http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* The Economic Cost of the Earthquake - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e41953baa6350be8?hl=en
* Frugal travel JFK to midtown Manhattan - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/65edc10560269528?hl=en
* Range clock - Disconnect it! - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
* What to Do With Newspaper? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5f28541661165820?hl=en
* Apples - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3b20db81f878f9e8?hl=en
* build your own auto trailer - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/520c5580f399639a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Economic Cost of the Earthquake
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e41953baa6350be8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:23 pm
From: PaPaPeng
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Al Bundy
<MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>PaPaPeng wrote:
>> Its pretty impressive the authorities can come up with accurate
>> figures on the economic consequences of the Sichuan earthquake.
>>
>> China picks up the pieces
>
>If anyone really cares, they can click on the news rather than reading
>your endless posts.
>The Chinese are a great people and will deal with this.
I posted in the wrong newsgroup. But I am still impressed cuz if you
know where the economic damage is you can plan which problem to attack
first. In three years everything will be restored and built over.
You wouldn't know that that had been a total leveling of everything
before. What you think had never mattered. You have enough troubles
of your own.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal travel JFK to midtown Manhattan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/65edc10560269528?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:28 pm
From: William Souden
TKM wrote:
> "William Souden" <souden@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:glZ1k.913$L_.625@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:41:35 -0700 William Souden <souden@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> :>Dan Birchall wrote:
>>> :>> souden@nospam.com (William Souden) wrote:
>>> :>>> I just returned from a trip to NYC and to took the train
>>> connection :>>> to midtown. While not recommended for those with many
>>> bags or mobility :>>> problems it worked for me:
>>>
>>> :>>> Air Train to Jamaica-$5
>>> :>>> Long Island Railroad to Penn Station-$7.25 (cheaper off-peak. a
>>> two :>>> minute walk)
>>> :>> Seconded - I just did the same thing a little bit earlier than
>>> William.
>>> :>> I was traveling off-peak so I think my LIRR ticket was $5.25 or
>>> $5.50.
>>> :>> I actually connected at Penn Station to NJ Transit and went over to
>>> see
>>> :>> family.
>>> :>> If you want to be a _real_ tightwad, instead of taking the $5+ LIRR
>>> :>> train from Jamaica to Penn Station, you can take the MTA (subway) "E"
>>> :>> train, which is only about $2. The AirTrain also goes to Howard
>>> Beach
>>> :>> station (a little closer to JFK) where you can catch the MTA "A"
>>> train.
>>> :>> I used to take the "A" to near Wall Street and then take PATH over to
>>> :>> NJ. :> I knew about that option but since I would have been getting
>>> on the :>subway during the a.m. commute I opted for the LIRR. still had
>>> to stand :>but had more breathing room.
>>> :> Like you I head to NJ Transit,something that would not have been
>>> :>feasible before they built the Secaucus transfer station (another topic
>>> :>for another time).
>>> :> By the way, it was my first trip on Jet Blue. I tool the red eye and
>>> :>when I could not sleep I had Direct TV (individual monitors for each
>>> :>seat) and satellite radio.
>>>
>>> Even cheaper - city bus to subway. #2 total (if you have a metrocard)
>>>
>>
>> True but since I arrived during the a.m. commute I wanted the extra
>> breathing room on the LIRR. Also time was a factor as at that hour the
>> connection I used for NJ Transit only went once each hour.
>
> How do those options compare with the cost of the direct bus to midtown
> Manhattan?
> TKM
>
>
$12 for a direct bus to Grand Central Terminal. You can also take
bus/subway trip for $2. Might be good a some hours but not during 8 a.m.
traffic.I might opt for that and a taxi to Penn Station during
non-commute hours.
A taxi is $45. Great for several people but,again, the traffic situation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:37 pm
From: dpb
Rod Speed wrote:
> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>> max wrote:
>
>>>>>>> That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
>>>>>>> technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
>>>>>>> because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
>>>>>>> buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
>
>>>>>> The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>>>>> system that I'm aware of.
>
>>>>> You need to get out more.
>
>>>>> There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
>>>>> by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
>>>>> generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
>>>>> demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy
>>>>> system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid
>>>>> and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.
>
>>>> I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.
>
>>> If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.
>
>> No,
>
> Yep.
>
>> I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage
>
> Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.
>
>> they're separate forms...
>
> Nope.
>
>> one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
>> power itself to be used later.
>
> They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.
>
>>>> They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
>>>> (b) no surface water.
>
>>> Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
>>> are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.
>
>> Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.
>
> You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that
> "as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>
>> There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the power to somewhere there
>> is sufficient elevation difference and water to complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
>> elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.
>
> Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
> a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>
>> Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,
>
> No one ever said it was.
>
>> that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system
>
> Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
> coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
Well, except it isn't...
>> which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.
>
> Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
> loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
Except it isn't...
>>> Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>> system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.
>
>>> AND it aint the only one either.
>
>> Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...
>
> Corse it is.
Except it isn't...
--
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 4:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
dpb <none@non.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>>> max wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill technology do not require us to build more
>>>>>>>> fossil fuel plants, and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to buffer their
>>>>>>>> output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
>>>>>>> The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>>>>>> system that I'm aware of.
>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>>> There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage by pumping water up at time of excess supply
>>>>>> from the baseload coal generators and return that power to the system at times of excess demand by letting the
>>>>>> water down again. Like the Australian Snowy system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE
>>>>>> Australian grid and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.
>>>>> I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.
>>>> If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.
>>> No,
>> Yep.
>>> I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage
>> Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.
>>> they're separate forms...
>> Nope.
>>> one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
>>> power itself to be used later.
>> They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.
>>>>> They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no
>>>>> hills, (b) no surface water.
>>>> Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
>>>> are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.
>>> Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.
>> You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single
>> large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>>> There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission
>>> lines built to supply the power to somewhere there is sufficient
>>> elevation difference and water to complete the system and that
>>> ain't within anywhere close. CO has elevation but very little excess
>> water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.
>> Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
>> a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>>> Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,
>> No one ever said it was.
>>> that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system
>> Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
>> coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
> Well, except it isn't...
It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
And that one I listed has wind farms too.
>>> which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.
>> Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
>> loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
> Except it isn't...
It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
And that one I listed has wind farms too.
>>>> Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>>> system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.
>>>> AND it aint the only one either.
>>> Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...
>> Corse it is.
> Except it isn't...
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid claim either.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 4:58 pm
From: salty@dog.com
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:05:12 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> max wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill technology do not require us to build more
>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel plants, and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to buffer their
>>>>>>>>> output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
>
>>>>>>>> The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>>>>>>> system that I'm aware of.
>
>>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>
>>>>>>> There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage by pumping water up at time of excess supply
>>>>>>> from the baseload coal generators and return that power to the system at times of excess demand by letting the
>>>>>>> water down again. Like the Australian Snowy system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE
>>>>>>> Australian grid and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.
>
>>>>>> I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.
>
>>>>> If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.
>
>>>> No,
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage
>
>>> Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.
>
>>>> they're separate forms...
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
>>>> power itself to be used later.
>
>>> They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.
>
>>>>>> They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no
>>>>>> hills, (b) no surface water.
>
>>>>> Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
>>>>> are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.
>
>>>> Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.
>
>>> You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single
>>> large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>
>>>> There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission
>>>> lines built to supply the power to somewhere there is sufficient
>>>> elevation difference and water to complete the system and that
>>>> ain't within anywhere close. CO has elevation but very little excess
>>> water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.
>
>>> Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
>>> a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"
>
>>>> Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,
>
>>> No one ever said it was.
>
>>>> that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system
>
>>> Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
>>> coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
>
>> Well, except it isn't...
>
>It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
>single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
>
>And that one I listed has wind farms too.
>
>>>> which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.
>
>>> Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
>>> loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.
>
>> Except it isn't...
>
>It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
>single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
>
>And that one I listed has wind farms too.
>
>>>>> Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
>>>>> system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.
>
>>>>> AND it aint the only one either.
>
>>>> Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...
>
>>> Corse it is.
>
>> Except it isn't...
>
>Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid claim either.
>
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 5:21 pm
From: "Lou"
"dpb" <none@non.net> wrote in message news:g29l68$6op$1@aioe.org...
> >> They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on
the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
> >> (b) no surface water.
> >
> > Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
> > are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.
>
> Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains. There would have to be
> even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the
> power to somewhere there is sufficient elevation difference and water to
> complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
> elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have
> minimal elevations. Catch-22.
>
> Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea, that _STILL_ is
> an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the
> wind farm system which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.
>
> > Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
> > system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.
> >
> > AND it aint the only one either.
>
> Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still
> ain't the same thing...
There's pumped storage and there's pumped storage. The kind we usually hear
about involve pumping lots of water to an elevated reservoir, and I can see
how it might not be a great choice in areas with little water. On the other
hand, there is compressed air energy storage, and last I knew, there was air
just about everywhere. Not a real widespread technology at the moment, but
there is a 110-MW system in Alabama that's been commercial since 1991.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 6:45 pm
From: CJT
dpb wrote:
> max wrote:
> ...
>
>> That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
>> technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
>> because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
>> buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
>
>
> The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't
> have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of.
>
Google "Ludington pumped storage"
> Also, I didn't say wind "requires" more fossil and it can replace a
> fraction of peak demand.
>
> My point was (and still is) that one cannot build a 100(say) MWe wind
> farm and expect to get 100 MWe from it in the same sense one can build
> an equivalent 100 MWe of conventional (fossil or nuclear) generation.
> Hence, the idea many promote that simply building wind farms eliminates
> the need for conventional generation is imo even more intellectually
> dishonest.
>
> --
>
>
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What to Do With Newspaper?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5f28541661165820?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:44 pm
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"
TKM wrote:
>
> Well, if you have a wood-burning fireplace or stove, I remember a DIY
> article that suggested wrapping the newspaper tightly in a roll, securing it
> with string and then soaking it with water. Then it had to be dried for
> some days (weeks maybe?) which then converted the whole mess into a
> fireplace log.
Yeah, I remember my parents having a doohickey that would let you do
that. The trick is that it has to be rolled very tightly. (And don't
include the shiny supplements--can you say "toxic fumes"?!)
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
A great many people think they are thinking when they are
only rearranging their prejudices. -William James
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 9:01 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
In article <XpednSEmOZmEadrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Casual observer wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Our local rag started throwing a POS "Community Newspaper" on everyone's
>> driveway - they started blowing around and created a real mess - repeated
>> requests to the newspaper to stop did nothing - a call to the City attorney
>> informed me that they could do nothing, either, as it was perceived as a 1st
>> Amendment issue.
>Our local paper had/has various free papers and they would toss them
>somewhere in the front of the house. I got tired of picking them up and
>called and told them I would have them cited for littering if it
>continued. That stopped the delivery cold.
The local court here threw out littering charges against the local paper
over the free sales paper they're scattering over our yards.
I just leave them out in the yard until I drag the trash can out, then toss
them all into it.
Gary
--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"a member or members of Osama bin Ladens' Al Qaeda network, posing as
computer programmers, were able to gain employment at Microsoft..."
claim made by Mohammed Afroze Abdul Razzak to police in India, 12/01.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 10:27 pm
From: Anthony Matonak
Vandy Terre wrote:
...
> It is a fire hazard to use untreated paper to improve insulation of the home.
> With that in mind, in times of desperate quick fix, newspaper makes cheap, short
> term insulation. Wadded in the walls or wadded inside a large set of sweats
> with you inside the sweats, newspaper can insulate during an emergency.
It's simple and inexpensive to treat newspaper with a borax solution.
This will effectively eliminate the fire problem.
Anthony
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Apples
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3b20db81f878f9e8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 4:13 pm
From: Dennis
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:14:56 -0400, "Marlo" <barko18@net.com> wrote:
>So on a list I'm on with lots of great people, some of whom are boneheaded,
>someone called for the return of "traditional" families -- you know, where
>the husband works and the wife stays home with the kids, stuff like that.
>
>I said it was shortsighted and ignored millennia of other traditions to call
>the nuclear family "traditional" and another woman said that Adam and Eve
>sure looked plenty traditional to her, minus a closet full of clothes. My
>response:
>
> Wow. Really? Let's see...
>
> 1) They raised a murderer
> 2) Their kids all practiced incest
> 3) Neither of them worked, either in or outside of the home
>
> (Not to mention, and this is one you can skip if you want, THEY'RE
> FICTIONAL!)
>
Oh my, yes! You are so clever. So very, very clever indeed.
We can see that you are proud of your work, but really, we would never
dream of asking you to take precious time away from the task of
showing up those boneheads on your list, just to share your precious
gems of wit and wisdom with the likes of us here on
misc.consumers.frugal-living.
No, really.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
==============================================================================
TOPIC: build your own auto trailer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/520c5580f399639a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 4:16 pm
From: JustMe
I need to haul maybe 800 lbs of junk (books mostly, also some
computers and misc) from a storage unit about 200 miles away. I'd like
to build a quick and dirty trailer for the job. Anyone know of plans I
can download for nuthin? Thanks.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 4:24 pm
From: Ron Peterson
On Jun 5, 6:16 pm, JustMe <generalordertwentyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I need to haul maybe 800 lbs of junk (books mostly, also some
> computers and misc) from a storage unit about 200 miles away. I'd like
> to build a quick and dirty trailer for the job. Anyone know of plans I
> can download for nuthin? Thanks.
What's wrong with renting?
--
Ron
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 5:32 pm
From: SMS
JustMe wrote:
> I need to haul maybe 800 lbs of junk (books mostly, also some
> computers and misc) from a storage unit about 200 miles away. I'd like
> to build a quick and dirty trailer for the job. Anyone know of plans I
> can download for nuthin? Thanks.
Wait for a sale and a 15% off coupon from a Harbor Freight store.
Right now you can buy am 860 pound capacity trailer from their stores
for $145. You can probably sell it for at least $100 when you're
through, maybe you could sell it for the whole $145, considering the
assembly time. It's complete with lights and all. You need to add a
plywood bed.
See it at
"http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42708"
but buy it at the store.
It's a lot of assembly, not something you can do in the parking lot of
the store and tow it home. You'll save a lot of assembly time if you
have an impact wrench and compressor to use.
I doubt if you could build a trailer for less than what Harbor Freight
charges.
The one I bought is
"http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42709"
and it was around $208 on sale, with a discount coupon.
Where are you located?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 6:35 pm
From:
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ww%1k.3705$ZE5.1664@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> JustMe wrote:
>> I need to haul maybe 800 lbs of junk (books mostly, also some
>> computers and misc) from a storage unit about 200 miles away. I'd like
>> to build a quick and dirty trailer for the job. Anyone know of plans I
>> can download for nuthin? Thanks.
>
> Wait for a sale and a 15% off coupon from a Harbor Freight store.
>
> Right now you can buy am 860 pound capacity trailer from their stores for
> $145. You can probably sell it for at least $100 when you're through,
> maybe you could sell it for the whole $145, considering the assembly time.
> It's complete with lights and all. You need to add a plywood bed.
>
> See it at
> "http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42708"
> but buy it at the store.
>
> It's a lot of assembly, not something you can do in the parking lot of the
> store and tow it home. You'll save a lot of assembly time if you have an
> impact wrench and compressor to use.
>
> I doubt if you could build a trailer for less than what Harbor Freight
> charges.
>
> The one I bought is
> "http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42709"
> and it was around $208 on sale, with a discount coupon.
>
> Where are you located?
I was going to suggest Harbor Freight but you beat me to it. I think even
the OP buys the parts, it would cost more. And then he needed to have it
licensed and perhaps required to provide the design and structural
calculations to get it approved for road use.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment