Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s

tagging bills together by zeoslap · 2003-09-15 19:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

The thing that struck me about this article was how screwed up the US political system is whereby bills are all bundled together, I won't even get into the fact that with enough cash you can get your own laws considered. This particular law was denied twice (which in of itself should see it permanently denied) but on the third try it was ushered through because the bill it was riding on was a sure fire winner, lame.

All that being said it's cool that they finally got the cars into the US, only wish I could afford one :)

Re:tagging bills together by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-09-15 19:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's also pretty screwy that someone went to the bother of trying to get a bill passed, with all the inherent costs so that a few multimillionaires can drive ludicrously fast cars.
Still, I suppose some senators won't have to worry about where to get their designer suits and computer games from now on.
Re:tagging bills together by FJ · 2003-09-15 20:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Bundeling unrelated things together in congress is nothing new. It is a favorite way to get pet projects and a way to manuver things in your way. Both parties do it and all presidents hate it.

They tried to change this a few years back by giving the presedent a line item veto. It was declared unconstitutional because it gave the executive branch too much power over the legislative branch. The only way to change it legally is for a constitutional amendment.

The funny thing is that most state governments allow for a line item veto.
Re:tagging bills together by andrewski · 2003-09-15 20:23 · Score: 2

You, sir are on crack. A car going at 215 MPH is much more likely to kill somebody. That much less reaction time.

Riders are also bad because there could be cooperation and not pork. Riders are 95% pork.
Re:tagging bills together by JimBobJoe · 2003-09-15 21:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The thing that struck me about this article was how screwed up the US political system is whereby bills are all bundled together

This is a peculiarity of Congress. States usually have constitional requirements for single subject bills (with names that identify what the bill does, none of this "Save the babies and orphaned Hamsters act of 2003" shit) as well as line item veto.

I happen to know that several states, like my Ohio, and Illinois, get pretty mean on enforcement...courts have no problems throwing out laws simply because they were codified under a bill that had multiple subjects.
Re:tagging bills together by rpjs · 2003-09-15 22:12 · Score: 2, Informative

In the UK our bills have a short title, which is what they'll be known as if passed, and a long title which sets out what the law is for. The bill may not contain anything that is not consistent with the long title. To allow enough flexibility to get around nit-picking, a bill's long title will usually end with "and for conected purposes."

Seems to work quite well. "Pork" is simply not a concept in British politics.
Re:tagging bills together by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2003-09-16 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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).
Re:tagging bills together by Scratch-O-Matic · 2003-09-16 01:00 · Score: 4, Funny

In the UK our bills have a short title...

Here in the U.S., our bills are required to have titles involving children, widows, or sick veterans.

--

Evil is the money of root.
Re:tagging bills together by micromoog · 2003-09-16 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or terrorism.
Re:tagging bills together by hey! · 2003-09-16 01:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

First, let me say that I have several friends who race or simply like to drive fast on a track.

I have no problem with them having a street legal car that will do +200 MPH, because I know they drive at normal speeds to and from the track. Occaisionally they "cheat" a bit, but for the most part they get it out of their system on the track. I remember when on of my friends got his RX-7; he drove like a nitwit for a few months, until he started going down to the track, and realized how idiotic it is to endanger other people who are just trying to get from point A to point B in once piece.

I'm not sure whether I'm for or against this; I have a feeling that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Speed does kill -- or at least speed differentials. People who make the arguments you have always talk like they're the only people on the road. It's safer for a family sedan travelling at 60mph to share the road with a nitwit driving at 100MPH than to share it with a nitwit driving at 200MPH. The roads are simply not adequately engineered to support these kinds of speeds, much less the speed differentials. Even responsible drivers like my friends sometimes drive with excessive speeds, and the nitwits are going to do it every chance they get.

I'd support making these cars street legal if there were some way to control them off the track. Suppose the car's computer recorded when it travelled at > 100MPH, and at inspection time this would be compared to records kept at tracks. Travelling at speeds exceeding 100MPH off the track would be punishable by permanent license revocation and seizing the car. Perhaps there would be a special key that would enable full performance. I beleive some high performance cars have this, to discourage joy riding by valet parking attendants.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:tagging bills together by Zeinfeld · 2003-09-16 02:01 · Score: 4, Informative

In the UK our bills have a short title, which is what they'll be known as if passed, and a long title which sets out what the law is for. The bill may not contain anything that is not consistent with the long title.
That is not the reason for the difference. In the UK the government controls time in both houses of parliament and introduces almost every bill (except for private members bills and 5 minute rule bills). The government has such a tight control on the legislature that there is nothing to be gained by adding an ammendment to an unrelated bill. If the government does not like the ammendment they can either strip it out in the Lords or gut it on the floor of the House.
There are cases of ammendments of this particular type making it into law but they would have to be attached to a relevant bill, in this case it would probably be a transport bill. What you do not get is ammendments to bills that direct money to particular interests such as a tax break for Haliburton or (Bob Dole's favorite) Archer Daniels Midland.
In effect the situation is much closer to what you would have in the US if there was a line item veto provision.
It is also possible for a private bill to get passed. This is a major undertaking but occasionally happens, usually for something like the channel tunnel, building of a railway line or such.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:tagging bills together by bigdavex · 2003-09-16 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Can you expand on what you mean by proportionally? Is it possible that a lower number of accidents in Europe are due to Americans driving cars everywhere for lack of public transportation? Or are your numbers for per mile driven?
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
Re:tagging bills together by hey! · 2003-09-16 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:tagging bills together by CharlieHedlin · 2003-09-16 02:53 · Score: 2, Informative

The DMCA is larger than most provisions that get tacked on to other bills.

The DMCA was a bill of its own.
Re:tagging bills together by rpjs · 2003-09-16 03:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh yes.

We have plenty of corruption in the UK, but we really don't have the pork-barrelling like they have in the US, although governments sometimes try to direct spending to marginal constitunencies, it doesn't compare to what goes on in the AMerican system.

Due really, as another poster has pointed out, to the executive's control of the legislature and the relative powerlessness of our MPs compared to US congresscritters (I love that word!).
Re:tagging bills together by saden1 · 2003-09-16 03:14 · Score: 2

While they are at it, I'd like McLaren F1 please.

--

-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Re:tagging bills together by UnknowingFool · 2003-09-16 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

US air bags are far more explosive than european ones because in Europe we assume that drivers and passengers are wearing seat belts. . .
I think part of the reason for this is the difference in design goals. In Europe cars are on average more expensive compared to the average working person's salary than in the US. Also Europe has much better mass transportation. With higher gas prices, this leads to the fact that fewer cars per capita are in Europe. The cars that are sold are also higher in quality. A Ford Escort in Europe is almost like a luxury car in the US.
With that said, the car manufacturers in Europe seem to place more emphasis on better design and safety. In the US, safety is done because it is mandatory. Typically cars are designed just to meet the US safety requirements.
It doesn't surprise me that most air bags are poorly designed. When it became federal law that new cars must have air bags, some car manufacturers put air bags that just met safety requirements.
However, not all car manufacturers are alike. Some car manufacturers have done extensive testing to ensure that their air bags are safe. Two things that are in good air bag design:
1) Tethers. A good air bag should deploy quickly but not explode into the person. Good air bags have tethers that restrain the air bag from deploying too far. The idea is to let the person crash into the air bag and not the air bag into the person.
2) Speed thresholds. A good air bag should not in low speed, low impact crashes. We've all seen Hollywood parodies where air bags deployed when the driver bumped the steering wheel and the air bag deployed. But that is unfortunately happening. In fender-benders some air bags have deployed killing the occupants.
What are some car manufacturers that have these "good" air bags. Not surprisingly, Mercedes Benz (the pioneer of the air bag) and BMW have these types of air bags. Honda and Toyota also have these air bags.
I can personally attest to Honda's air bag. I was with my brother in a 10 mph crash in his Honda. The fender was badly damaged. The air bags didn't deploy. A few years later, he missed a stop light and ran into a car at 20 mph. The front of his car was smashed. The air bags deployed.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:tagging bills together by sporktoast · 2003-09-16 06:09 · Score: 2, Informative

I happen to know that several states, like my Ohio, and Illinois, get pretty mean on enforcement...
Um, sort of. The latest Ohio budget bill passed with more than 100 riders attached that had next-to-nothing to do with the actual budget. And Ohio lawmakers defended their actions by claiming that most of the riders were such little (but necessary) things that they would have otherwise been unable to bring them up for consideration independently.
In order for a court to "get pretty mean on enforcement", some aggrieved group has to have the money to bring a challenge before that court. This has happened in the past (shooting down the school vouchers program) but never happens with any uniformity (expanding Ohio's senior citizen discount program, adding a judgeship in a county, allowing a small township to merge the park authority into the township government) because there are just too many flies to swat. So the legislators will keep doing it, even though the constitution specifically prohibits it.

--
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
Re:tagging bills together by King_TJ · 2003-09-16 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:tagging bills together by WD_40 · 2003-09-16 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative

" In Germany on the autobahns speeds of 150mph are not unknown. It's because we're used to these speeds."

I completely agree. People usually scowl at me when I tell them I drive over 100mph on a regular basis. They assume it's very dangerous just because they wouldn't feel comfortable driving at that speed, however they're perfectly fine driving at 70mph. Why? Because they're used to it. They know what it takes to drive safely at that speed.

I am used to driving 100+mph because I've done it for a long time. I know what it takes to drive safely at those speeds, and I don't drive that fast if conditions (traffic, road, weather, etc) would make it unsafe.

--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

well by toddhunter · 2003-09-15 19:35 · Score: 5, Funny

suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."
How about spending that crashing and testing time on windows instead???

Re:well by Scorchio · 2003-09-15 19:37 · Score: 5, Funny

But they're trying to find something that will crash faster...
Re:well by justzisguy · 2003-09-15 20:04 · Score: 2, Funny

What do you call Longhorn on Itanium 2's?!?

OH MY GOD! by Krach42 · 2003-09-15 19:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

OH MY GOD! They did WHAT to those poor Porsches?

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!

Re:OH MY GOD! by Krach42 · 2003-09-15 20:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Oooo... now I like rotary engines as much as the next guy... but wanton destruction of sports cars is something that I generally frown upon. Whether they're Porsches or not.

Member, PETSC (People for the Ethical Treatment of Sports Cars)

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Re:OH MY GOD! by 10Ghz · 2003-09-15 21:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comparing Mazda to a Porsche? What next, comparing Toyota to Lamborghini?

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:OH MY GOD! by Alan+Partridge · 2003-09-16 00:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

No he shouldn't.

Porsche have made many fine cars over the years, but Mazda have done so also. The second generation RX-7 was BETTER than the contemporary Porsche 944, and certainly more technologically innovative. The last RX-7 was one of the purest sports cars ever offered for road use, and still has a very loyal following. And, though Porsche has won Le Mans more times than anyone else, don't forget that Mazda's 787B won against all the odds too - no other manufacturer has ever won it with a ROTARY ENGINE.

Great engineering is great engineering whether done by Germans, Japanese or Botswanans.

--
That was classic intercourse!

I would have thought... by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-09-15 19:36 · Score: 4, Funny

they'd have been crash testing Fords.

And no Skyline? by Dancin_Santa · 2003-09-15 19:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft Money doesn't help me buy anything. It does tell me that I'm way over budget and will be bankrupt within 3 months of the start of the fiscal year.

Microsoft money buys laws by vought · 2003-09-15 19:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Wyatt+Earp · 2003-09-15 19:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

What has always struck me as idiotic is that the 959 wasn't street legal in the US while other, non-crash-worthy super cars like the Ferrari F40 and F50, Pantera and Shelby Cobra have been.
Re:Microsoft money buys laws by WalterSobchak · 2003-09-15 20:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
Re:Microsoft money buys laws by abmurray · 2003-09-15 20:21 · Score: 5, Informative

What has always struck me as idiotic is that the 959 wasn't street legal in the US while other, non-crash-worthy super cars like the Ferrari F40 and F50, Pantera and Shelby Cobra have been.

Whether or not a car is 'street legal' in the US is entirely up to the manufacturer. The car must adhere to emissions and safety regulations. The car must also be crash-tested and all relevant information throughly documented. There's a host of hoops the manufacturer must jump through that can add significantly to the cost of the car.

It's not the government that was keeping the 959 from being street legal, but Porsche itself.

--
a.b. murray
Re:Microsoft money buys laws by big_gibbon · 2003-09-15 21:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Microsoft money buys laws by toopc · 2003-09-15 22:41 · Score: 2, Informative

The 959 was produced at just over 200 cars as that was the minimum number required by FISA for homologation in Group B rally category. They were actually sold at a loss to Porsche only so the 959 could be raced. Ironic in that Group B racing was short lived due to some deadly accidents, and the 959 was never used as intended.
Read here for more info.

The Fast and the Furious III by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 19:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Bill Gates in a Vin Diesel like role? The influence, the respect, the mystery...

Robert Love as the guy undercover as the Porshe employee investigating Microsoft's under-the-table dealings with Porshe, to see if more than "Microsoft Money" is involved...

Natalie "Hot Grits" Portman as his love interest who is also a Porshe racer...

Steve Ballmer, who screams "On your mark, get set, go" over and over like the crazed monkey he is...

Darl McBride running around, making sure the cars are using street-legal parts else pay him a special fee to make sure their cars don't "have problems" before a big race?

Who knows... It wouldn't be any worse than if Hollywood tried to make this!

nonononono..... by E1v!$ · 2003-09-15 19:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

this is just stupid. why bother with that when you can have THIS.

Re:nonononono..... by toopc · 2003-09-15 19:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

this is just stupid. why bother with that when you can have [a Porsche Carrera GT].
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.
Re:nonononono..... by toopc · 2003-09-15 22:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Elsewhere... by mcpkaaos · 2003-09-15 19:44 · Score: 5, Funny

John Carmack is seen hastily building a new rocket, loaded with weapons-grade plutonium, mumbling something about being "one-upped" about his Ferrari and some reference to a "last laugh".

Easy, Ashcroft, I was kidding about the plut++++NO CARRIER

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.

Seems to me... by fruey · 2003-09-15 19:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

... like more time, thought and money went into getting a car street legalised than my poor little principles can handle. Add to that getting a law passed specifically for it, and really you're showing just how enough money can get you almost anything in the US.

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

It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit by commodoresloat · 2003-09-15 19:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Once they heard Ford was switching to Linux they figured they had to do something to compete in the auto market.

Re:It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit by hype7 · 2003-09-16 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Best quote: Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."'

Ahhh, the sweet irony.

Who better to get a Porsche to crash than Bill Gates?

-- james
Re:It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit by BLAG-blast · 2003-09-16 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Who better to get a Porsche to crash than Bill Gates?
It wouldn't be that bad, all you'd have to do is close all the windows and try again...

--
M0571y H@rml355.
Re:It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit by blair1q · 2003-09-16 10:13 · Score: 2, Funny

I can hear the first call to the Service Station

Bill Gates: Hey! Bruce! My 959 just died. Get over here!

Bruce Canepa: You'll have to reinstall the windows and see if that fixes it, first.

Gates driving style by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 19:53 · Score: 3, Funny

If Gates drives his Porche like his software drives my computer, get your children inside and stay of the roads...

Suddenly... by fruity1983 · 2003-09-15 19:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Suddenly all those jokes about gas guzzling speed cars making up for an inadequate penis seem so much more obvious.

--
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

Fast Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 19:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, so I'm not a subscriber and had to wait for it to appear on the non-subscriber edition :-) And I took the time to read the article before posting. It's still 0:23 postings in 16 minutes...

And yes, Gates and friends used money and influence to buy their way around the laws they wanted, but other than the pollution laws, which they got the cars upgraded to meet, the other laws are basically "consumer protection" laws, and if you're a consumer who doesn't *want* to be protected, nobody's forcing you to buy a Porsche 959 and you shouldn't have to pay protection money to do so - it ought to be your choice.

Besides, this is yet another case of the government stepping in and banning hobbyists from doing what they want and only dealing with big industrialists in large volume - as hackers, we're supposed to be opposed to that sort of thing. A couple of years ago, the Stanford Electric Car Show had a really nice little Norwegian prototype car that I'd have been happy to buy right there - but they were only allowed to bring a small number into the country, and were required to *crush* them after six months. What a waste.

Too expensive by Powercntrl · 2003-09-15 20:01 · Score: 4, Funny

I'd rather get a Honda Civic and cover it in Type-R stickers... With each one adding 5 extra horsepower, I'd surely end up with a faster car!

--

---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.

Do they come in BLUE? by Vampyre_Dark · 2003-09-15 20:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Is it me, or does is there something really wrong when a company that is world famous for CRASHING gets involved in the automotive industry?

Only not street legal in the United States! by avidday · 2003-09-15 20:05 · Score: 4, Informative

The 959 was always street legal, expcept in the US, because of Porsche's refusal to supply the required vehicles (up to four if memory serves correctly) for the mandatory crash test. People have been happily and safely driving their road specification 959's (Porsche had to build 200 road going examples for FIA Group B homologation purposes) in many other places since deliveries began in late 1987.

This is how America works by Qrlx · 2003-09-15 20:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by JimBobJoe · 2003-09-15 21:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:This is how America works by swordboy · 2003-09-16 00:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally.

It certainly is possible to do it legally. I live in the Detroit area and I see a lot of "wierd" stuff. Back when the 959 was released, I saw one on the street by my high school. I ended up following the guy home in order to find out if the car was real only to watch the maneuvering required to get the car into his driveway (it is so low to the ground that he had to back it in at a large angle).

In any event, the car was indeed real and street legal. The guy who owned the car simply licensed the car through Audi/VW North America as a test vehicle. This simply means that the license plate has a big "M" in the middle of it. Even though the exhaust was much too loud (with flames that discharge between shifts), the "M" plated cars can pretty much be anything that the manufacturer wants them to be...

Because, as you have pointed out, money gets pretty much anything here in the states.

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.

Re:rich people by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 20:14 · Score: 2, Funny

1. ?????
2. Get Rich
3. Have fun

Re:darwin award candidates by DaveSchool · 2003-09-15 20:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, I'm sure these BILLIONAIRES can't afford high-performance driving lessons or anything like that. Also, Bill Gates' history would lead me to believe that he's been driving these kind of cars for quite some time (his famous mugshot is from when he was pulled over for going 100+ in a Porsche).

Re:Too bad for them... by toopc · 2003-09-15 20:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Too bad for them?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if Bill Gates or any of those other billionaires want a Carerra GT, they can buy one, or ten. And they won't have to sell the 959 either.

These guys aren't like you or me, they don't have to sell the Corolla to step up the Camry.

Re:60 in 3.3 seconds? by toopc · 2003-09-15 20:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:Too bad for them... by mcpkaaos · 2003-09-15 20:24 · Score: 4, Funny

...what you want with such a car on North American roads?

Well, we could have a Cannonball Run 3. We even have a modern day Dom DeLuise. Sorry Balmer, you brought it on yourself. I guess Gates could be Burt Reynolds, but I doubt he can grow a mustache.

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.

Linux Mechanic? by teamhasnoi · 2003-09-15 20:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Sure, Bill, the brakes look great! Drive faster!

Crash Test Dummies . . . by Dausha · 2003-09-15 20:26 · Score: 3, Funny

So, will Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bruce Canepa or Ralph Lauren also volunteer to be crash test dummies? I don't think we should accept all four of them a couple will suffice. After all, you can't have a accurate crash test without end-user testing.

This should be a slashdot poll questions: Who should be the first CTD?

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.

Why isn't anyone pissed about the import part? by Excen · 2003-09-15 20:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Currently, it costs $90,000 to import a USED Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 to the U.S. and to make it street legal. For those of you who don't know, it's the silver and blue car that Paul Walker drives in 2 Fast 2 Furious. (Yeah, it's the one with the steering wheel on the wrong side. . . ) Mind you, it costs a third of that in Japan BRAND SPANKING NEW! You can buy a 2-year-old Toyota Corolla equivalent for 6 thousand in Japan, however, due to the asinine import laws governing foreign trade, it costs two times the cost of the car to get the tests done to prove that the car was street legal and emmisions compliant in the first place, and to pay the import duties. To get the car released from customs to do the emissions testing, a bond of 250 PERCENT OF THE PRICE OF THE CAR must be put up to ensure that you will get the emissions done. You get that money back, but who has the cash to pony up like that when you are buying a car?

Anyways, that's my rant on Stupid American Laws.

"No beer until you finish your tequila!"
-Leela's Dad

--
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad

Hmmm... by wetson · 2003-09-15 20:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."'

...so I assume they'll be installing Windows on them?

flamebait? by commodoresloat · 2003-09-15 20:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe, but I actually thought this comment was quite insightful. It's pretty significant that this is a scam to circumvent safety laws.

Re:flamebait? by zurmikopa · 2003-09-15 23:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Except if you read the article you would see that they didn't actually crash the cars, it was just a suggestion Bill made on how they might get some of them into the states.

Re:Too bad for them... by BJH · 2003-09-15 20:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's see exactly how much a Porsche Carerra GT would cost Bill Gates (relatively speaking).

His net worth is currently $US34,234,884,352.40 (according to the Bill gates Net Worth Page).
A brand-new Porsche Carerra GT costs an estimated $US400,000.
That means that the cost to Bill Gates is approximately 0.0012% of his total worth.
According to the US Census Bureau, the median net worth of a US household in 1995 was $US40,200. Let's adjust that upward by, say, 10% to take into account the past eight years - the amount is now $US44220.
0.0012% of 44220 is 53 cents.

Conclusion: A Porsche Carerra GT for Bill Gates is equivalent to a couple of cans of Coke for the average American.

Microsoft Money? by bastard42 · 2003-09-15 21:30 · Score: 5, Funny

I had no idea MS Money was that good. Is anyone going to patch gnucach for this? Will I have to wait for Quicken to do it first?

I mean, just think how useful it would be if I could have bills introduced into the Senate from my OSS program anytime I couldn't legally use (or afford) something. Hell, maybe they could implement it for the EU as well. That would be kick ass.

Speeding?????? by MonkeyPaw · 2003-09-15 21:30 · Score: 4, Funny

"Soon there will be a 'new' Porsche 959 racing down highway 520 in Redmond."

Speeding down 520? When? With all the traffic on that highway I think top speed is 15mph.

--
My studio - www.graylands.ca

This is how America works, and why it's an outrage by alpha · 2003-09-15 21:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Not that fast by ratbag · 2003-09-15 22:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Easy to handle supercar, too... by Goonie · 2003-09-15 22:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

From all that I've read about the 959, it's apparently reasonably easy to drive at sane speeds, and if you up the ante a bit four-wheel-drive tends to tame the handling characteristics of cars quite nicely.

And frankly I'd expect Bill Gates in a 959 to be a hell of a lot safer than a random Hollywood actor in, say, a Dodge Viper with that rubber chassis it's lumbered with...

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

This is already being done by (eternal_software) · 2003-09-15 23:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Ok, so Microsoft is involved (sorta) but this isn't really news ... this has been going on for a while:

"According to Dick Merritt at the Department of Transportation, these are the other labs capable of federalizing Porsche's 959 ubercar:

JK Technologies LLC, Baltimore. Jonathan Weisheit of JK says they charge $25,000 to $50,000 to do the job. It takes 90 to 120 days and involves adding air injection, catalyst, changing the evaporative system and reprogramming the computer.

G&K Automotive Conversions, Los Angeles. George Gemayel of G&K says they charge $37,500 to federalize the 959 and $45,000 to legalize it for California use. The process takes three to four months and does not include a horsepower test. He "can't remember" exactly how many they've done. Phone (714) 545-9503.

Wallace Laboratories, Houston. Bill Wallace charges $30,000 for the process from "start to finish." This price includes all federal taxes, duties, U.S. Customs clearances, tuneup and conversion costs, plus test and certificate charges.

News for nerds - stuff that matters ? by bigmouth_strikes · 2003-09-16 00:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re the safety of the spear by ConfusedVorlon · 2003-09-16 00:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Regarding driver's compensating for percieved car safety by driving faster etc. I heard a great thought experiment.

If you want to make driving really safe - you should make it compulsory to have a metal pointed spike attached to the steering wheel and aimed at the driver's heart.

Theat would make people think!

--
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android

Ways around this already. by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2003-09-16 01:15 · Score: 3, Informative

All you need is someone who is a german citizen to apply to bring his car to the United States. The "permit" that the car recieves expires in one year from the date issued. To renew? Simply drive out of the country (Canada, Mexico) and get your update from customs. There are a handful of rich guys here in NJ driving Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadsters and Lotus Elises that are sporting foreign plates and never have a problem.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me

This is geeky. by Richthofen80 · 2003-09-16 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Bah.... by nelsonal · 2003-09-16 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

The real truth about the US 959 by britt · 2003-09-16 03:12 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/showthread.ph p? threadid=1594

Here is some info from the guy who did the work for
Gates, and wrote the 959 portion of the Show & Display law.

Canepa Design really has had nothing to do with this

B

--
--Britt

Buying Laws by iendedi · 2003-09-16 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

3.3 seconds? by greysky · 2003-09-16 04:15 · Score: 3, Funny

making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds

A Kawasaki Z1000 will do 0-60 in 3.15, costs only $8500, and comes street legal. Once again there's a faster, cheaper alternative to the Microsoft Solution...

Re:3.3 seconds? by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-09-16 05:01 · Score: 3, Funny

"A Kawasaki Z1000 will do 0-60 in 3.15, costs only $8500, and comes street legal."
Yes, yes it does. I could beat one too. In my '86 Jeep Wagoneer Ltd. for that matter. Know how? Its very simple.
Race starts.....I jerk my wheel to the left (or right depending on what side the bike is on) and accelerate.
Game. Set. Squish.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Speed doesn't kill by TClevenger · 2003-09-16 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Speeding causes or contributes to only 7% of accidents. That includes both exceeding the limit and inappropriate speed - going too fast for the conditions.

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.

Re:This is how America works, and why it's an outr by nmos · 2003-09-16 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

Porsche: There is no substitute... by cayenne8 · 2003-09-16 04:46 · Score: 2, Funny

FINALLY...something positive and useful out of Redmond!!!

:-)

I'll never be able to afford one of these...but, now I at least have hope of seeing one up close someday. Wow...always dreamed of this car....Porsche...there is no substitute!!

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Old Joke by rocketflyboy · 2003-09-16 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Q: What's the difference between Porsches and porcupines?

A: Porcupines carry their pricks on the outside!

Too right. Speed saves lives for bikers by The+Tyro · 2003-09-16 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Your MS Tax Dollars at Work by Mooncaller · 2003-09-16 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

or MS Innovations or ... Why go on, at 500+ posts, no one will ever read it. I would'nt.

Re:Your MS Tax Dollars at Work by Teun · 2003-09-16 10:03 · Score: 2, Funny

They might not read it. But they'll surely mod it!

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s

88 of 585 comments (clear)