|
About Me
My work has appeared in a number of major publications either as writer, photographer, or source. I enjoy talking about all things automotive. Recent Posts
Categories
Links
CarSpace Hudson's BlogAll around the car world there are stories and these are just a few of them. A new blog is posted every Monday. Sometimes more often. Jun 4, 2009 - Bankruptcies and Government LoansWe all know that the automotive industry is in trouble. Bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler were the expected outcome. These two companies used the “excuse” of economic upheaval to radically reorganize themselves in ways that labor unions, stockholders, and franchise laws wouldn’t allow otherwise. But their current problems are not wholly the fault of the UAW or the dealers. There’s plenty of blame for the Big3 themeselves. GM (and Chrysler and Ford) have not helped themselves by concentrating on trucks. It has been very short-sighted to focus up to 60% of their product mix on trucks when the marketplace is only, at best, 50% trucks. And when fuel prices spike (which we all expected at some point), trucks are the first segments to be hit. Sure, the other manufacturers have been hurt but the Big3, and their concentration on the US market, has hurt them more than others. GM and Chrysler are not in the same place that Chrysler was in 1979. When Chrysler asked for loan guarantees thirty years ago, they had radical new products ready to hit the market. Chrysler’s newest products, the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, had already set the groundwork for the K-Cars which would, in turn, lead to replacing all of Chrysler’s antiquated products…it was a seismic shift at the time. GM (and definitely Chrysler) don’t have that product ready to rock the industry. The K-Car in 1980 was revolutionary…a $6,000 6-passenger car that got 25 mpg city. Today, GM has some very good products. Vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Cadillac CTS are very competitive, but they aren’t class-leading. It’s not that GM can’t build class-leading products; it’s just that they have the whole market to cover with “good” products while other companies can concentrate on one segment. It’s a very competitive marketplace with very strong competitors. GM is spread very thin. Having good gas mileage or winning an award or two does not mean the vehicle is “class leading.” While there is absolutely a need in the marketplace for vehicles like the Silverado, recent economic shifts have proven that you can’t rely on sales of full-sized trucks to carry the rest of the company. Manufacturers need to be ready with cars when more than half of the marketplace buys cars and yet more than half of the sales from GM (and Ford and Chrysler) come from trucks. It’s a global marketplace and no company is rooted in any one country. GM, like Toyota and Honda, harnesses their global reach to design and build their vehicles as best as it can. Whether it’s Australians working on the Zeta platform (for the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac G8) or Germans working on the Epsilon platform (for the Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, Pontiac G6) or Koreans working on the Theta platform (for the Saturn Vue and the new Chevrolet Equinox), the money and technology flows around the world. But now GM is selling divisions and brands and reducing it’s ability to compete globally, which had been a key strength of General Motors. If GM were to close its doors (which I can’t see happening), the supplier base would be hurt. But most of GM’s suppliers have spread their eggs across many baskets, including many of the transplants. It would take some time, but the suppliers would shift their focus from GM to one or more of the transplants (and/or remaining Big3). And the production volume lost if GM were to disappear would eventually be made up by other companies. Production volume would remain in the US as it is more economical to build many vehicles in North America than to import them. Suppliers would grow to support this change in the industry. Auto workers would remain, supplier workers would remain…possibly at lower volumes but still making the same number of vehicles and the industry would continue. The transplant companies are not so dumb that they don’t realize a vibrant US economy is necessary for the sales of their products. Whether or not the car companies are physically based in the US, the American economy will survive and grow and thrive. And when it comes to the US market, the Big3 have put themselves in a bad position. While the reliability and durability of Big3 cars is on-par with the top brands from other countries, perceived quality and dynamic thinking is not quite there. Why did Toyota and Honda have to come out with hybrids nearly a decade before any of the Big3? Why aren’t there any diesel cars from the Big3? GM was ahead of the curve with the EV1…so where has that technology led? GM was toying with fuel cell and steam(!) powered vehicles in the 1960s and rotary and Sterling engines in the 1970s…what have they done lately? The US can and does compete on a manufacturing level…or else Toyota and Honda and Nissan and Mercedes-Benz and BMW and the rest wouldn’t be making vehicles on US soil. Why do US manufacturers need to put $3,500 of incentives on every car and truck for every $2,000 that the other brands use to sell their products? Why are 5-year old GM products worth a fraction of the competitive models from Honda and Toyota? GM touts the strength of its Chevrolet Malibu, but why does the Camry (as well as the Accord and Altima) outsell the Malibu with fewer dealers and a higher price tag? Loaning money to failing companies without a concrete turnaround plan was a losing proposition and bankruptcy was the only possible outcome. Without filing for bankruptcy, GM had the impossible task of turning itself around. With a bankruptcy filing, they have the nearly impossible task of convincing the buying public to make a long-term investment, with the purchase of a vehicle, in a company that just walked away from many of its American creditors…including contracts with American workers. History has shown that businesses do not learn much from the past experiences of their industry, so little can be expected from GM and Chrysler following this recent set of events. Loaning money to these companies should be treated as if a parent were loaning money to their child: it’s as good as gone. Even with large holdings in GM and Chrysler, getting any return on the government’s investment is a long shot. With some luck, the American workers will take this opportunity to find more stable employment in preparation for the next market shake up.
May 25, 2009 - Ringing in the New SaturnSaturn lost its way. General Motors had a great idea to revolutionize the way it built and designed cars and this became Saturn. The original Saturn SL sedan wasn’t a class-leading vehicle by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a good American car at a good price. Saturn dealers built up stand-alone showrooms with haggle-free sales and salespeople on salary instead of commission. Saturn owners became a cult. They would return to dealerships for service and get a free car wash. They would return to dealerships as if they were family members joining a reunion with hot dogs and hamburgers. They would even make the pilgrimage to Spring Hill, Tennessee, to visit the “birth place” of their beloved cars. Any uniqueness designed into the original Saturn models and dealerships faded as the 1990s passed. The “reunions” ended and dealers dropped the car washes. Eventually, products were built outside of the Spring Hill plant in regular General Motors plants. Models shared platforms and engines with other GM products, diluting the characteristics that made Saturn “a different kind of car company.” Toyota tried to create the cult of ownership with its Scion brand. The distinctive (for the US market) design of the Scion xB and the fun, sporty nature of the Scion tC have generated their own sub-culture, similar to where Saturn started. Had Saturn created some unique vehicles and continued family-like feeling among its owners, the brand could have become a success. Which brings us to today, nearly two decades after the first car rolled off of the Spring Hill assembly line. General Motors believes that it cannot make Saturn work. With more than 400 dealers who have spent millions of dollars for scratch-built showrooms, General Motors can’t affordably walk away from them, most of which are strong non-Saturn GM dealers as well. GM has already announced the end of production for Saturn vehicles, but still intends on selling the dealer network. Among the most interesting potential buyers for Saturn is the Penske Automotive Group. Automotive News reports that Penske is negotiating with Renault Samsung Motors of South Korea to supply products. Current Samsung products could directly replace each of the existing Saturn products (aside from the niche Sky roadster and the large Outlook crossover). And since all Samsung products are based on Nissan products, getting the vehicles up to US specs wouldn’t be a stretch. Penske’s Saturn could have a compact and mid-sized sedan as well as a compact SUV ready for launch not too long after the papers are signed. But could they make it a success? Just like Saturn’s current lineup of the compact Astra, mid-sized Aura, and Vue, the Samsung SM3, SM5/SM7, and QM5 are good vehicles without much to distinguish them. They lack the “fun” of a Scion. They lack the image of a Subaru. And Saturn lost the cultiness of a Saturn many years ago. Penske’s group has been very good at managing the automotive business. From racing to sales to fleet management to service, they’ve done a great job. Even as the sole importer of Daimler AG’s Smart cars, they’ve been a success. But the purchase of Saturn would graduate Penske to a whole new level of “full-line” marketer. Even with the help of Renault (and their wizard leader Carlos Ghosn), the Penske/Saturn/Samsung combination would be a long-shot bet. General Motors built this brand up from scratch with billions of dollars invested and only had a few quarters of profits in nearly 20 years of existence. Even with dramatically lowered investment cost, making Saturn a success now will be nearly impossible. This will either be Roger Penske’s greatest achievement in the automotive realm (and he just won his 15th Indianapolis 500) or the move that tarnishes his automotive business legacy. Sadly, the latter is more likely.
May 21, 2009 - Why We Should Not Fear 39mpg CAFESenators and Representatives debating the benefits and, more importantly, the pitfalls of requiring cars and trucks to get better gas mileage may be in the news, but these same elected officials along with television talking heads seem to forget that this happened 35 years ago. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) regulations came about in the 1970s as a response to the combination of skyrocketing fuel prices and gas guzzling vehicles. The answer to the problem was to require manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. Sounded good at the time…simply force them to increase the fuel economy from 12 mpg to 27.5 mpg in just over a decade. Arguments against this new requirement included a reduction in weight of vehicles and, by extension, a reduction in safety of said vehicles. Cars would transition from 2 ½-ton compact cars spewing toxic waste to 1-ton subcompact rolling deathtraps by 1985. And prices would shoot through the atmosphere. Well, that’s how it looked from 1975. When the 27.5 mpg level was finally reached, just a few years late, cars were smaller. Against all odds, cars and trucks remained affordable and got SAFER! How did that happen? It came down to engineers doing what they do best…engineering. They solved problems and made better vehicles at the same time. Another two decades pass and the decision is made to increase CAFÉ regulations for the first time in well over 30 years, but a (mostly) new generation of elected officials return to the same well for the same tired arguments against this progression. Oh, cars will get smaller. Oh, cars won’t be as safe. Oh, the government is dictating choice. Let’s start off by saying that I am NOT for CAFÉ. GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz once stated that “forcing automakers to sell smaller cars to improve fuel economy” was akin to “fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell garments in only small sizes" (reiterated in a recent David Letterman interview). And that’s how I feel. But I also feel that engineers can overcome many obstacles to create fuel efficient vehicles that get nearly 40 mpg. Whether it’s with turbodiesel engines or hybrid powertrains, it’s possible. Additionally, we NEED to transition from the current petroleum economy to something else. ANYTHING else. The way to get the public out of gas-guzzling vehicles and into more practical models is to raise the price of fuel. Europe and Japan know about this because their gas prices have been double, triple, and quadruple that of US gas prices for ages. They drive four-cylinder cars that regularly return 30 and 40 mpg…and diesel engines are very reasonable alternatives to gasoline engines in almost every size vehicle. In the US, a gallon of gas costs far less than a gallon of milk and a fraction of what Americans typically pay for bottled water! Since no politician wanting another term on the elected-official gravy train would introduce any bill recommending raising gas taxes by two or three dollars a gallon, we’re stuck with artificially low gas prices and consumers wasting untold barrels of oil on the freedom to drive 400hp SUVs to the corner donut shop for a cappuccino. Which brings us back to the CAFÉ regulations and putting the pressure on manufacturers to build something other than what the public wants to buy. But the arguments against CAFÉ are borrowed from politicians and pundits of 35 years ago, which make politicians and pundits of today look stupid. I know it’s their job to assume Americans are dumb. But I know too many bright Americans who see right through their lack of education. The automotive industry is too short-sighted to take the current downturn and create a range of vehicles and flexible plants that can weather any economic trouble this side of the apocalypse. When the market returns, which it will, hybrids will continue to be anomalies and powerful V6 and V8 engines will continue to be the norm. And somebody will find a way to weasel out of any regulations forcing consumers to waste fewer natural resources. Isn’t it in the Constitution ensuring our right to Life, Liberty, and a 350hp Hemi V8?
Apr 24, 2009 - Car Show Season is Here Again!My year has two seasons: car show season and the rest of the year. Car show season begins the Wednesday before Easter for the New York Auto Show and the end of the season is when I leave the Fall Hershey event in October. After that, it’s a dreary winter of anticipating another car show. I’m a car show addict. While many people get excited when they see a ’57 Chevrolet, a ’63 Corvette, or a ’55 Thunderbird, these sightings are as bland as spotting a pothole on a Pennsylvania highway; been there, done that. Sighting a rare car is my opiate. Finding a factory-backed Chrysler Cordoba convertible or a 4-speed manual Bricklin or a gray-market Toyota Chaser excites me far more than any of those beautiful but common “classic” cars that others enjoy. While the New York Auto Show is good for seeing the latest new cars and concepts, it’s not until the Spring Carlisle event that the car show season kicks into high gear. Walking around the nearly 90 acres of cars and parts at the Carlisle Fairgrounds is great exercise, great fun running into old friends, and quite enjoyable when you find that 1-of-few treasure buried in the car corral between two run-of-the-mill examples of Detroit iron. My camera is always at the ready. Since digital photography is so much less expensive than my old 35mm Konica was, I can take hundreds of pictures at any show. Whether it’s a pink Auburn hot rod or a rare Ford Durango, my camera can save the images of front and rear, top and bottom, inside and out. And then I get to share them with you, my car loving brethren (and sistern?).
If you’re in Carlisle on the Saturday of the show, let me know. If you see someone spending just a little too long photographing a car you’ve probably never seen before, that’s me. Just say hi!
May 16, 2008 - Yet Another ObituaryYou know you’re getting older when you have to attend funerals and memorials for your idols and mentors. Only days after attending a memorial service for one mentor, word comes down of another’s passing. Beverly Rae Kimes was a world-renowned historian. She edited Automobile Quarterly for many years. She wrote volumes about some of the most significant cars in automotive history. Her name graces the covers of such great books as “The Standard Catalog of American Cars” and “The Star and the Laurel.” She was amazingly knowledgeable and approachable. I was floundering around in automotive waters when I learned about Bev. While searching for a group with which to talk cars, I spotted Ms. Kimes on a TV show. It was a show about the 10 greatest cars of all time on A&E. When Bev appeared, below her name was “President, Society of Automotive Historians.” I immediately went on a search for the group. And because of Bev, I joined and held various positions within the group. For 15 years, I enjoyed being a member of that group and I owe it all to Bev. She was the voice of the Burn Prevention Concours for many years. Her research went well beyond just the cars themselves but explored the time and the era that made each of these cars great. She was so dedicated to this particular show that she was even the announcer literally weeks after having a kidney transplant. But now her voice has been silenced. She will be missed by many. Fortunately, there are still many people who will learn from her writings and will be inspired by her research to do more. I wish you could have met her because she was something else…not only a great automotive writer and automotive historian, but a great person. If you feel so inspired, Bev’s husband has asked that donations in her memory be sent to The National Kidney Foundation, 30 East 33rd Street, New York, NY 10016, or on the web at www.kidney.org.
Feb 25, 2008 - The Shaky World of Automotive InvestingUntil around 1950, there was a Wild West-like attitude in the American automotive industry. It was a frontier to be conquered. Throughout automotive history, there have been something like 5,000 individual makers of cars and trucks in the world with about 3,500 of them being situated in the United States. Companies like General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have survived, in one form or another, for over a century. General Motors turns 100 this year but its oldest parts (Cadillac, Buick, and the late Oldsmobile) are well over the century mark. Ford was founded in 1903. And while Chrysler was created in 1924 from the remains of Maxwell, parts of the company can be traced back to Rambler which dates back to 1903 as an automobile manufacturer. There are a few minor vehicle manufacturers in the US. The most prominent of them is Panoz which is slowly approaching its 20th anniversary. Outside of these tiny footnotes, there hasn't been a major successful American manufacturer founded since World War II. And even new import brands on US soil have been a rare find in the past 30 years. Rare successes like Hyundai and Kia are at odds with struggling Mitsubishi and soon-to-be-gone Isuzu. So you might have to forgive my apprehension everytime someone announces a new venture. When Bob Lutz announced the revival of Cunningham about eight years ago, I was excited. This was the first time in half a century that a new manufacturer would be coming to the US where I trusted the founder. Bob Lutz is the consumate car guy with REAL automotive experience working with the likes of BMW, General Motors, and Chrysler. Lutz even had novel, and as I saw it workable, approaches to manufacturing (which he laid out in two issues of Automotive Industries). But when Lutz was hired by General Motors, it was obvious that all bets on the Cunningham were off. So if Lutz prefered to take the corporate route instead of laying the foundation for real history, I knew new car production was truly a tough nut to crack. When people with questionable backgrounds talk about their automotive ventures, I automatically write them off in my head. People like Malcolm Bricklin, Gerald Weigert, and many others show great enthusiasm, some even know aspects of the automotive business, but most of them are just in business to make a quick buck. So ventures trying to tap the Chinese automakers for the next big thing find their way to my "skeptical" list. I understand that these people are trying to do what the Germans did in the late 1940s, the Japanese did in the 1960s, and the Koreans in the 1980s...catch the next big wave at its beginning. People like Max Hoffman and Kjell Qvale did just that, but the market was vastly different than it is today. The members of my list have included many different types of ventures. Importers of the ARO from Romania, the Proton from Malaysia, the TVR from the UK, the Citroen from France, the Alfa Romeo from Italy, and the Chery from China, among many others, have all announced their intentions in the past 20 years. Many times, these announcements have been followed by many different setbacks, some even could be just called frauds or scams. So it was of no surprise that Automotive News revealed that the head of one of these latest ventures was hiding a shady past. CHAMCO is a New Jersey-based importer who has announced that they plan on selling Chinese trucks in the next few years. The head spokesperson for CHAMCO has stated that he's simply a consultant for the company, but it seems that his wife is actually the chief stockholder of the company. And his past, according to the newspaper, shows that "he did time for fraud" in an earlier trucking venture that he controlled. I'm a huge car fan. I would love to see new and exciting choices in cars and trucks in the US. But each time a Build-To-Order or CHAMCO or ARO America is announced, I need to take a step back and see what's actually going on. The odds of any of these ventures getting off the ground, let alone becoming successful, are becoming smaller an
Feb 18, 2008 - Sadly, Another ObituaryThe other night, I was saddened to hear of the passing someone important to me. After my father, he was one of the most influential men in my life. His name was Stanley Stephenson and he was well-known in the automotive publishing world.
I met Stan when I was about 10 or 12. My uncle introduced me to him as they were old friends. As a lifelong automotive enthusiast, I was so excited to meet the editor of a car magazine and I’m sure I talked his ear off at the time. I ran into him once in a while when we would visit my uncle, but it wasn’t until I moved to Philadelphia that he made a real impact in my life.
In 1992, I moved to Philly and started working auditing welfare cases. After a month or so, I realized that this job would not provide enough challenge for me and I started looking for a new career path. I read about a company in West Chester that provided automotive information to car magazines, so I looked into them. Hoping that Stan could provide even more information, I called him. He said that he knew of the guy in charge of the company but didn’t know him personally. Stan told me that Bill, the owner of the company in question, wouldn’t hire me because of my lack of experience. However, he told me of another person who might give me a chance; the publisher at Chilton Book Company.
My interview at Chilton was hard on my nerves. I wanted to work there but I had very limited hands-on experience compared to the established editors. I met with about six senior editors over my hour-long interview. In one meeting, one of the senior editors said “if Stan recommended him, that’s good enough for me.” It was on my ride home that this statement hit me and I realized that they would be making me an offer, simply because Stan was my reference. I’m not sure that I ever really thanked him for that. I worked at Chilton for the next five years.
I will miss running into Stan at car shows and reading his articles in various publications. A piece of him comes out whenever I write one of my articles. He has been very influential in my career and, as was Stan's way, I hope to pay-it-forward when the opportunity arises.
Stan called me up just a few months ago to tell me that he was cleaning out his library and wanted to know if I wanted any of his books. He presented me with a small box of books and press kits. While others might not appreciate the growth in my automotive library, I appreciate his contribution and, sadly, I’ll remember that brief visit as our last meeting.
Feb 12, 2008 - Car LoreCars are stupid. The idea of personal transportation that pollutes and uses a finite fuel makes no sense. That doesn't mean I don't love cars. It just means that I'm a bit insane. Any person who thinks through the idea of the automobile will agree. But there's just something to the car. Something that makes a car a special consumer product and one that garners a very personal connection and very personal experiences. We love our cars. And it's not just car people who have these feelings. Almost every American (and many more people around the world) has some story about a car...many have multiple stories. Some of these stories are negative, some are positive, almost all leave an impression forever. Some of these stories even become folk tales. Years ago, I met a guy who presented a paper on "car lore": tales of the automobile that are passed from person to person and generation to generation. These stories range from the bizarre to the comical. While there are variations in many of these tales, they will have the same basic theme. They're like the urban legends of the automobile. My favorite of these pieces of "car lore" starts with a man and his Rolls-Royce. On a trip one day, the car stops working and leaves the man stranded. He calls Rolls-Royce for assistance and in a short period of time, a mechanic arrives. The car is repaired and the man sent on his way. Weeks later, the driver still hasn't been billed for his roadside repair, so he contacts Rolls-Royce. When the driver inquires about his bill he is politely told that there must be some mistake, "Rolls-Royces do not break down." Like urban legends, these stories have some kernel of truth, but are largely fabrications. And there are so many of them. Some of them are so well-known that versions are adapted to each region of the world. Even versions of the above Rolls-Royce tale include a comment that the hoods are actually welded shut at the factory. Do you know any such tales?
Feb 1, 2008 - Me and My MGsOne of my first Matchbox models was an MG 1100. There was something about that little green four-door MG model that made a connection between me and MG. I bought my first MG over twenty years ago, and I still own it. MGs were never known for their reliability or value. But they have always supplied the image of driving fun. It's that image that keeps me going with my car since it has not been licensed in the past 17 years. But I keep the plan alive to get it back on the road "by next summer." When Rover revived the MG brand in the early 1990s, I was so excited. "Perhaps MG could return to the US," I thought. Maybe I could work for MG USA when the factory initiated an import office! My brand had returned from the grave! The MG RV8 was a (nicely) warmed-over MGB, which itself had been out of production for 12 years. The body panels for the MGB had returned to production for use in restoration projects so it was relatively easy for Rover to build a "new" MGB. Power came from the fuel-injected aluminum-block V8 engine borrowed from the Land Rover brand; the V8 had seen use in the MGB but only in the GT coupes and only in limited production in the early 1970s. And the interior was brought into the 20th century as well. The RV8 was a nice transition from the old MG to a new, reborn MG brand. Rover's new mechanicals provided the basis for the new roadster. Since all production Rover cars were front-wheel drive and traditional sports cars were rear-wheel drive, Rover placed the drivetrain from its little cars in the rear of the new MG's platform. A Honda transmission put the power of Rover's updated (with variable camshaft timing) K-Series four-cylinder engine to the road. And the styling remained tracable to the MGB/C and Midget...the last of the "true" MG models. BMW took over Rover in the early 1990s and gave the company the money to continue living. With an Anglophile (Bernd Pischetsrieder) at the head of BMW, British car brands seemed to be due for a resurrection. As the century drew to a close, BMW was growing weary of the boat anchor that was Rover, so it was sold. A group of Brits took over the company for $14 (10 pounds), which included a $1 billion interest-free loan from BMW. What didn't come with the company was ownership of the name Rover, mainly because Land Rover was sold off separately. The new company prepared for a time when the Rover name would be unusable (the new owners had free use as long as they didn't produce an SUV under that brand) and named the new company MG Rover. MG versions of the Rover products were introduced, nearly doubling the lineup. Once again, my heart soared! MG's coming back! Perhaps they need help marketing the MG TF (an updated version of the MGF introduced almost a decade earlier) in the US! But my enthusiasm was, again, short-lived. MG Rover closed up shop in 2005. Assets of the company were transferred to Shanghai Automotive (SAIC) and Nanjing in China. The two companies argued over which one owned which parts while they both prepared to launch versions of the Rover 75 sedan. BMW sold the Rover name to Ford, owner of Land Rover, and since BMW already owned most of the traditional Rover brand names (including Mini, Austin, Triumph, and others), MG Rover only had the MG name within its rights. Nanjing claimed ownership of "MG" and badged its sedan as the MG7. SAIC needed to launch its own brand for its 750e sedan and christened it "Roewe" (sounding quite a bit like "wrong way"). Nanjing announced to the world that they would bring the MG brand back to the automotive market. Grand plans were shown including reopening the Longbridge plant in England and opening a new plant in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Nobody outside of Nanjing believed these plans and, late last year, Nanjing was absorbed by the much larger SAIC. While the Longbridge plant is still part of the deal, the "to-be-established" US plant was off the table. Now with all of the legal scuffling cleaned up, SAIC can relaunch the MG brand. Am I waiting to work for MG now? No. Am I waiting to put my name on the list to get a new MG? Not yet. Do I hope MG is successful? Yes, I do. I would like to see a return of a British-built MG...and especially one that can be purchased in the US. But I'm not placing bets as to when (or if) this will occur. Unlike my nature, I'm ever optimistic that it will happen...sometime.
Jan 28, 2008 - Street RacingI was young and stupid once. It seems like it was ages ago, and to some people it probably was. But I was fortunate enough not to have a fast car when I was a teenager and fortunate enough to have a father who was a noted police officer to keep me in check. CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/22/street.racing/index.html) posted a story about street racing. For years, I've been vocally against street racing because it puts innocent people in harms way. When I was less tactful, I would say that it didn't matter to me if street racers hurt themselves, but more ot the point I have always worried about non racers getting hurt or killed. And this happens all the time. In the CNN story, a street racer claimed that his races were well organized and provided safeguards for non racers. He called other street racers who didn't have such precautions "stupid kids." He said that he street races for the rush. "It's about getting there as fast as possible," his quote says and he continued that part of that rush is that he "could get arrested" and that there's "a lot of money" and "your life on the line." But he still races on public roads. When I discovered how easy it was to find an SCCA race or even an open track day at a drag strip, my ever waning "respect" for street racers hit a new trough. I love cars and I love to drive fast, but I haven't "raced" anyone since the days before I was legal to drink. But competing against other drivers (and the clock) in an autocross event shows the driving skills (or sometimes the lack of it) that I have. And all the time it's legal and as safe as can be. Sure, I'm not going to get the rush of trying to evade the cops. And the crowds of adoring young, nubile women don't exist outside of "The Fast and the Furious." But I can have a great afternoon of racing, meet some great people of similar interests, and go home knowing that nobody was put at risk for me to have fun.
|
