The article should say Ray Nichels. The author spelled his name incorrectly.

I certainly don't have anything close to $500k of stuff that could be damaged in a fire. But given the language in the quoted text, I could see an insurance company using the same type of offense to sue for damages in any case that involved an older modified car. And for most of us, we'd be forced into bankruptcy…

I checked the LincVolt site and got the idea that Young is the owner of the warehouse that he uses to store the LinkVolt, other cars, memorabilia, etc. It appears that all of the work is done at other facilities and the LincVolt is just stored (and charged) there. I don't know the specifics of his policy or this case…

I don't see the similarity in the example you provided. Selling someone a defective product is much different than leaving a battery charger unattended and having it cause a fire. And then getting sued because the insurance company thinks "The altering of a gas-powered 1959 vehicle and its components is an extreme…

The fact that it's a "normal case" is what I find really disturbing.

From the info in the story, it appears that Unigard was the insurer of the warehouse and NOT the car that was stored there. There's nothing in the story that suggests Young owns the warehouse.

The fact that a lawsuit like this can go forward is an example of a major flaw in our justice system.

Not quite. He had a line hooked up to the inflation/deflation system that entered the intake manifold downstream of the air restrictor. This allowed deflation to occur more quickly as the air was sucked into the intake manifold. It was this line that he plugged.

Daily updates on NBC Sports (formerly Versus) channel

We also called them beachwagons. Maybe a result of growing up on the Cape.

How about this one?

I lived by Selfridge when the F-16s were based there - never got old for me.

I had to mute the sound on that video. Here's a Blue Angels cockpit video. This one has the actual sound without any dorky music.

I guess we do see things differently and that's fine. I don't think the driver doing 180+ kph has any more right to block faster traffic and is only slightly better than the driver who figures they're doing the speed limit so they don't need to move over and let other cars pass.

My point was that the other cars DIDN'T move out of the way, even when the opportunity presented itself. At least not in a timely manner. They took their sweet time when they could have moved over, let the Ferrari by, and still not been inconvenienced by the slower traffic they passed before finally moving over.

At 1:50 he pulls up to a Porsche. The Porsche continues to sit in the left lane, even though there's room for him to move over. It waits to pass a few cars before it finally moves over. The Porsche might have been held up by that dark compact wagon who now continues to sit in the left lane. The wagon may have been…

People always talk about how bad Americans are at hogging the left lane but there seems to be plenty of evidence in this clip that Americans don't have an exclusive on left lane hogs.

I guess I didn't make my point clear. I was supporting your original argument that we need the F-22 and F-35 because our adversaries have developed aircraft that are a better match for our current F-15s, F-16s, etc. We need to maintain superiority so that other nations will not even consider challenging us, thus…

In addition to Jeb_Hoge's point, you have to assess those limitations relative to present aircraft rather than what a theoretical perfect aircraft could achieve as the poster seems to do.

You might love this movie but from viewing this clip, I can see it has no basis in reality. In my experience, the military side of any program knows EXACTLY how much is being spent pretty much to the penny.