LP Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

256 profile views
  1. exitr

    Bring the old site back

    I do agree the site is harder to read. Everything is too closely sized and spaced. New topics don't really standout. Everything is just too homogeneous. The post-looks-like-a-quote thing is odd too. That's not why it's less active though. It's pretty simple to explain: It was down for too long, people stopped checking after a few weeks and no updates, and now they don't really care anymore. It's a very common occurrence with websites. Significant downtime can destroy a community. Ferrari Chat and other forums seem just as active as usual. McLaren Life and Rennlist seem normal too. It didn't help that the site was essentially 404 for weeks either, with no messages or updates. It was weeks before the site even said it was upgrading and coming back. One day it was up, the next it was gone. Then it said to visit the Facebook page, which didn't exist as far as I could tell. The old forum should not have been taken down until the new one was ready. I'm not sure why that happened. It's very easy to duplicate a database and build the new version without disabling the old one. Unless there is a really compelling reason for people to come back, I wouldn't count on it happening. This is just my opinion though.
  2. exitr

    Recession coming?

    Also, you can't "short" your house or buy puts on it, per se, but you can do that with RE-oriented stocks (home builders maybe?) or maybe even REITs. This would be just as risky probably, but less of a hassle and you could undo your decision at a moments notice if you change your mind. You can't undo a house sale. The best way to sell at the top and avoid a downturn is to do it via securities. You don't need to protect your own house value if you can short someone else's... Just my two cents.
  3. exitr

    Recession coming?

    It's unrealistic for anyone in a "normal" price range to sell their home at the top to avoid a downturn. Unlike stocks, you still need a place to live so you'd either have to buy something cheap (not nice) or rent something really cheap (also not nice). If you're in the high-end market of $5M homes or something, sure, you could probably come out a head and still live someplace nice since it's not like $1M homes are so unbearable. Also keep in mind that if you sell at the top, you may have a capital gain. This can often be put into a special account used to buy another home, but there will surely be time limits on this and the downturn might not happen soon enough. After it's all said and done, you'll have to pay commissions, fees, taxes, rent, capital gains, lose tax savings, have to deal with the hassle of moving, and potentially live someplace not very nice for an undetermined amount of time that may or may not ever come. You could be wrong and the market is fine.
  4. exitr

    Recession coming?

    Like I said, the credit risk is much lower because underwriting standards have improved significantly and interest rates make stuff significantly more affordable. $500,000 @ 4.5% for 30 years = $2500/month $500,000 @ 7.5% for 30 years = $3500/month $350,000 @ 7.5% for 30 years = $2500/month So people today can get a $500,000 house at the same expense as a $350,000 house 10 years ago. What happened in 2007 was people were getting $500,000 houses that ended up at 7.5%, became unaffordable, and some even took equity out of that quickly became even more negative equity on top of the now lower priced asset. The deals are long gone for RE and it needs to go sideways for quite a while in my opinion. The plus side is that we don't have a decade of home owners at high interest rates and high prices. We hav e a decade of home buyers who got amazing deals and low interest rates. They've already built a reasonable amount of equity not only through appreciation but also 5-10 years of payments, and they had to pass stringent underwriting and had down payments. Only those buying at the top now are "risky", and it only really becomes a problem if interest rates go up and prices keep going up for quite a few more years. One year of splurging and excess isn't going to tank the economy.
  5. exitr

    Recession coming?

    Not sure, but more important than home prices themselves are interest rates and underwriting quality. Underwriting has improved massively and interest rates are still low. Credit quality has been pretty good in recent years. No more NINJA loans etc. Imagine buying a house for $300K that's $100K overvalued. If interest rates were 0% (which they aren't), then you'd have a $1000/month payment after it's all said and done on a 30 year mortgage. That's very, very affordable and it doesn't really matter if it's overvalued because you'll be renting for $1000/month in something much worse anyway. Interest rates are more like 4.5% right now, but that's still pretty low and were in the 3s not that long ago. House prices have gone up because interest rates have been so low and has allowed people to spend more (ask more). With interest rates climbing, you're going to see housing cooling off, but not necessarily crashing. Also keep in mind that everyone who bought in 2010 is already 8 years into their loan. People who bought in 2014 are 4 years into their loan. Everyone in the last 7-8 years got good deals and locked in low rates, ensuring they are probably nicely into equity by now. The risk of defaults is very low for this enormous pool of loans. In 2007 and 2008, interest rates were 6.5-7.5%. That's significantly higher than they have been the last 10 years. I'm not a buyer of real estate at these prices, but I'm not predicting a crash/recession either. One year of overpriced loans will not tank the 10 years of good deals and low rates before it, in my opinion.
  6. exitr

    Fcuking loaner!

    Yes, these are far too expensive for what they are in my opinion. Of course they're nice, but at the end of the day you aren't getting anything that high-end or cutting edge. For $600,000 you get a composite body and monocage from Lamborghini. For $90,000 you can get a 300 mile range electric powertrain with some form or another of self-driving. For $40,000 you can even get a semi-composite construction BMW i3 (which coincidentally owns Rolls Royce). You would think that for $600,000 and what is essentially unrestricted in size that you would get the most cutting edge car possible. Sadly, you don't, and it's a shame because everything that it should buy would help the car tremendously and fit the persona perfectly. 1. Composite construction would drastically lower weight and remove the need for excessive reinforcement of the Drophead. 2. Going to an electric drivetrain would increase the weight, but drastically lower the center of gravity and provide insane amounts of torque, which is exactly what heavy cars need most. Real torque vectoring. 3. Given the size, they could fit and afford to put a massive battery pack allowing for huge range. Never visit a gas station again. 4. Given the price, the cost of batteries would be irrelevant to the buyer. 5. Electric cars are "silent", which is exactly what RR goes for. 6. The frunk would be enormous. 7. All the awesome stuff that comes with electric, connected cars like turning the AC on ahead of time remotely, and so forth. Rolls Royce are nice but they're really falling behind in what luxury mobility should mean today. Well, at least that's my opinion. I'm not really impressed with the strange glass "Gallery" thing. Really bizarre thing to spend so much time/money on.
  7. exitr

    Aventador SV-J Discussion and New Information

    Well, it certainly lives up to it's name. The Aventador. The Aventador line has been getting a bit over the top. Too many vents. Less is sometimes more. The 918 didn't need all these channels for air...
  8. exitr

    Aventador SV-J Discussion and New Information

    Hi Kinsella, Am I sure? Hehe, not at all. I have no idea what happens to the battery power in any of those cars on the Nordschleife. It's a bit of a how long is a piece of string kind of question. The Nordschliefe is really long, so given a long enough lap or long enough race, all cars will run out of fuel, be it gasoline or electricity. All cars will run out of tire too. When each car runs out of what is anyone's guess. Based on absolutely no experience of my own and being a complete armchair racer, I think that those 3 cars will be quicker on any reasonable length circuit. Might they run out of juice on the Nordschliefe? Sure, but maybe the Jota runs out of fuel quicker on multiple laps or wears the tires too quickly with it's weight. Hot laps is a great way to sell cars, but there's a reason that real motorsport has rules Disclaimer: I only like rally racing and don't pay too much attention to traditional motorsport.
  9. exitr

    Aventador SV-J Discussion and New Information

    It's a very fast time indeed, super impressive given the weight of the Aventador platform in general. I'd keep in mind though that the "Holy Trinity" as they are called are on tires from a long time ago, relatively speaking. ThethetheFerrari used PZero Corsas, P1 used Corsas (occasionally off-the-shelf Trofeos), and the 918 used the rather old Michelin Cup 2 tires. I'd be surprised if these 3 cars weren't still a the top of the food chain if you gave them the latest tires. Heck, the Maserati MC12 did 7:24s back in 2008 when they gave it more modern tires. That thing could very well be under 7 minutes with modern tires. The advancements really have been enormous in tire technology. Perhaps it's at the expense of cold and wet performance or even longevity, but that's probably OK for cars that largely see low mileage and nice weather. Also, Lamborghini is making a multi-million dollar hybrid as we speak and that Porsche 919 definitely benefits from the electrical power. I think the hybrid stuff was maybe a little ahead of its time, but I think it's still the best at the moment. If batteries can get denser and cheaper, I can only imagine how much performance they stand to gain. Just look at that VW ID Pikes Peak race car. It shows just how potent electrical power can be. But whatever the case, today is a fantastic time to be a Lamborghini fan. They've never been better!
  10. exitr

    McLaren 600LT

    I guess I should clarify that when I say car, I mean modern car. I'm sure cars have gotten it wrong in the past, but not really anymore. I really only use HVAC and volume controls in cars these days. Everything else is done on my phone and done better on my phone, often with voice control. I believe all McLarens have buttons for quick access to the major features like navigation, music, HVAC, settings, etc, so no menus needed there. Driving modes also have all their own knobs and buttons. Naturally things like windows, doors, locks etc will probably always be physical buttons. Other than volume and HVAC, I don't really find much that needs changing on such a regular basis such that it would benefit from dedicated buttons.
  11. exitr

    The Performante encounter...

    Cool purple. Nice to see less traditional colors. Enjoy!
  12. exitr

    McLaren 600LT

    Unless the meaning of the word has changed, I don't think the ergonomics of McLarens are any better or worse than anything else in my experience other than maybe the ingress over the tub on early models. On the new models it's like getting into a regular convertible. The seating positions, steering wheel, pedals, and buttons are no different in usage than a Volkswagen Jetta. The stock paddles were a little small, but they offer carbon ones that are bigger. I believe if you blindfolded the average person, they would know where to reach for everything. Wipers, turn signals, lights, drive select, parking brake, arm rest... I think it's almost impossible to get ergonomics wrong in a car. I'd be very curious to know where people think the McLarens fall behind in ergonomics.
  13. May I be the first to offer my sincerest condolences to those that purchased things like the Veneno and Centenario. You could have gotten a really special car to go along with the body kit had you waited a little bit longer. I'm not wealthy enough to know how it feels, but I can only imagine what it's like to buy a Centenario and then something like this shows up.
  14. This argument would be equally as flawed as one that relates race to crime. Per Wikipedia, crimes in the US are disproportionately committed by black people. 54% of murders in a recent year were committed by black people while they only represent about 12% of the population. So you might ask, what could black people possibly offer to justify the risk? That's really flawed logic, right? As we all know, people are largely a product of their environment. Animals are much the same, particularly long-since domesticated animals. The inherent temperament of any breed, for better or worse, can with near absolute certainty be molded to be problem-free to the point at which their breed is highly irrelevant. The reason pitbulls are more represented in bite statistics is plainly obvious in my opinion. Pitbulls are more likely to be owned by shitty human beings than other breeds. It's as simple as that. How many chihuahua rescue organizations have former dog-fighting chihuahuas? Probably none. How many pitbull rescues have former dog-fighting pitbulls? Probably a lot. There are just more people abusing pitbulls and it's not hard to imagine that these people are terribly irresponsible and reckless. These people created an image that unfortunately appeals to more irresponsible people, creating a negative cycle. Pitbills gets bad rap for aggression due to serious abusers -> irresponsible person who thinks it's cool to have a "tough" dog gets pitbull -> pitbull is trained by irresponsible person and does in fact become aggressive -> pitbulls get more of a bad rap The main reason we shouldn't continue to breed pitbulls is not due to potential aggression, it's because dogs will simply be healthier if they are all mutts that can breed out genetic diseases. We've created some very unhealthy breeds and it would be best if we started interbreeding every dog that was meant to be a pet. We all love certain breeds, but there is nothing great about your GSD suffering from degenerative myelopathy and it will break your heart if it does.
  15. exitr

    Anthony Bourdain Won't Be Cooking Dinner Tonight...

    I didn't say that, but I absolutely think that having mental issues can give someone an excuse for something that others may perceive as selfishness. There is an autistic(?) person who lives down the street from my parents. I don't know exactly what's wrong, maybe it's not even academically autism, but he's obviously not "normal". He talks to himself, paces around repetitively in a short stretch of the street, lives alone but doesn't go anywhere, has family bring him groceries. He's lived there for decades now and the only thing that has changed as that he lost weight. In my opinion, this man gets a free pass for just about everything. If he committed a murder, I'd just say "He had mental problems that were underestimate, he belongs in a clinic, not a prison." The very fact that we have places for people with mental issues who are dangers to themselves or others is evidence that in general we accept these deficiencies as something more like a disease that the person isn't really responsible for in the same way you or I would be. Suicide is somewhat unique. You don't directly harm anyone else, it's not done out of malice or spite. I think it's incorrect to discount someone's pain and mental problems to the point at which you fault them as you would a more "sane" person. I believe we are discussing selfishness as a conscious fault that could be avoided and rationalized against. Without being able to step inside their mind, how could we really make such judgments? I'm not sure how many people here have ever experienced depression themselves or experienced it with their family, but wow, it's not easy. It makes no sense and you often can even see the irrationality of it, but you can't shake it. You just feel immense pain and sadness, and you want it to stop, and it just doesn't and you don't know why. The vast majority of people never get anywhere near suicide, but I can only imagine how deep that struggle must be to want to commit suicide. I have experience depression, a depression that never led me anywhere near even a thought of suicide, but the struggle was immense. To get to the point of taking one's life... It's a massive breakdown of the mind in my opinion and we shouldn't hold anything against these people. So regarding a father, a child, a wife... it's correct to say there are "mental" issues, but it's incorrect to portray the actions of those people in such a way that it's selfish. It's not a child's fault for being depressed after their father's death, it's not a mother's fault for being unable to remarry, it's not a father's fault for being unable to cope. Something snaps, new pathways are formed... the mind undergoes a change, for better or worse. I absolutely agree that probably no one here is actually qualified to give anything other than a "uneducated" opinion, but some here definitely have experienced depression themselves or in people close to them. It's often anything but selfish in my experience. It's just a sad thing, all around, for everyone who cares. Depression can be hard to really understand and connect with without having experienced it yourself, and even then it can still be hard to connect with. Some people's problems seem so trivial, but that's just not how it works in their mind and it's not really their fault. Anthony Bourdain had a daughter, was highly respected, was no doubt quite successful and wealthy, and from what I can tell had one of the best careers on Earth -- traveling around and eating. It's very hard to see why he killed himself, but I feel comfortable in saying he was not of sound mind and just made a mistake because of it.