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
|
|
|---|---|
|
Obviously if your insurance rates are low, I would assume that the insurance companies are relying on NHSTA or governmental standards. Think of it as the difference between public and private education. Now, I don't want to start whole nother bruhaha here, but there are some that would say the "minimal standards" of public education are not up to par with private education. Which is why even though "public education" is "free" (taxpayer paid for), some people are willing to pay $15,000 a year just for a private education in K through 12. I think to answer your question, yes in most instances the government and insurance companies are using the LOWER or governmental standard. But if you're someone that wants the BEST, no matter what, then you might be willing to pay $15k a year for a private education rather than accept "minimal" standards of a public education. If you're of the school of thought that governement minimal standards and/or public education is "good enough", then I can understand why you would not see the logic of why setting the bar higher, such as in a private school or private analysis of the same situation would be "better". |
|
|
|
|
"Interesting read - especially when it comes down to exact details of where and why the RDV is the most dangerious vehicle. Again, "where's the meat???" in this statement???" I assume forbes wanted to get the priciples, logic and criteria out in their article. And they did a good job of that. They are NOT a magazine like consumer reports that breaks down their findings into detailed form as you would like. I think either you are like Tidester and myself who generally give FORBES the benefit of the doubt because of their status as a reputable business magazine. Also, when you read the article, they do provide good information and cite from credible safety experts. It's not like their article is badly reasoned or doesn't make sense. To the contrary, it provides good and insightful information. Thus, as steve said, since the writer seems prolific and knowledgable, you would assume their testing was sound. There may not be any "meat" that you can see, but that doesn't mean that the testing and conclusions weren't done. This reminds me of that old chinese riddle I heard somewhere, was it like from Kung-Fu teaching "grasshopper": "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see or hear it, did it really fall?" In this case I would say the answer is yes, someone did do the research behind the conclusions, even if they didn't necessarily put it in the article. And I just base that on my perception on how well the article was wrote, the good information it provided, the experts it cited to and that it generally made a lot of sense even though if there were no detailed results posted. |
|
|
|
|
"Obviously if your insurance rates are low, I would assume that the insurance companies are relying on NHSTA or governmental standards. " I take this back. I think insurance companies probably rely on their own data. perhaps. I mean if they see one type of vehicle as being a theft risk compared to all others, they will adjust their rates accordingly. I think insurance analysis is a little more complicated. Because there are a lot of sub issues. For example, just because a vehicle is "rated as the most dangerous" doesn't mean that vehicle ALSO has a higher probability of getting into an accident. It could just mean that IF you are involved in an accident, you are better off in other vehicles than that vehicles. These are two seprate issues again. I think insurance looks more at the probability of an accident occuring. The FORBES article is not necesarily saying that a RDV is more probable to get into an accident, just that IF you get into an accident there are better choices out there. I think it is cleaner to keep the issue between FORBES private standard and government standards. Insurance is a whole different ballgame and not only is it not an apple or an orange, it is probably a banana. |
|
|
|
|
"one rates one brand/model low and the other high, what number does insurance compaines use?" a case in point that insurance companies do not always go based "ONLY" on the safety rating of a vehicle, is my 23 year old porsche. I "only" pay about $500 a year for this vehicle, maybe about 1/2 the cost I pay for the RDV. And that is even though by today's standards, the Pcar is "abysmal" in terms of safety features. It does not have ANY airbags (not even one in the steering wheel), no form of stabilitrac. So this just supports the point that you can't "evaluate" whether a certain model is a more dangerous safety risk based on insurance rates alone. Again, it is not comparing apples to apples to do make this kind of comparsion. To me (based on my limited experience) insurance values seem to be more based on what it would cost to repair or replace the vehicle. Since older cars are worth less, the insurance is often much less than a new car even though safety wise, they are abysmal in comparsion. |
|
|
. If wondering... I used to "number crunch" stats for a living. Did that for over 8 years. As they say, one can make the output of any stat look the way they want. It all depends of political pressure and who's paying for the review. If wondering, I left that company - after my boss told me to "influence the numbers because an advertisor is paying its output a certain way" situations. Soon after, I left that company. Couldn't stomach unethical number crunching anymore. From one extreme to another... Take an average rated item and compare it against 19 other items that are above it. In the end, that item "is the worst" rated. And, if you take that exact same item and compare against 19 garbage items, that items comes out the best. Not saying one is skuing a stat at Forbes. That would be illegal and unethical. But under the incorrect political or financal pressure, anyone can make a stats output look good or bad. I know, because I did "stats collecting and comparing for 8 years". So, I know how things "can be influenced". Especially in the private sector. Been there, done that and I still know it happens today. Getting past the ups / downs of why a stat output "can be different" from a different agency doing the same tests, I really wish authors would post their detailed comparison charts (vertical and horizontal criteria) on the things they compare. That way, the reader can "See the Meat" behind the "single output number". They can see the total number of vehciles that were compared. Of the 20 vehciles (in a report), how many were SUVs, how many were the same wheel base, how many were the same height, how many were from 2002 and how many were from 2007? I don't see "the background meat" in their high level article. All I hear between the lines is "trust me - we've been in business for 90 years". Maybe they are correct (explaining why the RDV was replaced in 2007) and maybe they are stacking the deck (sort of speaking). One cannot tell - unless one sees the details. Or, in layman's terms, one sees the complete horitontal and vetical table (and background rating criteria) behind it. I do know one thing... If someone collects stats, compares and sees a pattern (like weak engineering), they have the ethical responsibility to state where and why. Why is the RDV the "#1 - most dangerious vehcile"? Is it mechanical (like weak ball joints, too top end heavy), is it because of over steer / or under steer or is it because of too soft of suspension??? The aritical states "the output rating (from their tests)" but doesn't cleary state why? It doesn't state how the owner of the RDV can "reduce that risk" or other avoidance recommendation. You'd think the author would also recommend how to low the risk - other then apply that one should NOT buy the RDV? If one is going to yell fire at a gas station - one must also point to where it is. Pointing to "over there" isn't good enough (to me). . |
|
|
The insurance companies do their own testing (and likely rely on the NHTSA and other testing outfits): Insurance Institute for Highway Safety I don't think they do any rollover testing yet. See Q&As: Rollover and roof crush for more. |
|
|
|
|
"I do know one thing... If someone collects stats, compares and sees a pattern (like weak engineering), they have the ethical responsibility to state where and why. Why is the RDV the "#1 - most dangerious vehcile"? Is it mechanical (like weak ball joints, too top end heavy), is it because of over steer / or under steer or is it because of too soft of suspension??? The aritical states "the output rating (from their tests)" but doesn't cleary state why? It doesn't state how the owner of the RDV can "reduce that risk" or other avoidance recommendation. You'd think the author would also recommend how to low the risk - other then apply that one should NOT buy the RDV? If one is going to yell fire at a gas station - one must also point to where it is. Pointing to "over there" isn't good enough (to me). " Your objective to find the rational behind the reasoning is noble. Unfortunately, short of contacting forbes and/or the author diretly, this is just not going to happen (even if you did contact them there's no guarantee they would explain anything to you). Anyway, sometimes you can't always have everything you want. You have to make do with the information that is given and go with your best guess. That's what I am doing and also based on what Steve and Tidester said, it appears what they're doing too. You have every right to disbelieve the article based on the lack of concrete supporting data if you want. No one is disputing your right to do that, even though they may not necessarily agree with the position you have taken. |
|
|
|
|
by the same token, there is no "law of the universe" that says if someone doesn't provide concrete supporting data they are automatically wrong. again, just because they didn't publish the supprting data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. your position should be more that "well, i'm undecided until data is provided." on the other hand, you've taken the position "no data published" = "no data exists". I personally think it is a bit skeptical position to have taken. If you were open minded to the possibility that they "might" be right, again, you would be more open minded to looking for data to see if their conclusions were supported or not. You can assume some of the burden of proof of verifying their conclusiosn even if no data was provided if it is important enough to you. Rather than just saying, "they have an incomplete article with no data so their article is BS!" |
|
|
|
|
"After skimming through that Forbes article, I'm beginning to think that some aftermarket suspension upgrades may be worth looking into. " Never would have imagined to hear those words coming out of your mouth with all your previos "OEM engineering" talk (or letters out of your keyboard, would be more appropriate).. Anyway, glad you sorta see the light I saw. Not saying what I saw was absolutely right, because I think your positon about OEM engineering is just as valid too... Pretty much it's just the high "cost" of an OEM mfg'd better handling car when I've already commited and bought a rdv is what makes me consider these aftermarket options...If money was no object, I'd probably be more along your previous lines of thought and just buy a BMW or Porsche SUV, which I would bet, has way way lower rollover ratings than a RDV.
|
|
|
|
|
You can assume some of the burden of proof of verifying their conclusiosn even if no data was provided if it is important enough to you. Rather than just saying, "they have an incomplete article with no data so their article is BS!" Spike99, this is not persnoal, but you know, it seems to me that you may own one of the vehicles that falls in the category so you are in denial about their position. Even though I originally thought my vehicle fell in their category too, I was not in denial but trying to objectively see whether their position and reasoning made sense. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Are you so opposed to the fact that YOUR vehicle was found as "the most dangerous" that you are completely agaist that idea altogether, no matter how right it may be? What if data WAS provided? Would your argumemnts then shift to shooting down the logic and credibility of that data also? I mean there really is no end. If it is that you have your mind made up that they shouldn't be picking YOUR vehicle as the most dangerous, then no matter how sound their logic and reasoning, you will always argue against it. That is what is called bias.. I mean if you could show you aren't being biased and/or offended by the fact that they picked YOUR car, then I would tend to give your reasoning and position a little more consideration here... |
|
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
