+1

I have a Z125 and I wouldn’t be afraid to be seen on a Vespa, but the differentiator for me is that the seating position on the Grom/Z125 makes for a fun chuckable ride that can’t be accomplished on any scooter I’ve ridden.

LMAO. Sure. Go tell that to Peterbilt.

I’d describe the racing sequences more like slap-stick than cheesy. Ricky is driving with a Fig Newton banner that covers half his windshield......it’s too self-aware to be cheesy. 

Why on earth would anyone want an electric snowmobile? And then they talked about the use cases in various places, especially ski resorts.

Nobody needs a six-figure car that runs 9s.

Isn’t every flight out of Australia an inter-continental flight?

Why is it a bad thing? Seems better than the ungainly “sticky-outy things”, no? Obviously the best case would be neither of those options, but is there something worse about this approach, accepting that the regulations are here to stay?

I ride, but I don’t know a ton about bikes, if that makes sense. Is the thing they’re doing with the license plate bracket new? Or is that a common solution? Seems like a brilliant alternative to the horrendous looking ones that stick out 3 feet from the tail fairing, which everyone removes.

...And every other Porsche. And Wranglers. And Grand Cherokees. And Minis. And every Audi. The list goes on. This take that it’s “similar to the last one” is so weird, to me. Design can be iterative while still being a fully new car. 

Man, I’m pretty shocked by all the negativity in the comments. This seems to fix the issues with the current Z without modernizing it so much that it loses its soul.

I’m having trouble trying to think of practical uses for this crab walk that aren’t just silly party tricks.

F1 teams are effectively F1 franchises. I’m not sure I’m picking up your point on this one. You are definitely correct that you can’t write the NFL a check and simply start scheduling games. But you can’t write F1 a check and just show up to grid, either. 

Exactly. This is exactly what I’m saying. The Expansion fees help to build a moat around existing teams, which contributes to their status as an appreciating asset. The income isn’t irrelevant, but it isn’t the main driver. 

The fans don’t own the team any more than I own Microsoft, but because they’re public, we can get a little more info on them than other teams. Forbes claims $62mm in profit for the Texans: https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45efhhk/5-houston-texans-2/#6c21b237108c

Meh. F1's problem isn’t that there aren’t enough teams. There are plenty. The grid could only support three more.

In 2015, the Packers posted a profit of a whopping $40 million, which includes revenues from TV rights, ticket sales, etc. Chump-change relative to the Texans’ $700mm expansion fee. It’s not easy to earn that money back, at all.

Jesus. The internet was a mistake.

Gene Haas just got a $200 million bump in the valuation of his team.......

What you’re describing is an issue that the expansion fee helps to solve, though. Right now, a team isn’t worth anything, because it’s easier to create one from scratch than it is to buy a pre-existing one. The team itself isn’t an asset - only what the team owns (which is how Williams got $200mm). By comparison, the…