Fat people? Less gas!



bill van <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Blinky the Shark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dover Beach wrote:
>>
>> > One of my neighbors has a Smart. My husband and I stared at it for a
>> > little while when we were out walking the dog. It looks like it would
>> > get blown off the road the first time a semi goes by.

>
>> Doesn't sound very smart to me.

>
>Sure, but if a semi going by actually blew Smart cars off the road, we'd
>have heard by now. Dover saying they *look* like that doesn't make it so.
>
>I've seen some of them parked in very nifty and tiny spots.
>
>Fair to say, though, that they're designed more for urban commutes than
>open highway travel.


On my last drive from Vancouver to Calgary, I saw two of them out on
the open highway. Both were in oncoming traffic, so I couldn't
compare their speed to my own, but there didn't seem to be any backlog
piled up behind them.

One of those was coming down the Coq. That means he was able to get
to the top.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> >> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> >> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>> >>
>> >At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?

>>
>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways, but
>> not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that basis
>> alone.
>>

>You keep saying "new" car and doing the maths based on that
>consideration alone.


You will never get differently designed cars into the used car market
without first marketing them as "new". That is just a perhaps
unfortunate fact of logic.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> >> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> >> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>> >>
>> >At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?

>>
>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways, but
>> not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that basis
>> alone.
>>

>You keep saying "new" car and doing the maths based on that
>consideration alone.


You will never get differently designed cars into the used car market
without first marketing them as "new". That is just a perhaps
unfortunate fact of logic.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> >> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> >> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>> >>
>> >At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?

>>
>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways, but
>> not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that basis
>> alone.
>>

>You keep saying "new" car and doing the maths based on that
>consideration alone.


You will never get differently designed cars into the used car market
without first marketing them as "new". That is just a perhaps
unfortunate fact of logic.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 11:02 am, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:


>> > How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is nothing
>> > once you get in shape?

>>
>> I realize that you are posting from rec.bicycles.misc and so I might be
>> stepping on a group joke, but the practicality of biking 10 miles for
>> groceries depends greatly on topography and hazards of the route, no?

>
>Not often except in very hilly country. Volume and weight of the
>groceries balanced by available loading capacity are the main
>considerations. I would find it difficult to carry much over 30-35
>kilos on my bike and if buying soft drinks would go for some 2 l
>bottles rather than cans since the volume and weight is less for the
>same amount.


I only see those little bike trailers for hauling kids around. I
suspect that a trailer would be necessary for real-world grocery
hauling.

I'm spoiled by having a car handy. I have two supermarkets at about a
mile from here and a third at about two miles. I buy my bread at
discount in bulk about five miles from home.

I used a bike as primary transportation in the early nineties. But I
did groceries on the bus.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 11:02 am, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:


>> > How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is nothing
>> > once you get in shape?

>>
>> I realize that you are posting from rec.bicycles.misc and so I might be
>> stepping on a group joke, but the practicality of biking 10 miles for
>> groceries depends greatly on topography and hazards of the route, no?

>
>Not often except in very hilly country. Volume and weight of the
>groceries balanced by available loading capacity are the main
>considerations. I would find it difficult to carry much over 30-35
>kilos on my bike and if buying soft drinks would go for some 2 l
>bottles rather than cans since the volume and weight is less for the
>same amount.


I only see those little bike trailers for hauling kids around. I
suspect that a trailer would be necessary for real-world grocery
hauling.

I'm spoiled by having a car handy. I have two supermarkets at about a
mile from here and a third at about two miles. I buy my bread at
discount in bulk about five miles from home.

I used a bike as primary transportation in the early nineties. But I
did groceries on the bus.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 11:02 am, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:


>> > How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is nothing
>> > once you get in shape?

>>
>> I realize that you are posting from rec.bicycles.misc and so I might be
>> stepping on a group joke, but the practicality of biking 10 miles for
>> groceries depends greatly on topography and hazards of the route, no?

>
>Not often except in very hilly country. Volume and weight of the
>groceries balanced by available loading capacity are the main
>considerations. I would find it difficult to carry much over 30-35
>kilos on my bike and if buying soft drinks would go for some 2 l
>bottles rather than cans since the volume and weight is less for the
>same amount.


I only see those little bike trailers for hauling kids around. I
suspect that a trailer would be necessary for real-world grocery
hauling.

I'm spoiled by having a car handy. I have two supermarkets at about a
mile from here and a third at about two miles. I buy my bread at
discount in bulk about five miles from home.

I used a bike as primary transportation in the early nineties. But I
did groceries on the bus.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Evans wrote:
>> 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.

>
>No, I did not. This is a public forum, not email.


I don't know who launched the twin-forum discussion, but most of the
thread has taken place in BOTH homes. And ours isn't even labelled as
"sci.autos.practical" or some such.

I think that the "they came knocking" argument is spurious.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Evans wrote:
>> 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.

>
>No, I did not. This is a public forum, not email.


I don't know who launched the twin-forum discussion, but most of the
thread has taken place in BOTH homes. And ours isn't even labelled as
"sci.autos.practical" or some such.

I think that the "they came knocking" argument is spurious.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Evans wrote:
>> 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.

>
>No, I did not. This is a public forum, not email.


I don't know who launched the twin-forum discussion, but most of the
thread has taken place in BOTH homes. And ours isn't even labelled as
"sci.autos.practical" or some such.

I think that the "they came knocking" argument is spurious.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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/>. ;)


Who was it on our side who keeps posting "cute" pictures of cyclists?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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/>. ;)


Who was it on our side who keeps posting "cute" pictures of cyclists?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>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/>. ;)


Who was it on our side who keeps posting "cute" pictures of cyclists?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Greg Goss wrote:
> Blinky the Shark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dover Beach wrote:
>>
>>> One of my neighbors has a Smart. My husband and I stared at it for
>>> a little while when we were out walking the dog. It looks like it
>>> would get blown off the road the first time a semi goes by.

>>
>>Doesn't sound very smart to me.

>
> "Looks like" doesn't offer a complete description of a car to be sold
> as basic transportation for adults.


True. I can enhance that partial description: I've seen them, and they
also look silly. ;)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Greg Goss wrote:
> Blinky the Shark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dover Beach wrote:
>>
>>> One of my neighbors has a Smart. My husband and I stared at it for
>>> a little while when we were out walking the dog. It looks like it
>>> would get blown off the road the first time a semi goes by.

>>
>>Doesn't sound very smart to me.

>
> "Looks like" doesn't offer a complete description of a car to be sold
> as basic transportation for adults.


True. I can enhance that partial description: I've seen them, and they
also look silly. ;)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Greg Goss wrote:
> Blinky the Shark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dover Beach wrote:
>>
>>> One of my neighbors has a Smart. My husband and I stared at it for
>>> a little while when we were out walking the dog. It looks like it
>>> would get blown off the road the first time a semi goes by.

>>
>>Doesn't sound very smart to me.

>
> "Looks like" doesn't offer a complete description of a car to be sold
> as basic transportation for adults.


True. I can enhance that partial description: I've seen them, and they
also look silly. ;)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Jerry Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:

>For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
>California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
>a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
>Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
>loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.


Interesting. In Vancouver, Canada, you had to buy a plate from the
city to be a "commercial" vehicle. A friend had commercial plates on
his $300 beater station wagon so he could park in alleys on his
janitorial business rounds. The provincial registration didn't
change, I don't think.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Jerry Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:

>For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
>California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
>a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
>Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
>loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.


Interesting. In Vancouver, Canada, you had to buy a plate from the
city to be a "commercial" vehicle. A friend had commercial plates on
his $300 beater station wagon so he could park in alleys on his
janitorial business rounds. The provincial registration didn't
change, I don't think.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Jerry Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:

>For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
>California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
>a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
>Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
>loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.


Interesting. In Vancouver, Canada, you had to buy a plate from the
city to be a "commercial" vehicle. A friend had commercial plates on
his $300 beater station wagon so he could park in alleys on his
janitorial business rounds. The provincial registration didn't
change, I don't think.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 
Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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/>. ;)

>
> Who was it on our side who keeps posting "cute" pictures of cyclists?


Les, I think, and those occurred to me, too... :)

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org