Fuck You, Regs

Longtime Readers will be familiar ad nauseam with my constant bitching against modern automotive design and how homogeneous the cars of today appear.  While a lot of it is driven by things like “wind-tunnel” performance, I’ve never bothered to talk about exactly why  car makers are so obsessed with streamlining and what have you, because I’d always thought people knew why they’re thus obsessed.

Allow me then, to address this shortcoming by pointing you to this excellent article, a snippet of which reads as follows:

It hasn’t happened all at once. It’s been a bit at a time, taking place over four decades in the name of safety and the environment. The whole thing began in 1966 with creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, followed by the Environmental Protection Agency and dozens of others. Every regulator wanted a piece of the car.
Each new regulation seems like it makes sense in some way. Who doesn’t want to be safer and who doesn’t want to save gas?
But these mandates are imposed without any real sense of the cost and benefits, and they come about without a thought as to what they do to the design of a car. And once the regs appear on the books, they never go away.

Truly, this cries out for explanation. So I was happy to see a video made by CNET that gives five reasons: mandates for big fronts to protect pedestrians, mandates that require low tops for fuel economy, a big rear to balance out the big fronts, tiny windows resulting from safety regulations that end up actually making the car less safe, and high belt lines due to the other regs. In other words, single-minded concern for testable “safety” and the environment has wrecked the entire car aesthetic.
And that’s only the beginning. Car and Driver puts this as plainly as can be: “In our hyper-regulated modern world, the government dictates nearly every aspect of car design, from the size and color of the exterior lighting elements to how sharp the creases stamped into sheetmetal can be.”
You are welcome to read an engineer’s account of what it is like to design an American car. Nothing you think, much less dream, really matters. The regulations drive the whole process. He explains that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with hundreds of regulations — really a massive central plan — dictate every detail and have utterly ruined the look and feel of American cars.

Here’s my suggestion to the Trump administration:  wherever the so-called “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards” reside, go in there and take out 75% of them – I don’t care which ones, but I bet a random sample of my Petrolhead Readers would take care of the problem.

Here’s the money shot quote from the article:

No one set out to wreck the diversity and beauty of our cars. But that is precisely what has happened, as the political and bureaucratic elites have asserted their own value systems over the values of both producers and consumers. They are the masters and we are the slaves, and we are to accept our lot in life.

Maybe not.  This is a hill I’d be glad to die on — just for the sake of automotive beauty.  Here’s one example of a car that couldn’t be made in the U.S. today because regs, and we are the poorer for it:

More about Bizzarrini.


The title, by the way, is a play on a line of dialogue from Cheech and Chong’s Big Bambu  album.

Day 1

On May 28, 1986 I arrived in the United States to start my new life as a born-again American.  Of course, New York City was my initial port of entry:

I just knew that I’d fit right in…and then I went on down to Texas to stay with friends while my paperwork was being processed:

…and then I really  felt like I’d come home.

Birth Year II — The British Saloons

Last week we looked at the sports cars that were buzzing around the city streets and country roads during 1954.  Now we’ll be featuring the saloon cars of that era. First, let’s look at some British cars that take my fancy for various reasons (it’s not  a comprehensive list):

Bentley Continental R Fastback

Rolls Royce Silver Dawn

Alvis TC 21/100

Daimler Conquest Series II

Sunbeam Talbot 90

Jensen 541S

But those are luxury  cars.  The commoners (hoi polloi) drove cars that were far more modest and prosaic:

Rover P4-110

Wolseley 4/44

Austin A40 Cambridge

Hillman Minx Mk VII

And if you were the lowest of the polloi, you drove things like this:

Morris Minor Series II (my Mum had one)

Austin A30

Other than the Bentley or the Jensen, I wouldn’t be caught dead in any of them.  That said, my grandfather drove an Austin A40 (in the early 1960s), my Mum drove a Morris Minor, and my buddy’s mother used to drive us to primary school in an Austin A30…

One of the downsides of being a British colony in the 1950s.

Next week, the Europeans.

Not Much Wrong

Apparently, a list of things a wife should follow has caused all sorts of trouble on FecesBook, with womyns going all crazy and outraged etc etc etc.

Speaking personally, I can’t find much wrong with it.  The advice is old-fashioned, to be sure, but I suspect that if you asked any man what he felt about the reverse  of the advice — e.g., how do you feel when your wife screams at you (#1) or belittles you in public (#2)?  And yes, I know that a lot of the advice could apply equally to men.  That’s not the topic under discussion, here.

Ladies?

Read more

Can’t See The Point

On some list of new carry handguns, I see this entry:

Now, I will admit to being Old & Slow-Witted, but as I see it, the only reason to choose the .380 Weenie is to have lotsa boolets to pump into someone — e.g. using a magazine holding 12+ rounds, or at least two 6-round magazines so that he gets the point, so to speak.

Shooting a marginal self-defense cartridge in a slow-to-reload six-shot revolver seems… well, silly.

And I like Charter Arms revolvers, by the way:  I carried a .44 Spec Bulldog (loaded with Winchester Silvertips) for years.  But this makes no sense to me at all.

Healing Powers

…because nothing says “Government Cares About You” more than a new tax:

Supermarkets are being urged to introduce a new 1p charge to use self-service machines as part of a plan to ‘heal divisions’ blamed on Brexit.
The proposal comes from a cross-party Parliamentary panel on social integration (APPG) which claims £30million could be raised by the scheme to help fund community projects to bring together people from different generations.
But retailers say it would penalise shoppers and effectively be a new tax to use the supermarket.

Read the whole thing to understand what’s going on here.

And do not think for a moment that this couldn’t happen Over Here, because if there’s one thing that’s common to all  governments it’s that when their money runs short, there is no limit to their creativity when it comes to generating new revenue streams.  Even something stupid like a soda tax.