Opinion: The Family Sedan is now on the Endangered Species List

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

It is baffling, even today, that folks don't understand the simple physics when it comes to SUVs and CUVs and why they are more at risk to rollovers amid emergency maneuvers. I can't believe it even has to be explained on a car enthusiast site.

Well, confirmation bias maybe at play here.  Plenty of false narrative publications of why CUVs and SUVs are safer than sedans are abundant. 

And the sweeping the white elephant under the rug thing as well. Many have adopted CUVs, so to ignore the obvious and downplay the obvious as to feel better about one's purchase is what is mainly happening here...

9 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Well, confirmation bias maybe at play here.

Along with a side of just basic ignorance.

Is there anybody here who DOESN'T think they're more susceptible to rollovers? If there actually is, they need to go back and take some high school classes because it's pretty simple stuff. 

12 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Plenty of false narrative publications of why CUVs and SUVs are safer than sedans are abundant. 

Something can still be safer all while being more susceptible to rolling over. Rolling over doesn't mean immediate hospitalization or death. 

13 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

And the sweeping the white elephant under the rug thing as well. Many have adopted CUVs, so to ignore the obvious and downplay the obvious as to feel better about one's purchase is what is mainly happening here...

Oh no, I understand the higher risk of rollover, but it's a negligible amount. Just because something is a higher percentage, doesn't mean it's actually a high percentage. 

0.5% chance vs 0.75% chance is 50% higher risk, but it's still extremely low. (random numbers as I do not know actual statistics on percentage of rollover accidents) 

So basically you are going to ignore simple physics and just make up numbers @ccap41? That sounds like a perfectly logical thing to do.

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Something can still be safer all while being more susceptible to rolling over. Rolling over doesn't mean immediate hospitalization or death. 

Oh no, I understand the higher risk of rollover, but it's a negligible amount. Just because something is a higher percentage, doesn't mean it's actually a high percentage. 

0.5% chance vs 0.75% chance is 50% higher risk, but it's still extremely low. (random numbers as I do not know actual statistics on percentage of rollover accidents) 

Wrong on both accounts, bud...

22 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Well, confirmation bias maybe at play here.  Plenty of false narrative publications of why CUVs and SUVs are safer than sedans are abundant. 

And the sweeping the white elephant under the rug thing as well. Many have adopted CUVs, so to ignore the obvious and downplay the obvious as to feel better about one's purchase is what is mainly happening here...

13 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Along with a side of just basic ignorance.

My statement, and Surreals, has just been confirmed to be...true! 

Maybe you should be going back to high school...

12 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Is there anybody here who DOESN'T think they're more susceptible to rollovers? If there actually is, they need to go back and take some high school classes because it's pretty simple stuff. 

17 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Is there anybody here who DOESN'T think they're more susceptible to rollovers? If there actually is, they need to go back and take some high school classes because it's pretty simple stuff. 

Well you are right here questioning the validity by throwing out made up numbers (by your own admission) so there’s that. 
 

Let's start here. 
https://www.hotcars.com/modern-pickups-and-suvs-you-didnt-know-were-rollover-hazards/amp/

@ccap41

Its physics, buddy.

Good 'ole physics. 

I even posted pictures for you to look at... 

Its OK.   You do you. 

I dont really care. 

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

@ccap41

Its physics, buddy.

Good 'ole physics. 

I even posted pictures for you to look at... 

Its OK.   You do you. 

I dont really care. 

Yes, I know it's physics. Yes, I know there is a higher percentage of rolling over in everything that has a higher center of gravity. 

I'm just saying, something CAN be safer than something with a lower center of gravity because you're equating safety to center of gravity as if rolling over is the ONLY measure of safety. 

I've also mentioned that I never purchased a CUV for safety. Not once. 

There are so many different factors that make an SUV a rollover risk, it is impossible to pin it to just one thing.

It can be a factor of height, but that can be mitigated by low mounted weight as in EVs.  That can make something like the Rivian R1S a much lower rollover risk than a similarly sized Jeep Grand Cherokee L.

It can be a factor of suspension... something mushy with air shocks like a G-Class with Airmatic can be more prone to tipping than an Escalade with Magnaride (because the magnaride can stiffen the suspension in an instant)

It can be a factor of wheelbase... an Encore will be more tippy than a CR-V.

It can be a factor of wheel track... an Encore will be more tippy than a wide-body Durango.

It really can be so many different things.

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I'm just saying, something CAN be safer than something with a lower center of gravity because you're equating safety to center of gravity as if rolling over is the ONLY measure of safety. 

Semantics...

I aint talking about head on collisions with a 5000 pound Escalade ESV  with a 1970s Honda CVCC here. 

If you want waste your day arguing about shyte like that, have at it. Find some other loaf to do that with you tho. I aint got time for dat.

My stance has NEVER wavered from the get go from what I want to say. I said it and will say it again.  

CUVs and SUVs have a high center of gravity. They have a higher chance of a roll over making them NOT safer than their equivalent sedan counterparts.  MANY technological advancements have been made to mitigate this. But, whatever electronic techno wizardry have been installed to CUVs have also been installed in sedans too making THAT technological advnacement for CUVs a moot point.

Physics comes into play regardless at some point.  

Have a nice morning CCAP.

Yes, exactly. 

The same goes with overall safety of a vehicle. Just because something is of a higher risk of rolling over doesn't mean it is necessarily of a higher risk of keeping the passengers safe. Yes, rolling over isn't a good thing but neither is taking a impact straight on. There are just so many variables in crashes. 

(this was a reply to Drew)

1 minute ago, oldshurst442 said:

Have a nice morning CCAP.

You as well, Olds. 

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There are so many different factors that make an SUV a rollover risk, it is impossible to pin it to just one thing.

It can be a factor of height, but that can be mitigated by low mounted weight as in EVs.  That can make something like the Rivian R1S a much lower rollover risk than a similarly sized Jeep Grand Cherokee L.

It can be a factor of suspension... something mushy with air shocks like a G-Class with Airmatic can be more prone to tipping than an Escalade with Magnaride (because the magnaride can stiffen the suspension in an instant)

It can be a factor of wheelbase... an Encore will be more tippy than a CR-V.

It can be a factor of wheel track... an Encore will be more tippy than a wide-body Durango.

It really can be so many different things.

Which I have stated MANY times.

Point is...

When ALL things are equal, with EQUAL CUVs and equivalent sedans,  the CUV will have a HIGHER chance of a roll over. 

Why?

Physics.

CUVs are taller. 

I said it plenty times.

No matter how you wanna dissect it. Its PHYSICS...

A higher center of gravity vehicle will have a higher risk of a roll over than a lower gravity one.  Its physics.

And by the GIFS I posted, by the looks of it, CUVs, it doesnt take much to roll them over no matter what electronic gizmos have been implemented  to mitigate roll overs. Why?

Physics takes over...time and time again. Physics will ALWAYS take over. 

Argue until the cows come home. Physics will always win an argument like this. 

I do not have time to continue with this charade.  

Good morning folk. See ya'll in the late afternoon. 

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Just because something is of a higher risk of rolling over doesn't mean it is necessarily of a higher risk of keeping the passengers safe

This is false narrative.

The vehicle is on its roof. Passengers move violently inside. Airbags and stuff. Sure.  

Passengers still move violently inside the compartment. Not only are the forces back and forth and side to side. Now the forces are up and down and the roof collapsing rather than just the doors and rear and front. 

Again...physics...

27 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Just because something is of a higher risk of rolling over doesn't mean it is necessarily of a higher risk of keeping the passengers safe.

Actually that is exactly what it means and there is a mountain of data to support it if you cared to research the matter. 
 

And downvote the facts all you want. At least I didn’t throw in some made up numbers to support my narrative. 
 

FFS

23 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

This is false narrative.

The vehicle is on its roof. Passengers move violently inside. Airbags and stuff. Sure.  

Passengers still move violently inside the compartment. Not only are the forces back and forth and side to side. Now the forces are up and down and the roof collapsing rather than just the doors and rear and front. 

Again...physics...

Have proof of this? Because I've seen, and I'm sure you have as well, videos of the small overlap crash test destroying legs.

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Actually that is exactly what it means and there is a mountain of data to support it if you cared to research the matter. 

Nah, you can do it if you'd like. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And downvote the facts all you want. At least I didn’t throw in some made up numbers to support my narrative.

It was a numerical example. You know what an example is, correct? It was an example of a very high percentage increase but of a very low number. Politicians (and more anybody trying to convince people) love to use things like this to skew statistics in their favor.

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It was a numerical example. You know what an example is, correct? I

Just stop it. It’s called “just making up $h!” because you couldn’t be bothered to take a few minutes to research the matter directly while spending the last two hours just making excuses and making up numbers for the sheer hell of it. You know what “making up numbers out of thin air is” right. Of course you do. 

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Nah, you can do it if you'd like.

So instead of being a little more educated on the matter, you choose ignorance. Again, sounds perfectly logical for you. 

Do go on and show me the education that you have on the topic, because you've shown so much thus far. 

Yet again, I've never disputed the fact SUVs have a higher risk of rolling over. 

I’m just going to leave this right here since some folks can’t be bothered to cite a damn thing to support their made up numbers. Of course, they also think that wheelbase length doesn’t factor into it so there’s that lol. 

Source: https://m.driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/

And what have YOU provided thus far @ccap41? Not a damn thing from what I can tell so how about holding yourself to the same standards that you expect of others? 

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yet again, I've never disputed the fact SUVs have a higher risk of rolling over. 

No. You just said it was a negligible difference, which is also wrong. 

30 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

No. You just said it was a negligible difference, which is also wrong. 

I just hope neither of us roll our SUVs! 

48 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I just hope neither of us roll our SUVs! 

I’m not worried about mine. It’s more like a glorified station wagon anyway (sits lower and has less ground clearance than most CUVs and any SUV). It more or less like my old Magnum, but a few inches taller. 

Well, it's taller, 65" vs 68", than an Escape/MKC.

I'm also not worried about mine but I've been told I should be. 

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well, it's taller, 65" vs 68", than an Escape/MKC.

I'm also not worried about mine but I've been told I should be. 

The Escape has almost two inches more ground clearance than the Flex though (7.8 vs 5.9) which is more of a rollover worry and than height alone. Gives more clearance to tip it over if a sedan noses under it from any side of the vehicle. Your Escape is also a lot shorter than my Flex, making the longer wheelbase a plus here. Again, it’s just physics. 
 

For the record, my old Magnum had 5.6” of ground clearance, hence the Flex riding much like it, save for the extra weight of the Flex. A

Well, they both have the same rollover rating per the NHTSA, 4/5 stars.

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well, they both have the same rollover rating per the NHTSA, 4/5 stars.

Good grief man. A higher rollover rating does mean it is less likely to rollover. However, that is only one indicator there. Things like weight, ground clearance, wheelbase length, and width, all factor. If a sedan read ends your Escape, it is more likely to lift it up and over, than the Flex, just because of the ground clearance difference alone. The shorter length and lighter weight of the Escape will also factor there. Once again, physics. Big difference there that you are clearly missing so whatever other excuses you want to make for not being informed here on this thread, knock yourself out. I’m done. 
 

(and yes, I changed my original post because I had a huge brain fart lol. Sue me). 

You're not done. You're never done. 

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

However, that is only one indicator there. Things like weight, ground clearance, wheelbase length, and width, all factor.

Yes, and yours is still rated the same as mine, higher than most cars. 

Given how trends come and go, there is an outside shot of sedans making some sort of comeback when EVs become standard fair. Fickle trends can be just that, fickle. As it is people, rationally or irrationally so, are just stuck on CUVs. Like vans and station wagons past though, that could always change over the next decade. 

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

You're not done. You're never done. 

Irony is telling someone they are never done while trolling certain users here over whether or not they fit in a car over the last two years. 

18 hours ago, ccap41 said:

You're not done. You're never done. 

I wasn't wrong. 

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I wasn't wrong. 

Actually you were and still are because I am done with the ROLLOVER discussion with you, hence why nothing else has been said about it genius. Did that part somehow escape you while you’re so busy trolling?
 

By all means though, continue to hold folks to a standard that you can’t do yourself. 

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I wasn't wrong. 

ccap, you're right again! 

31 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

ccap, you're right again! 

Jesus H dude. You have a serious reading comprehension and context issue while just acting like a general immature dickbag. Let it go and find something more productive to do with your life. 

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

ccap, you're right again! 

Dear Myself,

You have a serious issue...with being correct

Sincerely,

Myself

31 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Dear Myself,

You have a serious issue...with being correct

Sincerely,

Myself

Someday you will stop referring to yourself in the 3rd person, grow up, and post like an actual adult who actually reads what someone says instead of what he is inferring from said words. Until then, save the constant need for internet validation for your grade school class. 
 

Sincerely,

Everyone else who doesn’t post like a 13 year old

Well, in all fairness, I accurately called it.

And you can accurately let it go too.

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well, in all fairness, I accurately called it.

 

No matter how many times you say it, you didn’t. Just because you can’t understand the context of what was actually said or are selectively ignoring it in order to keep trolling,  doesn’t change that fact. Grow up. 

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

And you can accurately let it go too.

True, but, I never said "I'm done." 

Also, I was only talking to myself. 

...And get called a dickhead for talking to myself...

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

True, but, I never said "I'm done." 

Also, I was only talking to myself. 

...And get called a dickhead for talking to myself...

See? You misread what I said again. I said “dickbag”. Again, grow up. 
 

And talking to yourself online is a bit like talking to yourself in front of a bunch of strangers in the real world. Seek help for that condition of yours that has you speaking in the third person and talking to yourself. The nice folks, in the white jackets, from Bellevue will be speaking with you shortly. 

15 hours ago, ccap41 said:

True, but, I never said "I'm done." 

Also, I was only talking to myself. 

...And get called a dickhead for talking to myself...

You may have called it, but you need to pay closer attention to the details, cap. 

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

You may have called it, but you need to pay closer attention to the details, cap. 

"HI. My name is ccap and I like to speak in the 3rd person, don't pay attention to context when someone says he is done with discussing the subject at hand, and am totally inept at basic reading comprehension because I think I am being clever when I am really just acting like an immature DICKBAG while seeking validation from internet strangers. Now, if you will excuse me, those nice men in the white coats are coming to fit me for a extra small jacket of some sort. Toodles!"

The lesson here is don't get salty with me because you failed at basic reading and keep thinking you had some kind of "gotcha" moment. That's what immature 13 year olds do but maybe I am expecting too much from the new C&G troll.

On 6/1/2022 at 12:46 PM, surreal1272 said:

I’m done.

19 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Thanks for proving my point about your status as the new resident troll who has a clear reading comprehension issue.  

And I quote (the WHOLE sentence, for CONTEXT),

"Big difference there that you are clearly missing so whatever other excuses you want to make for not being informed here on this thread, knock yourself out. I’m done."

Which was then followed by this (regarding the ACTUAL subject of the thread),

"Given how trends come and go, there is an outside shot of sedans making some sort of comeback when EVs become standard fair. Fickle trends can be just that, fickle. As it is people, rationally or irrationally so, are just stuck on CUVs. Like vans and station wagons past though, that could always change over the next decade."

Now notice, not a remark or reply to you until you felt compelled to interject with your "whimsical" brand of basic ignorance.

To sum up, I AM DONE discussing the subject in bold with you. Anything else is fair game so stop acting like you have a "gotcha" moment when all you have is a total lack of reading comprehension moment(s).

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Big difference there that you are clearly missing so whatever other excuses you want to make for not being informed here on this thread, knock yourself out. I’m done.

Folks who talk about themselves in the 3rd person.

SEdan

SEville

SExy ... well, sort of

Not having sedans around is going to make us crave for them even more.

And, at this juncture, on this 3rd of June, I'm craving that free donut.

Japanese folks are converting old classic cars to electric. Nissan Cedric.

Love how they used the old Gas fueling port for the charge port.

4 hours ago, David said:

This sled (^) looks sort of Communist!

As done this one, near the big Orthodox cathedral in the center of Sofia, Bulgaria.