Fat people? Less gas!



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.
 
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> 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.

>
> Wow. You generate a lot of garbage!


That was work supplies, not garbage.

The 1 ton is not much fun to drive on narrow city streets in traffic -
makes me wonder why anyone would want one for that. However, it does
allow one to see over minivans and standard SUVs.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> 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.

>
> Wow. You generate a lot of garbage!


That was work supplies, not garbage.

The 1 ton is not much fun to drive on narrow city streets in traffic -
makes me wonder why anyone would want one for that. However, it does
allow one to see over minivans and standard SUVs.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> 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.

>
> Wow. You generate a lot of garbage!


That was work supplies, not garbage.

The 1 ton is not much fun to drive on narrow city streets in traffic -
makes me wonder why anyone would want one for that. However, it does
allow one to see over minivans and standard SUVs.

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


I believe by common usage, a Suburban is a truck or SUV, not a station
wagon.

1700 pounds is not much of a load. I loaded up the 1 ton pickup with
about 2500 pounds in the bed and hooked up a 8000 pound trailer. The $75
dollar gas stops makes me happy that it is not my personal vehicle.

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


I believe by common usage, a Suburban is a truck or SUV, not a station
wagon.

1700 pounds is not much of a load. I loaded up the 1 ton pickup with
about 2500 pounds in the bed and hooked up a 8000 pound trailer. The $75
dollar gas stops makes me happy that it is not my personal vehicle.

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


I believe by common usage, a Suburban is a truck or SUV, not a station
wagon.

1700 pounds is not much of a load. I loaded up the 1 ton pickup with
about 2500 pounds in the bed and hooked up a 8000 pound trailer. The $75
dollar gas stops makes me happy that it is not my personal vehicle.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Richard Evans wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>> Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>> bicycle in my bedroom).

>
> If that's all that important to you, I guess.


Never trust a man without a favorite bicycle (or recumbent trike)!

> I have a two-acre lot
> and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
> My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


Must not go anywhere interesting?

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


When did bicycles become motorcycles?

>> 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.


Not everyone posting to Usenet lives in the US, you know?

>>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>>> solution for me.

>> There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.

>
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>

No, you just disparage us.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Richard Evans wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>> Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>> bicycle in my bedroom).

>
> If that's all that important to you, I guess.


Never trust a man without a favorite bicycle (or recumbent trike)!

> I have a two-acre lot
> and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
> My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


Must not go anywhere interesting?

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


When did bicycles become motorcycles?

>> 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.


Not everyone posting to Usenet lives in the US, you know?

>>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>>> solution for me.

>> There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.

>
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>

No, you just disparage us.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Richard Evans wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>> Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>> bicycle in my bedroom).

>
> If that's all that important to you, I guess.


Never trust a man without a favorite bicycle (or recumbent trike)!

> I have a two-acre lot
> and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
> My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


Must not go anywhere interesting?

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


When did bicycles become motorcycles?

>> 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.


Not everyone posting to Usenet lives in the US, you know?

>>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>>> solution for me.

>> There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.

>
> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>

No, you just disparage us.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:44:23 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> I keep my favorite bicycle in my bedroom

>
> This *still* isn't the sex-with-bicycle thread.
>

The women are jealous of my bicycle being cute:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1939602865/>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:44:23 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> I keep my favorite bicycle in my bedroom

>
> This *still* isn't the sex-with-bicycle thread.
>

The women are jealous of my bicycle being cute:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1939602865/>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:44:23 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> I keep my favorite bicycle in my bedroom

>
> This *still* isn't the sex-with-bicycle thread.
>

The women are jealous of my bicycle being cute:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1939602865/>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. :)


In 91, I was commuting 15Km or so each way to work on a bicycle.

This time, I was commuting 30 to 35Km (depending ono route) each way.
And my bike was never adjusted right after the bike shop mishandled
the wheel replacement. Half of the commute at sub-bike speeds. But
the other half was at car speeds. A bad mix all around.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. :)


In 91, I was commuting 15Km or so each way to work on a bicycle.

This time, I was commuting 30 to 35Km (depending ono route) each way.
And my bike was never adjusted right after the bike shop mishandled
the wheel replacement. Half of the commute at sub-bike speeds. But
the other half was at car speeds. A bad mix all around.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. :)


In 91, I was commuting 15Km or so each way to work on a bicycle.

This time, I was commuting 30 to 35Km (depending ono route) each way.
And my bike was never adjusted right after the bike shop mishandled
the wheel replacement. Half of the commute at sub-bike speeds. But
the other half was at car speeds. A bad mix all around.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> 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....


How does reading the Journal-Sentinel affect one's intelligence?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> 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....


How does reading the Journal-Sentinel affect one's intelligence?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> 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....


How does reading the Journal-Sentinel affect one's intelligence?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
>>

>No, you just disparage us.


Yeah, the same way I disparage the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come
calling. I didn't come knocking on your door, you came knocking on
mine.