A Case For Minimalism

It can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. But ,whyt does it matter?
You specifically emphasized $60k Tesla as a luxury item that the elites from CA buy as toys, yet somehow an equivalently priced truck or SUV is not a luxury? Do you mean to say that the poor working class need them to survive?

This thread is about minimalism, a $60k vehicle, no matter how it’s classified is not minimalist.
0-60 is an irrelevant luxury feature offered by EVs. It's a main selling point, the quickness.

6 of the top 10 selling vehicles in the US are trucks. Trucks are generally owned by men of all income brackets, and men tend to work in blue collar fields and are generally doing the home improvements. 2 of the top 10 vehicles are medium SUVs. These SUVs are used for off-road adventures, and cold snowy weather climates, where EVs are terrible. These have also replaced the family mini-van. These 8 vehicles are almost universally purchased for purpose based needs (rather than wants) and are often the sole vehicle the person owns so it is multi-purpose.

A $60k luxury Tesla, by contrast, is entirely a "want based" purchase, it has an owner profile of an urbanite or suburbanite, someone earning 3 times the national average income, works in white collar industries, and this person tends to own a garage to plug the vehicle in, and tends to own multiple vehicles. This person might also hire others to do home improvements and nannies or assistants so chauffeur kids around, do menial tasks, etc. This person represents the top 5% of Americans and is a very unique user profile.

Apples and oranges. There's 90-95% of Americans who have little need for an EV until they can compete with SUVs and Trucks at the same price points. I doubt I will live long enough to see that occur. You can rule out EVs in the north 2/3ds of the USA for the most part, except as 2nd summer cars. The EV market has a natural ceiling on ownership, as reflected by little adoption outside of a few zip codes in the very unique California market.
 
That’s why they buy a car.

But the car they choose is generally driven by emotion and desire.

Very few buy the car they need and instead rationalize buying much more car than that.
Sure. Sales and marketing teach us every major purchase is an emotional purchase.
By definition, that opens the door for not making the best overall decision.

But from a larger sense, buyers do not cross shop Odysseys and 911s.
But yes, they might buy the EX-L Touring when an LX might be better from a fianancial standpoint.
 
An EV allows automakers to also build several gas guzzlers to a degree that no economical ICE powered car can match. This is why GM will be mass producing a new V8 engine in the near future, and also why small gas sippers are about to become extinct.
Do you have evidence for this? Everything I’m seeing currently has the OEMs using their ICE operations to fund their R&D and operations for the EVs.
 
EVs are safer, faster, offer better fuel economy, and allow for a far greater opportunity to pursue styling that isn't available for the gas alternatives.
1. Safer? Dunno. Modern cars seem darn safe. Tesla went off a cliff, all survived. But I've also seen reported accidents of 100+ mph crashes where the passengers survived. Case in point a pro-athlete Henry Rugs going 156 mph in his Corvette and hit a parked car. Both Corvette passengers survived with minor injuries.

2. Faster? We're at a point of diminished returns and irrelevant differences of fractions of seconds. You're limited by the law and physics.

3. Better fuel economy is subjective, user dependent, and is fuzzy math. Energy prices also change. 20 or so years ago, Diesel was cheaper than gas, and many people switched to diesel. Now it's more expensive. Go figure. The greater adoption of EVs will place greater strains on our grids and could easily cause electric prices to increase drastically, and gas to go down in price...

4. Styling? Subjective and frivolous. And minimalism is counter to styling anyway. Nobody owning a 30 year old car, as you propose, cares about styling, which changes every decade. Styling is the antithesis of minimalism because it is entirely consumption driven.
 
One of the issues that will soon get me thrown out of the mainstream automotive media forever is my love for minimalism.

I'm not talking about a basic no-frills car. Or a general rejection of cars in favor of more environmentally sound alternatives.

For me it's all about buying cars. I believe the way most non-enthusiasts can get ahead when it comes to cars is to buy as few of them as possible, and keep holding them for as long as possible.

It's a lot like investing in the stock market. The fewer the transactions and the greater that powertrain is produced and improved on, the better the opportunity to get ahead when it comes to long-term costs and personal satisfaction.

Let me give you a personal example. When I was 21 years old, I managed to buy my first and only brand new car thanks to a windfall of profits on Chrysler stock. It was a red 1994 Toyota Camry coupe. I ended up maintaining it as well as possible and doing all the things many of us here already do when it comes to upkeep. The difference?

I didn't do it because I wanted to focus on cars in the near future.

My goal was to keep it for as long as possible and then, if I got the chance, I would also buy a 1st gen NA Mazda Miata. Those would be my only two cars for the rest of my life.

Would I have been happy 20 years later? Probably. That 1994 Toyota Camry is still on the road today with nearly 400,000 miles on it. One of the owners after it was sold decided to lop off about 200,000 miles from the odometer and reset it for 350,000 to 150,000 miles. When I finally could afford a Miata, I absolutely loved it. I loved the idea of being able to customize and upgrade it as time went on.

I know I started out as an extreme outlier, but high prices, higher interest rates, and the economics of EV ownership are changing the winds of what consumers now want. I think we're now headed for a period where automobiles will become durable goods. Instead of being owned and maintained for years. They will be kept for decades on end. I see two market forces guiding this transition.

The first is that the best chance Tesla has for dominating the car market is to eliminate the need for their owners to buy another vehicle from anyone else, and the best way to differentiate themselves beyond their current image is to offer cars that will last 300,000 to 550,000 miles which is what they already do with their late-model vehicles.

If a car can last that long, you, as someone who isn't into cars in general, you already know that manufacturer is capable of cementing a long-term relationship with your needs IF you aren't really that much into cars. It becomes the easy choice for the non-enthusiast. Just like nobody got fired for buying an IBM from the 1960s thru 1980s, and buying a Toyota usually comes down to a desire for reliability above all else, a late-model Tesla EV is already engineered for longevity and most major automakers will be follow down that exact path of rivaling durability whether they like it or not.

The other change that will gradually happen is that cars, and especially EVs, will eventually become a lot more modular than they are right now. Precious few non-enthusiasts ever bother to do more than just add a nicer radio into this car. Tomorrow's vehicles will allow for a lot more modularlity and change with the software, hardware and the interior of the automobile. EVs are far easier to make and with the powertrain tucked away underneath, the automakers will have a broader palette for customizing and upgrading their cars and trucks.

For right now, automakers want to monetize their vehicles these days by offering monthly subscriptions and getting their customers to finance for as long as possible. I think both models will fail. What will succeed are upgrades and improvements that can be offered over the course of time. The two-row crossover that can have an added third-row installed. Or captain's chairs, upgraded interior seats, dashboard materials and door panels. Upgraded entertainment packages. Improved software that can offer unique features and benefits.

If I can make my older car feel and drive like new for a lot less money than a new car, why would I bother getting rid of it?

I have worn a lot of hats over the years when it comes to the car business. Auto auctioneer. Dealer principal. Analyst. Remarketing manager. Part-owner of an auto auction. The main stumbling blocks I think most mainstream media sources can't fully understand or even accept is that most consumers don't want to be perpetual debtors. They want to be owners. BUT they still want to have that upgrade opportunity whenever that time comes.

I see this as the future for the bulk of the auto industry. Ownership. Durability. Customization that is offered by the manufacturer which trumps the need for a brand new model, and the car becoming a durable good instead of a consumable one.

I disagree with pretty much all the mainstream automotive editors and marketeers. and that's fine. They couldn't comprehend GM going bankrupt until it already happened, and they ignored Tesla's rise until their valuation went far beyond any other automaker.

Once Tesla can build EVs in the $30,000 to $35,000 range with a $7,500 rebate thrown on top, that seven year payment really only amounts to $380 a month if you assume $5,000 down and an 8% interest rate. Nearly four months of those payments every year will come from saved gas costs which will minimize repossessions. The lack of depreciation for certain EVs due to their high demand, will also favor these vehicles even more in the marketplace. This will happen for the leaders of the EV market, not everyone.

I see our industry changing this way. This may take 10 or 15 years, but we're already on the road.
I think there is the possibility that Elon Musk will screw up Tesla as a company and drive away investors then customers.
 
The automakers are going to spend over $500 billion on EVs this decade and for right now, many of the largest automakers such as Hyundai/Kia aren't spending any money at all on R&D for their gasoline engines. The cars we drive now are going to be incredibly cheap and last longer because most folks simply won't drive them as much. EVs are already far cheaper in China and other Asian countries, and the United States will likely be a market for many similar models.

Technology is cheap, especially if you steal it as the Chinese do. They have been able to skip decades of industrialization costs thru intellectual property theft, which is documented. So yeah, advances in technology are faster than mechanical advances in some applications.

But in what universe is $500,000,000,000 "incredibly cheap?" It's a cost that will be absorbed by consumers and tax payers.

There's no evidence EVs will last longer. To do so, they would have to dependably and predictably last more than 30 years, which a well maintained ICE can achieve. That's simply not reality in any universe. The only reason the current average age of vehicles is 12 years, is b/c of cash for clunkers and easy money low interest loans. The days of easy money and credit are over and people will need to keep vehicles maintained. I expect that average to go to 20 years, meaning there are a lot of vehicles far older on the roads. EVs are unlikely to compete here due to the planned obsolesce discussed.

I was reading an article about repairing EVs. Unlike a ICE where I can get a used axle from the junk yard or an aftermarket manufacturer and install it, EVs must use OEM VIN coded parts or the high-tech car will reject that part and it will not work. Much like the old Apple products with sealed batteries that needed to be sent to Apple for costly service, EV users will face a similar expensive controlled ecosystem. This will kill longevity as people will abandon repairs and buy new. And at some point probably every decade patches and support will fall off (no profits for the company in endless support of old units) forcing consumers to buy new or perhaps pay for expensive patches and support to maintain. And, we've discussed the battery problems. They don't last long enough to get 2 or 3 decades out, and they are too expensive to replace vs. buying a new car.

This is all part of the planned obsolescence.
 
Do you have evidence for this? Everything I’m seeing currently has the OEMs using their ICE operations to fund their R&D and operations for the EVs.

Absolutely, but I'm refering to CAFE regulations in that statement. Let's use GM as a quick example.

Over the last five years, General Motors has eliminated every small car from their North American model line-up. The Cruze, Sonic and Spark which had average fuel economy in the 30-ish mpg range are no more.

In their place, GM is planning on having the capacity to build a million EVs by 2025. They are also going to be selling gas powered trucks and SUVs with V8 engines as well.

The average Bolt and Bolt EUV has average fuel economy of 115 to 120 eMPGs vs. only about 33 mpg for the three vehicles gas powered GM eliminated. In the end, GM will be selling a lot more SUVs, trucks, and larger crossovers with EV powertrains that will likely reduce their model mix fuel economy to perhaps 80 eMPG. That isn't a firm number. The EPA still needs to test these vehicles.

If we assume CAFE still requires a 49 mile per gallon fleet average by 2026, then EVs and plug-in dual mode hybrids are the only ways to make that happen. For every 80 eMPG vehicle that's on the road, GM can then sell two vehicles that average roughly 34 miles per gallon. But keep in mind, even a decade ago, a Toyota RAV4 EV that weighed in at over two tons and had a far more primitive powertrain than today's EVs still got 76 eMPG. Trucks will have a harder road but SUVs and crossovers are definitely going to eclipse that fuel efficiency.

What will likely happen is GM will offer more plug-in dual mode hybrids to make up that slack. Government regulations, whether in the USA, China, or Europe, have a way of moving supply and demand whether me or you like it or not. EVs will profitable, because subsidies and government mandates are going to largely eliminate ICE powered vehicles from the marketplace.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, but I'm refering to CAFE regulations in that statement. Let's use GM as a quick example.

Over the last five years, General Motors has eliminated every small car from their North American model line-up. The Cruze, Sonic and Spark which had average fuel economy in the 30-ish mpg range are no more.

In their place, GM is planning on having the capacity to build a million EVs by 2025. They are also going to be selling gas powered trucks and SUVs with V8 engines as well.

The average Bolt and Bolt EUV has average fuel economy of 115 to 120 eMPGs vs. only about 33 mpg for the three vehicles gas powered GM eliminated. In the end, GM will be selling a lot more SUVs, trucks, and larger crossovers with EV powertrains that will likely reduce their model mix fuel economy to perhaps 80 eMPG. That isn't a firm number. The EPA still needs to test these vehicles.

If we assume CAFE still requires a 49 mile per gallon fleet average by 2026, then EVs and plug-in dual mode hybrids are the only ways to make that happen. For every 80 eMPG vehicle that's on the road, GM can then sell two vehicles that average roughly 34 miles per gallon. But keep in mind, even a decade ago, a Toyota RAV4 EV that weighed in at over two tons and had a far more primitive powertrain than today's EVs still got 76 eMPG. Trucks will have a harder road but SUVs and crossovers are definitely going to eclipse that fuel efficiency.

What will likely happen is GM will offer more plug-in dual mode hybrids to make up that slack. Government regulations, whether in the USA, China, or Europe, have a way of moving supply and demand whether me or you like it or not. EVs will profitable, because subsidies and government mandates are going to largely eliminate ICE powered vehicles from the marketplace.
I’ll give you that governments across nations can certainly influence the direction (how fast and how much) in this case.

But looking at this purely from a fuel efficiency standpoint is inaccurate at best. For the past decade and going into the new 5-7 years at least, it’s the ICE vehicles that are allowing the OEMs to fund their EV divisions. This is the case at the tier 1s as well. Without the ICE divisions, EVs would be essentially Tesla. I don’t know how long Tesla can survive as an organization, independent, with their current model mix, pricing, strategy and their wonderful CEO. But other EV manufacturers are all struggling as far as I’m aware - having products that cost too much with too many compromises.

GM ended the small vehicles as did a lot of OEMs due to low profit margins and low take rate. The average consumer likes their grocery getter to have a high seating position and they were able to squeeze more fuel efficiency out of small displacement ICE in tiny CUVs. And this could be done without causing too much impact their respective supply chains at tier 1 levels and below. This would’ve happened even without electrification - GM for example was in discussions about moving their volumes across to their ICE CUVs from the Cruze and Sonics about 1.5-2 years prior to actually ending production. What do I see is making the planned obsolescence harder to circumvent thereby causing the consumer to have to buy new vehicles instead of holding on to them as long as the end consumer wants.

OEMs, GM included, hype up their EVs and the transition to electrification. This is marketing. Fact is, they were discussing with their tier1s on how to prolong the ICE and hybrid operations. This is the reality. OEMs are realizing that the common user isn’t buying into the EV hype - for typical user the compromises are too high to consider them as the primary vehicle. Will it happen? Sure. I think it’ll be another 10-15 years. Also keep in mind, a lot of the “electrified” components come from the tier 1s instead of the OEMs like with an ICE vehicle. Profitability from that standpoint isn’t going to be there for the OEMs, so I respectfully have to disagree on that. Again, it’s the packs where I see semi vertical integration happening which could help with profitability. But overall $/vehicle in segments outside of trucks/large truck based SUVs is/has been going down since the Great Recession, ICE or otherwise.

What I see happening is the OEMs wisening up and going back to the plug in hybrids - CAFE regulations can be met with fewer compromises.

Of course, all of us, including me are speculating :)
 
Last edited:
Few parts vs many parts. 1 speed vs multi speed transmission (to compensate for the inefficient ICE). The ease of plugging in at night and starting every day with a full tank.
how many cells are in that battery? Then add a sense lead to each cell group, and you’re talking lots of parts.

How well does it charge on a throttled supercharger?

I like the model 3, but it’s in no sense a simple or minimalist machine.
 
im gonna build me a truck. steel tube chassis like a nascar or rock buggy, 4x4, manual (probably 6speed instead of 4 or 5speed though) turbo diesel with fully mechanical injection (like a Cummins but lighter) simple interior with basic radio and crank windows. no electronics to make it go or stop. if you can push start it you can drive it. probably will be underpowered brick with crap fuel economy, but I should be able to run it off of any oil in a pinch. if you have no electric power on modern cars you have no power steering, no brake assist, no fuel, no air (drive by wire throttle bodies) and no spark. if I make one of these and people are willing to pay for them, i might make more than one. i need to aquire the use of a machine shop and the knowledge of how to use it, although the drivetrain from assorted trucks over the years would fit the bill (12v p pump Cummins)
 
A few articles/videos today highlight the fact that EVs are not the wave of the future.
1. Rivian sees quickly dropping EV demand. This is consistent with Toyota & GM scaling back investments in EV.

2. Tesla stock price. It fell about 60% in a year, recovered some, but insiders see this as a "dead cat bounce." It's down again today on EV outlook concerns. https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/time-to-downgrade-tesla-stock-says-analyst

3. Numerous articles and videos circulating proving the science of "climate change" is fear porn hoax. EVs are largely based on this misbelief.

4. The OP might get his modularity and updatability wish, considering Tesla Y steering wheels are falling off. Federal investigation. Oh well, it happens to Ford too... :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
I've practised minimalism as the OP originally defined i.e keep a car a long time. I have a spreadsheet for every car I've owned and the % depreciation is for the most part proportional to the length of ownership. The extreme case was buying a 5 year old Mercedes 190e which I kept for a further 21 years and we have salt on the roads. Depreciation averaged out at £410 per year or 4.5 % of it's purchase price. The worst case was a car I kept for only 1.3 years and the depreciation was 23% per year. The other obvious thing is new cars depreciate the most.

Depreciation.PNG
 
A few articles/videos today highlight the fact that EVs are not the wave of the future.
1. Rivian sees quickly dropping EV demand. This is consistent with Toyota & GM scaling back investments in EV.

2. Tesla stock price. It fell about 60% in a year, recovered some, but insiders see this as a "dead cat bounce." It's down again today on EV outlook concerns. https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/time-to-downgrade-tesla-stock-says-analyst

3. Numerous articles and videos circulating proving the science of "climate change" is fear porn hoax. EVs are largely based on this misbelief.

4. The OP might get his modularity and updatability wish, considering Tesla Y steering wheels are falling off. Federal investigation. Oh well, it happens to Ford too... :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Funny you mention this. Back in late January I did a study on the net return you would get if you invested in the eight largest automakers back then. Keep in mind, back in January 2011 we were still in the depths of a great recession and the economic expansion that followed would be the greatest in the history of the industry.

The return over that time was 0.01%. If you add dividends to that total but subtracted inflation, that return would have been negative.

Over the same period of time, Tesla became the most valuable automaker in the world.

EVs will eventually become a global standard. That doesn't mean ICE cars will go away. Far from it. But a company like Tesla that has 30% gross margins, no legacy costs, and the opportunity to focus exclusively on the EV market is going to remain incredibly strong. Especially more so now that entire governments are willing to subsidize their profits and growth.

Will GM, Ford, VW, Hyundai/Kia, or some other automaker build a competitive product? And will it be an EV, or a dual-mode hybird, or a gas powered vehicle? That remains to be seen. But no automotive manufacturer is in a better position to pursue an affordable EV than Tesla. We'll see what happens.
 
Over the same period of time, Tesla became the most valuable automaker in the world.
Yup, and the prime reason is almost entirely speculation, insider trading, corporate greed, unfair trade practices, various locations "outlawing" ICE by 2030-2035, has caused investors to speculate into Tesla. Tesla stock price, much like a lot of speculative companies and investments, is mostly irrational exuberance. Their PE ratio and fundamentals simply do not justify their stock price, which represents most of their valuation. If there's one lesson of "too big to fail," look no further than Kodak, Blockbuster, Circuit City, Pan Am, and a trail of bodies especially in the technology sector, which is essentially what Tesla is. There's a good article about why Telsa's price and valuation is so high. Hint. It's not fundamentals. No, instead it's branding, marketing, innovation, and a bunch of other squishy nonsense that can disappear overnight.

EVs will eventually become a global standard.
No. It won't. Unless you're talking about mopeds and cars barely larger than golf carts. In which case, I agree, EVs will gain broad adoption as mopeds and golf carts in crowded urban areas like India and SE Asia. As for actual passenger cars and light trucks, no. Look at the global population and demographics. Most of the world lives in squalor, without reliable electric grids. Much does not even have reliable electricity, but they still have ICE trucks and small cars.

You're falling into the trap that because you see wealth in Georgia suburbs, that the world lives this way. It doesn't. The world is actually rather poor compared to Georgia. Passenger EVs will slowly gain some market share in the US in the next decade, but not much. The false promises and under-delivery of long-term lifespan will cause EVs market shares to remain fairly low and constant, under 5% and mainly southern US states, plus California's unique high adoption market. We have already seen Tesla miss production numbers and the stock is off 50% in a year, and Rivian flashed demand warnings today. And Nikola stock is down to $2 off a 52 week high of $12, a 90% beating. These are NOT good metrics.

The gig is up. EVs have been overhyped, over promised, and under delivered. Time is working against EVs as these age and become not cost effective, unserviceable, and big expensive let-downs. The infrastructure is not there. Frequent reports of people getting stranded, EVs not holding charges, EV fires, EVs requiring days to travel cross country (a trip an ICE can do in a day), very expensive repairs that take 6 months for things that are fast and inexpensive on ICE vehicles, etc. Doesn't help now recalls and service packs, including steering wheels falling off the Tesla Y.

The US represents 5% of the global population. And only about 5% of Americans can justify/afford EVs, most of whom live in CA. I believe CA is the 4th or 5th largest global economy so it doesn't surprise me it has large adoption of locally made EVs. CA is the best global market for EVs so far. But globally, with almost 8 billion humans, CA's 45 million people is nothing and a very very small slice of the pie. Anyone that has wanted an EV by now, has been able to get one. So that's not a big market share. We'll probably see some passenger car adoption in wealthy European areas. We'll certainly see broad EV moped and mini car adoption in ultra crowded urban areas of the world like China, Japan, S. Korea, and other Asian and Middle Eastern regions.
 
It can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. But ,whyt does it matter?
You specifically emphasized $60k Tesla as a luxury item that the elites from CA buy as toys, yet somehow an equivalently priced truck or SUV is not a luxury? Do you mean to say that the poor working class need them to survive?

This thread is about minimalism, a $60k vehicle, no matter how it’s classified is not minimalist.

You don't know much about construction, do you?
 
China already had over 6 million EVs sold with Tesla notching about a half-million and dominating the upper end of the market. That's just China. Not the other markets where Tesla also sells in Southeast Asia.

Tesla is also dominating in Europe with the top two EVs.

And in the USA they dominate the EV and luxury car market. The Tesla Model Y is the second brand new model over the past 25 years to finish in the top ten (Ranked #6 with the Tesla Model 3 preceding it).

Altogether they had over 1.3 million in global sales. An increase of 40% from 2021, and that's not factoring in the chip shortage which has crimped EV production.

The legacy automakers will have their impact and Chinese automakers will also be quite strong. One of the best selling vehicles in China right now is a squarish sub-compact that costs a small fraction of any Tesla. In due time, and with $7500 subsidies along with the chip shortage abating, we'll see the full impact of EVs in the new car marketplace.
 
You don't know much about construction, do you?

I live in a pretty affluent neighborhood. Lots of top trim trucks and SUVs here. Many of them were a lot more than $60k. Let's not pretend trucks and SUVs are bought for practical reasons or for construction. They can be as much of a luxury vehicle as the "luxury" brands. The only difference is the badge.
Which was the premise of my original interaction. Tesla is considered a luxury brand while Ford/GM/Ram are not. So whoever buys a tesla is an evil/greedy 1 percent-er, but whoever buys a pickup truck, even if it's more expensive is a working class stiff. Foolish way of thinking IMO

Reminds me of early 2000s when SUVs were just getting popular and they were seen as gas guzzlers pretty much universally. But large sedans, that oftentimes got worse fuel economy we a OK.
 
China already had over 6 million EVs sold with Tesla notching about a half-million and dominating the upper end of the market. That's just China. Not the other markets where Tesla also sells in Southeast Asia.

:ROFLMAO:
From the article you posted:
"Close to one-third of new passenger car sales were rechargeable."
"December was not as good for plug-in electric car sales in China as we thought it might be, but it was good enough for a new record."
"Plug-in hybrid car sales were boosted by the end of local incentives in some Chinese cities, to about 200,000 units, so we might see a slowdown in this category in early 2023."


It's not uncommon for fast growth % numbers, when starting with almost nothing. Many companies, even ones now long gone, report huge initial growth.

My interpretation of that article is that new car EV sales are softer than predicted, and only stimulated by INCENTIVES that have now ended. I'll ask again, in what world is "minimalism" a brand new car that is partly paid for by others thru incentives?
Minimalism isn't the process of acquiring new luxury goods that others partly pay for...

Furthermore, the globe is entering a recession/depression, and probably a 3-front war. I might bet that new EV car sales may decline. But that's a different topic.
 
Back
Top