if you take flo seriously, there is something wrong with you. if you are going to argue that there is a substantial per-bike environmental cost, it is logical that transportation and manufacture of one car would be far greater. I am not saying cars are evil, I am saying that purposely driving around in a low-mileage car _for fun_ is exponentially more harmful to the environment and increases the eco-effect of manufacturing and transit than a colored TT pad or gold drops (neither of which I have ever owned). By portraying the image as racing low-mileage cars as a "fun thing to do" we are not improving the public image that internal combustion engines are _not efficient technology_ and _harmful_. WE know it is not great for the earth, or for any of the trite political reasons, but there is a great population in America that cannot think for itself and requires advertising and "what other people think is cool" to sustain. That is, the more kids "tune up" cars for no utilitarian purpose, the more market there is in a system that is blatantly polluting our earth for no overall good of mankind.

Do I think trucks and big brown vans (albeit with newer engines) and people actually using vehicles for some utilitarian purpose are bad? not at all. Using the argument that people can race around low-mileage, gas-consuming cars with the same environmental consciousness as someone toying with gold Nittos is bunk. The "race for a hobby" idea was okay in the 60s but with today's ecological and political climate every baby step helps.

If you want to pilot fast moving vehicles and are environmentally conscious, go race hobby-class RCs.