Not Ranked
I must admit to being more than perplexed about this ongoing philosophical quagmire. Somehow, the desirability, aura, and heritage of Shelby automobiles are being downgraded by some because of the actions of the man whose name the cars bear. None of us have to agree with Shelby and we all have the inalienable right to base our opinions of him on what we read and hear--although I will say it's not 1962 anymore and the way business is conducted in the corporate world today bears little resemblance to the way many of the rules were drawn four decades ago. You can love him, hate him, or decide to abandon your loyalty to all things Blue Oval. At the end of the day, you have to go with your gut.
But as a life-long Shelby enthusiast, and someone who works in the automotive media--primarily network television--I find it a bit baffling that there are connections being made between the morality/ethics of Carroll Shelby and the attraction and affection being directed to his cars. "He's a money-grabbing SOB and so I'll never buy one of his cars" is a concept that seems to be gathering some real momentum. I'm not the brightest guy in the world but I fail to see any of this trickle-down attitude creating similar debates among any other collector-level automobile enthusiasts in the world.
Enzo Ferrari was a tyrannical, dictatorial, self-involved despot who felt that the lives of his drivers were secondary to the pursuit of winning. Creating intra-team rivalries to motivate his drivers to battle not only their opponents but each other was a contributing factor to a host of his racers driving beyond their skills. The loss of a Ferrari team driver was usually little more than a minor inconvenience to him and his lust for winning, as it has been described in any number of his biographies, diminished his humanity and compassion for those who worked for him. Yet, I have never heard a Ferrari owner or enthusiast connect his cold, calculating morality with how they feel about his cars, or whether they would care to own one or not.
John Z. Delorean was a selfish, power-tripping Yuppie who brought the Pontiac GTO, and later, the ill-fated Delorean, to life. In his megomaniacal blindness, he justified his fraudulent money laundering, fleecing of the Irish government, and eventual drug-dealing activities by convincing himself it was the only way to keep his gambit alive. Talk about screwing people! And not just those who forged flimsy deals with him behind closed doors. More than a few customers of the Delorean never received delivery of their cars and/or never received their money back when the Delorean "dynasty" collapsed. Does anyone ever recall his immoral and illegal misadventures when extolling the virtues of the GTO or the sentimental value of the Delorean? How many people have sworn off ownership of a GTO because of Delorean's well-documented misdeeds? I've yet to meet one.
Malcolm Bricklin floated all kinds of shifty financial boondoggles to get his "revolutionary" sports car built, and once the abomination was produced, the lack of build quality, non-existent customer service, and laundry list of mechanical and electrical disasters forced him to run for his life. His laughable venture to bring the Yugo to this country resulted in millions of dollars lost for investors and one of automotive history's most notorious failures. While Bricklins have little collector value (How many have actually survived?), the conversations I've heard about his deplorable sports cars rarely if ever segue into a discussion about his shady business tactics.
Read the history of Mercedes-Benz and you can't avoid the countless names and accounts of top-level M-B executives and their ilk enthusiastically throwing their support and sympathies toward the Nazi hysteria which swept through the region in the 1930's and '40's. Going into deeper detail isn't necessary since we all know the story--at least the parts of it which have come to light since WW II. There are still American veterans of the war who refuse to buy German-built cars to this day, and yet, when was the last time we voiced any moral indignation at Mercedes ownership or undermined the idea of owning a Benz because of the unspeakable genocide from 60 years ago which, although not directly committed by those in charge at M-B, certainly wasn't vehemently protested by them either.
Carroll Shelby gets taken to task for business decisions which are viewed as greedy, unethical, and self-aggrandizing, and now, there are those who are jumping ship as if we've suddenly discovered he's really not the Pope. Like I say, I'm perplexed.
|