In the epic movie "The Right Stuff," astronaut Gus Grissom puts into words the realization that without good public relations, threatened cuts to the circa-1960s U.S. space program could become reality - and thus put the would-be high fliers out of a job.
"No bucks; No Buck Rogers," Grissom says.
Given today's financial troubles facing Detroit's Big Three automakers, exacerbated by company execs flying to a Washington, D.C. hearing in corporate jets with their hands out, even racing icon Roger Penske's push for greater support of American-made iron is drowned out.
Put another way: No Rogers; no bucks.
Or at least fewer bucks for racing, industry sponsors and teams, a trickle-down drag on a sport where Toyota is the only NASCAR manufacturer that's not asking for help.
Good thing. It's easy to oppose taxpayer-backed loans to American carmakers, especially if it's perceived they're so out of tune with the market they didn't realize until recently they should have done more to build better cars and create other innovations, such as affordable electric cars. (Instead, despite laudable improvements in quality and reliability, a leadership vacuum gave Toyota free reign with its Prius, a runaway bestseller that General Motors hopes to catch up to with its soon-to-be-released Volt.)
Locally, amid signs of cuts in auto racing, it may
soon be tougher to say "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" if no Chevys, Fords or Dodges are racing Sundays. And without those teams, there'd be fewer sales for sponsors, less exposure for American products and millions of jobs at risk - most of them far outside the racing world.
Setting Penske and similar racing interests' aside, consider the history of government-backed help for Chrysler. What would have occurred if Chrysler had not benefited from a bailout in early 1980s?
Perhaps there never would have been the class-creating minivan or K-car, two Chrysler products that transformed the market.
There also would not have been the roadster-like Prowler. Or V-10 Viper. Or PT Cruiser.
Those landmark cars came from a recovering auto company determined to set itself apart with new products and ideas. Whether the firm went far enough to make money in a market shell-shocked from rollercoaster gas prices, changing demands and consumers struggling to keep their own jobs remains to be seen.
A suggestion to the Big Three: Instead of asking for money to continue more of the same, present a restructuring plan that includes healthy doses of research and development; more efficient vehicles; and an active racing program. And it wouldn't hurt to take public transportation to the hearing.
It can be argued the American government, U. S. taxpayers - and consumers - received their money's worth from bailing out Chrysler. The question few are asking is whether racing will get its money's worth from racing if there's little to race.
Source: thecalifornian.com
"No bucks; No Buck Rogers," Grissom says.
Given today's financial troubles facing Detroit's Big Three automakers, exacerbated by company execs flying to a Washington, D.C. hearing in corporate jets with their hands out, even racing icon Roger Penske's push for greater support of American-made iron is drowned out.
Put another way: No Rogers; no bucks.
Or at least fewer bucks for racing, industry sponsors and teams, a trickle-down drag on a sport where Toyota is the only NASCAR manufacturer that's not asking for help.
Good thing. It's easy to oppose taxpayer-backed loans to American carmakers, especially if it's perceived they're so out of tune with the market they didn't realize until recently they should have done more to build better cars and create other innovations, such as affordable electric cars. (Instead, despite laudable improvements in quality and reliability, a leadership vacuum gave Toyota free reign with its Prius, a runaway bestseller that General Motors hopes to catch up to with its soon-to-be-released Volt.)
Locally, amid signs of cuts in auto racing, it may
soon be tougher to say "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" if no Chevys, Fords or Dodges are racing Sundays. And without those teams, there'd be fewer sales for sponsors, less exposure for American products and millions of jobs at risk - most of them far outside the racing world.
Setting Penske and similar racing interests' aside, consider the history of government-backed help for Chrysler. What would have occurred if Chrysler had not benefited from a bailout in early 1980s?
Perhaps there never would have been the class-creating minivan or K-car, two Chrysler products that transformed the market.
There also would not have been the roadster-like Prowler. Or V-10 Viper. Or PT Cruiser.
Those landmark cars came from a recovering auto company determined to set itself apart with new products and ideas. Whether the firm went far enough to make money in a market shell-shocked from rollercoaster gas prices, changing demands and consumers struggling to keep their own jobs remains to be seen.
A suggestion to the Big Three: Instead of asking for money to continue more of the same, present a restructuring plan that includes healthy doses of research and development; more efficient vehicles; and an active racing program. And it wouldn't hurt to take public transportation to the hearing.
It can be argued the American government, U. S. taxpayers - and consumers - received their money's worth from bailing out Chrysler. The question few are asking is whether racing will get its money's worth from racing if there's little to race.
Source: thecalifornian.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment