Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s
Ken Greenebaum writes "Soon there will be a 'new' Porsche 959 racing down highway 520 in Redmond. This
article in autoweek describes how Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Ralph Lauren teamed up with Bruce Canepa to make the 959 street legal. Best quote: Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."' They modernized and increased the performance of the already super car to: 575HP making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds with a top speed of 215MPH."
OH MY GOD! They did WHAT to those poor Porsches?
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
The article comes right out and says that Gates' money paid for a high-priced attorney to work directly with NHTSA, EPA and lawmakers to fashion legislation that would permit their nice little rich guys' plaything. It's a cool car, but I have trouble working up sympathy after reading this story. Why does anyone have trouble believing Gates and Co. wouldn't do the same thing when it comes to matters involving billions of dollars? That antitrust case sure went out with a whimper, didn't it?
Cool cars maybe, but this is obscene. Nobody gets anything out of this except a few rich kids fans of 80s porsches, and indeed the cars aren't really anything like what they were before (as classics) because the turbos, ignition system, and fuel injectors are all completely changed in the process.
Another case where the lawyers make more money than the rest of us.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Still, I suppose some senators won't have to worry about where to get their designer suits and computer games from now on.
Because a 959 has history associated with it. If you don't understand that, you're either a kid, or someone who doesn't appreciate cars.
Just because something newer and faster comes along, doesn't mean older cars no longer matter. The 959 is one of the most significant Porsche's ever made. Maybe one day the Carrera GT will be too, but I doubt it. 20 years from now I bet a 959 is worth much more than GT.
In a country where thousands die annually in automobile accidents. here three billionaires are deliberately crashing cars just so they can have overpriced playthings to go joyriding in.
This whole fiasco is a metaphor for everything that's wrong with Microsoft, and by extension, America.
"...We formulated a law--that if 500 or fewer cars were produced, if they weren't currently produced, if they were never U.S.-legal, and if they were rare--you could import them without having to pass DOT standards. As long as they met EPA standards and were driven no more than 2500 miles per year, they'd be legal."
There's so many things wrong here. For starters, Federal tax dollars (aka "your money") are being spent to push the paperwork on a car that only the super-wealthy will ever drive. Then, there's the fact that someone(s) in Congress (aka "your representative") felt s/he was acting appropriately when the attached this rider to the transportation bill. Finally, we've got the lawyers, who dreamed up this scheme where we have to pay (see "your money" above) so the super-wealthy chase their small-penised dreams.
This whole damn situation is so friggin' complex that I am really having a hard time determining who I should be pissed off at.
Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally. How hard can that really be? On the other hand, I know Bill Gates gets his most intense satisfaction every time his lawyer-monkeys find a way to make legal something that really isn't.
And if cars were designed like open source software, you'd try to take them to a mechanic and get handed a spanner and told to fix it yourself.
Wow, your motorcycle is faster than a 959.
If only Bill had your money he could afford one too. Oh wait, he does have your money, and x billion times more. I guess the point of it wasn't just 0-60 numbers then.
You think?
Sucks for them.
Excuse me now. I'm going to go get a snack from the fridge. A snack that costs more than 99% of people in this world get paid for an entire day's hard labor. We're all such selfish bastards aren't we?
Maybe, but I actually thought this comment was quite insightful. It's pretty significant that this is a scam to circumvent safety laws.
...Because the Carrera GT sucks?
A purist would tell you all Porsche sucks since 87 (?) when they stopped making their own engines but it's hardly a mystery that Porsches recently have stopped being cars for sportsmen and people who enjoy a good driving experiences, but cars for MS CEOs and rappers.
A friend of mine owns a Porsche 911 from the last year when Porsche made their own engines, and I got to drive one of the new 911s. Let me tell you, it's a whole 'nother story.
Is it because Bill Gates is involved, or did (almost) everybody here
decide to trade in their aspiration for freedom and pursuit of happiness
for this pitiful whining about how there ought to be some law to stop
these "rich bastards" from buying faster cars than most of us here can
afford. It reeks of ill masked jealousy and outright socialism.
There IS an outrage in this story, and it's the fact that there already
WAS a law like that, and that it took these people 10 YEARS and hundreds
of thousands of dollars to obtain PERMISSION from their own government
(the government "by the people", charged with protecting "our rights") to
import a few rare cars! It's an outrage that customs considers these cars
contraband because of some ill advised regulations that clearly shouldn't
apply in a situation like this.
Would the same laws make anyone who builds a custom vehicle a
criminal? Saying that it's for private use off public roads clearly wasn't
a defense, since the cars that were imported under "race" classification
were impounded as well!
It would make a lot more sense for crash-test/emission laws to impose an
additional tax on non-compliant cars. That way mass producers would make
sure their cars comply, but enthusiasts willing to pay the fee wouldn't be
turned into criminals for possessing "illegal" cars. Based on the
principles of freedom that are supposed to govern this country, that's
what i (apparently wrongly) assumed must already be the case!
This article shed some light on a very disturbing example of how our
government appears to have lost its appreciation for who are the servants
and who are the masters, the government or the people that elect and
employ them?
Easy tiger. No argument re: character. TVR has it in bucketloads.
My experience with Porsche driving is limited (TVR even more so) but even in a lowly Boxster there was fun to be had.
I've gone through the usual GTi suspects (two x 205, two x 309, one 106) via a Subaru Impreza Turbo (99MY Wagon) to a BMW Compact Sport 325ti. The Impreza was quick and held the road, but didn't offer much excitement beyond that. The old 1.6 205GTi offered more laughs. Strangely, though, the Compact is giving me about as many grins as the old Pug. It's 190hp (against 215 in the Scoob) but it's RWD. And with the DSC etc switched off it does actually want to play. And the exhaust note when the VANOS flips over is rather splendid (certainly better than the Scooby).
So what I'm saying is, I agree, to some extent. But, given the choice between a TVR and a 959, _I_ wouldn't give it a moment's consideration.
The spin (a friend of friend, so treat with caution) was along the lines of "driving along motorway at around 60mph, accelerated to join faster traffic, oh my god, why are my back wheels overtaking me?" as opposed to "floored it whilst fully crossed up". Apochryphal stories aren't worth a great deal, I know.
Anyway, keep on motoring (whilst we're still allowed).
Rob.
Purists? Try snobs. Every generation of Porsche owners has it's share.
There's your example.
Then there is the 964 owners who say the 993 isn't a true 911 because Porsche got help from the Japanese to reign in costs and thus produced a lower quality car (the 993 actually sold for $5000 less that the previous year's 964). They also point to the swept back fenders and headlights as more proof
Then, of course, is the 993 owners who say the 996 isn't a true 911 because it has a water cooled engine. They are many, and probably the most vocal of the snobs.
And no doubt there will be 996 owners who find something wrong with the next generation. I'm pretty sure there are even a few 356 owners who think anything else isn't really a Porsche.
Basically these are the people who are insecure about their decision to buy their car and try to make themselves feel better about it by convincing others they own the 'real deal'. These truly are the oft mentioned people who buy a Porsche to make up for a lack of manhood.
Maybe I should know better than to ask this, but shouldn't /. draw the line for what is posted just a tad higher than this ?
Exactly what is newsworthy here.... oh yeah it's something that can be used to possibly discredit Bill Gates. Tabloid material.
Sheesh! I thought it was a good thing that they made the cool 959s street legal, so at first I didn't understand the angle at all.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
Car safety is interesting. It's not a simple thing to solve as there are so many dependencies amoung numerous factors.
a) Speed does not kill. If it killed then people would be dieing all the time in F1 and World Super Bikes. There is an increase in risk but nothing like you would expect. Inapproprate speed kills. 70mph on a dry road with little traffic is safer than 50mph in fog in the rush hour.
b) There's primary safety verses secondary safety. For example there are some types of accident where a motorcyclist is better off than a car driver as the biker will come off and slide down the road where as the driver is contained. Also on a motorcycle you're more likely to be able avoid a collision. My bike, which is relatively slow, will accelerate to 100mph and brake back to zero within 15 seconds. Together with it being thin and it's handling means that I'm more able to avoid accidents than in a car.
I should also introduce risk compensation theory here. A Volvo or SUV should, in theory, be safer than, say a classic mini, but the driver either consciously or unconsciously knows this and so drives less safely.
c) Personal responsibility is another factor. US air bags are far more explosive than european ones because in Europe we assume that drivers and passengers are wearing seat belts. US car manufacturers assume their customers are not. In fact new US regulations have killed the classic lines of cars like Aston Martins as they now have to be designed so that idiots who drive without safety devices don't hurt themselves too much.
d) Experience of drivers. Although technically the UK national speed limit is 70mph provided coniditions are right speeds up to 100mph are sort of tolerated on motorways. If you ask any driver over here, most would say they've driven at atleast 80mph, and probably 90mph at some point or other. And yet our road death toll is proportionally far less than the US and motorways are the safest roads in the UK. In Germany on the autobahns speeds of 150mph are not unknown. It's because we're used to these speeds.
e) The vehicles themselves. Sports cars are always safer than regular cars or SUVs at the same speed because they have better brakes, better handling and better acceleration. Accelerating out of trouble on a road (to avoid a collision) is just as valid as braking to avoid one and in some cases more advisable. It's similar which sports bikes and sports/tourers.
Judging from what I've seen on these US reality COP TV shows the average European car has better braking, handling and acceleration than the US equivalent. The narrators express horror at vehicles travelling at speeds which are normal in Europe.
Arguments against high speed cars are generally flawed because in the end a car is as fast as you drive it and if you're rich enough to own one you can afford to go to track days at a local circuit (which are very popular over here and great fun).
Or terrorism.
Fast cars are sexy. They're an engineering marvel. The government should have no say in the car we buy or import.
Everyone hates Bill Gates for buying legislation, but is it any surprise? When you build a system that restricts the freedoms of individuals, the only people who win are 'special interests'. The government shouldn't have any control over the regulation of private industry. That way, the government could never be corrupted by rich folks, since money can't buy that which the government doesn't control.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I was always partial to the 968s, now I think if I ever buy a "supercar" it will be an NSX, I love honda's approach to driving.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Please don't take COPS as a reference for American culture. Crap, the weathermen act like a snowstorm is some sort of national emergency. And all that means is that sensationalism sells TV ads.
-Dave
Yeah, while we're at it, we should put exploding collars on everyone's neck and blow them up if they get out of line.
Having your drivers license revoked is not the same as capital punishment. We do it for drunk drivers, after all. In our society, you are presumed responsible enough to drive a car until you by your actions prove otherwise. This is exactly how it should be.
You punish the lawbreakers after they decide to do a crime, not before.
Which is exactly what I propose to do. Under my proposal, you could buy a car that could go any speed, so long as you drive it responsibly when on public roads. You can drive as insanely as you wish on a track.
Personally, I speak as somebody who has travelled at these speeds on a public road. One of my friends, in his post-purchase nitwit phase, showed off by taking me to over 160 in his new sports car. Think about this: the road was engineered reasonably to support 80mph or so. On the stretch we were on, you had about a half mile to one mile of visibilty ahead. In terms of reaction times, that gives you about 20 - 40 seconds. At 160, you only have 10-20. I was not amused. He, however, was completely transported. He was experiencing excitement not danger. This person is a sober, responsible, sensible person. These machines are almost diabolical invitations to extreme speed; no normal person could get in one and not at some point give it a little push. Once he started going to the track, he stopped pulling stunts like this. On the track he could take his car to its limits in the high 190s, so there was no reason to screw around at 160 on the highway.
You don't think that most people have some common sense?
Uh, do you mean a prioir or judging by the evidence?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So Bill and friends somehow managed to get a bill into law so that they can have a new toy?
And we dare to wonder why or how his company so elusively avoids legal responsibility for it's actions?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
When NHTSA tallies up accidents where "speed" was a factor, that includes driving too safe for conditions, driving faster than the posted limit (even when it is safe), and even driving too SLOWLY for conditions. Also, if a "speeding" driver, having the right of way, is T-boned by someone else who failed to stop at a stop sign, that's considered a speed-related accident--even though the speed had nothing to do with it.
Is it because Bill Gates is involved, or did (almost) everybody here
decide to trade in their aspiration for freedom and pursuit of happiness
for this pitiful whining about how there ought to be some law to stop
these "rich bastards" from buying faster cars than most of us here can
afford.
No, what pisses many of us off is that BECAUSE they were rich a few folks were able to get their own personal law passed. The flip side is that (as you suggested) it shouldn't TAKE millions of dollars to get a perfectly reasonable change of law passed.
It would make a lot more sense for crash-test/emission laws to impose an
additional tax on non-compliant cars.
So if you're rich you can ignore the law that everyone else has to live by, I don't see that as an improvement or even necessary in this case. The purpose of these DOT regs is mostly to protect consumers from being tricked into buying unsafe vehicles so it would seem to me that for low volume cars all that is necessary is to make sure the customer is aware of it's status (have them sign a form saying that the car hasn't been certified and may kill them).
Motorcyclists have that size/maneuverability advantage, and have to play it to the hilt to survive. I don't know how many bikers are on /., but it's dangerous out there, folks.
My bike is also a performance machine... zero to 100 and back FAR faster than most any automobile, and it's saved my life. I used to ride cruiser bikes (always liked them, and they are more comfortable for a long ride), but switched over to a performace sport bike after coming to the conclusion that speed is sometimes your only defense. It sucks to dig into that throttle and find nothing there, particularly when you NEED IT to get out of trouble.
Hear me out... I know it seems counter-intuitive.
When you are on a bike, your only hope of survival is to avoid contact with other vehicles. A tap to them can be death for you. Airbags, seatbelts, don't exist for bikes... all you have is a helmet (hopefully... I'm a fan, not everyone is), some leather, a good pair of boots, and some gloves. If you have a car that starts to come into your lane (usually because he/she didn't see you, or didn't look), you have three choices: swerve off the road, panic-braking, or accelerate out of the way. Swerving off the road doesn't work if there's a curb there, and any dirt/gravel you swerve into may make you dump the bike. Panic-braking may work, but then you get run over by the vehicle behind you. Acceleration is often your best choice... and the faster you can do so, the better. I've laid a few bikes down... it's no fun, and I'm in no hurry to do it again. Speed also helps you outrun the occasional drunk or tailgating idiot, and I'm convinced some people out there just hate bikers, and will kill one given the opportunity. Think it doesn't happen? You haven't talked to enough bikers... I know a few who have been run off the road intentionally.
Now, you have to ride smart; I'm not a big proponent of going 100mph on a residential street... that kind of foolishness can get you dead in a hurry. Working in emergency services, I've unsuccessfully tried to piece back together waaaay too many young speed demons. Riding like a maniac will catch up with you, it's just a question of when.
That said, speed, properly applied, can save lives. If you take all comers (including the rampaging, speeding drunks) It probably kills more than it saves, but I'd say that's more of a reflection on the rider than their chosen velocity.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Actually, I thought it was a great story of one person's tenacity winning out over government red tape!
From your comment, I'm assuming you're not really that interested in high-performance automobiles - but please keep in mind that many folks are.
This was a case where the barrier to entry was so high, only the richest people could afford to be bothered with it - but similar situations happen all the time with foreign cars desired by American citizens.
I thnk the law that they finally got pushed through is a sensible one, and should help out many more people than just Bill Gates and his friends. Most of us might not be buying street legal, rare Porsches any time soon - but this same law would help make it possible to obtain a number of more inexpensive collector cars.
or MS Innovations or ...
Why go on, at 500+ posts, no one will ever read it. I would'nt.