there was some TV magagine story on the roll over hazards of SUVs. they
pointed out that this was not new news, in fact these tests had been
conducted for many years.
so in this older test film , they have the voice over announcer saying "a
car with good handling easily maneuvers this corner at 30 mph" and they show
a CHEVETTE as the example. (then the jeep comes around and flips on its
side)
now ive rolled only one car, a CHEVETTE. yeah yeah i was 16 and all that 60
hp went to my head. :P
the pathfinder shown here seems pretty stable though, despite snaking
through that slalom in exciting fashion: http://www.qatar4ever.com
-james c
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hamburgen 650-617-3329 FAX -3374 <billh@pa.dec.com>
To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Cc: <billh@pa.dec.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: government vehicle stability standards
> Back in October, I wandered into - some would say started - a low-grade
> flame war on vehicle stability. Specifically, I argued that a simple
> measurement of vehicle height and track would be a good way of estimating
> if a car/van/SUV would be likely roll over during an autocross.
>
> Last week NHTSA released their take on the problem. See:
> Why Choose Static Stability Factor (SSF)?
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/Rollover/Chapt05.html
> Rollover Resistance Ratings Information
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/Index.html#chart
>
> There is lots of really good info here, and much of it makes intuitive
> sense without getting too deep into the math and physics. The biggest
> lessons I picked were:
> - Static Stability Factor (SSF), or the ratio of track and CG height,
> is a pretty darn good predictor of rollover likelihood.
> - A simple measure of vehicle height and track is probably not good
> enough to be of much use because of uncertainty of the CG height.
> Apparently there has been a lot of work done over the last few years
> on quick tests using accelerometers measure CG location.
>
>
> /Bill
|