No Fat Trucks

The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often override our
best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the things around us grow
bigger, so do we.

Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm

site of my dreams!

info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:

> The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often override
> our best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the things around us
> grow bigger, so do we.
>
> Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm
>
> site of my dreams!

There is a name for the mindset that says, "smaller is better". That name is stinginess. If you were
a big person trying to find a comfortable fit in a stingy world, sizeist crap like that you are
shoveling would just be more of a dreadfully familiar irritant.

I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one. Now at 6'8" and about 400
lbs., I am constantly presented with "one size" public accomodations that are not, in fact,
accomodations to me. I cope with the transportation ramifications of stingy design by using a
specially equipped motorcycle (and, of course, bicycles), but if I wanted to drive a car, I would
have a very short list of vehicles from which to choose.

Some of those few vehicles would be full-sized trucks.

So before you go suggesting that SUV gluttony makes one fat, consider that one who is fat for
reasons other than gluttony might choose a large, truck-based vehicle simply in order to fit into
his or her own car. That is the fault of the manufacturers and the sizeist society at large, not of
the big person who is making do.

Being big-- fat, tall, wide, heavy, or whatever-- is not wrong. You should thank your lucky stars
that most big folks have gentle and patient dispositions when you insult them.

Chalo Colina

On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote:

>info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:
>
[snip stuff about SUV's & the "Do you want to super-size your order sir?" culture...]
>
>I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one. Now at 6'8" and about 400
>lbs., I am constantly presented with "one size" public accomodations that are not, in fact,
>accomodations to me. I cope with the transportation ramifications of stingy design by using a
>specially equipped motorcycle (and, of course, bicycles), but if I wanted to drive a car, I would
>have a very short list of vehicles from which to choose.

The latest stats I could find say that 99% of US adult males lie in the height range 5' 2" - 6' 3".

You are way up the top end of the curve for height (along with about 1 in 10,000 of the population)
, so it's not surprising that you have had a hard time fitting in cars designed for the majority.

It's poor economcs for general automotive manufacturers to design their vehicles to accomodate the
very top and tail of the height curve: The middling majority would be forced to pay for the extra
metal and glass (plus the associated vehicle mass and wind resistance), while gaining no real
benefit from the increased size.

Vic.

"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4b7de4.0402251722.5198229e@posting.google.com...
> info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:
>
> > The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often override
> > our best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the things around us
> > grow bigger, so do we.
> >
> > Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm
> >
> > site of my dreams!
>
> There is a name for the mindset that says, "smaller is better". That name is stinginess. If you
> were a big person trying to find a comfortable fit in a stingy world, sizeist crap like that you
> are shoveling would just be more of a dreadfully familiar irritant.
>
> I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one.
> Now at 6'8" and about 400 lbs., I am constantly presented with "one
> size" public accomodations that are not, in fact, accomodations to me.
>

400 pounds? So you eat 4000 calories a day, right? You're 6 inches shorter than Shaquille O'Neal,
and weigh 80 pounds more? Sure.....

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <ikjimiyi2@com.com> wrote:

>
>"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8b4b7de4.0402251722.5198229e@posting.google.com...
>> info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:
>>
>> > The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often override
>> > our best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the things around
>> > us grow bigger, so do we.
>> >
>> > Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm
>> >
>> > site of my dreams!
>>
>> There is a name for the mindset that says, "smaller is better". That name is stinginess. If you
>> were a big person trying to find a comfortable fit in a stingy world, sizeist crap like that you
>> are shoveling would just be more of a dreadfully familiar irritant.
>>
>> I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one.
>> Now at 6'8" and about 400 lbs., I am constantly presented with "one
>> size" public accomodations that are not, in fact, accomodations to me.
>>
>
>400 pounds? So you eat 4000 calories a day, right? You're 6 inches shorter than Shaquille O'Neal,
>and weigh 80 pounds more? Sure.....

Dude, Imagine the kind of BIKE he rides! It's gotta be the Hummer of bicycles, eh? lol

http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/didi.html

-B

On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote:

>So before you go suggesting that SUV gluttony makes one fat, consider that one who is fat for
>reasons other than gluttony might choose a large, truck-based vehicle simply in order to fit into
>his or her own car. That is the fault of the manufacturers and the sizeist society at large, not of
>the big person who is making do.

A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
(especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need all
the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.

>
>Being big-- fat, tall, wide, heavy, or whatever-- is not wrong. You should thank your lucky stars
>that most big folks have gentle and patient dispositions when you insult them.

Being tall or heavy isnt' in dispute here; if you've got the frame that was built to carry the
weight, then there's not much to be done about it. "Fat" in this context is people who, as a result
of overconsumption an inactivity, are far heavier than they would normally be, with the resulting
health complications which, in the end, cost everybody. I include myself in the latter category.

-Luigi

>
>Chalo Colina

"vic" <victor_papanek@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> The latest stats I could find say that 99% of US adult males lie in the height range 5' 2"
> - 6' 3".
>
> You are way up the top end of the curve for height (along with about 1 in 10,000 of the
> population) , so it's not surprising that you have had a hard time fitting in cars designed for
> the majority.
>
> It's poor economcs for general automotive manufacturers to design their vehicles to accomodate the
> very top and tail of the height curve: The middling majority would be forced to pay for the extra
> metal and glass (plus the associated vehicle mass and wind resistance), while gaining no real
> benefit from the increased size.

All I can say is that I'm grateful for claustrophobics.

Peter (6'10") Cole

In article <telr30ds65nenooen9gtoqc1funj006208@4ax.com>, Badger@South.net says...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <ikjimiyi2@com.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8b4b7de4.0402251722.5198229e@posting.google.com...
> >> info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often
> >> > override our best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the
> >> > things around us grow bigger, so do we.
> >> >
> >> > Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm
> >> >
> >> > site of my dreams!
> >>
> >> There is a name for the mindset that says, "smaller is better". That name is stinginess. If you
> >> were a big person trying to find a comfortable fit in a stingy world, sizeist crap like that
> >> you are shoveling would just be more of a dreadfully familiar irritant.
> >>
> >> I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one.
> >> Now at 6'8" and about 400 lbs., I am constantly presented with "one
> >> size" public accomodations that are not, in fact, accomodations to me.
> >>
> >
> >400 pounds? So you eat 4000 calories a day, right? You're 6 inches shorter than Shaquille O'Neal,
> >and weigh 80 pounds more? Sure.....
>
> Dude, Imagine the kind of BIKE he rides! It's gotta be the Hummer of bicycles, eh? lol

Did you see the custom frame that Cannondale made for Shaq in the current issue of Bicycling mag?
They didn't give the size (at least I didn't see it), but when they put one of the three copies of
the frame through their destructive test routine, they couldn't break it; the machine was at its max
output, and still couldn't break the frame.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:20:00 -0500, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <ikjimiyi2@com.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:8b4b7de4.0402251722.5198229e@posting.google.com...
>>> info@gaspig.com (Joe Pig) wrote:
>>>
>>> > The subconscious mind, once sold on the idea that bigger things are better, will often
>>> > override our best intentions. We, in turn, find ourselves along for the ride, and as the
>>> > things around us grow bigger, so do we.
>>> >
>>> > Check out this article http://www.NoFatTrucks.com/suvfat07.htm
>>> >
>>> > site of my dreams!
>>>
>>> There is a name for the mindset that says, "smaller is better". That name is stinginess. If you
>>> were a big person trying to find a comfortable fit in a stingy world, sizeist crap like that you
>>> are shoveling would just be more of a dreadfully familiar irritant.
>>>
>>> I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one.
>>> Now at 6'8" and about 400 lbs., I am constantly presented with "one
>>> size" public accomodations that are not, in fact, accomodations to me.
>>>
>>
>>400 pounds? So you eat 4000 calories a day, right? You're 6 inches shorter than Shaquille O'Neal,
>>and weigh 80 pounds more? Sure.....
>
>Dude, Imagine the kind of BIKE he rides! It's gotta be the Hummer of bicycles, eh? lol

Chalo is our resident destructive-testing expert. When he speaks of the durability of frames,
wheels, cranks, etc, I listen. The sorts of loads he's capable of putting on stressed parts of the
bicycle--especially when he's pushing hard--really test the outer limits.

-Luigi

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:03:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote:
>
>>So before you go suggesting that SUV gluttony makes one fat, consider that one who is fat for
>>reasons other than gluttony might choose a large, truck-based vehicle simply in order to fit into
>>his or her own car. That is the fault of the manufacturers and the sizeist society at large, not
>>of the big person who is making do.
>
>A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
>(especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need all
>the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.

Are you suggesting rich trophy wives, with no day job? <g>

I'm just askin'...

-B They also use those giant suburban-like SUVs as battery rams. I had one cut me off by inches in
my car the other day like 'I'm in a Tank, get used to
it. I suspect these same ppl use their baby carriages in a similar manner, thrusting them out into
the street without really looking to stop traffic and gain safe passage. Even at crosswalks,
pause a freakin' second and look will ya? I'm just sayin'...

vic <victor_papanek@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's poor economcs for general automotive manufacturers to design their vehicles to accomodate the
> very top and tail of the height curve: The middling majority would be forced to pay for the extra
> metal and glass (plus the associated vehicle mass and wind resistance), while gaining no real
> benefit from the increased size.

That would be a sweeter pill to swallow if the same manufacturers had not taken great pains to
exterminate functional mass transit in this country. They still do, whenever light rail, monorail,
etc. come up for public discussion.

If they are going to see to it that folks have no other viable choices, they'd damn well better
provide suitable vehicles for *everybody*.

Your argument about increased vehicle size doesn't hold water. For instance, I once rented a Ford
Crown Victoria (big assed car) and found that I couldn't fit in the driver's seat. Likewise with a
couple of different kinds of 4-door SUVs. I just rented an International truck with a 25 foot box,
and periodically found myself killing the ignition when my knee would come into contact with the key
in the dash. Yet the new VW Beetle fits me passably well, and from what I've heard the new Mini
Cooper is a good fit for very tall drivers.

How much would it cost a manufacturer to put a couple more slots in the adjusting rails of a
driver's seat? How much to offer a seat with meaningful vertical height adjustment, instead of, say,
adjustable lumbar support? Diddly-squat, that's what.

Chalo Colina

Badger_South <Badger@South.net> wrote:

> Dude, Imagine the kind of BIKE he rides! It's gotta be the Hummer of bicycles, eh? lol

Well I don't have any pictures handy of the bike built up, but here are links to pictures of
the frame:

http://bohemianbicycles.com/photo_gallery11.htm

http://bohemianbicycles.com/chalo.htm

The first picture in the second link gives a good perspective.

Chalo Colina

"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> I grew too big for most cars (6'7") before I was allowed to drive one.
>>> Now at 6'8" and about 400 lbs., I am constantly presented with "one
>>> size" public accomodations that are not, in fact, accomodations to me.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <ikjimiyi2@com.com> wrote:
>>400 pounds? So you eat 4000 calories a day, right? You're 6 inches shorter than Shaquille O'Neal,
>>and weigh 80 pounds more? Sure.....

Chalo would scare your average gorilla, and would get respect from grizzly bears. Read on...

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:20:00 -0500, Badger_South <Badger@South.net> wrote:
>Dude, Imagine the kind of BIKE he rides! It's gotta be the Hummer of bicycles, eh? lol

Here's a picture of him on a bike that he rides:
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/d.../tallride4.jpg

There are detail pictures of parts that he's custom-machined for his heavy-duty use in many
rec.bicycles.tech posts. Google groups for chalo jpg and browse the threads you get back.
--
Rick Onanian

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:39:13 -0500, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:03:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote:
>>
>>>So before you go suggesting that SUV gluttony makes one fat, consider that one who is fat for
>>>reasons other than gluttony might choose a large, truck-based vehicle simply in order to fit into
>>>his or her own car. That is the fault of the manufacturers and the sizeist society at large, not
>>>of the big person who is making do.
>>
>>A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
>>(especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need
>>all the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.
>
>Are you suggesting rich trophy wives, with no day job? <g>

In NoVA, probably.

>
>I'm just askin'...
>
>-B They also use those giant suburban-like SUVs as battery rams. I had one cut me off by inches in
>my car the other day like 'I'm in a Tank, get used to
>it.

They have a very poor idea of the width of their vehicles. They're also great at cutting corners at
intersections. I guess they think that they can take the corner in a Suburban at the same line that
they woudl take it in a Cavalier. *shakes head*.

>I suspect these same ppl use their baby carriages in a similar manner, thrusting them out into the
>street without really looking to stop traffic and gain safe passage. Even at crosswalks, pause a
>freakin' second and look will ya? I'm just sayin'...

the present code of Virginia only expects motorists to yield to pedestrians, which many motorist
interpret as "drive the hell on through unless you're about to hit something." SB 101, currently
passing through the House of Delegates (and the subject of a recent thread, begun by me) would
change the law to require motorists to *stop*. So maybe even those baby carriage kamikazes will be
saved by legislation that I, a cyclist support! All the thanks I get is a hostile honk when their
detection of my presence on the road interrupts their cellphone conversation. Which is really all
the thanks I expect.

Pray for your enemies, saith the Lord....

-Luigi

On 26 Feb 2004 10:50:24 -0800, chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote:

>vic <victor_papanek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's poor economcs for general automotive manufacturers to design their vehicles to accomodate
>> the very top and tail of the height curve: The middling majority would be forced to pay for the
>> extra metal and glass (plus the associated vehicle mass and wind resistance), while gaining no
>> real benefit from the increased size.
>
>That would be a sweeter pill to swallow if the same manufacturers had not taken great pains to
>exterminate functional mass transit in this country. They still do, whenever light rail, monorail,
>etc. come up for public discussion.
>
>If they are going to see to it that folks have no other viable choices, they'd damn well better
>provide suitable vehicles for *everybody*.

Why? They're in it for the money. Why waste materials catering and increase your unit costs for a
vanishingly small percentage of the market? I'm not saying this is a good thing, mind you (not
owning a car myself).

>
>Your argument about increased vehicle size doesn't hold water. For instance, I once rented a Ford
>Crown Victoria (big assed car) and found that I couldn't fit in the driver's seat. Likewise with a
>couple of different kinds of 4-door SUVs. I just rented an International truck with a 25 foot box,
>and periodically found myself killing the ignition when my knee would come into contact with the
>key in the dash. Yet the new VW Beetle fits me passably well, and from what I've heard the new Mini
>Cooper is a good fit for very tall drivers.

The Ford obviously wasn't designed with the tallest 0.01% of drivers in mind, same for the SUV's.
The beetle is a novelty design, with an abnormally high arched roof, which may also be said of the
Mini - more novelty.

>
>How much would it cost a manufacturer to put a couple more slots in the adjusting rails of a
>driver's seat? How much to offer a seat with meaningful vertical height adjustment, instead of,
>say, adjustable lumbar support? Diddly-squat, that's what.

Here speaks a man with no experience of design for production, especially mass production. Ford
engineers strain their wits daily to shave *pennies* off every design, every component, every bought-
in sub assembly. They do this because it all counts on the bottom line times millions through the
production run of a vehicle.

I know this because I've worked alongside them.

If they can leave the two extra slots off the seat rails, and still cater for 99.9% of the market
(which excludes you, unfortunately) then they will, and their team leads will say "Attaboy!".

Vic