Sounding Off on Shelby GT500

[68fastback]

Thanks, Stuart..

 

---

 

150man, point well taken. I don't actually have any hi-po cars right now because I can't afford one but I appreciate where you're coming from nonetheless.

 

Just wanted to mention that when operational costs are considered, our present house actually costs less to own in real monthly cash-flow. Even though it cost 25-30% more than what we sold the old one for (new one is a custom modular), it's reduced operating costs made it financially beneficial.

 

Btw, I had no training/expertise (worked most all my life for a large computer co.) so did all the research myself over a period of almost 8 years in my spare time. One of the reasons we did it was because we didn't have the money to build a new [inefficient] home that cost more to own and, as we were getting older, felt we had to do it to survive financially over the long term (sort of just the opposite of what would seem to make sense).

 

Basedon that experience I teach an adult-ed course at our local college (I getjust a nominal fee -- the school makes the profit) and do private consulting on how to build a better and more-efficient home and save money too -- cash-flow-wise (something most contractors aren't concerned with) -- but is what actually matters to most folks.

 

That is, most folks are interested in what a specific level of total monthly expense can 'afford' ...mortgage, taxes, insurance + all monthly recurring/operatinal expenses. Our new house is actually cheaper overall else there would have been no way for us to do it -- as well as being far more friendly environmentally, though we did have to manage a financial 'bridge' for about 9-months during the building/finishing/selling/moving/etc.

 

This philosophy was extended to every single decision we made on the house -- from heat to hot-water to appliances to lighting to materials. For example a modest front-loader clothes washer costs about 25% more than a top-loader, but the reduced hot water, electricity, etc literally makes the front-loader cheaper to own from day-1 on a cash-flow basis (if you do your homework on the right models) by a significant margin. We heat with a K1-kerosene furnace that, though rated at only 87% efficiency, is actually far more cost-effective to operate than a conventional high-efficiency heating plant because its 'waste' heat is kept within the heated space, not up the chimney. Our hot water heater has no tank whatsoever -- it makes hot water on-demand when the faucet is turned-on (zero 'standing' loss) even tho it's efficiency rating looks just average (the rating systems are such that many advanced technologies are at an artificial disadvantage). Anyway, I'm so off-topic here, but just wanted to give you the flavor of the technique... real total operational cash-flow consideration is what really matters.

 

Was a great project. About the only expertise I had that really helped was a lot of experience with complex business problem solving in general -- and some serious stubbornness to act on my own analyses regardless of conventional wisdom -- that and some hobby-level woodworking experience.

 

Now if I could only figure out how to afford one of these outrageous cars I think you're right that I would salve my conscience a bit based on the above, but I would genuinely have a clear conscience over it. Believe me, I'm certainly not meaning to judge anyone on this except myself -- just wanted to share it so you could see that this sort of an alternative approach to 'holistic' home design is viable. We didn't do it because we're 'green' tho we're greener becasue we did it -- it was just the pragmatics of it being a good thing for us to do.

 

Somehow I wish governments would spend more money helping folks understand the elegance of such an approach -- may be just too much big-money inertially vested in the [inefficient] status quo, tho things are s-l-o-w-l-y getting better it seems.

 

-Dan

[150man]

Thanks for the post, Dan. I can see that I was wrong about a few things. Tim

[Alloy Dave]

Thanks, Stuart..

 

---

 

150man, point well taken. I don't actually have any hi-po cars right now because I can't afford one but I appreciate where you're coming from nonetheless.

 

Just wanted to mention that when operational costs are considered, our present house actually costs less to own in real monthly cash-flow. Even though it cost 25-30% more than what we sold the old one for (new one is a custom modular), it's reduced operating costs made it financially beneficial.

 

Btw, I had no training/expertise (worked most all my life for a large computer co.) so did all the research myself over a period of almost 8 years in my spare time. One of the reasons we did it was because we didn't have the money to build a new [inefficient] home that cost more to own and, as we were getting older, felt we had to do it to survive financially over the long term (sort of just the opposite of what would seem to make sense).

 

Basedon that experience I teach an adult-ed course at our local college (I getjust a nominal fee -- the school makes the profit) and do private consulting on how to build a better and more-efficient home and save money too -- cash-flow-wise (something most contractors aren't concerned with) -- but is what actually matters to most folks.

 

That is, most folks are interested in what a specific level of total monthly expense can 'afford' ...mortgage, taxes, insurance + all monthly recurring/operatinal expenses. Our new house is actually cheaper overall else there would have been no way for us to do it -- as well as being far more friendly environmentally, though we did have to manage a financial 'bridge' for about 9-months during the building/finishing/selling/moving/etc.

 

This philosophy was extended to every single decision we made on the house -- from heat to hot-water to appliances to lighting to materials. For example a modest front-loader clothes washer costs about 25% more than a top-loader, but the reduced hot water, electricity, etc literally makes the front-loader cheaper to own from day-1 on a cash-flow basis (if you do your homework on the right models) by a significant margin. We heat with a K1-kerosene furnace that, though rated at only 87% efficiency, is actually far more cost-effective to operate than a conventional high-efficiency heating plant because its 'waste' heat is kept within the heated space, not up the chimney. Our hot water heater has no tank whatsoever -- it makes hot water on-demand when the faucet is turned-on (zero 'standing' loss) even tho it's efficiency rating looks just average (the rating systems are such that many advanced technologies are at an artificial disadvantage). Anyway, I'm so off-topic here, but just wanted to give you the flavor of the technique... real total operational cash-flow consideration is what really matters.

 

Was a great project. About the only expertise I had that really helped was a lot of experience with complex business problem solving in general -- and some serious stubbornness to act on my own analyses regardless of conventional wisdom -- that and some hobby-level woodworking experience.

 

Now if I could only figure out how to afford one of these outrageous cars I think you're right that I would salve my conscience a bit based on the above, but I would genuinely have a clear conscience over it. Believe me, I'm certainly not meaning to judge anyone on this except myself -- just wanted to share it so you could see that this sort of an alternative approach to 'holistic' home design is viable. We didn't do it because we're 'green' tho we're greener becasue we did it -- it was just the pragmatics of it being a good thing for us to do.

 

Somehow I wish governments would spend more money helping folks understand the elegance of such an approach -- may be just too much big-money inertially vested in the [inefficient] status quo, tho things are s-l-o-w-l-y getting better it seems.

 

-Dan

Great post Dan. I work in corporate finance, and we do the type of analysis all the time that you mention. We call it TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). For example, we sell diesel engines. Let's say we charge $20,000 for an engine, our engines require a $300 oil change every 20,000 miles, and we have a BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption - a measure of fuel efficiency) of .385 lb/BHPH (pounds per brake horsepower hour).

 

Let's say our competitor has a similar engine that costs only $15,000, but requires oil changes every 18,000 miles and has a BSFC of .392. Which is the better deal? (Don't do the math Dan - it's a hypothetical ).

 

We use a TVM (Time Value of Money) type of analysis and calculate NPV (Net Present Value) to determine how to price our products to make them competitive.

 

You are correct...the average Joe on the street doesn't understand this type of analysis, but we sell mainly to large OEMs and fleets...and they are smart enough to understand this....so we talk on the same wavelength.

 

Dave

[68fastback]

Dave, good analogy to TCO -- after seeing your post I realize that Tim was right about training/experience ...probably pick up a lot of skills in our corporate lives and don't even realize it.

 

You know me too well, Dave <lol> I was thinking I could figure injector size based on BSFC and....

 

Dan

[Alloy Dave]

Dave, good analogy to TCO -- after seeing your post I realize that Tim was right about training/experience ...probably pick up a lot of skills in our corporate lives and don't even realize it.

 

You know me too well, Dave <lol> I was thinking I could figure injector size based on BSFC and....

 

Dan

If I remember right, back in the early '90s when I was a tech, we had R&D engines running BSFC down around .319 or so. The cylinder pressure and heat release on diesels is quite different than gasoline engines. Working in R&D had a lot of fun aspects to it...it was soooo neat to see things for the very first time, and to run all the "test to failure" tests. For example, we had one test called a "death rattle trap" test. You'd start the engine and warm it up, then put it on full load, rated speed (the particular engine I ran was 1,800 RPM, 1,200 lb*ft), then you'd use an electric switch from outside the test cell to let oil out of the engine until it was empty. The engine would continue to run for about 2 minutes, and slowly grind to a stop. Then we'd take the engine out, move it to the "teardown" area, and take the engine completely apart, lay out all the pieces on white paper for the engineers to look at....nothing like watching a dozen engineers pore over main bearings with hand-held magnifying glasses for 2 hours ).

 

I had the easy work...install the engine, destroy it, remove it...do over.

 

I have lots of fun stories from those days. Remind me about the prototype camshaft sometime.

 

Dave

[aonebadbone]

Not me, I will never sell my GT500. I am Not a Hyprocrit nor am I a Liberal. I am a true Car Dude. However I am concerned on what is happening to the Polar Ice Caps and the Polar Bears. say what you want. call me what you want. The fact is that this is what Sicentist from Yale and Havard are telling us. Yes Harvard and Yale, two of the best schools in the world. So who are you going to beleive, the Bush Chroni's over on fox news or the Educated Scientist ?

From what I have been told by Fox News is the whole world was covered in ice and melted way before Henry Ford was born. and its been melting ever since time began.

I think they called it the ICE AGE.

[RUFDRAFT]

Yeah, man - you gotta love that heat release. I'm with ya.

[68fastback]

I blame all the animals for screwing up air quality...

 

...millions of cubic yards of cattle farts methane!

 

.

[500PLUS]

I blame all the animals for screwing up air quality...

 

...millions of cubic yards of cattle farts methane!

 

.

 

 

Isn't cattle farts methane measured in BTUs or something?

[68fastback]

.

 

...only if you light them! :o

 

.