Date:         Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:14:54 -0500
Reply-To:     Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject:      Re: vanagon speed (was Re: Heart vs. Head
Comments: To: Loren Busch <starwagen@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <86476e250911272053u1b76ba17lf7a4838e9f9798e4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

On the California Coast, or driving through the Applachians, there may
be scenery worth watching. Driving between Kansas City and Denver,
there is very little, and more importantly you can see it for hours
approaching and hours driving past. Boring after the first 30 minutes.

I will also say there there are huge stretches of boring terrain along
the interstate between Amarillo, TX and Barstow CA. I've also heard
that the 5 days of traveling across Ontario are a bit of a bore.
Pittsburgh to Chicago is another exercise in the need for speed.

I'd rather spend more time at my DESTINATION (and it's near vicinity)
than in the mega hours of travel it may take to get there.

Perhaps you folk have destinations that are closer?

On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Loren Busch wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Joy Hecht <jhecht@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> If you wanted a vehicle that would make good time on long drives,
>> why would
>> you have a vanagon?
>>
> Joy forgot to mention more time and better views to enjoy the
> scenery as you
> are going by at Vanagon speeds.
>
>>
>>
>>