The Only McLaren F1 Technician in North America(roadandtrack.com)
roadandtrack.com
The Only McLaren F1 Technician in North America
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a14453949/the-only-mclaren-f1-technician-in-north-america/
88 comments
Random thought, to which I don't give a lot of credence but can't rule out entirely, is that tech work and car fandom often grow out of childhood/teenage obsessions, and most kids would only have one such obsession.
Related, it's also possible that it's a class thing. Many kids who grew up working on computers did so in a white collar household, many who worked on cars did so on a blue collar family.
Both mostly off-the-cuff speculation based in no small part on clichés.
Related, it's also possible that it's a class thing. Many kids who grew up working on computers did so in a white collar household, many who worked on cars did so on a blue collar family.
Both mostly off-the-cuff speculation based in no small part on clichés.
As a teenager I spent much time working on muscle cars. I was very disappointed at Caltech to find nobody interested in cars. None of my engineering coworkers since, either.
I've always missed working on cars with my friends.
I've always missed working on cars with my friends.
Most of my friends in college worked on their jeeps for rock climbing all the time. It definitely was not a cheap hobby.
To throw my anecdote in the mix, growing up in the early 2000s, my blue collar extended family donated to me a bunch of old computers, which were much more accessable to me than a car. I imagine for kids today, the same is possible, old laptops, tablets, etc, hopefully decently hackable.
Now that I'm working in tech, my younger brother is interested in cars, so the trend/cycle is resetting itself :)
Now that I'm working in tech, my younger brother is interested in cars, so the trend/cycle is resetting itself :)
although cars and computer systems are both examples of "technology", the way we appreciate them is very different.
we consider computers mainly in quantitative terms: cpu speed, memory size and bandwidth, etc. if computer A compiles and runs my project just as fast as computer B, I don't really care what's "under the hood", or whether it was made by an artisan or in a factory. I don't care what it sounds like either, as long as it isn't loud enough to annoy me.
while you can certainly compare the stats of different cars, the story on paper doesn't come close to describing what a driving enthusiast really cares about: the qualitative experience of driving the car. when selecting a car I don't just buy the best 0-60 time in my price range; rather, I seek to optimize some holistic measure of drive quality.
to grossly generalize, I find that most tech people have a quantitative mindset. they feel most comfortable in decision spaces where things can be compared using objective metrics and an authoritative answer can be reached (at least theoretically). tech people spend a lot of time developing quantitative skills, so it is easy for them to get involved in these types of discussions.
I think this explains the bulk of why tech people just aren't that interested in cars; they don't really know how to get involved in the conversation and they don't see why they should.
we consider computers mainly in quantitative terms: cpu speed, memory size and bandwidth, etc. if computer A compiles and runs my project just as fast as computer B, I don't really care what's "under the hood", or whether it was made by an artisan or in a factory. I don't care what it sounds like either, as long as it isn't loud enough to annoy me.
while you can certainly compare the stats of different cars, the story on paper doesn't come close to describing what a driving enthusiast really cares about: the qualitative experience of driving the car. when selecting a car I don't just buy the best 0-60 time in my price range; rather, I seek to optimize some holistic measure of drive quality.
to grossly generalize, I find that most tech people have a quantitative mindset. they feel most comfortable in decision spaces where things can be compared using objective metrics and an authoritative answer can be reached (at least theoretically). tech people spend a lot of time developing quantitative skills, so it is easy for them to get involved in these types of discussions.
I think this explains the bulk of why tech people just aren't that interested in cars; they don't really know how to get involved in the conversation and they don't see why they should.
I think you have taken the context out of the comparison.
In terms of CPU, GPU, thermal systems, PSU... yes computing people do whip out a lot of numbers. But when buying a laptop, assembling a gig, we consider of the overall experience, more abstracts and qualitative measurements: ease of maintenance, aesthetics even.
On the other hand, car guys do get nerdy on number crunching when they tune their turbo/ exhaust system, IE: optimizing a very specific component of the system.
In terms of CPU, GPU, thermal systems, PSU... yes computing people do whip out a lot of numbers. But when buying a laptop, assembling a gig, we consider of the overall experience, more abstracts and qualitative measurements: ease of maintenance, aesthetics even.
On the other hand, car guys do get nerdy on number crunching when they tune their turbo/ exhaust system, IE: optimizing a very specific component of the system.
I'm not trying to say it's black and white; enthusiasts certainly care about the design of a computer and stats for cars. however, I do feel that car enthusiasts have different priorities than computer geeks.
I personally am way more interested in computers than cars, but I do feel that cars are more "emotional" possessions than computers. some laptops are ugly and made out of plastic, while others can be quite attractive, but my selection strategy is always to filter out the downright ugly machines and then compare the others component by component. my process for cars is pretty much the reverse; I want one that exceeds some bar for performance and then I will pick the one that feels best to drive around.
my car is far from the fastest in its category or price segment, but imo it is definitely the most pleasant to drive. my desktop is a bunch of high end parts inside an ugly leet gamer case that I bought ten years ago.
I personally am way more interested in computers than cars, but I do feel that cars are more "emotional" possessions than computers. some laptops are ugly and made out of plastic, while others can be quite attractive, but my selection strategy is always to filter out the downright ugly machines and then compare the others component by component. my process for cars is pretty much the reverse; I want one that exceeds some bar for performance and then I will pick the one that feels best to drive around.
my car is far from the fastest in its category or price segment, but imo it is definitely the most pleasant to drive. my desktop is a bunch of high end parts inside an ugly leet gamer case that I bought ten years ago.
Quantitative mindset sums it up quite well for not just the tech mindset, but most people. More in some metric equals better, for a lot of people.
-----
I have a very conspicuous car, that most people don't realize the manufacturer even built (they quietly sold it for one model year, with ~700 sold in the US and < 40 in Canada). I also live in a snow belt state, and always drive it roof removed and windows down as a rule... including last night for a 125 mile trip for Christmas with air temps of 34F (1C). So let's go over all the questions I get...
-----
* Why don't you have a Tesla?
This is the number one question, by a landslide. Random people ask me this at gas stations, FFS.
I have four friends with them. I have driven every Model S variant from a P75 through a P100D. I have heatsoaked all of them in under 10 minutes. A friend who wanted to tag along with his P90D on a 3 1/2 hour pre-dawn backroad bombing run turned it into a 10 hour trip... couldn't keep up, had to stop seven times for limp mode (once in as quick in 6 minutes), had to charge it twice, and had to reboot it once because the turn signal kept making the indicating noise ten minutes after the stalk was returned to the neutral position.
But the main reason is I wanted a mid-engine sports car with a ton of motorsport-proven engineering that never skips a beat, not an under-damped executive sedan that weighs over 2000 pounds more with the interior materials I'd expect in an Infiniti. Trick infotainment though. Be interesting to see what they'll be in 15 years.
-----
* Why don't have a car with all-wheel drive?
Because I know how to drive in the snow. Even if I'm caught out on summer tires and am on an 8.5 degree downhill grade.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has more horsepower!
I mean, I could get a Dodge Demon, couldn't I? Refit the Hellcat Widebody suspension for street use. Have 840HP on race gas, and the best part of 800HP on 93 Octane. I've driven a few Hellcats. They're decent cruisers and you can light up the rears in 4th gear for grins on demand. But they're still 4400lbs, feel like it in the corners, and have awful visibility.
Oh wait, but there's the Corvette ZR-1 which is 800-900lbs lighter and handles. Right. However you cannot use anywhere near all that has on the road... so then it feels boring, unless you push into felony territory all the time so it feels interesting. The tires wearing down will scuff up the paint protection film like the wooden floor of a Catholic school when it's not hucking rocks at it. Last, if it's like every other Corvette I've driven I know there's more past eight tenths but the car keeps mum on how close to the limit I am, meaning I have to put my faith in experience and physics.
Or, you know, buy a more communicative car instead.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has a faster 0-60 time!
Here's how often I do standard 0-60 starts: Never. 0 to 60 isn't exciting, and you look like a tool if there's other people around. You know what's more exciting than a very temporary trip to 1 longtudinal G? Maintaining an excess of 1 lateral G in a corner. Every corner. That's something you can do in a Miata with good tires and a dialed-in suspension. If you want to spend, there's quite a few supercars out there that approach peak 2 lateral Gs at speeds where the aero really does work.
Sure. A P100D trumps me to 60 and gets me by a hair over a second in the quarter mile. Though I'd about catch it in the 1/2-mile, and will leave it for dead after the mile mark.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has this amazing infotainment system!
Which is the first thing to obsolesce. Don't get me wrong! Tesla, Audi and Porsche all have great systems right now. However 10 years from now, will you STILL want that same system? 20 years from now? No. To trade in a $100K+ car over a $5K infotainment system is absolute insanity. Moreover, treating a $100K+ car as disposable or a consumable is also insanity.
I own a car to be on desolate backroads at 3AM on a Saturday morning in which I might see three whole other cars in three hours. The driving is entertaining. Not music. Not gadgets and gewgaws. Not autonomous driving at normal speeds. Challenging myself is what I enjoy.
It also reminds me that people like the infotainment because driving/commuting is so dull. I think autonomous driving will be great, because that's what most people want. Maybe then people more people will buy fun cars to actually drive for fun, for when they don't have to autonomously commute about.
-----
* Aren't you cold?
You are only cold if you want to be. Prior to this car, I had a very desirable coupe by all measures for about 14 months. Very handsome, quick, fast, etc. It was very toasty and comfy in cold weather!
Prior to that I had a Miata for nearly a decade, in which I adopted the "top down, windows down, no hats, always" rule on delivery.
... and after a few months with this very nice coupe, I decided it would be better if it were worse. I made a very, very expensive mistake. I missed the Miata which is objectively worse in every measure, but subjectively better for what I wanted to use it for... and when I was cold, it actually enhanced the experience. So I bought a factory frankencar made for die-hards like me.
When I drove top-down in rain for 2 hours in 36F (2C) air temps, I knew I made the right decision. Bought driving gloves though!
-----
* Why doesn't you car have Feature X?
My car does not have... power seats (option, went for manual fixed-back carbon buckets instead), heated seats, ventilated seats, massaging seats, seat position memory, adjustable seats (save for height and fore/aft), rear seats, good cupholders, pointless carbon fiber trim, heated steering wheel, multi-function steering wheel, paddle shifters, soft-closing doors, self-closing trunk, heated mirrors, dimming mirrors, power-folding mirrors, fancy door handles, keyless entry, keyless ignition, fancy lighting packages, voice control, blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control, lane assist, self-parking, auto-braking, super-premium audio, apps, metallic paint, a power top, forced induction, all-wheel drive, a dual clutch automatic transmission, adaptive suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, center-lock wheels, a front-axle lift system, or aggressive aero. It was ordered with air conditioning, and I had it removed after delivery (can easily put it back in if I change my mind).
Though it weighs under 2900lbs (weighed 2888 lbs when corner balanced), has one of the best-feeling manual transmissions ever put in a car, has a normally aspirated engine a foot behind your head that runs up to 8000rpm all day every day and sounds like motorsport, steering as crisp as a frosty morning, delicate handling, the industry standard by which braking performance has always been measured, and looks that get way too much attention at gas stations and stoplights. All the stuff it doesn't have is nice, but it would only compromise what I actually care about.
-----
I have a very conspicuous car, that most people don't realize the manufacturer even built (they quietly sold it for one model year, with ~700 sold in the US and < 40 in Canada). I also live in a snow belt state, and always drive it roof removed and windows down as a rule... including last night for a 125 mile trip for Christmas with air temps of 34F (1C). So let's go over all the questions I get...
-----
* Why don't you have a Tesla?
This is the number one question, by a landslide. Random people ask me this at gas stations, FFS.
I have four friends with them. I have driven every Model S variant from a P75 through a P100D. I have heatsoaked all of them in under 10 minutes. A friend who wanted to tag along with his P90D on a 3 1/2 hour pre-dawn backroad bombing run turned it into a 10 hour trip... couldn't keep up, had to stop seven times for limp mode (once in as quick in 6 minutes), had to charge it twice, and had to reboot it once because the turn signal kept making the indicating noise ten minutes after the stalk was returned to the neutral position.
But the main reason is I wanted a mid-engine sports car with a ton of motorsport-proven engineering that never skips a beat, not an under-damped executive sedan that weighs over 2000 pounds more with the interior materials I'd expect in an Infiniti. Trick infotainment though. Be interesting to see what they'll be in 15 years.
-----
* Why don't have a car with all-wheel drive?
Because I know how to drive in the snow. Even if I'm caught out on summer tires and am on an 8.5 degree downhill grade.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has more horsepower!
I mean, I could get a Dodge Demon, couldn't I? Refit the Hellcat Widebody suspension for street use. Have 840HP on race gas, and the best part of 800HP on 93 Octane. I've driven a few Hellcats. They're decent cruisers and you can light up the rears in 4th gear for grins on demand. But they're still 4400lbs, feel like it in the corners, and have awful visibility.
Oh wait, but there's the Corvette ZR-1 which is 800-900lbs lighter and handles. Right. However you cannot use anywhere near all that has on the road... so then it feels boring, unless you push into felony territory all the time so it feels interesting. The tires wearing down will scuff up the paint protection film like the wooden floor of a Catholic school when it's not hucking rocks at it. Last, if it's like every other Corvette I've driven I know there's more past eight tenths but the car keeps mum on how close to the limit I am, meaning I have to put my faith in experience and physics.
Or, you know, buy a more communicative car instead.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has a faster 0-60 time!
Here's how often I do standard 0-60 starts: Never. 0 to 60 isn't exciting, and you look like a tool if there's other people around. You know what's more exciting than a very temporary trip to 1 longtudinal G? Maintaining an excess of 1 lateral G in a corner. Every corner. That's something you can do in a Miata with good tires and a dialed-in suspension. If you want to spend, there's quite a few supercars out there that approach peak 2 lateral Gs at speeds where the aero really does work.
Sure. A P100D trumps me to 60 and gets me by a hair over a second in the quarter mile. Though I'd about catch it in the 1/2-mile, and will leave it for dead after the mile mark.
-----
* Why don't you have Car X? Car X has this amazing infotainment system!
Which is the first thing to obsolesce. Don't get me wrong! Tesla, Audi and Porsche all have great systems right now. However 10 years from now, will you STILL want that same system? 20 years from now? No. To trade in a $100K+ car over a $5K infotainment system is absolute insanity. Moreover, treating a $100K+ car as disposable or a consumable is also insanity.
I own a car to be on desolate backroads at 3AM on a Saturday morning in which I might see three whole other cars in three hours. The driving is entertaining. Not music. Not gadgets and gewgaws. Not autonomous driving at normal speeds. Challenging myself is what I enjoy.
It also reminds me that people like the infotainment because driving/commuting is so dull. I think autonomous driving will be great, because that's what most people want. Maybe then people more people will buy fun cars to actually drive for fun, for when they don't have to autonomously commute about.
-----
* Aren't you cold?
You are only cold if you want to be. Prior to this car, I had a very desirable coupe by all measures for about 14 months. Very handsome, quick, fast, etc. It was very toasty and comfy in cold weather!
Prior to that I had a Miata for nearly a decade, in which I adopted the "top down, windows down, no hats, always" rule on delivery.
... and after a few months with this very nice coupe, I decided it would be better if it were worse. I made a very, very expensive mistake. I missed the Miata which is objectively worse in every measure, but subjectively better for what I wanted to use it for... and when I was cold, it actually enhanced the experience. So I bought a factory frankencar made for die-hards like me.
When I drove top-down in rain for 2 hours in 36F (2C) air temps, I knew I made the right decision. Bought driving gloves though!
-----
* Why doesn't you car have Feature X?
My car does not have... power seats (option, went for manual fixed-back carbon buckets instead), heated seats, ventilated seats, massaging seats, seat position memory, adjustable seats (save for height and fore/aft), rear seats, good cupholders, pointless carbon fiber trim, heated steering wheel, multi-function steering wheel, paddle shifters, soft-closing doors, self-closing trunk, heated mirrors, dimming mirrors, power-folding mirrors, fancy door handles, keyless entry, keyless ignition, fancy lighting packages, voice control, blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control, lane assist, self-parking, auto-braking, super-premium audio, apps, metallic paint, a power top, forced induction, all-wheel drive, a dual clutch automatic transmission, adaptive suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, center-lock wheels, a front-axle lift system, or aggressive aero. It was ordered with air conditioning, and I had it removed after delivery (can easily put it back in if I change my mind).
Though it weighs under 2900lbs (weighed 2888 lbs when corner balanced), has one of the best-feeling manual transmissions ever put in a car, has a normally aspirated engine a foot behind your head that runs up to 8000rpm all day every day and sounds like motorsport, steering as crisp as a frosty morning, delicate handling, the industry standard by which braking performance has always been measured, and looks that get way too much attention at gas stations and stoplights. All the stuff it doesn't have is nice, but it would only compromise what I actually care about.
Let me guess: a 981 Boxster Spyder?
Counterpoint: watches could be described in the same way as cars in your example, and lots of tech folk get into watches.
The cultural gap is real. The car world traditionally appeals to a very different demographic. Remember all those crappy flash intros every geek would hate? Car businesses loved them.
Working on cars is a very social experience: you pick up the interest from relatives or friends, and space requirements for the hobby are such that, in urban surroundings, you usually cannot hide it from people, so they will see what you’re doing and stop to have a chat; you will often need help to push this or that relic around; you will have to talk to garage owners for many reasons, etc etc. Whereas IT is traditionally a loner’s world, and more so since the internet became central to it.
Then consider that the world of car enthusiasts is shrinking. The big expos have consolidated for lack of visitors, and car evolution itself is shutting out enthusiasts by producing more and more products that cannot be tweaked or even repaired without professional assistance. When I was a teenager my dad was often going on about the fact that me and my friends simply did not do any of the motoring-related activities he did as a kid.
I’ve known exactly two geeks in my life who were also car enthusiasts. One was a very atypical programmer, fundamentally a businessman who loved PHP. The other came from a deep UK working-class background, and cars were basically a way to stay in touch with that, a mean to maintain an emotional link with his friends and family. Everyone else only cared about cars enough to use them to from A to B and to hold a non-geek conversation (“did you see Top Gear last night? Ludicrous display! The thing with Jaguar is they always try to walk it in...”).
Working on cars is a very social experience: you pick up the interest from relatives or friends, and space requirements for the hobby are such that, in urban surroundings, you usually cannot hide it from people, so they will see what you’re doing and stop to have a chat; you will often need help to push this or that relic around; you will have to talk to garage owners for many reasons, etc etc. Whereas IT is traditionally a loner’s world, and more so since the internet became central to it.
Then consider that the world of car enthusiasts is shrinking. The big expos have consolidated for lack of visitors, and car evolution itself is shutting out enthusiasts by producing more and more products that cannot be tweaked or even repaired without professional assistance. When I was a teenager my dad was often going on about the fact that me and my friends simply did not do any of the motoring-related activities he did as a kid.
I’ve known exactly two geeks in my life who were also car enthusiasts. One was a very atypical programmer, fundamentally a businessman who loved PHP. The other came from a deep UK working-class background, and cars were basically a way to stay in touch with that, a mean to maintain an emotional link with his friends and family. Everyone else only cared about cars enough to use them to from A to B and to hold a non-geek conversation (“did you see Top Gear last night? Ludicrous display! The thing with Jaguar is they always try to walk it in...”).
My experience is that you will find many cs and math people among car enthusiasts (At my university almost everyone involved in motorsport is math/science/eng.) From the other side, you will find a smaller proportion due to the wide variety of people who work in tech nowadays.
I don’t think the majority of students who study cs have an obsession any more. It has become such a public and large field that you can hardly expect that to be the case. cs pays more, so it will be more “diluted” (of car enthusiasts) but also an enthusiast of both is more likely to be in cs than eng for the same reason.
In my case, I have always been obsessed with cars and then taught myself cs afterwards.
I don’t think the majority of students who study cs have an obsession any more. It has become such a public and large field that you can hardly expect that to be the case. cs pays more, so it will be more “diluted” (of car enthusiasts) but also an enthusiast of both is more likely to be in cs than eng for the same reason.
In my case, I have always been obsessed with cars and then taught myself cs afterwards.
I suspect that is they way Unis have been plugging CS ie pure math over EE. I suspect that for those from a "Proper" engineering back ground the over lap is much higher.
Certainly working at a world leading RnD place at Cranfield (which had an airfield) in the 80s there was a lot of overlap some engineers had air band radios so they could listen out for anything interesting Bearcats, Spitfire going out for a test (they used to rebuild spitfires on site) run etc and loads would go out and watch
Certainly working at a world leading RnD place at Cranfield (which had an airfield) in the 80s there was a lot of overlap some engineers had air band radios so they could listen out for anything interesting Bearcats, Spitfire going out for a test (they used to rebuild spitfires on site) run etc and loads would go out and watch
Weird. They are one in the same to me. I started tinkering with cars and computers at a young age. I got a job fixing computers, then I got trained in cars and went to fix cars for a few years. Now I’m back to computers. I take things apart and figure out how they work and put things together. If that’s cars, or software, or computers, toasters, houses, furnaces, it’s all the same process for me. The overlap between these things is 100% in my mind. :)
Another McLaren F1 funfact: McLaren used to buy a bunch of old Compaq laptops for spare parts almost 20years after that laptop had reached EOL.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/5/3/11576032/mcla...
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/5/3/11576032/mcla...
>The reason we need those specific Compaq laptops is that they run a bespoke CA card which is installed into them," explains a McLaren spokesperson to Jalopnik. "The CA card is an interface between the laptop software (which is DOS-based) and the car." If you've never heard of a CA card, then Jalopnik commenter Mike Herbst helpfully explains it's a Conditional Access card. Modern PCs use smart cards or USB keys with special access codes to access sensitive systems, and the CA card was used as custom hardware as part of an integrated system for security and copy protection.
We also used a special 6-Pin DIN connector that hooked up via serial to the CA Card to program and access each and every McLaren.
Seems it would be cheaper to circumvent that and run it on a VM
They do. However they maintain the laptops still as a backup.
I came here to ask what that cool laptop was in one of the photos. I bet that keyboard feels really nice.
It seems McLaren doesn't need those old laptop anymore though.
> Today, McLaren uses a modern Windows computer running a software emulator for day-to-day computer maintenance. Hines keeps the vintage Compaq around just in case.
> Today, McLaren uses a modern Windows computer running a software emulator for day-to-day computer maintenance. Hines keeps the vintage Compaq around just in case.
This was the HN discussion from a couple of years back about this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11604922
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11604922
I've had to buy old ThinkPads with WinXP to work on Porsche and News. It's rather common for certain models.
Whats interesting about this car is that even if its not driven a mile, many parts have to be changed as per a timetable. Merely changing the tires on this car costs $50k! https://youtu.be/EsKDGdcb6BQ
Whats interesting about this car is that even if its not driven a mile, many parts have to be changed as per a timetable.
The McLaren takes this to an extreme, but this is not uncommon on cars in general. Even the oil needs to be changed if you haven't driven it. Tires rot just sitting there (think of tires as Li-Ion batteries; they rot whether you use them or not). Fuel lines get old and brittle whether fuel runs through them or not. Our VW van has the penalty of the thing burning to the ground if 45psi of fuel sprays on that hot exhaust, so I change them regularly whether they need it or not.
My wife's first motorcycle was something like ten or twelve years old. Only 4K miles! Which means it did a lot of sitting. Guess what I was doing the next winter? Replacing every seal and gasket while I had the engine on the kitchen table, because just sitting there the all rubber bits dried out and leaked like a sieve. It would have been better had the bike had closer to 20-30K miles on it, and it probably wouldn't have leaked (or at least not like a geyser).
Top it off with the fact that this car can go 231mph, and you want to make damned sure everything is up to snuff before you turn it loose. You want low-maintanence, turn-the-key-and-go, go buy a Toyota Camry. You want to go 231mph, even if you can afford the entry fee, know that annual dues are not cheap for that club.
The McLaren takes this to an extreme, but this is not uncommon on cars in general. Even the oil needs to be changed if you haven't driven it. Tires rot just sitting there (think of tires as Li-Ion batteries; they rot whether you use them or not). Fuel lines get old and brittle whether fuel runs through them or not. Our VW van has the penalty of the thing burning to the ground if 45psi of fuel sprays on that hot exhaust, so I change them regularly whether they need it or not.
My wife's first motorcycle was something like ten or twelve years old. Only 4K miles! Which means it did a lot of sitting. Guess what I was doing the next winter? Replacing every seal and gasket while I had the engine on the kitchen table, because just sitting there the all rubber bits dried out and leaked like a sieve. It would have been better had the bike had closer to 20-30K miles on it, and it probably wouldn't have leaked (or at least not like a geyser).
Top it off with the fact that this car can go 231mph, and you want to make damned sure everything is up to snuff before you turn it loose. You want low-maintanence, turn-the-key-and-go, go buy a Toyota Camry. You want to go 231mph, even if you can afford the entry fee, know that annual dues are not cheap for that club.
> You want low-maintanence, turn-the-key-and-go, go buy a Toyota Camry.
This is one of those things I find that only people who really like cars understand. Most times I think people just buy the wrong car.
Anyway, what you said reminded me of these gems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlYTvjUR1jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALKTM7OzdMQ
This is one of those things I find that only people who really like cars understand. Most times I think people just buy the wrong car.
Anyway, what you said reminded me of these gems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlYTvjUR1jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALKTM7OzdMQ
I had some soliloquy typed out and deleted it, but I do have to say that first video is hilarious, thanks. I think it is a nice add-on to what I was getting at. And it reminded me of the ‘90 Geo Prism (a rebadged Corolla) the ex-wife and I had. Marriage didn’t last, but I’ll bet the car’s still running.
Speed is overrated. Every airliner you've ridden on hits almost 200 on the ground. I've been over 160 multiple times in fairly normal cars with uprated tires and brakes. Going 200 isn't really that impressive anymore, the average sports car can do it if you have enough space.
Sport vehicles go fast very quickly and handle well at high speeds. That's the fun part - acceleration. Getting punched into the seat off the starting line, braking into a curve, smoothly slalom through apexes, then rocketing towards the next set of curves... You've clearly never been in a proper sport car because that lesson is self-evident well below 60.
As an aside, has anyone else noticed how new posters are overwhelmingly pessimistic and reliant on dubious anecdotes?
As an aside, has anyone else noticed how new posters are overwhelmingly pessimistic and reliant on dubious anecdotes?
I'd make a slightly different point - what makes a car exciting is handling.
There's a big transatlantic divide on this point. American sports cars tend to be relatively large and heavy, with huge torquey V8 engines and simple live-axle suspension. They're fast in a straight line, but they don't really handle in corners. European sports cars tend to be tiny and extremely lightweight, with a small and free-revving inline 4 and sophisticated independent suspension. They're not very fast, but they're incredibly agile and nimble.
If you want to learn to be a racing driver, you'll probably get taught in a Mazda MX5 Miata. It's the most popular entry-level racing car by a country mile. Mazda overtly based the Miata's design on classic British sportscars. In this kind of car, you can explore the limits of grip at non-lethal speeds. The lack of weight partly offsets the lack of power - you don't have a particularly high top speed, but you can carry a great deal of speed through a corner. Such a car richly rewards you for skillful and precise car control.
There's a big transatlantic divide on this point. American sports cars tend to be relatively large and heavy, with huge torquey V8 engines and simple live-axle suspension. They're fast in a straight line, but they don't really handle in corners. European sports cars tend to be tiny and extremely lightweight, with a small and free-revving inline 4 and sophisticated independent suspension. They're not very fast, but they're incredibly agile and nimble.
If you want to learn to be a racing driver, you'll probably get taught in a Mazda MX5 Miata. It's the most popular entry-level racing car by a country mile. Mazda overtly based the Miata's design on classic British sportscars. In this kind of car, you can explore the limits of grip at non-lethal speeds. The lack of weight partly offsets the lack of power - you don't have a particularly high top speed, but you can carry a great deal of speed through a corner. Such a car richly rewards you for skillful and precise car control.
When it comes to driving on the street, the excitement you get from acceleration tends to trump the enjoyment of a car that handles really well. It's not anything inherent to one or the other, it's just that there are very, very few places on a public road where pushing the limits of a car's handling makes any sense whatsoever. On the other hand, even in a city a person can test the limits of a car's off-the-line acceleration, and that is usually a good way to get a smile or a laugh.
I have a car that handles well enough that it's popular for racing and it has always been a joy to drive, but the first time I drove a friend's very overpowered, automatic-transmission Corvette was quite an eye-opener. That's the kind of car where you can bend someone's mind with the performance without even breaking the speed limit, and without expending a lot of effort.
I have a car that handles well enough that it's popular for racing and it has always been a joy to drive, but the first time I drove a friend's very overpowered, automatic-transmission Corvette was quite an eye-opener. That's the kind of car where you can bend someone's mind with the performance without even breaking the speed limit, and without expending a lot of effort.
> there are very, very few places on a public road where pushing the limits of a car's handling makes any sense whatsoever
That's precisely why superlight cars with small engines and skinny tyres make sense.
Here in the UK, the normal speed limit outside of urban areas is 60mph. On a twisty country road, a base-model MX5 will start to come alive at well below that speed, especially in the wet. The basic engine is a 1.5 litre straight four producing 130bhp, so you can really use most of that engine on a public road.
It's more exciting because it's not very powerful - you need to give it plenty of revs and work through the gearbox to make progress. In a properly powerful car, you reach the speed limit before the engine has even had a chance to breathe. The tight handling and light weight allow you to carry that speed through a corner with confidence. Admittedly it does help if your country has roads with corners, which I understand may be hard to come by in some parts of the US.
There's a philosophical difference between making a car that adds some element of drama to your commute and making a car that's brilliant to drive just for the sake of driving. American enthusiasts are only just starting to fall in love with the hot hatchback thanks to the Fiesta ST, but here in Europe hot hatches have been hugely popular for decades.
That's precisely why superlight cars with small engines and skinny tyres make sense.
Here in the UK, the normal speed limit outside of urban areas is 60mph. On a twisty country road, a base-model MX5 will start to come alive at well below that speed, especially in the wet. The basic engine is a 1.5 litre straight four producing 130bhp, so you can really use most of that engine on a public road.
It's more exciting because it's not very powerful - you need to give it plenty of revs and work through the gearbox to make progress. In a properly powerful car, you reach the speed limit before the engine has even had a chance to breathe. The tight handling and light weight allow you to carry that speed through a corner with confidence. Admittedly it does help if your country has roads with corners, which I understand may be hard to come by in some parts of the US.
There's a philosophical difference between making a car that adds some element of drama to your commute and making a car that's brilliant to drive just for the sake of driving. American enthusiasts are only just starting to fall in love with the hot hatchback thanks to the Fiesta ST, but here in Europe hot hatches have been hugely popular for decades.
My father's a lifelong Lotus Seven enthusiast, so I've heard this before. I'm afraid that when you drive something like a new Corvette or 911 Turbo, it bends your mind in some completely new ways. I don't think I'd buy one even if I could, but if my goal was to keep the occasional passenger entertained, something like that would be a nearly ideal tool.
There's no denying the Miata is an absolute gem. I am very happy that it is still made in this era of overpowered, huge cars and rocket-powered hatchbacks. Sacrilege: I know two different people who have shoehorned American V8s into early Miatas. Somehow I haven't driven that beast yet. I'm still not quite sure how it's even possible.
> Admittedly it does help if your country has roads with corners, which I understand may be hard to come by in some parts of the US.
On the other hand, you're at a great disadvantage in terms of population density. Finding a quiet road seems like it'd be a bit of a trick.
There's no denying the Miata is an absolute gem. I am very happy that it is still made in this era of overpowered, huge cars and rocket-powered hatchbacks. Sacrilege: I know two different people who have shoehorned American V8s into early Miatas. Somehow I haven't driven that beast yet. I'm still not quite sure how it's even possible.
> Admittedly it does help if your country has roads with corners, which I understand may be hard to come by in some parts of the US.
On the other hand, you're at a great disadvantage in terms of population density. Finding a quiet road seems like it'd be a bit of a trick.
>On the other hand, you're at a great disadvantage in terms of population density. Finding a quiet road seems like it'd be a bit of a trick.
Surprisingly, it really isn't. We're extremely densely populated, but we also have very strict controls on sprawl. The UK has a peculiar planning policy called the green belt - there's a ring on the map around each city, beyond which any development is effectively prohibited. Outside of London, you're rarely more than half an hour away from open countryside.
For example, this road is about half an hour from the centre of Manchester, our third biggest city:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5976642,-2.0181352,3a,75y,...
As you might imagine, a Miata, a Caterham Seven or a classic Mini would be the perfect match for roads like that.
Surprisingly, it really isn't. We're extremely densely populated, but we also have very strict controls on sprawl. The UK has a peculiar planning policy called the green belt - there's a ring on the map around each city, beyond which any development is effectively prohibited. Outside of London, you're rarely more than half an hour away from open countryside.
For example, this road is about half an hour from the centre of Manchester, our third biggest city:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5976642,-2.0181352,3a,75y,...
As you might imagine, a Miata, a Caterham Seven or a classic Mini would be the perfect match for roads like that.
I find the sweet spot is about 300hp.
Powerful enough that you can have serious fun in a straight line (0-60 in the high 4s or low 5s, say) but not so much that you can't have a decent thrash without getting into license-endangerment territory.
I've had a Golf R for about a year and have plenty of legal fun it.
Powerful enough that you can have serious fun in a straight line (0-60 in the high 4s or low 5s, say) but not so much that you can't have a decent thrash without getting into license-endangerment territory.
I've had a Golf R for about a year and have plenty of legal fun it.
You've touched my heart with this comment. I had a 1.8s MX5 for 4 years. Fantastic little car. Everything about it. Couldn't find a single fault with anything. Simply superb.
I now have a 3.4 Boxster S, which feels largely like a more grown up version of the MX5. Much, much quicker - put it in sports plus mode, fire up launch control, put the PDK gearbox into manual, switch off the traction control and it's a real blast, however, on public roads, it's simply scary at times. This is the real problem, it feels very anti-social (at best) to do that on all but the quietest of roads and outright illegal on most others. Hence I feel myself yearning for another MX5...
I now have a 3.4 Boxster S, which feels largely like a more grown up version of the MX5. Much, much quicker - put it in sports plus mode, fire up launch control, put the PDK gearbox into manual, switch off the traction control and it's a real blast, however, on public roads, it's simply scary at times. This is the real problem, it feels very anti-social (at best) to do that on all but the quietest of roads and outright illegal on most others. Hence I feel myself yearning for another MX5...
> As an aside, has anyone else noticed how new posters are overwhelmingly pessimistic and reliant on dubious anecdotes?
New posters are the next generation of old posters, that is unless they are driven off e.g. by being stereotyped.
New posters are the next generation of old posters, that is unless they are driven off e.g. by being stereotyped.
What average sports car?
Cars with more than 600hp or are tuned so well as to need less surely aren’t average. We’re taking at least $75k which really isn’t something an average person will ever be able to buy.
Sure you could probably build something with an engine capable of producing enough power— but I don’t think I’d want to do 200mph in a 96 Honda Civic.
Cars with more than 600hp or are tuned so well as to need less surely aren’t average. We’re taking at least $75k which really isn’t something an average person will ever be able to buy.
Sure you could probably build something with an engine capable of producing enough power— but I don’t think I’d want to do 200mph in a 96 Honda Civic.
Mine can, it's 20 years old and costs much less than a new Fiat. Reliable too...
If you want to buy a car like that new it will cost you a ton of money but second hand with a bit of searching you can find that kind of car easily, top speed of a car is irrelevant anyway, in this case it was simply a result of age, low mileage, budget and trim. And there is no way I am going to delude myself and think I am a good enough driver for speeds like that whatever the tires under it are.
If you want to buy a car like that new it will cost you a ton of money but second hand with a bit of searching you can find that kind of car easily, top speed of a car is irrelevant anyway, in this case it was simply a result of age, low mileage, budget and trim. And there is no way I am going to delude myself and think I am a good enough driver for speeds like that whatever the tires under it are.
You have a cheap, reliable, 20 year old Honda Civic that reaches 320 km/h? If that's the case I'm impressed.
Edit: not sure to which part of the comment you were replying, I probably misinterpreted it and you're talking about a sports car, not a Honda Civic. Still impressive but less crazy :)
Edit: not sure to which part of the comment you were replying, I probably misinterpreted it and you're talking about a sports car, not a Honda Civic. Still impressive but less crazy :)
Not a Civic. In nl there is a rule that you have to add 22% or 25% of the new value of your car to your income if the car is company owned. That's a lot of $ even for relatively cheap cars, for something a bit more comfy you'll be paying a ridiculous amount.
The trick is that there is another regime for cars older than 15, for those cars you add 33% of their actual value to your income if they are company owned.
There is a small set of cars that are still viable after 15 years, that you can find with low mileage and whose actual value is low enough that there is substantial difference between 33% of that and 22% of the new value of a much newer car.
Low mileage old cars tend to be of a few brands only, it would be very hard to find an old Civic with few miles on it, I just checked and the lowest mileage Civic that is older than 15 years still has 100K+ km on it.
The trick is that there is another regime for cars older than 15, for those cars you add 33% of their actual value to your income if they are company owned.
There is a small set of cars that are still viable after 15 years, that you can find with low mileage and whose actual value is low enough that there is substantial difference between 33% of that and 22% of the new value of a much newer car.
Low mileage old cars tend to be of a few brands only, it would be very hard to find an old Civic with few miles on it, I just checked and the lowest mileage Civic that is older than 15 years still has 100K+ km on it.
Note that the question was about 200 mph, not kmph.
200 mph is pretty serious speed and people are interested what it is.
200 mph is pretty serious speed and people are interested what it is.
Yes, I noticed. 320 KM/h give or take a little bit.
So..
A Corvette or maybe a Porsche? Both seem a stretch at the price and age.
A Corvette or maybe a Porsche? Both seem a stretch at the price and age.
> Both seem a stretch at the price and age.
Agreed ;) Also, the number of Corvettes on offer of that age is super low and I don't like them to begin with. Porsche is nice but as you noted expensive as well as very expensive maintenance wise. I did look at a couple but could not find one in my price bracket that would last even a year without major repairs.
Agreed ;) Also, the number of Corvettes on offer of that age is super low and I don't like them to begin with. Porsche is nice but as you noted expensive as well as very expensive maintenance wise. I did look at a couple but could not find one in my price bracket that would last even a year without major repairs.
It only costs maybe 12k to put together something that can go 180-200. Early 2000 f-body with nitrous alone will get you to 160.
Sure the average person hasn't gone that fast but if you want to it's not that big of a deal
Sure the average person hasn't gone that fast but if you want to it's not that big of a deal
Basic bolt ons for a gm F-body will take you up to 155 mph before being electronically limited. Don't need nitrous for that. Pretty sure though beyond 180 would be incredibly hard.. That is a ton of aero force the cars weren't designed for, not to mention tires.
If you really needed to go over 180 mph in a GM car, you'd use a Corvette. Used ones are surprisingly cheap and I'd venture to guess that all you would need to break 180mph in a C5 (OOB they do 175mph) would be a taller top gear and some engine electronics, although there are obviously lots of engine modifications available. For a little more than the 12k the parent post mentioned (I'm thinking 15k), you could have an expert bore the engine out and get an extra 130hp. For less than 40k you could be driving a real monster.
These sorts of mods are common enough among drag racers, except most of them aren't optimizing for top speed.
These sorts of mods are common enough among drag racers, except most of them aren't optimizing for top speed.
> Speed is overrated [...] the average sports car can do it if you have enough space.
Returning to car examples, the race build of sport car tends to be worse in top speed that its street version and favor braking/acceleration, simply because modern racing and racetracks put emphasis on cornering where driver skill and tactic is decisive, and not on long straights, where take overs result from top speeds.
Returning to car examples, the race build of sport car tends to be worse in top speed that its street version and favor braking/acceleration, simply because modern racing and racetracks put emphasis on cornering where driver skill and tactic is decisive, and not on long straights, where take overs result from top speeds.
I'm not terribly surprised by the price of the tires. My mom's old Corvette tires were, IIRC, $1200 a piece. Don't know what tires on her '16 go for. And Corvettes don't go 231 mph. As I recall, tires were what speed-limited one of the Bugattis.
Frankly, I have no idea how they get a tire to hold together at 231mph. I haven't sat down and gone "okay, tire is X mm in diameter, at 231mph, that's Y RPM, carry the one...", but I imagine there are some incredible forces trying to pull that tire apart at 231mph. And the poor thing has to keep it together well enough to negotiate a corner with added side forces added to an already stressful situation.
So for $50K [0] you'll assure me that the tread won't come unglued from the carcass while I'm traveling the length of a football field every second? Sounds like a bargain to me.
(Kept separate from my other comment to avoid digression.)
[0] EDIT: oops, $50K/set, not each
Frankly, I have no idea how they get a tire to hold together at 231mph. I haven't sat down and gone "okay, tire is X mm in diameter, at 231mph, that's Y RPM, carry the one...", but I imagine there are some incredible forces trying to pull that tire apart at 231mph. And the poor thing has to keep it together well enough to negotiate a corner with added side forces added to an already stressful situation.
So for $50K [0] you'll assure me that the tread won't come unglued from the carcass while I'm traveling the length of a football field every second? Sounds like a bargain to me.
(Kept separate from my other comment to avoid digression.)
[0] EDIT: oops, $50K/set, not each
A remarkable amount of engineering goes into a tyre. The Concorde was one of the most sophisticated aircraft of its time, but it was ultimately undone by tyres - nobody quite figured out how to build a tyre that could reliably handle 170mph landings. Poor maintenance and pilot error played a contributory role in the crash of Air France flight 4590, but Concorde had a rate of tyre failure 30 times higher than subsonic aircraft.
What did the pilot do wrong in Air France 4590?
Corvette tires are expensive because they’re designed to go very fast and also to go very far when they go flat (50-70 miles without air if I recall), as you carried no spare (different sized wheels front and back). Not sure about the latest generation Corvette (have not owned one since the early 00s), but the C5s were only ~$300/tire (Goodyear Eagle F1s).
I think the new ones have tires all the same size. Regardless, yes, ‘vettes go fast, which why I used them as an example. Because I imagine a hockey stick on the tire speed rating/price curve. We can get you to 180mph for a reasonable price ($1200 ‘vette tires). You want over 200mph? Ooh, that’s going to cost you because that’s very hard to do, and there aren’t a dozen street-legal cars in the world that need them.
Poor design if you ask me
You should absolutely change your tires regardless of use by age (this isn't just a McLaren thing). Tires dry out over time and become unsafe.
When buying new tires it's also very important to check date of manufacture. A tire can look completely new but been on the shelf for 3 years. tires deteriorate/age over time particularly when exposed to direct light. Tire warranty typically expires at 6 years from purchase.
For any sort of performance or classic car, good tires are paramount, you are literally entrusting the car and your safety to the road contact and adhesion of each tire.
US dot tire age location: https://www.tirebuyer.com/education/how-to-determine-the-age...
For any sort of performance or classic car, good tires are paramount, you are literally entrusting the car and your safety to the road contact and adhesion of each tire.
US dot tire age location: https://www.tirebuyer.com/education/how-to-determine-the-age...
There have been multiple fatal crashes caused by old tires on high performance vehicles. Notably, Paul Walker[0] died in a Porsche Carrera GT crash.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Walker#Death_and_legal_re...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Walker#Death_and_legal_re...
I agree you should change your tires and rubber hoses and parts which naturally degrade and rot but to suggest you have to have regular engine maintenance from it just sitting there (and by sitting i mean starting it from time to time and having proper cleaning but not actually driving) is pretty poor design. You shouldn't have to replace a transmission or mechanical part from lack of use. That is just an expensive form of planned obsolescence
You seem to know about this. Am I risking anything driving my 6 year okd old winter tires for 3 years non stop (winter and summer, 15k km yearly)?
The winter compound will harden and perform worse in freezing temps. The overly soft compound is ok in summer for non agressive driving. If, however, they are 'all season tires', it is time to replace. If you see ANY checking between tread, or on sidewall, it is also time. 6 years is about my cutoff personally, 4 for winters stored out of the sun (for use in winter) and 2 years for r compounds/<200 treadwear tires.
These are all ballpark values I have found by experince, and hersay at the track and on the street. I personally find Blizzak and Nokian to fare best in the winter tire niche. They are both good snow/ice hybrid design now, and often used in rally/rallycross.
These are all ballpark values I have found by experince, and hersay at the track and on the street. I personally find Blizzak and Nokian to fare best in the winter tire niche. They are both good snow/ice hybrid design now, and often used in rally/rallycross.
The F1s now sell for ~$15 million.
Buy in 94 for 800k, maintain for 50k/year, then sell for 15M in 2015. That's ~13% IRR. Not bad.
Investment merits aside, it was the fastest production car on the planet and critically acclaimed for its engineering. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
Buy in 94 for 800k, maintain for 50k/year, then sell for 15M in 2015. That's ~13% IRR. Not bad.
Investment merits aside, it was the fastest production car on the planet and critically acclaimed for its engineering. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
All the new lambos / f-cars are great and Tesla is making exciting things go fast but this... the F1... this is the car to end all cars.
No compromise: engine bay is lined with gold, the v12 designed by bmw’s m division is a smooth fucking monster, driver seat in the center, damn, you need a steel set of balls just to look at this thing.
I’d love to have this job, this is a mechanic dream.
No compromise: engine bay is lined with gold, the v12 designed by bmw’s m division is a smooth fucking monster, driver seat in the center, damn, you need a steel set of balls just to look at this thing.
I’d love to have this job, this is a mechanic dream.
I might argue konigsegg is quicky eclipsing them in both tech and construction. Freevalve engines, transmissionless, hybrid, and bugatti stomping power. They went 0-250 then back to 0 in the time it took the previous record holder just to make it to 250. Truly next level tech.
That said, the mclaren is still much better tuned for actual racing, for now. Not to be minimized.
That said, the mclaren is still much better tuned for actual racing, for now. Not to be minimized.
To be fair to the F1 it was released in 1992 for goodness sake! It’s still a no question beast and it’s 25 years old.
Wholeheartedly agree! There is something about the McLaren though, you could use it to pick up groceries and the kids but still look civilized in a way that you can’t do with the konigsegg.
This article is not true. There are still two other McLaren certified technicians who worked with BMW NA under their program, and both are completely able to work on F1. I should know, as I know one of them, and he was the last BMW/McLaren certified F1 technician trained under Panis personally, yet he or the other guy is not mentioned in any of the R&T articles, whom are still able to wrench on these vehicles as long as they have the tools, which they had to hand back in.
An interesting documentary came out recently on Bruce McLaren
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/mclaren-2017
Same director as The Worlds Fastest Indian, another fascinating story about a home-made motorbike. Along with the Britten bike, New Zealand has a handful of tech innovators to be proud of.
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/mclaren-2017
Same director as The Worlds Fastest Indian, another fascinating story about a home-made motorbike. Along with the Britten bike, New Zealand has a handful of tech innovators to be proud of.
The Britten is amazing http://www.britten.co.nz/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rjJQUnq5Js
I was on track with the first version at Westwood, in BC when it was ridden by Gary Goodfellow and Steve Crevier. 88-90 era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rjJQUnq5Js
I was on track with the first version at Westwood, in BC when it was ridden by Gary Goodfellow and Steve Crevier. 88-90 era.
Working on one of the greatest cars every made for a job doesn't look half bad.
I've had the privilege to tour the McLaren Formula 1 team production facility in Surrey. One of the best "engineering tourism" moments of my life. It's amazing what you can make with an unlimited budget :)
I am glad to have found and read this. My parents never finished high school, and soon after the trade schools were closed down around NYC. Most lower-class, working-class people in my neighborhood in Brooklyn were trades people, but they taught their children to avoid the trades, well some of them. The children eschewed the trades, but if intellect or the family's economics didn't allow them to become doctors, lawyers, or teachers, they became policemen (law enforcement officers), garbage men (sanitation workers), or firemen (firefighters). Juxtaposing the old terms with new to put a sense of generation here!
The parents still had respect for the trades, but they wanted their children to make more money, to climb out of poverty. In the article, he states,
"My dad always had some classic cars. I’d help him in the garage," Hines says. "He actually told me I shouldn’t work on cars professionally. He said keep it as a hobby. I wish he was still around so I could call him and say, guess what I’m doing now. I think he’d be proud."
I really think this is why it is hard to find a good electrician, plumber, you name it, since the trade schools and apprenticeships in the trades have dwindled, or just plain disappeared. I will not speak to the unions; I am speaking of the neighborhood master who plied his trade and then passed it on to an apprentice - plumber, electrician, machinist (I did this), welder (this too), iron worker, carpenter, steam fitter, boat builder, etc...
I grew up working with my hands, landed a job doing computer backups at a NYC law firm at night (learned to code, play Doom when it first came out and started learning expert systems and neural networks). I quit that job and gave my wife at the time anxiety to take a job as a welder making 60% of my cushy night job salary. Best decision ever, since it led me to a lot of different and interesting jobs all around the world, and without a college degree, yet with a dotcom bubble salary before the dotcom bubble.
Now the curse has come to bite me back. I have had mechanics tell my daughter she needs new rotors and pads when I know the rotors were fine, but I didn't have the time to replace the pads. Another mechanic in a different state told her she needed a new $150 O2 sensor when she brought it to him to look at when her engine light came on. A friend hooked it up and it was something totally unrelated, and cost a whopping $25 dollars to fix. My ex-mother-in-law went in for an oil change, and they left the filler cap off, and her engine was sprayed with oil. A different place overtightened the oil drain plug crushing the o-ring on my ex-wife's car, and as a result she leaked a lot of oil out, and fortunately she stopped driving when her engine temperature started soaring. A lot of ill-trained and incompetent people taking care of life-critical machinery. It is the number one reason I am starting to fear flying. If the trend goes towards plane maintenance, it is just a matter of time before accidents increase due to human incompetency or negligence, not just fatigue or cheap parts or manufacture.
The story gave me hope that there are still people who will value such things, and carry the torch to future generations and show the worth in an honest day's work done right.
The parents still had respect for the trades, but they wanted their children to make more money, to climb out of poverty. In the article, he states,
"My dad always had some classic cars. I’d help him in the garage," Hines says. "He actually told me I shouldn’t work on cars professionally. He said keep it as a hobby. I wish he was still around so I could call him and say, guess what I’m doing now. I think he’d be proud."
I really think this is why it is hard to find a good electrician, plumber, you name it, since the trade schools and apprenticeships in the trades have dwindled, or just plain disappeared. I will not speak to the unions; I am speaking of the neighborhood master who plied his trade and then passed it on to an apprentice - plumber, electrician, machinist (I did this), welder (this too), iron worker, carpenter, steam fitter, boat builder, etc...
I grew up working with my hands, landed a job doing computer backups at a NYC law firm at night (learned to code, play Doom when it first came out and started learning expert systems and neural networks). I quit that job and gave my wife at the time anxiety to take a job as a welder making 60% of my cushy night job salary. Best decision ever, since it led me to a lot of different and interesting jobs all around the world, and without a college degree, yet with a dotcom bubble salary before the dotcom bubble.
Now the curse has come to bite me back. I have had mechanics tell my daughter she needs new rotors and pads when I know the rotors were fine, but I didn't have the time to replace the pads. Another mechanic in a different state told her she needed a new $150 O2 sensor when she brought it to him to look at when her engine light came on. A friend hooked it up and it was something totally unrelated, and cost a whopping $25 dollars to fix. My ex-mother-in-law went in for an oil change, and they left the filler cap off, and her engine was sprayed with oil. A different place overtightened the oil drain plug crushing the o-ring on my ex-wife's car, and as a result she leaked a lot of oil out, and fortunately she stopped driving when her engine temperature started soaring. A lot of ill-trained and incompetent people taking care of life-critical machinery. It is the number one reason I am starting to fear flying. If the trend goes towards plane maintenance, it is just a matter of time before accidents increase due to human incompetency or negligence, not just fatigue or cheap parts or manufacture.
The story gave me hope that there are still people who will value such things, and carry the torch to future generations and show the worth in an honest day's work done right.
So Wikipedia seems to indicate that the famous 3-seat configuration was removed in the American version in order to make it road legal. But the pictures don't indicate that. Anyone know why? Were the seats not really removed? Or did the owners have them put back in?
Only a few were legalized that way, once the Show and Display act was passed, they could be imported without going through that process.
The manual once belonged to the team at BMW responsible for the 6.1-liter V12 at the heart of the F1.
Despite the fact that I'm unlikely to ever own one, I'd love to read the service manual.
Despite the fact that I'm unlikely to ever own one, I'd love to read the service manual.
I think dhh can add his two cents about cars here ;)
I've worked with the newer F1 variants of such engines. So I'm not impressed at all. "The problem with this car is that it never stops accelerating. Most other cars feel like they start to hit a wall. This car just keeps accelerating at the same rate"
And then I see max 7500 rpm and 231mpH. A normal F1 engine is limited at 19.000 rpm but goes up to 25.000 rpm. How can such an V12 engine provide enough dynamics within 240mpH? Ridiculous. A race engine goes 3x higher. This is a completely different experience. You cannot compare Le Mans with a real F1 race car.
And then I see max 7500 rpm and 231mpH. A normal F1 engine is limited at 19.000 rpm but goes up to 25.000 rpm. How can such an V12 engine provide enough dynamics within 240mpH? Ridiculous. A race engine goes 3x higher. This is a completely different experience. You cannot compare Le Mans with a real F1 race car.
>A normal F1 engine is limited at 19.000 rpm but goes up to 25.000 rpm.
A normal F1 engine of the 1990s had a lifespan of about 500 miles. Not many road car owners are willing to replace their engine after every tank of fuel.
What the McLaren F1 lost in revs, it made up for in capacity. The contemporary McLaren racing car to the F1 was the MP4/6, which had a 3.5L V12 with a nominal power output of 710bhp. The F1 had a 6.1L V12 with a substantially lower redline, producing about 620bhp. The F1 had a considerably lower drag coefficient, because it had a closed-wheel body and produced much less downforce, meaning it actually had a far higher top speed. The highest speed achieved in the 1991 Formula 1 Championship was 210.2mph, achieved by Senna at Hockenheim.
The McLaren F1 wasn't directly equivalent in performance to a Formula 1 car, but it's about as close as you'll get in a road-legal car.
A normal F1 engine of the 1990s had a lifespan of about 500 miles. Not many road car owners are willing to replace their engine after every tank of fuel.
What the McLaren F1 lost in revs, it made up for in capacity. The contemporary McLaren racing car to the F1 was the MP4/6, which had a 3.5L V12 with a nominal power output of 710bhp. The F1 had a 6.1L V12 with a substantially lower redline, producing about 620bhp. The F1 had a considerably lower drag coefficient, because it had a closed-wheel body and produced much less downforce, meaning it actually had a far higher top speed. The highest speed achieved in the 1991 Formula 1 Championship was 210.2mph, achieved by Senna at Hockenheim.
The McLaren F1 wasn't directly equivalent in performance to a Formula 1 car, but it's about as close as you'll get in a road-legal car.
F1 is not won by top speed, it is won by dynamics. High rpm.
Those old high HP monsters are used in the US with drag races, but not in competitive modern race tracks.
We are not in the 90-ies anymore.
We are not in the 90-ies anymore.
Plus he forgot to compare it against the gearless Formula E or Tesla cars, where the constant acceleration is the first impression, compared to a 7500rpm capped engine with gears, even if it has paddle shifters.
then 1980's turbo monsters absolutely now adays the engines are so limited probably not
I was just thinking to myself a few days ago that the overlap between tech workers and car nuts is quite narrow. Not many people I know from my professional environment are really into cars. Sure, some can say "this is better than that" or tell a car story or say how some Mini they drove "handled like a go cart" but nearly none of them is a hardcore car nut (e.g. they're more interested in the tech of a Tesla than what a Ferrari V12 feels like).
I'm sure there's a good reason somewhere.