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."
tagging bills together (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3)
Porsche: There is no substitute... (Score:3, Funny)
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!!
Re:tagging bills together (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
It wouldn't be that bad, all you'd have to do is close all the windows and try again...
Re:It's obvious why M$ pulled this shit (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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: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:tagging bills together (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to work quite well. "Pork" is simply not a concept in British politics.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:5, Funny)
Here in the U.S., our bills are required to have titles involving children, widows, or sick veterans.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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!).
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", so
Re:tagging bills together (Score:2)
Riders are also bad because there could be cooperation and not pork. Riders are 95% pork.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Insightful)
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 proposa
Re:tagging bills together (Score:3, Insightful)
Ca
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
Too right. Speed saves lives for bikers (Score:3, Insightful)
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 de
Re:Speed doesn't kill (Score:3, Insightful)
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
well (Score:5, Funny)
How about spending that crashing and testing time on windows instead???
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:well (Score:2, Funny)
What do you call Longhorn on Itanium 2's?!?
OH MY GOD! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OH MY GOD! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OH MY GOD! (Score:2)
Re:OH MY GOD! (Score:2, Funny)
Member, PETSC (People for the Ethical Treatment of Sports Cars)
Re:OH MY GOD! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have thought... (Score:4, Funny)
And no Skyline? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And no Skyline? (Score:2)
There's a reason for that...you bought Microsoft Money...either that or you didn't and it's sending info to the BSA right now.
Bah.... (Score:2)
Microsoft money buys laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft money buys laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft money buys laws (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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 (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:Microsoft money buys laws (Score:2)
The Fast and the Furious III (Score:5, Funny)
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..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:nonononono..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy, Ashcroft, I was kidding about the plut++++NO CARRIER
Seems to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Gates driving style (Score:3, Funny)
Suddenly... (Score:3, Funny)
Fast Post! (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Too expensive (Score:4, Funny)
Do they come in BLUE? (Score:2, Funny)
Only not street legal in the United States! (Score:4, Informative)
crash test dummy (Score:2)
i nominate billy to sit behind the wheel when this goes down.
This is how America works (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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.
Re:This is how America works (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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:This is how America works, and why it's an outr (Score:3, Insightful)
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 re
Re:This is how America works (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Ah man.... (Score:2)
Jesus died for us, and all I got is this lousy car? Worse yet, I'm not even allowed to go pass 65MPH?
Poor Jesus, died for nothing!
darwin award candidates (Score:2)
Re:darwin award candidates (Score:2, Informative)
Easy to handle supercar, too... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Too bad for them... (Score:2)
But seriously, can anyone tell me what you want with such a car on North American roads? Even on the German autobahn you really seldom have traffic conditions that allow going more than 125mph.
Re:Too bad for them... (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:Too bad for them... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad for them... (Score:5, Interesting)
His net worth is currently $US34,234,884,352.40 (according to the Bill gates Net Worth Page [quuxuum.org]).
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 [census.gov], 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.
Re:Too bad for them... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I don't have many fantasies. . . (Score:2)
Failing that, gimme the 962C for a weekend. There's this road in Montana that goes straight mile after mile. . .
Re:I don't have many fantasies. . . (Score:2)
Acceleration vs. Velocity (Score:2)
My Subaru reaches 100 mph in about 20 seconds ... that works for me.
Re:Acceleration vs. Velocity (Score:2)
Linux Mechanic? (Score:5, Funny)
Crash Test Dummies . . . (Score:4, 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?
So? (Score:2)
I bought a poster of the 959 when it first came out - it hung over my first computer.
Now I own a Viper, but I would *love* to own a 959. AMAZING vehicle.
Car lovers everywhere will be happy about this. I hope I pull up next to one in my Viper - so I can race it
Knunov
Re:So? (Score:2)
Why isn't anyone pissed about the import part? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyways, that's my rant on Stupid American Laws.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!"
-Leela's Dad
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Money? (Score:5, Funny)
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?????? (Score:4, Funny)
Speeding down 520? When? With all the traffic on that highway I think top speed is 15mph.
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.
News for nerds - stuff that matters ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Ways around this already. (Score:4, Informative)
This is geeky. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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
3.3 seconds? (Score:4, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Old Joke (Score:3, Funny)
Q: What's the difference between Porsches and porcupines?
A: Porcupines carry their pricks on the outside!
Your MS Tax Dollars at Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your MS Tax Dollars at Work (Score:3, Funny)
Re:rich people (Score:2, Funny)
2. Get Rich
3. Have fun
Re:60 in 3.3 seconds? (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:60 in 3.3 seconds? (Score:2)
Speed limits are only guidelines (Score:2)
Ironically, the fastest roads are also the safest. 30mph urban roads are far far more dangerous than 70mph motorways and speeding only causes or contributes to a tiny minority of road accidents, some 7%. The other 93% of accidents are cause by incompetent drivers.
flamebait? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:flamebait? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not that fast (Score:2)
Plus the build quality of a 959 was somewhat better than the TVR.
Plus a 959 is, like, a 959 man - how can you possibly compare it to a TVR?
Rob.
Re:Not that fast (Score:3, Insightful)
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