PDA

View Full Version : Official list of Ferraris that K_G can drive.


King_Ghidra
23-10-2007, 13:18:14
1. http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/228725/

2. This is debateable, but possible: http://www.prezzybox.com/products/index.aspx?pid=2627

3. http://www.hobbytron.com/Remote-Control-Ferrari-360-Modena-RTR-1-10-Scale-Race-Car.html

Venom
23-10-2007, 13:21:03
Go with the red Modeno.

MoSe
23-10-2007, 13:39:30
but that's RC's!

Aredhran
23-10-2007, 14:03:19
I know I just posted this one for Venom, but I think it's gay enough for K_G too :D

http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/hello_ferrari.jpg

C.G.B. Spender
23-10-2007, 14:04:30
:love:

King_Ghidra
23-10-2007, 14:06:13
that is almost as much of an abomination as the HK darth vader outfit

Aredhran
23-10-2007, 14:38:18
Would be a perfect paint job for Don "Sonny Crockett" Johnson though wouldn't it ?

OldWarrior_42
24-10-2007, 14:15:44
C

Resource Consumer
24-10-2007, 15:31:00
Well, I've sold the Porsche now. It was a bit of a pain in the end.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-10-2007, 15:34:10
Well, you weren't supposed to put it there, you know...

King_Ghidra
24-10-2007, 16:01:47
arf arf

Shining1
24-10-2007, 23:14:17
:lol:

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:22:11
http://www.nahpco.com/images/1003_400_1.jpg

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:29:29
In all seriousness you can buy a used mid-1990's Ferrari for around US $45k-$55k and an 1980's model for around US $20k. If you really just had to have a Ferrari and didn't mind driving a 12-15 year old Ferrari then it should be possible.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=222520769&dealer_id=45445211&car_year=1994&marketZipError=false&awsp=false&search_type=used&num_records=&keywordsfyc=&make=FER&model=&transmission=&distance=0&address=92126&make2=&default_sort=priceDESC&advanced=&certified=&max_mileage=&max_price=&sort_type=priceDESC&min_price=&body_code=0&end_year=2000&keywordsrep=&color=&start_year=1981&drive=&search_lang=&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&engine=&fuel=&doors=&style_flag=1&cardist=1715

That link is for a 1994 348 Spider at US $49k so in pounds sterling that's an asking price of just 24,317.66. If you bargain hard you could likely get it for less. Good luck affording the gas in the UK though.

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:30:18
I think you might have missed the point about why he's only allowed to drive the Ferrari's mentioned. No licence!

King_Ghidra
25-10-2007, 09:30:31
the main obstacle here oerdin is a lack of a driving licence, not the money

btw re the pic, you can keep the car i'll take the girl

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:32:48
The get off your ass and get a license! :p

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:33:53
I actually do have a licence but haven't used it for about 12 years.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:34:25
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
btw re the pic, you can keep the car i'll take the girl

Dude! She's like 12.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:35:25
Originally posted by Funko
I actually do have a licence but haven't used it for about 12 years.

Why? Seriously, even good public transit sucks so just buy an old Ford/Honda/Rover or something.

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:35:33
She doesn't look 12... I'd guess early 20s

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:37:48
Not a chance. Definitely under 16.

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:38:22
Originally posted by Oerdin
Why? Seriously, even good public transit sucks so just buy an old Ford/Honda/Rover or something.

Too expensive, too much traffic, great local public transport, I live walking distance from the town centre and a hub train station with good connections to most of the UK. It's just not worth it.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:46:36
What about transporting groceries home? It has to be harder to carry things home and you'd lose more time since you'd have to shop more often since you're limited to what you can carry in one trip. Plus what happens if you buy a large item like new furniture? It would be annoying to ask friends or pay extra for delivery.

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:50:55
There's only 2 of us, we don't eat that much and we have rucksacks... we could just order online and get the supermarket to deliver if we were too lazy to carry it.

We just get furniture delivered if we buy that. Much less hassle than transporting it yourself. If we did have a car I doubt it'd be big enough for carrying large furniture in anyway.

Funko
25-10-2007, 09:58:07
They reckon it costs about £3000 on average per year, including depreciation, in the UK to own a car, before you put any petrol in it.

Apparently a UK car does on average 9000 miles a year, say you get 30MPG, that'd be about 1100 litres of petrol. Petrol just hit £1 a litre so £1100.

So say £4100 a year, my train season ticket is £840 a year, so by not having a car I've got £3300 a year to spend on beer, taxis, furniture delivery charges, holidays etc.

A no brainer.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 09:59:55
Just wow. Don't you ever want to go some where the bus or train doesn't go? I know as soon as I turned 16 my friends and I were always driving off to camp or hike in the back country where no mass transit would go even if we had decent mass transit.

Then there are weekend trips, going some where romantic with the lady friend, the feeling of freedom which comes from doing things exactly when you want to and not on someone else's schedule, or enjoying a Sunday drive.

Buy an older car and depreciation doesn't matter because it has already lost everything it can lose. Buy an older Japanese car and it will likely have many useful miles left in it without repairs. Even if you barely use it the fact that you'll get years worth of useful service makes it worth while.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 10:04:32
If a cash straped Finnish student like Pekka can afford a car then surely you could as well. I've already listed numerous examples of where having a car would be beneficial as compared to mass transit. Cars = Freedom or at least a certain amount of freedom to travel which mass transit can't equal.

Funko
25-10-2007, 10:07:36
Maybe, but I'd rather have the money.

I have found that once someone's owned a car, they can't imagine life without one (from what I've seen/heard, in the states you really can't manage without one unless you live in a city like New York...), if you've never had one you just get round all that stuff and it's fine. The examples you've mentioned don't seem like enough.

I can always rent a car if I really want one, although not sure I'd trust myself to drive it after so long.

King_Ghidra
25-10-2007, 10:08:25
I'm 100% with funko. Maybe you think the last 15 years of my life have been hell/boring, oerdin.

Greg W
25-10-2007, 10:15:59
I'd suggest they've been more :brwncard:

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-10-2007, 10:22:49
Originally posted by Oerdin
Just wow. Don't you ever want to go some where the bus or train doesn't go?

You're dealing with city kids so far. If you don't live in a city, life in Britain is tricky if you don't have a car.

I would certainly struggle without one.

Debaser
25-10-2007, 10:23:39
I totally agree too. Occasionally when it's pouring with rain or I'm late for work I wish I had a car, but 99% of the time I'm glad I don't. There are loads of people in my office who live about a 15 minutes walk away but couldn't imagine not driving it. They think I'm insane for walking a pleasant 45 minute walk through the uni campus and along some nice leafy roads every morning & evening, and kind of pity me for doing it, but it's great. On a nice clear morning, with good tunes on my iPod it's pretty much the best part of my day.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 10:24:17
Not boring, just extremely different and more constrained. In most major US cities there are certain areas, usually the older pre-WW2 areas, where it is viable to live without a car or even difficult to own a car due to lack of place to put it. Most of the US has been built since WW2 though plus even the older inner cities have had considerable redevelopment to allow them to accommodate cars via underground parking, public parking garages, roadway tunnels, or elevated freeways.

My big problem wouldn't be living without mass transit if I lived in the right area but instead would be the in ability to go to places I wanted just because I wanted instead of because I needed to go. Like going to a national park, to visit a friend who lives beyond the regular transit stops, or wanting to shop some where which wasn't connected to the light rail system.

Just different outlooks, I guess. It doesn't mean I think your life is boring but it does mean that I'd feel much more limited compared to what I normally do. Of course, the trolley & rail system in San Diego just can't compare to Greater London as it is much (X 1,000) smaller and you have to wait longer for each train to arrive. In reality my friends and I only use mass transit when we want to go drinking downtown and don't want to bother with a DD, if we're on jury duty or something, or if we're going to a major event where the traffic would just be hell. I also used to use Amtrak to go back and forth from home & college but that took longer then driving plus it cost more then paying for gas.

Other then that people drive because they want to go where they want, when they want, and because they can control who they travel with. That's always been the issue in the US and the only places mass transit has really made head way are in extremely dense cities (NYC, San Francisco, older parts of Boston, etc) which were built prior to the car being universal and so where having a car is virtually useless.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 10:35:00
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You're dealing with city kids so far. If you don't live in a city, life in Britain is tricky if you don't have a car.

I would certainly struggle without one.

I remember when my father's family came to visit from Scotland and my dad's uncle (then in his mid 70's) told me he had the same car I had. It was a Ford Escort. In the US it was known as a crappy car for students or poor people while in the UK I guess it was more of a family car or at least the size of car many families own. It was kind of an awkward moment in trans-Atlantic understanding for me.

My dad's family all lives in rural Scotland though so they didn't question the need or utility of owning a car. I guess this might be more of a urban-suburban-rural divide then a trans-Atlantic divide. Other then the obvious fact that the US/Canada are larger places then the UK and so have more rural places.

Funko
25-10-2007, 10:36:29
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You're dealing with city kids so far. If you don't live in a city, life in Britain is tricky if you don't have a car.

I would certainly struggle without one.

Reading's only a town! :cry:

Laz is right though, it is different outside towns and cities here. Everyone I know who grew up outside a city got their own transport as soon as they were legally able. Even now lots of people in our age group and social group who live in similar areas to us in town have cars, usually because they need them for work, or because they came from a more rural area originally. K_G and I are lucky enough to work places with nice easy rail links.

A lot of people in the UK definitely would agree with you on the freedom issue too.

One of the things that really surprised me in the US when we were staying with Lurker in New Jersey was that the vast majority of roads didn't have sidewalks. There was a parade of shops and some kind of ice rink centre or something about 100m down the road, but there's no way to safely walk to it so you'd basically have to drive to it which seems insane.

Although on the plus side you could get the bus direct into New York from the end of his road.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 10:59:34
"Other then that people drive because they want to go where they want, when they want, and because they can control who they travel with."

Well, you can forget about the first two in most european cities.

Funko
25-10-2007, 11:01:03
:lol: - FACT

Greg W
25-10-2007, 11:03:15
While you could live without a car in Sydney, you'd have to live near the inner city, cos out past that the public transport is barely worthy of the name at times.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 11:08:51
The lack of or availability of sidewalks in the US depend almost entirely on local and state law. Originally the track home builders of suburbia didn't include sidewalks and that wasn't an accident.

This was a deliberate act as back during 1945-1965 not building sidewalks in suburbs was decided for two main reasons: 1) the developers were trying to make the suburbs feel like the country (that's how suburbs were marketed; as a bit of country close to the city) and 2) there was a belief that anyone so poor as to not be traveling by car was an undesirable and so to deter crime side walks should not put in. It didn't hurt that not building sidewalks or street lamps saved developers money.

Many cities quickly learned that kids playing in streets with traffic wasn't good and so laws began to change in some states requiring not just sidewalks, but street lamps (previously only required in high density urban areas), cross walks, sometime even bike lanes and a line of trees planted between sidewalks and roads to protect walkers from cars.

All of this varied by state or even county or city though. The big urban states which experienced suburban sprawl first (New York, California, Florida) were the first and most aggressive in putting new regulations on development while other states had a near total hands off approach and continue it to this day. Sometimes when you travel across America it feels like you're in 50 seporate countries which just use the same currency and flag.

Funko
25-10-2007, 11:10:03
Interesting info, thanks.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 11:15:14
It was just about the only useful thing I got out of the Geography of Urban Design class they made me take in college as a G.E..

I still own the book they used during the class... It was called "The Geography of No Where" and was written by a UC Berkley Professor who really hated suburban sprawl. Still, many of his arguments about suburbs being terrible urban design models proved true and the author was key in changing state law here in California during the late 60's and early 70's.

Not that the new laws stopped suburban sprawl but it at least made suburbia a slightly more tolerable place.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 11:24:22
http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-Landscape/dp/0671888250

That's the book. The thing I didn't like was how the author went on and on about how wonderful American cities were prior to cars. If they were so wonderful then why did everyone rush to embrace cars?

Clearly something was lacking so new and improved urban design will still have to solve those problems or people won't accept it.

Oerdin
25-10-2007, 11:55:53
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"Other then that people drive because they want to go where they want, when they want, and because they can control who they travel with."

Well, you can forget about the first two in most european cities.

Is this because almost all of them were built prior to cars, meaning roads are to narrow, or is it because of a disagreement in urban design models?

It seems like many European cities were destroyed in WW2 so they could have been redesigned with cars in mind if people chose to. So either Europeans didn't want to accommodate cars in their urban rebuilding plans, for what ever reason, or maybe poverty in the immediate post war period meant that urban planners thought of cars as unneeded luxuries instead of as daily necessaries like the Americans did.

It just seems like the immediate post war period is where American and European views suddenly diverge on this issue. Up to the 1930's every American city had a good light rail system, some sort of heavy rail connection to other places, and intercity buses. Some cities had even coughed up for subways. Post WW2 Americans spent all that cash on ways to accommodate cars with 10 lane freeways, tunnels, and even elevating freeways to go over historic zones if it was needed. Europe continued to old mass transit model.

Funko
25-10-2007, 12:34:05
Not as exciting as that, a lot of the time cities were just rebuilt with the existing street layouts. I don't think anyone in the 40s envisaged the current levels of car ownership, and we tend to have many more people in a much smaller area than in the states. The UK has 60m people in an area the size of Michigan.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 12:35:14
To some extent, the cities have been designed (and rebuilt) following a non-car model. I suppose after WWII mobility was a luxury and not the primary concern.

Here, the city's built area was about 5 km2 in 1940, now it's alomst 30 km2. Density has fallen a lot, however. The low-density areas have been built since the 1960 or 70s, mostly.

The car problem usually concerns maybe 10 % of the city, the center and a few key roads. Apart from that it's no problem really.

King_Ghidra
25-10-2007, 12:40:04
I'm worried that this thread has become both interesting and informative. Please stop this now.

Venom
25-10-2007, 12:41:37
It's not interesting. Don't worry.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 12:53:06
And don't stop.

MoSe
25-10-2007, 12:59:51
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Well, you can forget about the first two in most european cities.

but the 3rd reason alone might justify for someone being stuck in a queue, but at least with your private room around you and everyone else shut off.

Being packed *** in a public transport that you have to wait for long, creeps forward slowly and doesn't often deliver you near your actual destination, doesn't make a lot of difference regardin the frist twopoints anyway.

***and I mean with your nose in someone else's armpit, someone's elbow in your ribs, and with something else I don't mention prodding you somewhere else I don't mention either

MoSe
25-10-2007, 13:03:19
Originally posted by Funko
K_G and I are lucky enough to work places with nice easy rail links.

A lot of people in the UK definitely would agree with you on the freedom issue too.



Should you have to apply for a new job, how would you make clear that public transports reachability is a serious issue for you?

Albeit in need (hypotetically), would you maybe not even apply for a job requiring you to drive a car to reach it?

Funko
25-10-2007, 13:14:43
Well I've got a licence, if I had to get a car I'd have to get one. I'd hope to get enough of a pay bump to more than pay for it.

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-10-2007, 14:30:44
Originally posted by Oerdin
I remember when my father's family came to visit from Scotland and my dad's uncle (then in his mid 70's) told me he had the same car I had. It was a Ford Escort. In the US it was known as a crappy car for students or poor people while in the UK I guess it was more of a family car or at least the size of car many families own. It was kind of an awkward moment in trans-Atlantic understanding for me.



The larger US cars don't work well in Britain. They're too big, too soft in the suspension, too thirsty, and don't corner well. Our roads don't treat them kindly.

If you're living in Scotland, an Escort makes far more sense than a Cadillac or big Ford.

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-10-2007, 14:35:32
If I want to get the bus to work, there's one bus an hour (so you're tied to the scheduling) and each journey takes 80 minutes. Total cost 8.50.

If I use my car (Park and ride), each journey takes 40 minutes. It probably works out more expensive, but then I also have a car to use outside work and at least 80 minutes more free time every day.

Walking/bike? 10 miles each way, across big hills. No thanks.

Train? There isn't one.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 14:37:50
The bus takes 80 Min for 10 miles?

MoSe
25-10-2007, 15:54:46
why not?

depends on routes and stops
after all it's just double the time than with his car

it doesn't surprise me much

Funko
25-10-2007, 15:57:48
If I was in Mr. And the Gimp's situation I'd have a car...

MoSe
25-10-2007, 16:15:06
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If I want to get the bus to work
The bus is not working?
For sure you can fix it with your DIY superpowers!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 16:17:55
Not if Greg has destroyed it.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 16:18:57
Originally posted by Funko
If I was in Mr. And the Gimp's situation I'd have a car...

Or if you had a car, you would be in Gimp's situation....

Funko
25-10-2007, 16:21:20
Living in the countryside near bristol?

MoSe
25-10-2007, 16:23:14
"bristols"?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-10-2007, 16:24:07
Originally posted by Funko
Living in the countryside near bristol?

Exactly.