The Carchat

I bought the latest August 2010 issue of Car and Driver on the
weekend, solely for the Paul Tracy article. The glory days of
automotive magazines have long since passed and I haven't purchased
one in years. This issue, though, reminded me why I quit reading car
magazines. In particular, I quit reading Car and Driver after their
staff's pathetic and dangerous driving during my final stint in the
2007 24 Hours of Lemons Detroit. Our rag-tag team handed C&D their
collective asses in that race and beat them by some fifty-odd laps.
But that's another story.

John Phillips' column about Bill Adam was amusing. I remember Bill
from the Rothmans Porsche Turbo Cup days. Further into this issue,
Phillips contributes to reader let-down more than once. First,
couldn't they get an E-class for their cover story? How does a
comparison between the latest F10 535i, the A6 and Infiniti M37 make
sense? Anyway, to be ironic I suppose, they have the A6 win the test.
Ironic because for years nothing won Car and Driver comparisons but
BMWs.

On to the feature about America's Best Road Courses. I don't disagree
with their choices of Road Atlanta, VIR, the Glen and Laguna Seca (Or
"Mazda Raceway!", as I was told by an American Mazda PR guy recently.
Twice.). I shouldn't be surprised that they included Infineon (Sears
Point to the historians) and Road America. Infineon's a weird,
multi-use, multi-configuration facility and, although I haven't driven
it, I find it lacks any traditional road course charm. Road America,
on the other hand, is an historic, big-boy, American road course, but
despite its history, is so big that it lacks rhythm and seems like a
collection of straights mated to a collection of corners. I was
surprised that Mid-Ohio was overlooked and, sure, I'm biased because
I've won a few races there. It's one of my favourites because, to be
fast there, you need to be proficient at both precise and
balls-to-the-wall driving styles. Going fast requires more than
turning a corner and matting the throttle, and perhaps that's why it
didn't make their list.

Speaking of road courses, I enjoyed the Panamera versus Rapide story,
but mostly for the history of the GingerMan Tavern and GingerMan
Raceway. At this point in the issue, I began wondering whether Car
and Driver has any other writers other than Phillips. Of course, they
take the cars to GingerMan Raceway, which is "Just Another Alan Wilson
Design" with his consistently-repeated track design elements, which
are a bunch of corner combinations plus one increasing radius corner.
GingerMan, BeaveRun, Mid America Motorplex, all the same: corner
combinations plus one increasing radius corner. I wonder if I'll find
his same design clichés at his other tracks. Oh, yeah, Panamera wins
the comparison and Phillips whines about the Aston's lack of
Britishness.

The reason I bought the magazine was to read the Paul Tracy story. I
won't spoil it, but you can't not love the guy. Again, our trusty
scribe lets us down with a photo of Tracy riding a Specialized S-Works
road bike and a caption that says "Tracy rides 30 miles every day on
his $8000 Cervélo carbon-fiber bike." For non-cyclists, this is akin
to watching a Porsche 911 drive by and saying, "Hey, that's a nice
Geely," because, you know, Cervélos are manufactured in China. Did
Phillips write this story?

Then there's actually a feature on auto racing helmets in this issue,
which is a subject of personal interest for me. Naturally, Car and
Driver does a great job of flipping off American helmet manufacturers,
comparing a nine hundred dollar Arai to mid-range Simpson and Bell
helmets. Duh. Of course the Arai is the lightest of the featured
helmets. Pit my nine hundred dollar Bell helmets against that Arai
and see how they stack up, boys.

I just can't buy this rag any more and, hopefully, someone will
forward this to Alterman.

Hard to tell, but this is a diesel Smart painted British Racing Green. Normally I hate these things, but this one I would hit like it owed me money.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

An interesting bit of news/speculation from the Telegraph.co.uk this morning in my inbox. Apparently, some 58% of surveyed motorists state that they would support pay-as-you-go motoring. That is, they would be in favor of paying per-mile wherever they drove in their vehicles.

With global populations on the rise, the number of motorists on the road stands to increase exponentially over the next 25 years. This issue is not the UK's alone. Even in larger nations such as the United States, where there are thousands of miles of open highway across vast expanses of land, urban congestion continues to be a nightmare for city planners and commuters alike.

Simply put, there are too many vehicles on the road today. There will be even more tomorrow. The revenues generated by license taxes and registrations are not enough to provide for the efficient design and maintenance of new roadways designed to handle the increased traffic volumes. Carpooling and mass transit might help, but these alternatives aren't adopted sufficiently to curb the tide. It makes sense, then, to consider other ways of reducing traffic volume, and the pay-as-you-go model stands to make motorists more mindful of the miles they put on their vehicles.

Before we reach for our pitchforks, such a model would have to come with a couple perks:

- A reduction in fuel duties and taxes. If motorists are taxed by the mile to fund highway improvements, they shouldn't also be taxed at the pump or the licensing office. This only seems fair.
- Consistent, reliable driving times and compensation for delays. If motorists are paying for a service, it stands to reason that said service be reliable and fair, with a means of reimbursing customers for delays when they occur.

I find this all very interesting. We are already accustomed to paying per-minute for our cell phones, per-megabyte for our wireless data, and per gallon/liter for our fuel. In some areas, motorists who drive less are already saving a great deal on their insurance by paying by the mile. There are others saving on the costs of vehicle ownership altogether by sharing (renting) vehicles only when they need them. And then there's the matter of what such a plan might do to inspire more efficient mass transit.

I don't know if I'm in favor of this or not. It would be a considerable change of lifestyle for those affected - particularly those with monthly car payments or who live within the areas which would fall under the pay-as-you-go model. At the same time, it stands to reduce the volume of traffic while generating a great deal of revenue to be used for road maintenance and new thinking on urban mobility.

What do you think?

Original article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7871042/Road-pricing-inevitable-says-RAC.html?utm_source=tmg&utm_medium=TD_rac&utm_campaign=moto0507pm

Gearbox Magazine | Sharing stories of automotive enthusiasts worldwide.
http://gearboxmagazine.com

While car share services are convenient, it does put less experienced
drivers on the road. It came as no surprise to see this car the other
day.

CAR via AutoBlog