I'm not saying the H2 isn't junk. It is, and anyone stupid enough to buy it is more than welcome to line GM's pockets.
I checked Edmunds.com. The half ton lighter, smaller engine RWD Suburban is rated for mileage 15/20. The fullsize Suburban with AWD, which is the same weight as the H2 and has the same engine doesn't (surprise surprise) have mileage listed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's no better than the H2.
I should have phrased it better: the H2 is AWD, and the transmission is geared so that the H2 can cart around its own 6400 pounds and tow an additional 6700.
An Accord weighs around 3100 pounds and can't tow more than 1000 pounds.
In other words, the Accord transmission can be geared and ECU programmed to move 4100 pounds plus cargo, while the H2 has to be geared and ECU programmed for 13100 pounds plus cargo.
Once you've paid off an existing vehicle, your monthly costs of fuel and insurance are substantially less than the cost of payments, higher insurance, and fuel on an efficient replacement.
So while switching to a hybrid or a fuel efficient compact is better for the environment, if you already own your car it is bad for your pocketbook.
"Yellow signs are an advisory. The worst-handling vehicles on the road are what those signs are aimed at - granted, in the USA worst-handling vehicles are a way of life if you're talking about domestic manufacturers."
I drive in rural areas where the roads frequently contains sharp curves at 115 degrees or better. I don't care if you're in a Miata, a Lotus, or a WRX, if you don't heed the 15 mph warning and slow down you _will_ end up in the other lane or the woods.
And US manufactured cars handle just fine, thanks.
My grandfather's (used) mid '80s Lincoln and my father's (used) mid '80s Cadillac both had a feature that listed the current instantaneous mpg and the average mpg over the last 500 or 1000 miles.
It's a great way to learn to ease off. When I started driving the Cadillac, I would get a consistent 16 mpg. After a few months, I was just below 20.
The H2 has heavy tired for off-roading and AWD. They really sap mileage.
My wife's Honda CRV weighs the same as an Accord and has the same 4-cylinder engine, but it is AWD. Her mileage is rated 22/26 and she gets 24-25. The Accord 4-cylinder is rated 24/33.
The Accord has Front Wheel Drive that is not geared for heavy towing and does not have to turn large wheels that are sturdy enough to handle off-roading. The H2 is AWD geared so it can tow its own weight. You can't reasonable compare their respective power to weight ratios - even forgetting that the 4 cylinder Accord is plenty fast - without taking those differences into account.
Make the Accord AWD, raise it 6 inches, give it tires with a diameter 2-4" larger, and change the gearing so it can tow its own weight. Watch the mileage get cut in half.
Make the Hummer RWD or FWD, give it smaller tires, and change the gearing so it can only two one third its weight. Watch the mileage double.
I read somewhere that GM's labor cost per car produced is $1000 more than Toyota's.. and that's for production facilities inside the US!
GM sold 270,000 Impala's last year, which means that on that model alone they spent $270 million more on labor. Then people wonder why Toyota is rolling in dough while the Big Three struggle to maintain market share. It's because the Big Three are spending billions of dollar more per year on workers.
Don't get me wrong, auto industry executives - like executives from just about every other industry in the US - are overpaid for what they do. But the UAW hasn't done anything to fix the overpaid corporate execs, they've just spread the problem out.
Well, I appreciate that you were trying to be funny, but whether you meant it or not you did raise a very good point.
Unions... that's an ugly issue. I've worked at union shops, and it's pathetic. People who don't do a damn thing all day but can't get fired; promotion and pay raise by seniority and not effort, skill, or dedication; actually getting yelled at by other workers if I tried to get my job done before deadline.
I have friends who worked at non union shops, and they were abused by management.
I wish there was some reasonable medium. If IT workers organized, unless the union was radically different from the ones I've encountered I would switch industries.
I've written hundreds of lines of code in the past year, code that has been deployed to devices used by tens of thousands of customers.
The compiled software was tested, but _nobody_ other than me has read the code. Oh, it's written in black and white that such reviews are required, but we are understaffed and consistently behind schedule, so it doesn't happen.
I'd like to think I write secure software, but since nobody at my place of employment checks my stuff and I'm legally barred from posting it on the web for comments, I have no idea.
I don't mean to pass the buck here, but I believe in many cases the problem is just the unrealistic deadlines programmers are given.
Oh, I have no problems working out. I get about 90 minutes' worth of weightlifting exercise per week, and if I had the free time I would gleefully spend half of my waking hours in the weight room.
Unfortunately, my wife and I weren't clever enough to consider cardiovascular exercise when we went house shopping. Even if I did enjoy running or biking, sooner or later I would get run over.
I think my physique would be just on the good side of average if I didn't keep the six pack very well hidden underneath the keg.
Oh, you are right to criticize Atkins as it is publicly perceived. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most people who actually think they are on the diet have no idea about the exercise requirement.
To be fair, the diet is only ultra-low carbs for two weeks and individuals on it are encouraged to regulate their carb intake up to 70 grams per day after that. It is also supposed to include at least 3 cups of green vegetables per day and a gallon of water. And cutting out all of the excess sugar in the typical American diet probably has nearly as much health benefits as there are drawbacks to increased fat and protein intake.
I should lose about 50 pounds for my health, but while I'm fairly confident I can lose the weight I'm almost positive I will regain it all. A year long commitment to fat loss is relatively easy. Keeping the weight off for the next 50 years is not. Until I find a way I am certain will keep me motivated for the long term, I'm not going to risk yo-yo weight loss.
Now put the 'muscle freak' and the boxer in a contest to see who can move the most furniture, haul around the most bags of cement, and otherwise handle the most heavy physical exertion. Unless the bodybuilder has pursued big muscles to the exclusion of all else, he will have the advantage.
Saying that eating less food than your body needs is the key to weight loss is like saying that making more money than you spend is the key to riches.
While the statement is true, the information it contains is worthless.
Diets - like financial savings plans - work or fail on the way they make lifestyle changes sustainable in the short and long term. You can scream 'eat less' at me all day, but until you can figure out how to stop me from being hungry for more food than my body needs for the rest of my life, your advice has no value. Any short term weight loss that doesn't address that question will just lead to yo-yo dieting, which according to some studies is worse than obesity.
For most people, I don't believe that's possible unless you play with anabolic supplements. I've been lifting off and on for years, and at my best I doubt I gained ten pounds in six months.
Muscle mass doesn't interfere with flexibility unless the person is positively colossal or excessively fat as well as muscular.
One of the most famous pre-steroid bodybuilders, John Grimek, could do splits and stand with his legs straight and rest his elbows on the ground.
If this kid grows up with flexibility problems, it's either another indirect result of his odd genetic makeup or he's so big he can enter Mr. Olympia contests.
Part of the post-steroids deflation is because the body ceases natural testosterone production in an attempt to compensate for all of the ingested/injected testosterone.
Before steroids, bodybuilders like John Grimek had impressive levels of musculature.
He would look like a pip squeak next to modern juice champions, though.
From what I understand, it may be possible to raise a person's testosterone level to at or slightly below the healthy adult male maximum with no long term ill effects. Few tests are done on the subject because, unfortunately, the substances involved are illegal.
The problem is, most champion bodybuilders willing to discuss the subject admit regularly dosing themselves to two or three times the normal maximum. Some of the biggest people out there - like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dorian Yates - refuse to disclose how much they used.
I'm sure steriods are beneficial if used properly. I'm just as sure that very few people know exactly what doses constitute proper use and what exceeds it.
1. I'm no fan of Atkins, but in every single book Dr. Atkins absolutely insists that exercise is an essential part of the Atkins diet. If you aren't exercising at least twice a week, you aren't on the Atkins diet.
2. I doubt the article is accurate, for men at least. Any woman with reasonable arm strength should be able to handle the job too, but since there's a big social stigma against muscular women, women with reasonable arm strength are rare.
I'm three steps away from being a complete couch potato, but easily twice as strong as my wife in any benchmark you care to mention.
Dude, Schwarzenegger's surgery was done to correct a congenital heart defect. In other words, it's a problem he was born with.
Weightlifting itself doesn't do anything bad to your heart. What damages your heart is overdosing on anabolic supplements, and taking advantage of your accelerated metabollism to eat all kinds of foods that clog your arteries.
"Ever watch those crappy reality shows where the super-huge muscle guy fails at some physical activity like climbing a rope? Yeah, too much weight and not enough stamina."
Strength is not linear: being able to bench press 100 pounds 20 times does not mean you can bench press 200 pounds 10 times or 400 pounds 5 times. Each increase in weight means a substantial reduction in the amount of repetitions someone can do.
So while the 160 pound guy does 15 pullups and the muscular 220 pound guy does 5, if you had them both do pulldowns with 160 pounds of resistance the second guy could probably do twice as many. The second fellow just has more weight to move with pullups.
If you're using bodyweight resistance as the benchmark, then yes heavier people will have less endurance than lighter ones. If you are using a fixed level of resistance for all participants, more muscle will give more endurance.
Actually, you are incorrect about the health implications.
- Muscle actually helps circulation by pushing veinous blood back towards the heart. The reason big powerlifters and Olympic lifters have problems is all the fat they have in addition to the muscle. Do leg presses and squats with light to medium weight for a few months and then walk up five flights of stairs. You will be considerably less winded than you would have been before you built those leg muscles.
- Endurance sports that don't involve long term steady activity are actually easier for muscular people. This kid may have as tough a time jogging 10 miles as someone the same weight and much fatter, but in football he'll probably catch his breath much more quickly between plays than anyone less fit.
- Bodybuilders who haven't ruined their flexibility with constant short range motions, joint damage from improper use of explosive motion exercises, and tendon damage from dangerous anabolic supplements can be extremely flexible. John Grimek, one of the greatest bodybuilders of the 20th century, could stand with his legs straight and rest his forearms on the ground. Casey Viator could touch his elbows together behind his head.
I thought that too, so I didn't think twice about getting a D-Link wireless card for my home PC.
Slackware 9.1 didn't recognize it, and I didn't find anything about that card by name at linuxdoc. So now I have to work on the driver myself (which defeats the whole 'For Dummies' idea) or wait for someone brighter than me (i.e. most people running Linux) to write it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying the H2 isn't junk. It is, and anyone stupid enough to buy it is more than welcome to line GM's pockets.
I checked Edmunds.com. The half ton lighter, smaller engine RWD Suburban is rated for mileage 15/20. The fullsize Suburban with AWD, which is the same weight as the H2 and has the same engine doesn't (surprise surprise) have mileage listed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's no better than the H2.
I should have phrased it better: the H2 is AWD, and the transmission is geared so that the H2 can cart around its own 6400 pounds and tow an additional 6700.
An Accord weighs around 3100 pounds and can't tow more than 1000 pounds.
In other words, the Accord transmission can be geared and ECU programmed to move 4100 pounds plus cargo, while the H2 has to be geared and ECU programmed for 13100 pounds plus cargo.
Once you've paid off an existing vehicle, your monthly costs of fuel and insurance are substantially less than the cost of payments, higher insurance, and fuel on an efficient replacement.
So while switching to a hybrid or a fuel efficient compact is better for the environment, if you already own your car it is bad for your pocketbook.
"Yellow signs are an advisory. The worst-handling vehicles on the road are what those signs are aimed at - granted, in the USA worst-handling vehicles are a way of life if you're talking about domestic manufacturers."
I drive in rural areas where the roads frequently contains sharp curves at 115 degrees or better. I don't care if you're in a Miata, a Lotus, or a WRX, if you don't heed the 15 mph warning and slow down you _will_ end up in the other lane or the woods.
And US manufactured cars handle just fine, thanks.
My grandfather's (used) mid '80s Lincoln and my father's (used) mid '80s Cadillac both had a feature that listed the current instantaneous mpg and the average mpg over the last 500 or 1000 miles.
It's a great way to learn to ease off. When I started driving the Cadillac, I would get a consistent 16 mpg. After a few months, I was just below 20.
The H2 has heavy tired for off-roading and AWD. They really sap mileage.
My wife's Honda CRV weighs the same as an Accord and has the same 4-cylinder engine, but it is AWD. Her mileage is rated 22/26 and she gets 24-25. The Accord 4-cylinder is rated 24/33.
The Accord has Front Wheel Drive that is not geared for heavy towing and does not have to turn large wheels that are sturdy enough to handle off-roading. The H2 is AWD geared so it can tow its own weight. You can't reasonable compare their respective power to weight ratios - even forgetting that the 4 cylinder Accord is plenty fast - without taking those differences into account.
Make the Accord AWD, raise it 6 inches, give it tires with a diameter 2-4" larger, and change the gearing so it can tow its own weight. Watch the mileage get cut in half.
Make the Hummer RWD or FWD, give it smaller tires, and change the gearing so it can only two one third its weight. Watch the mileage double.
I read somewhere that GM's labor cost per car produced is $1000 more than Toyota's.. and that's for production facilities inside the US!
GM sold 270,000 Impala's last year, which means that on that model alone they spent $270 million more on labor. Then people wonder why Toyota is rolling in dough while the Big Three struggle to maintain market share. It's because the Big Three are spending billions of dollar more per year on workers.
Don't get me wrong, auto industry executives - like executives from just about every other industry in the US - are overpaid for what they do. But the UAW hasn't done anything to fix the overpaid corporate execs, they've just spread the problem out.
Well, I appreciate that you were trying to be funny, but whether you meant it or not you did raise a very good point.
Unions... that's an ugly issue. I've worked at union shops, and it's pathetic. People who don't do a damn thing all day but can't get fired; promotion and pay raise by seniority and not effort, skill, or dedication; actually getting yelled at by other workers if I tried to get my job done before deadline.
I have friends who worked at non union shops, and they were abused by management.
I wish there was some reasonable medium. If IT workers organized, unless the union was radically different from the ones I've encountered I would switch industries.
I've written hundreds of lines of code in the past year, code that has been deployed to devices used by tens of thousands of customers.
The compiled software was tested, but _nobody_ other than me has read the code. Oh, it's written in black and white that such reviews are required, but we are understaffed and consistently behind schedule, so it doesn't happen.
I'd like to think I write secure software, but since nobody at my place of employment checks my stuff and I'm legally barred from posting it on the web for comments, I have no idea.
I don't mean to pass the buck here, but I believe in many cases the problem is just the unrealistic deadlines programmers are given.
Sheffield was a fantastic science fiction writer. That book was the first or second of his that I read. Thanks for mentioning it.
Oh, I have no problems working out. I get about 90 minutes' worth of weightlifting exercise per week, and if I had the free time I would gleefully spend half of my waking hours in the weight room.
Unfortunately, my wife and I weren't clever enough to consider cardiovascular exercise when we went house shopping. Even if I did enjoy running or biking, sooner or later I would get run over.
I think my physique would be just on the good side of average if I didn't keep the six pack very well hidden underneath the keg.
Oh, you are right to criticize Atkins as it is publicly perceived. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most people who actually think they are on the diet have no idea about the exercise requirement.
To be fair, the diet is only ultra-low carbs for two weeks and individuals on it are encouraged to regulate their carb intake up to 70 grams per day after that. It is also supposed to include at least 3 cups of green vegetables per day and a gallon of water. And cutting out all of the excess sugar in the typical American diet probably has nearly as much health benefits as there are drawbacks to increased fat and protein intake.
I should lose about 50 pounds for my health, but while I'm fairly confident I can lose the weight I'm almost positive I will regain it all. A year long commitment to fat loss is relatively easy. Keeping the weight off for the next 50 years is not. Until I find a way I am certain will keep me motivated for the long term, I'm not going to risk yo-yo weight loss.
In a boxing match? The boxer.
Now put the 'muscle freak' and the boxer in a contest to see who can move the most furniture, haul around the most bags of cement, and otherwise handle the most heavy physical exertion. Unless the bodybuilder has pursued big muscles to the exclusion of all else, he will have the advantage.
Saying that eating less food than your body needs is the key to weight loss is like saying that making more money than you spend is the key to riches.
While the statement is true, the information it contains is worthless.
Diets - like financial savings plans - work or fail on the way they make lifestyle changes sustainable in the short and long term. You can scream 'eat less' at me all day, but until you can figure out how to stop me from being hungry for more food than my body needs for the rest of my life, your advice has no value. Any short term weight loss that doesn't address that question will just lead to yo-yo dieting, which according to some studies is worse than obesity.
15-20 pounds in six months?
For most people, I don't believe that's possible unless you play with anabolic supplements. I've been lifting off and on for years, and at my best I doubt I gained ten pounds in six months.
Muscle mass doesn't interfere with flexibility unless the person is positively colossal or excessively fat as well as muscular.
One of the most famous pre-steroid bodybuilders, John Grimek, could do splits and stand with his legs straight and rest his elbows on the ground.
If this kid grows up with flexibility problems, it's either another indirect result of his odd genetic makeup or he's so big he can enter Mr. Olympia contests.
Part of the post-steroids deflation is because the body ceases natural testosterone production in an attempt to compensate for all of the ingested/injected testosterone.
Before steroids, bodybuilders like John Grimek had impressive levels of musculature.
He would look like a pip squeak next to modern juice champions, though.
From what I understand, it may be possible to raise a person's testosterone level to at or slightly below the healthy adult male maximum with no long term ill effects. Few tests are done on the subject because, unfortunately, the substances involved are illegal.
The problem is, most champion bodybuilders willing to discuss the subject admit regularly dosing themselves to two or three times the normal maximum. Some of the biggest people out there - like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dorian Yates - refuse to disclose how much they used.
I'm sure steriods are beneficial if used properly. I'm just as sure that very few people know exactly what doses constitute proper use and what exceeds it.
1. I'm no fan of Atkins, but in every single book Dr. Atkins absolutely insists that exercise is an essential part of the Atkins diet. If you aren't exercising at least twice a week, you aren't on the Atkins diet.
2. I doubt the article is accurate, for men at least. Any woman with reasonable arm strength should be able to handle the job too, but since there's a big social stigma against muscular women, women with reasonable arm strength are rare.
I'm three steps away from being a complete couch potato, but easily twice as strong as my wife in any benchmark you care to mention.
Dude, Schwarzenegger's surgery was done to correct a congenital heart defect. In other words, it's a problem he was born with.
Weightlifting itself doesn't do anything bad to your heart. What damages your heart is overdosing on anabolic supplements, and taking advantage of your accelerated metabollism to eat all kinds of foods that clog your arteries.
"Ever watch those crappy reality shows where the super-huge muscle guy fails at some physical activity like climbing a rope? Yeah, too much weight and not enough stamina."
Strength is not linear: being able to bench press 100 pounds 20 times does not mean you can bench press 200 pounds 10 times or 400 pounds 5 times. Each increase in weight means a substantial reduction in the amount of repetitions someone can do.
So while the 160 pound guy does 15 pullups and the muscular 220 pound guy does 5, if you had them both do pulldowns with 160 pounds of resistance the second guy could probably do twice as many. The second fellow just has more weight to move with pullups.
If you're using bodyweight resistance as the benchmark, then yes heavier people will have less endurance than lighter ones. If you are using a fixed level of resistance for all participants, more muscle will give more endurance.
Actually, you are incorrect about the health implications.
- Muscle actually helps circulation by pushing veinous blood back towards the heart. The reason big powerlifters and Olympic lifters have problems is all the fat they have in addition to the muscle. Do leg presses and squats with light to medium weight for a few months and then walk up five flights of stairs. You will be considerably less winded than you would have been before you built those leg muscles.
- Endurance sports that don't involve long term steady activity are actually easier for muscular people. This kid may have as tough a time jogging 10 miles as someone the same weight and much fatter, but in football he'll probably catch his breath much more quickly between plays than anyone less fit.
- Bodybuilders who haven't ruined their flexibility with constant short range motions, joint damage from improper use of explosive motion exercises, and tendon damage from dangerous anabolic supplements can be extremely flexible. John Grimek, one of the greatest bodybuilders of the 20th century, could stand with his legs straight and rest his forearms on the ground. Casey Viator could touch his elbows together behind his head.
Ummm... friend, you can get an Xbox for $150 right now.
I thought that too, so I didn't think twice about getting a D-Link wireless card for my home PC.
Slackware 9.1 didn't recognize it, and I didn't find anything about that card by name at linuxdoc. So now I have to work on the driver myself (which defeats the whole 'For Dummies' idea) or wait for someone brighter than me (i.e. most people running Linux) to write it for me.