rlips,
I certainly request your "crew chief's" wishes. I was just thinking more from the aesthetic, as opposed to the technical standpoint. As nice as your cars looks on the inside, I'm curious as to how it looks on the outside. But if there's stuff you guys don't want the world to see, I understand. Best of luck on the track!
And now to lurch into the off-topic realm of controversy - the thing that irritates me about the "occupy" crowd is their obsession with income disparity. Why is it a bad thing for people who have worked hard, made sacrifices, and taken great risks, to have more money, even a lot more, than those who haven't? And even more to the point, even if one concedes that income disparity
is a bad thing, what exactly are we supposed to do about it? Take money (and possessions?) from wealthy people, and give it, gratis, to those with less? Who decides who has "too much"? Or whether person A earned their money in a more or less "noble" fashion than person B?
The only mechanism I've heard that's geared toward "leveling the field" is to tax wealthy people at a higher rate than they are today, but while that may reduce the deficit, it only transfers money from wealthy people to the government, not to poorer people, at least not directly.
Here's a hypothetical: Let's say someone offered you a deal that your income will triple overnight. And that somehow, magically (this is a hypothetical, after all), prices and interest rates remain unchanged, so your standard of living will in fact dramatically improve. There's only one small catch - at the same time, the income of every "one-percenter" in the country will go up ten-fold. So, you're much better off, but the fat cats are now WAY better off, and the degree of income disparity becomes astronimical. Would you take that deal? I'd take it in a nanosecond.
