Last year's post on "The Future" page: "Mysteries of the Internet" dealt with ICANN and international control, now Trump administration appears to want to undo that ... with new pick for NTIA head

  Speed Culture: Why?

William Sundwick

Origins of Speed

In the earliest days of the automobile, the “horseless carriage” era, all cars were mechanical curiosities. They were playthings for the rich and adventurous. None were particularly reliable, but many startups sought to sell something new and different to a privileged few.

When the Model T became a true mass market phenomenon by the 1920s, a consolidation began in the auto industry. Soon, there were far fewer choices in a price range that many people could afford. Mechanical reliability became the norm. As the number of choices for affordable, reliable transportation diminished, and sales, especially of the “T,” continued to grow, a large supply of spare parts, easy to fabricate, entered the market. Another big thing characterizing the 1920s in America was Prohibition. It created an unanticipated new market for bootleggers to build cars that could outrun the police on country roads, an “outlaw” market.

Then, the Depression hit. Prohibition was repealed, but the popular glamorization of the bootlegger’s “souped up jobs,” modifications to older low-priced Fords or Chevrolets (since nobody could afford new ones) created a fad among a certain set of young men, in California at first. Ford added fuel to the fire by introducing a daring new design in 1932 – a V8 engine that would sell in the same price

class as previous Model A four cylinders, and would match the performance (i.e., straight line acceleration and top speed) of its main competitor, the six-cylinder Chevrolet. The Ford “flathead” V8 became the basis for an entire culture of speed and amateur racing on Southern California’s dry lakebeds.

The “after-market” in parts for Model T and Model A four-cylinder engines was already established. Some of those same shops easily shifted to V8 “speed parts.” Better still for the new racing hobby, Model T and A chassis’ could easily accommodate the V8. Bingo – “hot rods” were born! 

Bodies (usually roadsters) were stripped to the barest essentials. Fenders, seats, tops, all sacrificed to lighten the load that the modified engine would move. The cars were still drivable from communities like Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena to the dry lakes where they would race. But these cars were often unsafe to drive on public roads and streets. Especially, since they encouraged breaking speed limits.

NHRA Solves Social Problem

As hot rod top speeds approached 100 mph, public outcry grew louder about safety. The typical American disdain for idle young men (unemployed, under-educated, easy targets for gang recruitment) played a role. Street racing became a social problem. Finally, in 1951, the National Hot Rod Association was formed, founded by Wally Parks, and set about opening officially sanctioned and regulated “dragstrips” around the country, often on abandoned airfields disused since the end of World War II. Returning veterans added respectability to the hobby, many having gained mechanics’ skills during their service. With the help of the NHRA, drag racing became professional.

Early dry lakes racing had been organized and officiated by the Southern California Timing Association, and the standard ¼ mile straight line course (1320 ft.) was established by them. The NHRA, however, invented the “Christmas tree” light system to control staging between two

competitors in adjacent lanes. Another NHRA institution – various classes – became the basis for dizzying complexity in the sport. One could game the system by qualifying in the most advantageous class. But, full exploitation of this tactic didn’t come until the 1960s.

Detroit Discovers Speed

Cued to the popularity of the “speed culture,” Detroit continued development of mass-produced V8 engines from the late ‘40s on. In the 1950s, America was becoming an automobile obsessed country – especially for young, new drivers. The growth of suburbia and improving highway infrastructure also facilitated a motorized transformation of society, everywhere except in central urban cores.

In 1955, Chevrolet introduced its “small block” V8, soon eclipsing the old flathead Fords in everybody’s hot rods – it outperformed even the most “souped up” Fords due to its efficient 

overhead-valve cylinder head design. Even straight “out of the crate” from the factory, the horsepower of these relatively light weight engines left the best rebuilt Fords in the dust (in fairness, there was one after-market supplier of overhead valve cylinder heads for the “flattie,” starting about the same time – Zora Arkus-Duntov, a Belgian immigrant and Le Mans race driver, who had been instrumental in the development of the Chevrolet V8).

By 1958, the NHRA had begun racing its “stock” classes and “super stock” classes (the latter were factory produced high performance cars sold in limited numbers through ordinary Chevrolet, Ford, or Dodge dealers). This created what was known at the time as a “horsepower race” among the Detroit manufacturers – they were competing among themselves for the highest possible SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) horsepower rating of their production engines, presumably as a spur to greater sales. All these engines were large displacement V8s. Indeed, volumetric dimensions of the eight combustion chambers were probably the main determinant of horsepower rating in those days. Other design features like multiple carburetors, higher compression ratio, intake and exhaust manifold shape, were relatively minor contributors to raw power.

Soon, a new breed of “stock” automobile emerged from Detroit – the “muscle car.”  This took the existing engine design technology (basically, bigger displacement) and placed it in a lighter body. The

archetype muscle car was the Pontiac GTO, introduced as a 1964 model. By 1968, all domestic manufacturers had a competitor – a mid-size sedan packing a very large V8 originally intended for much heavier vehicles. At about the same time, a new class of car, even smaller, was also introduced, the Ford Mustang. While not originally fitted with Ford’s largest V8s, the transition came soon enough – with the help of the NHRA. Why not something even smaller and lighter than those mid-size sedans to house the big engines? “Pony cars” (Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, Barracudas, Challengers, Javelins) became the new muscle cars.

Speed Dies and is Reborn

Then came the 1970s. First it was the Feds – new emissions requirements forced on Detroit automakers (and imports) effectively strangled the horsepower output of all engines beginning about 1971. Although not connected to the new emissions requirements, manufacturers agreed to use SAE “net” horsepower ratings rather than “gross.” This measured engine output through the exhaust system rather than at the flywheel. The alleged “high performance” offerings from all domestic makers lost up to 100 hp overnight! Since 1972, only SAE net ratings have been advertised. As the ‘70s continued, foreign policy also had a big effect on the auto market in the United States. There were two successive “oil shocks” – in 1973 following the Yom Kippur War, and again in 1980, following the Iranian revolution. American dependence on Mideast oil became painful to all – but, none more than the high- performance enthusiast. The third blow to the speed culture was the insurance industry. In the mid-seventies, they collaborated in raising rates for what they deemed “high performance” cars. These situations made it uneconomic (in the case of emissions, illegal) to do anything meaningful about boosting performance of your daily driver, and Detroit followed suit. Muscle cars died a slow and agonizing death. The “GTO” badge, for example, became trim only, divorced from engine choice, and disappeared completely by 1975.

Unforeseen at the time, however, the whole world of performance – yes, horsepower --- would rise again from the ashes, like a phoenix. Starting in the nineties, and continuing today, new technologies built around digital EEPROM Engine Control Units (ECUs), fuel injection, turbochargers or superchargers, cheaper gas, and much safer cars (thanks to those Feds!) have all contributed to a renaissance. And, not least, a new class of young drivers, including recent immigrants, who embody some of the same socio-economic characteristics as those depression-era California dry lakes racers. They may be idle, without much formal education, but gifted with a spirit of competition and a cult of ingenuity. They’re more likely to choose small imports nowadays, rather than “Detroit iron,” but the impetus seems to be the same.

What is that impetus? Cars are both economic necessity and ego extension (Freudians might call them phallic symbols). They express desire for social status, despite lack of financial resources. Also, that natural thrill of competition, and creativity through mechanical ingenuity, all contribute to the “speed culture.”

Drag racing has become international. In Australia, it’s almost on equal footing with the U.S. Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. also have active groups with organizing associations. There is a vigorous after-market in bolt-on turbochargers and superchargers, and compatible replacement ECUs with programming kits. 

Not to miss an opportunity, Detroit has once again jumped into the fray. What’s with the 2018 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon? The newly introduced factory drag machine from FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) loads a race built 6.2-liter Chrysler hemi V8, with supercharger, rated at 840 hp (SAE net)! Far removed from the 300 or so horsepower (SAE gross) of the 1950s super stocks. The car is “street legal,” which means that it can legally be driven to and from the dragstrip -- much like those early dry lakes hot rods. But, its real purpose is to win drag races. It is clearly optimized for ¼ mile acceleration. As such, it is touted as the fastest production car ever manufactured by a volume auto-maker. Under ten seconds for that quarter-mile run, accelerates 0-60 mph in 2.3 seconds, exerting a force on driver of 1.8g. Something like NASA!

And, you can buy it for a mere $86,000 right off the floor of your local Dodge dealer (still ~$6000 less than a standard 370 hp Porsche 911). FCA plans to make 3000 of them. Why? Because it thinks it can sell that many!

Just because #MeToo not in news lately, don't forget the larger struggle -- against the institutions of patriarchy. It's a continuing political and social struggle!

  My Struggle with Facebook Addiction

Not a Teenager, But a Senior

William Sundwick

In Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World (1932), the World State exercised control over its population by administering a “soma” drug to them. It was a psychoactive drug, producing states of euphoria, and general happiness. It was addictive, and the state monopolized its distribution.

Substitute the amorphously managed “Internet” for the World State, and Facebook, a publicly held corporation in Silicon Valley, could well be the administering entity for soma in the 21^st century. When Mark Zuckerberg invented the social media platform at the beginning of the century, he built it around the idea that people universally wanted to be liked. They would always respond to positive feedback. Much like B.F. Skinner’s rats, they would continually come back to press the lever for more pellets of reinforcement.

If Zuckerberg could package content in such a way that his customers could share it, with some chance of positive intermittent feedback, he might build a giant marketing machine from his platform. Some think the idea sprang from his own personal need to be liked. He was incredibly successful. But, Facebook may have discovered a darker side to its success, as well. Apparently, users are just as likely to come back for more feedback from feelings of anger or sadness as from more conventional “feel good” vibes. The recent controversy over “fake news” planted by Russian intelligence operatives is an example.

It turns out that intermittent reinforcement is a very strong motivator, regardless of the emotional content of the initial behavior. Add the clever opportunities for self-expression on the Facebook platform, and you have the makings of a serious psychological addiction problem. Some studies have even shown physiological changes in subjects that use social media platforms extensively.

When social media are used for active self-expression, it appears that people’s mental health may benefit. Those who post and comment more on the platform are often happier than they were before Facebook. But, passive scrolling through news feeds and over-use of reaction emojis are mostly associated with greater levels of depression and poorer mental health. Also, comparative behavior tends to promote feelings of inadequacy, and perceived social isolation – Instagram is especially bad here -- but, all those shared Facebook photos of happy families and status updates about vacation adventures don’t help.

Facebook does allow you a high degree of control over what you see in your feeds. It would be worthwhile for any heavy Facebook user to explore the updated prioritizing tools for news feeds. You do determine what you see, and you can block things you don’t want to see. Close friends’ posts are now always prioritized ahead of anything commercial. Some say Facebook gives you too much control over news – leading to insulation in bubbles of like-minded screeds.

My own predilection for expressing myself in writing, even short quips in a comment, strikes me as a positive interaction with the platform. Is it really interaction with my friends, though? I sometimes ask myself, “does anybody care?” Of course, the intermittent feedback is largely to blame here. For my part, I try to react to anything my friends post that I feel expresses themselves well – but, there’s a judgmental quality to this. I intentionally fail to react when I do not feel they are expressing themselves well, or when I’m simply not interested in the content they are sharing. And, of course, I impute similar judgement calls to their reactions, or lack thereof, on my posts. Hence, I fall victim to the comparative trap that supposedly haunts teenage girls. Am I not good enough, or clever enough, to be interesting to my friends? Or perhaps to some friends, but not others? And, I’m 70 years old!

A disclaimer is warranted regarding my peculiar usage of Facebook. None (or few) of my friends are people with whom I have a day-to-day relationship IRL (In Real Life). As my immersion in the platform has grown, some friends are mere friends-of-friends whom I’ve never even met IRL. This does not fit the profile of the beneficial social capital some users gain from the platform. It appears that my social media avatar is literally the only me that my Facebook friends know. This is probably not a healthy social milieu! It’s acting. It’s a personal fantasy of who I want to be. Does it smack of narcissism?

With all these potential negatives, it may seem wise to take a break from the platform now and again. You should consider this when Facebook grows boring, when it seems too commercial, when you see too many news feeds whose authenticity you doubt, or when friends’ posts are too closely connected to their personal lives – and not you! 

Breaks can feel good, allowing you to “recharge.” Facebook even facilitates blocking feeds from certain sources (“hiding” them, or “snoozing” them for 30 days if they just get too intense). You can always “unfriend” people (highly recommended for exes), and all these things can be undone when you want to jump back in. Limiting your feedback to others also serves a purpose: I never pick fights, and often refrain even from giving positive feedback when I fear it might spin out of control (discussion groups are notorious for that). Purposeful restraint in use of reaction emojis and making comments can sometimes increase your control over Facebook’s algorithm, too. The platform keeps the details secret, but if you’re good, you may even be able to beat Facebook at its own game.

Dealing with the withdrawal symptoms is best handled by increasing your IRL interaction with people – try email for folks too far away to see in person. Facetime and Skype? For self-expression, try writing a blog (like me), or art? music?

And, do a reality check on that Facebook avatar – it’s dangerous when you start believing it yourself. Don’t delude yourself into depression because you can’t get the feedback you crave. It’s just narcissistic supply, after all. Since you invented the avatar in the first place, you can always tweak it as necessary. Once you focus your self-expression needs on real creativity, it may be time to re-enter the social media world – cleverness and effort should get you more positive feedback. Use Facebook to feel better about yourself, not worse.

There are plenty of tools provided by Facebook (and Twitter) allowing you to take control of the platform, if you’re willing to use your agency. Nobody needs to be a Facebook addict – the platform is not smarter than you! You are your own soma.