Hard-Ass New Concept Hummer H4

I didn’t want you to miss this one. For now, only a concept vehicle, but automotive spies (the ones with very long camera tele-objectives) think it’s the basis for the new Hummer H4. Full time 4WD, 35 inch tires, an E85 Flex Fuel 3.6 L SIDI V6, removable doors, roof and fender flare, to make it look like a racy convertible on high wheels? In this case, adjustable air suspension would be very cool. I think it looks bad-ass and I pray for this one to make it to the assembly line.

16 Responses to “Hard-Ass New Concept Hummer H4”

  1. 1 Hondo Cat Jan 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Agreed! Just what the Doctor ordered, a smaller more competitive Hummer, with even nastier looks.

  2. 2 Rodent Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am


  3. 3 goldiron Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am

    Vehicles that are designed with a high crush zone and high roof line that cause more certain death to a motorcyclist do not get praises. Inattentive drivers operating these types of raised frame rail, raised roof line vehicles will offer more certainty to motorcyclist death rather than just injury.

    You can imagine t-boning a vehicle and in the old days the door would crush inward. Milliseconds later, your head would clear the top of most passenger vehicles. With this design, the crush zone is replaced with the frame rail as the point of impact. The launch of the motorcyclist becomes quicker and instead of glancing off of the roof or clearing the roof with a possibility of survival, the motorcyclist head will impact the roof line.

    Unless the motorcycle designers have a new design that will compete with this size of “Ididn’t see ’em’ obstruction, I think it will prove more deadly to motorcyclists.

    How big would the motorcycle wheel and tire combination have to be on the front of the motorcycle to improve the crush zone? 35s would still be too small because the axle center would still not be high enough to hit the soft spot/sweet spot on the door. Show me a design that is safer for motorcyclists in an impact with this vehicle and I am all for it. What would the design look like?

    Currently the only doctor ordered should be a coroner.

  4. 4 hoyt Jan 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Sad but true.

    In 15 years of my young riding adventure, the pleasurable experience of being able to see over the top of 2, 3, 4, etc. cars while riding behind them has been replaced with the FREQUENT “looking around” the brick-wall-of-an-suv in front you.

    What is worse?

    Drivers are getting dumbed down to look only the distance of one car at a time because that is all they can physically see much of the time.

    Result? people don’t look beyond more than one car at a time in ALL driving situations….This then leads to people pulling out in front of others…..which then leads to what GoldIron described.

  5. 5 Nicker Jan 31st, 2008 at 2:47 am

    “…Show me a [SUV] design that is safer for motorcyclists …”

    GeeZuz, Goldi, the world is not “scooter centric.”

    Lets face it, the vast majority of people get up each morning and go about their business without giving a Rosy-rats-ass about motorcycles.

    Even suggesting that the other 99% should subordinate their activities to accommodate us Scooter Pilots is tilting at wind mills…. BIg TIme!

    A far better crusade would be to get everyone to obey the traffic law (ALL of them).
    Then it really wouldn’t matter what anyone was driving.
    And that includes meat-head scooter jockeys, 80% of em aren’t qualified to “drive” a motorcycle, let alone “ride” one.

    “…Drivers are getting dumbed down ….”

    Yap, spot on!
    Worst part of it is, there is little in the way of traffic enforcement.
    The cop who comes to out town council tells me they basically don’t sweat the small stuff.
    They give speeding tickets and clean up wrecks.
    Otherwise their involved with crime.

    Today, more and more drivers are either distracted or incompetent.
    And it seems to get worse every year.
    In the future we may well be better off doing our riding on “track days” and staying off the street.

    IMHO the answer is really big fines…..
    illegal left hand turn $350…
    Running a red light $1000…
    Running a stop sign $3000…
    The one thing idiots do respond to is $$$$ (or the lack there of).

    Redesigning products to accommodate idiots solves nothing.
    One alternative, make life real expensive for idiots…


  6. 6 goldiron Jan 31st, 2008 at 5:52 am


    You are absolutely correct when you say that the world is not scooter centric.

    That is of course until the government and John Q Public want to hang a plastic hat on my head, make me wear a reflective vest, adorn my scooter with reflectors.

    Make me run a headlight 24/7 for conspicuity and then let the cars and SUVs be manufactured so they run with them 24/7 removing conspicuity.

    Tell me that my pipes have to be quieter than quiet.

    Tell me I can’t ride through certain communities.

    Tell me I can’t park certain places.

    Tell me I am a burden on society.

    Tell me my health insurance does not cover motorcycling.

    Tell me I must be more heavily insured than other vehicles.

    Tell me what my t-shirt can say.

    Tell me I can not protect myself with equal lethality.

    Yet, all of those times it was scooter centric and dammit all to hell if they are going to build an all terrain vehicle to be operated on roads only by one of the folks who thought it was there position to tell me what to where, how to ride where and when to ride and to pay extra taxes for doing so while avoiding my personal property being seized by some donut chomping Gomer in the name of God and Country who woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

    I do “face it, the vast majority of people get up each morning and go about their business without giving a Rosy-rats-ass about motorcycles.”

    These would be the same people that have given a rosy rat’s ass to hang all the other rules and regulations on me or would they be all the apathetic bikers in California and other states that let them get away with a mandatory helmet law that demands that all motorcyclists wear a helmet as a crash survival device rather than prevent crashes.

    It is my intent to lower the fatality rate on motorcycles without legislating motorcycles or motorcyclists off the road.

    Watch the following two videos. The second video hits directly upon this discussion.


  7. 7 burnout Jan 31st, 2008 at 11:10 am

    all of us make good points about rider safety because we care enough to talk about it. It IS a bit ironic and very, very sad that the last biker killed in my area was hit by a Hummer.

  8. 8 rc Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    And how many mpg will this baby get and what will the tax breaks be for those that can afford it and who will suffer when the government decides to bill your travel by miles instead of paying by the gallon because the states are losing tax revenue from the folk that are trying to reduce consumption of fuel.

    At one symposium the powers to be spent much time on motorcycle design. Status of airbag development etc. No mention of over all Vehicle design. Load that baby full of kids and a soccer mom on a cell phone. Just what she needs for a trip to the grocery store.

    Mark my words. We are quickly approaching the time when motorcycles not helmets will be considered the problem and they will be banned.

  9. 9 hoyt Jan 31st, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Nicker…I agree with you that 99% of the driving public cares not about 2-wheelers, but that doesn’t mean we should not call “bullshit” on the trend of buying SUV’s in the name of being “safer”….(if there is no trend, then manufacturers design and build something else, so GoldIron’s points about design can easily be applied indirectly, not directly.)

    If soccer mom A and soccer mom B both have the same idea about SUVs, and they collide, isn’t the impact greater due to the increased vehicle mass than if they would have bought reasonably-sized, all wheel drive wagons or sedans? (not to mention that studies have proved that SUVs aren’t necessarily safer — higher CofG, increased weight impacts stopping & handling, etc.).

    The gas-guzzling SUV, bigger-is-safer mentality is bad news, especially combined with the incompetence and/or distractions that you mentioned.

    At least with pickups, you can typically see through the rear window while riding behind them, whereas, with the SUV’s tinted rear window you cannot see through. Some pickups are getting so large now that cruiser riders can’t see through the window either due to the increased height

  10. 10 hoyt Jan 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    the trend to buy SUVs has prompted every OEM to build one (even Porsche). This trend has added visual obstructions all over the roadways which is changing the way people drive (looking only 1 vehicle away at a time)….

    Count the number of times people pull out in front of you when there was no one else behind you….that driver probably didn’t even notice that no one else was behind you, otherwise he/she would have thought twice….instead of jamming on the gas to get in front of you, they would have considered, “hhmmm, it will only take a second for him to go by, then I’ll safely go”

  11. 11 DJ CHOPPER GOD Jan 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Hummers suck.

  12. 12 Nicker Feb 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 am


    My insurance (medical & vehicular) simply reflects my history and the actuarial tables for my demographic. Insurance is a business and the more morons who get killed will drive up the price…. That’s to be expected. So, maybe you need to shop around for your insurance? My riding has not connection with my medical insurance.

    Personally, i don’t find my costs particularly objectionable. Being a “high mileage old timer” might have something to do with it(???), i really don’t know.

    I would prefer to go back to a time in CA where you could “self insure,” if you could demonstrate that you had the money to do so. But as we slide closer to Socialism such options are slowly eliminated. Primarily because Socialism and Marxism demand that “all outcomes be the same” ( and if that allusion pisses of some, they need to get over it).

    Last time i looked, CA exhaust & light restrictions apply to all vehicles.
    I”ve always run minimally baffled pipes on all my customs and have never been hustled over em.
    Lets face it, we all know how to soft-peddle our throttle-hand to keep the noise down.
    It’s the fool who finds a need to “be noticed” who gets “enforcement attention.”

    “…apathetic bikers in California and other states that let them get away with a mandatory helmet law …”

    Well, out here the HA started the Modified Motorcycle Association (back in about 1969 or so) to help fund the expense of a fighting the helmet laws. Each news letter had a report from the lobbyist, that’s how i found out about Sec. of Transportation Joan Claybrock’s desire to legislate MC’s off the road entirely.

    Now i don’t know if the MMA was a Nor-Cal-only effort or a national effort, (i’ve never was a “clubber” you need to ask someone in the HA). I joined the MMA in 1969 (still ware the patch), as did many others, to combat helmet legislation. Near as i remember, the MMA predated ABATE and other such organizations. I do know this, SF Bay Area bikers didn’t just “..let them get away with…” the helmet law.

    So, why did we end up with it and why is it still in CA…?
    Well, my own personal opinion is that the the helmet law in CA is in no small part a response by “the establishment” to the out of control MC gang activity in CA, in the “bad old days”.
    But that’s just my view.

    Regarding safety & design: i guess the argument could be made that if it’s OK to mandate car safety features, the same rational would apply to mandating MC safety. So, from that perspective, it doesn’t look to me like MC riders are being singled out. We’re just getting our share of “do-good-er-meddling.”

    Getting back to your need to “influence” SUV design.” Sorry, but the way i see it, your involved in the same exercise as those who want to control you….
    Dude, i understand your frustration about people telling you what to do, but ya can’t have it both ways.

    Life is fun when your free, but it isn’t easy.
    I’ve hear it said that Americans have had it too good for too long. That the Boomers are soft and looking to be taken care of. Hence creeping Socialism and more “…we’re all in this together…” crap.

    I guess one of the main reasons i’m still building & riding is because its one of the last activities that allowed you “control over your own hide” (for want of a better term).

    It’s been my experience that those who seek control over others, spend too much time contemplating Marx and Engel are also the ones trying to “change the world,” but never with a true understanding of human nature.

    “…The unspoken secret about freedom is that, when your free, your basically on your own…”
    -Clarance Thomas-

    “We’re all born into a dangerous world, life is hard, then we die”
    (Without freedom there is not life, your simply someone else’s slave)

  13. 13 goldiron Feb 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Just to clarify my insurance reference, it is not about actuarial tables nor demographics of age or assumed risk. When referring to problems with insurance, it is discrimination against motorcyclists and others who participate in legal recreational activities or use their motorcycles for transportation.

    Health insurance discrimination can have a devastating financial effect on families and has been the focus of efforts by groups for many years. Following the passage of the original HIPAA legislation in 2001, bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services created a loophole that allowed insurance companies to deny benefits to people who are injured while participating in legal recreational activities, such as riding motorcycles or off-road vehicles, horseback riding, skiing, and other activities.

    This HIPAA legislation is also key to the “ad nauseum” attempts of legislators operating as insurance industry shills to ensure mandatory helmet laws telling us that helmets will save all motorcyclists lives against vehicles like this Hummer and other variants.

    Way back in the mid-’70s, there was a definite need for the motorcyclists of America to stand up, unite and fight Big Brother style government. It was our wake-up call to get our act together or lose our freedom to ride without helmets, among other things.

    The popular belief, subscribed to by just about everybody including myself, was to get every type of biker and even those who didn’t ride but were sympathetic to the cause, and enlist them into the struggle. The cornerstone of this resistance was formed under the auspices of Easyriders Magazine and its spiritual leader, Lou Kimzey.

    The years have seen dramatic actions and were filled with victories and defeats. We gained momentum and then lost several states to renewed pressure. We were able to attract outstanding talent from the ranks of cyclists embroiled in the battle. Nationally, figureheads appeared who took up the banner and led our nation in the direction of victory. But one thing remained apparent. Even with the string of helmet repeals that took place in the late 1970’s, and with professional style newsletters and communications, ABATE chapters around the country still represented only a fraction of the registered motorcyclists in the respective states. Apathy had a lot to do with membership numbers lulling at or near the bottom of registration figures. And the misconception that ABATE was a Harley oriented organization was the most noticeable complaint. The concern became so important that special effort was made to attract and convince riders of imported bikes to join ABATE.

    In retrospect, I think ABATE has made an understandable mistake. Ideally, every registered motorcyclist enrolled in the army would mean an almost certainly unbeatable force. But realistically, we know we will never be able to motivate the greater numbers of apathetic dead weight out there. Our problem, from a purest point of view, is that when we enlist all these people into ABATE, we also enlist a multitude of different opinions and philosophies. Through the intricacy of our daily operations and legislative efforts, we somehow lost track of ABATE’s true purpose and goal. In order to appease some of our detractors, the popular trend for ABATE was to show that we were good citizens and good little bikers. Hence the birth of the charity craze and public relations boom. Again, going back to enlisting everybody we possibly could, we naturally acquired into the ranks those individuals who placed an urgency on making us appear like normal, everyday Americans. The problem with that thinking is we’re not normal, every day Americans (thank God). We are freedom-loving individualists and we are not afraid to stand up and make some noise for what we believe in.

    While we gained some attention for our charitable work, we chose to give of our fortunes to the likes of MDA and other nationally funded groups, while abandoning our own brothers and sisters who certainly needed and deserved our help. It never ceases to amaze me that we would adopt a highway and pick up trash, yet throw away our own kind, ignoring their pleas for help. We’ve got bikers who are sitting in wheelchairs, many of them because of drunk cage drivers, and all they want is to ask us to help them get back in the wind. But we would prefer to not see them in their predicament as if this denial might some way keep this from happening to us. We would much rather go out in the sun and pick garbage off the shoulder of some state highway, in the guise of performing a public service for the people, the majority of whom can’t stand us.

    In terms of government, no regulation is too arbitrary, too abusive, too costly, or too authoritarian to deal with the menace of the personally owned and personally driven motorcycle.

    My frustration with vehicles of this type, with insurance and with helmet laws is further exasperated by the fact that some members of the motorcycle community still don’t understand it all, and others think that continued disobedience will bring more trouble to the bikers. It’s that lack of understanding, that lack of support by our own kind that is our biggest problem. The “don’t make waves and the problem will go away” mentality is our biggest enemy. More so than the law enforcement agencies that continue to stop and harass us. More so than the NHTSA overstepping it’s authority and charge of duty by engaging in activities far beyond the scope and definition of it’s purpose.

    What I’m talking about is moderate position of devotion to order, acceptance of arbitrary rules in exchange for peaceful existence. I’ve always admired those peoples who would sacrifice freedom and blood in search of their liberties. We have been under the yoke of the protectionist governmental agencies and the various states for a long time, but we haven’t paid much of a price for our freedom as compared to others who sought redress from their government. Those who came before us with a passion for their cause almost always succeeded fully or to some great degree.

    We don’t have to resort to violence, but civil disobedience and resistance to these ridiculous mandatory helmet laws should be the only mandatory thing we recognize. Those among us who try to stifle our attempts in the name of order are the real problem in our movement today. When Martin Luther King was jailed in Birmingham, he wrote a letter to the clergymen who criticized his marches as being disruptive. Two parts of that letter summed up the sentiments I’m trying to relay to you here.

    First he said, “…an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”

    He went on to conclude that his people’s biggest stumbling block to freedom wasn’t the oppressive hate groups or police, but rather, “…the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises to wait until a more convenient season. Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

    If you live in a helmet law state, you should be out resisting that law with every fiber of your being, unless you agree with it of course. If you aren’t willing to accept that price, you should at least support those who are willing to face those repressive laws in any way you can. This isn’t about safety, as some uninformed or misguided shallow thinkers claim. Anyone should be allowed to wear a helmet if they think it will provide them some form of protection. Nobody should be forced to wear one by any government agency or bureaucratic Nimrod, by any sanctimonious legislative traitor to our Republic, or by any private interest (criminal) insurance representatives.

    I’m also personally proud to be a righteous, rude bastard, since I know that I’m only intentionally rude to those who have demonstrated that they deserve no better.

    All this may not be in line with how you feel, but then the nature of freedom in America allows us to be different, as compared to some so called rights organizations working for the good of “all motorcyclists”???

    These are my personal opinions, and not meant to infer that all motorcycle rights activists are as cantankerous, unyielding, stubborn, intolerant of stupidity and sick of the personal egos and infighting in today’s motorcycle rights groups as me, but I hope so.

  14. 14 Nicker Feb 3rd, 2008 at 2:11 am

    Where to start?

    Well, helmets, as a central issue, is as good as any:
    You say “…This isn’t about safety, as some uninformed or misguided shallow thinkers claim. Anyone should be allowed to wear a helmet …”

    While i’m with ya on helmet choice. i’ve gotta take issue with the assertion that there isn’t a valid safety case to be made for wearing a lid. That tired old story propagated by the “bad-boy”
    press (more broken necks due to helmets…bla, bla, bla..) is idiocy. Ask any, organ transplant doctors. They were scrambling for donors when the Feds first held highway funds hostage to state who wouldn’t capitulate.

    It’s an insurance company CEO’s job is to protect the share holders from undue risk.
    Nothing in the US constitution says you or anyone else can demand that he underwrite risky behavior without some mitigation (like higher rates). That’s business. Other wise asking me as a share holder to cover your inordinate risk is like taking money out of my pocket and putting it into yours. That act, outside of any business context is called “wealth redistribution.” You-all know where i stand on that issue.

    Insurance companies do this all the time and as people move to other carriers, the rest of the industry changes to attract clients. Case in point. home owners insurance. Here in CA (after some horrific forest fores) i had a hell of a time getting fire insurance for a Tahoe property. After 40 years of coverage Allstate dropped all such properties (too risky). Three years and two insurance companies later Allstate came back. It’s just business.

    Moreover, as a ranked competitive alpine ski racer, in one of the top USRSA competition classes for nearly 15 years and witnessing the sometimes horrific accidents associated with that sport, i would expect to have heard about insurance discrimination… but can’t recall any.

    So, i guess my pint is, i’m having a hard time connecting with your “victim hood.”

    “…Way back in the mid-’70s, there was a definite need for the motorcyclists of America to stand up, unite and fight Big Brother style government…”

    Sorry Dude, when the scooter jockeys of the ’70s decided to imitate the bad old days, they may well have gotten the attention of Big Brother. Do you think it possible that the cops didn’t want a replay of the murders and crime of those days…?

    Looking at the accountants and yuppies playing bad-ass these days, makes ya shake your head. They can’ ride, are clueless and if the bad old days pop up again their gonna be like deer in the headlights.
    Nuff-said about that.

    Lastly, equating a bunch of “… cantankerous, unyielding, stubborn, [motorcycle rights activists]…”
    trying to hold off a helmet law with Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement might indicate that your sense of proportionality is out of whack.

    Sure, civil disobedience is cool, but don’t overestimate its impact. Ride without a helmet if you like. But don’t try to palm that off as “dramatic action…. filled with victories and defeats.”

    I guess what i’m suggesting is, if you want to go “over the top” do it on an in a worthwhile (proportional) context.
    If we weren’t living in a free country, this thread, in this blog could very well get both of us into some trouble.

    You’ve already discovered that organizing the “biker brotherhood” (NOT!) is like herding cats.
    If your up for that sort of activity, apply your zeal to the national political arena. Take a good look at what some of the hopefuls have on their agenda. You can start by reading what McCain, Giuliani, and our CA Governor had to say at their recent west coast love fest!!
    Hildabeast Health care could be a hell of a lot worse for “socially useless” bikers.
    Some of these people’s agendas make a helmet law look down right trivial.

    It scares me bad enough to walk election precincts, door to door (first time ever!).


  15. 15 hoyt Feb 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
  16. 16 dragon Feb 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am

    ok been ridin for thirty-five years now and it is getting worst out there when you ride your bike but back in the early seventy’s easy rider told it like it was in one line 99% percent of car bike wreck’s are because no one in the family of the car driver has ever owned a bike and far as the law maker’s go if you don’t vote don’t bitch

Comments are currently closed.
Cyril Huze