Revo/Hilux Tipover

[Kwasaki]

15 hours ago, MYKTHEMIN said:

In my opinion this is a worthless test, and may be applicable to 1% of the owners, if most people swerved this hard they would be in the ditch/hedge on the side they swerved towards, or hit the vehicle head on coming towards them, just stupid, if you are driving aware of your surroundings you should never have to swerve like this.

 

I agree partially with your view, this type of swerve could be dangerous even on a 3 lane highway and depending on the situation a rare event,  usually braking is most important IMO.

 

A good point is driver awareness and defensive driving in Thailand like you would slow down and be aware of elephants in a particular area,  buffalo near roads are usually supervised,  to hell with dogs.

To alter a truck to stop slow speed roll over ain't rocket science.  

.  

[cumgranosalum]

24 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

I agree partially with your view, this type of swerve could be dangerous even on a 3 lane highway and depending on the situation a rare event,  usually braking is most important IMO.

 

A good point is driver awareness and defensive driving in Thailand like you would slow down and be aware of elephants in a particular area,  buffalo near roads are usually supervised,  to hell with dogs.

To alter a truck to stop slow speed roll over ain't rocket science.  

.  

the problem is that despite how great a driver people think thety are it is well-proven that faced with a sudden situation they will react INSTINCTIVELY and that involves swerving to miss anything - the action takes place before the object is actually identified - so much as you would like to think you wouldn't react to a dog the science says to the contrary. This is basic human instinct - you don't wait to see if it is a   sabre tooth tiger before you run away!

[Kwasaki]

19 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

the problem is that despite how great a driver people think thety are it is well-proven that faced with a sudden situation they will react INSTINCTIVELY and that involves swerving to miss anything - the action takes place before the object is actually identified - so much as you would like to think you wouldn't react to a dog the science says to the contrary. This is basic human instinct - you don't wait to see if it is a   sabre tooth tiger before you run away!

 

Get your point but in my experience reaction on what you do IMO is instinctive as well, having hit 2 dogs in my time here swerving wasn't an option, braking was my first reaction otherwise would of had hit on coming cars or parked ones, no where to go.

If it had been a Saber tooth tiger l would have to have taken a picture.  

[cumgranosalum]

On 11/5/2016 at 8:54 AM, Kwasaki said:

 

Get your point but in my experience reaction on what you do IMO is instinctive as well, having hit 2 dogs in my time here swerving wasn't an option, braking was my first reaction otherwise would of had hit on coming cars or parked ones, no where to go.

If it had been a Saber tooth tiger l would have to have taken a picture.  

It all depends on the individual circumstances of an encounter....we humans are programmed to take evasive action - however we a re programmed to walk or run not travel at 100 kph. this means our reaction times are way too slow for this sort of thing.....with a frontal or sideways encounter either can have a multitude of instinctive reactions - all too slow especially when translated into directing a moving car....they are often quite inappropriate too.... but the kind of swerve in the test is largely to test a behaviour that in reality is not that uncommon....I had to avoid a Cassowary once...I managed to stop OK - but could I get my camera out in time? Could I <Deleted!>!

[Kwasaki]

15 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

avoid a Cassowary

 

Good idea 

 

The test on tip-over and any test on vehicles is justified of coarse, what annoys me is reluctant's of Toyota to do anything about fixing the problem which is simple, sounds to me they just don't want to spend on recall.

Would expected more from them than just repeating it's a safe vehicle.

[cumgranosalum]

14 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

Good idea 

 

The test on tip-over and any test on vehicles is justified of coarse, what annoys me is reluctant's of Toyota to do anything about fixing the problem which is simple, sounds to me they just don't want to spend on recall.

Would expected more from them than just repeating it's a safe vehicle.

yes - it seems inexplicable. The vehicle concerned is not the 4WD it is the hi-rise version, which may be a relatively low seller??? Maybe they will just stop selling it in Sweden.

[Jitar]

8 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

yes - it seems inexplicable. The vehicle concerned is not the 4WD it is the hi-rise version, which may be a relatively low seller??? Maybe they will just stop selling it in Sweden.

Don't know about Sweden but the high suspension 2WDs are certainly big sellers in LOS.  Most of the popular mid spec models are this configuration.  

[Jitar]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:22 PM, cumgranosalum said:

You are mis-informed - it is a chassis-based pickup with all the concomitant flaws that accompany that kind of vehicle - not only relatively dangerous to the occupants but also to other road users.  It has high CoG and poor shock absorption - both passive and active safety features are  impaired by this type of construction.

 

There are good reasons why pickups and trucks use body on frame construction.  This design alone does not necessarily compromise occupant crash protection or CoG.  

 

The crash test results for the Ford Wildtrack mentioned show very good occupant protection, better than many mid size sedans.  Modern body on frame designs can provide controlled deformation just like unitary construction.  

 

High riding pickups have a high CoG for clearance and / or cosmetic reasons and this is detrimental to high speed handling.  However some body on frame vehicles can also have reasonable CoG height, e.g. standard height pickups COG height is comparable to a unitary SUV.   

 

Any vehicle must be driven within it's limits.  The higher the CoG, the lower the cornering and braking limits will be.  The moose test is a benchmark that most body on frame pickups met but the Toyota Vigo and Revo both failed.  Toyota need to improve their design.  

[cumgranosalum]

1 minute ago, Jitar said:

 

There are good reasons why pickups and trucks use body on frame construction.  This design alone does not necessarily compromise occupant crash protection or CoG.  

 

The crash test results for the Ford Wildtrack mentioned show very good occupant protection, better than many mid size sedans.  Modern body on frame designs can provide controlled deformation just like unitary construction.  

 

High riding pickups have a high CoG for clearance and / or cosmetic reasons and this is detrimental to high speed handling.  However some body on frame vehicles can also have reasonable CoG height, e.g. standard height pickups COG height is comparable to a unitary SUV.   

 

Any vehicle must be driven within it's limits.  The higher the CoG, the lower the cornering and braking limits will be.  The moose test is a benchmark that most body on frame pickups met but the Toyota Vigo and Revo both failed.  Toyota need to improve their design.  

Basically you contradict yourself - this post is ill-informed and contradictory.

[Jitar]

21 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Basically you contradict yourself - this post is ill-informed and contradictory.

[JaseTheBass]

 
Good idea [emoji3]
 
The test on tip-over and any test on vehicles is justified of coarse, what annoys me is reluctant's of Toyota to do anything about fixing the problem which is simple, sounds to me they just don't want to spend on recall.
Would expected more from them than just repeating it's a safe vehicle.

They need to design new chassis that works properly before thinking about a recall.

Sent from my R2D2 using my C3P0 manservant

[madmax2]

Not likely to hit a moose in Thailand unless they start importing them

With 325% tax and duties its not likely to happen

How do they go in a dog test, see died ones on the road all the time when travelling long distance 

[cumgranosalum]

1 hour ago, madmax2 said:

Not likely to hit a moose in Thailand unless they start importing them

With 325% tax and duties its not likely to happen

How do they go in a dog test, see died ones on the road all the time when travelling long distance 

quite clearly you have no idea what the "moose test" is about.

[cumgranosalum]

2 hours ago, JaseTheBass said:

 

They need to design new chassis that works properly before thinking about a recall.

Sent from my R2D2 using my C3P0 manservant
 

 

Doubt if it even needs a new chassis as other models with the same chassis pass the test. it just needs re-design or adjustment of suspension - ie relationship between unsprung and sprung mass.

[madmax2]

1 hour ago, cumgranosalum said:

quite clearly you have no idea what the "moose test" is about.

Clearly you had no idea that i was joking

You would definitely  swerve to miss a moose but not necessarily do the same for a dog if  you did not like dogs

[seedy]

Let's keep the back and forth Polite and Respectful. Reply to the Post, do not Bicker with the poster.

[cumgranosalum]

50 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

Clearly you had no idea that i was joking

You would definitely  swerve to miss a moose but not necessarily do the same for a dog if  you did not like dogs

Unfortunately this comment just confirms my impression that you don't understand what the test is about nor how humans react in these circumstances

This is not necessarily  a "literal exercise and it may not even refer to any animal, the fact is that regardless of how "superb" some drivers may think their skills and reactions are, we as humans are simply not evolutionarily equipped to react quickly enough at the speeds motor vehicles travel at....this means that regardless of what ,who or why we swerve it happens well within the realms of normal human error - the number one factor in RTAs. When this particular quite common reaction occurs it is important therefore that vehicles have built-in safety margins to cope with such events......nothing to do with identifying species of animals and then making judgments on whether it is to live or die......you simply don't have the time.

[madmax2]

3 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Unfortunately this comment just confirms my impression that you don't understand what the test is about nor how humans react in these circumstances

This is not necessarily  a "literal exercise and it may not even refer to any animal, the fact is that regardless of how "superb" some drivers may think their skills and reactions are, we as humans are simply not evolutionarily equipped to react quickly enough at the speeds motor vehicles travel at....this means that regardless of what ,who or why we swerve it happens well within the realms of normal human error - the number one factor in RTAs. When this particular quite common reaction occurs it is important therefore that vehicles have built-in safety margins to cope with such events......nothing to do with identifying species of animals and then making judgments on whether it is to live or die......you simply don't have the time.

Its about driving safely and not  making stupid maneuvers which a vehicle is not built or designed for actually

That type of driving would cause most people problems in most vehicles, especially in a high vehicle with rear leaf springs like most pickup trucks have

[cumgranosalum]

42 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

Its about driving safely and not  making stupid maneuvers which a vehicle is not built or designed for actually

That type of driving would cause most people problems in most vehicles, especially in a high vehicle with rear leaf springs like most pickup trucks have

No Max - that is what the test is for - not all vehicles are the same - I think you need to read up on human error and how it relate=s to road safety.

[madmax2]

Probably call it the Emu manoeuvre on outback roads in Australia

or if near a outback hotel like the one at Fitzroy crossing at dusk the abo manoeuvre

[Ace of Pop]

Oh it's lovely to have a simple Car..4seatbelts ,all sit down and off we go [emoji593]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Gary A]

Years ago Ford built a small 4X4 called a Bronco. Ford quit building those nice little vehicles because of all the bad publicity from the roll over tests. I thought then that really bad drivers were at fault and still believe that. Many drivers have no idea what to do in case of a skid. Slamming on the brakes is the common reaction. The anti lock braking systems have helped that reaction somewhat but those poor drivers cause accidents because of lack of skills.

 

Maybe the novice drivers from the snow belts have an advantage because they usually play on huge parking lots. They quickly learn how skids react on slippery surfaces. I used to go to Florida from Ohio in the winter. As most drivers know, bridges ice over before road surfaces, as soon as those drivers feel a little skid, they hit the brakes, do several 360's and you need a reservation to find a spot in the median.

 

A good example of poor driving was shown on a posted video a few days ago. A van was hit in the rear side. There was absolutely no reason for the van driver to lose control.

[fullcave]

Interesting simulation. Turn to avoid moose not using brakes and then swerve back into lane ASAP as to avoid oncoming traffic. I wonder if the results would have ben the same had they used the brakes?  

[cumgranosalum]

It seems that some members think they know better than 5 decades of scientific research into how people behave when confronted with sudden circumstances on the road - they would of course be laughing on the other sides of their faces if they ended up in hospital....or maybe still try to “blame” others for their own liability to human error.

I find their blind faith in their “superb” driving ability and dismissive attitude to the abilities of others very disconcerting - It worries be to think that there are drivers on the road with so little knowledge of what is actually going on around them.

It is also worrying that these people’s imagination is so limited that they can even conceive how such incidents might happen and then on the basis of nothing, make wild assumptions about normal driving skills and human reactions.

 

 

The Moose test, or ISO 3888-2 as the standardised test is known is a  test for passenger cars  designed to examine what happens when a severe lane-change manoeuvre occurs.

 

“In reality, the test is rather constructed to simulate, for example, a reversing car or a child rushing out onto the road. This is because it is more likely that the moose will continue across the road than remain in place or turn back, making it more advisable to brake hard and try to slip behind the animal than to swerve in front of it.^” - wiki

 

 

“When the driver comes onto the track, they quickly swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid the object and then immediately swerves back to avoid oncoming traffic. The test is repeated with an increased speed until the car skids, knocks down cones, or spins around. This usually happens at speeds of about 70–80 km/h (45–50 mph)” - wiki

 

 

 Here's that video...

[transam]

My high rise Vigo is in it's tenth year, never been rolled, strange that..

[cumgranosalum]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

My high rise Vigo is in it's tenth year, never been rolled, strange that..

Why?

 

[transam]

Just now, cumgranosalum said:

Why?

 

Why, as a heavy goods vehicle licensed driver I learned how to read rides habits, with the Vigo I read the handbook regarding possible tip...I also learned how to read the road ahead to adjust what I was doing..

BUT, any ride can be flipped if the conditions are right....ANY....

[Kwasaki]

19 hours ago, transam said:

BUT, any ride can be flipped if the conditions are right....ANY....

 

That's real point that's being missed also without conditions you can flip on 2 wheels anytime if you have the know how but l've never seen a Moose on the road where l've driven. 

 

Remember seeing the training bus drivers driving the double deckers on the skid pan and seeing the front wheel come off the road. ?

 

21 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

It worries be to think that there are drivers on the road with so little knowledge of what is actually going on around them.

 

Fit every vehicle with a bull bar where there's Mooses roaming about. 

[Ace of Pop]

No funny remarks please , this topic is only for serious folk who drive in Kevlar Socks and Crash Helmets.

[canthai55]

I have hit 3 moose - two with tractor trailer, one with my pickup. Always late fall or winter so this swerve to avoid is nonsense.

Hit 7 bison at once with my Super B loaded with diesel. Was a record at that time for the greatest number killed in a single accident. Know what is the most important in those scenerios - stay on the road. Swerve, go in the ditch, roll over, dead.