Wapsi Square Forum

lake_wrangler wrote:Didn't you read the sign when you came in? Sorry, all sales are final!

Perhaps if I reverse the polarity of my wrist-watch, I can reverse time and demand that they hand over my money since I haven't finalised the sale yet. . .

Alkarii wrote:You got rear ended twice in just a few minutes by the same guy? How does that happen?

Main Street leaving one of the towns here has this very short section where it is two lanes going each way, then abruptly goes down to only one each way. Most people who drive around here know to stay in the left lane, because if you go into the other lane that appears you can find yourself trapped there by heavy traffic when you have to merge lanes. A kid in a little street-racer car decided that he was going to be clever, though, and shot into the new lane to try to fly past the cars in front of him and cut in ahead. He got up to where the lane ended, and there wasn't any opening in traffic for him to merge into the left lane. He tried anyway, and bumped lightly into the back of my car. We pulled over and checked our cars. Mine wasn't damaged at all, and his didn't seem to be either as far as I could tell. So I more or less called him an idiot, he apologised, and we went on our way.

About a quarter mile further along, the road goes from one lane to three lanes, with all sorts of lanes dedicated to all sorts of turns. I was in one lane, he was in the next one over and a bit behind me. A traffic light ahead turned red, so I stopped. He also put on his brakes, but at the same time realised that he wanted to be in the lane I was in rather than the one he was in. And so he pulled into my lane. There wasn't enough space between his car and my car for him to come to a complete stop, though. So he bumped into the back of me again. Again we pulled over to the side of the road. My car was fine again. He apologised again, and I mentioned that I have a demolition axe in my car that could probably go through the hood of his car and much of his engine if I saw his car within a hundred yards of mine again. I waited for him to drive off first so he'd be ahead of me this time, and then I went on my way.

lake_wrangler wrote:Are you saying that Catawampus is an intoxicant, but just not the specific intoxicant that caused the accidents???

He wouldn't be the first to say such things. . .

jwhouk wrote:We did have this conversation about the higher center of gravity. I'm familiar enough with the concept, as I am the former owner of a Dodge Dakota.

I once drove a. . .Saturn Vue I think it was, across a mountain range. I hated it. Every time I went around a sharp turn, I could feel the vehicle's weight shifting way over and the inward wheels trying to lift off of the road.

Catawampus wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:Didn't you read the sign when you came in? Sorry, all sales are final!

Perhaps if I reverse the polarity of my wrist-watch, I can reverse time and demand that they hand over my money since I haven't finalised the sale yet. . .

Just remember: once you open the wrapping, you are De Facto accepting the EULA contained therein...

(I seem to recall that some software company was actually doing that, a while back...)

It was the industry standard, actually.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:It was the industry standard, actually.

It just occurred to me: that's where they must have gotten the idea for Obamacare's "once you vote for it, you'll see what's in it"...

Catawampus wrote:Perhaps if I reverse the polarity of my wrist-watch,...

Just don't cross the streams...

TazManiac wrote:

Catawampus wrote:Perhaps if I reverse the polarity of my wrist-watch,...

Just don't cross the streams...

...and watch out for the neutron flow.

SUV's are basically pickup trucks with a built-in camper shell. They're ludicrously top-heavy, poorly engineered, ridiculously under-braked, and in general simply pieces of garbage which serve no viable purpose that other vehicles can't do better. A Soccer Mom on the go would be FAR better served with a Station Wagon than an SUV, at twice the gas mileage, far superior braking power, better handling, and lower profile for reduced roll risk.

If you don't have a farm or ranch, or live on a gravel road, anything with a truck chassis is just a waste of gas and a rolling hazard.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:SUV's are basically pickup trucks with a built-in camper shell. They're ludicrously top-heavy, poorly engineered, ridiculously under-braked, and in general simply pieces of garbage which serve no viable purpose that other vehicles can't do better. A Soccer Mom on the go would be FAR better served with a Station Wagon than an SUV, at twice the gas mileage, far superior braking power, better handling, and lower profile for reduced roll risk.

If you don't have a farm or ranch, or live on a gravel road, anything with a truck chassis is just a waste of gas and a rolling hazard.

Actually, a lot of SUVs are based on car chassis rather than truck chassis - to ride better, among other things.

There are some that actually have a lower maximum load capacity than the vehicles they're based on, because of the extra added weight.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:SUV's are basically pickup trucks with a built-in camper shell. They're ludicrously top-heavy, poorly engineered, ridiculously under-braked, and in general simply pieces of garbage which serve no viable purpose that other vehicles can't do better. A Soccer Mom on the go would be FAR better served with a Station Wagon than an SUV, at twice the gas mileage, far superior braking power, better handling, and lower profile for reduced roll risk.

If you don't have a farm or ranch, or live on a gravel road, anything with a truck chassis is just a waste of gas and a rolling hazard.

Actually, a lot of SUVs are based on car chassis rather than truck chassis - to ride better, among other things.

There are some that actually have a lower maximum load capacity than the vehicles they're based on, because of the extra added weight.

all that being said, they ARE still useful for carrying smallish loads of fertilizer!... no kidding, about a year ago now i was traveling behind a fully pimped out, gold trim, wheel spinners, blacked out windows, the works... Cadillac ESCALADE, carrying a Full-to-the-brim-and-then-some load of MANURE in that stupidly tiny "pick-up bed" thingy of theirs... i NEVER thought I'd see the day when the "U" in the SUV was actually USED!!!, they've always been a status-symbol show-off kind of car in my mind, NOT an actual USEFUL vehicle. they still are really, but that guy was the exception to the rule.

"load of manure" is pretty much how I feel about those things helping to build them every day.

I was looking at the GMC/Chevy web site, several years ago, to see what they had to say about the Suburban... At the time, they were boasting that it was a truck that felt equally at home in the city, or on the farm...

I thought: "Pshah! I'd never use one of those modern ones on a farm!"

Mine, on the other hand, is a different story. 1991 was the last year they made the big, squarish model, with a full axle and differential in the front for the 4X4 model. I've used it to help people move, to pull some trailers, I once carried 8 or 10 empty skids in it, to return them for a friend who had just done his driveway with the interlocking bricks... I've carried 7 passengers (plus myself) quite comfortably (the rear seats do seat three actual adults per row...)

I used it to carry luggage to the hotel from the cruise ship terminal, last summer (had to do three trips, fully loaded, with the rear seat taken out.)

I like the fact that I can USE my truck. It's convenient.

And except for this year, where my bicycle was out of order for a while, I usually use my bicycle more than the truck, while in the city. So I'm not wasting much fuel, either.

It's also a diesel. It drinks slightly less fuel than my Chevy Astro van used to, while being bigger, stronger, and more convenient!

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:SUV's are basically pickup trucks with a built-in camper shell. They're ludicrously top-heavy, poorly engineered, ridiculously under-braked, and in general simply pieces of garbage which serve no viable purpose that other vehicles can't do better. A Soccer Mom on the go would be FAR better served with a Station Wagon than an SUV, at twice the gas mileage, far superior braking power, better handling, and lower profile for reduced roll risk.

If you don't have a farm or ranch, or live on a gravel road, anything with a truck chassis is just a waste of gas and a rolling hazard.

Lawn maintenance people and some construction workers have legitimate need to carry around more supplies and equipment than would fit - and be suitably accessible - in a station wagon, or even a van. There are likely other categories of worker with similar situations that don't occur to me at the moment. For many of them, a pickup is a better choice of vehicle.

The large majority of SUVs, on the other hand, are driven people who would be equally well served with a small sedan.

Warrl wrote: Lawn maintenance people and some construction workers have legitimate need to carry around more supplies and equipment than would fit - and be suitably accessible - in a station wagon, or even a van. There are likely other categories of worker with similar situations that don't occur to me at the moment. For many of them, a pickup is a better choice of vehicle.

Painters. Carpenters. Plumbers. Veterinarians.

I have far more respect for a pickup truck in the city/suburbs when it shows signs of actual use. One person I worked with had horses. Their top of the line long bed, with the dual rear wheels, towered above the other mere sedans and coupes in the parking lot. It also had hay remnants in and around the bed as well as plenty of mud on the tires and such. It was a working truck.

Jay Leno once quipped that 4WD owners should be required to actually take the vehicle offroad at least once a year.

That sounds reasonable. Pretty generous, too.

I'd have suggested taking it deep into the woods and spending a couple nights.

AmriloJim wrote:Jay Leno once quipped that 4WD owners should be required to actually take the vehicle offroad at least once a year.

Given the driving skills of many of those owners, we'd like as not never see them again. . .

My buddy's got a 93 GMC w/ 400k plus miles on it. It's not an oil burner & it's 2WD, but other than that it's very similar to your beasty shown above...

Oh, and since a lot of GM paint jobs (having been funky due to a switch to water based paints...) had lots of wholesale peeling of major sections, He went ahead and painted it Camo...

TazManiac wrote:He went ahead and painted it Camo...

There is a strange fascination with camo. You can buy camo cases for smartphones. Now exactly how often have you wanted your smartphone to be harder to find? Versus, how many times have you wished it was easier?

However, if you set your smartphone down where camo would serve as disguise, you deserve to lose that handset.