Geeto67

I have never had it done, but I have owned several cars that have been Ziebarted/rust proofed. Application makes all the difference. On my E30, that car was done right, meaning someone made an effort to remove some of the lines and other things that sit tight against the floor before spraying. It made a difference because moisture usually gets trapped in that space between the line and the floor and then you remove the line and can see a rust shadow of where it ran. On my GTO (which was done in the 1960's) was basically put up on a rack and they just hosed the stuff on. It kept the rust mostly at bay, but it didn't stop areas that rot from the top down like the 1/4 panel trunk extensions and the front frame rail top where the vent pisses rain water. One nice thing is that it was easy to spot the stock line routing for things that had been changed over time like brake lines because there was a rust shadow against the floor. On my jeep it was done on the underside only by the dealer before I bought the car (I bought new). For a jeep that spent most of it's life in snow states its surprisingly solid, and most of the rust came from top down - I don't even have the jeep frame rot issues most ohio jeeps have. Which kind of brings me to my next point: Is it necessary? for a body on frame car or truck, as long as the frame is solid you can drive that thing till the body rots off the hinges. With most new cars, unless you plan 10 years of ownership you aren't going to see much in the way of body rot/rust (well maybe in ohio you will), so any rust proofing is basically making sure that the car has 3rd, 4th, and 5th owners 20 years from now because people keep fixing the clean body with high miles.

Wasn't there an Integra in the first fast and furious movie? Dominic's sister and Ja Rule drove one, right? For some reason that is a car I still look on CL for a decent, non-hacked, non "teggy" 2 door coupe. When I first bought my GTO, my friend Pete had a 1970 GTO vert as his DD that we used to cruise around in. When he decided to restore his car the first time he "needed" to buy a reliable daily so he went out and bought a brand new white 1996 integra type R. This was the first Japanese fwd car I ever drove and it was pretty amazing. A couple years later, a friend had a modded (re: turbo) integra sedan that he let me drive as well and it was pretty great as well. then my wife bought her dad's 1999 GS-R with 190K miles on the clock and although she only had it for 3 months before it was totaled (t-boned by a kid who ran a stop sign) it was probably my favorite car she ever owned (she had a prelude Si before that car). I had a lot of friends that raced 2000+ civics and while I like them, I just really like the integra more. I don't think this will ever come back in fashion: http://www.musclecarszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Fast-and-the-Furious-Acura-Integra-Fast-and-Furious-1.jpg but I could think of worse things to roll around in than this: http://www.icscc.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1399&d=1428801380 http://img.modifiedcartrader.com/uploaded/XL/2006/05/4332_Acura_Integra_5222006102122PM1.JPG Not every F&F "star car" is gonna make a comeback. I feel like the car has to be good too. I don't think anything will make Roman's Purple Eclipse spyder from F&F2 remotely desirable.

I would be interested to see a chart comparison between tesla mileage and the mileage of golf karts at "the Villages" in Florida (the country's largest retirement community). I wonder how similar they would be.

yeah...and...? doesn't mean they work (hint: neither Trickle down or Horse and Sparraow do).

well if you want to be really pedantic...."Trickle Down" and "Horse and Sparrow" are the same principle with different names under the larger theory of "supply side economics". Tickle down comes from a variety of sources such as William Jennings Bryant and Will Rogers, Although Andrew Laffer claims credit. the Difference between supply side economics is that it advocates lower taxes along all tax brackets where as "Trickle down" only advocates lower taxes for the wealthy.

It's a face value vs relative value. Face Value Bob gets more. Relative Value, Jimmy gets more. Another way to think of it is: Face value is the economic spending power of the money in the whole economy. Relative Value is the dollar value of improvement in the quality of life for an individual given the circumstances. make sense? Which part? not this bit about "trickle down" economics which is such a pile of horseshit it's actually called Horse and Sparrow economics (the sparrow picks the berries out of the horse's shit <-- who says economists don't have a sense of humor). also: During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[3] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[4] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Debt_and_government_expenditures

He bought the team specifically to relocate them, and was forced to stay in Cbus for 10 years as per contract: http://www.espnfc.com/columbus-crew-sc/story/3231574/columbus-crew-sc-exploring-relocation-to-austintx It's entirely possible that the "flagging revenues" were his way of making a better case for relocation based on the Austin clause. It's possible that the revenue just isn't here, but it is also possible he didn't really make an effort to generate it because he knew if it flagged he could get out of that 10 year hold. It wouldn't be the first time this happened in the history of sports. Austin hasn't really been all that interested in a soccer team either. They had one that got relocated to Orlando and weren't trying to win the new expansion spots in MLS. It's entirely possible the owner is working Austin to go along with this so he can then move it somewhere else later on, and they aren't that interested in the team either. As someone who used to go to baseball games in a stadium built in 1962 and had only 1 major renovation (Shea Stadium) between then and when it was torn down, I have little pity for those bitching about a 1999 built stadium that was the first of its kind. But then again, I don't go to many crew games.

Does the stadium have to be downtown? Plenty of cheap RE in other parts of town that could use the economic stimulus and it could be packaged differently to help with that public spending. Current stadium is not downtown, so....why the sudden desire for prime RE? I have to say, I have lived in a few cities with MLS teams and this has been the most supportive city of it's club that I have ever seen. For Cbus to lose the crew it would be a real shame...

For some people a motorcycle is too dangerous. To be honest, it's kind of quirky 1970's sci-fi in a battlestar galactica sort of way. These things used to be $500 when nobody wanted electric cars in general, esp lead acid battery ones, I'd totally rock one for that. But at $5900? yeah that's for someone else.

Short bus: https://lexington.craigslist.org/cto/d/1965-vw-shorty-bus/6319144770.html

That's a great fox find. Didn't see many LX verts when new, can't imagine many are left.

Hi All, I've seen some of the people on here fly RC quadcopters and park flyer foamies. I thought I would mention that some of the Hobbyland folks host a morning flying session at Kenney Park, behind the LA Fitness in the Graceland Shopping center on Sundays at 9am. It's a lot of fun and if you have kids that want to get in the hobby it is worth bringing it down. Park Flyer Fly-in Sunday, 9am Kenny Park (behind the LA fitness in Graceland shopping center). Weather Permitting.

As opposed to 10:20am when they aren't?

Way to crush a man's dreams early in the morning clay.

yeah but at $40K I betcha you have to take all that crap like lane assist and adaptive cruise control.

It's a sports sedan. It's competition are the A5 sportback and the bmw 4 gran coupe. I think they are calling this new category fastback sedans because they have hatches that look like trunks, 4 doors, and are kind of sporty. Kia thinks of it as both a fastback sports sedan and a GT car (or so they say on their website). you can thank the nissan maxima for blurring the lines with their "4 door sports car" marketing campaign, and BMW for actually making a 4 door sedan, the e34, that made midsize sedans as fun to drive as sports cars and therefore acceptable as sporty cars. honestly, who cares that the labels are all mixed up. Corvettes haven't been "sports cars" since the 70's (they are GT cars like Aston Martins), sedans are now considered sporty, cats and dogs live together.... Personally I think the stinger needs a 6MT but it will never happen. I wonder how hard it will be to get a stripped down no option version with the 3.3L TT v6, my guess is very. I like Kia cars, probably more than I should, but this is a huge leap for them, I kinda want to see if they can pull it off in the first year.

don't forget to add ECTA at Wilmington to that list. Amazon be having none of that shit on their runways, lol. The car scene here in Cbus is still way better than it is other places. Within a 2 hours drive you have a world class road course, two drag strips, and two different auto-x events, not to mention all the dirt tracks and flat tracks. still in the 60's if you wanted LSR you options were B'ville and Muroc/el mirage. Now there are places like Loring and the texas mile, and also open road racing like in nevada and texas.

I try not to poop in a gas station bathroom, solves that problem. toilets get nasty here at work but never piss on the floor of the sit down stall nasty. Also they clean them 3 times a day and it's really easy to time bowel movements to when the cleaning person is just finishing up.

Rick, it was a great show. I'm just sorry I didn't get to meet you and couldn't stay past 10:30am.

I have been having this conversation with my dad a lot lately regarding our 1957 corvette. The prices for them have stalled - fuelie cars have been sitting at $116K for about 10 years now, which means they have actually gone down in value because of inflation. Some of the more common cars like 2x4bbl cars have dipped back down below 6 figures. Our friend Dominic who specialized in these cars is now giving and throwing away parts he used to get big dollars for because the demand just isn't there for them anymore. My father is convinced it is because anybody who wanted 1957 vettes is dying off right now (he doesn't even like it all that much and prefers the 58-60 model with the dual headlights) and no kid is going to pay $116K for a new bloomington gold certified car they can't drive without devaluing. I'll be honest I love the car, I bought the car (for $10K in 1996) first, and I wouldn't pay $116K for it if I had it to throw around. Of course I wouldn't sell it to anybody for less either unless it was an emergency or I died. I'm kind of hoping he gets up enough gumption to sell it now rather than make my brother and I figure it out when probating the will. My brother isn't a "hands on" car guy and couldn't maintain a car like that so we would both have to sell it and split it, because I am not paying him $58K to own it. These are the kind of problems we have to look forward to in the future, and it's not fun. If you want to see how the 50's-70's car hobby is going to end up, just look at the market for pre-war cars. the prices went flat, and over time they became cheap enough that you can get nice pre-war cars for less than most muscle cars. Iconic cars like the '32 ford and the Dusenberg will always hold their value, but something like a 1947 Ford is worth more to a hot rodder than as a stocker. yes people are always going to want old cars, but the reasons why will change. I can totally see all these NMCA, NCRS, and Bloomington Certified cars becoming more valuable as pro-toruing cars than restored stockers. Really? you too? it's not true, the youth generation loves cars. There is as much going on now as there was in the 1960's, maybe even more so. More track days, more grass roots racing, more auto-x, more drifting, hillclimbs, etc...

I was with you right up until you said, the person. Why? because regulating a person's behavior sometimes requires economic sanction or creating dis-incentivizing hurdles around a thing. either way the answer begins with study, and that is the study of people's interaction with this thing you don't want to talk about. They are working with what they have - and that is no research and being backed up into a corner by the opposition being hard-line that no control is acceptable. Start funding research and you'll start to see more measured approaches. But that means you need the NRA out of the way, and it isn't likely to happen any time soon. This is not an open position, and will not yield any productive conversation. You are talking about a person's relationship with something so the word Gun is going to come up. If you want to talk about mental illness, that's a completely different conversation. It's not unfounded hatred to talk about someone's relationship to something and discuss the something. They are funded by the people AND the gun industry. They are not a large organization, but they are very effective and influential. They work from the bottom up at a local, state, and then federal level. The message is "simple" and their communication structure is clear. When there is a vote, their people are aware of it and show up (as opposed to gun control advocates who are not as centralized, well funded, or resource rich). They are literally the model as to how to run a top tier effective campaign on a medium sized budget. They punch above their weight class constantly and it lands, everyone can learn something from them. But they are the current roadblock, esp now that the issue is more polarizing than ever. https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/30/why-the-nra-hates-smart-guns/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/05/why-obamas-smart-gun-push-will-misfire/ you are trying to simplify what is a complex issue. yes the tech isn't there, just like airbag tech wasn't there in the early days, or anything else that has to start somewhere. If you truly believe it will fail then why not let it fail and then nobody buys it and it goes away. Or even better, what's wrong with spending money to see if it can be made viable? and then if it isn't, we can cross it off. Again the NRA's position is no control is acceptable, no research is acceptable because no control is acceptable.

Everything comes with a price. But you know what? it doesn't stop us from making progress reducing the cost spent on all other activities. We went from nearly 50,000 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled in 1921 to less than 10,000 in 2014, all while the number of cars on the road increased by 1000+% through laws and government incentives that promoted safety innovation in the industry. We've done the same with medicine, with crime, with pretty much everything except guns. In 1977 someone came along and said "this is the price we have to pay" and then fought against every effort to make that "price" cost us less. It's not a natural situation - the natural situation is to keep moving toward efficiency but in this case it's intentionally stifled. Even when people invent a safety measure independently, the NRA has often interfered with their distribution or acceptance - citing it as an alternative form of "control". We a willing to have a remote key operate a 2 ton vehicle safely for hundreds of thousands of miles, but can't use the same tech to make sure a firearm can only be fired by one person? It's foolish.

Or he can title it the way homebuilt kit cars are titled. You get an inspection done with the highway patrol (bring all reciepts and photos of the build) and they give you a new vin. It's almost the same inspection for getting salvage cars back on the road. I'll add that you probably want a uni-body car if you are still going the body route. Its easier to explain "adding a roll cage" than building a new chassis if anybody starts to go sniffing about vin tampering. plus no frame to discard. some other food for thought: E28 BMWs (1985-1988 5 series) are 103.3" wheelbase as are the 6 series sharks from the 1980's.

Is it a frenzy? market is kinda soft at the moment. honestly if he was putting out feelers last year and got 6 figs offered - he should call that guy back and take it.

1) it's really hard to collect trustworthy research on something that is largely undocumented (like the private transfer sale). 2) It isn't the "whole" plan. If you go back and read my lengthy post you'll see there is a lot in there, of which....yeah....that thing that has a name: "The gun show loophole" is only a part of. 3) and yes there are people who generally say stuff and don't know what they are talking about. I kinda feel that way about nearly every pro-gun person that talks about the constitution and uses the words "shall not be infringed" as punctuation. What do you want me to say? there are lots of morons "on both sides", but there are a few that aren't. I was pretty clear about the "loophole" being specific to a class at sellers at gun shows that are basically using it to circumvent federal law (which is kind of the definition of loophole) and not apply to every private seller. So what else do you want? If you think I got something wrong then spell it out - don't be that asshole that just shits on a stereotype and runs. if you want to have a sensible conversation then be prepared to contribute. The Brady Bill and the 1968 Gun bill were not designed to stop "mass shootings", They were primarily designed to prevent anonymous presidential assassinations, to create a paper trail for evidence collection in the wake of a presidential assassination, and hopefully put some kind of initial check regarding selling guns to the mentally ill so they could carry out a presidential assassination. After it was reported that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle anonymously mail order the NRA and congress worked on a bill that restricted interstate sales of firearms anonymously. Following the attempted assassination of Reagan, the Brady Bill was put in motion to put some check in place on the mentally ill and ineligible people from getting guns through legal channels. Between those two events there were literally 17 mass shootings in this country where nothing changed. That 1968 bill and NRA sponsorship by the way was what led Harlan Carter to seize control of the NRA with his special brand of "shall not be infringed" nonsense - and kind of how we got here today. He firmly believed that no control law is acceptable ever, and mass shootings and criminals having guns is an acceptable price we pay for freedom (see...not a new concept). This is still 100% the position of the NRA and why we will never make progress on the issue. Any situation is a collection of risk factors. Legislation is one of the ways governments can mitigate risk factors. The current system could be more efficient, even if we are just looking to hold the status quo on the current level of legislative control - but in order to do that, the hard line no control is acceptable ever and "price of freedom" have to go for that to happen. If you believe that nothing can be done, you only add support to the hard-line position and nothing will get done.