No Fat Trucks

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Joe Pig, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. Joe Pig

    Joe Pig Guest

    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!
     
    Tags:


  2. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    [email protected] (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
     
  3. Vic

    Vic Guest

    On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

    >[email protected] (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.
     
  4. Gooserider

    Gooserider Guest

    "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (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.....
     
  5. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> [email protected] (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
     
  6. On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (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
     
  7. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "vic" <[email protected]> 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
     
  8. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> [email protected] (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).
     
  9. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:20:00 -0500, Badger_South <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:26:22 GMT, "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>> [email protected] (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
     
  10. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:03:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (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'...
     
  11. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    vic <[email protected]> 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
     
  12. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

  13. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    "Chalo" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/download/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
     
  14. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:39:13 -0500, Badger_South <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:03:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (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
     
  15. Vic

    Vic Guest

    On 26 Feb 2004 10:50:24 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

    >vic <[email protected]> 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
     
  16. Jim Boyer

    Jim Boyer Guest

    They don't call them Bimbo-boxes for nothing.

    jb

    "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:03:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (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'...
     
  17. "Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (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.

    It's the fear factor. We have acculturated women to live in fear. They are especially afraid in
    cars, and afraid of other drivers intimidating them. The SUV in this case provides them with a
    feeling of security. "I'm in my big, high-up tank, and no one can take me by surprise or try to
    scare me."

    It's interesting how many choices, consumer or political, are driven by fear.

    --
    Warm Regards,

    Claire Petersky
    Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

    Home of the meditative cyclist:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
    Email me re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)
     
  18. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

    (Chalo) wrote:
    >
    > >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.

    Agreed. It's a travesty of good sense that many of the grossest SUVs are actually no more spacious
    for their occupants than the average family car. There is no excuse for driving twice (some here
    might say 200 times) as much vehicle as one can make good use of; in a just world such antisocial
    transportation habits would be criminal.

    There are actually very few trucks and SUVs that offer similar driver room to the most spacious
    ordinary passenger cars, but it is difficult to fault a big person for seeking sufficient personal
    space in a big car.

    I objected mainly to the OP's attempt to underscore the detestability of SUVs by connecting them to
    fat people (on the sketchiest of premises). The implication is that since we *know* fat people are
    bad people, we can extrapolate that things fat people do are also bad. That thinking is even more
    obnoxious to me than SUVs, if you can believe it.

    Chalo Colina
     
  19. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Luigi de Guzman wrote:

    > 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.

    Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
    than cars.

    -=Dave=-
     
  20. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:57:29 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Luigi de Guzman wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    >Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
    >than cars.
    >
    >
    > -=Dave=-

    You tryin' to be unintentionally funny?

    <tha-thump> "What was that?"

    "I don' tknow, I didn't see anything (continues babblling on cellphone while applying mascara in the
    mirror) Anyway, Marge, you should have seen..."

    =B
     
Loading...
Loading...