Product Review- Detailing and wrenching aids.

This review is of the three new products from Mychanic. Covered are their Detailing Rig, their Sidekick Stool-KK2 and their POD Light, all were provided to me by Delk, distributer for the Mychanic brand.

Looking first at the Detailing Rig (Model #52810).  It comes with all the necessary components in a box:

I used a soft mallet, blade and Philips screwdrivers, 17mm wrench and socket, to assemble following the easy to follow graphic (only) instructions.  It took under 30 minutes to assemble. 

The only thing I would recommend Mychanic add to their graphic instructions is in the third assembly step: to make sure the holes are lined up in the bottom tray with the frame holes, before tightening the four “A” 17 mm bolts that secure the two halves of the bottom tray.  I found the holes were fine on one side, but slightly off on the opposite side.  If they are off slightly, you will not be able to fit the studs on the wheel assembles through both the frame and the attached tray.

The assembled Detailing Rig is extremely well constructed and thought through.  It lists a 350 pound/ 158 kg capacity, and country of origin being China.  It comes with a one-year limited warranty. It lists at $109.99.

The Detailing Rig comes equipped with a number of useful options including the nicely sized soft wheels, lots of storage under the seat, spray bottle hanging racks, a wash bucket with removable grit trap tray, and of course a bottle holder.  I particularly like that the seat can be lifted off of its studs and put on the floor to use as a kneeling pad.  Very useful for working on the wheels, etc.

I found sitting on the unit a perfect height for detailing cars, as you roll effortlessly around the car.

Moving to the Sidekick Stool- SK2 (Model #52875).  It comes with all the necessary components in one box:

You need a Phillips head screen driver, 17mm wrench and socket to assemble following narrative text instructions with one graphic.  It is straight forward and easy to assemble, taking about 20 minutes.

The assembled Sidekick Stool- SK2 is a heavy-duty well-designed unit.  However, I would suggest two modifications in future iterations of the Sidekick: it has an adjustable height seat, but requires you to fully remove and reattach the four 17mm bolts, washers and locking nuts to accomplish this.  It would be much more convenient if you could adjust the seat by an easier process.  The other modification, would be to enable you to remove the seat (cushion) in a fashion similar to what Mychanic has done with the Detailing Rig.  I found there were times when working with the Sidekick, I needed to kneel for the task as hand.

The Sidekick has surprisingly convenient storage areas including drawers

And a drill holder/holster along with side ‘cubbies’

It includes a removable tray (that stores under the seat area), which includes a built-in slot in the handle to hold your iPad or tablet so you can play how to video for the project you are working on.

The assembled Sidekick is rugged, well-constructed and a very practical means of bringing your tools to the project.  It rolls on four soft large caster wheels.  It lists a 350 pound/ 158 kg capacity, and country of origin being China.  It comes with a two-year limited warranty. It lists at $109.99.

Let me now shed some light (sorry, couldn’t help myself) on the Mychanic POD Light (Model #52811).

This is a compact, very well made and relatively bright ultra-portable light.  It is rated at 250 lumens, and comes with the 3 AA batteries.  The batteries can power it, on the high output setting, for approximately 7 hours continuous use. The POD Light is imported, lists for $24.99 and comes with a one year warranty.

The POD Light includes a magnetic base that allows the light to be rotated 360 degrees, and the base itself adheres to anything metallic. The unit has a high and low output setting.  In addition to using it with its magnetic base, it can easily be hand held or rested near the area you are wanting to illuminate (if there is no metal for the base).

I found the unit just right for shooting light down in the engine wheel or for example, checking how much life is left on a brake pad.  The only thing that surprised me about using the POD Light, is that modern cars have very little steel often in the engine hood or around the engine bay, to enable the base to be magnetically stuck.

The only minor suggestion I have that would make it a bit more convenient, would be to eliminate the two small Philip screws that hold the battery case cover in place. It already has a sufficient built-in catch to secure the cover, and in turn, the entire case is inside of the two halves of the unit, when you screw them together after inserting the batteries.

In summary, Mychanic has three winning products that make detailing and wrenching even more enjoyable for ‘us gearheads.’


If you have a question, please feel free to ask! 

Autonomous Vehicles: Part 2

This is the second blog on Autonomous vehicles, for the introduction and first part please see Autonomous Vehicles Part 1 .

Autonomous vehicles- the major potential ‘cons’:

Connectivity:

The sine qua non for the CAV (connected autonomous vehicle) is communications.  It is at the same time its strength and, borrowing from Greek mythology, its Achille’s heal.  To function, autonomous vehicles must rely on a tremendous amount of inter and intra connectivity.  All of the on-board sensors (lidar, radar and cameras, engine parameters, lane departure, etc.) have to flawlessly communicate with one another, as well as vehicle to vehicle, and communicate with traffic management (lights, flow, emergency vehicles, etc.).

jdaum-1

Sounds great in theory, but in actuality this is astoundingly difficult to pull off.  Keep in mind, this connectivity has to function flawlessly all of the time.  There was a bit of irony at CES 2017 in that every presentation I attended experienced a problem at least once with the remote presentation control unit communicating correctly with the media controller equipment.  And this was connectivity at its very basic level!  On a more complex level, there was Faraday’s problem during the press review where their car failed to accept the command to self-park.

Obviously, you can’t have a break in connectivity or the autonomous vehicle will come to a complete (unintended) halt (hopefully), and in doing so will become a potential accident instigator for both other autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles.  What level of redundancy will be sufficient to prevent a loss of connectivity?  While it seems feasible that intra- vehicle (between its numerous components necessary to have an autonomous system) redundancy is reasonably surmountable, what will be necessary to ensure the inter-vehicle, and traffic management, along with live web connectivity, is flawless?

Simultaneously with ensuring the continuous flow of connectivity, there are still two large problems to solve: All communication has to be hack proof (we have seen the videos of someone remotely gaining access to a vehicle’s electronics via one of the communication channels, and taking over one or more of the vehicles systems- acceleration, braking, steering.  Hackers have demonstrated this remotely on cars ranging from Jeeps to Teslas.).  Further a great deal, if not all, of the information has to maintain the privacy of the vehicle (and its occupants).

Additionally, complicating the connectivity issue is what was tagged “Babel” at the CES 2017 A United Language for the Connected Car session.  The general definition of babel is a confused noise, typically made by a number of voices.  Unfortunately, it applies to the current status of proprietary software designed for many of the components needed for a connected vehicle.  The herculean challenge is to get a universal open language used across all components/systems for autonomous vehicles.  Beyond the current Babel-of-software-language is the growing quagmire of state and federal regulations aimed at controlling autonomous vehicle access to our roads.  Currently, an autonomous vehicle approved by nascent laws in one state, may not be able to continue driving when it crosses into an adjacent state.  For example, while an autonomous car can be driven in Nevada, it can’t legally continue into nearby Oregon or Idaho, and if you are in an autonomous car in Florida, you could not continue on into any of its adjoining states.

Societal Impact:

The RAND Corporation pointed out in their 2016 publication Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers, that rather than autonomous vehicles reducing congestion on our roads, they may, in fact, increase congestion.  This conclusion is based on the reduced transportation costs borne by individuals.  For example, the cost of automotive insurance shifts from the owner to that of the manufacturer of autonomous vehicles.   This, combined with increased access (potentially no need for individual driver licenses), could see a substantial surge in the number of individuals travelling at the same time.  Of course, it could be moderated by increased reliance on mass vs low occupancy vehicles.  The elimination of the hassle often associated with finding a parking space (your autonomous vehicle could drop you off and then continue on to a remote parking area, awaiting your request for it to comeback and pick you up) may also contribute to a significant increase in willingness to ‘hop’ into your vehicle and head to a dense, high-use, urban area.

What are the implications for the potential loss of transportation sector jobs, their respective incomes and loss of tax revenues from reduced or eliminated parking garages, meters, etc.?

And while most believe that autonomous vehicles (or even semi-autonomous) will significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by crashes, the is one part of our society that has depended on these deaths- that of organ donations.  “It’s morbid, but the truth is that due to limitations on who can contribute transplants, among the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads (a number that, after years of falling mortality rates, has recently been trending upward). Currently, 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident.” [From Future Tense: The Citizen’s Guide To The Future. Dec. 30 2016]  The potential impact is catastrophic on an already stretched organ donation system.  “All of this has led to a widening gap between the number of patients on the organ wait list and the number of people who actually receive transplants. More than 123,000 people in the U.S. are currently in need of an organ, and 18 people die each day waiting, according to the Department of Health & Human Services. Though the wait list has grown each year for the past two decades, the number of transplants per year has held steady in the last decade, at around 28,000.”[ Fortune: If driverless cars save lives, where will we get organs? By Erin Griffith Aug 15, 2014].

Moral Dilemma:

You may be familiar with the paradox of Buridan’s ass.  As the story goes, a hungry donkey was placed equidistant between two identical bales of hay.  Unable to choose which one to go to, the donkey died of starvation.  The movement towards autonomous vehicles has at least two analogous conundrums: how many deaths by autonomous vehicles is an acceptable number of deaths, and, who is going to have the final approval of the algorithms designed to make a decision for an autonomous vehicle as to who should be sacrificed when a choice has to be made between certain death in a pending accident.  The analogy is that if we can’t reach agreement on both of these issues, the movement towards autonomous vehicles may come to a halt.

Even though these two conundrums are inextricably related, let me briefly explore each separately.  We know factually that autonomous vehicles can lower deaths currently associated with driver error, and that the number won’t rapidly be reduced to zero.  Using the approximately 32,000 automotive related deaths per year (cited in my Part 1), what percent reduction would be ‘acceptable’?  Would a 50% reduction resulting in 16,000 fewer deaths per year, but also 16,000 remaining deaths per year by autonomous vehicles be OK?  Would it take a 75% reduction resulting in 8,000 deaths per year by autonomous vehicles to be considered OK?  The consensus appears to be that while the astounding number of 32,000 deaths per year caused by human error behind the wheel, isn’t good, we seem to have ‘accepted’ it without demanding immediate action on a national or global level.  However, few believe we would be as complacent if the news was filled with 16,000 or even 8,000 deaths per year as a result of autonomous vehicles.

Recently a number of articles have appeared highlighting the other conundrum: algorithms being designed to decide who lives and who dies when the outcome of a pending accident is unavoidable.  For example: “A self-driving car carrying a family of four on a rural two-lane highway spots a bouncing ball ahead. As the vehicle approaches a child runs out to retrieve the ball. Should the car risk its passengers’ lives by swerving to the side—where the edge of the road meets a steep cliff? Or should the car continue on its path, ensuring its passengers’ safety at the child’s expense?” [Driverless Cars Will Face Moral Dilemmas by Larry Greenemeier, June 23, 2016, Scientific American] Or:” Imagine you’re behind the wheel when your brakes fail. As you speed toward a crowded crosswalk, you’re confronted with an impossible choice: veer right and mow down a large group of elderly people or veer left into a woman pushing a stroller.” [Driverless cars create moral dilemma. By Matt O’Brien, The Associated Press January18, 2017].  Who should be entrusted with developing and ultimately approving the necessary algorithms?  Shall there be one algorithm for all autonomous vehicles globally or will there have to be country/culturally specific versions?

Real World Impediments To Fully Autonomous Vehicles:

At this point, autonomous vehicle developers have not been able to handle several frequent occurrences typical to our driving environments.  If a fully autonomous car comes upon road construction, it doesn’t know how to ignore the programming that tells it not to cross a double yellow line, or purposely drive into a temporary lane without lane markers.  It is basically programmed to shut down- or, in Nissan’s case, phone ‘home.’  At CES 2017, Carlos Ghosn, Chairman and CEO of Nissan, during his keynote speech said they are planning on having a centralized station staffed 24/7, to handle “edge” circumstances for their autonomous cars.  In logic, the human contacted by the autonomous car would review the information available from the on-board sensors, and map an alternative route or action.  It is unclear how would this approach be able to scale up instantaneously, for example, when a large section of a country has an extreme disrupter such as flooding, earthquake, etc.?

Similarly, autonomous vehicles cannot negotiate a dirt road, or a road that lacks up-to-date gps mapping.  Neal Boudette in his article “5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches” points out, autonomous cars will have a very hard time with unpredictable reckless drivers on the same road in a non-connected vehicle [New York Times, June 4, 2016].

Current thinking of many developers, is to require a (human) driver to serve as ‘back-up’ in those circumstances where the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle encounters a situation it isn’t programmed to handle.  Unfortunately, there are severe limitations to how well most drivers would be able cope with such an unexpected/instantaneous hand-off (one doesn’t have to look any further than the tremendous increase in accidents attributable to drivers distracted by texting).  The biggest problem is with a lack of sufficient reaction time even at moderate speeds, let alone highway speeds.  This is further complicated by the well documented fact of vigilance decrement.  The longer the autonomous vehicle is properly handling the driving, the less attentiveness and readiness the ‘back-up’ human will have to properly respond to the hand-off.

In order to succeed, there is going to have to be a significant educational effort of the current, and potential, driving public during the transition period when autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles share the road with traditional non-connected vehicles. Part of this education will need to focus on the trust issue confounded by demographic and age differences in acceptance.

In some ways, many of the concerns today are parallel to those around one of the earliest autonomous vehicles designed to transport people- the elevator.  Original elevators were relatively dangerous vertical transport platforms, operated by a trained elevator operator.  As safety concerns were addressed, elevators vastly improved including having doors, fixed stopping points, redundant mechanisms to prevent free fall, etc.  Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century push buttons were introduced that would permit selecting a specific floor and the elevator to proceed automatically to that floor.  However, it wasn’t until after World War II -forty years after automation- that elevator operators were no longer placed in most elevators.  One of the main reasons for the slow transition from manually operated to fully automated elevators was people were fearful of getting into an elevator that did not have a human operator.  How likely are you to entrust your life to the newest mode of autonomous vehicles?

Autonomous Vehicles Part 3 will explore: What is next?  Is the light at the end of the tunnel daylight or an oncoming train?

Cars as moving sculptures

As automotive enthusiast (yup, in case you haven’t guessed it I fall into that category), we tend to go far beyond thinking of cars as simply a ‘means to get from A to B.’  Since the start of car production, designers got involved right alongside engineers in an attempt to differentiate one model from another, to blend ‘art and science,’ and in many cases, to result in cars seen as moving sculptures.

There are many variations in attempts to come up with THE list of top designers.  Admittedly there shouldn’t be just one list as beauty is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder.  One of the lists I like as a jump off point is Chris Perkin’s (of Jalopnik) “The Ten Greatest Car Designers Of All Time.”  His list includes Ian Callum (Aston Martin DB9, Jaguar F), Paul Bracq (Mercedes, BMW), Bill Mitchell (GM, Sting Ray), Georges Paulin (Peugeots), Franco Scaglione (Alfa Remero Tipo 33 Stradale), Harley Earl (GM Buick Y, Corvette),   Batista Pininfarina (Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider), Malcom Sayer (Jaguar C & XJ13), Marcello Gandini (Miura,Countach), Giorgetto Giugiaro (Ferrari 250, Berlinetta Bertone).

Of course, I anticipate many recent design greats like Ed Welburn (Corvette Stingray C7), Peter Brock (Sting Ray Racer, Cobra Daytona Coupe), and Grant Larson (Porsche Boxster) will find their way onto updated variations of the top designer lists.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As you (hopefully) are thinking about who would be on your list, prompted by the names here and/or images, please comment at the bottom and share your input!  Thanks.

Interview with Mike Brewer of Wheeler Dealers

While at Barrett-Jackson’s 2016 Car Collector Auction in Las Vegas, Nevada, I had the great pleasure of spending some time with Mike Brewer, who car enthusiasts worldwide know from his and Edd China’s highly entertaining, Wheeler Dealers fame.


brewer-2-of-7
The following is a transcript of my recorded interview as Mike and I were walking across the vast Mandalay Bay convention center, filled with every imaginable type of transportation. Having just walked past an older Corvette, I took it as an opportunity to segue into Mike’s impressions of the new Corvette Stingray.

JD: You haven’t gone into any detail [on your show] on the C7, the new one. I know you prefer old cars.
Mike: Yeah, actually I like the C7. I like the new one. I had a little ride and drive in one of those C7s, when they first came out, and I think it’s the, well undoubtedly, it’s the best Corvette they’ve ever made.
JD: Certainly agree with you.
Mike: … And it’s the closest I think for the first time, American engineers got anywhere close to a European engineer in terms of mainly it’s styling, but in terms of the feel, because the car does feel very European on the road. You know like the Ferrari does feel, say a C6 Corvette feels very different from a Ferrari 355-
JD: Right.
Mike: …Which feels much more connected, and that was half of the problem, you didn’t feel connected to the car, but with the C7, it feels like you’re putting on a leather glove. It really does feel like you are connected to the car.
JD: It is the total package.
Mike: Yeah.

JD: Thinking of all the cars that you’ve had a chance to acquire, I’m sure there’s still a list of ones that you haven’t yet…
Mike: There’s many.
JD: What are the couple that are next on your list, the one’s reflecting your highest desires?
Mike: That’s a good question. On my highest desirable list. Actually, I’ve actually almost achieved most of my dreams of in terms of inside the Corvette world. I’ve got a, I’ve just got a wonderful C3 Corvette, it’s a ’67 Mako Shark, it was the, it’s not the Stingray, it was the ’68 in red. Beautiful car, convertible. I bought that car in, I do believe in Texas, and we did a lovely restoration job on it and we took it to the lake bed and drove it. Phenomenal. That was a great car, but in terms of my dreams, and what I’d like to do, the list is endless honestly I’ve got so many. Yeah, the list is endless, I’ve got so many cars that I haven’t got to yet.brewer-4-of-7

One of the cars that we still haven’t done and I can’t believe it for a Brit, is a Rolls Royce Corniche convertible.
JD: I was fortunate enough to own a 1975 RR Corniche drop head coupe Mediterranean Blue with Blue top and Magnolia hides.
Mike: You’ve had a better car collection than me!
JD: I was the second owner. It was probably the prettiest car line-wise, classic lines that I’ve ever owned. Incredible build, I loved the car. Drove it 11 years.
Mike: Wonderful. Yeah, I mean, you know there’s so many cars I haven’t gotten to yet, and walking around here at Barrett-Jackson, you know I get that feeling that I can see so many cars that sometimes cars pass me by, I don’t notice them, until I see them again, and you know, all of a sudden the world has gone mad for these pickup trucks, you know, C10 pickup trucks, and we haven’t done one of those yet on Wheeler Dealers and that’s a nice thing I’d like to venture into, but also older cars you know. If you was to ask me what is my most desirable dream car that I’d ever like to get my hands on is undoubtedly going to be a late ’20s Bentley blower. That would be it as my dream, but that in a realistic world, you know, one of those today is half a million dollars, and that’d be for just a shed.
JD: Right.
Mike: … So it’s going to be difficult to ever achieve that dream. It’s out there, you know, one day.
JD: When you source the parts.
Mike: Yes.
JD: In the US versus the UK.
Mike: Yeah.
JD: Do you rely more on your networking here or you still use the Internet a lot like we see you doing on the show?
Mike: I spend my life on the internet. You will see that during the course of the day when I get a break here, we’re making 8 hours of live television here today at Barrett-Jackson and then when I get a break in between filming, from these people around, and when I get a break in between filming, I am sitting on the Internet, and you’ll be surprised what I’m looking for. You know I could be looking for hubcaps for a Messerschmitt or I could be looking at the, you know, the gear shifter for a Citroen Maserati. You know, I could be looking for all kinds of stuff that’s currently going on in my world out there.

Now I’m just immersed in what’s going on and in terms of car restoration, and where I need to find those parts, but the Internet is my most valuable resource, just like everybody else in the world, really.
JD: Okay. You’re over here about 6 months out of the year.
Mike: It’s about 9 months now.
JD: 9 months now?
Mike: Yeah, 9 months of the year. Yeah, we’re based down in California.
JD: Right, that I knew. I guess it was 2 years ago when you were on the Velocity Live show over at SEMA, where you were talking that you just purchased that location.
JD: From the whole process, from the acquisition to the restoring to the selling, which part excites you the most?brewer-6-of-7
Mike: It’s most definitely the test drive at the end. It’s the achievement that you know, that sense of achievement that you’ve done what you set out to do, because you know, cars can be tricky. Some cars come into the workshop with me and they offer themselves up, they say, “Restore me, I want to be restored, here I am”, you know, and they undo easy, the nuts and bolts come off, the fenders, the hood, the bonnet, the engine pulls apart easy.
Yet other cars, they come into the workshop and they put boxing gloves on. They’re a little bit like Mike Tyson, and they want to go 10 rounds with you, and they’re not easy. They don’t want to be restored, they want to die. When we beat those cars into submission, and we give them a new coat of paint, some new lipstick, and we put them out there on the road and we test drive them. That sense of achievement brings a tear to my eye, and that’s why I do this show, I love it.
JD: That’s the enthusiasm that we see as viewers when you and Edd are out afterwards, before you actually sell it.
Mike: Yeah, I mean I just love, you know, we just love restoring cars and a lot of people don’t know this, but when the cameras are cut, not so much for Edd, but for me, when the cameras are cut, what do I do in my spare time? Restore cars. My own cars.
JD: [We walk past a Mark 2 Jaguar]
Mike: Mark 2 Jaguar? Love to talk about that.
JD: Isn’t that a beauty?
Mike: It’s a beauty, but it’s not a good color. It’s not a good original color combination. Nobody ever done that, but it would work, it’d be a nice car, it’s a Jaguar.

JD: You had that in Rolls and Bentley, those color combinations.
Mike: Yeah, but not in Jaguar.
JD: Right.
Mike: They never did that two-tone Jaguar. That’s somebody’s interpretation of what a British car should look like, and these chrome accents here that they put on the hood.
JD: Right.
Mike: They’re not correct either, you know, they just put those on because it’s had it’s Hollywood face lift hasn’t it? It’s a British car that’s been to Hollywood.
JD: Right. Do I have a couple more minutes?
Mike: Yeah, yeah you can go for it.
JD: Thanks. You did a great job in Afghanistan.
Mike: Thank you, much appreciated. It’s my proudest achievement I think.
JD: It was very well recognized.
Mike: Thank you.
JD: Is there something similar you have planned down the line?
Mike: I’d really like to not go back into military programming. Having the two documentaries and nearly died several times. You know, I’ve got a wonderful wife, an amazing daughter and it was something that I wanted to do as a passion inside me and I wrote and produced that series, but I’ve done it, and I’m proud of what I’ve done. I have put a spotlight for a moment on what goes on in the real theater of war, and I felt it and you know, it’s my biggest achievement I’ve ever done in my life and long may it just stay there. You know, I can look back at it and show my grandkids and say “This is what I did”, but yeah, I don’t want to go back there again, it’s a scary place, and you know, the service men and women all across the world, British, American, whoever they are, you know, I salute them. I can’t tell you just what they go through because it’s horrible.
JD: I appreciate that, thank you very much.
Time for one more question?
Mike: Yeah, yeah.
JD: Okay. Autonomous cars.
Mike: Yeah.
JD: Thoughts.
Mike: My thoughts on autonomous cars, okay. You know, I think, I’ve worked harder than anybody else I know, and the thought of getting in a car at the end of the day, pressing a button then it taking me home, fills me with joy. Fills me with joy, but the thought of actually doing it sends shivers down my spine. I’m never going to do that. I want to hold that steering wheel. I want to feel the pedals under my feet. I want to feel the road surface. I’m not going to trust a computer to get me home. You know, I can’t trust myself to get me home, let alone a computer, and I live in a world where you know, well we all do, you know, you’re in, if you’re on your cellphone, and we’ve got computers at home and cellphones. I’m forever rebooting mine and trying to get the thing to work, and so I don’t know if I want to be cruising down the freeways at 70 miles an hour with a computer that needs rebooting at some point.
JD: Exactly.
Mike: No, I think I’ll be, I think I’ll let it go for a few years and see how people get on with it, and see what happens before I ever decide to go and do such a thing, but no. I think there is a future for it. I think there is a market for it, and I can understand why you’ve got the likes of Google and Amazon and other companies chasing after this Utopian world that we’re all going to be driving around in these wonderful self-driving cars, but I think it’s a long way off. I do believe there’s been accidents already with cars that have been automated. No for me, I want to hold the steering wheel.
JD: Thank you Mike, I tremendously appreciate your time.
Mike: It’s an absolute pleasure sir, it’s always, I’m honored to talk to people.
JD: Nicky would you take one picture of us with my camera?
Nicky: Absolutely!
brewer-7-of-7JD: Thank you so much.
Mike: Well, Jeff it’s been a real pleasure to meet you sir. You have a great day here today at Barrett-Jackson, I’m sure-
JD: I will.
Mike: … You’ll get lots of content. There’s tons of cars and it’s going to be exciting.


And off Mike went, continuing on his hectic pace surrounded by a Velocity camera crew to his next filming event. The impression of the man lingered in spite of the ‘energizer bunny’ style- so genuinely interested in and knowledgeable about all things automotive, so easy to interact with and personable. A real pleasure indeed!