For a 4:45 long vacation:
A biologist's 5:00 vacation
31 March 2007
17 March 2007
Muzzle-loading
Muzzle-loaders are technically any projectile launching device that loads and ejects the projectile from the same end. Old fashioned canons, mortars, and old-fashioned long-guns are all examples. A characteristic feature of the muzzle-loading rifle or canon is the ramrod, which is used to push the projectile and propellant into the barrel.
For the purposes of this essay I will be focusing on muzzle-loading rifles that have been used by people for the last 250 years. There are many different types for muzzle-loaders. Some are truly antique, being manufactured hundreds of years ago. These are all side-locks, which have an external hammer that ignites the powder. The oldest side-locks use the Match-lock mechanism.
Such guns are improvements on what was known as a “hand-canon.” Very early hand-held muzzle-loaders were ignited with a piece of fuse placed near hole that led to the powder. Some clever person had the bright idea of fashioning a hammer that clamps a piece of lit fuse. This hammer was connected to a primitive trigger. The result was that he could steady the firearm with both hands and then fire by squeezing his fingers, greatly improving accuracy and reliability. This is the first example of a true “gun.”
Later, the Flint-lock was developed. This was a substantial improvement over the Match-lock. It was more reliable and durable. You no longer had to keep your fuse lit. A loaded gun would be ready for action after simply cocking the hammer. It also freed the pioneer from buying or making his own fuse. Several pieces of flint could be kept and would last through hundreds of shots. The ubiquitous Brown Bess, the backbone of the English Empire, was a Flint-lock
I believe that the golden era of American rifle-making existed during the Flint-lock era. Colonial and pioneer Americans all used Flint-locks, the contemporary guns of the time. Masterful German immigrant gunsmiths (living in Lancaster Pennsylvania, not Kentucky) fashioned what I consider the masterpiece of American muzzle-loading rifles, the Kentucky Rifle. The Kentucky Rifle was uniquely American and suited for the vast, deep woods of the American Frontier. This made range and accuracy far more important to Americans than it ever was to the Europeans, so the Kentucky Rifles were made with unheard of barrel-lengths. Thirty inches is usually a minimum for such guns. The long, carefully rifled barrels squeezed every last drop of energy and accuracy out of the hand-made 50 caliber lead balls available to the American pioneer. The Kentucky Rifle stacked up brilliantly against the smoothbore, shorter British Brown Bess in the Battle of New Orleans (War of 1812) where “Hunters of Kentucky” inflicted brutal casualties with their accurate, long-range guns. It was also important to make the gun as carry-able, durable and handy as possible. Every bit of a Kentucky Rifle is simultaneously beautiful and functional. The Patch-box (on the butt-stock) is a good example. It was an innovation. It allowed for quick access of patches and faster loading times, but it was also beautifully engraved. Most American hunters dulled the shiny brass to prevent reflection of light, but this made the patch box fit the overall ruggedly elegant look of the gun. The stock was extended to almost to the end of the muzzle to make the balancing and steadying of the rifle easier, but it also gave the gun a sleek look that no other gun matches. The Kentucky rifle did away with bulky locks and unnecessary weight, making it lighter, more carry-able, and less likely to snag in dense forests.
Shorter versions of the Kentucky Rifle, like the “Hawken,” were popular with American trappers who needed a more compact, carry-able gun, but even longer versions were made for plains pioneers, which needed to kill large game (buffalo) or Indians from very great distances. Examples include the “Plains Rifle.”
The next innovation in Muzzle-loader design is the percussion cap. This is similar to the modern primer found on a center-fire rifle cartridge, the percussion cap rests on a nipple (essentially a hole leading to the power). When the hammer strikes the percussion cap, it bursts with a little flame in one direction. This flame then ignites the powder. The percussion cap is a more reliable ignition mechanism than the Flint-lock because it does not need to be adjusted carefully before use, and it works better in rain or extreme cold, but a carefully maintained and tuned Flint-lock can approach percussion cap reliability. Many older Flint-lock rifles were fitted with percussion cap ignitions, and many hunters today prefer the percussion cap, but my heart lies with the Flint-lock. As you can see though, the development of different mechanisms has been organic and gradual and traditional. At no point was the old design abandoned; it was simply improved.
A major development (perhaps rupture?) in muzzleloader design was the development of “in-line” ignitions. The vast bulk of new muzzle-loader sales are of the in-line design. This is a modern development that came after the development of breech-loading cartridge rifles, and, in my opinion, they are silly. They are essentially modern single-shot rifles that load from the front (the muzzle) instead of the rear (breech). The people who buy these rifles are trying to hunt during “muzzle-loader only” time, so they get the most unsporting, deadly muzzle-loader they can. They want a “muzzle-loader” that is stainless steel, waterproof, and composite-stocked so it is easy to clean. They want to use modern nitrocellulose powders instead of black powder. They want scopes. They want to be able to kill a Moose from 200 yards instead of having to creep up to 50. They want their rifle to fire even if it is freezing cold, they have not properly maintained their rifle, or if it is raining. This takes the joy out of muzzle-loading. The skill and patience required to operate the gun is lost, and the beauty is lost. I would commend any State for preventing these in-liners from killing everything during “muzzle-loader week,” and for encouraging the true sportsmen, those with side-locks, to maintain their traditions.
For those of you interested in muzzle-loading, I recommend the following links:
The largest muzzle-loading get-together, the Bi-annual National Muzzle-loading Rifle Association meet in Friendship, Indiana, is about 40 miles west of Cincinnati. This is a great place for the whole family. There are lasses clad in bonny vestments from the colonial period to the antebellum era. There are many pies from what I hear. Who doesn’t like pie? And there are muzzle-loaders! Re-enactments, too! Hopefully there won’t be to many in-liners. The meetings are in June and September.
Here is an unsual basic guide to constructing a muzzle-loading rifle written by a model plane hobbiest.
Some rifle manufacturers:
For an American-made, quality and safe replica Hawken try Thompson/Center.
For an Italian-made, quality, and safe Plains style replica (kit also available) try Lyman.
Track of the Wolf in Minnesota is the premier muzzloader kit manufacturer. Their replica and historic guns are of high quality. Their catalog is the source for muzzloading parts and information. I am probably going to buy one of their southpaw Kentuck rifles (since I am left eye dominant and right-handed) in the comming months.
Pecatonica River Long Rifle Supply also makes high-quality stocks and locks for rifles and pistols using the same barrels as Track of the Wolf. They seem competitive and offer more left-handed models, which I appericate greatly.
Connecticut Valley Arms and Traditions, which both use Spanish import barrels, have models known to explode using recommended loads, and I would avoid such guns despite their low price. Certainly never overload such guns. Also, with historical models, make sure that a competent gunsmith examines them before firing. It is better to lose some money than lose a hand or eye.
For the purposes of this essay I will be focusing on muzzle-loading rifles that have been used by people for the last 250 years. There are many different types for muzzle-loaders. Some are truly antique, being manufactured hundreds of years ago. These are all side-locks, which have an external hammer that ignites the powder. The oldest side-locks use the Match-lock mechanism.
Such guns are improvements on what was known as a “hand-canon.” Very early hand-held muzzle-loaders were ignited with a piece of fuse placed near hole that led to the powder. Some clever person had the bright idea of fashioning a hammer that clamps a piece of lit fuse. This hammer was connected to a primitive trigger. The result was that he could steady the firearm with both hands and then fire by squeezing his fingers, greatly improving accuracy and reliability. This is the first example of a true “gun.”
Later, the Flint-lock was developed. This was a substantial improvement over the Match-lock. It was more reliable and durable. You no longer had to keep your fuse lit. A loaded gun would be ready for action after simply cocking the hammer. It also freed the pioneer from buying or making his own fuse. Several pieces of flint could be kept and would last through hundreds of shots. The ubiquitous Brown Bess, the backbone of the English Empire, was a Flint-lock
I believe that the golden era of American rifle-making existed during the Flint-lock era. Colonial and pioneer Americans all used Flint-locks, the contemporary guns of the time. Masterful German immigrant gunsmiths (living in Lancaster Pennsylvania, not Kentucky) fashioned what I consider the masterpiece of American muzzle-loading rifles, the Kentucky Rifle. The Kentucky Rifle was uniquely American and suited for the vast, deep woods of the American Frontier. This made range and accuracy far more important to Americans than it ever was to the Europeans, so the Kentucky Rifles were made with unheard of barrel-lengths. Thirty inches is usually a minimum for such guns. The long, carefully rifled barrels squeezed every last drop of energy and accuracy out of the hand-made 50 caliber lead balls available to the American pioneer. The Kentucky Rifle stacked up brilliantly against the smoothbore, shorter British Brown Bess in the Battle of New Orleans (War of 1812) where “Hunters of Kentucky” inflicted brutal casualties with their accurate, long-range guns. It was also important to make the gun as carry-able, durable and handy as possible. Every bit of a Kentucky Rifle is simultaneously beautiful and functional. The Patch-box (on the butt-stock) is a good example. It was an innovation. It allowed for quick access of patches and faster loading times, but it was also beautifully engraved. Most American hunters dulled the shiny brass to prevent reflection of light, but this made the patch box fit the overall ruggedly elegant look of the gun. The stock was extended to almost to the end of the muzzle to make the balancing and steadying of the rifle easier, but it also gave the gun a sleek look that no other gun matches. The Kentucky rifle did away with bulky locks and unnecessary weight, making it lighter, more carry-able, and less likely to snag in dense forests.
Shorter versions of the Kentucky Rifle, like the “Hawken,” were popular with American trappers who needed a more compact, carry-able gun, but even longer versions were made for plains pioneers, which needed to kill large game (buffalo) or Indians from very great distances. Examples include the “Plains Rifle.”
The next innovation in Muzzle-loader design is the percussion cap. This is similar to the modern primer found on a center-fire rifle cartridge, the percussion cap rests on a nipple (essentially a hole leading to the power). When the hammer strikes the percussion cap, it bursts with a little flame in one direction. This flame then ignites the powder. The percussion cap is a more reliable ignition mechanism than the Flint-lock because it does not need to be adjusted carefully before use, and it works better in rain or extreme cold, but a carefully maintained and tuned Flint-lock can approach percussion cap reliability. Many older Flint-lock rifles were fitted with percussion cap ignitions, and many hunters today prefer the percussion cap, but my heart lies with the Flint-lock. As you can see though, the development of different mechanisms has been organic and gradual and traditional. At no point was the old design abandoned; it was simply improved.
A major development (perhaps rupture?) in muzzleloader design was the development of “in-line” ignitions. The vast bulk of new muzzle-loader sales are of the in-line design. This is a modern development that came after the development of breech-loading cartridge rifles, and, in my opinion, they are silly. They are essentially modern single-shot rifles that load from the front (the muzzle) instead of the rear (breech). The people who buy these rifles are trying to hunt during “muzzle-loader only” time, so they get the most unsporting, deadly muzzle-loader they can. They want a “muzzle-loader” that is stainless steel, waterproof, and composite-stocked so it is easy to clean. They want to use modern nitrocellulose powders instead of black powder. They want scopes. They want to be able to kill a Moose from 200 yards instead of having to creep up to 50. They want their rifle to fire even if it is freezing cold, they have not properly maintained their rifle, or if it is raining. This takes the joy out of muzzle-loading. The skill and patience required to operate the gun is lost, and the beauty is lost. I would commend any State for preventing these in-liners from killing everything during “muzzle-loader week,” and for encouraging the true sportsmen, those with side-locks, to maintain their traditions.
For those of you interested in muzzle-loading, I recommend the following links:
The largest muzzle-loading get-together, the Bi-annual National Muzzle-loading Rifle Association meet in Friendship, Indiana, is about 40 miles west of Cincinnati. This is a great place for the whole family. There are lasses clad in bonny vestments from the colonial period to the antebellum era. There are many pies from what I hear. Who doesn’t like pie? And there are muzzle-loaders! Re-enactments, too! Hopefully there won’t be to many in-liners. The meetings are in June and September.
Here is an unsual basic guide to constructing a muzzle-loading rifle written by a model plane hobbiest.
Some rifle manufacturers:
For an American-made, quality and safe replica Hawken try Thompson/Center.
For an Italian-made, quality, and safe Plains style replica (kit also available) try Lyman.
Track of the Wolf in Minnesota is the premier muzzloader kit manufacturer. Their replica and historic guns are of high quality. Their catalog is the source for muzzloading parts and information. I am probably going to buy one of their southpaw Kentuck rifles (since I am left eye dominant and right-handed) in the comming months.
Pecatonica River Long Rifle Supply also makes high-quality stocks and locks for rifles and pistols using the same barrels as Track of the Wolf. They seem competitive and offer more left-handed models, which I appericate greatly.
Connecticut Valley Arms and Traditions, which both use Spanish import barrels, have models known to explode using recommended loads, and I would avoid such guns despite their low price. Certainly never overload such guns. Also, with historical models, make sure that a competent gunsmith examines them before firing. It is better to lose some money than lose a hand or eye.
09 March 2007
02 March 2007
15-Passenger Van Safety Warnings
There was a factor I did not consider in my evaluation of the ultimate trad-mobile, and it is a deal breaker for many traditional families. The Dodge Sprinter is a 10-passenger vehicle. This is simply too small for many traditionalist families. There are only two larger vans. Actually, they are not classified as vans, but rather as lightweight busses. This is why the EPA does not test for fuel economy and the NTSB/NHTSA does not test them for rollover or side impact. It is also why whiplash head restraints are not required on such vehicles. These two vehicles are the Chevrolet Express/GMC Savanna and the Ford E-350.
The Ford:
The Chevy:
Both vehicles come in 12 and 15-passenger models and both come in extended lengths; fortunately the Chevy comes in an extended wheelbase. Both have poor rollover performance. If these vehicles take turns at high speeds and are laden behind the rear axel uncontrollable oversteer may occur. The oversteer is implicated in a number of rollover accidents. This is an inherent design flaw in the vehicles, both of which are modified pickup trucks, really.
The rear bench in such vehicles has four seats (as opposed to three). Most people load cargo as far rearward as possible (because it is easier). These factors often create dangerous situations, and I urge traditional families to load cargo and passengers as close to the center as possible and demand that your children to buckle up. Scapulars are not adequate protection!
I do fear that if 15-passanger vans were regulated as SUVs or Passenger Vehicles, instead of busses, they would fail miserably in many safety tests. Unfortunately, I am sure that if they were classified as such, GM and Ford would immediately drop the vehicles rather than redesign safe ones. That’s the American way, sadly. I doubt that it is a co-incidence that after Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler, the 1971 vintage American designed Dodge Ram Van was promptly dropped and replaced with the German designed (and manufactured) Sprinter. The Sprinter is a far safer vehicle that utilizes an advanced adaptive stability control system, numerous airbags, head restrains, and a low center of gravity unibody frame to make the van a safety leader. Unfortunately it has a 10-passenger capacity and a nearly $40,000 sticker making it an unworkable choice for many traditionalist Catholics.
So, there really is no option. Traditional Catholics, volunteer organizations, various churches, college sports teams, etc. will continue to buy Ford and GM 15-passegner vans because of their low initial cost and 33% greater seating capacity.
I will now examine some possible solutions to this problem and propose some remedies for GM and Ford to consider.
1) Extend the wheelbase. GM did this. Ford did not. This saved a bit of money for Ford. Unfortunately it compromises safety considerably. The further the wheels are to the corners, the more stable the vehicle becomes. This is simple physics that should be obvious to anybody who has played with blocks. For this reason alone I recommend that consumers not even consider the Ford van.
2) Install electronic stability control systems. The old Dodge Sprinter was the first to employ this device. It is basically a computer hooked up to some sensors and the breaks. When the sensors detect body roll, the computer makes a particular wheel break to correct the body roll. Since the computer controls a particular wheel and actuates the break caliper precisely, a substantial improvement in stability is achieved. In the last year, Ford and GM have installed electronic stability controls on their vehicles. For this I applaud GM and Ford, and I applaud making it a standard feature so no cheapo will eschew this safety measure. My applause may be unwarranted. Perhaps GM and Ford did it simply to placate the NHTSA or prevent lawsuits.
3) Lower the center of gravity. Instead of pick-up truck frames, GM and Ford might consider unibody designs, which have a lower center of gravity. If the advantages of body-on-frame designs (which are considerable) are found to be too numerous, they should take measures to lower the center of gravity. Some simple ways would be to utilize aluminum sheet metal in the roof instead of steel, to more carefully arrange the undercarriage components and lower the floor, or to reconfigure the engine so that it rests closer to the ground. Maybe switching to compact diesel engines would work (they don't have to meet EPA emissions due to classifcation). GM should consider switch to their compact, high-output Atlas engines. The LL8, a straight-six and the L5R, a straight-five, seem like good candidates, though there would be slight power and torque decreases compared to the current engines. Since the bonnet of the GM vans was extended in 2003, one would think there would be more lenght-room for these engines.
4) Bring interiors up to passenger vehicle standards. This means using high-density foam rubber on wall panels instead of hard plastic. This means sturdier seats. This means seatbelt pretensioners. This means crush zones and a reinforced roof. This means putting head restraints on the rear benches. The lack of head restraints is particularly irksome to me, because this should cost at most $150 and would enormously improve safety.
5) Include in the owner’s manual a comprehensive safety manual. This would include proper towing and trailering methods, proper loading methods, understanding how to handle the vehicle in less-than-ideal situations. Most of the problems with rollover have been attributed to “behavior” according to the NHTSA. In fact, 87 percent of the occupant fatalities associated with roll-over were not wearing seatbelts.
Some consumer advocacy groups, like Public Citizen, have suggested that installing dual rear wheels may be beneficial. This is an option on the Dodge Sprinter cargo van, but not the passenger van. Because of the pickup truck frame used by GM and Ford, a dual wheel would have to be installed under a bonnet like that found on large Pick up trucks.
I find this option undesirable for three reasons. It adds nearly two feet to the width of the vehicle, making it even more unwieldy. It also looks stupid (like training wheels) and will reduce the drag coefficient. It will add traction and additional payload and towing capacity, with is desirable. I think this should be an option on the vehicles. It should not be very expensive to manufacture.
For better or for worse, the NHTSA has been slow to act. The initial studies were conducted in 2000, and the only real improvement has been the addition of electronic stability control systems in the last year. It is important to recognize that haranguing or regulating-into-oblivion Ford and GM will result in the elimination of such vehicles from their lineups, leaving people with more than eight children with the only option of small school-use busses. Seriously. I believe that with some simple ingenuity these venerable vans can be improved substantially, and it irks me that GM and Ford have not taken initiative and corrected the problem already. I recommend that Americans and Canadians urge the manufactures to improve their designs. Below you will find a form letter and proper addresses for GM and Ford. You may also contact the NHTSA or your congressman.
(Photo of dual-wheel van courtesy of Public Citizen, and requests to remove this photo will be immediate heeded. Other images non-copyright and courtesy of Wikipedia.org)
[your name]
[your address]
[your address]
[date]
[Corporation name]
[Address]
[Address]
Dear Sir:
I urge [Corporation name] to consider improving the design of 12 and 15-passenger vans to make them safer. I am sure that you are already aware that the NHTSA has issued public alerts and conducted tests on your vans finding them unsafe due to rollover caused by uncontrollable oversteer. The buyers of such vehicles tend to be large families, churches, private schools, sports teams, and volunteer groups that are seeking high-capacity and low-cost transportation. They also happen to be the type of buyer that is very concerned with safety, and many may purchase the considerably safer Dodge Sprinter despite its higher cost and lower capacity.
I applaud the installment of electronic stability control systems on 12 and 15 passenger vans, [for GM, applaud the extended wheelbase], but much more can be done. A simple measure would be to install head restraints on the rear benches. Designing the vans to have a lower center of gravity may help as well. Finally, dual rear wheels, like those found on the pickup tucks that share platforms with the vans, have been found by a consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, to greatly improve performance (as well as traction, towing capacity, and payload). Making this an optional feature should be considered.
Improving the safety to 12 and 15-passenger vans can provide one avenue for [Corporation name] to improve its image and restore profitability. There are many loyal owners of these large vans who do not want to see production cease due to safety concerns.
Sincerely,
[your signature]
[your name]
Addresses:
General Motors Corporation
P.O. Box 33170
Detroit, MI 48232-5170
USA
Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126-6248
USA
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario, L6J5E4
Canada
NHTSA Headquarters
400 7th St SW
Washington, DC 20590
To find your congressman
The Ford:
The Chevy:
Both vehicles come in 12 and 15-passenger models and both come in extended lengths; fortunately the Chevy comes in an extended wheelbase. Both have poor rollover performance. If these vehicles take turns at high speeds and are laden behind the rear axel uncontrollable oversteer may occur. The oversteer is implicated in a number of rollover accidents. This is an inherent design flaw in the vehicles, both of which are modified pickup trucks, really.
The rear bench in such vehicles has four seats (as opposed to three). Most people load cargo as far rearward as possible (because it is easier). These factors often create dangerous situations, and I urge traditional families to load cargo and passengers as close to the center as possible and demand that your children to buckle up. Scapulars are not adequate protection!
I do fear that if 15-passanger vans were regulated as SUVs or Passenger Vehicles, instead of busses, they would fail miserably in many safety tests. Unfortunately, I am sure that if they were classified as such, GM and Ford would immediately drop the vehicles rather than redesign safe ones. That’s the American way, sadly. I doubt that it is a co-incidence that after Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler, the 1971 vintage American designed Dodge Ram Van was promptly dropped and replaced with the German designed (and manufactured) Sprinter. The Sprinter is a far safer vehicle that utilizes an advanced adaptive stability control system, numerous airbags, head restrains, and a low center of gravity unibody frame to make the van a safety leader. Unfortunately it has a 10-passenger capacity and a nearly $40,000 sticker making it an unworkable choice for many traditionalist Catholics.
So, there really is no option. Traditional Catholics, volunteer organizations, various churches, college sports teams, etc. will continue to buy Ford and GM 15-passegner vans because of their low initial cost and 33% greater seating capacity.
I will now examine some possible solutions to this problem and propose some remedies for GM and Ford to consider.
1) Extend the wheelbase. GM did this. Ford did not. This saved a bit of money for Ford. Unfortunately it compromises safety considerably. The further the wheels are to the corners, the more stable the vehicle becomes. This is simple physics that should be obvious to anybody who has played with blocks. For this reason alone I recommend that consumers not even consider the Ford van.
2) Install electronic stability control systems. The old Dodge Sprinter was the first to employ this device. It is basically a computer hooked up to some sensors and the breaks. When the sensors detect body roll, the computer makes a particular wheel break to correct the body roll. Since the computer controls a particular wheel and actuates the break caliper precisely, a substantial improvement in stability is achieved. In the last year, Ford and GM have installed electronic stability controls on their vehicles. For this I applaud GM and Ford, and I applaud making it a standard feature so no cheapo will eschew this safety measure. My applause may be unwarranted. Perhaps GM and Ford did it simply to placate the NHTSA or prevent lawsuits.
3) Lower the center of gravity. Instead of pick-up truck frames, GM and Ford might consider unibody designs, which have a lower center of gravity. If the advantages of body-on-frame designs (which are considerable) are found to be too numerous, they should take measures to lower the center of gravity. Some simple ways would be to utilize aluminum sheet metal in the roof instead of steel, to more carefully arrange the undercarriage components and lower the floor, or to reconfigure the engine so that it rests closer to the ground. Maybe switching to compact diesel engines would work (they don't have to meet EPA emissions due to classifcation). GM should consider switch to their compact, high-output Atlas engines. The LL8, a straight-six and the L5R, a straight-five, seem like good candidates, though there would be slight power and torque decreases compared to the current engines. Since the bonnet of the GM vans was extended in 2003, one would think there would be more lenght-room for these engines.
4) Bring interiors up to passenger vehicle standards. This means using high-density foam rubber on wall panels instead of hard plastic. This means sturdier seats. This means seatbelt pretensioners. This means crush zones and a reinforced roof. This means putting head restraints on the rear benches. The lack of head restraints is particularly irksome to me, because this should cost at most $150 and would enormously improve safety.
5) Include in the owner’s manual a comprehensive safety manual. This would include proper towing and trailering methods, proper loading methods, understanding how to handle the vehicle in less-than-ideal situations. Most of the problems with rollover have been attributed to “behavior” according to the NHTSA. In fact, 87 percent of the occupant fatalities associated with roll-over were not wearing seatbelts.
Some consumer advocacy groups, like Public Citizen, have suggested that installing dual rear wheels may be beneficial. This is an option on the Dodge Sprinter cargo van, but not the passenger van. Because of the pickup truck frame used by GM and Ford, a dual wheel would have to be installed under a bonnet like that found on large Pick up trucks.
I find this option undesirable for three reasons. It adds nearly two feet to the width of the vehicle, making it even more unwieldy. It also looks stupid (like training wheels) and will reduce the drag coefficient. It will add traction and additional payload and towing capacity, with is desirable. I think this should be an option on the vehicles. It should not be very expensive to manufacture.
For better or for worse, the NHTSA has been slow to act. The initial studies were conducted in 2000, and the only real improvement has been the addition of electronic stability control systems in the last year. It is important to recognize that haranguing or regulating-into-oblivion Ford and GM will result in the elimination of such vehicles from their lineups, leaving people with more than eight children with the only option of small school-use busses. Seriously. I believe that with some simple ingenuity these venerable vans can be improved substantially, and it irks me that GM and Ford have not taken initiative and corrected the problem already. I recommend that Americans and Canadians urge the manufactures to improve their designs. Below you will find a form letter and proper addresses for GM and Ford. You may also contact the NHTSA or your congressman.
(Photo of dual-wheel van courtesy of Public Citizen, and requests to remove this photo will be immediate heeded. Other images non-copyright and courtesy of Wikipedia.org)
[your name]
[your address]
[your address]
[date]
[Corporation name]
[Address]
[Address]
Dear Sir:
I urge [Corporation name] to consider improving the design of 12 and 15-passenger vans to make them safer. I am sure that you are already aware that the NHTSA has issued public alerts and conducted tests on your vans finding them unsafe due to rollover caused by uncontrollable oversteer. The buyers of such vehicles tend to be large families, churches, private schools, sports teams, and volunteer groups that are seeking high-capacity and low-cost transportation. They also happen to be the type of buyer that is very concerned with safety, and many may purchase the considerably safer Dodge Sprinter despite its higher cost and lower capacity.
I applaud the installment of electronic stability control systems on 12 and 15 passenger vans, [for GM, applaud the extended wheelbase], but much more can be done. A simple measure would be to install head restraints on the rear benches. Designing the vans to have a lower center of gravity may help as well. Finally, dual rear wheels, like those found on the pickup tucks that share platforms with the vans, have been found by a consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, to greatly improve performance (as well as traction, towing capacity, and payload). Making this an optional feature should be considered.
Improving the safety to 12 and 15-passenger vans can provide one avenue for [Corporation name] to improve its image and restore profitability. There are many loyal owners of these large vans who do not want to see production cease due to safety concerns.
Sincerely,
[your signature]
[your name]
Addresses:
General Motors Corporation
P.O. Box 33170
Detroit, MI 48232-5170
USA
Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126-6248
USA
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario, L6J5E4
Canada
NHTSA Headquarters
400 7th St SW
Washington, DC 20590
To find your congressman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
