Winter Driving 2005

"N8N" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> So Chris, explain to me why snow chains and spiked tires are illegal
> in
>> half the states already? Alaska State Troopers will fine you if you
>> are seen with glittering tires.
>
> Probably because they tear up the roads when not required, and they
> can't easily be dismounted like chains. That doesn't mean that they
> don't work.

Here in Oregon, aluminum studs are used instead of steel. They wear out
faster, but they don't rip up the roads nearly as bad.

The
> problem is, really, that most drivers of 4WD don't understand how their
> vehicles work and think that 4WD gives them some magical powers over
> the laws of physics. Newsflash - *all* that 4WD does is give you the
> ability to accelerate quicker and a little more dynamic stability.

One of the most pitiful and hilarious sites I see each winter is news
footage of a Jeep Wrangler stuck in a drift in the mountain. If ever there
was a vehicle that could handle driving in snow more efficiently...yet these
people just don't know how to handle any kind of vehicle in the snow.
Meanwhile, a guy in a 1972 Plymouth Fury station wagon, with no traction
devices, will pull up and ask if the stuck driver needs help...

It astounds me that so many otherwise-capable people are caught unawares
each winter by the snow, like they didn't see it coming.

>
> What new vehicle is full time 4WD?
>

AWD is what it's called. Sure Subaru is #1 offering all of their
vehicles with AWD.

There are minivans and various other vehicles on the North American
auto mart today that offer AWD and many different versions of 4WD. The
most infamous is the "real time 4" that is primaraly a FWD that has
it's rear wheels engange only when needed. Such a car would only
engage it's rear wheels maybe once a year. LOL Can we say a waste of
time and money to offer such a feature?

But Nate, what is this UP that you worked at in Michigan?

4X4 is totally unecessary. It is only needed for off road conditions.
And only then it would only be helpfull if the truck had a raised off
road suspension with very big mud tires. LOL now that's a 4X4!!! And
not the type that Chris drives. He drives a "make believe" "wannabe"
4X4. Poor Chris has bought into all the hype. Can we say pretense
pretense pretense?
I love you guys.....(except for Judy the crossdresser).

>
> What new vehicle is full time 4WD?
>

AWD is what it's called. Sure Subaru is #1 offering all of their
vehicles with AWD.

There are minivans and various other vehicles on the North American
auto mart today that offer AWD and many different versions of 4WD. The
most infamous is the "real time 4" that is primaraly a FWD that has
it's rear wheels engange only when needed. Such a car would only
engage it's rear wheels maybe once a year. LOL Can we say a waste of
time and money to offer such a feature?

But Nate, what is this UP that you worked at in Michigan?

4X4 is totally unecessary. It is only needed for off road conditions.
And only then it would only be helpfull if the truck had a raised off
road suspension with very big mud tires. LOL now that's a 4X4!!! And
not the type that Chris drives. He drives a "make believe" "wannabe"
4X4. Poor Chris has bought into all the hype. Can we say pretense
pretense pretense?
I love you guys.....(except for Judy the crossdresser).

Around 1/4/2005 6:05 PM, wrote:

> N8N wrote:
>
>>What new vehicle is full time 4WD?
>>
>
>
> AWD is what it's called.


Nate asked about 4WD, not AWD. There is a large difference between the two.

I can think of several new vehicles available with full-time 4WD off the
top of my head, and most of them are pickups.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 1/4/2005 6:05 PM, wrote:

> N8N wrote:
>
>>What new vehicle is full time 4WD?
>>
>
>
> AWD is what it's called.


Nate asked about 4WD, not AWD. There is a large difference between the two.

I can think of several new vehicles available with full-time 4WD off the
top of my head, and most of them are pickups.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

> If that one time saves your life or even just saves you from getting
stuck
> 20 miles from the next town it would be worth it.

For the life of the car, no. That special feature costs thousands
extra. Not at all worth it.

> > 4X4 is totally unecessary. It is only needed for off road
conditions.
>
> Well, I do drive off-road sometimes. In places where your sedan would
get
> stuck after 20 feet. I also occasionally see conditions on the road,
where
> sedans like yours got stuck on the road itself, because their limited
> ground clearance and lack of locking differentials do not provide
enough
> traction.
>

AWD will put power to the wheels that have grip via computer. Stop
talking your part time 4 up the latter for once.

> > And only then it would only be helpfull if the truck had a raised
off
> > road suspension with very big mud tires.
>
> Very big mud tires are not necessary in a most of off-road driving.
As
> their name says they are good in mud, which is very rare where I go
> offroading. The reason why people buy them is to impress clueless
little
> critters like you.
>

Only because you can't afford it Chris.

> > LOL now that's a 4X4!!! And not the type that Chris drives.
> > He drives a "make believe" "wannabe" 4X4.
>
> ROTFL, you really think that these jacked and mudtired wannabe 4x4s
are
> 'real 4x4s' (whatever that may be). A 4x4 is a car or truck that has
4
> wheel drive with at least a locking central differential (whereas the
AWD
> cars usually don't have this feature). Mine even has a 4LO mode,
where the
> gear ratio is lowered drastically, which makes it possible to drive
very
> slowly in difficult terrain and still having the engine in the
powerband.
>
> Newsflash: Most of these jacked big-tire wannabe 4x4s are worse
off-road
> than their stock brethren, partly because the higher center of
gravity,
> partly because a lot of the lift kits in the market are made to look
good
> for clueproof clowns like you, not for actually being taken off-road.
>
> There are a few lift kits that are worth their (usually considerable)
> pricetag, but they are not the ones normally seen on the '4x4s' you
so
> admire.
>

There you go again Chris trying to make yourself feel better about your
poorly informed purchasing decision. Give up will you before you make
yourself look worse in front of everyone.


> > Poor Chris has bought into all the hype.
>
> As my vehicle does perform very well for the off- and on-road
conditions I
> use it for I apparently chose the right one for my purposes. And it
was a
> lot cheaper than your little sedan too.
>
> > Can we say pretense pretense pretense?
>
> No, but we can safely say, that you are clueless, clueless,
clueproof.
>


Your vehicle was a waste of money. If the Interstate is impassible
with a car set up just like mine than the Interstate is shut down
anyway and nobody can pass. Not even the one with the $100,000+ H1
Hummer.

Chris, you just shot yourself in the leg. Bringing a pocket knife to a
gunfight...

> If that one time saves your life or even just saves you from getting
stuck
> 20 miles from the next town it would be worth it.

For the life of the car, no. That special feature costs thousands
extra. Not at all worth it.

> > 4X4 is totally unecessary. It is only needed for off road
conditions.
>
> Well, I do drive off-road sometimes. In places where your sedan would
get
> stuck after 20 feet. I also occasionally see conditions on the road,
where
> sedans like yours got stuck on the road itself, because their limited
> ground clearance and lack of locking differentials do not provide
enough
> traction.
>

AWD will put power to the wheels that have grip via computer. Stop
talking your part time 4 up the latter for once.

> > And only then it would only be helpfull if the truck had a raised
off
> > road suspension with very big mud tires.
>
> Very big mud tires are not necessary in a most of off-road driving.
As
> their name says they are good in mud, which is very rare where I go
> offroading. The reason why people buy them is to impress clueless
little
> critters like you.
>

Only because you can't afford it Chris.

> > LOL now that's a 4X4!!! And not the type that Chris drives.
> > He drives a "make believe" "wannabe" 4X4.
>
> ROTFL, you really think that these jacked and mudtired wannabe 4x4s
are
> 'real 4x4s' (whatever that may be). A 4x4 is a car or truck that has
4
> wheel drive with at least a locking central differential (whereas the
AWD
> cars usually don't have this feature). Mine even has a 4LO mode,
where the
> gear ratio is lowered drastically, which makes it possible to drive
very
> slowly in difficult terrain and still having the engine in the
powerband.
>
> Newsflash: Most of these jacked big-tire wannabe 4x4s are worse
off-road
> than their stock brethren, partly because the higher center of
gravity,
> partly because a lot of the lift kits in the market are made to look
good
> for clueproof clowns like you, not for actually being taken off-road.
>
> There are a few lift kits that are worth their (usually considerable)
> pricetag, but they are not the ones normally seen on the '4x4s' you
so
> admire.
>

There you go again Chris trying to make yourself feel better about your
poorly informed purchasing decision. Give up will you before you make
yourself look worse in front of everyone.


> > Poor Chris has bought into all the hype.
>
> As my vehicle does perform very well for the off- and on-road
conditions I
> use it for I apparently chose the right one for my purposes. And it
was a
> lot cheaper than your little sedan too.
>
> > Can we say pretense pretense pretense?
>
> No, but we can safely say, that you are clueless, clueless,
clueproof.
>


Your vehicle was a waste of money. If the Interstate is impassible
with a car set up just like mine than the Interstate is shut down
anyway and nobody can pass. Not even the one with the $100,000+ H1
Hummer.

Chris, you just shot yourself in the leg. Bringing a pocket knife to a
gunfight...

On 4 Jan 2005 07:40:45 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>

>I have to say that I somewhat disagree with all of the respondants to
>this thread. Yes, a FWD vehicle is perfectly capable in snow.
>However, that doesn't mean that a 4WD wouldn't be *better.* The
>problem is, really, that most drivers of 4WD don't understand how their
>vehicles work and think that 4WD gives them some magical powers over
>the laws of physics. Newsflash - *all* that 4WD does is give you the
>ability to accelerate quicker and a little more dynamic stability.
>That's *it.* It doesn't make you stop any faster or corner any great
>deal better... It doesn't improve the coefficient of friction between
>your tires and the road at all. It's not a cure-all, just another tool
>in the driver's toolbox, and needs to be used appropriately and with
>respect.
>
This is the truest statement in this whole thread. There is no magic,
just tools, and tools have to be used properly.

>That said, I used to work in the UP of Michigan, where slippery roads
>were a way of life. Most of the test vehicles that we were working on
>were 4WD trucks, but aside from those, the vast majority of vehicles on
>the road were FWD econoboxes and/or 4WD trucks pulling snowmobile
>trailers. It was rare to see a non-test vehicle 4WD truck that wasn't
>being used to tow or haul something. That seems to indicate to me that
>the safety advantages weren't great enough for the trucks in the minds
>of most people to offset the higher operating cost.
>
>Personally, I don't even mind driving a RWD vehicle in the snow
>assuming it has good tires. If the snow is bad enough that I can't
>control a RWD vehicle, I probably don't want to be driving... in part
>due to the fact that there will be a significant subset of drivers on
>the road that will be dangerous no matter what they're driving, and I'd
>rather not freeze my cojones off at the side of the road waiting for
>the state police to show up.
>
It's at this point I want to be at home with a nice mug of hot
chocolate.

Know your limits.

>ANYWAY... if I lived somewhere that got craploads of snow on a regular
>basis, and had the disposable income to allow it, I might just have a
>4WD or AWD vehicle in my driveway just so that I could ensure that I
>could get wherever I needed to go should I really need to go out in bad
>conditions. (an old Audi Quattro might be the cat's butt.) But I
>probably would drive it very infrequently due to operating cost etc.,
>more so if it were a truck-based vehicle.
>
>nate

I live on the edge between rain and snow. We don't get a lot of snow,
but we get a lot of ice. I like the little extra traction that AWD
gives (over FWD) as I ease along.

Our buses all have chains that we can put on when needed, fortunately,
they take us off the road before they're needed.

DYM

On 4 Jan 2005 07:40:45 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>

>I have to say that I somewhat disagree with all of the respondants to
>this thread. Yes, a FWD vehicle is perfectly capable in snow.
>However, that doesn't mean that a 4WD wouldn't be *better.* The
>problem is, really, that most drivers of 4WD don't understand how their
>vehicles work and think that 4WD gives them some magical powers over
>the laws of physics. Newsflash - *all* that 4WD does is give you the
>ability to accelerate quicker and a little more dynamic stability.
>That's *it.* It doesn't make you stop any faster or corner any great
>deal better... It doesn't improve the coefficient of friction between
>your tires and the road at all. It's not a cure-all, just another tool
>in the driver's toolbox, and needs to be used appropriately and with
>respect.
>
This is the truest statement in this whole thread. There is no magic,
just tools, and tools have to be used properly.

>That said, I used to work in the UP of Michigan, where slippery roads
>were a way of life. Most of the test vehicles that we were working on
>were 4WD trucks, but aside from those, the vast majority of vehicles on
>the road were FWD econoboxes and/or 4WD trucks pulling snowmobile
>trailers. It was rare to see a non-test vehicle 4WD truck that wasn't
>being used to tow or haul something. That seems to indicate to me that
>the safety advantages weren't great enough for the trucks in the minds
>of most people to offset the higher operating cost.
>
>Personally, I don't even mind driving a RWD vehicle in the snow
>assuming it has good tires. If the snow is bad enough that I can't
>control a RWD vehicle, I probably don't want to be driving... in part
>due to the fact that there will be a significant subset of drivers on
>the road that will be dangerous no matter what they're driving, and I'd
>rather not freeze my cojones off at the side of the road waiting for
>the state police to show up.
>
It's at this point I want to be at home with a nice mug of hot
chocolate.

Know your limits.

>ANYWAY... if I lived somewhere that got craploads of snow on a regular
>basis, and had the disposable income to allow it, I might just have a
>4WD or AWD vehicle in my driveway just so that I could ensure that I
>could get wherever I needed to go should I really need to go out in bad
>conditions. (an old Audi Quattro might be the cat's butt.) But I
>probably would drive it very infrequently due to operating cost etc.,
>more so if it were a truck-based vehicle.
>
>nate

I live on the edge between rain and snow. We don't get a lot of snow,
but we get a lot of ice. I like the little extra traction that AWD
gives (over FWD) as I ease along.

Our buses all have chains that we can put on when needed, fortunately,
they take us off the road before they're needed.

DYM

wrote:
> CH wrote:
> > If that one time saves your life or even just saves you from
getting
> > stuck 20 miles from the next town it would be worth it.
>
> For the life of the car, no. That special feature costs thousands
> extra. Not at all worth it.

I dunno about *your* neck of the woods, but around here, you can't
*find* a plain vanilla 2WD Grand Cherokee, but the Laredo (the bottom
line 4WD) gets attractively discounted as mine was (by over $6K from
the sticker), so the price difference is negligible. I can and do
regularly use the 4WD in it. It is my medium-weight tow vehicle
(trailers too big for the BMW but not so big as to require the F350
4x4) and my winter/heavy rains vehicle. If and when I go offroad, it
will be the vehicle of choice.

> > > 4X4 is totally unecessary. It is only needed for off road
> conditions.

You obviously don't ever try to go anywhere when there's *real* snow.

> > Well, I do drive off-road sometimes. In places where your sedan
would
> get
> > stuck after 20 feet. I also occasionally see conditions on the
road,
> where
> > sedans like yours got stuck on the road itself, because their
limited
> > ground clearance and lack of locking differentials do not provide
> enough
> > traction.

As do I. Saved myself several hours on December 23rd when there were
long backups due to stuck semis on US 30 in Ohio. I locked the diffs
and easily drove around a half-mile long backup through about a foot of
snow where even the wife's Jaguar X-Type and our old Audi Quattros
wouldn't have made it through ('bellypanning', y'know!). You don't
have to go *off*road to need 4WD. There was a lane there; it just
hadn't been plowed yet.

> AWD will put power to the wheels that have grip via computer. Stop
> talking your part time 4 up the latter for once.

If you know when and how to use it, it's great. I'm one of those who
do. I am not simply a 4WD apologist. I've driven every drivetrain
combination in all kinds of weather, including winter rally
competitions in both FWD and AWD cars. AWD and 4WD win, hands down.
You're just too damn arrogant (or ignorant) to admit that your vehicle
choice has any shortcomings. As a BMW & Audi club driving instructor,
I have come to know *all* the strong and weak poins of *each* of my
vehicles. Therefore, while I simply wave to police officers doing
winter traffic duty, it's clueless morons like you who may get the
one-finger salute for holding me up. However, in pure sympathy, here's
the clue: if the license plate on the big red Jeep says "WARP TWO", you
should move over. It's me.

> > > And only then it would only be helpfull if the truck had a raised
> > > off road suspension with very big mud tires.
> >
> > Very big mud tires are not necessary in a most of off-road driving.

Correct. Da Jeepster just got a new set of the OEM tires.

> There you go again Chris trying to make yourself feel better about
your
> poorly informed purchasing decision. Give up will you before you
make
> yourself look worse in front of everyone.

Well, Chris has looked bad before, but he's coming out on top of this
one. Ask him how I know. ;^)

> Your vehicle was a waste of money. If the Interstate is impassible
> with a car set up just like mine than the Interstate is shut down
> anyway and nobody can pass. Not even the one with the $100,000+ H1
> Hummer.

Umm, read what I wrote above. The road was impassible to cars like
yours. I drove by them. And I coulda' bought *four* Jeeps like mine
for the price of that Hummer ...

> Chris, you just shot yourself in the leg. Bringing a pocket knife to
a
> gunfight...

While you came totally unarmed. Tsk-tsk.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)