Perhaps, but lots of people don't currently use Spotify, Pandora, or a similar service, and frankly we don't know what kind of pricing structure Tesla will make such a service available on. For all we know, if you buy a sufficiently up-optioned car this will just be enabled, or it may be a very low-cost option paid-for as part of the regular maintenance that Tesla offers as a package to the customer.
If Tesla automobiles have a longer service-life than a conventional petroleum-powered vehicle then a customer opting for a Tesla maintenance plan may be "subscribing" with them for more than a decade. This kind of content service might be right up their alley.
Musk is more of a modern-day Howard Hughes than a Da Vinci. It isn't to say that Musk isn't technical, clearly he has to be in order to be able to make intelligent decisions on the technical matters that his businesses are focused on, but he has lots and lots of people working for him and he's probably managing people much more than he's personally creating.
I expect that the goal is to provide a solution in-car that doesn't rely on third-party software or third-party services.
Third-party software running on the car's computers introduces the possibility for vulnerability that Tesla cannot itself patch to correct, and also introduces the possibility of the service's provider choosing to end the service and thus the car now no longer having the feature.
Think Blu-ray players and smart TVs that have Youtube clients that don't work anymore, or have i heart radio clients that don't work, or physical buttons on the remotes for Amazon or for Netflix and don't work.
If Tesla's goal is to ensure that those who drive Teslas don't have to concern themselves with this kind of minutia, then it makes sense that Tesla would seek to establish its own channels for this sort of content. By going directly to the labels themselves, with a definable, limited scope of use, they might be able to negotiate deals that are more ironclad and less open to argument that one party or the other is misusing content compared to the original terms.
Obviously this is only speculation since I do not work for Tesla or have any other special insight.
What remains to be seen is if Tesla would then seek to offer home-appliances similar to how there are home XM/Sirius satellite radio receivers and home HD-Radio receivers. It could be that Tesla will be limited to only in-car entertainment, or there could be a natural limit similar to those on the satellite radio market where there just aren't that many people that buy home-receviers.
Perhaps. I suppose it depends on if they've said nearly all things to all investors, or if there are some investors with a lot more involvement in what's really going on in the company and what its actual goals are.
I remember the dotcom boom, and stupid investors throwing money at anyone with a website URL registered. Hell, Zombo.com was set up as a joke and even they apparently were contacted by investors even though all that site had was a silly flash animation.
And I turned 20 back then too, and trust me, it really wasn't cool when everyone had either Chumbawumba's Amnesia or else The Proclaimer's 500 miles as their ringback tones.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go listen to some Aqua.
I don't think about them as a social-media company. I think of them as a company that masquerades as a ride-sharing company in order to avoid passenger livery laws in order to keep costs down while they work on their real service.
Before anyone starts ranting that Walmart is not a monopoly, there are two kinds of monopolies. Horizontal where the company controls a particular step of the process across the entire market, and vertical, where the company controls every aspect from beginning to end as much as possible and dictates all aspects of everything that the company deals with.
Walmart would be an example of a vertically-integrated monopoly in this sense. Perhaps not as naturally-so as, say, a steelworks from the late 19th and early 20th century where the company owned everything from the mining-claim to the trucks delivering fabricated parts to customers, but Walmart dictates terms to manufacturers moreso than just about any retail middleman had before, and continues the monolithic control all of the way from the importation process up through the cash register.
Oh I wholeheartedly agree. Their choice to pursue industrial espionage is the death-sentence for the company. If they're smart as a company they'll immediately scrap their entire self-driving program and probably fire/lay-off everyone that's ever worked on it or managed it and either start from scratch or else look for someone that's already making headway to partner-with, but then again, if they were smart they wouldn't have stolen someone else's development work in the first place.
When people first started talking about Uber and the combination of incredibly low prices and good service compared to taxis I was skeptical, mainly because I've known people that drive cabs and it doesn't seem like anyone makes all that much money. Cabbies can make living wages but they're driving a lot, cab company direct workers that maintain the vehicles and work in the offices make wages basically on-par wih similar jobs in other industries, and even though owners usually make the most money, they're not exactly earning the money to live a jet-set lifestyle. That tells me that with Uber, unless somehow they've magically figured out how to squeeze blood from a stone, they're operating in-the-red or with some other defiance of rules that cost money to follow. It appears that Uber is doing both, in that they have come up against regulations they're ignoring, and they're still running on venture capital money, not profitable. When you look at that, you need to ask yourself why they're doing what they're doing, and the only explanation that I can come up with is the one I posted above, that they're trying to become a big player in the future, and that now is just a stop-gap.
Honestly it will depend on what quality the users expect.
Over the last few years people on this forum as well as others have discussed what the future would look like with self-driving cars, and the discussion of the random-vehicle subscription model has always gotten back around the the state of the vehicle. Typically the concern is that the car will arrive trashed, or soiled, or some other issue similar to what we see on mass-transit or with taxis. It may well be that different customers will willingly pay for different classes of service, some paying for the cheapest-of-the-cheap will get the cars most likely to be in bad shape, while some paying more will get what's more analogous to a sedan service, where the cars are better inspected, better cleaned, and where customers that abuse the cars either pay inordinately to remain customers or are dropped from this class of service. The top form would be customers that pay for an exclusive vehicle that they retain for extended periods of time, possibly rotated-out as it's due for major maintenance, but that they do not have to necessarily store at home or at work when they're not actively traveling, or could be nearby on-standby when they're running errands and will be picked-up at some as-yet undetermined close future time.
The problem will be when it's no cheaper to subscribe to the service than to own. Even if future cars end up costing along the lines of the Tesla Model S or X, if the cars last a very long time then I would expect those who can afford to might want to own instead of using a service. In our household we keep cars a long time, and only replace when either the car no longer meets our needs, or when the frustration level grows so great that it's not worth the stress. We finally parted last-week with a sixteen year old car, and I have no doubt that we'll continue to see ownership of current cars for more than a decade. But there again, we live in a suburban area and not only have to drive everywhere anyway, but have room to keep vehicles garaged when they're not in use.
In a truly urban environment where the individual may not have ready access to parking it might well make sense to subscribe to a car service, but only if the quality of the service is sufficiently high and sufficiently inexpensive. Offhand it's difficult to own in cities like San Francisco, Boston, New York, Chicago. Population density is high enough that parking at home is challenging, and parking at work might be expensive if one has to lease space in a garage or lot. When those other costs are factored-in it might make sense to subscribe to a service for those who don't commute by some form of mass transit.
Until someone gets a viable, full-time, 100% self-driving car operating we really won't know what the market will look like though.
The whole point of current-Uber was to build the company to be ready to be a leader for self-driving technology, so that passengers are already used to summoning Uber when they need a ride. Since Uber didn't want to invest a lot of money in their own fleet of human-driven cars, they chose to contract-out so that they don't have to deal with depreciation of capital purchases and amortizing purchases over the duration of the life of the equipment, they just make the contractor do it.
Unfortunately they're starting to learn the hard way that first, developing self-driving technology is very difficult for the kind of market that Uber wants to serve, as urban areas are fraught with hazards and exceptional conditions that the car must be able to cope with, and second, that stealing someone else's technology to attempt to deal with one's own shortcomings is frowned-upon by the courts.
Uber as it exists right now is a chrysalis, it's not what the final form is supposed to be. Unfortunately it looks like that chrysalis is destined to whither and crumble rather than to produce a new, mature form, as the timing was off and the choices were bad. Uber wanted to be the leader in a world where people stopped owning their own cars and simply summoned robotic cars to move them around, but it looks like Uber misjudged the timing and in their desire to be first they forgot that sometimes those who blaze the trail end up heading off in the wrong direction.
I can actually refer to my own extended family as a bit of a case-study, my paternal grandparents had 17 children, eight of them boys. Dad was the last one, when Grandpa was 56 or so. There's no autism in the family, and Grandpa was a farmer and then retired-farmer when Dad was growing up, so it wasn't like he passed-on any particularly geeky habits or hobbies.
The later males did progressively better in their incomes and in having technical careers the further along, when discounting the first son, who ended up in the military (Army I think) during the occupation of Germany post-WWII and during the consolidation of NATO. The next couple remained farmers, after that they ended up in manufacturing, then argibusness, then finally my own father with his degree in computer science. And no, his father didn't pay for his education, so it wasn't a matter that as Grandpa approached his later years he used any extra funds to put his youngest boy through college that he couldn't do for the others.
Admittedly this is a very limited subset but it holds up in looking at this specific case.
The funny thing is that when I go to Whole Foods, it's because I'm looking for foodstuffs that are exotic and generally unavailable anywhere else. I don't go to them for mainstream food, that's what the local Kroger-owned grocery is for, or on rare occasions Safeway/Albertsons or even the locally-owned grocery chain.
I treat Whole Foods much the same way that I treat Trader Joes, which is for exotic stuff to supplement my main groceries. I have no need for another mainstream grocery store, I already have at least three to choose from, and I have plenty of discount grocery stores to choose from too. One more player is exceedingly unlikely to beat Kroger's prices in order to take my business, especially when the nearest three grocery stores are those Kroger-owned stores.
Amazon's change here is as mistake. It's a race to the bottom in a new market for them, a market that has lots of very well established players that know how to make money with the tiniest of overhead, where these players have dozens or even hundreds of stores for every Whole Foods location. Plus we've already seen the failures before, Fresh and Easy attempted to come in and slot themselves as an alternative to the grocery stores with prices somewhat close to groceries plus more convenience and they fell on their faces and closed-up. I don't see Amazon having any more success than that given that Amazon's model doesn't really apply well to either brick-and-mortar stores or to fresh food.
They could even take the approach that was originally required for DSL, where you pay one entity for the physical infrastructure usage, and pay a different entity for the final connection to the backbone of the Internet.
With modern routing you could even do it without having to result to changing physical patching, assuming that equipment used at the customer premises and at the network-equivalent of the neighborhood exchange or central office is capable of sub-line-rate service to the level that the customer is paying for and that the backbone linking NX or CO locations is sufficiently high-throughput.
If anything this approach would allow for more players, not fewer players, as providers would only have to cable-in infrastructure to the central offices instead of worrying about the last-mile links. This could allow for less expensive private WANs between multiple facilities within the metro-area; the customer with multiple locations could pay for their own private metro optical MLPS network without having to to onto the Internet for simple site-to-site networks.
Lastly it might make it easier for customers in less-desirable areas from a service-provider point of view to actually get service. This can affect both poor neighborhoods where an ISP might not expect enough adoption, and even some wealthier neighborhoods where the housing density is too low to make for a good return on the trenching or other infrastructure requirements to put the network in even if a lot of households want it.
I don't see any losing proposition except for ISPs that want monopoly or effective-monopoly positions in markets.
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
What we can do though, is to work to roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Unfortunately that means we have to play their game, form our own legal entities to do the speaking, to push for that change, and as we've seen they're a lot better than we are at organizing these kinds of things.
Yeah, the whole IT department is almost a hundred people including helpdesk, software developers for internal applications, software/application support, network, cable infrastructure, depot repair, field repair, device redeployment, copier and printer service, etc.
At times various functions were outsourced, and at our size it was always both slower and more expensive to outsource. Inevitably a preferred-vendor starts milking the relationship and regardless of how good the relationship is at the beginning it's shit within two to five years. Within the department we can usually keep on staff when they start underperforming.
It also helps keep the old guys entertained. We have guys that did component-level repair back when it was routinely necessary, so they're good at it and they enjoy it. Why no indulge when it helps with workplace morale?
We soldered caps when the entire of the line of Optiplex GX270s had bad caps. Had to change three or four per box. Times about 8,000 machines. Was cheaper to fix than to replace.
We solder caps on LCD panels. Takes about ten to fifteen minutes to do, caps cost almost nothing, monitor is fixed and pumped-back into the supply.
When you have 40,000 machines to take care of it makes sense to do some component-level repair, when that component-level repair can be done in-volume and with repeat, routine procedures. Same as when we fix our 4000 printers and 300 copiers, it makes sense to fix when volume makes up for the peculiarities in a given repair.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but lots of people don't currently use Spotify, Pandora, or a similar service, and frankly we don't know what kind of pricing structure Tesla will make such a service available on. For all we know, if you buy a sufficiently up-optioned car this will just be enabled, or it may be a very low-cost option paid-for as part of the regular maintenance that Tesla offers as a package to the customer.
If Tesla automobiles have a longer service-life than a conventional petroleum-powered vehicle then a customer opting for a Tesla maintenance plan may be "subscribing" with them for more than a decade. This kind of content service might be right up their alley.
Musk is more of a modern-day Howard Hughes than a Da Vinci. It isn't to say that Musk isn't technical, clearly he has to be in order to be able to make intelligent decisions on the technical matters that his businesses are focused on, but he has lots and lots of people working for him and he's probably managing people much more than he's personally creating.
I expect that the goal is to provide a solution in-car that doesn't rely on third-party software or third-party services.
Third-party software running on the car's computers introduces the possibility for vulnerability that Tesla cannot itself patch to correct, and also introduces the possibility of the service's provider choosing to end the service and thus the car now no longer having the feature.
Think Blu-ray players and smart TVs that have Youtube clients that don't work anymore, or have i heart radio clients that don't work, or physical buttons on the remotes for Amazon or for Netflix and don't work.
If Tesla's goal is to ensure that those who drive Teslas don't have to concern themselves with this kind of minutia, then it makes sense that Tesla would seek to establish its own channels for this sort of content. By going directly to the labels themselves, with a definable, limited scope of use, they might be able to negotiate deals that are more ironclad and less open to argument that one party or the other is misusing content compared to the original terms.
Obviously this is only speculation since I do not work for Tesla or have any other special insight.
What remains to be seen is if Tesla would then seek to offer home-appliances similar to how there are home XM/Sirius satellite radio receivers and home HD-Radio receivers. It could be that Tesla will be limited to only in-car entertainment, or there could be a natural limit similar to those on the satellite radio market where there just aren't that many people that buy home-receviers.
Perhaps. I suppose it depends on if they've said nearly all things to all investors, or if there are some investors with a lot more involvement in what's really going on in the company and what its actual goals are.
I remember the dotcom boom, and stupid investors throwing money at anyone with a website URL registered. Hell, Zombo.com was set up as a joke and even they apparently were contacted by investors even though all that site had was a silly flash animation.
They reformed. At least two of them didn't split up either, Lene and Soren got married and have a couple of kids now.
Their current sound is quite a bit darker, they basically made their own post-Goth versions of their earlier pop songs.
And I turned 20 back then too, and trust me, it really wasn't cool when everyone had either Chumbawumba's Amnesia or else The Proclaimer's 500 miles as their ringback tones.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go listen to some Aqua.
I don't think about them as a social-media company. I think of them as a company that masquerades as a ride-sharing company in order to avoid passenger livery laws in order to keep costs down while they work on their real service.
Sure, but isn't the point of offloading to a cloud-computing service to let someone else worry about the box?
Before anyone starts ranting that Walmart is not a monopoly, there are two kinds of monopolies. Horizontal where the company controls a particular step of the process across the entire market, and vertical, where the company controls every aspect from beginning to end as much as possible and dictates all aspects of everything that the company deals with.
Walmart would be an example of a vertically-integrated monopoly in this sense. Perhaps not as naturally-so as, say, a steelworks from the late 19th and early 20th century where the company owned everything from the mining-claim to the trucks delivering fabricated parts to customers, but Walmart dictates terms to manufacturers moreso than just about any retail middleman had before, and continues the monolithic control all of the way from the importation process up through the cash register.
Oh I wholeheartedly agree. Their choice to pursue industrial espionage is the death-sentence for the company. If they're smart as a company they'll immediately scrap their entire self-driving program and probably fire/lay-off everyone that's ever worked on it or managed it and either start from scratch or else look for someone that's already making headway to partner-with, but then again, if they were smart they wouldn't have stolen someone else's development work in the first place.
When people first started talking about Uber and the combination of incredibly low prices and good service compared to taxis I was skeptical, mainly because I've known people that drive cabs and it doesn't seem like anyone makes all that much money. Cabbies can make living wages but they're driving a lot, cab company direct workers that maintain the vehicles and work in the offices make wages basically on-par wih similar jobs in other industries, and even though owners usually make the most money, they're not exactly earning the money to live a jet-set lifestyle. That tells me that with Uber, unless somehow they've magically figured out how to squeeze blood from a stone, they're operating in-the-red or with some other defiance of rules that cost money to follow. It appears that Uber is doing both, in that they have come up against regulations they're ignoring, and they're still running on venture capital money, not profitable. When you look at that, you need to ask yourself why they're doing what they're doing, and the only explanation that I can come up with is the one I posted above, that they're trying to become a big player in the future, and that now is just a stop-gap.
Honestly it will depend on what quality the users expect.
Over the last few years people on this forum as well as others have discussed what the future would look like with self-driving cars, and the discussion of the random-vehicle subscription model has always gotten back around the the state of the vehicle. Typically the concern is that the car will arrive trashed, or soiled, or some other issue similar to what we see on mass-transit or with taxis. It may well be that different customers will willingly pay for different classes of service, some paying for the cheapest-of-the-cheap will get the cars most likely to be in bad shape, while some paying more will get what's more analogous to a sedan service, where the cars are better inspected, better cleaned, and where customers that abuse the cars either pay inordinately to remain customers or are dropped from this class of service. The top form would be customers that pay for an exclusive vehicle that they retain for extended periods of time, possibly rotated-out as it's due for major maintenance, but that they do not have to necessarily store at home or at work when they're not actively traveling, or could be nearby on-standby when they're running errands and will be picked-up at some as-yet undetermined close future time.
The problem will be when it's no cheaper to subscribe to the service than to own. Even if future cars end up costing along the lines of the Tesla Model S or X, if the cars last a very long time then I would expect those who can afford to might want to own instead of using a service. In our household we keep cars a long time, and only replace when either the car no longer meets our needs, or when the frustration level grows so great that it's not worth the stress. We finally parted last-week with a sixteen year old car, and I have no doubt that we'll continue to see ownership of current cars for more than a decade. But there again, we live in a suburban area and not only have to drive everywhere anyway, but have room to keep vehicles garaged when they're not in use.
In a truly urban environment where the individual may not have ready access to parking it might well make sense to subscribe to a car service, but only if the quality of the service is sufficiently high and sufficiently inexpensive. Offhand it's difficult to own in cities like San Francisco, Boston, New York, Chicago. Population density is high enough that parking at home is challenging, and parking at work might be expensive if one has to lease space in a garage or lot. When those other costs are factored-in it might make sense to subscribe to a service for those who don't commute by some form of mass transit.
Until someone gets a viable, full-time, 100% self-driving car operating we really won't know what the market will look like though.
The whole point of current-Uber was to build the company to be ready to be a leader for self-driving technology, so that passengers are already used to summoning Uber when they need a ride. Since Uber didn't want to invest a lot of money in their own fleet of human-driven cars, they chose to contract-out so that they don't have to deal with depreciation of capital purchases and amortizing purchases over the duration of the life of the equipment, they just make the contractor do it.
Unfortunately they're starting to learn the hard way that first, developing self-driving technology is very difficult for the kind of market that Uber wants to serve, as urban areas are fraught with hazards and exceptional conditions that the car must be able to cope with, and second, that stealing someone else's technology to attempt to deal with one's own shortcomings is frowned-upon by the courts.
Uber as it exists right now is a chrysalis, it's not what the final form is supposed to be. Unfortunately it looks like that chrysalis is destined to whither and crumble rather than to produce a new, mature form, as the timing was off and the choices were bad. Uber wanted to be the leader in a world where people stopped owning their own cars and simply summoned robotic cars to move them around, but it looks like Uber misjudged the timing and in their desire to be first they forgot that sometimes those who blaze the trail end up heading off in the wrong direction.
I was interested in computers until I made a career out of them. Now I'm interested in cars, and I make a living with computers.
Given that "reasoning adults" don't seem to be able to override the natural urge to not put one's dick away, apparently more is required.
I hope they remember to put the bolts into the satellite table mounting fixture prior to rotating it over to work on a different side.
I can actually refer to my own extended family as a bit of a case-study, my paternal grandparents had 17 children, eight of them boys. Dad was the last one, when Grandpa was 56 or so. There's no autism in the family, and Grandpa was a farmer and then retired-farmer when Dad was growing up, so it wasn't like he passed-on any particularly geeky habits or hobbies.
The later males did progressively better in their incomes and in having technical careers the further along, when discounting the first son, who ended up in the military (Army I think) during the occupation of Germany post-WWII and during the consolidation of NATO. The next couple remained farmers, after that they ended up in manufacturing, then argibusness, then finally my own father with his degree in computer science. And no, his father didn't pay for his education, so it wasn't a matter that as Grandpa approached his later years he used any extra funds to put his youngest boy through college that he couldn't do for the others.
Admittedly this is a very limited subset but it holds up in looking at this specific case.
The funny thing is that when I go to Whole Foods, it's because I'm looking for foodstuffs that are exotic and generally unavailable anywhere else. I don't go to them for mainstream food, that's what the local Kroger-owned grocery is for, or on rare occasions Safeway/Albertsons or even the locally-owned grocery chain.
I treat Whole Foods much the same way that I treat Trader Joes, which is for exotic stuff to supplement my main groceries. I have no need for another mainstream grocery store, I already have at least three to choose from, and I have plenty of discount grocery stores to choose from too. One more player is exceedingly unlikely to beat Kroger's prices in order to take my business, especially when the nearest three grocery stores are those Kroger-owned stores.
Amazon's change here is as mistake. It's a race to the bottom in a new market for them, a market that has lots of very well established players that know how to make money with the tiniest of overhead, where these players have dozens or even hundreds of stores for every Whole Foods location. Plus we've already seen the failures before, Fresh and Easy attempted to come in and slot themselves as an alternative to the grocery stores with prices somewhat close to groceries plus more convenience and they fell on their faces and closed-up. I don't see Amazon having any more success than that given that Amazon's model doesn't really apply well to either brick-and-mortar stores or to fresh food.
They could even take the approach that was originally required for DSL, where you pay one entity for the physical infrastructure usage, and pay a different entity for the final connection to the backbone of the Internet.
With modern routing you could even do it without having to result to changing physical patching, assuming that equipment used at the customer premises and at the network-equivalent of the neighborhood exchange or central office is capable of sub-line-rate service to the level that the customer is paying for and that the backbone linking NX or CO locations is sufficiently high-throughput.
If anything this approach would allow for more players, not fewer players, as providers would only have to cable-in infrastructure to the central offices instead of worrying about the last-mile links. This could allow for less expensive private WANs between multiple facilities within the metro-area; the customer with multiple locations could pay for their own private metro optical MLPS network without having to to onto the Internet for simple site-to-site networks.
Lastly it might make it easier for customers in less-desirable areas from a service-provider point of view to actually get service. This can affect both poor neighborhoods where an ISP might not expect enough adoption, and even some wealthier neighborhoods where the housing density is too low to make for a good return on the trenching or other infrastructure requirements to put the network in even if a lot of households want it.
I don't see any losing proposition except for ISPs that want monopoly or effective-monopoly positions in markets.
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
What we can do though, is to work to roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Unfortunately that means we have to play their game, form our own legal entities to do the speaking, to push for that change, and as we've seen they're a lot better than we are at organizing these kinds of things.
At least rivets can be drilled-out.
Sounds like you weren't up for some drilling that day.
Yeah, the whole IT department is almost a hundred people including helpdesk, software developers for internal applications, software/application support, network, cable infrastructure, depot repair, field repair, device redeployment, copier and printer service, etc.
At times various functions were outsourced, and at our size it was always both slower and more expensive to outsource. Inevitably a preferred-vendor starts milking the relationship and regardless of how good the relationship is at the beginning it's shit within two to five years. Within the department we can usually keep on staff when they start underperforming.
We found a sale on files, we felt we needed to use them somehow.
It also helps keep the old guys entertained. We have guys that did component-level repair back when it was routinely necessary, so they're good at it and they enjoy it. Why no indulge when it helps with workplace morale?
We soldered caps when the entire of the line of Optiplex GX270s had bad caps. Had to change three or four per box. Times about 8,000 machines. Was cheaper to fix than to replace.
We solder caps on LCD panels. Takes about ten to fifteen minutes to do, caps cost almost nothing, monitor is fixed and pumped-back into the supply.
When you have 40,000 machines to take care of it makes sense to do some component-level repair, when that component-level repair can be done in-volume and with repeat, routine procedures. Same as when we fix our 4000 printers and 300 copiers, it makes sense to fix when volume makes up for the peculiarities in a given repair.
Heh. Given the stupid rule changes imposed by NASCAR I bet many would be happy to drive the chassis from a decade ago.