Temptation.

It had been a while since I'd driven that stretch of freeway. The last thousand or so times I'd been through here, it was bumpy, and constantly narrowing from the right as lanes disappeared. Badly lit too, with lights only at the outside. Now though, the I405 between Bolsa Chica and Hwy 22 had been transformed into a two mile stretch of well lit, straight, flat and above all wide concrete. And it got me to thinking...

Not that I could make any real use of it. Traffic was too heavy, even at midnight on a Saturday. And anyway, the Focus is badly in need of a clutch replacement. But you couldn't escape the idea that at a different time (say, 3:30am on a Tuesday) big speed would be possible here. In the right car, really big speed.

Now of course it's illegal to drive at more than 65 miles per hour on the I 405, and almost everyone disregards that speed limit to some degree. I'm not about to get involved in a conversation about the moral aspects of using a performance car's capabilities on public roads except to say that I think the argument is a stupid one. Everyone's capability behind the wheel is different, and planning for the lowest common denominator on the road carries as many problems as it solves. The law is the law, and you're bound to respect it, and none of us do. And keep in mind here that I'm not talking about running to top speed. Nothing committed, or focused, where a driver might feel bound to continue in the face of danger and through groups of other road users. Just the act of holding back until you're alone on the road, flooring the throttle, feeling the rush of acceleration, and backing out with room to spare.

It's a sad fact that there are damn few places where a motorist can use his or her car without those tax collectors in the black and white painted sedans chasing you down and ruining three years of mandatory insurance payments just to suck a few hundred dollars out for doughnut supplies. This stretch is no different in that respect, but play your cards right and you'll have the moral high ground here. With this much forward viability, there's simply no way you can hit anything, as long as you brake early, and don't mess around when other cars are around you. That means not being an asshat about it. That means actually taking the time to think about what you're doing, and whether or not you're putting others at risk by creating a huge speed differential with other road users, or pushing your car (and yourself) farther than you're comfortable with, or capable of.

And let's not pretend that big speed doesn't come with increased inherent risk. It does, and you need to recognize that, and take steps (many of which we've already discussed) to minimize those risks, especially where they pertain to others. To make sure that if you do have a really effing big one, you have it alone, and suffer the consequences of your actions. That said, in many countries, and in experiments here in the U.S. delimitation has actually led to lower accident rates, and lower rates of fatality.

In the end, I went through that stretch of I405 at one of the slowest rates ever. even without the duff clutch, the Focus has never sported what you'd call scintillating power, merely sufficient given the chassis' ability to maintain momentum. It'll be a while before I can afford a car that can make sense of that freeway, and even when I can, I'm not sure I'll actually take advantage it. It's a lot of risk for a few seconds worth of adrenaline. Still, it's tempting.

Thoughts On The Mclaren F1.

As I mentioned in a post a couple days ago, I recently got to ride in one of the most amazing cars in the world, the Mclaren F1. This is an opportunity that doesn't come along very often, so I thought I would take a little time to expand on whatever insights I could offer thanks to my brief and slightly overwhelming trip.

First off, my ride was, quite literally, around the block. So I'm not sure that I can glean much that hasn't been said by much more experienced hacks. I did though, for one instant, get shown that I had never, never been in a really fast car before. I've driven some cars with over 400bhp, and all wheel drive, but they're pale shadows of the acceleration offered up by the Mclaren. Nothing, I have ever felt, compares with the huge push of that BMW V12.

Beyond that, the sheer sound of going fast in the F1 is unlike anything I've ever heard. the car seems to have three settings, burble, roar, and overrun. The car can run just about everywhere through town without going above its fast idle. But when the throttle is opened more than a crack, the motor's whole tone changes, and everything starts to happen very quickly. the engine wakes up ans shouts its approval of the situation as the car is thrown up the road. We must have covered 300 ft before my brain caught up with what was going on, and I don't think the owner floored it. Second gear is demolished in an instant of noise and violence, and third seems to take no longer to run out. All the while the engine is yelling at you right over your shoulder; if you turn your head to the side, you can look right at it as it powers you along. The noise is just as powerful when the throttle is closed, with a series of percussive pops and bangs from the exhaust on the overrun. The sum of all this vocal talent is one of the richest, most involving rides I've ever had. though I do wonder what all that racket would be like day to day.

Another thing I can tell you about the Mclaren is that I don't fit in it. Working for several months at an 11-hour desk job has made me fat and weak, and the car's tiny passenger pods, mounted wither side of the driver are just not up to absorbing my increased mass. Maybe it's an insurance policy on the light weight of the F1; perhaps Gordon Murry didn't want passengers adding so much weight that they could affect the performance and handling, I don't know. What I do know is that a Mclaren is the best weight loss incentive I can think of; a person will do anything they car in order to fit inside and experience the unique sensations it produces.

It's a very attractive car too, and not one that looks its best in photos. I've always liked the way it looks, but at the same time, I've always preferred the beautiful, full curves of Jaguar's XJ-220, or the more alien angles of Lamborghini's Diablo, or Murcielago. In person though, the Mclaren attracts the eye with its better proportions, and more interesting graphic. It is also pleasingly small. I know that's not new information, but until you see it in person, it won't dawn on you just how good a packaging job the crew at Mclaren did. The Jaguar by comparison looks like acres of useless extravagance.

But the most profound thing I discovered while riding in the Mclaren, was a new understanding of the word quality. In many cars, as with all consumer durables, there is a tendency to take the idea of quality and tack it onto a product. The current Bugatti Veyron is an example of what I mean. While I'm sure it's a terribly capable thing, and that sitting in it must be a luxurious and indulgent experience, I'm convinced that much of what goes into the Veyron's feeling of luxury is facade. The cabin is swathed in miles of leather. Every control not wrapped in cow sees to be made of knurled and rare mineral.

But it's all added in later. In the Mclaren, most of what you come in contact with is made out of the lightest thing that could be found to do the job, and there's as little of it as can be made hospitable. Much of what you see, and touch is the bare structure of the car, and all of it interfaces with the mechanics as directly as possible. Those mechanics are also as light, ans strong as they could be made, and they're tuned to feedback as much of the road as you can take. it's this sense of quality being engineered into the tiniest of components, until it pervades the car as a whole, that sets the Mclaren apart from cars like the Veyron, and maybe even more so, the Spyker. there's now jewelry, not barrier between you and the parts of the car you came to enjoy.

In terms of that other great love of gearheads everywhere, the watch, it's the difference between a Hublot Big Bang, and a Stainless-Steel Rolex Cosmograph Daytona. The Hublot is a fine thing, and both are totally unnecessary in a world where a Casio can tell time just as well. But in the Rolex, all the sense of quality comes from the machine itself. There is no mother of pearl, or tacked on carbon fibre; there's no frippery. It's just a machine, one that's been designed from the start, to do it's job better than any other machine like it on the planet. Likewise the Mclaren is just a car, one that just happens to be the best I've ever encountered. Not bad for around the block huh?

Thoughts On The New Lotus.

Well, my first thought is that Lotus need to get away from this whole E-name thing into which they've gotten themselves. I know, it dates all the way back to Chapman thinking that just using numbers to identify cars wouldn't work for the public and naming the Type-14 the Elite, but Evora (though certainly better than Eagle) is a bit of a stretch.

On the plus side, I think it's quite good looking. It's a little thing, which is pleasing in this day and age. It carries a reasonable air of luxury as well, which is a welcome return for Lotus; as much as I like cars like the Elise/Exige, the world isn't totally composed of smooth switchbacks, and sometimes you just end up sitting in traffic.

Let's talk about the styling for a minute. While many on the Internet have been complaining that the car is somehow too ordinary and perhaps uninspired, I tend to see it as pleasingly balanced in overall form, with some nice details that don't go far enough to overturn the understated air the car manages. It's quite low, and carries a strong profile, while details like the concave sills, the rear ducting, and the way the window lines come together to meet the roof at the same spot, are I think, particularly well accomplished. I've heard the front likened to that of the Lotus-based Tesla Roadster, but I can only think that to be a comment on the first picture leaked, because from other angles, the resemblance is lessened.

On the performance front, little is certain because Lotus are being coy on the matter. With under 3,000lbs being pushed by 276bhp and 250lb-ft from a Toyota sourced, 3.5-liter V6, the car should end up being rather quick without quite breaking into the super car league. That weight is delivered in spite of the Evora's aforementioned level of luxury and the fact that, despite being a mid-engine car, it's a 2+2 as well (though the rear seats are apparently so tiny that they fail to show up in press photos). In any case, less than 5.0-seconds to 60mph, coupled with a top speed in the 160mph+ range seem to be safe bets.


The luxury angle really is being played heavily by Lotus, even the photos reveal a cockpit that's one of the most stylish and complete in the company's history. Starting with much wider doors than the Elise that give access to high-backed Recaro seats and such niceties as an Alpine touch-screen entertainment system with Sat-Nav, ipod hookup, and DVD; all contained within an attractive sweep of dash, leading to an aluminum gauge cluster combining analog clocks with rather red LCDs.

The chassis is the first for some time that Lotus hasn't based on the Elise. Though still using the extruded and bonded aluminum that has become as much Lotus trademark as the steel backbone used to be, the chassis is none the less fundamentally different to the Elise and Europa and is the first application of Lotus' VVA (Versatile Vehicle Architecture) the Evora will employ the usual Lotus aluminum wishbones at each end, along with four-wheel disks and ABS.

So, it's a new car from Lotus, and that in itself is something to celebrate. It looks to be a good one as well, which is more important in many ways than being the lightest, or the quickest. Lotus can do those things already, it needs to learn how to make it's cars usable and reliable. The Toyota connection has undoubtedly helped the latter, though I for one do wish that Lotus had gone somewhere else for this V6 as both Honda and Nissan make better 3.5-liter engines, the Honda being especially nice. That motor does seem to be hung right at the limit of what can be called a mid-ship placement, and I'd be interested to read the weight distribution, but then, Lotus must know what they're doing. Right now though, I'm excited for this car. The price in Britain is something like $90,000, which seems a bit steep, but I wouldn't expect one-to-one pricing when it comes to the US. This is the first car in a while that might get me to think about something other than a Cayman or 911 if I come into that kind of money in the near future. It's pretty, it's light, it's quick, it's well done, and it's a Lotus. I can't wait.

Thoughts On The Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione.

It seems like everyone, from Winding Road, to Evo, to my boss is absolutely gaga over Alfa's new super car and I can't say that I blame them. It's a beautiful car, and exclusive as well with only 500 units scheduled for production, expensive too at around $250,000. I don't really want to like this car as I don't think of it as a real Alfa Romeo, but as a Ferrari/Maserati hybrid with a serpent badge stuck on the front. That may not be an entirely fair description of the car as I'm sure that Alfa's engineers have done a lot of work to make their new version of the Ferrari/Maserati V8 work in the way they desire, and the Maserati Gran Turismo chassis has undergone significant revision aside from a fair bit of shortening up. Still, the fact that those items are on the car at all kind of irks me because, you see, I remember when Alfa were perfectly capable of making their own super cars from scratch.

It wasn't really all that long ago, maybe fifteen years, maybe a little more, shortly after the takeover by Fiat, that Alfa produced its last truly desirable car. It was called the SZ, for Sport Zagato and it was indeed Zagato who built the body, though it was designed Robert Opron at Fiat Design. It was a different sort of super car, on that harked to lightweight specials of the past not in style, but in substance. It was also a real Alfa, with it's power-train and underpinnings taken directly from the company's touring car version of the 75.



The styling would prove to be the car's calling card, and one of the limiting factors in its appeal. Very much in the angular mode of the time, it was however a stretch even for the customer of the late eighties raised on Mk I MR-2s and Lamborghini Countach posters. Its strange mix of straight lines and curves combined with slightly odd proportions to be punctuated by a distinctive, but challenging fascia. It wasn't pretty, but you could look at it for days without getting bored. Inside was a well trimmed, albeit spartan cabin, with a carbon-fiber fascia that was still novel at the time. the whole car was set off by a carbon spoiler at the back, and perhaps the most beautiful rendition of Alfa's traditional "phone-dial" alloys ever made.

The chassis was based on the floor pan of the 75 sedan, but suspension geometries were changed and the racer's coil springs replaced the torsion bars that dated back to the Alfetta. The suspension update, when combined with low-profile Pirelli P-Zero tires and the effects of aerodynamic downforce produced cornering power in excess of 1.4g, an impressive feat even today.

That cornering power did its best to compensate for the cars other weakness, its engine. There was nothing wrong with the 3.0liter V6, but in SOHC form it produced only 210bhp, a figure which was hardly going to set the world alight. What was often overlooked was that the car weighed in a 2769lbs (725lbs less than the 8C) which, while hardly making the car a lightweight, allowed it to scoot from 0-62 (with two people aboard) in about 7 seconds. Never intended to be a road burner the SZ was thus overlooked by many seeking more immediate thrills.

Alfa weren't looking to sell that many SZs though, only 1000 were scheduled to be produced, though a few more made it out the door before they were through. About 260 of the drop top RZ version were completed, out of a planned run of 350.

The 8C will be arriving in the U.S in a few weeks. They're already sold out, as they deserve to be. It is a beautiful car, with styling that cherry-picks its cues from the best of Alfa tradition, TZ-2, Stradale, and the original 6c Competizione coupe of the 50s. It will be fast, powerful and the cabin will delight owners with its dash machined from a billet of aluminum. I hear that Alfa's engineering staff have even sussed the automated transmission to the point that shifts are smooth and well timed.

But I can't help thinking that it won't be a real Alfa, no matter how I try to convince myself. It's been too long since Alfa gave up on making real driver's cars; they no longer possess the know how to develop from their own product line a car worthy of their own heritage and need the assistance of Ferrari and Maserati instead. So I'm still not sure what to make of the 8c. On one had it is a wonderful thing in and of itself, but on the other, it represents the decline of one of my favorite names in all of auto-dom. I can't wait to have the thrill of seeing and hearing one pass me on the road, but I know that when it does, I shall also feel just a little bit sad...

A Gearhead's Thoughts On The New Ferrari...

I really didn't anticipate the release of Ferrari's new California creating such a firestorm, but then, this isn't the car anyone was expecting. Rumors of a new Dino have been swirling for two years now, and the mules have been lapping the Nurburgring for months. It was supposed to be a small GT, a car to slot in below the 430, and revive thoughts of the beloved Dino 206/246. the car with which we find ourselves confronted is no such animal. It's not a GT, it's a convertible, not even a roadster really, but a 2+2. When I saw the body shape I was convinced that the car was nothing more than a re-bodied Alfa Romeo 8C Competezione, and that it would be using the same engine as well. It turns out to be a different story there as well. In several ways, both good and bad, this is a Ferrari like none we've ever seen.

The good is relatively good. Despite some in the press stating that the car is as big a departure for Ferrari as the Cayenne was for Porsche, it's still a sports car, and still has many of the traditional Ferrari hallmarks. It seems to have a good start in the engine bay as well, with 4.3 liters of flat-cranked V8, featuring a direct injection system for increased power and economy. the engine doesn't rev as high as its 430 stablemate (7500rpm plays 8500) but it does look ready to out torque the mid-engine car throughout the rev range. It's also nice to see that Ferrari resisted the temptation to fit the already torquier, and related 4.7liter V8 from the 8C/Maserati Gran Turismo S. The structure too is different from the Alfa's, despite the similarity of market for the cars, and is in fact another of Ferrari's aluminum structures and of course features the folding hard-top. Finally the transmission isn't a revised F1/Cambiocorsa, but an all new twin-clutch 7-speed unit mounted in the trans-axle position at the rear of the car. So all in all, a unique car which should help justify it to brand purists like myself.

The not so good as it happens, takes in a few of the same points, the first one being that new transmission. While I'm sure that the adoption of the twin-clutch system will broaden the market for Ferrari's newest baby, it is the only transmission option being offered at launch and Ferrari aren't making any noises about including a proper manual. I know I'm risking being dubbed a Luddite, but I for one prefer to do my own shifting. It's not that I'm terribly good at it, just the opposite in fact, but when it all comes together and I get a blipped down-shift right while entering a corner, I feel the sense of accomplishment. Simply tugging a paddle, no matter how clever the electronics to which it's hooked, will never have the same appeal. That Ferrari have had to engineer in a bit of brutality to the transmision smacks of gimackery and makes the point that in some ways this technology has gone too far for driving enjoyment.

That folding hard-top is another concern. For one it's heavy, there's really no way of getting around that, and for another the room required to store it makes the back of the car a little bloated and droopy. It ends up looking high-sided with the top down too, which begs the question, "Why not just make a coupe and a soft-top?" It's not as if these two options have suddenly been rendered obsolete by the advent of the converta-coupe, and this Ferrari is further proof. On the plus side the car does at least look pleasingly sleek with the top up, but that's just one more reason that it doesn't need to go down.

Also, let me be clear on one thing. This car is in now way a California. the legendary 250 California Spiders of the late 50s and early 60s were cut-down versions of Ferrari's top flight competition coupes. they had V12s that were a liter smaller than the V8 in this modern car, and where lightweight specials created in order to give weekend racers a competitive car for U.S. west coast events that they could drive to and from the track. The new California seems more to be a car meant for first time Ferrari owners who want a sporty car they can use every day.

In the end, that's what does it for this car as far as I'm concerned. In being neither a cut down 559, nor a new Dino (and in no way reminiscent of the its namesake) it fails to be anything of than a toy for the not so rich and a diluter of brand values. I'm sure Ferrari's engineers have worked very hard and made sure than on many dynamic levels the new California can hold its head up. I'm sure too that it will do its job and introduce Ferrari to new buyers and new markets, aiding in Fiat's quest to up production at its top brand to 10,000 units a year. But I'm equally sure that it won't introduce those buyers to what a Ferrari has traditionally been, and that it will bring down the level of exclusivity and inherent coolness, that has traditionally been a part of the Ferrari mystique, and which has already been threatened by over-merchandising. The California may end up being a good car, but that's not what being a Ferrari is all about.