On Fri, 3 May 1996, Todd Mullins wrote:
> For those of you with your heads in the sand, listen up: Cars are for
> driving; for taking you places so you can do the things that make your
> life worthwhile. Modern cars really are incredible. Cars of today are
> more reliable, sturdier, more comfortable, faster, quieter, cleaner,
> generally more efficient in every category than the cars of yesteryear.
That is correct, and everybody knows that. But, most of the people on this
list (I think) DON'T WANT a sturdier, quieter, more comfortable, etc. car.
Otherwise they would have bought one. Those are not our values when we
evaluate a car. And because we are so different in this respect, we find
each other on this list.
> In the search for higher and higher efficiency, the shapes of modern cars
> are very tightly constrained by aerodynamic considerations. The task of
Yes, but they didn't used to be. (Get it?)
> the designer is, then, to work within these constraints and come up with
> a shape that is both pleasing to the eye and slippery to the wind.
Oh, I am sure it is a hard job to design a new car, but do you expect me
to buy a new car out of pity for the poor designer, when I really don't
want a car that is slippery in the wind?
> We're not going to see any more cars with "classic" shapes a la T
> series. Those days are over. These are the days of soft forms with
> minimal protrusions.
That is also unfortunately true, that's why we DON'T buy them.
It sounds like you are saying "Get with it, your technology is outdated!"
Are you going to tell an owner of antique furniture "These are the times
of futons, throw away your Louis XIV sofa?"
See, to us, cars are not just for "going places so we can do things that
make our life worthwhile". The "getting there" can be quite worthwhile,
just as the "working on it" and the "improving it" or even the "talking
about it". (and to some people even the nursing the homebrew while talking
about working on it so they can go somewhere...)
> They've gone into improving handling and engine performance, just like
> you whined about. Do you not see it? Are you so blinded by your love
> for carburetors, ignition points, and leaf springs? All of those things
> are totally cool, and represent the state of the art for the period in
> which our older cars were built, but, as I stated before, those days are
> OVER. Better systems have been engineered.
Who is to define what is "better"?
You see, if your signature didn't say "74 MGB", I would have suggested
that this list might not be what you are looking for, a MGF list might be
more what you had in mind. But maybe you just drive that B because you
can't afford (or buy) an F...
__/__,__ ________/____,,_______
................... (_o____o_) ..... (___ O _________ O ___/ ..............
'67 Sprite '66 Caddy
"My philosophy is to fit the best tyres available, not to
cover up braking performance with ABS," he explains. And
airbags? "They're a marketing exercise. They were
introduced because the Americans weren't prepared to
legislate for the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
And I hate gimmicks."
Peter Wheeler, owner and director of TVR
|