MPG & UFollow

You should cycle instead, way cooler.

Smash does all his shopping from the organic farmer's markets and hippie communes.

We live in the kind of town that has a "Farmer's Market" once a week at the town historical society with vendors selling produce that looks suspiciously like it came from the Whole Foods down the street with prices along the lines of $7 a pound for "heirloom" cucumbers. We have a garden, though, so I do a lot of my shopping via telling Hannah to go outside and get tomatoes or whatever.

Needs to be those low profile recumbent bicycles.

I live in a place where there's actually a lot of farms so I just stop at one of the ten farmhouses selling produce out of their front yards on the way home. I suppose it might all be a ruse and they're actually selling me Whole Foods produce for half the Whole Foods price.

If you're going for fancy high speed lie down bikes, post something like this:

Nice bike.

And while I like a breeze, those closed bicycles are really fast and it rains quite a lot here.

It @#%^ing does, I hated that. Not seeing the sun all winter sucked.

I built the bike myself, it was a lot of fun.

Edited, Sep 11th 2013 4:40pm by Xsarus

That was the scenario I was responding to though.

It's the same thing either way. The difference is that one is focusing on consumption (how much fuel used over a given distance), while the other is focusing on range (how far you can go with a given amount of fuel). It's not like people can't noodle out the math either direction, but in terms of usability, consumption is more useful when making your initial purchasing decision (which you kinda just do once). Range is more useful when actually operating the vehicle (which you do all the time).




I'm not really seeing how if we measured that as 2.5G/100M versus 2.94G/100M or 5.55G/100M versus 8.33G/100M it would help anything. People can either grasp ratios or they can't. And I'd honestly argue that it's easier for people to do ratios with bigger/whole numbers in their heads. As fuel efficiency increases, the fuel use per X miles gets smaller, making it appear as though the gains are smaller. One can also argue that from a marketing point of view "bigger is better" ties in better with using mpg rather than g/100m, so there's that too.


I suppose it's more a matter of what you're used to, but from an objective point of view, I don't see how one measurement inherently much better than the other, but for the reasons above, I'd tend to give it to the range view rather than consumption view.

The fundamental problem Gbaji is that you're using *** backwards gallons and miles to begin with.

oh sure, I'm just making fun of your measurement system.

I think L/100km or the equivalent is better, but don't particularly care.

Gbaji lives in a different universe from the rest of us. I wonder who else lives there with him. And I don't think it's necessarily just crazy right-wingers, there's probably some general weirdos like Emo Philips or Bobby Fischer or Prince.

I'd get a used road bike with two important features

1) space for bigger tires if needed
2) an angled attachment for the rear wheel so you can convert it to single speed.

Make sure the frame is in decent shape, then get new wheels, crank, free wheel, and brakes.

It will be a great ride, but will look older and hopefully less steal-able.

Edited, Sep 11th 2013 11:11pm by Xsarus

You don't really want those wheels anyway if there's a risk of sidewind as they'll just function as sails. Still, time trial bikes look awesome and I'd love to ride one.

Bimbling around on bikes could only be a britty thing.