FORD POPULARITY SOARS BECAUSE OF THE BAILOUTS (BUT SHOULD IT?)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to Rassmusen Reports "46% of Americans now saying they are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not take government money to stay in business."

Rassmusen also found that "nearly one-out-of-five Americans (19%) say someone in their family or a friend has chosen not to buy a car from GM or Chrysler because they took bailout money."

This is good news for FoMoCo's stakeholders and long-suffering Ford fans. Ford's stock is up a whopping TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT over its lowest price of the year. Ford posted posted a profit in the last quarter (albeit based on accounting "special items. "Excluding special items, Ford would have posted a loss of $424 million, or 21 cents per share."). And several analysts believe that Ford's product line-up is one of the freshest around.

BUT . . .

Much of this optimistic news is spoiled by Ford's endless shilling about "recycling your ride" into the V8-smashing "Cash for Clunkers" program.

"Cash for clunkers is a bailout by any other name."

It's "terrible energy policy."

It "incentivizes Americans to take on more debt."

Cash for clunkers is still welfare.

It's laundered bailout money. It's another abandonment of free market principles. It's still borrowing money we don't have to redistribute it to people who haven't earned it. It's still the pillaging and vandalism of thousands of potential collector and parts vehicles built after 1984. It's still a war on V8s and against grassroots motorsports (which depend on the sorts of "clunkers" that Welfare/Beer Bust King Obama, the environmentalists and the greedy public dole sucklings are destroying).

Ford vigorously campaigned for the CARS legislation, so they ARE benefitting from "bailout" money (i.e. Dealers get the CARS welfare vouchers they then spend to help buy the vehicles from Ford -- only the most myopic can't see that this is "bailout" cash to Ford)

Apparently the myopic ones were interviewed by Rassmussen . . . .

AND IT'S ALREADY OUT OF MONEY! (Apparently there's no shortage of welfare lovers in America . . . .)

AUTOEXTREMIST: HONDA INVADES FORMULA FORD?

The Autoextremist is reporting that Honda's push in grassroots motorsports will take a decidedly anti-Ford direction.

Part of this is supposedly targeted at taking on Ford in SCCA's Formula Ford. The Big H claims its going to sell racers a built "Fit" mill and a conversion package, starting in 2010 (pending club approval, of course).">Part of this is supposedly targeted at taking on Ford in SCCA's Formula Ford. The Big H claims its going to sell racers a built "Fit" mill and a conversion package, starting in 2010 (pending club approval, of course).

Supposedly Ford Racing honcho Brian Wolfe says that Ford won't take Honda's "invasion" lying down. (Ford's Walter Hayes invented "Formula Ford" so there's some corporate pride on the line. (Hopefully more than when Ford wimped out on Cosworth, Formula One and Indy Cars))

Maybe Wolfe could just show Honda a photo of the homely 2010 NASCAR NATIONWIDE SERIES MUSTANG and probably scare 'em back to Japan . . . .

MORE BANGSHIFT COMMENTS ON THE "MOTORSPORTS PARK" IDEA AND THE PROBLEM OF NOT ENOUGH LOCAL RACE TRACKS

Yesterday's discussion of the problem of not enough convenient venues for grassroots motorsports prompted further discussion at Bangshift:
TWS's next take: (in response to support for the denial of a public drag racing facility in Forks, Washington)

I think some are missing the big picture here.

* * *
What it's really about is whether hot rodders, racers and other responsible citizens are going to settle for a sparse number of big, private, expensive regional motorsports venues, or whether more smaller, local venues ought to be available.

Clearly the trend over the past three decades has been toward fewer and fewer local tracks and more ostentatious regional tracks. Some states barely have one or two drag strips and/or road courses left. Dirt ovals are perhaps a little more common, but paved ovals outside of NASCAR's orbit are in decline.

It's no answer to the problem of street racing to say "just load your car up in a hauler and drive a couple of hours to sit in long lines at a regional NHRA track, in hopes of making a couple of passes." Moreover, the harder we make it for younger tuners and rodders to get involved in all forms of motorsports, the fewer people will bother to become involved.

In the early '50s, the appliance motorists and "safety counsels" wanted to shut down all hot rodding. But some visionary pioneers started working with the locals to build small, local, non-profit facilities. But for the efforts of these "out-of-the-box" thinkers, our automotive culture would have developed far differently. Creating local facilities was the right thing to do then. And it's the right thing to do now.

Certainly, times have changed in sixty years. Motorsports is more diverse. Environmentalism is a concern. And safety is paramount. But for local officials and racers to settle for the occassional private facility and to put up roadblocks to smaller, more convenient, less formal, public service motorsports venues is counterproductive.

Every town and city over about 15,000-20,000 residents ought to have a legal place to test, tune and race that's no more than thirty minutes away. (I can just about guarantee you that virtually every city that size has one or more golf courses, many of which are managed and funded by local governments) These multipurpose facilities could also be justified to the non-gearhead taxpayers as "driver training" parks for use by law enforcement and new drivers. For example just imagine how many accidents could be avoided and lives saved if more new drivers could be locally trained in car control on a dedicated wet skid pad and on a handling (autocross) course. Such facilities could also include various other "test" areas, including mostly self-service drag strips, a banked track and a road course. Such facilities could also include motocross and 4WD/ATV trails/test areas.

To do any of this, we've got to expand our vision as to what a modern, local motorsports facility ought to be and how it ought to be managed and paid for at the local level.

Of course, Forks isn't that big, so perhaps smaller rural areas would have to scale down their motorsports parks. But to say to all of the gearheads and potential gearheads "Sorry, you can't use the airport anymore, there's a big track 100 miles away, and we don't think the "car culture" is important enough to provide a safe, legal place to test, tune, and race" just doesn't cut it. It's irresponsible. If we took this same approach to building highways, vast sections of America would still be served by unpaved, minimally improved roads. If we took this same approach to parks, trails, and lakes, many areas wouldn't have them.

Of course, the irony is that airports are often heavily subsidized by government in the name of safety. Yet general aviation has only a fraction of the participants and potential participants of motorsports. However, aviators have done a much better job in lobbying for public investment in local public facilities for their avocation.

TWS's next take: (Response to Bangshifter and Friend-of-Freiburger Brian Lohnes point that public funding would be a huge problem in most locales)

Brian,

You're absolutely correct that funding is the proverbial "elephant in the room." It's a bigger problem than even environmental impacts.

Nearly every state and local government is cash-strapped. Lots of things more essential than parks and recreation are being slashed.

And that's part of the reason hot rodders and racers need to "sell" the motorsports park concept on the basis of safety, driver training, and multiple uses. And multiple levels of government and the private sector ought to be involved.

Most certainly, some places would need to start smaller, such as temporarily closing off an underused public street or parking lot on the weekend (e.g. San Diego's "Race Legal" program) or by adding some "test and tune" amentites to fairgrounds or other public facilities. Some of these things could be done in many locales without huge tax increases.

But when we read of the struggles of the Brotherhood of Street Racers and Terminal Island out in L.A. or hear of another historic track folding to zoning, environmental, and "land use" pressures, it seems that we're not making any progress.

What's troubling is that someone like Cameron Argetsinger couldn't even get a hearing nowadays from most local officials. Certainly Argetsinger's original Watkins Glen plan of the late ''40s and '50s wasn't up to modern safety standards, but the idea of public facilitation of safe, legal motorsports activities at the heart of it should still be viable.

TWS's next take:

Quote from: Buickguy on Today at 07:36:22 AM

"So what? the city decided they can't afford it. I decided I can't afford a ZR1 Corvette, does that mean I'm entitled to it because I want it?
There's a bit of a problem with the greenie belief - you might want to see who owns Spokane Motorsports Park..... last I checked, Spokane is in Washington."


It's not a matter of entitlement. Is anyone "entitled" to a public lake stocked with fish? Or the services of game wardens who scientifically manage the population of animals for sport hunting? Or a lighted landing strip at a non-commercial municipal airport? Or a tee time at a municipal golf course. Or swimming at a municipal pool (most of which are subsidized)?

At its most basic level, government is about protecting our liberty and enabling the sorts of projects that are too big and difficult for the private sector. That's why functions such as building roads, public recreation areas, and schools are generally believed to be legitimate functions of government. Many of those functions are not self-supporting (How many of you paid a toll to drive on a city street today?)

We should have the liberty to build and enjoy hot rods and engage in other motorsports if we so choose. That's part of that "pursuit of happiness" idea. But if there's no safe and legal place to do it, our theoretical liberty is meaningless.

Thus, the language of "entitlement" clearly isn't applicable. But that doesn't mean that hot rodders and racers shouldn't promote the development of "solutions" that improve safety and promote greater exercises of liberty. That's going to be a tough sell to those knownothing politicians who believe that "speed kills."

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only choices facing most municipalities are: (a) no tolerance and virtual criminalization of motorsports or (b) spend huge sums on national-quality motorsports facilities. It's akin to saying either a city can build either dirt trails or ten-lane interstate highways and nothing else. The starting point for the dialogue ought to be how can the local and state governments work together with all the stakeholders to improve safety and maximize liberty.