Domestic Auto Industry, What will "really" happen?

[StuGotz]

 

Perhaps if you were to listen to the radio more often, you might already know these things. :wink

 

 

 

Right!....I mean Left!!!\

 

MB>

[steve.foote]

For what it's worth, the 108th congress was also from the same party, yet they completely lost their fiscal bearing. And, the 109th, well, they completely lost their minds.

 

Time will tell how the 110th will do. I'm not holding my breath, but I'd be pleasently suprised if they would hold the line on spending.

[Francois_Dumas]

I know that many of the world's greatest minds still want to live here.

 

Tom, seeing the lack of real progress that has been made over the years in the US, that number is dwindling rapidly

 

The thing is that everybody seems to recognize that you can't continue to just make more 'profit' each year over the past year and not pay for anything. It only works if you continue to sell more and more of stuff that people really don't need and worse: can't afford.

 

The auto industry is a perfect example.

We buy a new car every 2 or three years, have 3 or more of them in a family...... to save the auto industry in its current form it means families have to buy a fourth car now..... and re-buy them all in 3 years from..... all WITHOUT really earning the money for it... they borrow it.

 

A disaster waiting to happen, no less.

 

 

I am in the camp of the 'let it explode' proponents. The situation is unhealthy, artificially bloated and destroying not only the US economy but others as well (and the others are also guilty in varying degrees).

 

So we have 3 million extra jobless in the US and Europe? It just means one of two things:

1. there are too many people now anyway......

2. they are working on the wrong projects

 

We don't need MORE cars, certainly not in every family.... maybe not even in the families that don't owe one yet (although that's a social issue more or less).

 

We need OTHER stuff..... new means of (clean) transportation, ways of working WITHOUT so much travel, ways of providing better energy without making us dependent of finite resources, owned by someone else.....

 

There is a LOT of things these auto workers, bank clerks and others could work on that would MAKE SENSE instead of just trying to enrich those that have plenty already.

 

Maybe, jus maybe some eyes will be opened now, and yes, maybe we need another depression to force the issue.

People never learn, you see......

 

[Boffin]

If this is the reason, then why are all the foreign car makers not in the same dire straits as the big three?

For one thing they do not have to pay for their workers' health care costs.

 

Things are not all roses with the Japaneese makers either: Linky

[tallman]

I know what needs to be done.

Make me the King.

 

 

Locally, the budget shortfall has educational instituitons scrambling.

They can't pass the cost on to the consumer K-12.

College and University level may systematically raise tuition.

Local school boards are letting employees go, reducing salaries, cutting services.

We may find the school system back in the business of educating and out of the extracurricular business (sports, clubs, bands, fine arts, etc.)

Our family will see an immediate reuction of wages above 10%, distasteful, but better than swallowing a bitter pill of joblessness.

All of this coming just 2 years after a major effort ot recruit, retrain, create new teachers due to our "shortage".

We have a Constitutional Amendment that limits the number of students in a classroom based on grade level and subject.

(Something that never should have been done IMO)

The economic situation will result in most/all Districts being in violation of the Law.

 

So my take on all of this is, let 'em eat their contracts, file bankruptcy, reorganize, follow a new model, get on with it.

Wasting time postponing the inevitable is childish.

We also have GM family members who will be affected by the changes.

Maybe I'm wrong, again , but I think a piece of pie is better than a tin plate.

Maybe not as nice as the whole pie...

 

[motoguy128]

more long term modes of mass transportation.

What!?! Give up personal transportation!?! You SOCIALIST you!

 

A little off topic, but I actually read and article that compared energy consumption when compared to average ridership in cars, busses, airplane and trains, and small fuel effecient cars were actually the most effecient because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time, and require nearly as much energy empty as they do when full.

 

[Twisties]

more long term modes of mass transportation.

What!?! Give up personal transportation!?! You SOCIALIST you!

 

A little off topic, but I actually read and article that compared energy consumption when compared to average ridership in cars, busses, airplane and trains, and small fuel effecient cars were actually the most effecient because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time, and require nearly as much energy empty as they do when full.

 

because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time

 

Why?

 

While perhaps what you say is true overall in the US, in some markets mass transit is very successful. Why?

 

Look at NYC. Imagine it without a real functioning mass transit system. Could it even exist as we understand it if subways were replaced with privately owned automobiles?

 

Ultimately that is not an argument against mass transit, but one about urban design and social choices.

 

Essentially, by choosing to expend extreme amounts of resources (land, roads, run off control, air pollution, fuel pollution) to accommodate the car in most of our cities we have created an urban design that nearly requires the car, complete with sprawl, air pollution and consequent inefficient mass transit systems. It doesn't help that we characterize mass transit as evil whilst idolizing private ownership either.

 

I'm with Tom. It's time to completely rethink our transit needs from the ground floor, and that means rethinking and reshaping urban design.

[Ken H.]

A little off topic, but I actually read and article that compared energy consumption when compared to average ridership in cars, busses, airplane and trains, and small fuel effecient cars were actually the most effecient because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time, and require nearly as much energy empty as they do when full.

Well you make a good point, if people don’t use it (mass transit) it’s useless.

 

There was a short thread here not too long ago about do you/would you take the bus? Overall there was quite a group of why people found the prospect distasteful. That perception (and I’m sure reality too in at least some amount) has to change for mass transit to be successful.

 

It’s a classic Catch-22. Some people won’t use mass transit because they don’t like the people they encounter on it, but if they and people like themselves would use it, they would encounter more people like themselves on it.

 

I can only speak to Edmonton, but I have found the bus and light rail system here to be quite good. It can get you most anywhere, is continuously available, acceptably clean, and most of all fast. The busses are the fastest thing on the road by far. (Must be exempt from the speed limits?) I can easily get from point A to point B during rush hour faster on the bus system & LRT than I could in a cage. (The bike; different story maybe :-) Plus I get some reading done each morning/evening. The system is heavily used here. Most of the morning/evening is at or near full.

 

But you’re right, an empty bus running around town accomplishes nothing.

 

[Whip]

"rethinking and reshaping urban design."

 

 

The city of Detroit has been doin that for years.

 

It looked so pretty when they sold it to everyone.

 

People Movers

 

"Average ridership is currently about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its capacity of 288,000.[7][8] As of 2006, the Mover (which costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run) fills less than 10 percent of its seats."

 

 

"the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare."

 

 

By all means.......we need more Urban design.

 

 

 

[Twisties]

"rethinking and reshaping urban design."

 

 

The city of Detroit has been doin that for years.

 

It looked so pretty when they sold it to everyone.

 

People Movers

 

"Average ridership is currently about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its capacity of 288,000.[7][8] As of 2006, the Mover (which costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run) fills less than 10 percent of its seats."

 

 

"the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare."

 

 

By all means.......we need more Urban design.

 

 

 

Read your own links. It was designed to be part of a comprehensive system that was never built. That isn't urban design failure, it's political failure. In any event, it's an attempt to place a patch over a lack of urban design at best. Also, in your links, a good deal of the problems with the system are ascribed to factor beyond the operator's control: unrelated construction or demolition projects that shut the system down for prolonged periods, for instance.

 

On the contrary, here on the Wasatch Front train use is exceeding initial design estimates, and a comprehensive system is coming together - by public demand and over and above legislative objections (using the referendum process to overrule the legislature).

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

[motoguy128]

more long term modes of mass transportation.

What!?! Give up personal transportation!?! You SOCIALIST you!

 

A little off topic, but I actually read and article that compared energy consumption when compared to average ridership in cars, busses, airplane and trains, and small fuel effecient cars were actually the most effecient because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time, and require nearly as much energy empty as they do when full.

 

because in reality busses and trains are not full most of the time

 

Why?

 

While perhaps what you say is true overall in the US, in some markets mass transit is very successful. Why?

 

Look at NYC. Imagine it without a real functioning mass transit system. Could it even exist as we understand it if subways were replaced with privately owned automobiles?

 

Ultimately that is not an argument against mass transit, but one about urban design and social choices.

 

Essentially, by choosing to expend extreme amounts of resources (land, roads, run off control, air pollution, fuel pollution) to accommodate the car in most of our cities we have created an urban design that nearly requires the car, complete with sprawl, air pollution and consequent inefficient mass transit systems. It doesn't help that we characterize mass transit as evil whilst idolizing private ownership either.

 

I'm with Tom. It's time to completely rethink our transit needs from the ground floor, and that means rethinking and reshaping urban design.

 

Even in cities wher eit was widely utilized, it's only effecient at peak periods, on AVERAGE includeing late in the evening etc. it's overall average enery useage was higher than automobiles.

 

I don;t agree that in densely populated areas it's the only realistic form of tranportation. I'm just pointing out that unless it's rethought and upgraded to be more flexible (shorter trains used in off peak hours, lighter cars, etc.) It's not the amazing solutions it's made out to be. I too used to belive it was until I read some of the real numbers.

 

That doesn't mean that a new generation of transit systems can't change those numbers. Maybe they just need to shut the systems down eariler in the evening and use taxis and modify bus schedules. Perhaps the better answer is to not live in over congested, over populated urban areas. At a certain population densities, they become less effecient. There are a lot of mid sized cities with all the amenities of larger cities without hte sprawl and congestion.

 

OK...now we're really off topic.

[keithb]

"It's time we all confront the man in the mirror and ask him if he is really doing the best he can."

 

I for one believe I have with regards to being fiscally responsible. I graduated in the early 80's from college with no debt whatsoever. Paid cash for everything I own except for the wife's car and the house at this point. Been saving my whole life and I did it without government assistance or intervention. My statement to government is "get the hell out of my way I will be just fine". I have been taking care of myself for 30 years along with 10 years of marraige in there and I don't need anyone's help which is the way it should be.

 

 

[keithb]

"I heard that same conversation.......long live the king.!!! "

 

I knew I liked you for some reason!!

 

[keithb]

"For what it's worth, the 108th congress was also from the same party, yet they completely lost their fiscal bearing. And, the 109th, well, they completely lost their minds."

 

Ain't that the friggin truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[motoguy128]

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

The numnbers I saw may have been based on energy only. I don't know how the other costs compare. The other unfair comparison is that you need to possibly include part of the costs of the roads that cars would use.

 

I would note that Europe uses more mass transit, yet the GDP per capital is still well behind the US. So if mass transit is so much more effecient, then it would be somewhat reflected somewhat in GDP.

[Ken H.]

OK...now we're really off topic.

Naw, the other hot thread on bailouts is the one that’s really off-topic. Heck right now (me included :-( it’s talking about the US Constitution!

 

I think mass-transit is a valid aspect of a discussion about the future of the auto industry. Because if we have enough vision to think longer, bigger term (but alas by-and-large we don’t), a rethink of how we move people about can be a big aspect of how the nation shifts to its next paradigm of success. The industrial revolution of the early 20th century, including the dawning of the mass availability of the automobile, brought a huge shift in the landscape of America. And ushered in (with a couple of detours for wars) a century of success.

 

That same cosmic shift in what and how we are will need to happen again to start a new cycle of success and prosperity as a nation/society. But once again all our talk (in the political national sense), just like in the financial sector, is focused on how to maintain the status quo. When in reality there is no such thing as the status quo. There is no such thing as standing still. We are either pushing forward or falling backward.

 

With the auto industry currently; do we have enough vision (and guts) as a nation to look at it and say the past is the past, that horse has run its course; what should the future of transportation be like? I doubt it.

 

[motoguy128]

Good points Ken.

 

Although some folks don't like change. I had an ex-gf that was disturbed by the use of self check-out lanes. She was upset that cashiers were losing jobs. I then tried ot make a comparison with tractors and harvesting equipment vs. horse drawl plows and manual harvesting ad how that resulted in a loss of agricultural jobs, but resulted in food prices costing 1/3 what they would be otherwise and freeing resources for investment in other industries. She however, lacked the brain power or was just too ignorrant/stubborn to compare the 2 concepts. It didn't last long after that.

[bakerzdosen]

Interesting... "Detroit" answered the NYT's OP-ED piece on letting the automakers go bankrupt. No real surprises there I suppose - especially when the piece is asking for management to be replaced.

[Twisties]

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

The numnbers I saw may have been based on energy only. I don't know how the other costs compare. The other unfair comparison is that you need to possibly include part of the costs of the roads that cars would use.

 

I would note that Europe uses more mass transit, yet the GDP per capital is still well behind the US. So if mass transit is so much more effecient, then it would be somewhat reflected somewhat in GDP.

 

Well, I just did some googling of the matter. At the very least it would seem that there is a pretty strong basis for questioning those numbers you cite. There are a number of methods of analysis out there. Canada for instance includes the costs of accidents, deaths and lost productivity from air pollution, time loss, and other factors in it's analysis. Interestingly, in their studies the costs of accidents are a pretty major factor, much bigger than I would have thought.

 

The Cato institute study which is apparently the source of your numbers has been criticized for using average fuel efficiency numbers for the cars in it's comparison, rather than the actual fuel efficiency in the congested urban centers it analyzed. When proper fuel efficiency numbers are used mass transit becomes more energy efficient than cars in urban areas. There is also evidence that rail miles reduce driving miles by a factor of 2-7 for each rail mile traveled... not sure why or how certain that is. Other factors to consider: Parking costs, road maintenance and construction. It goes on and on.

[Lets_Play_Two]

I am not sure exactly how this fits into this discussion but I have the feeling we are all being hijacked by pirates and then are asked to pay for their piracy. This is a quote from an article on how Islamist militants in Somalia are after the pirates because it is a bigger wrong to hijack a ship of a Muslim country.

 

"A pirate identifying himself as Jamii Adam told the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that negotiations were taking place with the ship's owners, saying the ransom demanded was not excessive but declining to give a figure.

 

He said it had cost the pirates $500,000 to seize the vessel. "We bore many costs to hijack it," he said."

[steve.foote]

He said it had cost the pirates $500,000 to seize the vessel. "We bore many costs to hijack it," he said."

 

I guess it's only fair that they be compensated. Maybe they should apply for T.A.R.P.

[steve.foote]

I for one believe I have with regards to being fiscally responsible. I graduated in the early 80's from college with no debt whatsoever. Paid cash for everything I own except for the wife's car and the house at this point. Been saving my whole life and I did it without government assistance or intervention. My statement to government is "get the hell out of my way I will be just fine". I have been taking care of myself for 30 years along with 10 years of marraige in there and I don't need anyone's help which is the way it should be.

 

Similar situation here. I'm down to just the mortgage, and the youngest son is almost through an engineering degree at Georgia Tech with no debt following him out the door (except for his share of the federal debt). Oldest son never has had debt either.

 

I guess we're the true alien's in the US.

[motoguy128]

I am not sure exactly how this fits into this discussion but I have the feeling we are all being hijacked by pirates and then are asked to pay for their piracy. This is a quote from an article on how Islamist militants in Somalia are after the pirates because it is a bigger wrong to hijack a ship of a Muslim country.

 

"A pirate identifying himself as Jamii Adam told the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that negotiations were taking place with the ship's owners, saying the ransom demanded was not excessive but declining to give a figure.

 

He said it had cost the pirates $500,000 to seize the vessel. "We bore many costs to hijack it," he said."

 

Clearly the pirates should be compensated fairly for their work. The efforts of pirates help improve the security and effeciency of ocean travel and ensures that our naval forces and kept in high level of readiness. A 50% ROI sounds reasonable. Pay them 750k and send the on their way for their efforts. We pay military consultants a heck of a lot more for similar jobs.

 

The above illustrates how it's possible to rationalize anything, including bailing out a major corporation that has fallen behind it's competition but is considered somehow too important to fail. Hmmm... did the Detroit automakers know that would likely get a bail-out when they overinvested in highly profitable SUV's while ignoring almost completely their car segments? Where did all those profits from the last 10 years go? Reseach into how to better fit extra sheetmetal onto a truck chassis? How to make better use of existing outdated engine technologies (GM 3.8L V6 anyone?) rather than invest in new designs that have now suddenly appears almost 10 year after the competition, required a joint venture wiht 4 other companies and still trail the competition in terms of power, fuel economy and refinement economy for the same displacement... althogh the direct injection version matches up well, but is too costly.

[motoguy128]

I for one believe I have with regards to being fiscally responsible. I graduated in the early 80's from college with no debt whatsoever. Paid cash for everything I own except for the wife's car and the house at this point. Been saving my whole life and I did it without government assistance or intervention. My statement to government is "get the hell out of my way I will be just fine". I have been taking care of myself for 30 years along with 10 years of marraige in there and I don't need anyone's help which is the way it should be.

 

Similar situation here. I'm down to just the mortgage, and the youngest son is almost through an engineering degree at Georgia Tech with no debt following him out the door (except for his share of the federal debt). Oldest son never has had debt either.

 

I guess we're the true alien's in the US.

 

I guess I'm a realist because I can't imagine how I could have raised the $50k in tuition and room and board to attend college for 5 years working part time for $7.00/hr in high school and during the summer, even with a $5.75/hr part time job in college. I graduated in 2001. I will admit I have too much debt, but my college debt I see as unavoidable and the payback period was about 10 years including my tiem in college when you consider what I would have made as an non-professional hourly employee over the last 10 years. Defferring college a few year to save up for it woudl actually have cost me more money in hte long term.

 

Some debts are good debts.

[marcopolo]

I just started reading this week's issue of Maclean's, a weekly news magazine here in Canada. The cover story is entitled "The Long, Sorry Decline and Ultimate Crash of the Mighty North American Car Industry". I think this line from the article sums it up well: "But ultimately, Detroit's carmakers were overcome by a combination of neglect, of a failure to learn from past mistakes, and staggering arrogance. They got caught in the slow lane in a fast-changing world."

[keithb]

But ultimately, Detroit's carmakers were overcome by a combination of neglect, of a failure to learn from past mistakes, and staggering arrogance. They got caught in the slow lane in a fast-changing world."

 

Well that pretty much sums it up.

[Boone60]

Folks, the fact is that the United States is in debt to the tune of 20-30 trillion dollars ($10.6 trillion that we're willing to admit to).

 

Is all that Fed debt having an impact on the amount of funds available in the market for the big three?

[Whip]

"rethinking and reshaping urban design."

 

 

The city of Detroit has been doin that for years.

 

It looked so pretty when they sold it to everyone.

 

People Movers

 

"Average ridership is currently about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its capacity of 288,000.[7][8] As of 2006, the Mover (which costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run) fills less than 10 percent of its seats."

 

 

"the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare."

 

 

By all means.......we need more Urban design.

 

 

 

Read your own links. It was designed to be part of a comprehensive system that was never built. That isn't urban design failure, it's political failure. In any event, it's an attempt to place a patch over a lack of urban design at best. Also, in your links, a good deal of the problems with the system are ascribed to factor beyond the operator's control: unrelated construction or demolition projects that shut the system down for prolonged periods, for instance.

 

On the contrary, here on the Wasatch Front train use is exceeding initial design estimates, and a comprehensive system is coming together - by public demand and over and above legislative objections (using the referendum process to overrule the legislature).

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

Ah contraire my dear friend from the Mormon state.......failure is failure......and they have failed.

 

...excuses are for other people.

 

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!!

[Twisties]

"rethinking and reshaping urban design."

 

 

The city of Detroit has been doin that for years.

 

It looked so pretty when they sold it to everyone.

 

People Movers

 

"Average ridership is currently about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its capacity of 288,000.[7][8] As of 2006, the Mover (which costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run) fills less than 10 percent of its seats."

 

 

"the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare."

 

 

By all means.......we need more Urban design.

 

 

 

Read your own links. It was designed to be part of a comprehensive system that was never built. That isn't urban design failure, it's political failure. In any event, it's an attempt to place a patch over a lack of urban design at best. Also, in your links, a good deal of the problems with the system are ascribed to factor beyond the operator's control: unrelated construction or demolition projects that shut the system down for prolonged periods, for instance.

 

On the contrary, here on the Wasatch Front train use is exceeding initial design estimates, and a comprehensive system is coming together - by public demand and over and above legislative objections (using the referendum process to overrule the legislature).

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

Ah contraire my dear friend from the Mormon state.......failure is failure......and they have failed.

 

...excuses are for other people.

 

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!!

 

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion my dear friend from the "Shoot 'em in the back" state. But if ya got no argument and no facts we're not going to have much of a discussion.

[Whip]

"rethinking and reshaping urban design."

 

 

The city of Detroit has been doin that for years.

 

It looked so pretty when they sold it to everyone.

 

People Movers

 

"Average ridership is currently about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its capacity of 288,000.[7][8] As of 2006, the Mover (which costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run) fills less than 10 percent of its seats."

 

 

"the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare."

 

 

By all means.......we need more Urban design.

 

 

 

Read your own links. It was designed to be part of a comprehensive system that was never built. That isn't urban design failure, it's political failure. In any event, it's an attempt to place a patch over a lack of urban design at best. Also, in your links, a good deal of the problems with the system are ascribed to factor beyond the operator's control: unrelated construction or demolition projects that shut the system down for prolonged periods, for instance.

 

On the contrary, here on the Wasatch Front train use is exceeding initial design estimates, and a comprehensive system is coming together - by public demand and over and above legislative objections (using the referendum process to overrule the legislature).

 

Subsidies of $3.00 a fare. Ok, but that fact in of itself says absolutely nothing. Tell me the costs of moving those people in their own cars? Then we can compare costs. Don't forget to include all the costs.

 

Whip, it's not black and white.

 

Ah contraire my dear friend from the Mormon state.......failure is failure......and they have failed.

 

...excuses are for other people.

 

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!!

 

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion my dear friend from the "Shoot 'em in the back" state. But if ya got no argument and no facts we're not going to have much of a discussion.

 

The facts speak for themselves....it ain't workin. It ain't gonna work. It just costs money. If you wanna tear the entire city to the ground and start over I'm prolly with ya.

 

Otherwise they shoulda spent the money on tax breaks for companies to move into Detroit instead of "People Movers".

 

Black and white......simple as pie.

 

Works every time it's tried......Big cities, small cities, big countries and small countries.

 

 

By the way.....we only shoot criminals in the back.

 

Long Live Texas.

 

 

[Lawman]

 

 

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion my dear friend from the "Shoot 'em in the back" state. But if ya got no argument and no facts we're not going to have much of a discussion.

 

Some folks are gonna criticize no matter what..Had Mr Horn shot em in the front he would likely have had to get em coming out the window which would be far less sporting than giving them a running start...

[StuGotz]

"Law west of the Pecos".....

 

I might have to rethink NOT going to the desert in a few weeks...

 

I'd kinda like to see the Whipster and Mr. Twisties go at it.

 

 

MB>

[John Ranalletta]

"Hope I die before I get old"

Take it from me, man. Getting old ain't for pwussies.

[Whip]

"Law west of the Pecos".....

 

I might have to rethink NOT going to the desert in a few weeks...

 

I'd kinda like to see the Whipster and Mr. Twisties go at it.

 

 

MB>

 

If your comin for that you'll prolly be disappointed.....we'll start out by giving each other a big hug and then spent the next two days picking up each others bikes and laughing.

 

 

Not to mention the food and drinks.

 

 

 

 

[StuGotz]

Ya coulda jus said "male bonding"...

 

MB>

[Twisties]

Ya coulda jus said "male bonding"...

 

MB>

 

 

See ya in the desert? We'll make it a threesome.