On the racetrack, I understand the potential "negative" aspect with regard to personally being in control of what the car does in your hands, but that track time is perhaps, what, less than 1% of miles put on Vipers (or any other makes)?
On the street, where any number of things can f%*k up, be it rain, oil, poor judgement, innattentive drivers, etc., why would you be opposed to something that could potentially save your car (or life), especially if you could turn it off whenever you chose to (as in C5/C6 Z06's)?
Stability control does more than try to keep you from rolling over (which I agree is highly unlikely in any typical car), it will help keep the rear of your car from trying to pass the front, which we've seen quite a few Vipers do with nothing more than cold/old tires and too much throttle.
The lack of any electronic driving/safety aids obviously didn't keep me from owning a Viper. I don't think adding ABS (a decade late) kept people from buying Vipers, either, though that would certainly qualify as a "nanny." Machismo/attitude is one thing, accepting that some Viper track days and some HPDE's doesn't make you Kimi Räikkönen is another. Ferrari's have all sorts of electronic aids, and they have as good of racing heritage as it gets. Does that make their cars any less desirable to "pure drivers?"
I know, I know - I'll save you the trouble of saying it - I just don't get it and should still be driving a Corvette (of which I don't understand the derisive connotation used consistantly on this forum when the majority probably owned one at some point (or still do)).
