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."

Comments

Microsoft money buys laws

[vought]

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?

Re:Microsoft money buys laws

[WalterSobchak]

Would you have a list of the various legal and non-legal "non-crash" cars? What are the requirements.

And if I please may rant a little bit: The 959 is good enough for the Autobahn, it is good enough for you. Crash data for the car exists, the Kraftfahrtbundesamt has strict specs for giving the "street legal" verdict.

Alex

Re:Microsoft money buys laws

[big_gibbon]

From the story, it doesn't look like it was crash data they were worried about:

Since the 959 could not meet U.S. bumper or ride-height requirements, it was going to be imported as a "race car" rather than a street-going model.

This is how America works

[Qrlx]

This story should be made into a movie. Perhaps a documentary.

"...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."

...The supercar proviso became law when President Clinton signed off on it. After eight years of struggle, the real hassles were about to begin for the 959 project. "The next step was to reduce the bill to writing so DOT could administer it. At first they weren't happy about it. Their attitude was 'We're short-staffed as it is, so how are we going to deal with this?' But the government worked diligently to help our cars pass inspection."

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.

Re:This is how America works

[JimBobJoe]

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.

While this law was drawn for them...it's entirely possible that a far smaller car collector would benefit. They may want a rare european car whose value is no where near the value of a 959, and import it into the US...they would be able to under this law. It's not just for the super rich.

What you should be pissed off (and that you left out of your rant) is the fact that the article noted that the DOT had a major bug up its ass about the 959, and wanted to set some type of example with it. When an institution makes those types of decisions, they have to deal with the consequences, in this case, a bunch of people trying to override them (and the simple pleasure of busting a federal bureaucracy's balls is worth the law to me.) On the other hand, DOT nursed its wounds and then wrote out a huge amount of time and money wasting bureaucratic regulations to enforce a law that's fairly straightforward, simply because it's ego was hurt.

Echoing what another reply said to your post, why they don't allow you to sign a waiver form in the first place is beyond comprehension.

This is how America works, and why it's an outrage

[alpha]

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?

Re:nonononono.....

[toopc]

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.

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.

Re:tagging bills together

[Goth Biker Babe]

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).