Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades
132 messages, Last post on Jan 06, 2008 at 7:26 PM
You are in the Buick Rendezvous Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
steve, you said: "I should have said "make their SUVs safer." " If you click on informed for life.org and go to their 2008 vehicle ratings, you will notice that the new 2008 Buick Enclave SUV (rendezvous replacement) is in the top 3% for 2008. It seems that the above statement you made is a huge understatement if the ratings are correct. Notice the Enclave does have both stabilitrac and side airbags. Again, I am really curious how a traction control and side airbag equiped RDV CXL or ULTRA would've fared in their rating system... |
|
|
. When all is said and done..... I still don't know under what "detailed conditions" the RDV is at most risk for roll overs. Or, as some would write at a high level, why the RDV is "#1 - Dangerious vehicle on the road". Is it because of under steer, is it because of over steer, is it because lack of tire (rubber) traction on the sharp corners, does it lack pavement grip in the rain, etc, etc.???? Why??? Anyone can state a vehicle is "the best" or "is the worst". If you or I compare our own two different vehciles (like my wife's vehicle against my vehicle) against each other (even a pickup against a car), we would each assign them a different number. A different number based on our exact tests (like towing power, sharp cornering, front crashes, etc. etc.). But behind that "rolled up" single output number, every author has to clearly explain "why???". Why is that specific model of vehicle "at higher risk" and under what detailed conditions create situation??? Based on the details of "the detailed why??" (and the pattern they can prove after repeating the same tests over and over again), I might go out and try to reduce that risk as well. Let's say for example.... A pattern was showing a front dive in a sharp corner at high speeds, the vehicle slides and its front tires start to loose traction. Thus, slide, off the road and roll over (in the ditch). (again, this is an example situation). If this was true, I would try to find a way to lower that Roll Over risk myself. Yes, I would buy HD shocks or even install HD coil springs in the front. Thus, stopping its front from diving down (if that's what the tests showed) in the first place. And I would also compare their brand of tire to the brand and size of tire on my current RDV. Does their exact tire also apply to my exact vehicle's tires??? I do know that when someone "spits out stats" of comparing same product groupings (or even if comparing apples to oranges), one has to explain why. And, the author does have the ethical obligation (to their readers) to explain "the pattern" that appears in their test.... Is it tires, is it under design suspension (that create's "too much" front end dive) or is it some other reason??? To me, here's an example of what the author should have wrote - to share with the public... ------------ After xxx tests of repeatable / consistant results, our test lab gives vehicle brand of ..... "#1 highest roll over risks because of .... under these road conditions. And during these road conditions, these tests also showed .... behavior before that crash - which is a possible engineering weak area. The output of these tests only apply to of its .... to .... years of the vehicle model ..... Its other model (or all models in these years) are included (or explained) from the sampling size. Based on multiple tests (show the detailed table and output numbers), it is also recommended that vehicle be improved in the following areas.... (pattern of concern area). Where possible, avoid these driving conditions or change one's driving style - during these .... conditions. ------------ With this info, I can read it, it has details, I analyze the details, determine if the details applies to my vehicle, determine if these tests apply to my driving style or driving conditions, and after some more thought, I would decide if spending "safety increase" dollars "out of my own pocket" is worth it. Worth it more me... In this case, suspension upgrade in .... areas... And if tests or stats gathering / output was used to announce the "best safety" or best family mini-SUV brand of vehicle (for 2007), I would expect the same type of detailed reporting. Why is it the best, under what conditions, compared against what other exact vehicles, compared if driver was a woman, man or inexperienced teenager, etc. etc. Again, why is the "the best" in detailed and supporing info... . |
|
|
|
|
Spike99, I hear what you are saying. And I totally AGREE that that type of review would be much more helpful to anyone looking to upgrade their vehicle. Unfortunately ALL informed for life is doing is using their "SCORE" methodology which is a mathematical weighted formula that calculates a result based on IIHS and NHSTA as well as other information like vehicle weight, traction control and side airbags. It seems that the underlying premise is that when the SCORE numbers are plotted against the death rate, there appears to be a correlation. So what they are doing is just telling you that they think that the SCORE number is a good "predictor" of an automotive fatality. Again, my conclusion would be that just because it may be a dangerous vehicle to have a high "SCORE" number, it doesn't mean you are "more likely" to get into an accident. It just means that the people who determine SCORE think that IF you get into an accident in a vehicle with a high SCORE number, your fatality risk is higher. One question I would like answered is whether the "fatality" risk is talking about driver only or drivers and passengers. I think that could be one flaw in the analysis, since usually NHSTA and/or IIHS usually rate the vehicle between safety of driver and/or other passengers, I think.. Again, if the SCORE analysis was just based on general fatality data without being specific to which occupants were most at risk, then it is not as helpful as more specific data or analysis could be... But then again, that's what statistics are. They try to just take data and find a pattern. But I'm saying you can also be a bit more detailed in your statistical analysis too... |
|
|
|
|
" In spite of Forbe's use of his methodology, the SCORE ratings haven't made much of a splash out in the real world." Steve, if you look under (III) Predicting Fatality Rates, on the home page of informed for life.org, you see where they show a graph that supports their premise that when SCORE is plotted against the death rate, there "appears" to be a correlation. Can you confirm that SCORE hasn't made a "splash in the real world"? Are you saying that you believe the critics and/or that his methodolgy is inaccurate??? If you have any links that discuss these points let me know (you said you recall some negatives were the lack of factoring ABS, wondering if you had an article or something like that). I would be interested to hearing the other side of the argument. All I have to go on right now is their own home page as to the validity of SCORE when used as a predictor of the fatality rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Taken directly from informed for life's website: "In IIHS's 2005 status report "The Risk of Dying" driver fatality rate data are provided for 199, 1999-2002 model year vehicles, for which statistically significant crash test rating data are available to enable meaningful SCORE calculations. As can be observed from the data plot below, a significant correlation does exist. **This is not the case when attempting to correlate individual risk factors, such as IIHS's frontal impact rating, or NHTSA's frontal impact rating or vehicle weight (see the Elements of Risk page). Only through combining these risk elements in a weighted manner does a significant correlation appear." |
|
|
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Oct 02, 2007 11:21 am) The SCORE scores don't get much mention. I like that he tells you how he computes his numbers, but the word isn't getting out there. The last time I remember SCORE being mentioned was when the website first went live at least a year or more ago (but my memory is foggy). I think that's when I heard someone mention that weight wasn't given to some factors, like ABS. One of the bloggers might could use his link for an entry so I'll pass it along and maybe we'll get him some more PR. The last time it got mentioned outside the forums was in May of 2006 (and guess who mentioned it  ) link.
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.informedforlife.org/getscore.php I did this for my vehicle. And I can see spike99's point. Although NHSTA data comes back as "acceptable" for the RDV, when the SCORE calculation is used, it comes back in the "worst 10%". So, if you believe the SCORE methodolgy and the premise that there is a "significant" correlation to SCORE and the death rate, then you might go by SCORE. On the other hand, if you go purely by NHSTA ratings, the RDV is "acceptable." |
|
|
|
|
okay, i did a serach for my other vehicle, a toyota tundra. I feel like I'm in a "TANK" when in that vehicle, yet SCORE comes back with worst 10% for that one too. Very interesting. I know for a fact I've been rear ended, the other car looked totally damaged but my bumper didn't look like there was a scratch. Plus my ride height is so high I don't think side impact is really an issue. sure it may not have traction control or side airbags but just from my "impression" i'd rather be in that car than any other car I've owned so far if I was in an accident. There is a lot of cabin space also to absorb any impact. so, well, i suppose there "Could" be some blatant abberations when using SCORE. In other words, although ther may be a "significant" statistical correlation with a majority of the vehicles, possibly the methodology could also result in totally untrue or incorrect conclusion for a small pecentage of vehicles also...
|
|
|
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Oct 02, 2007 12:13 pm)  My minivan was a new model when we got it - a few months later the front crash test results came out and it did lousy. Lot of foot well incursion. Them's the breaks. |
|
|
|
|
score says that SAB and ESC reduce fatality by 45% and 43% respectively. I think that it is an awfully high number. For example if you were involved in a frontal crash, SAB would have no effect because you are not rolling over or getting hit from the side. The data and conclusions are very generic and do not apply to specific risks. I think the most common type of accident, is getting rear ended in traffic where side airbags or esc may not have an effect but a steering wheel air bag would. Also, there are some accidents (a head on collision at 50mph with a vehicle traveling the same speed from the opposite direction, for example), which no amount of SAB of ESC could save you from.... So, in conclusion I would say SCORE is a really vague and really general indication of safety, but it would be highly misleading to place all of your faith in a score rating. In other words, just because you have a low score rating does not mean you are invulnerable to being a fatality in a traffic accident. The only way that could happen probably is if you were driving in real "tank". By the same token if you have a really high score rating it does not mean that you will be an automatic fatality. One must remember that SCORE is a method based on statistical data only. No one wants to end up as another traffic statistic, but Score shouldnt be the only criteria in selecting a vehicle. I think it should be given some weight, but not heavy weight. It is best if you can find the vehicle you like but which also has a low score rating in addition (but not the primary reason)... |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2007 Buick Rendezvous
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
