Driving 30 Years of the Honda NSX

[Danoff]

This And Danoff, where can I drool over some of your NSX pics?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/danoffs-nsx.345573/

I'll do everything I can to get some new pics when I get it out this summer.

 

[Jump_Ace]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/danoffs-nsx.345573/

I'll do everything I can to get some new pics when I get it out this summer.

Can I ask how tall you are? I've never sat in an NSX, so I don't know if I'll fit. I asked the guys on NSX Prime a while back and got mixed feedback. I'm about 6'4".

If there is one thing I hate about the Fast and Furious movies is people wrecked NSXs to the Nth degree with B.S upgrades. I just want a simple stock one '94 or newer (or '93 newer with the V2 rims).


Jerome

 

[mustafur]

You know on Both generations of the NSX-R, Aircon could be optioned, same with the S Zero.

I would have to drive these cars to see if they are too stiff though, I think it's a wild assumption to say it is without driving them, my guess is it probably is and the Type S is probably the best compromise, however it's a big toss up between pre and post Facelift.

Pre Facelift does have the Pop-up headlights but it does have the thinner tyres which make the rear end less planted then the Facelifted version which had a decent Tyre width upgrade, I think there was also a Tyre width upgrade when the NSX went from the 3.0L to the 3.2L as going by that video I posted before all the 3.2L NSX had wider tyres then the 3.0L Type R, with the face lift being the widest.

 

[Danoff]

Can I ask how tall you are? I've never sat in an NSX, so I don't know if I'll fit. I asked the guys on NSX Prime a while back and got mixed feedback. I'm about 6'4".

If there is one thing I hate about the Fast and Furious movies is people wrecked NSXs to the Nth degree with B.S upgrades. I just want a simple stock one '94 or newer (or '93 newer with the V2 rims).

I'm 5'10". I've had a few tall folks in it who didn't have a problem (probably about 6'1"). I'm not sure I've ever had someone 6'4" in that car. So the V2 rims came on the '97s (if I'm thinking of the right rims). I specifically selected against power steering and t-tops, which drove me to the '93. I also didn't really want '91 just because of transmission fears (I'd have gotten a '91 though if that's what presented itself).

You know on Both generations of thr NSX-R, Aircon could be optioned, same with the S Zero.

Ok but... you seriously have to ask yourself what you're doing and why at some point.

 

[McLaren]

Nope. I can afford a Type R now. I can't afford to trash it. Or maybe you think that "afford" means the ability to trash it. I'm not sure why that would be. I can afford a house, I can't afford to burn it down and get no insurance from it.

People who can afford a $200,000 car can afford to buy a new one. A house is not a relative argument. Different market structure & use.

I'm not seeing a track there. I'm seeing a road. I'm not seeing people who are pushing their cars to the limit. I'm seeing a road where people are presumably driving somewhere close to the law.

Don't switch up your argument.

Where does this leave the Type R? It's not good for the road, and you'd have to be slightly insane to track it. Well unfortunately it is in collectible land. It has the same problem as a McLaren F1 with 100 miles on it (or well... actually any F1). You'd have to be slightly crazy to actually use it. Sure you can put the Type R on the road, but why? Sure you could take it to the track, but why?

Here they are being used on a track together.

And comeon, realistically now, the NSX Type R is not as good as much cheaper alternatives. Why would you take enormous personal risk to take a car that is not as well suited for the track? This is starting to sound religious to me.

What? This was the pinnacle of the NSX for the track, and was the last time Honda would build something that would rival Ferrari's track monster, the CS.

I think this no-man's-land is a real problem for some cars, and I think the Type R is in it.

I think you're a bit to close to pushing your opinion as fact with this debate. Some people buy these cars to use them as intended from the manufacturers.

Ok, so here's the problem with the Type R in a nutshell. Let's say I have $5M in the bank and own a pristine Type R. And let's say I have a hankering for taking a fantastic track-oriented NSX for a track day.

My Type R represents 4% of my net worth. And it's the jewel of my car collection. What am I to do? Take it out on the track?

Nah, I think I'll buy a high mileage regular NSX for like $40k, slap $20k worth of parts on it, and have a BETTER time at the track and risk a quarter of the money. Actually, if you really break it down, the risk is far less than a quarter, because tearing a bumper off of a high mileage NSX is not going to tank its value the same way it would for a Type R. It might only cost you a few thousand in repairs and get you right back on the road with an equivalent car.

This is the problem with the Type R. It's in a strange place in terms of what it's for and what it's worth.

Or you could've not bought the Type R at all.

This is my opinion, but it baffles me one would buy a car built for tracking and then be too afraid to use it as such. Anyone with $5M in the bank can track a $200,000 car without fear. That wealth can afford all the maintenance/repairs it would need.

The base of this argument is that you would do things differently with a collector car, and that's fine. Some people however, don't want to buy a Type R and then buy another NSX to track. Some people buy a Type R b/c they want to track a Type R. Keeichi uses his personal NSX-R as a comparison base in this video. As you can see, it is modified for this use.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I'm 5'10". I've had a few tall folks in it who didn't have a problem (probably about 6'1"). I'm not sure I've ever had someone 6'4" in that car. So the V2 rims came on the '97s (if I'm thinking of the right rims). I specifically selected against power steering and t-tops, which drove me to the '93. I also didn't really want '91 just because of transmission fears (I'd have gotten a '91 though if that's what presented itself).




Ok but... you seriously have to ask yourself what you're doing and why at some point.

Yea that whole snap ring thing really scares me, I won't own a '91 or '92 because of it :s

Dare to dream

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...eCode1=ACURA&modelCode1=NSX&clickType=listing


Jerome

 

[Danoff]

People who can afford a $200,000 car can afford to buy a new one. A house is not a relative argument. Different market structure & use.

Nope. You can't just assume that someone who can buy a $200k car can do it again. You cannot assume infinite wealth to exotic car owners. I have no idea why you think this is the case, but I assure you you are wrong. My friend who owns the 1960(ish) SLR Gullwing cannot afford to just buy it again. And he cannot afford to track it I'm sure. Sure he's a multi-millionaire, but these cars represent a big investment to him, he can't just throw it away. Likewise I'm sure he wouldn't throw away his 911 speedster, or any of his corvettes...

Here they are being used on a track together.

That's great. I'm glad some people have that kind of money.

What? This was the pinnacle of the NSX for the track, and was the last time Honda would build something that would rival Ferrari's track monster, the CS.

..and it could be made better with improved brakes, tires, and any of a large number of track-oriented upgrades... as is evidenced in your quote below

The base of this argument is that you would do things differently with a collector car, and that's fine. Some people however, don't want to buy a Type R and then buy another NSX to track. Some people buy a Type R b/c they want to track a Type R. Keeichi uses his personal NSX-R as a comparison base in this video. As you can see, it is modified for this use.

It's not really applicable because he's making a living with it.

Or you could've not bought the Type R at all.

Yup, because it doesn't suit that purpose well, unless you're so rich you literally don't care about any of it. In which case whatever... if your purpose is to put it in your pool I guess you can do that.

This is my opinion, but it baffles me one would buy a car built for tracking and then be too afraid to use it as such. Anyone with $5M in the bank can track a $200,000 car without fear. That wealth can afford all the maintenance/repairs it would need.

Nope. You're out of touch with what $5M looks like.

Now, if you mean literally they could roll it out on the track, with no one else on it, do a few soft laps with it, and call it quits. Fine sure. Not too likely to trash it in that scenario. If you mean they can buy it and use it as a regular-use track car to play with... noooooot really.

If you're really serious about your track days, you're gonna want to modify it. And then you'll take out lots of what makes it the Type R. So just go with a regular NSX as a platform. It makes no sense to start from a more rare collector car and light that money on fire.

You guys... you act like a few million gives people the latitude to just burn their possessions with no regard to logic.

 

[mustafur]

So your seeing examples of people doing the same thing with significantly more expensive cars then any NSX yet deny you can do the same with a significantly cheaper car.

What is it?

You keep pointing to your own situation rather then the possibility of there being another situation, people here are giving hypotheticals.

 

[McLaren]

Nope. You can't just assume that someone who can buy a $200k car can do it again. You cannot assume infinite wealth to exotic car owners. I have no idea why you think this is the case, but I assure you you are wrong. My friend who owns the 1960(ish) SLR Gullwing cannot afford to just buy it again. And he cannot afford to track it I'm sure. Sure he's a multi-millionaire, but these cars represent a big investment to him, he can't just throw it away. Likewise I'm sure he wouldn't throw away his 911 speedster, or any of his corvettes...

Unless the car is financed, a $200,000 car can be bought again. Why? Because a lot of people who own a $200,000 car more than likely have another $200,000 car. I see entire threads dedicated to other cars on Porsche & Ferrari forums; these folks usually own 2-3+ 6-figure cars or a small fleet of slightly cheaper cars.

Your friend owns a million dollar car. Unless he has so much money tied up in it, chances are he could. But you let out that the car is an investment; that's why he's cautious with it. He has a 911 Speedster? Corvettes? He could buy those all over again.

That's great. I'm glad some people have that kind of money.

I'm glad you see so. Last time, you ignored it being pointed out to you.

As long as you have the funds to maintain the car, track/drive it all you want.

..and it could be made better with improved brakes, tires, and any of a large number of track-oriented upgrades... as is evidenced in your quote below.

You're not stupid. You know the car came the way it did because there's a limit a manufacturer has to place in regards to costs.

It's not really applicable because he's making a living with it.

Uh, he's not. He makes his living reviewing other cars and drifting. It was used in this example to test against a stock version.

The point however, was to show some people do not want to buy a Type R as an investment and another NSX to track. The Type R has a special place in the market due to its obscene rarity; you can do whatever you want with it, and the market value will hold strong. It's a cheap visual of the F1/GTO market.

Yup, because it doesn't suit that purpose well, unless you're so rich you literally don't care about any of it. In which case whatever... if your purpose is to put it in your pool I guess you can do that.

It does. Don't be daft trying to talk about aftermarket upgrades to make it even better.

Nope. You're out of touch with what $5M looks like.

You're telling me an owner with $5M can't afford to track and maintain a $200,000 car? You're the one out of touch with the actual owner base of these cars.

Now, if you mean literally they could roll it out on the track, with no one else on it, do a few soft laps with it, and call it quits. Fine sure. Not too likely to trash it in that scenario. If you mean they can buy it and use it as a regular-use track car to play with... noooooot really.

Uh, yesssss, really. I see it on Rennlist a lot. Owners with a 911 Turbo/Carrera have a RS for track days because that model trim is built perfectly for track abuse. Most of these guys end up also owning Raptors (for whatever reason) as tow rigs.

If you're really serious about your track days, you're gonna want to modify it. And then you'll take out lots of what makes it the Type R. So just go with a regular NSX as a platform. It makes no sense to start from a more rare collector car and light that money on fire.

Your issue is that you see it all from an investment stand point. Some folks aren't bothered with modifying a collector car, esp. when said cars are typically reverted back to stock.

You guys... you act like a few million gives people the latitude to just burn their possessions with no regard to logic.

And you act like your opinion holds more weight over anyone. Calling people crazy for using 6-8 figure cars, and that they should just buy a 2nd car to beat on.

Some people buy cars to use specifically them.

 

[Danoff]

Unless the car is financed, a $200,000 car can be bought again. Why? Because a lot of people who own a $200,000 car more than likely have another $200,000 car. I see entire threads dedicated to other cars on Porsche & Ferrari forums; these folks usually own 2-3+ 6-figure cars or a small fleet of slightly cheaper cars.

Your point? You can own multiple 6 figure cars and not be able to "afford" to trash any of them. I own an NSX and an MR2, and I can't afford to trash the MR2... which is worth about $10k.

Your friend owns a million dollar car. Unless he has so much money tied up in it, chances are he could. But you let out that the car is an investment; that's why he's cautious with it. He has a 911 Speedster? Corvettes? He could buy those all over again.

His Speedster is worth about $250k I think. No, he can't afford to just trash that kind of money.

I'm glad you see so. Last time, you ignored it being pointed out to you.

You missed my point. My point is that just because you can afford to buy the car doesn't mean you can afford to trash it. You need a lot more money to do that... and some people do have that kind of money.

Uh, he's not. He makes his living reviewing other cars and drifting. It was used in this example to test against a stock version.

I suppose that video is not helping him do that then? It's not helping him market himself, or benefiting his career in any way.

The point however, was to show some people do not want to buy a Type R as an investment and another NSX to track.

Ok great. You didn't. You posted a video of a celebrity and potentially mega rich dude (I have no idea how much money he has) increasing his celebrity by showing off a super rare car.

The Type R has a special place in the market due to its obscene rarity; you can do whatever you want with it, and the market value will hold strong. It's a cheap visual of the F1/GTO market.

It's not a GTO. If you wreck it, you will not rebuild it from scratch and call it the same car. It's not that highly valued yet.

It does. Don't be daft trying to talk about aftermarket upgrades to make it even better.

It doesn't. It's a road car. It'd be good at that track, but not as good as a track car.

You're telling me an owner with $5M can't afford to track and maintain a $200,000 car? You're the one out of touch with the actual owner base of these cars.

Can't afford to destroy it. Yes.

Uh, yesssss, really. I see it on Rennlist a lot. Owners with a 911 Turbo/Carrera have a RS for track days because that model trim is built perfectly for track abuse. Most of these guys end up also owning Raptors (for whatever reason) as tow rigs.

Sounds like people with too much money on their hands and no sense. I said it would be crazy to do unless you were mega rich, not that nobody was crazy or mega rich.

Your issue is that you see it all from an investment stand point. Some folks aren't bothered with modifying a collector car, esp. when said cars are typically reverted back to stock.

I do see it all from an investment stand point, and from an enthusiast standpoint. I think you have to see it from both perspectives. Nothing in life can be divorced from its value, nothing, not even health.

Some people buy cars to use specifically them.

...and they shouldn't buy a Type R specifically to use it (at the track) at this point. Because it's a waste of money. You can have a better version of it for a lot less.

 

[McLaren]

Your point? You can own multiple 6 figure cars and not be able to "afford" to trash any of them. I own an NSX and an MR2, and I can't afford to trash the MR2... which is worth about $10k.

The point was to challenge your opposite notion that you push forth as fact.

His Speedster is worth about $250k I think. No, he can't afford to just trash that kind of money.

Has enough money to invest $1 million into 1 car. Doesn't have enough money to eat a quarter of that on another car. Mkay, then.

You missed my point. My point is that just because you can afford to buy the car doesn't mean you can afford to trash it. You need a lot more money to do that... and some people do have that kind of money.

Hello, that's what I've been saying this entire time as opposed to you trying to tell people what to do with their cars.

Car enthusiasts need to understand that the track is not the place for your garage queen road car. The track is a place where cars get roughed up a bit. It's better suited for an uncompromised car that has a kill switch and a fire extinguisher. For $30k, a trailer, and a pickup truck, you can have an insane track car that will behave how track cars are supposed to.

Ok great. You didn't. You posted a video of a celebrity and potentially mega rich dude (I have no idea how much money he has) increasing his celebrity by showing off a super rare car.

You're a car enthusiast and you don't even know who Keiichi is really speaks volumes about his celebrity status.

It's not a GTO. If you wreck it, you will not rebuild it from scratch and call it the same car. It's not that highly valued yet.

An indication you have no idea about what I'm talking about.

Certain cars hold such an elite status in the used market that you can use the car and not affect its value, usually due to their high rarity. These cars are typically in the 7-8 figure category with the F1/GTO at the top. The NSX-R NA2 is, as I said, a cheaper visual of that market because they are rarely up for sale and the market ends up dictated by whatever the last couple moved for. As I said earlier, they're $200,000 cars and I've seen 2 move beyond the $300,000 barrier due to basically brand new condition with 1-2,000km on them.

Sounds like people with too much money on their hands and no sense. I said it would be crazy to do unless you were mega rich, not that nobody was crazy or mega rich.

I love how you continually talk down to people who can afford to do such things. "Too much money". "No sense". From a man who can't afford to thrash a $10,000 MR2, yet owns a NSX & other cars.

I do see it all from an investment stand point, and from an enthusiast standpoint. I think you have to see it from both perspectives. Nothing in life can be divorced from its value, nothing, not even health.

I've routinely displayed in this forum that I see it quiet clearly from both perspectives when it comes to car values. I study the exotic market near-religiously enough to understand their values and use that affects them as such.

...and they shouldn't buy a Type R specifically to use it (at the track) at this point. Because it's a waste of money. You can have a better version of it for a lot less.

Again with this elitist attitude.

 

[Danoff]

Has enough money to invest $1 million into 1 car. Doesn't have enough money to eat a quarter of that on another car. Mkay, then.

I want you to really step back and think about this. Nobody wants to eat large portions of their net worth. Is he going to be destitute if he wrecks his 911? No. Am I if I wreck and write off my MR2? No. Does that mean we can "afford" to waste it? I'm not in a position where I can just blow $10k on a weekend. I know he isn't in a position where he can just blow $250k on a weekend. You have to be stratospheric in wealth to feel like that's reasonable. And that's not that hard to do if you wreck your track car.

My point is specifically value is a bad thing on the track. Nobody wants to be tracking something expensive (unless they're a Russian Roulette kind of adrenaline junkie, which does exist). You want to track something fun. The Type R has entered a place where it offers no additional fun over low-cost alternatives, and offers much increased value. Which means it's not good at being a track car any more, it's good at being collectible.

Hello, that's what I've been saying this entire time as opposed to you trying to tell people what to do with their cars.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do with their cars. I'm suggesting that people think through what kind of car they should take to the track.

You're a car enthusiast and you don't even know who Keiichi is really speaks volumes about his celebrity status.

I said I don't know how much money he has. Do you?

An indication you have no idea about what I'm talking about.

Certain cars hold such an elite status in the used market that you can use the car and not affect its value, usually due to their high rarity. These cars are typically in the 7-8 figure category with the F1/GTO at the top. The NSX-R NA2 is, as I said, a cheaper visual of that market because they are rarely up for sale and the market ends up dictated by whatever the last couple moved for. As I said earlier, they're $200,000 cars and I've seen 2 move beyond the $300,000 barrier due to basically brand new condition with 1-2,000km on them.

You're saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, but none of that disputes anything I'm talking about. I'm not saying that putting a few miles on these cars is going to destroy the value, I'm saying that literally destroying them, in an accident, at a track, will tank the value. The NSX-R is not a GTO. There are cars, especially 1 of 1 cars, that will be rebuilt from almost nothing left. But that's not the Type R, at least not yet. $200k does not seem like enough to undertake that kind of task.

I love how you continually talk down to people who can afford to do such things. "Too much money". "No sense". From a man who can't afford to thrash a $10,000 MR2, yet owns a NSX & other cars.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. People do strange, outlandish things with money, sometimes when they can't afford it. I've seen quite a lot of that, I'm sure you have too. People also get their priorities way... how should I put this... out of balance. Some people like it that way. That's fine, but I find it to be lacking a certain amount of sense. Chalk it up to my opinion.

I've routinely displayed in this forum that I see it quiet clearly from both perspectives when it comes to car values. I study the exotic market near-religiously enough to understand their values and use that affects them as such.

I'm not saying you don't.

Again with this elitist attitude.

It's not elitist. It's math. Literally it is a bad idea to buy a car for $200k to go to the track when you can have a better one for less (and I don't mean faster, I mean better). If your purpose is to use it at the track for driving, it's a bad move. If your purpose is to show off, or to collect it, or to look at it, or to take pictures of it... fine, have fun.

 

[mustafur]

Have you seen what people take to the track, they have track days just for people with rare exotics where they don't push them to the absolute limit but beyond what your doing on the road.

A track day where your on the same track as people with stupidly fast cars going to the limit and alot of traffic isn't where I could feel comfortable with a car that would be painful to lose.

 

[McLaren]

Which means it's not good at being a track car any more, it's good at being collectible.

It's not this black and white. You can have both, and many people can afford that.

I don't know how many times you have to see Goodwood to show this.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do with their cars. I'm suggesting that people think through what kind of car they should take to the track.

"I'm not telling you what to do with your car. But, I'll low-key insult you as more money than sense and call you crazy if you don't do what I suggest."

I said I don't know how much money he has. Do you?

Rewind:

You posted a video of a celebrity and potentially mega rich dude (I have no idea how much money he has) increasing his celebrity by showing off a super rare car.

Again, you're a car enthusiast and you don't even know who he is.

Yes, he is very wealthy. Which is why he can afford to ignore your suggestion.

You're saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, but none of that disputes anything I'm talking about. I'm not saying that putting a few miles on these cars is going to destroy the value, I'm saying that literally destroying them, in an accident, at a track, will tank the value. The NSX-R is not a GTO. There are cars, especially 1 of 1 cars, that will be rebuilt from almost nothing left. But that's not the Type R, at least not yet. $200k does not seem like enough to undertake that kind of task.

I never said anything about literally destroying the car. That is continually your argument for why people shouldn't put a $200,000 car on a race track.

You touted the car can't be tracked because it has far too much value and for whatever out-there-logic, believe that kills it's original purpose as track version. What I pointed out to you is that the car is in a unique position where it can be tracked, taken home, and resold without any major loss in value.

Yes, there's a risk you could lose it on the track. There's a big risk you could lose it to someone on the road, too.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. People do strange, outlandish things with money, sometimes when they can't afford it. I've seen quite a lot of that, I'm sure you have too. People also get their priorities way... how should I put this... out of balance. Some people like it that way. That's fine, but I find it to be lacking a certain amount of sense. Chalk it up to my opinion.

Again with these jabs at people who can afford to do so.

It's not elitist. It's math. Literally it is a bad idea to buy a car for $200k to go to the track when you can have a better one for less (and I don't mean faster, I mean better). If your purpose is to use it at the track for driving, it's a bad move. If your purpose is to show off, or to collect it, or to look at it, or to take pictures of it... fine, have fun.

Some people don't care. Your argument is akin to these morons who go, "Why buy a Ferrari when you could just a Corvette and make it better".

Because they don't want a Corvette. They want a Ferrari.

Have you seen what people take to the track, they have track days just for people with rare exotics where they don't push them to the absolute limit but beyond what your doing on the road.

A track day where your on the same track as people with stupidly fast cars going to the limit and alot of traffic isn't where I could feel comfortable with a car that would be painful to lose.

A good track day is filled with people fully aware of their surroundings. You're safer with a decent group that watch out and use hand signals than a highway full of cars with a yo-yo who wants to follow and take your picture.

Evo out with a RS.


GT3 with a bunch of basic track cars.


A SuperTrofeo, Exige, 12C, Z/28, & a ex. F1 car run by together. This video also shows everything from a Miata to a ex. F1 Ferrari.

 

[Danoff]

Have you seen what people take to the track, they have track days just for people with rare exotics where they don't push them to the absolute limit but beyond what your doing on the road.

A track day where your on the same track as people with stupidly fast cars going to the limit and alot of traffic isn't where I could feel comfortable with a car that would be painful to lose.

It's not this black and white. You can have both, and many people can afford that.

I don't know how many times you have to see Goodwood to show this.

"I'm not telling you what to do with your car. But, I'll low-key insult you as more money than sense and call you crazy if you don't do what I suggest."




Rewind:

Again, you're a car enthusiast and you don't even know who he is.

Yes, he is very wealthy. Which is why he can afford to ignore your suggestion.

I never said anything about literally destroying the car. That is continually your argument for why people shouldn't put a $200,000 car on a race track.

You touted the car can't be tracked because it has far too much value and for whatever out-there-logic, believe that kills it's original purpose as track version. What I pointed out to you is that the car is in a unique position where it can be tracked, taken home, and resold without any major loss in value.

Yes, there's a risk you could lose it on the track. There's a big risk you could lose it to someone on the road, too.

Again with these jabs at people who can afford to do so.


Some people don't care. Your argument is akin to these morons who go, "Why buy a Ferrari when you could just a Corvette and make it better".

Because they don't want a Corvette. They want a Ferrari.

A good track day is filled with people fully aware of their surroundings. You're safer with a decent group that watch out and use hand signals than a highway full of cars with a yo-yo who wants to follow and take your picture.

Evo out with a RS.


GT3 with a bunch of basic track cars.


A SuperTrofeo, Exige, 12C, Z/28, & a ex. F1 car run by together. This video also shows everything from a Miata to a ex. F1 Ferrari.

Quickly, on goodwood... I'm guessing that actually increases the car's value. You bring that up if you ever sell it.

I want to take a different approach to this, because I'm being misunderstood. @McLaren I know you know what you're talking about, and I never meant to give you any impression otherwise. We've been around this forum too long to not know where we're each coming from.

Pretend for a moment that you have to give yourself the best on-track experience you can, say... 20 times a year. And pretend for a moment that your net worth is the following amounts. Imagine for a moment what you own, what you might owe, what you might daily drive, where you might vacation, and where, or how many places you might live.

Net worth:
$100,000
$500,000
$1M
$5M
$10M
$50M

As far as I know, the GTO isn't on that list. So what car do you choose at each price point? I don't ever choose the Type R, even as I fly past it in terms of value. At the top end, I'm picking vintage race cars (perhaps multiple) that are unique and would be rebuilt entirely if wrecked. Cars that are designed for track use from the first moment. At the bottom, I'm maybe taking a daily driver, and then maybe I'm building a track-oriented car out of a road going car at like the $500k point. Somewhere in the middle might live an Arial Atom or somesuch.

I'm not sure an F1, or an F50 or any of the epic road cars would ever get picked to deliver the best on track experience I can get. At those price levels, I'm not looking to deal with road-going compromises in terms of safety or handling. Part of what anyone would pick at each of those net worth amounts has to do with how much the car costs, how much it is worth after any changes, and what the risk is.

I hope this better illustrates my point with the no-man's land of the very collectible Type R.

Edit:

I wonder what something like this sells for. https://www.wirewheel.com/1997-Acura-NSX-GT-2.html

https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/77262/honda-nsx-factory-race-car
^ Not too shabby

https://jalopnik.com/you-can-buy-this-572hp-nsx-race-car-right-now-1679662377
Wow

 

[McLaren]

Quickly, on goodwood... I'm guessing that actually increases the car's value. You bring that up if you ever sell it.

Depends on the car. Goodwood is too vast and things happen on track that may or may ever affect values.


I may come back to these prices later, as it's super early here and there's only a few things below I want to address.

I'm not sure an F1, or an F50 or any of the epic road cars would ever get picked to deliver the best on track experience I can get. At those price levels, I'm not looking to deal with road-going compromises in terms of safety or handling. Part of what anyone would pick at each of those net worth amounts has to do with how much the car costs, how much it is worth after any changes, and what the risk is.

A F50 is essentially a race car at its core made street legal. It is absolutely one of the best supercars to deliver an incredible amount of joy from a track. Both the cars you picked are never going to devalue, either & will both be rebuilt....

Just because in your world, you'd be factoring in the costs and risks & feel it's not worth it, doesn't mean other folks share that same feeling. Chances are they bought the car, know the costs of it, and went forth with them because they can afford the risks.

I hope this better illustrates my point with the no-man's land of the very collectible Type R.

You're attempting to have me pick cars in each price bracket to try and what I assume will be an attempt to show one can't simply own and track a high value car without fear of money or totaling it.

But, if your ideal scenario is buying a daily driver, a Type-R, & then another NSX to track specifically because you don't want to risk the Type-R & its value/loss, you're more than welcome to that. The reality is some people will buy a daily driver, and then buy a Type-R to take the track because they saw the car was built by Honda to do so. They don't care if they can build something cheaper; they want what they want. They likely don't care if the extra use will affect value; chances are they wouldn't buy it for track use if values mattered that much to them. And they will likely be heartbroken if they total it on a track, but the risks of losing it to someone on the street aren't any different; it's a rare car that draws attention. Usually, things like insurance or whatever are in place to combat those unfortunate situations.

What allows them to pick a different path than you reverts back once more to what I said earlier (and I don't think I be in this discussion any longer b/c my point can't be repeated much more):

If you have the means to buy the car and maintain it all costs, do whatever you want with it.

If you want to take a $35 million GTO or a $200,000 Type-R to shows, go for it. If you want to keep them in a garage, that's up to you. But if you want to take either car out on a track to experience the reason for being built, that's more than acceptable. What shouldn't happen then however, is calling them crazy or more-money-than-sense because they can afford to do that.

 

[Danoff]

A F50 is essentially a race car at its core made street legal. It is absolutely one of the best supercars to deliver an incredible amount of joy from a track. Both the cars you picked are never going to devalue, either & will both be rebuilt....

No doubt. Both cars will only ever appreciate (I actually think the F50 is a bargain at the moment), and both of them are amazing cars. But I want you to come back to that hypothetical - how do you deliver the best track experience in each of those net worth brackets? It should be easy to see that if you have a $10M net worth you can afford to own an F50 (maybe even an F1, I'm not up on the latest values). But can you afford to track it? Can you afford to take it out 20 times a year? Can you afford 20 of them to take each one out 1 time per year? I'm hoping that you see the dilemma that I'm putting you in by considering that hypothetical.

At the $10M bracket, a vintage race car would almost certainly deliver a better on-track experience and, simultaneously, be much more robust against the occasional off-track/wildlife/broken part - robust in terms of value.

So what do you do if you own an F50 and have a net worth of $10M? Well you can take it on the road (where it is insured, although that's somewhat marginal), and where it won't get really fully used. Or you can take it to the track, where it can weirdly insured, but where it still won't fully be used (because it represents a huge portion of your finances).

This was my point, in order to really track an F50 (in the manner that some of the folks, who seemed like professional drivers, were doing with those F1s), you need to have more than $10M. You need to be able to more than afford the car. You need to be able to afford to buy the car, and burn it to the ground. And some people do have that kind of money, although I still wonder why they might choose those specific cars. I have theories, but I don't want to distract from the discussion.

Just because in your world, you'd be factoring in the costs and risks & feel it's not worth it, doesn't mean other folks share that same feeling. Chances are they bought the car, know the costs of it, and went forth with them because they can afford the risks.

In my world, a better track car at less cost... when you're at the track... makes other cars not worth it. Yes. I'm not sure why that's my world though. I'm not sure why we can't have rational discussion about how these cars are effectively used, what they're good at right now, at their current price points, and how their current value affects their logical use. I'm aware that people get emotional about cars and sometimes make strange decisions. I do too. That doesn't preclude a rational discussion.

You're attempting to have me pick cars in each price bracket to try and what I assume will be an attempt to show one can't simply own and track a high value car without fear of money or totaling it.

I'm attempting to get you to see how one logically transitions away from road cars at the track as prices go up. Track cars, race cars, are better for track use because they're designed (or very heavily modified) with that use in mind the whole way. The road car for the track is such a strange phenomenon to me, especially at high values. More on that in a minute.

But, if your ideal scenario is buying a daily driver, a Type-R, & then another NSX to track specifically because you don't want to risk the Type-R & its value/loss, you're more than welcome to that.

That's not my idea scenario. I don't actually aspire to own a Type R. I'm mostly trying to articulate why it's a strange car in the market, and why many hardcore road cars optioned for the track share the same kind of problems.

The reality is some people will buy a daily driver, and then buy a Type-R to take the track because they saw the car was built by Honda to do so. They don't care if they can build something cheaper; they want what they want.

Yes, I get it. Some people will be irrational. Great. Why does that mean that we can't talk about why it's irrational?

And they will likely be heartbroken if they total it on a track, but the risks of losing it to someone on the street aren't any different; it's a rare car that draws attention. Usually, things like insurance or whatever are in place to combat those unfortunate situations.

I'm not sure what the actual viability is of track insurance. I've never really looked into it myself. Maybe it's fantastic. Maybe your likelihood of getting into an accident on the road in an F50 is just as high as getting into one at the track in an F50. I seriously doubt it. But it does call into question whether it makes sense to use them unless you're at stratospheric wealth. My friend's gullwing for example (I think that's a 300 SL actually, not an SLR, judging from photos I'm not really up on my gullwing lore. When you said it was worth a million I started scratching my head). How do you use that car? It's becoming a museum piece. It's getting to the point where it doesn't make sense to do anything else. Of course some people have enough money to do things that don't make sense. I get that.

If you have the means to buy the car and maintain it all costs, do whatever you want with it.

Sure. But don't call it reasonable, logical, rational, or even sane.

But if you want to take either car out on a track to experience the reason for being built, that's more than acceptable.

What is their reason for being built? What is the reason for a Type R to be built? Is it to be a track car? No. If it were to be a track car, it wouldn't have remained road legal. There are too many things to do to it that you'd want for the track that would prevent it from being road legal. Did they have to build a certain number of them to qualify for entry into racing series? I haven't heard that about it. As far as I know that's not the case. Was it to be a better road car? Surely not, it's a bit too compromised for the road.

I can think of two reasons right off the top of my head. Reason number 1, it'll sell enough to justify its creation. Because people want exclusivity over others, they want to show that they have a more hardcore, more exclusive, more unobtainable car than others. Reason number 2, if it's fast (and the Type R was of course), then it gives the other NSXs a bit more credibility. People know they're driving something that has the bones of a very capable car, even if theirs is optioned in a way that's a bit more comfortable. Racing it (and winning) can have a similar effect on sales.

And this brings me back to my (apparently offensive) thesis. Why do car enthusiasts want to take road cars to the track so badly, when track cars are so much better at it? I get it if you literally don't have the funds for a dedicated track car. I still think it's a little irresponsible to take a car you rely on to get to work out to the track, but I get it a lot better. At the higher figures though, what are you doing? You're taking a rare road car to the track where it can underperform for more money... and why?

You want to see what your rare road car feels like at the track? Fine, go baby it around the track and put a smile on your face. But it's not your track car. It's your road car. If you want to have a car that's really at home on the track, get a track car.

Edit:

This is a reminder to me to come back later and discuss the concept of mods vs. original and value. For example, modding a road car to get better performance vs. modding a track car to get better performance.

 

[homeforsummer]

Define wealthy enough. $2M net worth? No, I don't think you'd be taking your NSX-R to the track if you had $2M in the bank. You could buy one, sure, but you're just not realistically going to put 10% of your net worth on a track and walk away from it if totaled. Unless you just happen to be someone who values the track experience above all else and will not settle for anything less. In which case, I think you're a little nuts. I mean, in this scenario, you literally have a Caterham you could take instead.

You still seem to be conflating "taking a car on track" with "destroying your car on track".

I've not got close to having any sort of incident on a track in all the times I've done it, despite driving far quicker and harder than I ever have on the road. It is very much possible to both enjoy performance at a far greater level than you would on the road, and drive safely with low risk to yourself or your vehicle, in track driving.

Now there is a risk, obviously, but then there's a risk driving any car of any value on road or track. On my income, I'm not sure I could realistically afford to replace even my Peugeot if I pranged it, or if the engine went boom (and there are few enough about that I'd struggle with some parts for that car too) but that doesn't stop me driving it.

Given we're talking mostly in hypotheticals here, let's just say, hypothetically, that there is no track-capable car I'd not be willing to take on track if I was fortunate enough to own it. Up to and including NSX-Rs, McLaren F1s, or Ferrari 250 GTOs, even if there was theoretically some other car out in the ether that would be "better" (ignoring how hugely subjective the idea of "better" is).

The vast majority of such vehicles I'd prefer to take on track to driving them on the road. I know this because it's consistent with the large number of cars I drive in my job that I'd prefer to drive on track, because it's safer to explore their capabilities in such an environment than it is on the road. Is it a relevant comparison? Well let's just say that there are certain cars I get to drive that, if something went wrong, may result in me losing my job, so the personal risk is if anything higher than a wealthy individual having to spend a bit extra on some rare bodywork or an engine rebuild on a car they own.

It's not "religious" to think so, and I'm not putting the NSX-R on a pedestal to say I'd want to do trackdays in one if I ever owned one. I'm just stating that it's something I'd probably enjoy, and no more or less so than throwing money at a regular NSX to make it "better", because the value of such things is completely subjective. Again, to you a better track car is an E36, whereas to me it's an MX-5. Neither of us is "right", and neither of us would be right even if the hypothetical scenario involved throwing sticky tyres and a roll cage at either car - we just have our own personal metric for what makes an enjoyable car on track.

The reality here is that none of us own an NSX-R so it's all just a bit of fun. But don't mistake your unwillingness to take your own car on track for anyone else's, however irrational you think it might be.

Edit: And also, is it not sensible to assume, given the context of the discussion, that if people take F50s and NSX-Rs on track that they do have the means to do so? I'm not sure anyone in this thread is claiming they'd track their NSX-R if they'd spent 20 years saving pennies to buy one and had to live out of a cardboard box to do so.

 

[Danoff]

@homeforsummer, Most of that I agree with, actually. There are only a few nuggets in there that I disagree with which ultimately wind up with me at my position and you at yours. I'm going to respond in-line so that we can find them.

You still seem to be conflating "taking a car on track" with "destroying your car on track".

Not exactly.

Would I be willing to take my NSX onto an empty track and do a few light laps in it with no insurance? Yes I would. Would I be willing to drive it hard? Like... explore my limits as a driver, and explore the limits of the car? No. If I were going to do that, I'd take something that I was willing to destroy. Would I be willing to take it on track along with a bunch of other random people who were exploring their limits and and limits of their cars? No. if I were going to do that, I'd take something I was willing to destroy.

So I'm not conflating placing the rubber of a car on a track with its destruction. I'm not even conflating driving a car on track with its destruction. Heck I'm not even conflating driving it hard with its destruction. I'm saying that if you're going to, if you're going to make it a track car. If you're going to push it hard, find out what happens when you get it wrong, find your own limits... well... then you'd better be ready to destroy it. Because that just might happen.

I've not got close to having any sort of incident on a track in all the times I've done it, despite driving far quicker and harder than I ever have on the road.

The only thing I've ever done is sucked up a cone, and because the splash guard wasn't under the engine it took out the drive belt. I didn't know that right away so limping back I spotted the engine temp pegging and shut it down without doing permanent damage.

It is very much possible to both enjoy performance at a far greater level than you would on the road, and drive safely with low risk to yourself or your vehicle, in track driving.

Sure. In fact, an amateur racing buddy of mine (not the car collector guy) told me that track days on his motorcycle cured him of driving them on the street. Because at the track everyone is going the same direction, there are no curbs to break your head on, and in general things are much more survivable and civil. So I've seen it argued in at least one form that track driving is safer than road driving. At least for motorcyclists, mostly due to reasons that are specific to motorcycles.

Now there is a risk, obviously, but then there's a risk driving any car of any value on road or track.

Absolutely agree. Although you generally don't drive your car without insurance on the street, and I think most people do at the track. Maybe by the time you're tracking a Type R you buy special insurance. But I'm skeptical that insurance can really bail you out in either scenario, as I've explained earlier.

On my income, I'm not sure I could realistically afford to replace even my Peugeot if I pranged it, or if the engine went boom (and there are few enough about that I'd struggle with some parts for that car too) but that doesn't stop me driving it.

It's more understandable at the bottom end of wealth. You're a hardcore enthusiast, driving is something you've embraced in totality and made an integral part of your life. If you didn't take those risks, you simply wouldn't get to drive, and I understand that you're willing to take those risks to do something that you think enriches your life. But let's not mistake this scenario for the scenario where someone is contemplating tracking a Type R. Because nobody with a Type R is in the scenario where if they don't risk it they don't get to drive.

Given we're talking mostly in hypotheticals here, let's just say, hypothetically, that there is no track-capable car I'd not be willing to take on track if I was fortunate enough to own it. Up to and including NSX-Rs, McLaren F1s, or Ferrari 250 GTOs, even if there was theoretically some other car out in the ether that would be "better" (ignoring how hugely subjective the idea of "better" is).

So recasting this sentiment in light of what I wrote above, about whether we're talking about literally setting a tire on a track, or we're talking about pushing a car hard to explore its limits and yours, are you still there? I was giving a chance to drive that 60's Gullwing and turned it down. I didn't think I could enjoy myself driving a car that was worth that much in general, and I knew how much it was worth to its owner. It was the type of scenario where you didn't want to look at it wrong because you were afraid it might harm the car and you knew what it would do to an owner who had aspired to own it his entire life.

Ok, so that's someone else's car, and that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about owning one yourself. Given that you just said that you can't realistically afford to replace your current car if you cratered it, I'm really surprised to hear this sentiment come from you. You're saying that if someone gave you an F1 right now, you'd take it to the track? You wouldn't immediately sell it? If I were in your shoes I would immediately sell it. I'd want the money, the financial security, the better house or better daily driver or a retirement or whatever you've got your eye on far more than a track experience. I don't think if I were in your shoes I'd even turn it on. That car would be gone the moment it hit my hands.

What would I do if someone handed me an F1. Well, I'd probably still sell it. It would still represent too much of my net assets for me to take a risk in that particular area. I might buy a nice car with the proceeds... maybe an E30 M3 EVO, or an older 911, or something else increasing in value. But I wouldn't want to float the maintenance on an F1, let alone have that much exposure financially to that market. And an older 911 or M3 would be an awesome driving experience that would be more in tune with my particular abilities anyway.

It's easy to say "I'd track it no question". But honestly put yourself in that position. You've got what you have now, and someone hands you that car. What do you do? You have financial security for the rest of your life sitting next to you. Now what? I suppose it's not an extremely fair comparison because the maintenance on those is hellacious. A Type R is probably a better example. I'm familiar with the maintenance on that, it's not bad. Another thing that makes it a better example is that it doesn't set you for life.

Let me put it to you differently. When you're looking up at these cars financially, they're just not worth it. Incrementally how much better is a Type R over an E36 M3, or hell even an MX-5? Honestly. You can have fun in all of those cars. Is the marginal increase in fun really worth the difference? You have to be on the other side of these cars financially, in a much bigger way than most people think, in order to consider the differences worthwhile. The difference between a Type R and a regular NSX exists... but it needs to outweigh the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And you have to have a lot of money to come to that conclusion, or, alternatively, you are fanatically attached to driving.

The vast majority of such vehicles I'd prefer to take on track to driving them on the road. I know this because it's consistent with the large number of cars I drive in my job that I'd prefer to drive on track, because it's safer to explore their capabilities in such an environment than it is on the road.

Ok sure. If you sat me in an F50 and said I had to drive it, and that it was insured either way (whatever that's worth), and that I got to pick road or (empty) track for driving it. I'd pick track. But I'd not be pushing it.

But let's say that you own an F50 and also a track car... like a vintage NSX race car, or some other dedicated track car that has been set up properly for the track. I know the F50 is pretty darn proper for the track, but there have to be compromises for the road or it would be miserable to drive on the road.

Do you not pick the track car to take to the track? I get the inclination to make a super safe bubble an F50 on an empty track where you can have a little fun in it and not push it too hard. But when you want to have a track day, like to push your driving abilities, push the car, and pretend you're a race car driver just a bit... comeon... you're picking the track car are you not?

You keep trying to reverse the scenario from reality. You keep trying to say "I have an F50, I'm going to drive it, where would I prefer to drive it". That's not the scenario that rich people are in. The first question is whether they'll buy one. The next questions is whether they'll want to drive it or would prefer to drive one of their other Ferraris, or a dedicated track or race car. And then there's a question of insurance... or even what's the purpose? For many super rich people, the purpose of driving the F50 would be to have their picture taken with it in front of the place they're going to dinner.... and that's a legit use of that car. At least as legit as any other use I can find.

Is it a relevant comparison? Well let's just say that there are certain cars I get to drive that, if something went wrong, may result in me losing my job, so the personal risk is if anything higher than a wealthy individual having to spend a bit extra on some rare bodywork or an engine rebuild on a car they own.

I think in light of what I wrote above you'll see why this doesn't contradict my argument.

It's not "religious" to think so, and I'm not putting the NSX-R on a pedestal to say I'd want to do trackdays in one if I ever owned one.

I'm not saying that it's religious to want to drive a car you own. I'm saying that it's sounding religious to get this idea that cars have a purpose for being here, and that fulfilling that purpose is some sort of spiritual obligation for owners and the universe in general.

I'm just stating that it's something I'd probably enjoy, and no more or less so than throwing money at a regular NSX to make it "better", because the value of such things is completely subjective. Again, to you a better track car is an E36, whereas to me it's an MX-5. Neither of us is "right", and neither of us would be right even if the hypothetical scenario involved throwing sticky tyres and a roll cage at either car - we just have our own personal metric for what makes an enjoyable car on track.

But, let's take an easy less relevant example, brake fade is not enjoyable at the track right? We can agree on that. So taking a road car to the track without upgrading the brake pads is kinda pointless is it not? I've never driven a Type R, but I'd imagine that brake fade from the factory was actually addressed in that car. There are other issues to address though. I'm looking at an interior shot of a first gen Type R and I don't see a racing harness. I see a standard belt buckle. Surely you'd agree that the track experience would be better with a proper harness would you not? I mean, if you could get in a Type R to push at the track you'd choose a harness over one without one wouldn't you?

What if I told you that you could have an NSX that was worth less at the track (so less personal risk and stress), and just as light weight, had the same suspension (or stiffer), but also had better brakes and a harness. Why on Earth would you prefer to push the actual Type R over the superior alternative? I get that you might want to drive the Type R, see what it was, experience it as it was originally produced. But then, for actual track fun, you'd hop in the superior alternative would you not? Please explain to me where you think I've gone wrong here.

The reality here is that none of us own an NSX-R so it's all just a bit of fun.

It was suggested to me to get the Type R instead of mine by my collector friend. I seriously considered it... seriously. I chose not to get one not because of the money, and not because of the steering wheel position, but because I find it to be less useable than mine. I'm explaining to you all why I chose not to buy one. This is not just a bit of fun (I mean it is, but in a different way), this was an actual dilemma for me.

Edit: And also, is it not sensible to assume, given the context of the discussion, that if people take F50s and NSX-Rs on track that they do have the means to do so? I'm not sure anyone in this thread is claiming they'd track their NSX-R if they'd spent 20 years saving pennies to buy one and had to live out of a cardboard box to do so.

Yes some people are insanely rich, and we can probably assume that people thrashing these expensive cars at the track can afford it. I'm saying that for those of us who are not, I'd invite us all to consider what it is that we think we're missing and why. Because the reality is that you can have a better track experience for less money than those people. All it's lacking is the show-offy money burnt element... which isn't fun to someone who doesn't have extreme wealth.

Edit:

You might have to squint to see how this is relevant. But this is relevant to my point: https://jalopnik.com/why-ultra-low-mileage-classic-cars-are-the-worst-cars-t-1829472051

 

[homeforsummer]

Not exactly.

Would I be willing to take my NSX onto an empty track and do a few light laps in it with no insurance? Yes I would. Would I be willing to drive it hard? Like... explore my limits as a driver, and explore the limits of the car? No. If I were going to do that, I'd take something that I was willing to destroy. Would I be willing to take it on track along with a bunch of other random people who were exploring their limits and and limits of their cars? No. if I were going to do that, I'd take something I was willing to destroy.

So I'm not conflating placing the rubber of a car on a track with its destruction. I'm not even conflating driving a car on track with its destruction. Heck I'm not even conflating driving it hard with its destruction. I'm saying that if you're going to, if you're going to make it a track car. If you're going to push it hard, find out what happens when you get it wrong, find your own limits... well... then you'd better be ready to destroy it. Because that just might happen.

That makes sense, but I still think it overestimates the risks you take when you go on track. Maybe you're talking about doing the car mechanical damage, maybe you're talking the risk of sticking it into a barrier, but the latter in particular seems to be nothing more than the difference between driving hard and driving like your career depends on getting the lap record. Trackdays aren't the environment for the second option.

Other vehicles do introduce an added variable to it, but I guess that depends on the kind of people you're on track with. I've never experienced anything like the sort of behaviour that goes viral on Youtube - other drivers have always been safe and courteous, and I've never felt like one was about to spin and collect me.

Sure. In fact, an amateur racing buddy of mine (not the car collector guy) told me that track days on his motorcycle cured him of driving them on the street. Because at the track everyone is going the same direction, there are no curbs to break your head on, and in general things are much more survivable and civil. So I've seen it argued in at least one form that track driving is safer than road driving. At least for motorcyclists, mostly due to reasons that are specific to motorcycles.

I'd say it applies equally to cars, for many of the same reasons. Everyone going the same direction, much better visibility, much less roadside furniture to hit, they're much wider than normal roads so you've got more space to play with, the people you're around have probably checked tyre pressures and other things most road users completely ignore... etc.

It's more understandable at the bottom end of wealth. You're a hardcore enthusiast, driving is something you've embraced in totality and made an integral part of your life. If you didn't take those risks, you simply wouldn't get to drive, and I understand that you're willing to take those risks to do something that you think enriches your life. But let's not mistake this scenario for the scenario where someone is contemplating tracking a Type R. Because nobody with a Type R is in the scenario where if they don't risk it they don't get to drive.

I get that, but I also think that an NSX-R owner would be less concerned of the consequences too.

So recasting this sentiment in light of what I wrote above, about whether we're talking about literally setting a tire on a track, or we're talking about pushing a car hard to explore its limits and yours, are you still there? I was giving a chance to drive that 60's Gullwing and turned it down. I didn't think I could enjoy myself driving a car that was worth that much in general, and I knew how much it was worth to its owner. It was the type of scenario where you didn't want to look at it wrong because you were afraid it might harm the car and you knew what it would do to an owner who had aspired to own it his entire life.

Your first sentence more or less nails it, but I think that's common sense isn't it? I'd always drive a car according to its own abilities as well as my own. I'd not drive a Gullwing as hard as a modern car, but I'd drive it harder than I would on the road.

If you'll indulge me, I'd expect your counter-argument to this to be "Then why buy an NSX-R if you wouldn't drive it as hard as [alternative]?"

My answer to that would be the same as I explained further up: Track days are a place to drive hard, but they're not a place to set a new lap record. It's possible to appreciate (and enjoy) driving a car like an NSX-R without driving like you're recording a Best Motoring video. Again, simply going quicker or being able to drive harder (as you might with a standard NSX with some upgrades) is a subjective, not objective, benefit.

Ok, so that's someone else's car, and that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about owning one yourself. Given that you just said that you can't realistically afford to replace your current car if you cratered it, I'm really surprised to hear this sentiment come from you. You're saying that if someone gave you an F1 right now, you'd take it to the track? You wouldn't immediately sell it? If I were in your shoes I would immediately sell it. I'd want the money, the financial security, the better house or better daily driver or a retirement or whatever you've got your eye on far more than a track experience. I don't think if I were in your shoes I'd even turn it on. That car would be gone the moment it hit my hands.

What would I do if someone handed me an F1. Well, I'd probably still sell it. It would still represent too much of my net assets for me to take a risk in that particular area. I might buy a nice car with the proceeds... maybe an E30 M3 EVO, or an older 911, or something else increasing in value. But I wouldn't want to float the maintenance on an F1, let alone have that much exposure financially to that market. And an older 911 or M3 would be an awesome driving experience that would be more in tune with my particular abilities anyway.

You clarified this in DM, and as you might expect my answer would be that I'd drive it before selling it - but not solely for the purposes of furthering my career (which might only realistically benefit if I was a) able to write about the experience and b) actually say something that hasn't been said by dozens of people who'd driven one before me...). I'd drive it because chances like that don't come up often. And I sure as hell hope I'd be able to drive it on a track because it very much falls under the category of cars whose performance falls well outside of being exploited on the road...

And then I'd sell it, and use the proceeds to buy a house with a big garage, and a bunch of cheap hoopties as that's what I'm really into.

And maybe an NSX-R.

Let me put it to you differently. When you're looking up at these cars financially, they're just not worth it. Incrementally how much better is a Type R over an E36 M3, or hell even an MX-5? Honestly. You can have fun in all of those cars. Is the marginal increase in fun really worth the difference? You have to be on the other side of these cars financially, in a much bigger way than most people think, in order to consider the differences worthwhile. The difference between a Type R and a regular NSX exists... but it needs to outweigh the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And you have to have a lot of money to come to that conclusion, or, alternatively, you are fanatically attached to driving.

Again, this is assuming there are no intangible aspects to enjoyment.

Using my Peugeot as an example again: I didn't pay a lot of money for it, but I did pay maybe six times what a basic Peugeot 106 with less power costs in this country. Potentially, I'd even get maybe 90% of the enjoyment from a cheap 106 as I do from my tarted-up Rallye, since most of the enjoyment I get from that car is from its small size, the non-assisted steering, the old-school feel. The subtle body kit and blue carpets and steel wheels and snazzy graphics don't make any difference to the actual driving experience, so why did I spend more than I needed to for (extra power aside) basically the same experience?

Well, because enjoyment from cars comes from far more than just the bare experience of driving. If someone wanted to take their NSX-R on track for no other reason than because it's a special experience to drive a car that was honed from factory to be more capable than the standard car, and better suited to track driving without the need (initially) to spend any extra, then why shouldn't they?

Ok sure. If you sat me in an F50 and said I had to drive it, and that it was insured either way (whatever that's worth), and that I got to pick road or (empty) track for driving it. I'd pick track. But I'd not be pushing it.

Why? As above, is there no separation in your estimation between "pushing it" and "must beat Lewis Hamilton"? Because I'm fairly sure I could drive an F50 hard on track, but I'd not be quicker than several of my colleagues driving the same car, let alone get 100% of what the car is capable of.

But let's say that you own an F50 and also a track car... like a vintage NSX race car, or some other dedicated track car that has been set up properly for the track. I know the F50 is pretty darn proper for the track, but there have to be compromises for the road or it would be miserable to drive on the road.

Do you not pick the track car to take to the track? I get the inclination to make a super safe bubble an F50 on an empty track where you can have a little fun in it and not push it too hard. But when you want to have a track day, like to push your driving abilities, push the car, and pretend you're a race car driver just a bit... comeon... you're picking the track car are you not?

Why? If anything, I'd pick the car that I'd be more likely to feel I'm getting the best from. Don't get me wrong, I'd not say no to driving an old NSX race car, but if you were to ask which I thought would make me feel less of a feeble driver out of a road-going supercar or a slicks'n'wings competition car, it's gonna be the road car. I've driven cars on slicks before. They're brilliant, but as a mere mortal I've always come away from the experience wondering how much quicker I could have gone. In a road car I'm usually satisfied I went quick enough...

Gun to my head? Race car, because, at least for me, those opportunities are ever so marginally less frequent than the road car equivalents.

You keep trying to reverse the scenario from reality. You keep trying to say "I have an F50, I'm going to drive it, where would I prefer to drive it". That's not the scenario that rich people are in. The first question is whether they'll buy one. The next questions is whether they'll want to drive it or would prefer to drive one of their other Ferraris, or a dedicated track or race car. And then there's a question of insurance... or even what's the purpose? For many super rich people, the purpose of driving the F50 would be to have their picture taken with it in front of the place they're going to dinner.... and that's a legit use of that car. At least as legit as any other use I can find.

That's pigeonholing "rich people" somewhat. The "rich people" I actually know bring their fancy cars along to the track days we organise because that's the best place to drive them hard!

Of course, some don't - but I'd hazard a guess that's much more because of (once again) the very subjective nature of enjoyment, rather than because they're worried about wrecking their cars. I know a lot of driving enthusiasts who just aren't that into track driving.

I'm not saying that it's religious to want to drive a car you own. I'm saying that it's sounding religious to get this idea that cars have a purpose for being here, and that fulfilling that purpose is some sort of spiritual obligation for owners and the universe in general.

Is anyone in this thread actually doing that? Or are they just saying that if they owned an NSX-R they'd like to drive it on track?

But, let's take an easy less relevant example, brake fade is not enjoyable at the track right? We can agree on that. So taking a road car to the track without upgrading the brake pads is kinda pointless is it not? I've never driven a Type R, but I'd imagine that brake fade from the factory was actually addressed in that car. There are other issues to address though. I'm looking at an interior shot of a first gen Type R and I don't see a racing harness. I see a standard belt buckle. Surely you'd agree that the track experience would be better with a proper harness would you not? I mean, if you could get in a Type R to push at the track you'd choose a harness over one without one wouldn't you?

The large majority of cars I've driven on track haven't had a racing harness. So no, not necessarily. While it's objectively better (and safer, I'm sure), it's not a 100% necessary component of enjoying a car on track. Again, different people see value in different things.

What if I told you that you could have an NSX that was worth less at the track (so less personal risk and stress), and just as light weight, had the same suspension (or stiffer), but also had better brakes and a harness. Why on Earth would you prefer to push the actual Type R over the superior alternative? I get that you might want to drive the Type R, see what it was, experience it as it was originally produced. But then, for actual track fun, you'd hop in the superior alternative would you not? Please explain to me where you think I've gone wrong here.

Trust me, I can absolutely see where you're coming from. But the best answer to "why?" is sometimes, genuinely, "why not?" If the increasingly valuable GT3 RSs I've seen used on track aren't too precious to use, then nor is an NSX-R. Even if there are "superior" alternatives.

It was suggested to me to get the Type R instead of mine by my collector friend. I seriously considered it... seriously. I chose not to get one not because of the money, and not because of the steering wheel position, but because I find it to be less useable than mine. I'm explaining to you all why I chose not to buy one. This is not just a bit of fun (I mean it is, but in a different way), this was an actual dilemma for me.

And again, you have to see that this comes down to personal preference. For you, the R was too much (as is using the NSX you did buy, on track). For some, it won't be.

Shades of grey. You're very much talking sense, but you have to understand at the same time that it doesn't apply to everyone.

Yes some people are insanely rich, and we can probably assume that people thrashing these expensive cars at the track can afford it. I'm saying that for those of us who are not, I'd invite us all to consider what it is that we think we're missing and why. Because the reality is that you can have a better track experience for less money than those people. All it's lacking is the show-offy money burnt element... which isn't fun to someone who doesn't have extreme wealth.

The bolded aspect is the part, of all of this conversation, that I disagree with. Better for you doesn't necessarily mean better for everyone. And even "less money" is subjective. The purchase price of an NSX-R is higher, for sure, but if you already own one because you're a fan of the model, then taking it on track as-is is cheaper than buying a whole new NSX and chucking money at it for track-ready parts...

You might have to squint to see how this is relevant. But this is relevant to my point: https://jalopnik.com/why-ultra-low-mileage-classic-cars-are-the-worst-cars-t-1829472051

All the better excuse to drive that Type R rather than deciding it's too precious to use hard

Incidentally, I know a guy who until recently owned a Cayman GT4. He bought it new, specced the Clubsport pack (or whatever it's called these days) with the cage and other goodies. And then he barely drove it, even on the road, because the Porsche market went silly and all of a sudden GT4s were worth 80% over list for a few months.

I know that basically corroborates what you're saying about the NSX-R, but that just isn't me. The GT4 is one of the best drivers' cars of probably the last quarter century. It's not a huge stretch to say it's one of the best full stop. If I was ever in a position where my decision was between using it and accepting it'd knock 10k off its value, or parking it away and sitting on an "investment", then if I didn't choose to use it I might as well give up on cars altogether. Ditto the NSX-R.

I'm sure the guy with that delivery-miles McLaren F1 that sold at auction a few years ago was very pleased with the money he got for it, but then he'd spent 20 years not driving one of the purest drivers' cars ever conceived. I wonder which of those things he'll appreciate more on his death bed.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for the post @homeforsummer. I'm going to drop some of the stuff I agree with. If you think I dropped something important that you wanted a specific response to, let me know. I'm gonna lead with the most controversial bits in hopes of ditching other parts that would have been repeated.

Is anyone in this thread actually doing that? Or are they just saying that if they owned an NSX-R they'd like to drive it on track?

Yes but not you. So moving on.

All the better excuse to drive that Type R rather than deciding it's too precious to use hard

Incidentally, I know a guy who until recently owned a Cayman GT4. He bought it new, specced the Clubsport pack (or whatever it's called these days) with the cage and other goodies. And then he barely drove it, even on the road, because the Porsche market went silly and all of a sudden GT4s were worth 80% over list for a few months.

I know that basically corroborates what you're saying about the NSX-R, but that just isn't me. The GT4 is one of the best drivers' cars of probably the last quarter century. It's not a huge stretch to say it's one of the best full stop. If I was ever in a position where my decision was between using it and accepting it'd knock 10k off its value, or parking it away and sitting on an "investment", then if I didn't choose to use it I might as well give up on cars altogether. Ditto the NSX-R.

I'm sure the guy with that delivery-miles McLaren F1 that sold at auction a few years ago was very pleased with the money he got for it, but then he'd spent 20 years not driving one of the purest drivers' cars ever conceived. I wonder which of those things he'll appreciate more on his death bed.

I thought I was the one telling people how to use their cars... Honestly this position comes across to me as more judgey than I'm being. How can I say that when I've called people insane for not making particular choices with which cars to buy or use? I allow for some insanity. I even practice a bit of irrationality myself on occasion. It can be fun, I try not to let it have the potential to cause serious harm though.

The article I liked was talking about the problem with owning something that you can't use. They call it maddening, or frustrating, or even a bad idea. And the article does that a bit tongue-in-cheek recognizing that it's not always a bad idea or maddening for some people. They call it maddening or frustrating not because they assume that one should do what you've advocated above - just say f-it and blow the money. They assume that you won't do that because you'll recognize that it's not worth it. They call it maddening because they recognize the dilemma.

But they don't recognize the dilemma really, and they kinda know that. Because it's peanuts to own a low mileage beetle and drive it around. It's commonplace, ordinary, unremarkable to find a great example of a beetle that you can drive and enjoy. What's not commonplace is to find the one that is a museum piece. And you'd be ruining that by driving it. And for what? To fulfill the car's spiritual purpose? No, it would be insane. Driving that car, destroying its value, using it up, is depriving the world of a museum piece... depriving yourself of loads of value... and rendering something that was truly special into something ordinary. And that's awful.

The guy with the F1 with zero miles on it probably did have to make do with his F50 or F40 or whatever other insane cars he owned... maybe another F1 who knows. He definitely deprived himself of a chance to drive a really special car... but I doubt he'll worry about it on his death bed, because he netted money, which is what he wanted out of the transaction... and if he wanted a fantastic driving experience. He got it. Maybe not that fantastic driving experience, but it's not a binary issue at these sums. I'm sure he doesn't feel deprived. If he does... he can still go buy an F1 and change that.

And this is, more than anything, the disconnect in the conversation. That F1 was not that guy's chance at driving fun and he let it slip away. He has that chance still with an F1. More than that, he has that chance still, and had it before, with countless other fantastic driving experiences. I'm highly confident. He's rich, no question.

That makes sense, but I still think it overestimates the risks you take when you go on track. Maybe you're talking about doing the car mechanical damage, maybe you're talking the risk of sticking it into a barrier, but the latter in particular seems to be nothing more than the difference between driving hard and driving like your career depends on getting the lap record. Trackdays aren't the environment for the second option.

Trackdays are the environment for testing your limits as a driver and the limits of the car, learning, exploring, pushing. It is where you get it wrong and spin... potentially right into a wall, or onto some terrain that takes out a bumper, bends a control arm, or rips off an otherwise irreplaceable part.

I think that you're assuming that I don't also see the risks of road driving, and so you think that I'm overestimating the risk at the track because I'm not sufficiently estimating the risks at the road. I see them both, and I have trouble understanding where a Type R fits in until you get enough money that you just don't care. And even then it's an odd choice.

I get that, but I also think that an NSX-R owner would be less concerned of the consequences too.

Yea I think that's true. They would be less concerned of the consequences, but much less driven to take them. Way less driven to take them. When you tell someone they can have a blast on track in all kinds of wonderful cars, or they can take risks to have a similar time... surely you see how they might be less concerned with the risks but FAR less motivated to take them.

I'd drive it because chances like that don't come up often.

And I sure as hell hope I'd be able to drive it on a track because it very much falls under the category of cars whose performance falls well outside of being exploited on the road...

And then I'd sell it, and use the proceeds to buy a house with a big garage, and a bunch of cheap hoopties as that's what I'm really into.

And maybe an NSX-R.

You have an interesting and somewhat strange calibration for personal risk when it comes to the reward. I wouldn't even want to move it. You can damage that car just by putting it on a truck to transport it. And every dollar of value in that car would far outweigh the enjoyment I'd get out of tracking it, or taking it on the road, or having any type of ownership experience. The difference between damage putting it on a truck to get it to the track, or hitting a bird at the track, could buy you a 911.

Again, this is assuming there are no intangible aspects to enjoyment.

Using my Peugeot as an example again: I didn't pay a lot of money for it, but I did pay maybe six times what a basic Peugeot 106 with less power costs in this country. Potentially, I'd even get maybe 90% of the enjoyment from a cheap 106 as I do from my tarted-up Rallye, since most of the enjoyment I get from that car is from its small size, the non-assisted steering, the old-school feel. The subtle body kit and blue carpets and steel wheels and snazzy graphics don't make any difference to the actual driving experience, so why did I spend more than I needed to for (extra power aside) basically the same experience?

Well, because enjoyment from cars comes from far more than just the bare experience of driving. If someone wanted to take their NSX-R on track for no other reason than because it's a special experience to drive a car that was honed from factory to be more capable than the standard car, and better suited to track driving without the need (initially) to spend any extra, then why shouldn't they?

I don't think I assumed that there are no intangible aspects to enjoyment. I'm assuming that you have to put a price on them... which you do.

Why? If anything, I'd pick the car that I'd be more likely to feel I'm getting the best from. Don't get me wrong, I'd not say no to driving an old NSX race car, but if you were to ask which I thought would make me feel less of a feeble driver out of a road-going supercar or a slicks'n'wings competition car, it's gonna be the road car. I've driven cars on slicks before. They're brilliant, but as a mere mortal I've always come away from the experience wondering how much quicker I could have gone. In a road car I'm usually satisfied I went quick enough...

Gun to my head? Race car, because, at least for me, those opportunities are ever so marginally less frequent than the road car equivalents.

You're kindof approaching this from the perspective of someone who just "gets a chance" to drive something, rather than someone who gets to choose what they drive. And I'm trying to shift you into thinking from the perspective of someone who has opportunities and gets to pick the best one. Not because they need to sample while the sample is available, but because they have a wealth of experiences that they can sample, and want to spend the time wisely.

Driving, for me, is never about racing. I don't have that in me. I know some people have it, the competitive edge, needing to be the fastest. I'm not that person. For me it's all about the experience. When I say that I'd pick a track car for the track, and a road car for the road, it's purely out of recognition of the experience. I'm looking to take a car that's well suited for the environment, because it makes sense and offers a fitting experience. Is it an interesting experience to take a Saturn Ion to the track? I'm sure it is. Do I need to have that experience in my life? No. I'd rather take it on the road (or not at all).

Part of the experience is what you're risking, and it's not (for me) a good part. I don't want to feel like I'm risking my life, and I don't want to feel like I'm risking my financial well-being. I'm willing to take some level of risk to life and financial well being to have fun, but that willingness only comes to a point. But here's the important point, this is something I really want to convey, it's not a plus. Risking your life, and risking your financial well being is not (for people that I would consider sane) a benefit. It's a detriment. If I could have the same experience at the track with no risk to life or property, it would be better. And this is what I mean when I say that a Type R is not a good track car anymore. It doesn't offer enough added experience to make up for the added detriment. You might say that this is a personal choice, but I can literally recreate the Type R experience in another car for less. And I can even offer improvements (which you yourself called objectively better) for less. And that makes it a better experience on track, because it costs less. Because the detriment is reduced. Because the risk is less.

This is something that I really want you to at least understand... the anxiety of consequences of actions. The reason I didn't drive that Gullwing, for example. It's because I knew that there was no way I'd really enjoy it, because I'd be nervous the whole time. Nervous about every shift, every other car on the road. These are detriments to the experience. And they're not irrational responses that need to be suppressed or are unhealthy. They're a rational recognition of real consequences.

That's pigeonholing "rich people" somewhat. The "rich people" I actually know bring their fancy cars along to the track days we organise because that's the best place to drive them hard!

I don't think I excluded that possibility. I just brought up many others.

The large majority of cars I've driven on track haven't had a racing harness. So no, not necessarily. While it's objectively better (and safer, I'm sure), it's not a 100% necessary component of enjoying a car on track. Again, different people see value in different things.

Objectively better was all I needed.

But the best answer to "why?" is sometimes, genuinely, "why not?" If the increasingly valuable GT3 RSs I've seen used on track aren't too precious to use, then nor is an NSX-R. Even if there are "superior" alternatives.

"Too precious to use" is not a fixed concept. For one person it will be, and for others it will not. It all depends on your various perspectives and personal risk.

And again, you have to see that this comes down to personal preference. For you, the R was too much (as is using the NSX you did buy, on track). For some, it won't be.

Shades of grey. You're very much talking sense, but you have to understand at the same time that it doesn't apply to everyone.

Some of the things I'm talking about do apply to everyone. When I say that the Type R is less usable, I say that mostly from a perspective of someone who lacks infinite wealth. But it is genuinely less usable on the road (and it is a road car after all), for anyone regardless of wealth because of the (presumably) stiffer suspension and lack of some basic creature comforts. I find it to be less usable at the track as well, mostly because I don't have $50M making me not care.

I bought the car that I was more likely to drive and enjoy precisely because I was more likely to drive and enjoy it. I wanted a great road car, and the Type R is not that. The thing is, if i wanted a great track car, I still wouldn't buy the Type R. And I hope I've explained rational reasons why that's the case.

The bolded aspect is the part, of all of this conversation, that I disagree with. Better for you doesn't necessarily mean better for everyone. And even "less money" is subjective. The purchase price of an NSX-R is higher, for sure, but if you already own one because you're a fan of the model, then taking it on track as-is is cheaper than buying a whole new NSX and chucking money at it for track-ready parts...

Hopefully you see now how the value of it detracts from the experience.

Throughout this conversation I find that you keep returning to a strong desire to sample new experiences and move on. And maybe that's how you view car ownership as well... opportunities to sample. You need even more money to do that though. To buy a Type R just to check it out and sell it again shortly after some other car, is even more of a power move than to buy it and hold it. But buying a car and holding it, having a protracted ownership experience and relationship with the car, requires not just that the car can give you something interested and different, but that it give you something that remains valuable compared what else is out there when you already know what you're going to get out of it.

I think this part of the disconnect is why you brought up slicks'n'wings when I mentioned tracking a used race car. You're viewing it from the perspective of sampling a setup that's not tuned for you. And I specifically went to the race car because of (at least my impression, I've never owned one) that you can set it up for you the way you like at the track, slicks or no, and that the next person to own it would do the same. Maybe that's not the case, and if not, then I'd recommend going cheaper in the dedicated track car world to find the setup that suits your driving style.

I feel like we're still missing each other here, and that I haven't put my finger right on the issue yet.

I'm bringing a message of contentment to the car enthusiasts here. You know that road car that's out of your range to afford? Well it turns out it's not that great for the road. And on the track? Meh. You can have a similar or better track car for a fraction of the cost. So worry not my car enthusiast friends, you can have it all for so much less money. Leave the bragging and showing off to the rich folks, and play it smart to deliver yourself every bit of the driving fun.

 

[homeforsummer]

As per your own post, I'll snip out some elements here, either because I'm responding to them in other quotes, or because I agree - but likewise, feel free to bring up something again if you feel like I've glossed over it.

That F1 was not that guy's chance at driving fun and he let it slip away.

Optimistic, but not unrealistic. If he was prepared to not drive a McLaren F1, I'm sure he was prepared to not drive any number of other wonderful-to-drive cars too...

Trackdays are the environment for testing your limits as a driver and the limits of the car, learning, exploring, pushing. It is where you get it wrong and spin... potentially right into a wall, or onto some terrain that takes out a bumper, bends a control arm, or rips off an otherwise irreplaceable part.

I think that you're assuming that I don't also see the risks of road driving, and so you think that I'm overestimating the risk at the track because I'm not sufficiently estimating the risks at the road. I see them both, and I have trouble understanding where a Type R fits in until you get enough money that you just don't care. And even then it's an odd choice.

You misunderstand.

You're using "testing your limits" to mean - so far as I can tell - driving absolutely flat-out with zero margin for error. At least that's what I'm inferring from your repeated comments that being on track is too great a risk to your vehicle.

My position is that's not what trackdays are for; that's what racing is for.

I'd not drive my road car on a track to the same level I would a race car in timed or head-to-head competition. It's possible to push without spinning or crashing. It's possible to approach a car's limits, and enjoy that, without going over the limit. Track days are not competitive events, and they don't require competitive levels of commitment as a result.

You have an interesting and somewhat strange calibration for personal risk when it comes to the reward. I wouldn't even want to move it. You can damage that car just by putting it on a truck to transport it. And every dollar of value in that car would far outweigh the enjoyment I'd get out of tracking it, or taking it on the road, or having any type of ownership experience. The difference between damage putting it on a truck to get it to the track, or hitting a bird at the track, could buy you a 911.

Rowan Atkinson "wrote off"* his F1 twice. And had it rebuilt from the ground up, twice. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's fair to assume that people in the position to own such cars are also in a position to use them.

So on the contrary, I'd say that you hold the more unusual position on risk and reward here. Perhaps it's because you're coming at this from the position of someone who actually considered buying an NSX-R, but isn't in the position I suspect many NSX-R owners are of having a fleet of similarly valuable/even more valuable cars, and are therefore erring much more on the side of caution than a typical owner.

You're kindof approaching this from the perspective of someone who just "gets a chance" to drive something, rather than someone who gets to choose what they drive.

That's not the case.

For avoidance of doubt, there is no realistic situation that involved me owning an NSX-R (i.e. we're assuming I'm not living on the breadline in order to afford one, and that I'm mentally and physically fit enough to actually drive) in which I wouldn't be willing to take it on track. Even if I could get a "better" experience with a modified standard example.

Part of the experience is what you're risking, and it's not (for me) a good part. I don't want to feel like I'm risking my life, and I don't want to feel like I'm risking my financial well-being. I'm willing to take some level of risk to life and financial well being to have fun, but that willingness only comes to a point.

And that comes back to what I mentioned further up about "testing your limits". If you're driving like you're trying to win Le Mans, then yes - there's risk to life and finances there.

Given this seems to be a sticking point in this discussion, it clearly comes down to our interpretation of how risky driving quickly on a track actually is. I don't consider myself a spectacular driver and I'd have said I actually have a fairly low risk threshold (I drive a lot slower on the road, where there are dozens more variables than on track, than most of my colleagues), but I've driven on track numerous times in numerous different cars, up to and occasionally beyond the limits of grip, and never felt like the situation was going to get away from me. You can interpret that as either me having more talent than ambition, or that my ambition is so low my limited talent will cover it anyway But either way, I don't over-reach my own abilities.

I'm sure something could happen, and when I eventually get the chance to race, I'm sure something probably will at some point. But my assessment of risk in this scenario can only be based on me simply not seeing taking a reasonably valuable car like an NSX-R on track as all that risky. I'm confident enough in my own common sense that I could enjoy the experience without putting myself or the car at any great risk.

You might say that this is a personal choice, but I can literally recreate the Type R experience in another car for less. And I can even offer improvements (which you yourself called objectively better) for less. And that makes it a better experience on track, because it costs less. Because the detriment is reduced. Because the risk is less.

For the record, when I mentioned a harness was objectively better, I was primarily talking about safety. In context of the discussion above I understand that safety plays a part here, but for enjoyment, for me, it's neither here nor there.

But again, I feel like we're not going to have much movement on this point. For me it matters not if you can replicate the experience if you have the means to enjoy the original.

As an aside, I'm beginning to think the NSX-R isn't actually a great example to base this discussion around, because it's not that different from a regular NSX when it boils down to it. If you did end up breaking something on track, I can't see it being vastly more difficult to fix than a regular one. Most of the R programme involved removing things, not filling the car with more expensive components. I know much of your point is that it's more expensive in the first place, but fixing an armco-damaged corner on an R probably isn't greatly different from doing so in a non-R...

This is something that I really want you to at least understand... the anxiety of consequences of actions. The reason I didn't drive that Gullwing, for example. It's because I knew that there was no way I'd really enjoy it, because I'd be nervous the whole time. Nervous about every shift, every other car on the road. These are detriments to the experience. And they're not irrational responses that need to be suppressed or are unhealthy. They're a rational recognition of real consequences.

I understand this, but for me it again boils down to the steps I take to mitigate risk. The majority of cars I've owned have been small, lightweight vehicles with (at best) 1990s crash technology, and no airbags, no ABS, ESP or TCS. If I didn't accept at least a basic level of risk I'd never leave the house.

"Too precious to use" is not a fixed concept. For one person it will be, and for others it will not. It all depends on your various perspectives and personal risk.

Indeed - it's subjective, as much of this discussion has been since the start.

Hopefully you see now how the value of it detracts from the experience.

*Detracts from your experience.

Throughout this conversation I find that you keep returning to a strong desire to sample new experiences and move on.

Yes and no.

I'm absolutely a person who wants to sample new experiences and move on. But I'm also a person who wants to hang onto and cherish certain experiences if I feel they're worth it.

Now the caveat here is that in context of this discussion, I've never driven an NSX-R (I have driven regular NSXs, albeit relatively briefly), so I cannot be 100 per cent certain in everything I say. There is a possibility - albeit a fairly remote one, as I think I'm fairly good at knowing what I like and dislike - that I'd find the NSX-R was a pile of crap on both road and track. But I suspect that isn't the case, which leads me to my earlier comment: there is no realistic situation that involved me owning an NSX-R in which I wouldn't be willing to take it on track.

I'm bringing a message of contentment to the car enthusiasts here. You know that road car that's out of your range to afford? Well it turns out it's not that great for the road. And on the track? Meh. You can have a similar or better track car for a fraction of the cost. So worry not my car enthusiast friends, you can have it all for so much less money. Leave the bragging and showing off to the rich folks, and play it smart to deliver yourself every bit of the driving fun.

And my message is that playing it smart has no direct correlation with what constitutes fun


* Quotation marks used because F1s are now so valuable, and McLaren's technology so specialised, that there's basically nothing you can do to an F1 that can't result in it being rebuilt. So you can't really "write off" an F1.

 

[Danoff]

You're using "testing your limits" to mean - so far as I can tell - driving absolutely flat-out with zero margin for error. At least that's what I'm inferring from your repeated comments that being on track is too great a risk to your vehicle.

My position is that's not what trackdays are for; that's what racing is for.

Not exactly.

I'm using "testing your limits" to mean learning. And in order to learn, you have to find out where that limit is. It's not necessarily driving flat out so much as it is finding how to properly balance a car in a corner, at what point does oversteer overwhelm, at what point does the car spin, when does braking cause a spin, etc. That learning process involves mistakes, it kinda has to. And as with any learning scenario you want to have those mistakes in an environment of reduced risk. So that you can enjoy learning safely.

I suppose maybe by the time you're driving or tracking a car as valuable as a Type R that you're supposed to be done learning, and that you're not making any mistakes. But anyone can miss a shift and destroy an engine. Anyone can overcook a turn and end up in the dirt. It happens to seasoned drivers, even those who are not racing.

Ironically, racing doesn't necessarily call for that (you knew I was going to disagree right?)

The people that I've known who have participated in racing have tried to describe to me the level of consistency that it takes. They were in endurance, so maybe what you describe is more appropriate for shorter races, where chances have to be taken or a podium doesn't happen. But in longer races the first goal is to finish, and you don't get to do that if you're not driving at a level backed off from the limit. The way they describe it, you have to find a level of driving where you can do it consistently, fast, and not screw up. The endurance racer that was describing this to me (same guy as the motorcycle track comment) was saying that he was lapping the track within about a tenth of a second every time, and didn't put in the fastest lap, but was overall the fastest on his team.

So I'd counter-argue that track days are where off-track experiences should be most likely, more so than racing (at least in lengthy races).

I don't doubt that you can use track days differently than that. That you can go out and just take it easy and have a good time. You're in control of how hard you push after all, and as long as the group you're with is one you're comfortable with (which is sometimes not an easy task), I don't deny that you can reduce the risk. You're still more likely to hit wildlife, miss a shift and grenade your engine, and spin the car on track than you are on the road. But you can certainly have a good time at 7/10ths.

I'm still wondering why you'd pick the Type R though. I get it for novelty, for wanting to see what it's about (and all reviews that I've seen suggest that it's a phenomenally balanced car and a complete sensory experience that is the complete package). But risk is bad. And there's risk. I'm not one of those people that gets off on taking big chances for the sake of taking big chances. I don't need the rush of danger. I get that those people exist, I just think it's kinda crazy. I don't get the sense that you're that person either.

So on the contrary, I'd say that you hold the more unusual position on risk and reward here. Perhaps it's because you're coming at this from the position of someone who actually considered buying an NSX-R, but isn't in the position I suspect many NSX-R owners are of having a fleet of similarly valuable/even more valuable cars, and are therefore erring much more on the side of caution than a typical owner.

It's not fair to just assume that anyone owning or aspiring to own these cars is super rich and has a fleet of these vehicles. Sure some of them are, but it's kinda pointless to talk about them. They don't have to do anything remotely approaching sensible. The rest of us don't live there, but still want to participate in great driving experiences.

For avoidance of doubt, there is no realistic situation that involved me owning an NSX-R (i.e. we're assuming I'm not living on the breadline in order to afford one, and that I'm mentally and physically fit enough to actually drive) in which I wouldn't be willing to take it on track. Even if I could get a "better" experience with a modified standard example.

Ok. I get that you'd want to sample it.

But you'd sell it right? Because it just can't be worth it for that purpose. Barring obscene wealth, it's a really strange choice. I've not really seen a counterargument to this.

I'm sure something could happen, and when I eventually get the chance to race, I'm sure something probably will at some point. But my assessment of risk in this scenario can only be based on me simply not seeing taking a reasonably valuable car like an NSX-R on track as all that risky. I'm confident enough in my own common sense that I could enjoy the experience without putting myself or the car at any great risk.

Maybe this is a really common attitude among people who take cars to the track. A high estimation of your abilities and control enables you to do things that would otherwise fail a reasonable risk assessment. Maybe the folks we're talking about are just mostly very cocky people who think they can't die and they can't crash. It's a reasonable hypothesis actually. Most of the people who acquire reasonable levels of wealth are people who have extreme levels of confidence in many areas. I think most race car drivers in general have extreme levels of confidence in their abilities as well, historically that was always right up until they died on track.

For the record, when I mentioned a harness was objectively better, I was primarily talking about safety. In context of the discussion above I understand that safety plays a part here, but for enjoyment, for me, it's neither here nor there.

It wears you out a little more to be pulling hard g-s in a regular belt because you're flexing to prevent sliding. I like being strapped in better to prevent sliding in the seat. I doubt you'll argue with that.

But again, I feel like we're not going to have much movement on this point. For me it matters not if you can replicate the experience if you have the means to enjoy the original.

Once. It matters not if you can replicate the experience if you have the means to enjoy the original... once. But at some point you'll wonder why you're wasting your means and taking risk on an experience that isn't better.

As an aside, I'm beginning to think the NSX-R isn't actually a great example to base this discussion around, because it's not that different from a regular NSX when it boils down to it. If you did end up breaking something on track, I can't see it being vastly more difficult to fix than a regular one. Most of the R programme involved removing things, not filling the car with more expensive components. I know much of your point is that it's more expensive in the first place, but fixing an armco-damaged corner on an R probably isn't greatly different from doing so in a non-R...

It isn't that much different except it costs a lot more in value.

*Detracts from your experience.

Like I said, if the risk is what you're enjoying, you're a little crazy. It happens for sure, some people are turned on by risking life and limb.

Now the caveat here is that in context of this discussion, I've never driven an NSX-R (I have driven regular NSXs, albeit relatively briefly), so I cannot be 100 per cent certain in everything I say. There is a possibility - albeit a fairly remote one, as I think I'm fairly good at knowing what I like and dislike - that I'd find the NSX-R was a pile of crap on both road and track. But I suspect that isn't the case, which leads me to my earlier comment: there is no realistic situation that involved me owning an NSX-R in which I wouldn't be willing to take it on track.

...but would you own it in the first place? Does it make sense to own given that that's what you're going to do with it? At what point would it be the right choice to purchase? Once again, stop thinking of this from the perspective of someone who has just been given a chance. Think of it from the perspective of choice... the reality is you have to choose this one over any of the many many alternatives.

And my message is that playing it smart has no direct correlation with what constitutes fun

Oh but it can. Because of that nervousness I was talking about earlier. Playing it smart enables you to eliminate the downside and free yourself to have a good time.

On a related note, I found out just last night when chatting with a friend, that someone who I know (not very well) who is a semi-pro racer and who is building a race team has just purchased a McLaren 720s. I know that this person is not completely made of money. Wealthy yes, but not to the point where lighting this car on fire wouldn't sting in a major way. I know that this car represents the single most expensive car they've ever purchased, and is a bit of a lifetime achievement and goal. And I also know that they intend to race it. Not just track it.

Apparently they have some kind of crazy insurance policy. I'll have an opportunity to ask the details on that later this year, and I will. But I'm guessing that this purchase was a decision to use the car up. I think that this was a calculated "I have enough money to consume this car" choice. Kinda like the aforementioned folks that take 911s out to track days.

It's not quite the scenario that we've been talking about, but it's not too far off. They're just willing to spend this much money on their hobby. I have to wonder though, why the 720s. Why a road car? I have a feeling that the answer will be something remarkably unsatisfying. Something like "the race I wanted to enter has requirements that the car be blah blah blah blah". And so a dedicated track car was not an option. I know that this person generally stuck to cheap tracked-out cars for racing and track fun precisely for many of the reasons I have brought up here.

Anyway, it'll be almost a year before I can poke and prod them about this decision.