Response to Bogus Definition

[Guest]

Regarding my last discussion, my purpose was to get your attention. I did. Now I would like to explain why I made that post. <P>California Smog Law has changed drastically in the last 10 years. It now has built in scrappage of cars to get clean air.<P>That's right. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THE VOLUNTARY ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT PROGRAM WILL GIVE YOU $1000 FOR YOUR 1925-1948 "CLASSIC' VEHICLE, CRUSH IT AND ISSUE A POLLUTION CREDIT THAT POWER PLANTS AND REFINERIES CAN BUY FOR $13000 so they don't have to install pollution controls on their equipment.<P>That's right. They consider YOUR 1925-1948 "CLASSIC?" VEHICLE a pollution credit to offset POWER PLANT POLLUTION. And you know what? When your 1925-1948 "CLASSIC?" VEHICLE is crushed, the scrap steel goes to China to make steel for Chinese Tools and new steel for Toyotas, Nissans and Hundays.<BR> <BR>I established a web site to answer the questions: "What is Smog Check II?" and "What is Reformulated Gas (MTBE)". The web site is <A HREF="http://www.smogrfg.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.smogrfg.com</A> . I am getting coverage all over California. In Legislative Year 2000 "Association of California Car Clubs" ( a member of your organization) tried to dismantle SB42 via SB1811. The car community turned a big thumbs down on it.<P>In Legislative Year 2001 "Association of California Car Clubs" again tried through SB800. That didn't even make it to its first committee before it got withdrawn. <P>As another part of SB1811 and SB800 they tried to stuff your definition of "Classic?" vehicle into the bill. I shed light on how draconian your definition would be to the "60s Pony Car, Muscle Car and Impala Community, and 1955-1957 Chevy/TBIRD Community"). That put a screeching halt to that. In case any of you want to read the actual verbage I am talking about --- here it is:<P>5050. The Legislature finds and declares that constructive leisure<BR>pursuits by California citizens is most important. This article is<BR>intended to encourage responsible participation in the hobby of<BR>collecting, preserving, restoring, and maintaining motor vehicles of<BR>historic and special interest, which hobby contributes to the<BR>enjoyment of the citizen and the preservation of California's<BR>automotive memorabilia.<P>5051. As used in this article, unless the context otherwise<BR>requires:<BR> (a) "Collector" is the owner of one or more vehicles described in<BR>Section 5004 or of one or more special interest vehicles, as defined<BR>in this article, who collects, purchases, acquires, trades, or<BR>disposes of such vehicle, or parts thereof, for his or her own use,<BR>in order to preserve, restore, and maintain such vehicle for hobby or<BR>historical purposes.<BR> ( "Special interest vehicle" is a vehicle of any age which is<BR>unaltered from the manufacturer's original specifications and,<BR>because of its significance, such as an out-of-production vehicle, or<BR>a model of less than 2,000 sold in California in any model year, is<BR>being collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as<BR>a leisure pursuit.<BR> © "Parts car" is a motor vehicle which is owned by a collector<BR>to furnish parts for restoration or maintenance of a special interest<BR>vehicle or a vehicle described in Section 5004 or 5004.6, thus<BR>enabling a collector to preserve, restore, and maintain a special<BR>interest vehicle or a vehicle described in Section 5004 or 5004.6.<BR> (d) "Street rod vehicle" is a motor vehicle, other than a<BR>motorcycle, manufactured in or prior to 1948 which has been<BR>individually modified in its body style or design, including through<BR>the use of nonoriginal or reproduction components, and which may<BR>include additional modifications to other components, including, but<BR>not limited to, the engine, drive train, suspension, and brakes in a<BR>manner that does not adversely affect its safe performance as a motor<BR>vehicle or render it unlawful for highway use.<P>5052. Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance, a collector<BR>may maintain one or more vehicles described in Section 5051, whether<BR>currently licensed or unlicensed, or whether operable or inoperable,<BR>in outdoor storage on private property, if every such vehicle and<BR>outdoor storage area is maintained in such manner as not to<BR>constitute a health hazard and is located away from public view, or<BR>screened from ordinary public view, by means of a suitable fence,<BR>trees, shrubbery, opaque covering, or other appropriate means.<P>I do not want "Classic Car" Plates (should they come to California) to be dictated exclusively by your club. I will not stand for that. (I reference "Classic?" car plates in Arizona). If Classic Car Plates are to come to California, I will fight for them to be an environmental plate that anyone can get. (Not just 1925- 1948 "Classics?")<P>The issue is SB501 Calderon 1995 the scrappage bill. SB501 Calderon calls for a holdout of parts from scrappage for "Collector Interest Vehicles". Many people in the community believe that Senator Johannessen was trying to stuff YOUR "CLASSIC?" VEHICLE definition into the bill. Why is this TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ??? Because, it would mean that the accepted registry of cars for which parts would be held out would be only yours. That is not going to fly!!!!! PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. FINITO!!!! <P>If there is going to be scrappage of vehicles, in my opinion all the parts that are useable to rebuild other vehicles should be held out. No exceptions.<P>NOW ---- YOU ASK ME WHERE I STAND AS AN INDIVIDUAL?<P>1. I know that there are many of you who would want to see all of the old cars except your own go away because you got your vehicle as an investment.<BR>2. I know that there are a lot of people in the muscle car, pony car, 55-57 Chevy/TBIRD community who bought their "Restored?" vehicle as an investment. <BR>3. I know that there are a lot of people in the muscle car, pony car, 55-57 Chevy/TBIRD community who bought their vehicle, just because they like to drive it.<BR>4. I know that the term "Classic" does not have a universally recognized meaning in the "50s/60s" community.<BR>5. I know that the term "Restored" is not universally understood in the "50s/60s" community. In many cases vehicles that are advertised as restored are actually modified. If the vehicle that you are "restoring" had "orange peel" in the paint and you did not put the "orange peel" in the paint - you are a modified, not a "restored". If you "triple chromed" that "Concourse Vehicle Bumper" where the vehicle from the factory was only one coat of chrome --- that "Concourse (Restored) Vehicle" is no longer "Concourse" but Modified. Come join us in "Modified Land".<BR>6. I know there are those of you who think "We who modify our vehicle" wrecked it. I own a 65 Mustang that was originally an Inline-6. It how has a 289 V-8 with a Ford Motorsport 5 speed. I will defend it passionately. You may find a picture of my Mustang at my web site <A HREF="http://www.smogrfg.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.smogrfg.com</A> . I am one of the people who bought my vehicle because I like driving it---Not as an investment.<BR>7. I go to car shows (entering my car) because I like to get out and talk to people --- not because I am really interested in a trophy. In fact I would be very surprised if it did win a trophy.<BR>8. If the paint that you used was not exactly the original paint composition, your "Concourse?" car is a modified. Come join us in modified land. The word "Restored" means to put back to "original". The word "modified means "to change". VOILA!!! Another definition of a definition Ad Nauseum!!!!!<BR>9. I know that a lot of judges at car shows have a bias against modifieds.<BR>10. I know that many of you are wealthy beyond anything that I would hope to achieve. But are you happy?????<BR>11. I know very well the "skills of requirements analysis", "search engines", "bill search" and "law code" search. This aids me in chasing legislation. <P>All of that said what is my position?<P>1. I have been and will continue to watchdog the smog legislation in California Relative to Smog Check II and MTBE<BR>2. I am lobbying to the 60s and 70s car community through my web site and associated car shows.<BR>3. I will not accept a "Classic?" car definition that allows for hold out of scrappage parts for your vehicles but not mine. If my vehicle becomes a pollution credit, so will yours. I am trying to educate the car people as to what MTBE and Ethanol Gas does to vehicles. Read the Harold Haskew articles of June 15th and July 12th (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cbg/meeting/2001/mtg2001.htm ).<BR>4. I WANT SB285 MOUNTJOY 1999 (THAT DID NOT PASS THEN) AS AN EXEMPTION FROM REMOTE SENSING FOR 66-73 VEHICLES!!! PERIOD, FINITO, END OF SENTENCE. ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA CAR CLUBS (MANY OF THE MEMBERS ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION) APPEARS EITHER INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WILL NOT SPONSOR SB285 MOUNTJOY 1999 RELATIVE TO REMOTE SENSING.<BR>5. I BELIEVE THERE IS ROOM FOR THE 60s and 70s CARS THAT I ENJOY TO CO-EXIST WITH YOURS SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT TRY TO FORCE YOUR DEFINITION INTO THE VEHICLE CODE AND SCRAPPAGE LAWS. IF I SEE IT APPEAR IN ANY BILLS RELATING TO A COLLECTOR DEFINITION (RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS IN VC5051) I WILL MAKE IT MY MISSION IN LIFE TO LET THE CAR COMMUNITY (60S AND 70S VEHICLES) KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM. <BR>6. As long as a "demilitarized zone" exists (I don't have any problem being the "demilitarized zone") between "Your definition of (Classic?)" and the 60s and 70s cars I believe we can co-exist.<BR>7. Relative to the "Classic/Restored/Modified" discussion, I am a modified (and proud of it). I dislike greatly the bias that is shown to modifieds. I personally believe they are stronger cars (than Restored) in which the owner has taken the time and money to engineer meaningful solutions to problems in the original vehicle design.<BR>8. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, modified are a major piece of history. They came about to correct deficiencies in the factory design (Restored?).<BR>9. I cannot accept the claim that your cars are "classics" but mine are "non-classics". Live with it. <BR>10. Relative to who gets "Best of Show", "Peoples Choice" or "Dealers Choice". For you to tell me that a "modified" can not win best of show is in my opinion "discrimination" and "Petty". It tells me that You do not understand what it means to solve the Engineering Problem inherent to a "Restore/Concourse Vehicle"<P><BR>I notice on your web site that everything has a price tag?..Can't you just enjoy a vehicle because you like the vehicle. <P>I am reminded of the story of Steffie Graph in a tennis match in Wimbledon, England. Very even match. 3 hours if a minute. <P>Someone from the sideline wanted to throw off her concentration. From the side he yelled "Marry me Steffie"<BR>Steffie thought for 10 seconds and commented (without breaking server). Her immediate response was "How much money do you have"? <P>The sideliner responded - My name is ":Bill Gates". <P>From that event came the term "Cash Register Mind".<P>Every time I go to the cash register at a store or look at a web site such as your that has a price tag on it --- I think of that story!!!!!<P>But the question is "Are you happy that way?"<P><BR>TO ROBERT D. ADAMS:<P>Classic Car Club of America may have been the first to use the term "CLASSIC?" but that does not mean that you have exclusive use of the term. Note there are other definitions in the dictionary. <P>What is "Quantitative Craftsmanship"? ---- Ehh Gad --- Another Definition!!!!<P>TOM: As far as I am concerned---the 60s and 70s Chevies,TBIRDS, Pony and Muscle Cars hold a very special place in history as examples of excellence in engineering and performance--- "Classics". Most modifieds are hand built cars.<P>As far as I am concerned the clubs that I belong to (http://www.vmoa.org) and (http://www.jps.net/dvma) provide a tool for individuals to support each other in educating, restoring, collecting, showing, and driving these wonderful automobiles. I think they are great clubs, with wonderful people, and some of the best written materials in the "Classic Mustang" field. Just ask the man or woman who owns a "Classic Mustang".<P>TO DAVE MITCHELL<P>You talk about being "accepting" of other cars. YET you have the GALL to tell other people their cars are NON-CLASSIC --- What a biggitted attitude. Friendly Club --- Friendly to whom?<P>TO TOM<P>I put that quote in there from the online dictionary to point out to you that your dictionary definition is not exclusive----COMPRENDE???? If I were to search a little longer I could probably find a definition to match yours.<P><BR>Len Trimlett ----- In Search of Pieceful Coexistence of Car People<BR>

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

You have a pretty funny way of getting attention. Further, you are not practicing what you preach if you are really "In Search of Peaceful Coexistence of Car People."<P>I agree with you that we are all in the same boat when it comes to scrappage laws. Obviously, California leads the way when it comes to the "lunatic fringe" of repressive legislation. I take it you're from California.<P>You say: "I BELIEVE THERE IS ROOM FOR THE 60s and 70s CARS THAT I ENJOY TO CO-EXIST WITH YOURS SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT TRY TO FORCE YOUR DEFINITION INTO THE VEHICLE CODE AND SCRAPPAGE LAWS. IF I SEE IT APPEAR IN ANY BILLS RELATING TO A COLLECTOR DEFINITION (RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS IN VC5051) I WILL MAKE IT MY MISSION IN LIFE TO LET THE CAR COMMUNITY (60S AND 70S VEHICLES) KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM."<P>I think you are very mis-informed. At least as long as I have been on the Board of Directors (a little over 3 years), CCCA has had absolutely nothing to do with any legislation involving scrappage of ANY cars in any state. I'm quite sure the Club had no prior involvement as well. It appears like you are barking up the wrong tree. Threatening will get you nowhere. For your fight to be successful, you need to make friends, not enemies.<P>Before you blame CCCA for something that it was not involved in, I suggest you ask the authors of the California bill about what possessed them to single out the years 1925 to 1948. Maybe they can shed some light on the problem. Perhaps they don't understand that a collectable car can be very desirable and worth saving, even if it isn't one recognized by CCCA.<P>As car collectors, we should all be concerned about this kind of repressive legislation. As California goes, often so goes the nation. <P>I'm a little puzzled though. I'd help defend your right to collect whatever car you want. I don't understand why you say you "wouldn't lift a finger" to save mine.<P>Perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.<p>[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Chuck Conrad ]

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Len,<P>Somewhere in your previous rambling post, you made the statement that everything on the CCCA Web Site has a price on it.<P>I'd be curious to know what you are looking at? The Classified ads do have prices. I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. The membership application has a price too. Wouldn't you want to know how much it costs to join if you were so inclined (obviously, you aren't)? We also sell a book by noted auto authority and historian, Beverly Rae Kimes. It's called the "Classic Era." You might enjoy a copy, but before you give us your credit card number, you might want to find out how much it costs.<P>Other than those items, there is no mention of price ANYWHERE on the site. As the Club's Web Master, I ought to know, I typed every word.<P>Obviously, you haven't looked very closely at our web site before you reached your incorrect conclusion. I think you would be enlightened to read one of our pages called "The Classic Dividend." You can find it at <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org/worth.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.classiccarclub.org/worth.htm</A> <BR>or click on the menu where it says "What's a Classic Car Worth." What it's worth is one of the top ten questions we receive from the general public. I'll bet you get the same question asked about your Mustang. <P>If you take a few minutes to read the story, I think you'll find a surprise answer.<p>[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Chuck Conrad ]

[Guest]

Len, I began my first response with the statement that I am sad and frustrated at reactions like yours. That still stands. I realize that you will probably not take into account much of what is said here, but here goes anyway.<BR>You made some good points when you got around to the "real" reason for writing. Sadly, your method of attracting attention to your cause (a worthy one) cheapened your efforts. Think back to your high school history and one of the quotes and slogans from our Revolution: "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately."<BR>This is still important today when we, Old Car hobbyists, are up against an inflexible bureaucracy. It is imperative that we remain flexible in our views. <BR>Any Club can and should establish and maintain parameters. I own Corvettes and enjoy them, but it would be ridiculous for me to take my Bentley to Bloomington Illinois expecting to be exhibited and judged alonside Corvettes. The same would hold if I wanted to show a '38 Cadillac at a Mustang Club event. To expect to be all things to all people is unrealistic. Thank goodness there is variety within the Collector Car hobby. I just counted, and I find I hold memberships in 18 different Car Clubs and Automobile related organizations. I enjoy them all. I can only hope that one day you will come to appreciate some of the vastly differing types of automobiles too.<BR>Jon Lee

[Guest]

Len, I was just cruising the Classic Car message board and saw your posts. <P>I am impressed by your energy, too bad you waste it here where most people will simply laugh at you. If you do not accept the Classic Car label, fine. Use your energy and fight your fight, don't whip people up because you do not like a label.<P>I must leave with one parting thought about your "classic" Mustang. It seems to me that an early road test in one of the contemporary magazines at the time, a tester cut his hand on a sharp edge on the trunk lid or the body inside the trunk. Certainly, you would never do this on the body of a Classic Car.<P>'Nuff said.<BR> <p>[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: wildcat465 ]

[Guest Awini]

Hmmm just one idiot in my ten years of being in the old car hobby(compared to a lot of very fine people iv met because of old cars).... not bad.<P>regards <BR>Awini Ambuj Shanker (28years)<BR>New Delhi<BR>INDIA<BR>1927 Austin 12/4 two seater & dickey<BR>1930 Studebaker Commander GJ tourer<BR>1939 Lagonda V12 rapide coupe<BR>1946 MG TC Midget roadster<BR>1966 Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia coupe

[Guest]

Awini,<BR>After visiting Bombay and Bangalore recently, I have a question for you.<BR>Where in the world do you find room to drive your cars ? It was packed wall to wall with people and I could hardly get a scooter through much less a full sized auto.

[Guest]

Len...what on EARTH is your point?<P>You like old cars...why don't you join the Mustang Club, for goodness sake? There are lots of them around. Why are you dissing the Classic Car Club of America?<P>Give it a break, please. Give US a break here

[Guest Awini]

to amazed<BR>I have never been to Bangalore,but bombay i agree is chaos,but you would be surprised at the number of classics in bombay.<BR>i am in delhi where roads are much wider and in some areas at times i have managed speeds of upto 100 mph... illegally of course.