Fat people? Less gas!

[Bill Turlock]

"Charles Wm. Dimmick" wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>>> because it's a place to store it?
> >>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
> >>>
> >> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> >> that and odd sized loads....
> >
> > Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> > the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
> >
> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.
>

What was that, maybe a half dozen of them chiseled-in-stone
books?

 

[Bill Turlock]

"Charles Wm. Dimmick" wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>>> because it's a place to store it?
> >>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
> >>>
> >> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> >> that and odd sized loads....
> >
> > Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> > the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
> >
> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.
>

What was that, maybe a half dozen of them chiseled-in-stone
books?

 

[Bill Turlock]

"Charles Wm. Dimmick" wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>>> because it's a place to store it?
> >>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
> >>>
> >> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> >> that and odd sized loads....
> >
> > Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> > the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
> >
> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.
>

What was that, maybe a half dozen of them chiseled-in-stone
books?

 

[Lee Ayrton]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:

> [email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:

>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
> Tell that to the Weschler people.

Usenet might magically disimbue you with intelligence:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=320790

Constant IM and email use results in a (temporary) 10 point drop in IQ.
Perhaps this explains the endemic abuse of the apostrophe.


But! Vegetarians start out with a 5 point head start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm



Lee "getting more stupid even as I post" Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.

 

[Lee Ayrton]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:

> [email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:

>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
> Tell that to the Weschler people.

Usenet might magically disimbue you with intelligence:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=320790

Constant IM and email use results in a (temporary) 10 point drop in IQ.
Perhaps this explains the endemic abuse of the apostrophe.


But! Vegetarians start out with a 5 point head start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm



Lee "getting more stupid even as I post" Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.

 

[Lee Ayrton]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:

> [email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:

>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
> Tell that to the Weschler people.

Usenet might magically disimbue you with intelligence:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=320790

Constant IM and email use results in a (temporary) 10 point drop in IQ.
Perhaps this explains the endemic abuse of the apostrophe.


But! Vegetarians start out with a 5 point head start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm



Lee "getting more stupid even as I post" Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 11:48 pm, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?
>
> >The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
> >everyday activities.
>
> I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
> everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
> twice.

And I've had at least four friends killed in car or pickup truck
accidents. In fact, there are over 35,000 of those per year in
America.

> And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

You're confused. A bicycle is NOT a motorcycle, even though they both
have two wheels. The danger level is tremendously greater for
motorcycling. And BTW, I ride both, so I've got both knowledge of the
national statistics, and the on-the-road experience.

Take the most common cause of collisions between cars and two-
wheelers, the left turn by the oncoming, brain-dead, inconsiderate
motorist. Bicyclists at least have a good chance of turning right and/
or braking to avoid or lessen the head on collision.

But on a motorcycle? No way to stop a 600 pound machine going 40
mph. The result is a vicious impact and, usually, serious or fatal
injuries.

Again, fatality data shows motorcycling is roughly 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling. Try digging up the numbers to see for
yourself.


> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>
> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
> rarely cyclist-friendly.
....
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.

Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
proselytizing to scare cyclists off their bikes and into cars, by
claiming (falsely) that cycling is terribly dangerous. And that false
claim is rampant in society.

The trouble with motorists is they don't realize how much the world
has been remodeled to accommodate their whims. They think it's
"normal" to fire up the power of an entire herd of 150 horses to move
a two-ton piece of hardware plus their flabby body even a few hundred
yards. They think it's "normal" to have no local stores within a few
blocks of most housing, because of course everyone should drive to the
*-mart. They think it's "normal" to have communities sliced apart by
60-foot-wide rivers of asphalt. They think it's "normal" that kids
can't walk to school, because all the motorists driving their pampered
princesses to school make it too dangerous for other kids to walk.

And if someone proposes that gentler alternatives be considered, why,
they're whacky! Their "proselytizing!"

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 11:48 pm, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?
>
> >The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
> >everyday activities.
>
> I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
> everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
> twice.

And I've had at least four friends killed in car or pickup truck
accidents. In fact, there are over 35,000 of those per year in
America.

> And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

You're confused. A bicycle is NOT a motorcycle, even though they both
have two wheels. The danger level is tremendously greater for
motorcycling. And BTW, I ride both, so I've got both knowledge of the
national statistics, and the on-the-road experience.

Take the most common cause of collisions between cars and two-
wheelers, the left turn by the oncoming, brain-dead, inconsiderate
motorist. Bicyclists at least have a good chance of turning right and/
or braking to avoid or lessen the head on collision.

But on a motorcycle? No way to stop a 600 pound machine going 40
mph. The result is a vicious impact and, usually, serious or fatal
injuries.

Again, fatality data shows motorcycling is roughly 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling. Try digging up the numbers to see for
yourself.


> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>
> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
> rarely cyclist-friendly.
....
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.

Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
proselytizing to scare cyclists off their bikes and into cars, by
claiming (falsely) that cycling is terribly dangerous. And that false
claim is rampant in society.

The trouble with motorists is they don't realize how much the world
has been remodeled to accommodate their whims. They think it's
"normal" to fire up the power of an entire herd of 150 horses to move
a two-ton piece of hardware plus their flabby body even a few hundred
yards. They think it's "normal" to have no local stores within a few
blocks of most housing, because of course everyone should drive to the
*-mart. They think it's "normal" to have communities sliced apart by
60-foot-wide rivers of asphalt. They think it's "normal" that kids
can't walk to school, because all the motorists driving their pampered
princesses to school make it too dangerous for other kids to walk.

And if someone proposes that gentler alternatives be considered, why,
they're whacky! Their "proselytizing!"

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 11:48 pm, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?
>
> >The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
> >everyday activities.
>
> I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
> everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
> twice.

And I've had at least four friends killed in car or pickup truck
accidents. In fact, there are over 35,000 of those per year in
America.

> And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

You're confused. A bicycle is NOT a motorcycle, even though they both
have two wheels. The danger level is tremendously greater for
motorcycling. And BTW, I ride both, so I've got both knowledge of the
national statistics, and the on-the-road experience.

Take the most common cause of collisions between cars and two-
wheelers, the left turn by the oncoming, brain-dead, inconsiderate
motorist. Bicyclists at least have a good chance of turning right and/
or braking to avoid or lessen the head on collision.

But on a motorcycle? No way to stop a 600 pound machine going 40
mph. The result is a vicious impact and, usually, serious or fatal
injuries.

Again, fatality data shows motorcycling is roughly 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling. Try digging up the numbers to see for
yourself.


> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>
> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
> rarely cyclist-friendly.
....
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.

Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
proselytizing to scare cyclists off their bikes and into cars, by
claiming (falsely) that cycling is terribly dangerous. And that false
claim is rampant in society.

The trouble with motorists is they don't realize how much the world
has been remodeled to accommodate their whims. They think it's
"normal" to fire up the power of an entire herd of 150 horses to move
a two-ton piece of hardware plus their flabby body even a few hundred
yards. They think it's "normal" to have no local stores within a few
blocks of most housing, because of course everyone should drive to the
*-mart. They think it's "normal" to have communities sliced apart by
60-foot-wide rivers of asphalt. They think it's "normal" that kids
can't walk to school, because all the motorists driving their pampered
princesses to school make it too dangerous for other kids to walk.

And if someone proposes that gentler alternatives be considered, why,
they're whacky! Their "proselytizing!"

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Greg Goss]

Erich <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Would you consider an automatic shifting manual transmission?
>>
>> You mean without a clutch? Maybe. I swore off stick after getting
>> caught in a 50-mile stop-and-go traffic jam out of D.C. one afternoon.
>
>The six speed DSG transmission my 2006 VW Jetta has two clutches, but no
>clutch pedal. EPA mileage figure with the DSG is slightly better than
>the same car with a manual.

What is DSG an acronym for? I drive a manual because I don't like the
gas mileage losses of the transfer case. If a self-clutched automatic
could handle things as well as I do, I'd be glad to delegate that.
But not enough to consider a VW.

>Roughly half the gas stations in this area have diesel fuel. Finding
>diesel isn't much of a problem, especially since the car has a 500 mile
>range with a full tank.

I did consider a diesel last fall and winter. But the only
ultracompact car being sold into my market is overpriced and TOO
ultracompact, even for me. Diesel has more energy per gallon, and
sells cheaper than gas in my market. As a gas mileage bigot, I want.
(I realize that you were asking someone else the question)
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Erich <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Would you consider an automatic shifting manual transmission?
>>
>> You mean without a clutch? Maybe. I swore off stick after getting
>> caught in a 50-mile stop-and-go traffic jam out of D.C. one afternoon.
>
>The six speed DSG transmission my 2006 VW Jetta has two clutches, but no
>clutch pedal. EPA mileage figure with the DSG is slightly better than
>the same car with a manual.

What is DSG an acronym for? I drive a manual because I don't like the
gas mileage losses of the transfer case. If a self-clutched automatic
could handle things as well as I do, I'd be glad to delegate that.
But not enough to consider a VW.

>Roughly half the gas stations in this area have diesel fuel. Finding
>diesel isn't much of a problem, especially since the car has a 500 mile
>range with a full tank.

I did consider a diesel last fall and winter. But the only
ultracompact car being sold into my market is overpriced and TOO
ultracompact, even for me. Diesel has more energy per gallon, and
sells cheaper than gas in my market. As a gas mileage bigot, I want.
(I realize that you were asking someone else the question)
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Erich <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Would you consider an automatic shifting manual transmission?
>>
>> You mean without a clutch? Maybe. I swore off stick after getting
>> caught in a 50-mile stop-and-go traffic jam out of D.C. one afternoon.
>
>The six speed DSG transmission my 2006 VW Jetta has two clutches, but no
>clutch pedal. EPA mileage figure with the DSG is slightly better than
>the same car with a manual.

What is DSG an acronym for? I drive a manual because I don't like the
gas mileage losses of the transfer case. If a self-clutched automatic
could handle things as well as I do, I'd be glad to delegate that.
But not enough to consider a VW.

>Roughly half the gas stations in this area have diesel fuel. Finding
>diesel isn't much of a problem, especially since the car has a 500 mile
>range with a full tank.

I did consider a diesel last fall and winter. But the only
ultracompact car being sold into my market is overpriced and TOO
ultracompact, even for me. Diesel has more energy per gallon, and
sells cheaper than gas in my market. As a gas mileage bigot, I want.
(I realize that you were asking someone else the question)
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>> better mileage.
>
>The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>transmission should not be granted licenses.

I drive a standard. My city has a dismal rush hour. For a year, till
I quit that job, I was driving half of my hour-long each way commute
at 3 MPH or so. It is a pain with a standard, and if I had kept that
job, I would want an automatic.

My car isn't allowed to take a trailer. Even U-Haul, who were willing
to rent a hitch to attach to my previous Metro
(swift/Firefly/Sprint/Forsa) won't put one on an insight.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>> better mileage.
>
>The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>transmission should not be granted licenses.

I drive a standard. My city has a dismal rush hour. For a year, till
I quit that job, I was driving half of my hour-long each way commute
at 3 MPH or so. It is a pain with a standard, and if I had kept that
job, I would want an automatic.

My car isn't allowed to take a trailer. Even U-Haul, who were willing
to rent a hitch to attach to my previous Metro
(swift/Firefly/Sprint/Forsa) won't put one on an insight.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>> better mileage.
>
>The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>transmission should not be granted licenses.

I drive a standard. My city has a dismal rush hour. For a year, till
I quit that job, I was driving half of my hour-long each way commute
at 3 MPH or so. It is a pain with a standard, and if I had kept that
job, I would want an automatic.

My car isn't allowed to take a trailer. Even U-Haul, who were willing
to rent a hitch to attach to my previous Metro
(swift/Firefly/Sprint/Forsa) won't put one on an insight.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Richard Evans]

[email protected] wrote:

>
>> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>>
>> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
>> rarely cyclist-friendly.
>...
>> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>
> Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
>proselytizing

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Bicycists came into a discussion of gas mileage, and
have been prodding me to ride a bicycle as an alternative. Nobody came
into your bicycle group and started advocating switching to cars.

 

[Richard Evans]

[email protected] wrote:

>
>> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>>
>> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
>> rarely cyclist-friendly.
>...
>> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>
> Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
>proselytizing

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Bicycists came into a discussion of gas mileage, and
have been prodding me to ride a bicycle as an alternative. Nobody came
into your bicycle group and started advocating switching to cars.

 

[Richard Evans]

[email protected] wrote:

>
>> >More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.
>>
>> But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
>> rarely cyclist-friendly.
>...
>> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>
> Oh really? Read what you just posted. In effect, you're
>proselytizing

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Bicycists came into a discussion of gas mileage, and
have been prodding me to ride a bicycle as an alternative. Nobody came
into your bicycle group and started advocating switching to cars.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>>> better mileage.
>> The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>> physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>> backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>> transmission should not be granted licenses.
>
> I drive a standard. My city has a dismal rush hour. For a year, till
> I quit that job, I was driving half of my hour-long each way commute
> at 3 MPH or so. It is a pain with a standard, and if I had kept that
> job, I would want an automatic....

I would want a bicycle for that situation.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>>> better mileage.
>> The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>> physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>> backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>> transmission should not be granted licenses.
>
> I drive a standard. My city has a dismal rush hour. For a year, till
> I quit that job, I was driving half of my hour-long each way commute
> at 3 MPH or so. It is a pain with a standard, and if I had kept that
> job, I would want an automatic....

I would want a bicycle for that situation.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.