wrong but you can't say for sure whether a car will handle or not, just by looking at it's track to height ratio. Other factors are too important to be ignored.

Shan2nu
Shan2nu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 09:56   #35
Ram
Senior - BHPian
 
Ram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore, Mumbai, Nagpur
Posts: 2,165
Thanked: 144 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rtech
...it's because the multi-billion dollar car companies have enough clout to prevent any change in the definition of a truck to happen. If that ever did happen, the SUV's would have to meet stricter emissions norms, crash tests, fuel consumption requirements (to prevent the guzzler tax) etc etc.
This US sport-truck affinity is conspicuous by its virtual absence in Europe.
Much fewer SUVs are found per sq.km in Germany than in the USA.
Maybe German emission and safety laws won't bend to commercial interests as much as US law will. Of course German companies do make SUVs for export markets.

When I lived in Europe, I had European friends express their impression, that SUVs and trucks were only for commercial registration and lacked enough image for people who dreamed of powerful sports sedans and coupes.

I had driven SUVs in the USA in the entire decade of the 1980s. (pre-Internet era) The Isuzu MU was new back then. When I visited India in 1988, I bought an MM540DP 4x4 and modded it with California Jeeping trappings until I got out of it in 1995.

However in Europe there weren't even SUvs for rental, unlike the US.
Wonder if Europe has gotten jeans-n-tshirt-ized now!
Ram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:36   #36
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,955
Thanked: 15,648 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram
This US sport-truck affinity is conspicuous by its virtual absence in Europe.
Much fewer SUVs are found per sq.km in Germany than in the USA.
Maybe German emission and safety laws won't bend to commercial interests as much as US law will. Of course German companies do make SUVs for export markets.

When I lived in Europe, I had European friends express their impression, that SUVs and trucks were only for commercial registration and lacked enough image for people who dreamed of powerful sports sedans and coupes.

I had driven SUVs in the USA in the entire decade of the 1980s. (pre-Internet era) The Isuzu MU was new back then. When I visited India in 1988, I bought an MM540DP 4x4 and modded it with California Jeeping trappings until I got out of it in 1995.

However in Europe there weren't even SUvs for rental, unlike the US.
Wonder if Europe has gotten jeans-n-tshirt-ized now!
Actually a very important factor is price of gas. In Europe the taxes on gas are very high(more than India) therefore FE cars, esp diesels are picking up very much. SuVs are gas guzzlers most of the times, so if you have cheap fuel it wont hurt you much. Moreover America has this concept of Big is better(which is slowly changing). Europe never had that. In Europe sleek and sexy is always appreciated over a oversized buffonish car like the Hummer.

Last edited by tsk1979 : 3rd August 2006 at 11:00.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:54   #37
rks
BANNED
 
rks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ??
Posts: 1,237
Thanked: 8 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mpower
In Ram's defence, he's not totally off-track. Just that CG height should have been used instead of vehicle height. Like I said, NHTSA here has a similar metric called SSF that they have been using to rate vehicles.

Only problem is that C.G height is not something that a company will disclose to you.

Read on

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pages/TOC.html
[...]
This is a vital difference. E.g. if the ground clearance is higher, as is required in Indian road conditions, it is obvious that C.G height would also increase, without any change in the metric suggested by Ram. In fact I would guess that one of the important reasons for Indian vehicles not meeting European standards in rollover stability is the high ground clearance required in India.
rks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 11:12   #38
BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 27
Thanked: 3 Times
Default Look at foot print to height and not just the width

To my mind, concept of stability from the design angle would be more to do with Foot print ( l x B ) and compare it with height. To cite an example, Volvo buses are very stable but you get a ratio of width to height it may not reveal waht you are looking at.

There are other dimensions as well. That is, Higher ground clearance is not good for stability. Weight is good ( You must have seen Night busses loaded with luggage at top will have the load directed downwards.) Drivers say hat the bus sits on the Ground with certain degree of firmness

I think these aspects have to be viewed in entirity instead of isolation.
sukheshkumar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 11:50   #39
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,955
Thanked: 15,648 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sukheshkumar
To my mind, concept of stability from the design angle would be more to do with Foot print ( l x B ) and compare it with height. To cite an example, Volvo buses are very stable but you get a ratio of width to height it may not reveal waht you are looking at.

There are other dimensions as well. That is, Higher ground clearance is not good for stability. Weight is good ( You must have seen Night busses loaded with luggage at top will have the load directed downwards.) Drivers say hat the bus sits on the Ground with certain degree of firmness

I think these aspects have to be viewed in entirity instead of isolation.
the only thing you would need to look in the height/width criteria is the "Center Of Gravity". So if you have two buses one with loading at top, and other with no loading at top, the no loading one will have lower CG and therefore will be less susceptible to overturning.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Issue with Seatbelt Height (non-adjustable) Rocky_Balboa Modifications & Accessories 24 31st May 2014 19:43
Does Unicorn have an inherent problem of stability? saleem_k Motorbikes 19 14th May 2009 11:41
Stability of Esteem under Panic Braking Pani Technical Stuff 18 18th December 2007 19:45
Electronic stability programme works? androdev Technical Stuff 2 16th July 2007 11:37
High speed stability of NHC Floyd de Souza The Indian Car Scene 23 13th January 2006 11:36


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 10:07.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks