We have some ambivalencies here. I grant that other people have a full political right to their own pleasures. In that, it is not for one to judge another. The other side of the coin is that how you live your life matters: not all choices are morally equivalent.

Also ambivalent is the absolute fact that we all often work where we must. That said, in the long run, over the course of one's life, the basic question is "how do you want to spend your time on Earth." Noting, again, that we all may have to take the work offered, over all, I do not slog through the week in order to enjoy the weekend. I am always up and ready every day, rain or shine. Right now, I have what became the best job I ever held. I have worked several weekends in a row, 21 days in a month, and was happy to do it. Not only that, but they paid me, too. Granted that, I was happy to have this past weekend off so that I could do work of my own, writing for publication.

My goal is always to find personal satisfaction in productivity, achievement, and accomplishment. I learned that from reading The Fountainhead as a teenager.

"What else can you do" Just have fun, and recharge for the next work week. Same with race fans. It is not for me but I am not the judge of how people spend their leasure time. I like to fish and can spend hours trying to catch a meal. Many don't care to do that. To each their own.
BTW I love The Fountainhead thanks for that bit.

"Roark stood on the cliff, by the structure,and looked at the countryside, at the long, gray ribbon of the road twisting past along the shore. An open car drove by, fleeing into the country. The car was overfilled with people bound for a picnic There was a jumble of bright sweaters, and scarfs fluttering in the wind; a jumble of voices shrieking without purpose over the roar of the motor, and overstressed hiccoughs of laughter; a girl sat sidewise, her legs flung over the side of the car; she wore a man's straw hat slipping down to her nose and she yanked savagely at the strings of a ukelele, ejecting raucous sounds, yelling "Hey!" These people were enjoying a day of their existence; they were shrieking to the sky their release from work and the burdens of the days behind them; they had worked and carried the burdens in order to read a goal--and this was the goal.

"He looked at the car as it streaked past. He thought that there was a difference, some important difference between the consciousness of this day in him, and in them. He thought that he should try to grasp it. But he forgot. He was looking at a truck panting up the hill, loaded with a glittering mound of cut granite." -- The Fountainhead (page 140)
-----------------------

I have worked several jobs in automotive manufacturing, for Kawasaki, Honda, GM, and Ford. I understand and appreciate pushing the limits of technology. Honda produced a 32-cylinder Formula 1 car just to prove that they could. Honda partnered with Mississippi State University to develop a small jet plane for private owners. I get that. What I do not get is sitting in the stands at a track with 200,000 other people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of... ) to watch 20 cars race in a circle... Even less do I understand the people who buy fakes of those cars - TransAm, Mustang, Maserati - to drive on the street, or an "open" road limited to 75 mph.

What else can you do in that super-duper speed boat, but drive around a bay making noise and jarring your bones while other people gape at you?

Mr. Marotta, You sound like an anti-industrial socialist.
From Ayn Rand:
Whom and what are [the ecological crusaders] attacking? It is not the luxuries of the “idle rich,” but the availability of “luxuries” to the broad masses of people. They are denouncing the fact that automobiles, air conditioners and television sets are no longer toys of the rich, but are within the means of an average American worker—a beneficence that does not exist and is not fully believed anywhere else on earth.

What do they regard as the proper life for working people? A life of unrelieved drudgery, of endless, gray toil, with no rest, no travel, no pleasure—above all, no pleasure. Those drugged, fornicating hedonists do not know that man cannot live by toil alone, that pleasure is a necessity, and that television has brought more enjoyment into more lives than all the public parks and settlement houses combined.

What do they regard as luxury? Anything above the “bare necessities” of physical survival—with the explanation that men would not have to labor so hard if it were not for the “artificial needs” created by “commercialism” and “materialism.” In reality, the opposite is true: the less the return on your labor, the harder the labor. It is much easier to acquire an automobile in New York City than a meal in the jungle. Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In “nature,” the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a man’s energy and spirit; it is a losing struggle—the winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.) To work only for bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.

After ten years of R&D Mr Innes and Mr Piazza developed this luxury product they have expanded and employed skilled technical folks to
Produce. The waiting list is over 7 months. Where you would spend your money is irrelevant.

Yes you wouldn't nor would I .
I suppose it deserves a down vote.

Interesting application of a common technology, but pointless. It seems like a waste of time after the deadweight loss of the invested resources to build the silly contraptions. If I had the money to buy one, I would do something else with the money -- and spare myself the misery of being in one.