Audi to pull out of the ALMS?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Yeah, the good old internet. According to the internet the Mossad was behind 9/11, Dubya is Jesus and Toyota is destroying NASCAR...

Toyota is saving NASCAR, at least this year, I may actually watch the Daytona 500 for the first time in apprx. 25 years.
I thought Dubya's nephew was named Jesus.

[AU N EGL]

dang go to the track for a weekend and WAM, almost WW III brake out. Oh wait WWIII was the cold war. WWIV are the Gulf conflicts & Chinesse manipulation of world currencies and oil futures.



and arn't the toyotas that are running in NASCAR Nextel Cup and Craftsman Truck series are built in North Carolina USA IIRC ?

[chewymonster]

Yes Bob correct. Manufacturers make tons of trucks because they sell. The EPA still ignores that trucks and SUVs are rarely ever used for intended purposes. The EPA is still stuck in 1970s (when the gas guzzler tax was written) and doesn't realize that 50%+ of all vehicles are gas guzzling SUVs and pickups that continue to take full advantage of its loophole. If they EPA regulated SUVs/pickups more people would drive regular sedans.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Yes Bob correct. Manufacturers make tons of trucks because they sell. The EPA still ignores that trucks and SUVs are rarely ever used for intended purposes. The EPA is still stuck in 1970s (when the gas guzzler tax was written) and doesn't realize that 50%+ of all vehicles are gas guzzling SUVs and pickups that continue to take full advantage of its loophole. If they EPA regulated SUVs/pickups more people would drive regular sedans.

And this effects Audi pulling out of the ALMS how???

L.P.

[canam]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

And this effects Audi pulling out of the ALMS how???

L.P.

Less gas guzzler's sold, the more people will look to alternatives...and the VAG group has a good range of cleaner and much more efficient vehicles (that can tow a lot of 'coal'). Given the size of the market and the market (and other) forces at play, racing in the ALMS continues to makes sense.

[HORNDAWG]

L.P.

[Mal]

I guess the answer is that those parts of the States that can think forward will see an increase in use of relatively fuel efficient diesel - (some of those produced by Merc, VW and Audi have big horsepower and huge Torque figures ). The parts and people that can only think that their way is best and no one else matters will stay as they are.

[cptkablamo]

Wow, I have been involved and read some pretty pointless and stupid threads, but this one takes it...but thanks Graham, I thought my countrymen musta been having a beer while the wars were going and those Yanks just came in and you know, slipped them $50 and asked them to stop...

And in a pointless attempt to get it back on track...

There are 4 basic groups of people...there are people who have no idea, people who know and hate, people and know and don't care and people who know and love...Audi and alternate power already has the last group...ALMS is a way to get to the other three (with a balanced communication campaign). They will withdraw when the ALMS and the publicity they get from having a bit of a whine is no longer worth the expense or when they go off in a different direction. For this reason, they will remain in the ALMS. Especially since they have the Intersport for competition this year and the possible Acura for competition in the next few...They are there to try and change the attitudes of those who don't think that diesel is worthwhile source of fuel...A few years ago who woulda thought that the Toyota Prius woulda worked but now Hybrid systems is this summers fashion statement and really changed the course of engine development...Audi are in the ALMS to do that with their brand of diesel and until they do, the ALMS programme will remain...

[AMT]

The USA joined WWII late in the day, and against the wishes of many of its elected representatives. From a British perspective, thank God it did, because without doubt Britain couldn't have held out much longer. We Brits were receiving lend-lease aid from the States, for which we'd had to pay crippling interest because of our very weak negotiating position (we paid the final instalment just last month), and we were bankrupt. By contrast, the economy in the States was booming, its neutrality making it a safe haven for international commerce in the early years of the war.

When America joined the war, their armed forces were well-equipped and fought with typical bravery and fortitude. But its leader was cosying up to Stalin until Churchill made him understand the Soviet threat. By that stage, the British Empire was effectively dead, and the American President realised that the Russian empire was the sole remaining match for US gloal power.

So America had a "good war" - it entered when it was strong enough militarily and economically to virtually guarantee victory on the fronts on which it fought. But if Hitler had defeated the Russians in the East, even US participation wouldn't have brought Allied victory, at least not for many more years. This why we should not forget the 20m Russian dead.

If Germany had invaded Britain, maybe we would all be working for Audi now....

[Hammerdown]

And if Britain hadn't been involved in North America, then they could all be speaking French.

Sorry! As this thread has already gone well off the rails, I couldn't resist!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

And if Britain hadn't been involved in North America, then they could all be speaking French.

Sorry! As this thread has already gone well off the rails, I couldn't resist!

Well you guys missed a chunk just north of Lake Erie.

[paul-collins]

They speak French in London?

Hey Bob, maybe you mean the St Lawrence.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

They speak French in London?

Hey Bob, maybe you mean the St Lawrence.

OK smarty pants, North East.

PS--and I should have said lake Ontario, but that is the ne Great Lake I can never think of

[Hammerdown]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Well you guys missed a chunk just north of Lake Erie.

Yeah, sorry about that!

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AMT

The USA joined WWII late in the day, and against the wishes of many of its elected representatives. From a British perspective, thank God it did, because without doubt Britain couldn't have held out much longer. We Brits were receiving lend-lease aid from the States, for which we'd had to pay crippling interest because of our very weak negotiating position (we paid the final instalment just last month), and we were bankrupt. By contrast, the economy in the States was booming, its neutrality making it a safe haven for international commerce in the early years of the war.

When America joined the war, their armed forces were well-equipped and fought with typical bravery and fortitude. But its leader was cosying up to Stalin until Churchill made him understand the Soviet threat. By that stage, the British Empire was effectively dead, and the American President realised that the Russian empire was the sole remaining match for US gloal power.

So America had a "good war" - it entered when it was strong enough militarily and economically to virtually guarantee victory on the fronts on which it fought. But if Hitler had defeated the Russians in the East, even US participation wouldn't have brought Allied victory, at least not for many more years. This why we should not forget the 20m Russian dead.

If Germany had invaded Britain, maybe we would all be working for Audi now....

As a German (!) History Student I can't resist to add a few points:

When the USA joined the war in december 1941 it was already lost for Hitler. The Wehrmacht was stuck in the mud in sight of Moscow and the Blitzkrieg had failed. Germanys economy was never up to their task in the full-blown war that followed in the next four years and it was just a question of time how soon the frontlines in the East would collapse, because Germanys economy was in the winter of 41/42 still not a war time economy. Hell they had even stopped producing tanks at some point of Operation Barbarossa because they were so sure they would defeat Stalin!

And another thing: Germanys attack on Britain had failed in the summer/autumn of 1940 and they had postponed a new attack for after the defeat of Stalin, but even then it would have taken them quite some time to rebuild their Luftwaffe and to get their Navy up to the task, as one major reason for the failure of the first attack on Britain were Germanys inadequate amphibic landing forces. Because they had no armoured/armed landing crafts to speak of they planned to cross the channel in a motley fleet of barkes and other small boats, which would have only been possible after the total destruction of the RAF.

So the US joined the war late, and they helped to shorten it a lot - esp. by equipping the Soviets! - but I think Germany would have lost anyway...
You know, who really saved Europe from Hitler? The brave Yugoslavians and the Greeks(and the English who helped the Greek)! If they hadnt withstood at first Mussolini and then the Wehrmacht in the spring and summer of 41, Germanys campaign against the Soviets would have started in time and the Wehrmacht would have conquered the unprepared Russia instead of being stuck in the mud and later snow in sight of Moscow!

Can we get any further of topic?!!

[Adam43]

I think it is a clear indication things have gone too far in a Sportscar forum when discussions are derailed by throw away comments about a world war! Not that it was on topic before that.

In our little world of Sportscars this was a significant topic.

On a general point there was a lot of wanting to be right in this thread, rather than wanting to discuss Sportscars with like minded people.

Thread closed.