On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 2:49:34 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:30:16 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:54:55 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > On 2018-06-04 1:50 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:04:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > >> On 2018-06-04 6:37 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:10:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > >>>> I know that there are people eager for news of my new RF98, so I thought
> > > > > >>>> I'd provide an update.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Yesterday, in return for offering road racing instruction to novice
> > > > > >>>> trackday participants, I ran my Van Diemen RF98 Honda during the lunch
> > > > > >>>> break at Mission Raceway Park. I thought it would be better to discover
> > > > > >>>> any issues with the car three and a half weeks before the next race,
> > > > > >>>> rather than discover them during the practice session Saturday morning
> > > > > >>>> with the need to have them resolved before qualifying just 115 minutes
> > > > > >>>> later.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> So after going through the car's systems, fixing a few minor issues
> > > > > >>>> (such as a little extra slop in the gear linkage cured by adding more
> > > > > >>>> appropriate, shanked bolts and proper saddle washers), completely
> > > > > >>>> replacing the brake and clutch fluid, flushing and replacing the
> > > > > >>>> coolant, we packed up the car for an initial shakedown run.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> With only 20 minutes running time, this wasn't a session for trying
> > > > > >>>> changes to the car; just a chance to find any problems with time to
> > > > > >>>> resolve them before the first race.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Only... ...there weren't any problems! The car was exactly as
> > > > > >>>> advertised. OK... ...there was a tiny amount lateral instability at top
> > > > > >>>> speed which is probably just a fresh alignment away from correction, and
> > > > > >>>> the shop which installed the new engine before the car was sold to me
> > > > > >>>> definitely put in too heavy a weight engine oil, but we took care of
> > > > > >>>> that before we'd even finished unpacking the trailer back at the garage.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Oh! There was one Dzus fastener that had been replaced with one that
> > > > > >>>> wasn't the proper length, so we had to temporarily tape that panel into
> > > > > >>>> place.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> However, I would run the car without hesitation as it sits in the garage
> > > > > >>>> right now. I have good information from an experience prep shop for
> > > > > >>>> starting settings for spring rates, anti-roll bars, ride heights, camber
> > > > > >>>> and caster, and the car will be taken to a specialty shop to get its
> > > > > >>>> first alignment; mostly because I need to fabricate a few things before
> > > > > >>>> I can do an alignment myself (new brackets for the alignment bars, most
> > > > > >>>> of all).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> And... ...it feels fast.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> One area where the Honda-engined cars differ from the Kents is that the
> > > > > >>>> Honda has a rev limiter which cuts in at 6750 rpm whereas most Kents are
> > > > > >>>> run without a rev limiter. So when selecting a top gear, Honda cars must
> > > > > >>>> choose a ratio which will keep the car below the rev limiter in every
> > > > > >>>> conceivable situation, while the Kent-engined FFs can choose a slightly
> > > > > >>>> shorter ratio, knowing that if they do happen to get a good "tow" down
> > > > > >>>> the longest straight, they can allow the engine to rev past the optimum
> > > > > >>>> for short lengths of time. This is one of the reasons that Kents have a
> > > > > >>>> small advantage at tracks with long straights (along with slightly
> > > > > >>>> greater top-end power).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> But even having to choose that slightly taller gear, and even before
> > > > > >>>> trying to put together a full-on lap, I was seeing speeds very near the
> > > > > >>>> rev limit before braking for turn one.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> If I'm in town to enjoy it, I think the rest of the racing season could
> > > > > >>>> be a lot of fun!
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> :-)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "If I'm in town to enjoy it, I think the rest of the racing season could
> > > > > >>> be a lot of fun!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> :-)"
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Already making excuses for no-shows!!!!!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No, Liarboy.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I've got an opportunity for a six month contract overseas. If it comes
> > > > > >> through, I'm taking it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Chicken-shit Baker is afraid to run the new toy! He will probably find a way to break even a Honda engine!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You simpleton, what do you think the video was?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And miss the whole season. How utterly convenient.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
> > > > > racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
> > > > > my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
> > > > > day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.
> > > > >
> > > > > :-D
> > > > $156,000 is bit less than I made all last year, and a pretty darn good 6 months for a college drop-out.
> > > >
> > > > I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a day + expenses for
> > > > at least the next 6 months, and I can do it from here. At 5 days a week you do the math.
> > > > Then add in my $145k pension and investment base income.
> > > >
> > > > 2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)
> > >
> > > Just in case Tommy wants to deny that he made this claim... /s
> > >
> > > -hh
> >
> > Actually, we don't know if Alan's project came through. Mine did, but it fizzled because
> > the multiple clients could not agree on an approach. Income was on that one was nominal.
> Not the point. The point was that here in 2018, you claimed “my $145K pension
> and investment base income.”, yet in 2024, you claimed that your pension, plus your
> wife’s pension, and both of your SS checks combined now sum to only $100K.
>
> As ed pointed out to you, WTF?
>
> The slight of hand appears to have been the just-ambiguous-enough phrasing which
> implied a pension of $145K, plus an unspecified additional amount of investment
> income, instead of the reading of it as a pension & investments income(s) which
> taken together sum to $145K.
>
> Given your propensities, the latter is more likely. Particularly as 2018 would have
> around the onset of RMDs of former employer 401k. Plus the phrasing allows for
> counting of discretionary (& greater-than-RMD) transactions, and of “one-shots”,
> such as the exercising of an old/expiring stock options, Roth conversions, etc.
> > I did land a different project though. It did not kick off until late 2019 and
> > ran over into 2020. Total billings were over $100k. It was my last major project.
> Which was much lower in total vs its prior potential, plus “billings” is a gross, not net,
> so it is not actual real, take-home income like the other numbers. Deduct off a few
> business trips, add overhead, and the balance left remaining for real net income is …?
> /s
>
> -hh

OH MY GOD! Ask questions before you make assumptions. I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had been gone for 10 years. Those expiration periods are somewhat standard.. Have you ever received an employer stock option? Do you even know how they work?

The RMD income started in 2016 (1946+70). That's the 2018 difference. You can call it a 401k pension or investment income. I think of it both ways.

That last project involved no travel or overhead, it was 100% billable hours. The number is IRS-basis net income that does include some expenses that are not deductible unless you have a home office and have a positive gross margin. Yes, the project that fell through could have been worth at least twice that. The operative word was "could". We will never know, will we?