- First Name
- Oct 3, 2020
- Reaction score
- Washington State
- 2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Just wow! I don't really want to cover all that so I'll just make a few brief points and sign out:Roll over is all about the center of gravity. Teslas have a low center of gravity and that's why it's so fun to watch them try to roll over the model X during testing. I guess we could just make it illegal to raise the center of gravity. Lift kits can be illegal, using tires above a certain size can be illegal, we can definitely make it illegal to carry a canoe on roof racks unless it's aluminium since other canoes are very heavy, those people should just buy a vehicle with a hitch and trailer.
However I don't see how dualies are going to raise the center of gravity, I believe they would lower it since it's literally just putting more weight on the lowest part of the vehicle. You don't need to put a lift kit on to have dualies. Also dualies increase the surface contact with the ground by 50%, so I don't see why they have a higher risk of roll overs in your eyes.
Now if we look at toxic gases. Are you talking just about the fact the process to make those extra tires that someone doesn't need? if so then you are absolutely right. I could also spend the entire night typing and I probably wouldn't even get through half a list of generic products that aren't necessary and would just be cosmetic for vehicles and countless other things that cause pollution. Even just talking about tires, we could look at race cars that go through multiple sets per race, people who just like to go on roadtrips and could use up two sets of tires in the same time as someone with dualies would use up one set with moderate driving.
Now I will point out one actual increased risk with dualies that you didn't point out and that is severe rain conditions. Hydroplaning has a higher chance with more tires and more contact with the road because the surface area that water can get under, especially when it's tires filled with air, is much higher. But at the same time, just because it increases the risk, doesn't mean it'll be higher than a lot of other vehicles. If you get a really lightweight car, you have to be very careful on roads that have a lot of water on them, probbaly moreso than any large heavy truck with dualies.
You just said that it's fortunate that it's legal to mod your truck while explaining why you think that this design is a danger to the driver and everyone else around them.
Now I love freedom of speech and I will never tell someone that they aren't entitled to their opinion. I also love picking apart someones argument and see how they try to defend themselves. Also freedom of speech makes it legal to say what you want, doesn't make it any less rude to completely trash on someones design because you don't like the design of it. It's completely possible to be constructive about it.
My best friend since childhood came to me years ago with a business idea. He put a lot of work into it, it was something he had spent a lot of time researching, but I thought it was a terrible Idea. I didn't call his idea idiotic, I went over ever detail of his business plan to explain to him what I thought was wrong, I let him see it from another perspective, so he could decide for himself that it was idiotic.
What is trashing on someones idea going to solve? people post on her to look for ideas or they post on here to show designs that they found and might purchase in the future. If it's someone is actually planning to build something for the market in the future, the more constructive we are, the better products we will have to choose from.
1) No one said dualies increase roll-over risk.
2) Yes, dualies are dumb if they are not necessary to meet the load requirements.
3) Enforcing "no modification" rules would consume police and court time that would be better spent going after burglars, rapists, and other more serious crimes. Education is probably more productive than fines and jail.
4) I think the design is ugly (both from a practical perspective and from an aesthetic perspective) and I want to be clear about that. There is no way to say that effectively without actually saying it.
5) I've explained why I think the design is idiotic because it ignores certain functional principles and shows that someone doesn't understand what makes EV's so viable. Out with the old and in with the new.
Apologies if I was too direct but it's just my opinion and I think that's more than obvious. If you want to tiptoe through the tulips, be my guest, I'll just watch you take dainty and well-measured steps from the sidelines. I just call it how I see it and I explain why I see it that way. No hard feelings, take it or leave it.