[Old_Chestnut]

from Whink:

Quote:
 She now says they are 30 lbs each, so that's 60 pounds of tit.  But she has put on weight elsewhere as well...I'd say she's about 120 now, based on her height and add 60 lbs for a total of 180.  

   Yes, in comparing the earliest photos from 2000 with recent ones, I'd guessed that the rest of CC's body was 10-15 pounds heavier nowadays (that isn't so much for someone still reaching physical maturity, given that she was around 20 in 2000); I've been estimating that the rest of her body was about 125 (but who am I to contradict her?  ).  If her breasts really are about 30 pounds (13.6 kg.) each now, by my aforesaid analysis, that really would put her breast volume up around 14,000 cc each!  (I think that weight may be rounded off, but we'll go with it for now.  But we would insist on greater precision henceforth...   )I've marked the approximate locations of the centers of mass of her breasts, the rest of her body, and overall on the one reasonably recent full-figure side view photo I could find of Chelsea.  I know this one doesn't show her at her current size, but it will give you the idea:  even if her bosom does constitute about 30-35% of her total body mass, her center of gravity is still within her torso so far (maintaining balance is a challenge, but not a physical unlikelihood...).  I'd say that CC will be in considerable equilibration difficulties (in terms of walking or even standing) if her breasts reach a total weight upward of 45-50 pounds (20.5-22.5 kg.).  By then, she'd be at a volume in the neighborhood of 22,000 cc each!  To attempt an answer to the question raised by tandoori, it's possible to make a rough estimate of her current bust measurement from the photos also.  Using her standing, full-figure photo, with her given height of 62", the reference I've been using for her hairline-to-chin distance then comes out to be about 8-1/4" (that leads to a result that CC is about 7-1/2 heads high, which is credible).  That can then be used to set up scale bars for photos, as shown.  None of these is ideal for the task of getting precise measurements because of perspective effects (and the middle pic clearly shows the difference between her "drained" and more recent "full" dimensions), but I would say roughly that the distance along her side from her back to the front surface of her bosom is 15 to 16-1/2", across her bosom is 19-20", and across her back is about 12".  This is sort of a crude estimate, but it leads to a bust measurement somewhere is the range of 62-65" (158-165 cm.).      (This also gives an estimate for her "underbust" measurement somewhere around 28-30", which would make her about a 34T...)  To return to tandoori's remark, I suspect Chelsea would have a tough time of walking or standing before she reached 70", given the relatively small size of her torso...  Again, feel free to adjust these estimates as you see fit.  I do enjoy the idea of a woman with a bust size larger than her height...      

[Old_Chestnut]

from BarneyFife:
 

Quote:
 I know your calculations are the best you could do but nothing like the real thing modeling the clothes.

       You're quite right:  theoretical analysis is all very well, but the world must also be investigated through direct observation and measurement...     (As the philosophers say, Nature is the final arbiter.)  

[Hentaibee]

gee....aren't we turning Chelsea boos into a math class here?
hahaha.
 

[Old_Chestnut]

    Since people here were asking numerical questions, a quantitative analysis seemed to be called for.  I know all that was a bit long, but I figured that explaining how I arrived at my estimates would serve two purposes:  (1) so that I wouldn't just be pulling numbers out of the air (which tends to lead to unnecessary arguments) and to see what might be learned from the photos and (2) so that anyone else could see where I got my numbers and could see what they came up with by using other values.  Anyway, I'm done for now...  

[BarneyFife]

I bet chelsea would be honored at your hard work old Chestnut knowing somebody is calculating all this with formulas.Great job once again.  

[DruulEmpire]

Hohhh ... !  Leeeee ... !  Fuhhh-ck ... !

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think at this point it really is safe to say Chelsea is many feet ahead of the rest at this point, and noone is going to catch her anytime soon in the breastsize race.  

[Feral]

Great posts Old_Chestnut, thanks for the analysis. I'd have to say a woman who's breasts measure more inches then her height and are over a third of her body weightare certainly dazzling to the mind.

[Hentaibee]

Quote:
I think at this point it really is safe to say Chelsea is many feet ahead of the rest at this point, and noone is going to catch her anytime soon in the breastsize race.  

You are our winner for most obvious post of 2005 so far :-)
 

[GoCubsGo]

Quote:
Maxi vs. Chelsea in 2001

Battle of the Huge Boobs
 

 

 

[Demolition_Man]

Now that's a fight I WOULD try to break up!    

[Whink]

Reallly?  Not me!  I'd try to get in the middle of it and let them beat the daylights out of me with those boobs!

 

[GoCubsGo]

[Balki_Bartokomous]

Chelsea is huge.  Is there ever a point where being too big breasted is unattractive?  Just wondering what everyone else thinks about that.  

[Hentaibee]

the bigger the better (as long as it's bearable, of course).
Most of the models would still be majorly hot with a B cup.