Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

You're certainly right about ground clearance for deep snow. I don't
off-road in the Subaru -- I have skis for that. I do however drive long
distances in blizzards. Last Xmas I caught a storm at Tahoe, skied two days
of powder in it, surfed it across to Utah, skied pow at Alta, surfed across
to Steamboat and skied two more days of Colorado pow. One storm, five days
of untracked powder, 1000 miles of snowpacked roads at night, and never saw
the sun. And never got sideways in the Subaru.

My idea of heaven.

Seth
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Seth Masia wrote:

You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.

I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops
as well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru. That simple reason
is ground clearance. I have about twice what a Sub has. If you really
believe that this doesn't make a difference, then your experience is much
more limited than you claim. Sure, in 5" of snow, the Sub will perform as
well or better. But in 12" of snow, the tables turn. My truck is barely
dragging at that point, but the Sub is pushing 5" or so of snow.


Matt

Morgans wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote

Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.


twice as heavy (which they really are not) means more weight on the wheels,
which give a higher coefficient of friction, plus the fact that they have
bigger tires. It also helps if you don't drive faster than your ability to
stop for the conditions.

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.


If you don't like SUV's, OK, but this is a stupid argument to base the cons
on.

That's a fact. My pickup is blown around much less in cross winds than
are my minivans.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.

Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".

As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
still...)

I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.


Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

How so?


As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".

As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
still...)

I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a
significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra
surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little
difference.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction.

Correct. I got my terminology wrong. What you said is what I meant.

I have not taken any physics in a long time, and that is a *Good Thing*, to
me! g
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

no worse than other vehicles.

Only twice as heavy

many cars weigh more than my SUV.

and more susceptable to side winds.

like mini-vans?

Seriously, there is no great secret to driving in the snow.
Take it easy, take it slow, allow plenty of room. This doesn't
change one bit whether it's a regular car or an SUV.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message

Seriously, there is no great secret to driving in the snow.
Take it easy, take it slow, allow plenty of room. This doesn't
change one bit whether it's a regular car or an SUV.

Except if you're going uphill. Go hard keep your foot in it. Ice racing is
a cheap sport and an eye opener.

moo

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Morgans" said:
and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel
drive,
so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

Actually, with anti-lock braking, they stop very well. Common sense goes a
long way, in driving.
--
Jim in NC

On 2005-10-01, Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Morgans" said:
and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

Justice was served a couple of years ago in the Cottonwood Canyons (I
don't remember which one, I think it was the one going to Brighton).
Friends and I were carefully going up the canyon in a Volkswagon Jetta
TDi with snow chains. The guy in the 4x4 behind us was obviously getting
impatient, and went roaring by us.

Half a mile later, we passed him - as he was trying to extract his truck
from a ditch.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"