On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 5:07:08 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-02 00:27, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 11:57:22 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2024-02-01 03:24, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:00:37 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 8:04:32 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-5, Thomas E.. wrote:
> >>>>>> …
> >>>>>>> Yes, I was not comfortable at all with where I was in early 2003. I did some teaching and
> >>>>>>> started consulting. I was offered a 6-figure job with AVMA out of Chicago, but did not want
> >>>>>>> to move there.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your loss, as that would have enabled a higher retirement savings rate and been able to shave,
> >>>>>> oh perhaps 20-25% off of the years that you worked since 2003, so maybe your retirement could
> >>>>>> have been at age 70 instead of 75 or whatever.
> >>>>> ….
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope your retirement projections are better.
> >>>>
> >>>> They’re doing fine, which is why I’ve mentioned Roth-ifying near term, so as to
> >>>> limit & manage taxable RMDs when they eventually kick in…
> >>>>
> >>>>> WE DID NOT want to move to Chicago. That was a mutual decision. It worked
> >>>>> out great from my perspective. There is more than money.
> >>>>
> >>>> It’s quite ironic to hear you try to claim that there’s more to life than money after
> >>>> repeatedly posting what your net worth is, as well as working an extra decade+
> >>>> longer than average. If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream
> >>>> before SS or 401k/IRA distributions…would you have taken it?
> >>>
> >>> Apparently, Tommy is busy still calculating out his numbers for that simple ‘what if.’
> >>> Frankly, I didn’t think it was that hard of a question, for when the revenue is roughly
> >>> the same (or better) with zero labor required, most folks would say it’s a no-brainer.
> >>> replacement
> >>> In the meantime, the “Nashton Mystery Machine” is coming due on the clock for it to
> >>> be replaced (yeah, it’s been ten years already), so I’m open to product suggestions.
> >>
> >> Well... ...oddly enough for someone who races cars and teaches others to
> >> race cars, I find myself strangely disinterested in learning about
> >> current offerings.
> >
> > Well, getting older doesn’t help. I think a lot of it is recognizing that there’s
> > basic capabilities and competencies which result in a lot of product that’s
> > not in top tier, allowing it to be cognitively ignored.
>
> I think you'd agree that there's a lot that getting older "doesn't help"
> with...
>
> ...but what's the alternative.
>
> ;-)

Yup. Comes back to being aware of where one’s at and the future ahead,
such as informed by the retirement “smile” curve for budgeting, where it
starts as the “go go” years before progressing to the “go slow” years and
then finally the “no go” end. As such, there’s a finite number of ‘cars next’
before it will be no more.

> >> I used to read Road&Track every month, and eagerly read every page about
> >> every car they tested, but I just don't anymore.
> >
> > AutoWeek was my read; they’ve stopped publishing paper and IIRC that’s
> > why I’m now getting Car & Driver. Okay enough but it’s not like I make it
> > a point to read each issue the day it arrives.
>
> I always preferred R&T to C&D and I can't even tell you why I've almost
> never read AutoWeek. Probably laziness.
>
> ;-)

I found AutoWeek to have been few enough pages each publication such
that I’d pick it up & read through it when it arrived, as opposed to it being
set aside like many of my monthlies have..where it can then sit for weeks.

> >> I had a good time in 2022 (I think it was 2022) teaching a student who
> >> brought his Audi SQ7, but honestly I thought it was a bit ridiculous as
> >> a car one would actually buy. Very capable, to be sure, but too big, too
> >> heavy... ...just too much.
> >
> > The Q7 (& it’s twins) is a big platform, which a few customers will need,
> > but is also largely an example of American “supersize” in everyday life.
> > Reminds me of a coworker who ‘needed’ a GMC Suburban because
> > they had one teenager child. Naturally, both they & their spouse were
> > tipping 250lbs…a coincidence! /s
> >
> > And also an example of the gratuitous horsepower of the last ~decade,
> > at the expense of fuel efficiency. The SQ7 has 500 HP; similarly, one
> > candidate I’m looking at has varying tiers where the slowest one apparently
> > has a 5 sec 0-60mph. While that would be fun to torque Nashton with, its
> > not really needed for public road driving. But marketing is marketing, etc.
> >
> > Good news is that turbo-4’s have gotten a lot better in minimizing lag off
> > of a dead stop…but the likes of SUVs are still pushing a lot of air from an
> > efficiency standpoint, if that matters much based on one’s annual driving.
> > I’ve seen miles decline a lot during the CoVid telework change, so the
> > cost factor here isn’t as much of a factor..even at $4-$5/gallon. Plus it
> > also helps to live in a “compact” region where lots is close by, too.
>
> I understand about efficiency. As much as I love the 135i, it still
> stings when I realize I'm filling it up every week (pretty much) with 50
> litres.

Telework really crashed our mileages; I figure it cut at least 15,000
miles off our annual totals … at ~25mpg, that’s ~600 gallons, for a
ballpark savings of somewhere around $2K/yr.

> But you're right about turbo-lag having mosly been handled. The
> twin-scroll turbo in the N55 engine basically feels like it doesn't have
> lag—at least not if I'm driving in my own "sport mode"; meaning I'm
> keeping the RPM nearer the HP peak than I would typically do when
> cruising in the highway. I won't fault a turbo for lagging a little when
> I'm in 6th gear and only turning just a couple of thousand revs.
>
> :-)

I’ve found the most noticeable delta between a single vs double scroll is
from a stop. Sure, one could double-pedal it to bring the rpm’s up before
launch, but this is for mundane around-town stuff. I still wonder why anyone
would actually pay extra to add “launch control.

-hh

On 2024-02-05 16:16, -hh wrote:
>>>> Well... ...oddly enough for someone who races cars and teaches others to
>>>> race cars, I find myself strangely disinterested in learning about
>>>> current offerings.
>>>
>>> Well, getting older doesn’t help. I think a lot of it is recognizing that there’s
>>> basic capabilities and competencies which result in a lot of product that’s
>>> not in top tier, allowing it to be cognitively ignored.
>>
>> I think you'd agree that there's a lot that getting older "doesn't help"
>> with...
>>
>> ...but what's the alternative.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Yup. Comes back to being aware of where one’s at and the future ahead,
> such as informed by the retirement “smile” curve for budgeting, where it
> starts as the “go go” years before progressing to the “go slow” years and
> then finally the “no go” end. As such, there’s a finite number of ‘cars next’
> before it will be no more.

Truth.

>
>>>> I used to read Road&Track every month, and eagerly read every page about
>>>> every car they tested, but I just don't anymore.
>>>
>>> AutoWeek was my read; they’ve stopped publishing paper and IIRC that’s
>>> why I’m now getting Car & Driver. Okay enough but it’s not like I make it
>>> a point to read each issue the day it arrives.
>>
>> I always preferred R&T to C&D and I can't even tell you why I've almost
>> never read AutoWeek. Probably laziness.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> I found AutoWeek to have been few enough pages each publication such
> that I’d pick it up & read through it when it arrived, as opposed to it being
> set aside like many of my monthlies have..where it can then sit for weeks.

I think I've identified a fundamental difference between us:

I love to binge:

TV Shows

Books

Magazines.

If I get a magazine, I'll read it from cover to cover in the next 24
hours... ...or less.

>
>>>> I had a good time in 2022 (I think it was 2022) teaching a student who
>>>> brought his Audi SQ7, but honestly I thought it was a bit ridiculous as
>>>> a car one would actually buy. Very capable, to be sure, but too big, too
>>>> heavy... ...just too much.
>>>
>>> The Q7 (& it’s twins) is a big platform, which a few customers will need,
>>> but is also largely an example of American “supersize” in everyday life.
>>> Reminds me of a coworker who ‘needed’ a GMC Suburban because
>>> they had one teenager child. Naturally, both they & their spouse were
>>> tipping 250lbs…a coincidence! /s
>>>
>>> And also an example of the gratuitous horsepower of the last ~decade,
>>> at the expense of fuel efficiency. The SQ7 has 500 HP; similarly, one
>>> candidate I’m looking at has varying tiers where the slowest one apparently
>>> has a 5 sec 0-60mph. While that would be fun to torque Nashton with, its
>>> not really needed for public road driving. But marketing is marketing, etc.
>>>
>>> Good news is that turbo-4’s have gotten a lot better in minimizing lag off
>>> of a dead stop…but the likes of SUVs are still pushing a lot of air from an
>>> efficiency standpoint, if that matters much based on one’s annual driving.
>>> I’ve seen miles decline a lot during the CoVid telework change, so the
>>> cost factor here isn’t as much of a factor..even at $4-$5/gallon. Plus it
>>> also helps to live in a “compact” region where lots is close by, too.
>>
>> I understand about efficiency. As much as I love the 135i, it still
>> stings when I realize I'm filling it up every week (pretty much) with 50
>> litres.
>
> Telework really crashed our mileages; I figure it cut at least 15,000
> miles off our annual totals … at ~25mpg, that’s ~600 gallons, for a
> ballpark savings of somewhere around $2K/yr.

I don't even want to think about how high the bill would be without
telework. But visiting my sister-in-law and niece on a regular
basis—formerly 45 minutes away, now more like 75—puts a serious numbers
of miles on the BMW.

>
>> But you're right about turbo-lag having mosly been handled. The
>> twin-scroll turbo in the N55 engine basically feels like it doesn't have
>> lag—at least not if I'm driving in my own "sport mode"; meaning I'm
>> keeping the RPM nearer the HP peak than I would typically do when
>> cruising in the highway. I won't fault a turbo for lagging a little when
>> I'm in 6th gear and only turning just a couple of thousand revs.
>>
>> :-)
>
> I’ve found the most noticeable delta between a single vs double scroll is
> from a stop. Sure, one could double-pedal it to bring the rpm’s up before
> launch, but this is for mundane around-town stuff. I still wonder why anyone
> would actually pay extra to add “launch control.

Are you a fan of Top Gear?

They talked about launch control and how silly it is in everyday
driving. I won't pretend to remember the precise words, but basically
they talked about how big a prat you'd look, sitting at a stoplight,
revving the engine to 3000-4000 RPM,

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 7:46:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-05 16:16, -hh wrote:
> >>>> Well... ...oddly enough for someone who races cars and teaches others to
> >>>> race cars, I find myself strangely disinterested in learning about
> >>>> current offerings.
> >>>
> >>> Well, getting older doesn’t help. I think a lot of it is recognizing that there’s
> >>> basic capabilities and competencies which result in a lot of product that’s
> >>> not in top tier, allowing it to be cognitively ignored.
> >>
> >> I think you'd agree that there's a lot that getting older "doesn't help"
> >> with...
> >>
> >> ...but what's the alternative.
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Yup. Comes back to being aware of where one’s at and the future ahead,
> > such as informed by the retirement “smile” curve for budgeting, where it
> > starts as the “go go” years before progressing to the “go slow” years and
> > then finally the “no go” end. As such, there’s a finite number of ‘cars next’
> > before it will be no more.
> Truth.
> >
> >>>> I used to read Road&Track every month, and eagerly read every page about
> >>>> every car they tested, but I just don't anymore.
> >>>
> >>> AutoWeek was my read; they’ve stopped publishing paper and IIRC that’s
> >>> why I’m now getting Car & Driver. Okay enough but it’s not like I make it
> >>> a point to read each issue the day it arrives.
> >>
> >> I always preferred R&T to C&D and I can't even tell you why I've almost
> >> never read AutoWeek. Probably laziness.
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> > I found AutoWeek to have been few enough pages each publication such
> > that I’d pick it up & read through it when it arrived, as opposed to it being
> > set aside like many of my monthlies have..where it can then sit for weeks.
>
> I think I've identified a fundamental difference between us:
>
> I love to binge:
>
> TV Shows
>
> Books
>
> Magazines.
>
> If I get a magazine, I'll read it from cover to cover in the next 24
> hours... ...or less.

I’d love to be able to do that, but competing interests for time, especially in the
pre-CoVid commuting era: get home, check Mail, make dinner, pay bills, do
chores, etc. Saturday mornings used to be a respite; often would spend the
time then on Photoshop/Web development creation.

> >>>> I had a good time in 2022 (I think it was 2022) teaching a student who
> >>>> brought his Audi SQ7, but honestly I thought it was a bit ridiculous as
> >>>> a car one would actually buy. Very capable, to be sure, but too big, too
> >>>> heavy... ...just too much.
> >>>
> >>> The Q7 (& it’s twins) is a big platform, which a few customers will need,
> >>> but is also largely an example of American “supersize” in everyday life.
> >>> Reminds me of a coworker who ‘needed’ a GMC Suburban because
> >>> they had one teenager child. Naturally, both they & their spouse were
> >>> tipping 250lbs…a coincidence! /s
> >>>
> >>> And also an example of the gratuitous horsepower of the last ~decade,
> >>> at the expense of fuel efficiency. The SQ7 has 500 HP; similarly, one
> >>> candidate I’m looking at has varying tiers where the slowest one apparently
> >>> has a 5 sec 0-60mph. While that would be fun to torque Nashton with, its
> >>> not really needed for public road driving. But marketing is marketing, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Good news is that turbo-4’s have gotten a lot better in minimizing lag off
> >>> of a dead stop…but the likes of SUVs are still pushing a lot of air from an
> >>> efficiency standpoint, if that matters much based on one’s annual driving.
> >>> I’ve seen miles decline a lot during the CoVid telework change, so the
> >>> cost factor here isn’t as much of a factor..even at $4-$5/gallon. Plus it
> >>> also helps to live in a “compact” region where lots is close by, too.
> >>
> >> I understand about efficiency. As much as I love the 135i, it still
> >> stings when I realize I'm filling it up every week (pretty much) with 50
> >> litres.
> >
> > Telework really crashed our mileages; I figure it cut at least 15,000
> > miles off our annual totals … at ~25mpg, that’s ~600 gallons, for a
> > ballpark savings of somewhere around $2K/yr.
>
> I don't even want to think about how high the bill would be without
> telework. But visiting my sister-in-law and niece on a regular
> basis—formerly 45 minutes away, now more like 75—puts a serious
> numbers of miles on the BMW.

Understood. I was on a routine for a few years of ~500 mile weekends
~1X/month to help take care of my mom.

> >> But you're right about turbo-lag having mosly been handled. The
> >> twin-scroll turbo in the N55 engine basically feels like it doesn't have
> >> lag—at least not if I'm driving in my own "sport mode"; meaning I'm
> >> keeping the RPM nearer the HP peak than I would typically do when
> >> cruising in the highway. I won't fault a turbo for lagging a little when
> >> I'm in 6th gear and only turning just a couple of thousand revs.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > I’ve found the most noticeable delta between a single vs double scroll is
> > from a stop. Sure, one could double-pedal it to bring the rpm’s up before
> > launch, but this is for mundane around-town stuff. I still wonder why anyone
> > would actually pay extra to add “launch control.
>
> Are you a fan of Top Gear?

I’m aware of it and have seen some clips, but didn’t have the TV
channel to regularly watch it.

> They talked about launch control and how silly it is in everyday
> driving. I won't pretend to remember the precise words, but basically
> they talked about how big a prat you'd look, sitting at a stoplight,
> revving the engine to 3000-4000 RPM,

Yup, pretty much a novelty gimmick AFAIC for wannabe's like Nashton
who believe that 0-60/etc is the sole meaningful performance metric.

Thus said, looks like if I were to stick with the same make/model as
present, the decade has improved the 0-60mph by 0.6sec…probably
the classical “keeping up with the Jones” spec creep over time.

-hh