S2000 vs 2019 MX-5
Our definitions of skinny are likely very different if I'm complaining about sliding around the seat and you're saying you don't use the bolsters so much as the trans tunnel and the doors to hold you in.
What? Sayin means I've had the same experience as the guy I'm quoting.
Our definitions of skinny are likely very different if I'm complaining about sliding around the seat and you're saying you don't use the bolsters so much as the trans tunnel and the doors to hold you in.
Our definitions of skinny are likely very different if I'm complaining about sliding around the seat and you're saying you don't use the bolsters so much as the trans tunnel and the doors to hold you in.
Thin? 160 @5' 8" is a BMI of 24.3, right at the edge of what is considered overweight. 165 is overweight on BMI.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
At my height (5'8") 140-160 lbs is thin and I know people locally who land within that range and fit without much complaint about sliding. I still have to brace against door/trans tunnel on a track/autox, but my hips/upper legs are big enough that I don't have to go to great effort to do so.
5'8" 140-160 is not thin, that's potentially healthy but not thin.
Thin? 160 @5' 8" is a BMI of 24.3, right at the edge of what is considered overweight. 165 is overweight on BMI.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
Thin? 160 @5' 8" is a BMI of 24.3, right at the edge of what is considered overweight. 165 is overweight on BMI.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
Not that I put much stock in BMI for evaluating an individual. Its purpose is evaluating populations on average.
There are many reasons a person 5' 8" could be 165 or even a lot more and still be exceptionally fit and healthy (like they are very muscular, etc). But no one would call someone that is overweight on BMI 'skinny'.
At 6" and 140, you're borderline under weight according to BMI and I would assume you look painfully thin visually. Jamal Crawford is listed at 185 and I'd bet he weighs a bit more than that on a day to day basis.
Thin = thin.
I am thin.
Just because the average American is huge that doesn't mean thin should be conflated with anyone who isn't massive.
I'm exactly the same height/weight as Valentino Rossi. Thin/skinny sure...but healthy.
I am thin.
Just because the average American is huge that doesn't mean thin should be conflated with anyone who isn't massive.
I'm exactly the same height/weight as Valentino Rossi. Thin/skinny sure...but healthy.











no chance against s2k's visually.