I now understand the appeal of pickup trucks

"223rem" > wrote in message
news:2%eaf.534830$xm3.325046@attbi_s21...
>I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week. Acceleration,
> braking and cornering suck, but it has at least three major advantages
> over cars:
>

> 2. You can get the LLBs to move out of your way: nothing like
> a big pickup on their bumper, headlights in their mirror to convince
> them to move right.
>
Try that in Phoenix and you will be treated for gunshot wounds.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Old Wolf wrote:
> > > 223rem wrote:
> > >> I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week.
> >
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > > You try that on me sometime and you'll find yourself doing 10 mph on
> > > the freeway.
> >
> > Isn't that illegal?
>
> Nope - the nut asked for it.

Wrong again, dipstick. It IS illegal and a hell of a lot more
dangerous than driving 80 mph in a 60mph zone. Want proof?

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/s...mages/fig1.gif

Note that that is a LOGARITHMIC scale. Each vertical tick mark is 10
times the one below it.

On the interstate, driving 30 mph below the flow of traffic is ***20
times*** more likely to get you killed than driving 30 mph OVER the
flow of traffic.

That's a fact, jack. Not that facts ever get in your way.

Lovely to see that you've announced your intention to break the law
too. Looks like you're no better than the speeders, you murderous,
shameless law breaker. Let's stop the criminal coddling and throw you
in jail next.

"223rem" > wrote in message
news:2%eaf.534830$xm3.325046@attbi_s21...
> I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week. Acceleration,
> braking and cornering suck, but it has at least three major advantages
> over cars:

I am not sure which F150 you drove, or what you considering "sucking" in
terms of acceleration, however, the latest F150 Consumer Reports tested did
0-6 in 8.4 seconds and completed their avoidance maneuver at 45.5 mph. The
last Camry they tested had a 0-60 of 9.7 sec, but did do a little better in
the avoidance maneuver test (50 mph). Probably the pick-up could have
handled a little better with some weight in the rear (although the 0-60
would suffer).

You forgot to mention the two biggest advantage over a car - towing ability
and hauling ability. People who by trucks as commuter vehicles need to
examine there reasons. It is pretty sad to see a new pick-up truck with,
shinny rims and a bolted on tonneau cover.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "223rem" > wrote in message
> news:2%eaf.534830$xm3.325046@attbi_s21...
>
>>I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week. Acceleration,
>>braking and cornering suck, but it has at least three major advantages
>>over cars:
>
>
> I am not sure which F150 you drove, or what you considering "sucking" in
> terms of acceleration, however, the latest F150 Consumer Reports tested did
> 0-6 in 8.4 seconds and completed their avoidance maneuver at 45.5 mph. The
> last Camry they tested had a 0-60 of 9.7 sec, but did do a little better in
> the avoidance maneuver test (50 mph). Probably the pick-up could have
> handled a little better with some weight in the rear (although the 0-60
> would suffer).

I drove the 6 cyl version, very low power and torque for its weight.

CR probably tested the V8 F150 and the 4 cyl Camry. No surprise here,
they're idiots.

> hauling ability

Nothing like the look on an SUV owner's face when he realizes that the
thingus he's just bought at Lumber World won't go in at all, or at
least not without violating some violent red-letter warnings on the
carton about not turning it on its side.

Or when he does get it inside, but realizes a split second too late
that it's a fraction of an inch too long to close the tailgate window.
That's a sound that makes everybody stop what they're doing and turn
around and look at you...

> It is pretty sad to see a new pick-up truck with shiny rims and
> a bolted on tonneau cover

Amazing how people buy something that's a poor substitute for a car,
then spend several thousand dollars to make it simultaneously a much
less useful truck.

Thankfully "slammed" mini-trucks, inevitably shod with radical dry-road
perfomance rubber, have gone somewhat out of fashion. At the height of
this fad, I used to dread being anywhere near one in the rain when it
hit some standing water and started hydroplaning like a big dog. (Not
a hypothetical concern: saw it happen once, and the aftermath another
time, with rueful story from the neighbor who'd been behind the wheel.
Didn't even take much speed: both accidents happened on surface
streets.)

Nowadays you sometimes see pickups or full-size SUVs with $5k worth of
highly stylized 22" rims and sausage-casing tires, but the ante is a
lot higher (and the gas mileage much lower), which cuts down the
numbers; perhaps also antilock brakes and more-sophisticated (or at
least less home-"improved") suspensions help tame them a little.

Cheers,
--Joe

"223rem" > wrote in message
news:2%eaf.534830$xm3.325046@attbi_s21...
>I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week. Acceleration,
> braking and cornering suck, but it has at least three major advantages
> over cars:
>
> 1. You dont have to worry about potholes (or speed bumps any more;
> sure, sporty suspension, low ground clearance, alloy wheels and
> low profile tires are great on the interstate, but on bad roads
> you have be very careful and that gets old quickly.

A road near my house is torn up (road destruction) and a miles-long stretch
of it is potholed gravel now. I've followed 4X4 pickups through the
potholed gravel section at anywhere from 2MPH (YES, 2MPH, not a typo) up to
a maximum of about 20MPH. Meanwhile, if the road is empty, I drive my
sporty suspension, low ground clearance mid-sized sedan through the same
section at 50MPH. I know where the worst potholes are, and gravel is
actually a lot smoother if you KEEP MOVING. (because the bumps average out
so you don't feel every damn rock) This road is posted 55MPH, and there are
no construction signs lowering that. (so 50MPH is LEGAL, if you want to go
that fast) The other day, I came up behind a 4WD pickup, and it was again
just crawling along at about 20MPH, bouncing roughly over every damned bump.
I passed him like he was sitting still. He was pretty ****ed that has
manly-man truck couldn't hang with a family sedan in the rough stuff. But
he obviously didn't know how to drive on gravel.

It's a mental block, I believe. People drive really slow on gravel and they
have a REALLY ROUGH ride, specifically because they are driving so slow.
So they naturally assume that if they speed up, the ride will be even
ROUGHER. To a point, that is true. But if you get your vehicle moving fast
enough, it kind of skips across the tops of all the bumps, so that the ride
is relatively smooth. Yes, this works for 4WD pickups, also. It's just
that many drivers don't seem to know this. Either that, or they'd rather
have a long, bumpy ride than a short, smoother one. -Dave

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:55:58 GMT, 223rem > wrote:

>I had the opportunity to drive a F150 for a week. Acceleration,
>braking and cornering suck, but it has at least three major advantages
>over cars:
>
>1. You dont have to worry about potholes (or speed bumps any more;
>sure, sporty suspension, low ground clearance, alloy wheels and
>low profile tires are great on the interstate, but on bad roads
>you have be very careful and that gets old quickly.
>
>2. You can get the LLBs to move out of your way: nothing like
>a big pickup on their bumper, headlights in their mirror to convince
>them to move right.
>
>3. People think twice about cutting you off or tailgating.
>
>Yes, a full size pickup truck would make a great city vehicle.

Until you have to find a space in which to parallel-park it.

Mike T. wrote:

> It's a mental block, I believe. People drive really slow on gravel and they
> have a REALLY ROUGH ride, specifically because they are driving so slow.
> So they naturally assume that if they speed up, the ride will be even
> ROUGHER. To a point, that is true. But if you get your vehicle moving fast
> enough, it kind of skips across the tops of all the bumps, so that the ride
> is relatively smooth.

I think what you describe is a resonance effect: at a certain speed,
the "fundamental" oscillation frequency of your car's suspension is
the same as the frequency of the oscillations induced by the bumps/holes
in the road, and that amplifies the shaking a lot.

Above or below that speed, there's lot less shaking.

On 3 Nov 2005 03:53:36 -0800, >
said the following in rec.autos.driving...

> Let's stop the criminal coddling and throw you in jail next.

Let's do the job right the first time: all we need is a tall tree and a
strong piece of rope.

--
"My tars have been bald for two years.
Every month i glue some sandpaper to them and
everythings cool."

--Laura Buch murdered her boyfriend
/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 10/25/05

Message ID:
http://tinyurl.com/7p7xq

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> Thankfully "slammed" mini-trucks, inevitably shod with radical
> dry-road perfomance rubber, have gone somewhat out of fashion.

That reminds me of something I saw at a car show last week.
There were several "chopped" pickups. Apparently the idea is
to buy a 60-year-old pickup, remove the roof, and reattach it
lower down. This obviously involves getting a custom windshield
and back window. The end result is a smaller vechicle with less
headroom and poorer visibility. Why do people do this?