This discussion needs a couple of Devil's Advocates:
With all due respect and in full knowledge that FOT is a competition-oriented
group, in the context of legislation calling for scrapping old cars, whether
Triumphs are on the race track isn't important.
We aren't talking about one facet of Triumph enthusiasm.
We aren't even talking about Triumph enthusiasm in general.
We are talking about preserving the automobile hobby. Collecting, driving,
showing, racing ... all the aspects of car enthusiasm that consumes millions
of people whether they like Triumphs or Model T Fords. And, incidentally,
there are a hell of a lot more Model Ts on the road than Triumphs.
As for the new cars that are inspiring people in 2002, that's not particularly
relevant. Today's Boxter enthusiast may be tomorrow's collector but we're
talking about preserving the past, not predicting the future.
The goal of the legislation is to get polluters off the roads. Laudable and
perhaps inevitable, as Cary says. Our goal is to be certain that the
legislation does not make it a requirement that ALL old cars be destroyed,
regardless of annual mileage, actual value or sentimental value.
If we have to accept annual mileage limits on driving our cars, is that a
better solution than being forced to have them crushed? We have to consider
this as a possible solution.
If we have six Triumphs and the government says that no individual can have
more than four vintage polluters, is four better than none? Or can it be
worked so that all six are roadworthy but only four can be licensed at any
given time?
It's the hobby that's being threatened, not just Triumphs. And, as for the
businesses and associations that are fighting the legislation, they deserve
our support because they are supporting US ... we are their customers, after
all. They wouldn't be putting up a fight if they had nobody to sell to.
We all have to look at environmental pollution as a real threat, caused by
many things, only partly by automobiles. We have to support sensible
legislation to protect the environment.
We all have to watch our legislators to be sure they don't pass generalized
legislation that doesn't differentiate between a crushing a rust-eaten.
smoking, 25-year old Corolla and a restored TR2. Generalization is the worst
form of bigotry whether applied to cars or people.
Finally, we have to get together with other car enthusiasts. There are a few
thousand Triumph enthusiasts but there are millions of car nuts ... enough to
exert real pressure.
I'd better quit before I overload the system.
Mike Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: William G Rosenbach
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:02 PM
To: EISANDIEGO@aol.com
Cc: wgrosenbach@juno.com; spitlist@gte.net; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Government Assault on Daily Polluters (Our Toys ???)
Cary,
Consider also the miles most of the collector cars are operated per year.
Our race cars probably are on the high end of emissions during a race but
they are raced but a few hours per year.
Yes, there are some old cars putting on many miles per year but their
numbers are diminishing by natural attrition. And yes, the restoration
parts business is in jeopardy by this legislation but it generates many
millions in revenue plus all that is spent by all those folks going
racing, doing shows, rod runs, autocrosses, swap meets, etc. Spending
funds for lodging, food, parts, fuel (even if they pollute a little along
the way). The impact to the economy might be greater than the potential
for cleaning the air.
Bill
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:05:28 EST EISANDIEGO@aol.com writes:
>
> As someone who has spent his entire career in the
> environmental feild,
> it is necessary for me to make a comment. I think that it is
> important that
> all of you do voice your opinions to your senators and congressman.
> However,
> please do so after you have taken the time to inform yourselves
> about why
> this effort is being undertaken. Perhaps it is not as bad as others
> would
> like you to think because it adversely impacts their businesses.
>
> Used on a daily basis, these older cars are substantially
> higher
> sources of air pollution than their modern replacements for daily
> commuting.
> To further improve air quality, it is simply more cost-effective to
> remove
> these older daily polluters than to try to improve new vehicle
> emissions.
>
> Improving the emission performance of new vehicle is becoming
>
> increasing costly. One struggles to make a very very small
> difference at a
> high price - just as one struggles to get more hp out of an already
> finely
> developed race engine. It is much more effective to remove cars from
> daily
> use that are already polluting hundreds to thousands of times higher
> levels
> than the new car.
>
> If we are honest with ourselves, we probably already each
> have more
> Triumph parts than we need. We have probably accummulated those
> parts by
> salvaging other cars ourselves. The fact that Triumphs are being
> scrapped is
> just a reflection of what a low value society places on a Triumphs.
> It costs
> much more to restore these cars than they are valued at by the
> general public
> and even other racers. This legislation will not change that
> society's
> perception of the marque.
>
> A bigger concern of mine is very honestly if anyone will be
> interested
> in the Triumph marque as we pass out of the racing picture. There
> are alot of
> wonderful new cars that are capturing the current generation's
> imagination.
>
> Cary
|