Big and bad(gladwell.com) |
Big and bad(gladwell.com) |
Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C05%5C03...
The lesson for startups out of this are (1) don't chase fads, and (2) consumers really do care about total cost of ownership.
Sure, SUV sales are down, but overall the total mass that today's consumers demand to be riding on, keeps increasing. Look at a freaking "mid-size" Camry or Accord parked next to 10 year old Explorer or 4Runner - they're nearly equal in size. 4-cylinder engines have all surpassed 2L displacement mark, and anything less than 220hp is considered "inadequate".
The auto industry needs their own Steve Jobs, someone who's capable of telling these fat idiots what to like, as opposed to blindly following their reptilian instincts.
Seems like this would be more appropriate a few years ago
It was written in 2004, so that would make sense....eventually ;-)
So much wisdom in so few words.
"The Enzo is one of the safest cars to be in a crash because it’s designed to come apart at high speeds, similar to a Formula 1 car." http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/ferrari/another-enzo-bite...
Also I think the article ignores the possibility that drivers of quick and nimble cars could be (on average) more skilled than drivers of large SUVs. This could have caused the difference in safety statistics.
Looks like SUVs are actually a little safer than typical 4 dr or 2 dr sedans.
Gladwell seems to be looking for data to support his thesis that SUVs feel safer but are really less safe, which overall the data doesn't seem to support; for instance, he chooses to compare the subcompact Jetta to the SUVs, instead of one of the other subcompacts, which are among the least-safe cars. He is right that we do not expect the Jetta to be more safe than the larger cars, and it would be interesting to know the reason behind it. But the reason seems unlikely to be a false sense of safety in SUVs or increased maneuverability in subcompacts, since the other subcompacts should then be roughly as safe.
On the other hand, the data does support his assertion that minivans are safer, and maybe this is because, as he says, they are driven by more experienced drivers with children on board. This would also explain why SUVs are somewhat safer than trucks, even though they are practically the same vehicles.
Important characteristics of vehicles that influence their
driver death rates are type, body style, size, and weight.
Within virtually every group of vehicles, the smaller and
lighter models have the higher rates...
Among cars, for example, the smallest twodoor models had
the highest death rate at 190 per million vehicle years.
This rate is more than twice as high as the average for
all vehicles included in the study...
The vehicle group with the lowest driver death rate was
large luxury cars with 37 deaths per million vehicle years.
The next lowest rate was in large minivans and station
wagons with 42 deaths per million.Also in terms of handling, it's grossly unfair to compare a Traiblazer (built for shlepping kids and groceries around) to a Boxster. I'd be interested in knowing how a Cayenne ran the course. Or how much better than a Traiblazer a similarly priced GM sedan would.
Well, not quite - but the cheap one does seem to diminish the Porche brand a bit..
I love how you happen to mention that you drive a Lexus.
"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."