Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Shutting Down-Moving to WordPress

Attention everyone:  I have started a new blog on WordPress.  I will stop posting on here and start posting on the WordPress blog.

Please follow me on that new blog.  The link is below:


Saturday, July 20, 2013

The Tesla Model S: The Prius of the 2010's. Tales of my First Run in With a Tesla Model S...and its Owner.

5 years ago, the car in this picture would be a Prius.
In the mid to late 2000's, the "go-to" car for condescending yuppies was undoubtedly the Toyota Prius.  If you were "green" and wanted everyone to know it, you bought a Prius.  Unfortunately, a lot of Prius owners at the time also thought they were better than the rest of society.

During the Prius' reign, average members of society without proper "green cred," including those poser Escape Hybrid hybrids, needed to be on constant alert for a verbal berating from a Prius owner.  Not only was the Prius the greatest thing since sliced bread, but Prius owners were saving the world and if you didn't own one, you were a bad person and they weren't afraid to tell you about it.

They also weren't afraid to tell you how great their gas mileage was.  It was like a fishing story, the mileage always got better as regular cars started getting better mileage.  40mpg quickly turned into 50mpg over the course of a five minute story depending on how good the mileage of the non-Prius owner's car in the conversation got.

The problem of course was that, despite its price, the Prius wasn't much better for the world than a Corolla.  The Prius was aimed at yuppies who had some disposable income but wanted the green cred.  They were willing to sacrifice luxury and looks to drive a Prius and get such cred.  A Corolla or a small diesel car was far too blue collar.  In short, the Prius was the go-to car for the upper middle class quasi elite and Hollywood types.

Well, I'm here to announce that the Prius has been replaced by the Tesla Model S as the go to car for the quasi-intelligentsia.   Thank goodness because the Prius is now far too mainstream for proper condescension.  The Tesla Model S not only has more green cred than the Prius, but it is much nicer, prettier and, for now, it doesn't carry the reputational baggage caused by years of condescending Prius owners.  The Tesla is very "cool" right now.  People instinctively flock to it like the salmon of Capistrano. Unfortunately a lot of the same types of people who used to buy Prius' are now drooling over Tesla's.  Luckily for society, most of these people can't afford a Tesla Model S.

However, a couple days ago I spent a significant amount of time with a Tesla Model S owner and I am pleased to report that the spirit of the original Prius faithful lives on.  As you probably know, I am a car guy.  Most Prius owners are not, the one and only Tesla owner was sure to tell me, on several occasions, that he was not a car guy.  According to him, "I'm not a car guy, the only reason I bought this is because its all electric."  I swear he closed his eyes every time he said "all electric."  Of course, despite the fact that he and I had a pretty lengthy conversation, I can't recall the color of his eyes since he had them closed for the duration.

For a guy who isn't a "car guy" he sure knew a lot about his car, and could easily list every reason why it was better than every other car in the history of western civilization.  Here is the non-exhaustive list:

  1. It is "all electric" 
  2. It has a completely flat floor since its "all electric" 
  3. It is silent because it is "all electric"
  4. It is "insanely fast" (I swear, he said this about 20 times) because it uses an "electric motor." Throughout our conversation, the car's 0-60 time ranged from over 5 seconds to 4.3 seconds.  The number got lower after we talked a little bit about my car's acceleration times.  He also informed me that his car is actually significantly faster in the "real world" because car magazines  measure "all electric" cars' acceleration times differently than internal combustion engine cars.
  5. The range is so great, it can "get to Omaha and back no problem."  He told me this at least 3 or 4 times.  He looked genuinely upset when I asked him whether he could "get to Omaha, run some errands, and get back no problem or perhaps go to Kansas City."  He informed me that he would probably have to take his second car for that. Yes, his second car is a Prius, he bought it about 3 years ago.
  6. The interior is as nice a the "German makes."  I nearly replied back "You've clearly never sat in a nice German car" but I bit my tongue. 
The guy was pretty much your standard Prius owner but with a tech geek twist.  He was wearing a Pebble smart watch on one wrist and what looked to me to be like a Nike Fuel Band on the other.  While the guy was an ass, I can say I was pleasantly surprised by the car.

The Model S exhibits a much better build quality compared to the Roadster (there was a roadster at the same event, I did not get to meet the owner) and is on the level of an ordinary middle market car.  The interior is nice, definitely not a kit car, but it doesn't knock your socks off.  Yes, it has a massive touch screen, which is cool.  But "cool" doesn't mean "luxurious."  Almost every grimey, beer soaked frat house in the country has a TV with a massive screen, most people wouldn't call your average frat house luxurious.

I've heard a lot of people comparing the Model S to an Audi A6 or a BMW 5 Series. While it may be similar in performance and price, the interior is not on the same level.  When you get into an Audi A6, you know you are in a luxury automobile.  The tolerances are higher, the materials and colors are nicer, everything just screams luxury.  Once you get past the touch screen, the Model S' interior is simply not in the same league as the main German Luxury brands when it comes to true luxury.  When sit in a true German luxury sedan, you are immediately bathed in luxury, from the materials, the touch, the fit and finish and even the smell.  When you sit in a Tesla, you might as well be sitting in a full size American or Japanese mainstream sedan with a large screen.
Audi A6

Looking at the pictures above, it is clear that the Tesla's interior is on par with a large mainstream sedan like an Impala, Taurus, or Avalon. However, it clearly is not on par with the A6's.  Your average driver would not complain about it.  However, your average driver isn't dropping over $50,000 when he or she purchases a vehicle.

The Model S is by far the best electric car on the market.  From a engineering standpoint it is an impressive feat.  It is also the only electric car on the market that I would ever even consider buying.

However, at the end of the day, it is still not a car for the typical American.  While its range is impressive for an electric car, its range is not at all comparable to a car with an internal combustion engine.  Unless a buyer lives in a big city and has nobody or nothing out of town  they want to visit, the Model S will still require a potential owner to have a second car.

For the price, I'll take the (real) luxury and practicality of a 5 Series, an E-Class, or an A6 without hesitation.  If I felt like saving the world through my choice of car, I would get the diesel version of all of the above.

Of course I wouldn't be able to talk down to the people around me with tales of "pure electric" bliss.  This is unfortunate, but I probably wouldn't care because I would be in a far superior car

Friday, June 21, 2013

A concurring opinion....

A while ago I wrote an article detailing my thoughts on the downfall of Honda as an ethusiast brand and, to a lesser extent, Acura as a niche luxury brand.  Apparently, I'm not the only person who shares these feelings.

Jalopnik did a poll of its readers asking them what the 10 most boring car companies in the world are.  Not surprisingly, Acura was voted most boring.  Here is what Jalopnik had to say,

"The power of dreams, right? They say Soichiro Honda used to shout at employes all the time until the products were perfect. It's a shame he passed away in 1991.P
Hondas of today are as boring as a cardboard box, not to mention poor Acura. Come on Honda, be what you used to be. Be awesome.11"
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

The Difference Between Hypercars and Supercars....

In the past I have waxed, not so eloquently, on hypercars and supercars.  Some contend the word hypercar is pointless and what I am calling hypercars are in fact simply supercars.  The article below sums it up much better than I ever could.

Jalopnik-The Ferrari 458 is Not a Supercar

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

An indication of a larger problem...

Postal Service Says Saturday Delivery Will Continue Because Of Budget Provision - Forbes

Many of you (I hope) are aware that the US Postal Service ("USPS") was going to discontinue deliveries on Saturday to help shore up its budget shortfall. 

Some people were very upset about this.  I was happy about it.  I was impressed to see someone in government (or quasi government) making a tough choice based on fiscal reality.

As it turns out, the masters of fiscal irrationality, Congress, decided to put an end to my happiness.  Apparently, Congress decreed that USPS must continue to deliver six days a week. 

Amazing! How could come I didn't think of that? That will fix everything! If we just force it, without regard to paying for it, the problem will just be fixed. 

So much for my dreams of a sober and reality based government.  If Congress is unwilling to let the USPS save $2b a year by cutting a service that isn't a huge deal, how can we expect them to balance our country's budget?

I assure you, whether we balance the budget through taxes, cuts, or both (hopefully) it will require the slaughter of cows much more sacred than mail on Saturdays.

Monday, April 1, 2013

The Downfall of Honda

Honda...oh how the mighty have fallen.  As many of you know, I often like to wax nostalgic about my car obsessed youth.  Although I grew up during two great hypercar wars, I also grew up, and started driving, during the greatest tuner car war since the 1960's.

The late 90's and early 2000's witnessed the rebirth of the affordable, moderately sporty cars for all.  While the cars weren't as fast, the formula remained the same as the 60's: Take a boring, slow, everyday car and beef up the engine and the suspension.  Sometimes the factory did this for you, sometimes you did it yourself.  In the late 90's and early 2000's, the GTO and Nova were replaced by "import tuners" such as the Honda Civic Si, Acura Integra GS-R, and Mitsubishi Eclipse GST/X.

Used cars such as the Toyota Supra, Nissan 300zx, Mazda RX-7 and Mitsubishi 3000gt or new or used Mustangs and Camaros were much faster.  The Supra, 300zx, RX-7 and 3000gt were the true "import tuners" of the time.  They were and are still proper sports cars, thus, I will refer to the lesser cars (such as those pictured above) as "economy tuners."

Although the Supra's, Camaro's and the like were much better than the "economy tuners", they didn't occupy the right niche for most 16 year-olds at that time.  First of all, they were too expensive for a first car.  Second, they were too fast for a first car.  Economy tuners weren't actually fast, they were just a little faster and a lot louder than the normal economy cars of the time.  Case in point, I once raced a friend in his 1999 Civic Si in my mom's V-8 Mercury Mountaineer...it wasn't even close, the Mountaineer destroyed the Civic.  My dad's Buick would have done the same.  It didn't matter though, perception was all that mattered.  How losing races to basic SUV's didn't ruin our perception of these cars until much later in life is beyond me.  I guess that's why 16 year-olds aren't allowed to vote.  Anyway, back to Honda.

At the time, Honda was, by far, the king of the castle among us.  For the record, when I say "us" or "we" I mean adolescent boys in Orange County California who turned 16 around 1999-2000.  Also, when I say "Honda" I also mean "Acura."  If you didn't know that Acura is Honda's luxury arm, then please stop reading this blog.

You may be asking yourself, why Honda?  Why not Toyota? At the time, Toyota was far down the road to its current soulless, yet lucrative, existence (FR-S not included).  Toyota did not produced only one exciting car at that time.  The Supra had been out of production for a few years.  Everything else was dull, ugly, boring, and usually beige. (As you will see later, Honda is on that road now) Their only sporty car was the Celica GTS, although it was faster than most of the Honda's at that time, it was ugly and had a reputation as a "chick car".  Being known as a "chick car" is a fate worse than death for a 16 year old male.  This is why we weren't all driving the worlds best driver's car at the time, the Mazda Miata.  Once again, another reason why 16 year-olds shouldn't vote.


For reasons unknown to science, Honda's were not chick cars.  Honda's were seen as being as reliable as Toyota's but they were for people who actually had souls. More of "us" wanted them which led to a much larger aftermarket for them.  Let's look at Honda's sporty lineup in 2000:

Civic SI: 160hp, 8500rpm redline, plus a giant VTEC sticker on the side.
Prelude: 200hp, 8000rpm redline, plus a giant VTEC sticker on the side.
S2000: 240hp, 9000rpm redline, rear wheel drive.
Acura Integra GS-R: 175hp, 8000rpm redline.
Acura Integra Type R: 197hp, 8500rpm redline, giant TYPE R sticker on the side.
Acura NSX: 290hp, 8500rpm redline, an aging supercar at the time.                                                                                                              
Acura 3.2 TL/CL Type S: 260hp, 6100rpm redline, an inferior Japanese alternative to the 3 Series, but an alternative nonetheless.  Basically the only Japanese 3 Series alternative at that time.

While the numbers may seem modest to car enthusiasts, they are actually not far off from what is common in the class today, besides the NSX of course.  What the numbers don't tell you is how special and exciting all these cars were.  They all had personality and spunk.  Their high revving nature made them extremely fun to drive, the sound of a small engine at 8000+ RPM's is music to a gearhead's ears.  The Integra Type R is still considered to be the best handling FWD car ever made. They also had ample room under the hood (besides the NSX) which meant they were relatively easy to work on.  The Civic Si and Integra GS-R were the bench-line against which all other economy tuners were judged.  The Integra Type R was practically a super car as far as we were concerned. The Integra Type-R's 1.8 liter engine revved to a sky high 8500rpm's and produced 197hp.  It also had an amazing suspension, a limited slip differential and was lighter than the base Integra because Honda stripped almost all the sound deadening insulation out of it.  Outside of the premium brands, nobody has a lineup as sporty as this today.  Honda has not sold a car as extreme as the Integra Type R for quite some time.

For enthusiasts, Honda's lineup was probably the best lineup outside of premium or high performance brands in the late 90's and early 2000's.  Simply put, Honda's and Acura's were a sporty alternative to the sea of beige being produced by Toyota and the irrelevance coming from Nissan.  This made sense considering Honda's rich motorcycle and automobile racing heritage.  There was a view that the technology developed on the race track trickled down to the street cars.  This was especially true for the VTEC system and the big stickers that came with it.

The RSX launched in 2002 as a replacement for the Integra.  RSX was a stupid name.  Just like TL was a stupid name compared to "Legend," the car it replaced.  As a fanboy, I didn't see it at the time but Acura was essentially "emblem chasing" the German luxury brands.  BMW, Mercedes and Audi used only numerical or alphabetical names, thus, all the pretenders had to do the same (I'm looking at you too Cadillac). However, this was the first step towards Honda losing its identity.  More on this later, back to the RSX.

While it may not seem like much now, the RSX Type-S was a truly great car when it came out.  It had all the things that made the Integra special, it was affordable, sporty, relatively practical, economical, high revving, smooth shifting and it handled well.  It also had a unique interior and a certain level of class that was missing from the Integra.  The key to the RSX was the driving experience,which was anchored by its engine.  The 2.0 liter four cylinder produced 200 horsepower and redlined at a silky smooth 8000rpm.

More importantly, it occupied a unique niche that even the Germans have tried and failed to fill:  sporty entry level luxury.  With the exception of the BMW 1 Series (and this is debatable due to its price), no car has filed the sporty entry level luxury niche like the RSX Type-S did.  BMW tried with the 318ti and Mercedes tried with the C230 hatchback.  They both failed. Miserably.  Acura did not.

In my opinion, 2002 represents both the peak and the beginning of Honda's decline as a reputable performance brand.  The RSX Type-S was launched and the NSX received a major face lift.  The S2000 was still a high strung performer and the TL/CL Type-S were still reasonable performance alternatives to the 3 Series.  Yet, 2002 was the beginning of the end.  Since 2002, Honda has not produced a single redesigned performance model that is significantly better than the cars in its lineup between 1999-2000.  From an enthusiast standpoint, Honda's new models have in fact become worse or been stagnant since 2002.
Honda's design department must be blind.

The Prelude ceased production in 2001 and the 2002 Civic SI (left) was overweight, under-powered, and had styling only a mother could love. Also, the US lineup lacked any car with the phrase "Type-R" affixed to the end of it. But this is merely the time of the iceberg.

The 2002 Civic SI provides a nice example of Honda's problems which started in 2002 and continue to this day.  The 2000 Civic Si produced 160 horsepower, redlined at 8500rpms,  did 0-60 in 7.2 and ran the 1/4 mile in 15.7 seconds. Source. The 2002 Si, despite gaining 150lbs, still produced 160hp but it did 0-60 in 7.6 and ran the quarter in 15.9.  Not only was it slower it was far less dramatic and exciting.  Although it produced more torque and had a more usable powerband, it revved to a lowly 6500rpms.  Thus, it didn't make much power and it made even less drama. Source.  Why Honda thought it was good to follow up a sporty car with a model that makes the same horsepower is beyond me, but this lack of pushing the envelope became a recurring theme.

In 2006, Honda eventually put the sweet and high revving 200 horsepower (actually 197 but what's 2 horsepower between friends?) engine from the RSX Type S in the Civic Si. Then, as part of what seems to be a company wide sleep induction campaign, the 2012 Si got a shocking 200 horsepower, but out of a 2.4 liter engine that revved to 7400rpm's.  From an objective standpoint, the new engine was probably "better" but from a subjective standpoint, it was a step down.  The car's soul had been removed.  I don't know what Honda's engineers were doing during those 6 years, but they surely weren't working on the Civic Si's powertrain considering that some of Honda's competitors made over 240 horsepower at the time.  Thus, the Si now not only makes less power than its rivals, it also has less soul.  Not a good combination.

Another Honda great, the S2000, suffered a similar fate until it was discontinued in 2009.  When the S2000 howled its way onto the scene in 1999 it squeezed 240 horsepower from a 2.0 liter engine at a    stratospheric 9000rpm's.  The engine made no torque but the horsepower and redline made it an
extremely exciting and unique car.  In 2004 Honda replaced the 2.0 liter with a 2.2 litre that made the same horsepower but produced more torque.  Seemingly, this was a good thing, but once again, like with the SI, the S2000 lost its soul.

Honda killed the S2000 in 2009, by then, it was Honda's only sports car besides the Civic Si, which, let's be honest, isn't a real sports car.

This lack of pushing the performance envelope was endemic throughout Honda.  The RSX was killed in 2006.  Acura has not had a 2 door model since. The best and saddest example of this performance neglect can be seen in the slow and steady death of the NSX.

The NSX was, at one time, an amazing car.  It launched in 1990 with a sweet, smooth and high revving 3.0 liter v6 that produced 270hp and featured a healthy dose of Honda racing technology.
 It did 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds.  At the time, these were impressive numbers.  More importantly, the car didn't break every three hundred feet like other supercars at the time.  However, by the mid-90's the NSX was falling behind in the power department.  The NSX's competition such as the Dodge Viper and Porsche 911 Turbo produced over 400 horsepower each and were finally reliable.  The 911 Turbo was a true "every day supercar."  The NSX remained essentially unchanged until 1997 when it received a new engine and 2002 when it received new headlights and tail lights.

The new engine was a step in the right direction.  It was a 3.2 liter and produced 290hp.  The 2002 NSX did 0-60 in approximately 5 seconds.  Unfortunately, 12 years is an eternity in the world of high performance cars.  By 2002, the NSX's competition had left it far behind (literally and figuratively). For example, a 2002 BMW M3, made 320 horsepower from a 3.2 liter engine.  Keep in mind than an M3 is not a "supercar" and the NSX cost approximately twice as much. The NSX was not even in spitting distance of the supercars at the time.  Due to neglect, the NSX went from hero to bottom of the barrel.  The NSX fell so far that in 2001, the S2000 accelerated just as actually just as quickly as the NSX and was nearly as fast around a track.  Source. The NSX was mercifully put out of its misery in 2005.

As shown by Toyota's success, a low volume supercar and sports cars may not matter to most, especially the mainstream media.  However, the importance of so called performance and "halo" cars and should not be forgotten or ignored.  I can not sum it up any better than Zora Arkus-Duntov, the "father" of the Corvette:


The Hot Rod movement and interest in things connected with hop-up and speed is still growing. As an indication: the publications devoted to hot rodding and hop-upping, of which some half dozen have a very large circulation and are distributed nationally, did not exist some six years ago.
From cover to cover, they are full of Fords. This is not surprising that the majority of hot rodders are eating, sleeping, and dreaming modified Fords. They know Ford parts from stern to stern better than Ford people themselves.
A young man buying a magazine for the first time immediatly becomes introduced to Ford. It is reasonable to assume that when hot rodders or hot rod-influenced persons buy transportation, they buy Fords. As they progress in age and income, they graduate from jalopies to second-hand Fords, then to new Fords.
Should we consider that it would be desirable to make these youths Chevrolet-minded? I think that we are in a position to carry out a successful attempt. However, there are many factors againt us:
  1. Loyalty and experience with Ford.
  2. Hop-up industry is geared with Ford.
  3. Law of number-thousands are and will be working on Fords for active competition.
  4. Appearance of Ford’s overhead V8, now one year ahead of us.
When a superior line of GM V8’s appeared, there where remarkably few attempts to develop these, and none too successful. Also, the appearance of the V8’s Chrysler was met with reluctance even though the success of Ardun-Fords conditioned them to the acceptance of Firepower.
This year is the first one in which isolated Chrysler development met with succsess. The Bonneville records are divided between Ardun-Fords and Chryslers.
Like all people, hot rodders are attracted by novelty. However, bitter experience has taught them that new development is costly and long, and therefore they are extremely conservative. From my observation, it takes an advanced hot rodder some three years to stumble toward the successful development of a new design. Overhead Fords will be in this stable between 1956 and 1957.
The slide rule potential of our RPO V8 engine is extremely high, but to let things run their natural course will put us one year behind-and then not too many hot rodders will pick Chevrolet for development. One factor which can largely overcome this handicap would be the availability of ready-enginered parts for higher output:
If the use of the Chevrolet engine would be made easy and the very first attempts would be crowned with succsess, the appeal of the new RPO V8 engine will take hold and not have the stigma of expensiveness like the Cadillac or Chrysler, and a swing to Chevrolet may be anticipated.This means the development of a range of special parts-camshafts, valves, springs, manifolds, pistons, and such-should be made available to the public.
To make good in this field, the RPO parts must pertain not only to the engine but to the chassis coponents as well. In fact, the use of light alloys and brake development, such as composite drums and discs, are already on the agenda of the Research and Development group.
These thoughts are offered for what they are worth-one man’s thinking aloud on the subject.
Signed: Z. Arkus-Duntov 
dated: 12/16/53

With the death of the NSX, Honda has one "sport" model in its lineup.  The Civic Si.  Honda's traditional lineup is still made of good, competitive, cars (besides the Ridgeline of course).  Acura's lineup, while good, is arguably not competitive.  Acura, while ostensibly a "luxury" brand, does not offer an engine with much over 300 horsepower, a V-8 or RWD.  The majority of Acura's lineup is simply rebadged Honda's.  Luxury consumers are not stupid, for the most part, especially on the high end, they know a pretender when they see one.

I'm sure Honda's sales are fine.  As Zora explained above, there are probably lots of buyers from my generation who purchased an Accord, CR-V or Pilot due to their positive experiences with the CRX's, Si's and GS-R's of their youth.  The question is, in a few years, when the children of my generation go car shopping for the first time what will they want?

Nobody wants the car their parents drove.  Buick and Cadillac learned this the hard way.  BMW and Mercedes haven't had to learn this because they, especially BMW, continue to make very exciting performance and performance oriented cars.

I don't think its too late for Honda.  Only time will tell, but Honda should should develop more sporty cars and try to regain its reputation as a fun, reliable, and sporty alternative before it is completely lost.  It is a lot easier to repair an image (Ford) than it is to rebuild one (Cadillac/Buick).

Sunday, March 17, 2013

ALMS: The Best Racing on Television

I am pretty sick and decided I needed to rest all day.  I have been laying on the couch watching TV and luckily I checked the SPEED channel which was showing the 12 Hours of Sebring, an ALMS (American LeMans Series) race.  I have always been interested in this type of racing but I have rarely had an entire day to dedicate to watch a race. 


I don't watch racing every weekend but I try to watch at least the beginning and the end of the Daytona 500 every year, the final race of NASCAR season if I will decide a champion, and the occasional Formula 1 race.

I'm not really  NASCAR hater and I used to enjoy it a few years ago but it is pretty boring and I dislike the fact that, for the most part, the cars only make left turns.  I know stock car racing is very difficult and takes a high degree of skill but it makes for boring racing.  Another beef I have with NASCAR is the cars themselves.  I have no idea why the are called "stock cars" because they are not "stock."  Toyota doesn't make a two door Camry, a v8 Camry, or a rear wheel drive Camry.  If a person went out a bought a Camry looking for a sports car, or even a fast car, they would be greatly disappointed.  The same distinctions apply to all the so called "stock cars." I just pick on the Camry because it is by far the dullest car represented in stock car racing.

The cars in NASCAR are essentially identical tube chassis' with fake, one piece, bodies thrown on top of them. 

Notice a Difference?

Another problem I have with NASCAR is that, if there is even the slightest drizzle, they wont race.  Finally, NASCAR has too many cautions, if there is anything on the track larger than a grain of sand the caution flag goes up.

F1 is a little better than NASCAR because there is actual turning in it.  However, its not much better.  It is pretty dull, there are very few passes on the track per race.  The cars are undoubtedly the most advanced race cars in the world, the drivers are probably the best in the world, but that doesn't make the racing exciting. 

 A problem shared by F1 and NASCAR is that there is very little difference between the cars.  I know F1 is not technically a "spec" series (all cars must be exactly the same) but its pretty close.  All F1 cars must be the same weight and have the same type of engine.  While F1 teams are allowed to change tire types during races, (such as from wet to dry) they all use the same tire manufacturer. 

Also, like with NASCAR, a fan can not go and buy a car that is even remotely close to an F1 car.  There's no "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" for either series.  As a car fan this takes the fun out for me.  I like to be able to see somewhat "real" cars duking it out on a race track.

Enter ALMS.  The 12 Hours of Sebring is some of the most exciting racing I have ever watched on TV.  There is more action in five minutes of ALMS racing than an entire F1 race. There was at least two or more position battles going on at any one time.  I can't say how gratifying it is as a car fan in general to see new Viper GTS-R's locked in constant battles with BMW Z4's, Ferrari 458 Italia's and Corvette C6-R's.  There are also 911's but they didn't spend a whole lot of time jockeying for first.

The great thing about the GT class is that they are based on production cars and the cars are all different from each other within loose specifications as described below:

"Production-based, moderately modified two-wheel drive race cars comprise the GT class – Aston Martin Vantage, BMW M3 GT, Corvette C6.R, Ferrari F458 Italia, Lotus Evora and Porsche 911 GT3 RSR. The GT cars share many similarities to their showroom brands. With top speeds of up to 180 mph, these elite GTs produce between 450-500 horsepower and have a minimum weight of 1,245 kilograms (2,745 pounds).All GT race cars have green Leader Lights and green car numbers."

GT ALMS Race Car Class

Source.  The prototype classes also feature exciting racing and major differences between the cars.  For example, the Audi's, which seem to dominate all, use turbo-diesel-hybrid engines, the other cars use gas engines.  Neither NASCAR nor F1 allow such major differences between the cars.  I like the idea of a competition between design philosophies and technology as much as I like competition between drivers.

Another great thing is the lack of cautions.  There was all kinds of crap all over the track by the end of race, including pieces of bumper, but no caution was called.  The drivers were expected to simply drive around the obstacles, this is a feat of driving skill that NASCAR drivers are apparently incapable of.

I can't stress enough how exciting the racing is.  As mentioned earlier, in the GT class it was the story of the Viper GTS-R vs everyone else.  To me, this was a great marketing victory for the Viper and renewed my excitement about a car I had pretty much written off as playing second fiddle to the Zr-1.  The drivers did not look like they were battling the car, they seemed to have the most power, and, most important in endurance racing, they didn't break!

Despite the Viper's dominance for most of the day, the ultimate hero was the Corvette C6-R.  The C6-R was a lap down for most of the race due to penalties and electrical problems.  However, with about an hour left in the race (about 11:00 pm) the Corvette team started setting the pace and catching up with the field.  With about 7 minutes left in the race the Corvette was in second place behind a Ferrari 458 Italia.  The Italia's driver buckled under the pressure from driving at night and having the 'Vette in his rear view mirror and took a turn a little too fast and went wide, the Corvette made the pass.  With about three minutes left in the race the Corvette was running out of gas due to how hard they had to push to take the lead and then fight off the Ferrari but they managed to hold on for the win.

This brings me to another important point about the brilliance of ALMS racing.  Durability.  This racing series allows manufacturers to torture test their technology.  Its not just about who has the fastest car, but who has the most durable car. 

In sum, if you are a fan of cars, a fan of car racing, or a fan of both, check out ALMS on SPEED on online.  It is the best racing on TV.

To learn more about ALMS, check out their website at http://www.alms.com/

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Initial Thoughts on the Mclaren P1

Rumors and a steady stream of teasers have been floating around regarding the McLaren P1 for quite some time.  Initially, the rumor was that this car would be a true successor to the McLaren F1, that it would be a world beater.  It certainly looks the part.
It certainly looks like a proper hypercar.

Needless to say, as a child of the 90's and early 2000's car culture, I was very excited.  There's nothing more fun than a good old fashioned hypercar war...just ask the teenagers of the '70's (Lamborghini Countach vs Ferrari 512 Berlinetta Boxer), the 80's (Porsche 959 vs Ferrari F-40 or GTO), the 90's who were spoiled with the Jaguar XJ220, the Bugatti EB110, the Ferrari F50, Lamborghini Diablo and the McLaren F1, and last but not least, the teens of the early 2000's who had the Ferrari Enzo, the Porsche Carerra GT, and the Mercedes SLR McLaren.

From my point of view, its been about 10 years, the Bugatti Veyron has been the king of the production car castle for too long and it is far too ugly. I was excited by the prospect of McLaren attempting to take back the throne it held from 1992 through 2005.

                                                       Ahhh....the glory days.

However, McLaren was quick to dampen the excitement when they announced, "the aim is not necessarily to be the fastest in absolute top speed but to be the quickest and most rewarding series production road car on a circuit." source  Please allow me to translate this, "we can't beat or even approach Bugatti so we are just going to pretend we don't care."  Great, there went my excitement over the second coming of the great hypercar wars of yore.

Here are the numbers according to Motortrend:
903 hp and 664 lb-ft. According to McLaren, 727 hp and 531 lb-ft will be provided by a twin-turbo, 3.8-liter V-8, an upgraded version of the 12C’s engine running an additional 3 psi of boost. Additional thrust will be donated to the accelerative cause by a McLaren-built electric motor mounted to the back of the engine and producing up to 176 hp and 192 lb-ft. All that power is shunted to the rear wheels via a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. All said and done, McLaren says the P1 will hit 62 mph in less than three seconds, 124 mph in less than seven seconds and 186 mph in less than 17 seconds (that’s 5 seconds faster than the McLaren F1).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/exotic/1303_mclaren_p1_first_look/#ixzz2NAzJJ5w5    
These are impressive numbers no doubt.  I'm sure this car will be an amazing all around car.  As a supercar, I would be gushing with praise.  But this car is priced as a hypercar ($1.3m) so I am analyzing it as a hypercar.

In reality, the translation above could also say, "we can't beat or even approach the last hypercar we built so we are just going to pretend we aren't trying to." Frankly, I don't understand how or why McLaren thinks its okay to charge $1.3m for a car that, by some metrics, is not as good as their previous $800k+ car.  I'm sure this car will demolish the F1 around a track but that's not what hypercars are all about.  First and foremost, hypercar wars are supposed to be a high stakes game of one-upsmanship.  Hypercars are all about the numbers, what is possible, not what is practical.  The majority of people with enough money to afford a hypercar barely even drive them, much less race them on a track. On the same token, they probably spend even less time pushing their cars' top speed limits.  A hypercar should be  performance without compromise.  It should accelerate quickly, handle well, and have an insanely high top speed.  Its an opportunity for a manufacturer to say, "this is the fastest car we can make."

I know it seems silly to be ranting about McLaren throwing in the towel when their customers are unlikely to ever drive their cars at 200+ miles per hour but that is sort of the point of the hypercar.  Its not what hypercars actually do that makes them special.  If that were the case, a P1 can probably sit in a private garage just as well as an F1 can.  What makes hypercars special is what they are capable of doing, what they do in magazines and comparison tests, how they look on kids and teenager's walls, and what they do in the hearts and minds of enthusiasts (most of whom will never own one) around the world.

I doubt magazines will have the urge to race a P1 against an F18.
 Its just not that special.
To this day I can still rattle off a McLaren F1's top speed and 0-60 time from memory (240mph and 3.2 seconds). I'd be surprised if anyone will be able to recall a Gumpert Apollo's 'ring time 11 years later from memory.  I suspect that the P1 will be overshadowed by the F1 in the annals of time in similar fashion.

The other issue faced by the P1 is the the MP4-12C.  I suspect its "street cred" (or more likely "wall cred") will be harmed by the fact that it uses a tuned version of the MP4-12C's engine coupled with a KERS hybrid system.  Also, its interior looks very similar to its younger sibling. Which is strange considering the price premium.  The F1 had very unique interior, notice where the guy is sitting in the picture above.

P1 Interior
Mp4-12c Interior
Furthermore, in addition to the F1, the P1's credibility is being challenged by its little brother, the MP$-12c.  The P1 will likely not be fast enough to justify its price compared to the MP4-12c.  The MP4-12c does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and tops out at 205mph.  McLaren says the P1 will do 0-60 in "under 3 seconds" and top out at limited 217mph.  Impressive no doubt, but not terribly so considering most of the hypercars of days past were at that level over 10 years ago, the last gen 911 turbo does 0-60 in about 2.9 seconds, and the current crop of supercars (458 Italia, Zr-1, MP4-12c, Aventador, etc...) are within spitting distance.

The current crop of supercars cost half as as much as the P1.  The P1 is not twice as good as those cars.

I'm not sure what the issue is but we seem to have hit a plateau in hypercar development.  I include the Veyron in this statement because, even though it has an amazing top speed, it is not very fast around a track (comparatively speaking of course).  Hypercars should be amazing on all major performance metrics: handling, acceleration and top speed.  In a vacuum I would be head-over-heels for this car but its just not enough of a leap beyond past hypercars or current supercars to justify its extravagant price.                                                                                       

I love the diffuser.

I'm well aware that I'm being a little ridiculous.  Hypercar buyers don't care about price (If you have to ask, you don't belong!), they will likely never test the car's top speed and the P1 offers much more practical and useable performance than the hypercars of the past. But, as mentioned, hypercars are all about numbers. Hypercars are not supposed to contain compromises. The hypercars of the past were head and shoulders above the supercars of their time in acceleration, top speed, and handling.  Today, the difference between supercars and hypercars is just not big enough to justify the price.

In conclusion, the McLaren P1 will likely be an incredible performance car.  I look forward to comparisons between it and the recently unveiled LaFerrari.  However, this car will never get out of the F1's shadow and won't enjoy the esteem of the hypercars of the past as time goes on, not necessarily because this is a bad car, but because the current supercars are such good cars.

For more information about this awesome car and to view my sources, check out the links below:

Road and Track-P1
Car And Driver-F1
Road and Track-90's hypercar comparison

Friday, March 8, 2013

Venture Capital: The Vocabulary

As my title and background indicate, I am currently a recovering lawyer.  After many years of education and a little over a year of practicing law, I decided to take a different route in life.  I quit private practice and joined a venture capital firm.  Needless to say, my world has been turned upside down (in a good way).  
I'm not there yet...but hopefully someday.

I plan to share many misadventures and maybe even a little advice for entrepreneurs as I develop and mature in my career.

One of the first major differences I noticed between law and finance is that the finance world has a vocabulary of its own that takes a little time to get used to.  Below are some examples and some translations.  After all, if you want to walk the walk, you gotta learn to talk the talk.

Finance Vocabulary 101:

1) Ding: the least severe form of telling someone they are wrong.
     -"Ding him on that valuation"

2) Rap on the knuckles: the second most severe form of telling someone they are wrong.
          -"I've told him twenty times not to do that, go, give him a rap on the knuckles and make sure he doesn't do it again."

3) Settle someone's hash: the most severe form of telling someone they are wrong.
          -"hold my drink, I need to go settle this guy's hash."

4) Shake some trees: to inquire further when being given the run around.
           -"its weird they haven't given you that, you better go down and shake some trees."

5) Circle back: to address something on a later date
           -"I'm gonna circle back with you on Monday for those financials"

6) Ring my bell: to remind someone of something later.
          -"ring my bell about this on Monday."

7) Haircut: a decrease in money.
           -"I took a haircut when I came here!" or "they are in danger of defaulting on their debt, we have to  take a 50% haircut in our portfolio."

8) Pushback: to argue with.
           -"Did you get any pushback on the valuation?"

9) Burn some calories: to do work.
           -"He's lazy, he's not gonna burn any calories on this."

10) Banker's Hours: to only work 9-5.
          -"Jeeze, its 4:55 and your packing up? What, are you on banker's hours?"

11) Cherry on Top: to take a small piece of a deal or finish out a financing round without leading such deal or financing round.
         -"Look, I'm capped at $500,000 and you're looking to raise $3.5m so I can't lead this deal, I'm just looking to be the cherry on top."

I'll try to keep updating this as time goes on.  But, entrepreneurs, if you are making a pitch to a VC and you hear a sentence that starts with "I'm gonna give you a little pushback..." be prepared to defend your position!

Sunday, February 24, 2013

My thoughts on the sequester

Obama Presses for Late Rethink on Cuts

This sequester brings up several points.

First of all, I find it interesting that Obama never presses for late rethinks when tax increases are on the line. This is why its never a good idea to do tax increases now and spending cuts “later.” Later never comes.

At the end of the day spending cuts are harder than taxes. Everyone has their golden calf that they are unwilling to sacrifice. This will really test whether the so called “conservatives” are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

My bet is that they will cave. Most of them were never really “in to” fiscal responsibility until 2010 or so. Before that they were as tax and spend happy as the left…minus the tax