I think it's fair to say that I've just spent a hectic but unmissable week on the road. I drove more than 30 cars, and enjoyed every minute of my time in all the different driving seats. I only wish I had the same happy experiences during my countless taxi, courtesy coach and airport bus rides. Not to mention the nauseating boat trips, delayed transatlantic and European flights, and overpriced British and Continental train journeys.

First stop was in San Francisco, where Nissan gathered every one of its vehicles from across the globe for a unique driving test. The modest, Japan-built Cube was not the best of the cars I drove, but, illogically, it was my favourite. Don't rule out this fridge-freezer-on-wheels coming to Britain and taking over from the Smart, Fiat Panda and Citroen C2 as the funkiest form of mobility for city dwellers. At the other end of the scale, Nissan is going global with its Infiniti luxury saloons and 4x4s, so expect this new marque in Blighty, too. Jaguar, Land Rover and Lexus should be quaking in their boots.

I was fighting fit for my Thursday journey home from America. The British Airways flight got me into Heathrow Airport by Friday lunchtime, which in turn enabled me to travel by car to Waterloo to catch a late-afternoon train to France to report on the Le Mans 24 Hour race. But the 'world's favourite airline' lost my luggage. "No problem," said the nice man from BA. "When we find your bag, within the next day or so, we'll send it to your home."

No problem? Big problem! My plan was to work, eat, drink and sleep inside the high-security Le Mans compound. Besides, I politely suggested that if a suitcase got lost between a US and a UK airport, it's surely in danger of disappearing altogether en route from Heathrow to the remote French countryside! BA took my point and gave me £150 to buy what I needed for the weekend. Obviously a laptop, recording equipment, cameras, phone charger, clothing and toiletries were affordable on that budget!
Not that a rail ride to Le Mans was much better than air travel, in terms of value for money, convenience or fun. The journey from London to the French circuit involves two long train rides, in addition to an awful Metro/taxi/bus trek across Paris from one rail terminal to another. And then there's the little matter of getting from the platform at Le Mans to the track, many miles away. It was neither easy nor cheap.

The race was as special as every other of the 20-odd Le Mans I've attended in the past. Why does Audi keep winning? Because the German firm has sensibly turned its back on F1 which, so far in 2004, is an embarrassment to competing car firms, with the exception of Ferrari. Why is Audi's Tom Kristensen the most successful Le Mans driver ever? Because he has worked out what Michael Schumacher discovered - that raw talent isn't even half the story. It's as much about the car, luck and intelligence than anything else.

I won't bore you with details of the journey home, but the nightmare continued. I arrived tired, grumpy and wondering why public transport is so bad. You would think I would have been sick of getting into cars after driving more than 30 - believe me, I couldn't wait!

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Why does Audi keep winning? Because the German firm has sensibly turned its back on F1 which, so far in 2004, is an embarrassment to competing car firms, with the exception of Ferrari. Why is Audi's Tom Kristensen the most successful Le Mans driver ever? Because he has worked out what Michael Schumacher discovered - that raw talent isn't even half the story. It's as much about the car, luck and intelligence than anything else.

Back to the car aspect of the article, is anyone here familiar with Infinitys?  Are they really going to be a threat to the current luxury marques in the UK?

I've covered hundreds of motoring and motorsport events in scores of different countries over several decades, but I have no hesitation in concluding that the Goodwood Festival of Speed is the finest car fest on the planet. By some margin. I don't think I saw a single flag of St George and I certainly didn't hear any patriotic songs or speeches. But I did see, hear, smell and feel that I was at something very special and very English.

On the surface, the festival may come across as a stuffy, strictly corporate occasion for toffs, celebs and the very wealthy. In truth, it's anything but - it's classy but classless. I first met Lord March at the inaugural FoS. He's a clever, eloquent, handsome man who's got it all - including a title - but is seemingly happy and down to earth enough to be referred to merely as Charlie, the bloke who organises the annual Festival of Speed (and September's Goodwood Revival meeting for classics).

How he persuades living legends such as Sir Stirling Moss, John Surtees, Emerson Fittipaldi, Carl Fogarty and countless others to arrive in his front yard, bring some serious hardware with them, then to drive their cars and bikes in anger is something he, and they, can't quite explain. Even highly respected current or recently retired Formula One, IndyCar and World Rally drivers - all A-list stars - are grounded by the festival experience. They instinctively and wisely recognise that even with names and driving careers such as theirs, they are very small fish in the giant Goodwood sea.

Egos are left outside the gates, replaced by raw enthusiasm for fast machines, a strong sense of history and tradition, plus an acceptance that some old cars are as important to the world as some old paintings, statues and buildings. And come to that, some old drivers are as legendary as some old TV stars, footballers and musicians.

Take Moss, for example. He is to cars what Sir Paul McCartney is to pop music and what Sir Bobby Charlton is to football. The difference is, you can sit and have a one-to-one with Stirling or indeed dozens of other world-famous drivers at the festival. Anyone keen enough to stay until the end of this year's extravaganza on Sunday night was invited into the house by Charlie March for a slice of cake, a glass of champagne or, if you preferred, a cold beer. And England's greatest living Englishman, Sir Stirling Moss, was still there signing autographs.

If you plan to go to only one car event next year, make it the Goodwood Festival of Speed. But buy your tickets well in advance, because they will sell out - and fast. A camera is essential, but a recording device is also a must if you want to grab the sounds as well as the sights. And if there is such a thing as a container capable of capturing the petrol-enhanced aroma and atmosphere of the event, you had better bring one of those, too. The best weekend in the English - and indeed the world - car calendar is the Goodwood Festival of Speed. Mike Rutherford

Mike Rutherford has asked that his fee for this article be donated to the Brain Tumour Research Fund, and he dedicates the column to a brave young man called Joseph Greenwell - Editor.

Article from: Auto Express

Is there any driver who has a problem with the tried and tested device known as the car door? How many motorists feel the urge to replace their traditional, manual openings with those of the electronic sliding variety?

Who would have absolute trust in such unnecessarily complicated technology, and who'd be prepared to pay thousands of pounds extra for the dubious privilege of owning a supermini with such doors?

It's my guess that very few, if any, real-world consumers with an ounce of common sense would answer yes to the above questions. I therefore wonder why Peugeot is launching the 1007, which it describes as "a new motoring concept". A better description might be to say it's the car that answers a question nobody asked in the first place. Because this is a vehicle that boasts technology for the sake of it.

Electronic sliding doors have their place on trains, where hundreds or even thousands of passengers need to be securely and rapidly 'locked-in'. But you don't need such gadgetry on a car. What's more, you'll pay a high price for it. Superminis weigh in at £5,000-£6,000. But at an estimated £10,000, the three-door Peugeot will cost nearly twice that.

Conventional doors are virtually maintenance-free and, with an occasional dab of grease or oil, are near-indestructible and will last for decades. Can the same be said for electric doors? Do the motors that drive them need regular checks and/or replacement? If so, how much will your Peugeot dealer charge? Who wants the hassle and expense? If the battery goes, do your doors die, too, preventing occupants from getting in or out?

I'm also worried about the safety aspects of the new model. I drive hundreds of vehicles annually and the vast majority of failures and breakdowns I've experienced lately have revolved around electrical rather than mechanical problems. That's why I prefer manual doors and windows. In the unlikely event that I can't stop a car rolling into, say, a lake, I at least have the option of opening the door and jumping out.

If, heaven forbid, there's no time for that and the car ends up in the water with me still in it, the manual window winder will almost certainly still work. But the Peugeot 1007's doors cannot be opened once it is moving at 3mph or more. And how, exactly, do you get out of a submerged vehicle when its windows and doors are electric?

Peugeot is right when it says "the ongoing challenge is to anticipate the needs of potential customers". But it should rise to that challenge by concentrating on the basics: improving quality and satisfaction; building cars that feel more solid and durable; making its dealerships inviting; improving some of its larger models' resale values and building a proper replacement for the 205 GTi, which used to be the ultimate small hot hatch.

Instead, the firm is giving us what it describes in the sales blurb as "Open-Sésame electric doors". Furthermore, Peugeot says the 1007 sets the scene for the automobile of tomorrow. If that's the case, I'd rather have the car of today, or even yesterday. Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

If the beginning of this month was anything to go by, motorists are in for a long and expensive summer of state-sponsored bullying, hatred and rip-offs. The first day of July was exactly the same as the last day of June, with public transport workers walking out on the job yet again. This demonstrated that the massively subsidised so-called alternative to the car cannot be relied on, because trains and buses are regularly sabotaged or crippled by strikes, delays and other problems.

Next, wobbly white lines started appearing on the roads, prompting the BBC to suggest that if such madness succeeded in confusing drivers who then slowed down as a result, the lines might not be such a bad thing after all. Worryingly ill-informed safety 'experts' agreed. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes were announced during the first weekend of July. The idea is that they'll give priority and added speed to those travelling in motors with more than one person on board. Politicians in their chauffeur-driven Government limos will be obvious beneficiaries. But the ordinary motorist who has no choice but to drive alone to and from work will be banned and fined heavily if they drift into them.

Then, the Government's unelected senior transport advisor, Professor David Begg, announced: "Making it more difficult and expensive to park is the most likely measure to encourage infrequent or non-users of buses to use them more." In other words, he thinks it is a good idea to price the good citizens of Britain out of their paid-for cars and force them to travel by buses instead. I'll be having a word with him soon, and the results of our discussion will be reported in Auto Express.

The beginning of July also brought confirmation that the amount we pay to park our cars at the side of the road has rocketed by more than 51 per cent since Labour came to power in 1997. As parking charges and fines have escalated, so too has the revenue which goes to the Government and other interested parties. Around £1,000million has been taken from us in parking fees and fines alone. It was also reported that more 'pay as you go' toll routes are to be built in Britain - despite the fact that we're already putting £42,000million into the Treasury solely in road user taxes, and getting only a small percentage of that back by way of better, safer highways.

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did: the fee for using those toll roads emerged in print, and a figure of up to £1.40 per mile was mentioned. And there will be yet more expense as we're forced to install microchips in our cars so the Government knows exactly who we are, where to find us and how much to charge us. Not that I'll be around to put my hand even deeper into my pocket. I'm already in touch with various property sellers and agents in car-friendly countries, with a view to taking myself, my savings, my spending power, my tax contributions and my motors into exile. I'm currently disenfranchised, disenchanted and discriminated against by the British Government - simply because I dare to carry car keys. Know how I feel?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I walked into the building society the other day to transfer some money from one account to another and pay in a few cheques. Although I've been a loyal customer for years, my ID was demanded. The counter staff then complained my four forms of identification weren't adequate and placed me in a cell-like office with a jobs- worth management type. Eventually, the financial transactions took place. This frustrating episode wasted more than 30 minutes of my life.

But if Kia Motors (UK) is to be believed, you won't suffer such time wasting, administrative overkill and humiliation at its dealerships. Even if you walk in off the street with only £1 in your pocket and the salesman doesn't know you from a bar of soap, you could be driving away in a brand new car within 60 to 120 minutes.

Kia's £1 down offer is nothing new. But in the past, those who stumped up such a tiny deposit had to wait several days while the relevant checks were made, the finance arranged and the all-important insurance produced. But Kia says those days are over. The company is confident its participating dealers can do all the necessary checks, have the vehicle inspected and issue seven days' free insurance on the spot. "You can literally drive away within an hour or two - even if you haven't owned a car before," is the promise from the firm. "So if you miss the bus, buy a Kia."

That suggestion isn't quite as absurd as it sounds. On paper at least, someone who's languishing at a bus stop near a Kia dealer can immediately turn their back on public transport, spend the bus fare as part payment on a brand new car, then drive away - possibly even before the redundant bus turns up. There are complications, of course. Only selected Kia dealers are taking part. And you need your driving licence and various other forms of ID with you. But as long as you can meet the terms and conditions of the offer there seems, at face value, to be nothing in the way of a financially solvent would-be new car owner taking a quid from their pocket mid-morning, walking into the local Kia dealer at lunchtime, then driving home in a new vehicle by early afternoon.

But, almost inevitably, something does get in the way: Kia's interest rate of 10.3 per cent APR. You could certainly pay more, but equally, you could pay considerably less. The Alliance and Leicester promotes itself as specialising in lending money to car buyers. It's currently quoting 6.4 per cent typical APR for loans of £7,500 to £15,000. That's bad news for Kia - and indeed for most car dealers.

Still, Kia's costlier loans have the immediacy about them that will undoubtedly pull in impulsive or impatient buyers. And for providing customers with such easy access to brand new cars they thought they'd never own, the manufacturer should be applauded.

This is a revolutionary and welcome initiative. Any company that can put unknown people in brand new cars in not much more time than it takes a building society to carry out the simplest of instructions from an existing, long-standing client is all right by me.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

There have been more exciting, desirable, prestigious, faster and better-built BMWs than the 1-Series, but the new baby is the best Beemer for years. I've got to be honest and admit that I wasn't convinced when I saw the pictures of the car for the first time. Prices did little to impress me, either. For an entry-level model to the brand, the 1-Series is expensive at between £15,690 and £20,800.

But within a few seconds of seeing it on the road, and after only a few minutes behind the wheel of the 118d, I knew that BMW had got it right with this car. It's somehow larger on the outside than you think it's going to be. It's classier, better looking and has much more presence than the first flat photos suggested. I thought I'd grown tired of the increasingly familiar sight of blue propeller grilles, but the 1's is the cutest ever.

Inside, BMW has gone back to what it does best: simple, dark, tasteful interiors with instrumentation which tells you as much as you need to know. That's not a great deal on a comparatively simple car like this. The sound system with knobs and large buttons is easy and safe to use, plus the good news is the company has at last seen the error of its ways and refused to allow its hopeless iDrive controller anywhere near the 1.

As for the engine in the 118d (£17,340 and upwards), you could be forgiven for assuming it's a 1.8 - but it is in fact a 2.0-litre, producing 122bhp. The unit may not be the greatest oil-burner in the world, and it was a little noisy on start-up, but mated to the six-speed transmission it returns just over 50mpg in realistic driving conditions. At least, it does with me behind the wheel. Sure, there are cars out there that can come closer to 60mpg, but they're usually much smaller-engined, cramped, modest superminis.

Rival German manufacturers should be nervous about BMW's credible attack on the premium hatchback market. I have huge confidence in Audi, and I'll be telling you more about the new A3 Sportback in future weeks. Mercedes is also being aggressive with its new A-Class, while Ford - an American firm which has its second home in Germany - is making all the right noises with the new Focus. Opel/Vauxhall has lost the battle already. The latest Astra is, at the very least, second best.

But the biggest loser in all this is VW. Traditionally, it didn't matter that the Golf wasn't the greatest car to drive. It was the best to buy, own, run and sell because it had rock-solid residuals. But the Golf's three-decade run as the ultimate mid-sized hatch is about to be brought to an end. Wolfsburg bosses contributed to the demise by overpricing the MkV car, letting it grow too big and allowing its understated design to stagnate. Most baffling of all was how they watched Golf quality and customer satisfaction levels decline.

It looks as though the Golf has lost its crown to the BMW - but don't rule out the A3 or even the Focus as the new hatchback king. At this point in 2004, the truth is nobody really knows which model will emerge as the outright winner. I just suspect I know who and what has already lost. It's VW and the Golf - both have seen better days.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I've never towed a caravan, slept in one or had the slightest inclination to do time in a small metal box fitted with a kitchenette and a gas canister. Frankly, I don't like them. When I go on holiday, I prefer to rent a hotel room rather than drag one along behind my car. At this point, you're probably expecting me to lay into caravanners. But instead, I'm going to praise them. These are salt-of-the-earth citizens who know what they want and what they like. What's more, they fight their corner and they do it well. At the end of last month, I heard one of those radio broadcasts which was designed to have a go at and ridicule drivers who tow caravans. But it backfired horribly, because an enthusiast wheeled out to be criticised and humiliated was having none of it.

I was driving at the time, so couldn't take notes, but I remember him saying he considered his little caravan to be a well equipped hotel suite which he can move at five minutes' notice. He also pointed out that it had a decent loo, power-shower, fridge, satellite television and air-conditioning. I don't know about you, but my house doesn't even have satellite TV or air-con!

The proud caravan man politely suggested that some critics were perhaps a little jealous of people such as him, and the freedoms and comforts he enjoys on the road. He then went on to spell out the sort of considerable expenditure 'vans and their occupants bring to local economies. Yes, caravanners often carry their own food and drink with them, but they also use restaurants, bars, tea shops, supermarkets and fuel stations - and that's in addition to the site fees they pay. So next time you curse a caravanner for clogging up the roads, bear in mind that he's spending a few quid and helping employment levels. And as with the rest of us, he's also paying through the nose for his road users' taxes (VED, fuel duty, VAT and the like), and as long as his vehicles are roadworthy, he is doing nothing untoward or illegal.

If you're still not convinced because you've got a haunting memory of being stuck behind a convoy of caravans on a narrow road where overtaking was impossible, just ask yourself how often such incidents actually occur. I live in an area where touring caravans regularly pass through on their way to south-east holiday resorts or the Channel ports, but I can't remember the last time one of them delayed my journey. Conversely, I'm held-up or jeopardised by heavy, left-hand-drive lorries on a daily basis.

I'm still not a fan, but - whether it's an elderly couple seeing a bit of the world or a young family on a budget having the only type of holiday they can afford - give the people who tow caravans a break. They're just like the rest of us - taxed road users quietly getting on with their lives. And although it might not always seem like it, they are genuinely trying to cause as little disruption to others as possible. Most important of all, never forget the caravanner is also a motorist. And that means he or she is one of us and should be treated accordingly. Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

But so are the Ibizas these days and cheaper !!
Love Lynda XX. 

Just as I was climbing into a large 4x4 the other morning, I was aware that a passing cyclist had a serious problem with the vehicle. There I was, a family man in a perfectly legal car, which also had my youngest son aboard. But according to the cyclist we - that's me and my little boy - were "sh**heads". I've been called worse things in my time, but purely in the name of research I needed to know why the cyclist felt moved to express such hatred for the vehicle, its driver and wholly innocent passenger.

So I decided to ask him. But that wasn't straightforward in view of the fact that, after delivering his own particular form of verbal abuse, he pedalled off into the distance. Eventually I caught up with him and, through my open window, invited him to explain himself and his offensive language. He responded by riding on to the pavement and almost running over a little old lady as he headed towards a shop where he took refuge. Shortly afterwards, as he was leaving the retail outlet on foot, I managed to get between him and his bike and suggested we have a little chat. Reluctantly, he agreed.

Initially, he said he objected to the vehicle because it was left-hand-drive and thought that was illegal in Britain. I explained the 4x4 was very definitely legal, while reminding him that riding on the pavement most definitely wasn't. "But it's so unnecessarily large," he complained. That's because big loads are often carried in it, I explained. And to prove the point, I showed him the stuff I was carrying at the time - including the bicycles belonging to me and my son. He seemed genuinely surprised that motorists can be cyclists, too.

"But why does it have to be so luxurious inside?" he asked. By now I detected a bit of jealousy in his voice, and I seriously wondered if that was the heart of the problem. I explained that a 4x4 is several vehicles in one - a comfortable family car, serious load carrier and heavy duty four-wheel-drive workhorse capable of keeping passengers and cargo that much safer on icy roads, and occasionally, dragging them out of muddy fields. "So how often does a bloke like you feel the necessity to go near a field?", the still-smirking cyclist asked. "Several times a day," was the instant and truthful reply from my son, who went on to explain that we live on a farm.

One half of me says I shouldn't have dignified the foul-mouthed cyclist with a response, never mind offer justification for using a 4x4. But the other half of me says it's worth standing up, arguing your corner and declaring you're a law-abiding, taxpaying driver doing his bit to support the economy while doing nothing irresponsible with your vehicle.

And although the car haters will never admit it, I suspect they respect and remember pro-car arguments that are delivered rationally. How can anybody in his or her right mind not accept the countless benefits of cars - even large 4x4s - when they are calmly spelt out to them? By the way, my son and I received an apology from the cyclist for the slur. But I was never in doubt that we would. Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

I've never had much time for the childish shenanigans and behaviour regularly seen in the Houses of Parliament. But Commons select committee debates always used to be much more productive, grown-up affairs. As a young reporter in the Eighties, I covered several of them, and was always impressed by the knowledge and fair-mindedness of the specialist committee members, as well as the calibre of the discussions they had with the independent witnesses called to give evidence. But I'm beginning to wonder if the comparatively new Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) is merely an arm of the Government - one that is fully prepared to do its dirty, motorist-bashing work.

What else am I to conclude when the EAC states that petrol is 10 per cent cheaper than four years ago in real terms? Surely it would be more appropriate for the group to tell the other half of the story and admit that fuel - and diesel, come to that - is far more expensive at the pumps, thanks largely to the Government's record fuel tax hikes, than it was eight years ago when Labour came to power and gave birth to the EAC?

Before its eagerly awaited report was published on 11 August, there was a laughable suggestion that higher fuel taxes might be the answer to the EAC's call for "more imaginative and radical" strategies to deal with cars' energy efficiency. But this is no laughing matter now, as when that report came out, one of the EAC's unambiguous statements was to "urge Government to implement the planned rise in fuel duty at the earliest opportunity".

This, remember, is not some wacky pressure group, it's supposed to be an all-party Commons select committee. But if you look at who makes up the EAC, Labour MPs outnumber those from all other parties by nearly two-to-one. The icing on the cake is that one of the Government's environment ministers is a member, too. Even in the unlikely event of the non-Labour MPs teaming up and speaking with one voice in some sort of pro-driver coalition, the Labour members would still outnumber, outshout and outvote them.

I don't understand how the EAC can justify heavier fuel taxes when Britain already has some of the highest petrol and diesel duties in the world. I've compared UK pump prices with those in dozens of countries, and it's clear we pay more for diesel than any other motorists in the world, and our unleaded is third most expensive behind Holland and Denmark (where petrol is virtually redundant thanks to the extensive use of LPG).

With Britain shamefully sitting at the top of the league tables for rip-off pump prices (now exceeding 90p a litre on some motorway forecourts) and fuel taxes (about £75 of every £100 you spend on petrol or diesel goes directly into the Chancellor's coffers), it's plain unfair to deliberately force prices higher still. The wholly dishonest and insulting line is that such rises will somehow help the environment. Never has such warped reasoning from a select committee lacked so much credibility.

Which brings me back to my nagging suspicion: the Environmental Audit Committee is, in many respects, just another of the Government's very own motorist-hating departments.

Article from: Auto Express

If you choose to let the insurance industry slap a 'spy-in-the-car' black box in your vehicle, that's fine by me. If you don't mind your insurer knowing precisely where, when and at what speed you drive, good for you.

But don't expect me and, I imagine, most UK drivers to sign up for this new state-of-the-art Norwich Union deal (Newsweek, issue 821), which I consider to be intrusive, frightening and almost offensive.

Generally, I subscribe to the view that if you're a law-abiding citizen you shouldn't be afraid of CCTV, identity cards and the like. But a company installing a 24/7 spying device in your boot is as unpalatable as someone putting a camera in your loo or a microphone in your bedroom. There are times when being watched, monitored and 'bugged' are quite legitimate. But driving, as with using the toilet or going to bed, is something you should be able to do whenever you like - without someone checking your every move.

If you still take the view that this new in-car technology will work for you because you're an impeccably behaved, low-mileage driver, I urge you to ask several questions before signing on the dotted line. I can think of dozens of reasons why motorists should be suspicious of this new type of cover. What happens, for example, when a company car driver has a prang and the firm discovers, via the little black box, that he or she hadn't taken regular breaks every two hours and had instead driven in a non-stop six-hour stint?

Another scenario might be that an insurer investigating a crash finds the motorist had a long journey home which ended just before midnight, but that the driving started again at 5am the following morning - thereby 'proving' the car's owner had an inadequate period of sleep, which could have contributed to the accident.

What if your cover provider spots your motor is parked overnight not at your home, but somewhere entirely different? Will insurers take a dim view of drivers who have the temerity to travel at busy, comparatively risky times when there are more vehicles to hit and be hit by? And do you really want to grass yourself up by allowing that little black box to record the fact you were doing 85mph on the motorway, even if it was empty?

Is there a chance the police and other interested parties might get an occasional peep at that detailed database as they investigate the movements, speeds and general behaviour of some car users? And company drivers need to be even more concerned. Bosses will know exactly when, where and how fast or slow their employees are driving during working hours. Equally worrying is the fact that they could also have an unprecedented insight into the evening and weekend habits of their staff.

Whether you're a private or company driver, I suspect the black box will allow insurers to build up a sinister profile not only of the sort of motorist you are, but the kind of person you are. And that could have a huge impact on the cost of a policy. I'm sure there are some positive aspects to the spy-in-the-car system. The trouble is, the overwhelming majority of the benefits are surely felt by the insurer, rather than the motorist.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

For competitiveness and entertainment, you couldn't beat last month's Athens Olympics. But I think something was missing: a competition to find the world's greatest driver. Unofficially, it's Michael Schumacher of course. But I wonder if he would win gold medals with the same embarrassing ease that he acquires Formula One championships?

So, in the true spirit of the Olympics, the German needs to represent his country at the 2008 Games in China. He would have to compete against F1 rivals, as well as drivers from the World Rally Championship, NASCAR, American CART/IndyCar racing, plus lesser-known men from the world of touring and sports cars, karting and ice racing.

He won't have lined up against most of these specialists before. They'll be an unknown quantity, and probably won't show Schumacher the sort of god-like respect he gets in F1, where his rivals seem almost intimidated by his reputation, confidence and awesome record. Such pressure from a gang of hungry, hard-nosed drivers he's not even seen before, never mind raced against, could give Michael the first bout of proper competition he's had in years.

My Olympic 'Autotathlon' would involve a variety of short, makeshift circuits covered in gravel, sand, ice, grass and fake snow, as well as tarmac. And since Hyundai was one of the sponsors of the 2004 Olympics and will probably return for the 2008 event, I suggest using the firm's 1.0-litre Getz for the tarmac, ice and grass racing and its 2.0-litre Santa Fe for the other battles. All vehicles would be mechanically identical and each driver will be on their own and have to do engine and tyre checks, refuelling and emergency repairs themselves.

Genuine racing incidents will be inevitable and acceptable, even if that means some cars becoming seriously damaged, thereby forcing their drivers out of the competition. If anybody crashes or drives too heavy-handedly and breaks the car, that's down to them. Anyone judged by expert adjudicators (I suggest a panel including Sir Stirling Moss, Murray Walker, Jonathan Palmer and Alain Prost) to have deliberately caused an accident or made a convenient 'mistake' which adversely affects a rival would be disqualified - just as an athlete taking illegal drugs or cynically tripping up an opponent on the track would be banned.

Which drivers would be keen to compete? Schumacher would be first in the queue. But you'd be brave to bet against rally star Sebastien Loeb or even Colin McRae winning gold - although Juan Pablo Montoya, Paul Tracey, Kimi Raikonnen, Tom Kristensen and Brits Herbert, McNish, Blundell and Mansell (there's no age limit in the Olympics!) would be big contenders.

David Coulthard, Damon Hill and Jenson Button I'm not so sure about. DC seems to have lost his appetite, I fear Hill would show Paula Radcliffe tendencies and give up if he wasn't winning, while Button is suffering from a clear case of Tim Henman syndrome - a condition which involves repeatedly talking about winning, but rarely managing to do so.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

:thefinger: Mike Rutherford

I was just kidding mates

But ofcourse he has a valid point :rolleyes: although I don't know what, cuz how can you win if Ferrari is so dominant? You can't compare it with Henman, cuz that loser isn't dependent on his material, every damn racket is the same,  but it's differend in F1 guys, if you don't have the fastest car on the grid and you don't have luck dripping out of your ears, then how the f*ck can you win ?

skill