Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s 585
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."
Re:OH MY GOD! (Score:2, Informative)
Only not street legal in the United States! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:tagging bills together (Score:4, Informative)
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:darwin award candidates (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Microsoft money buys laws (Score:5, Informative)
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:tagging bills together (Score:5, Informative)
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:Speeding?????? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to work quite well. "Pork" is simply not a concept in British politics.
Re:Microsoft money buys laws (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 [stormloader.com] for more info.
This is already being done (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Ways around this already. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:tagging bills together (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:2, Informative)
The DMCA was a bill of its own.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Informative)
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!).
The real truth about the US 959 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/showthread.p
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
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Informative)
Um, sort of. The latest Ohio budget bill passed with more than 100 [statenews.org] 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.
speed kills (Score:1, Informative)
Re:tagging bills together (Score:2, Informative)
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.