LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently November 15, 2018, 2:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: March 4, 2017, 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 11, 2013, 4:47 am
Posts: 958
Location: No. Nevada
Strictly out of curiosity I searched the web to see what the 2017 cars look like.
Was not in the market for a new car anyway, and after seeing what is offered even less so if that is possible.
Even at or over TWO MILLION DOLLARS today's performance cars look more like "Kit Cars" than most actual Kit Cars. :roll:
Several were laughable, only a few were tolerable.
All seemed designed to eat money by the truck-load with lots of gadgetry and flimsy appearance gimmicks to need constant replacement.
Can we call the exposed Carbon Fiber fad OVER-done already!

I find it a very sad day when offerings from Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Bugatti, McLaren and others are just plain ugly despite the insane price.
Sure 260 MPH is nice, in the same way my machine guns are nice, but even less practical for common use.

So I'm sure there is some pejorative term or two for a long time car enthusiast who has no enthusiasm for the new cars, feel free to inform me. :wink:
I'm going back to working on my antiquated home builds, need them as eye-bleach!

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2017, 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 24, 2008, 2:13 pm
Posts: 3681
Location: Carlsbad, California, USA
I'm with you most of the way, Richard. A lot of newer cars are what I'd call "dog butt ugly", which I've pilfered from the old insult, "Buddy, if I had a dog that ugly, I'd shave its ass, and walk it backwards."

[RANT ON]
As for the 1500HP, uber-expensive, twin-turbo, 250 MPH "whatevers" of the automotive world, I think of them as fetish pieces. It's the automotive equivalent of the Victorian codpiece. They're just stupid, IMHO. And, because you can buy one, that doesn't mean you're capable of driving and controlling one, or that it's at all appropriate for typical city-street driving.
[RANT OFF]

On the other hand, just this morning, I passed by a brand-new, paper-plated, Mustang convertible parked in a dive way a couple blocks from my house. It was a beautiful burgundy red, and I've got to tell you it was so good looking and it was very nicely done in all dimensions. It looked like a $70K specialty car. I don't know what it costs, but probably most of us could afford it. So, some companies are still out there hitting it out of the ballpark with real and interesting vehicles.

Cheers,

_________________
Damn! That front slip angle is way too large and the Ackerman is just a muddle.

Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5886


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2017, 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 11, 2013, 4:47 am
Posts: 958
Location: No. Nevada
Some few of the more mundane new cars are almost tolerable.
I actually prefer an ugly "Different" design to utterly bland, at least they made something different.

The new "Pony Cars" make me sad as I recall the real deal.
What have they done to the Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Mustang and whatever similar I've missed?
I find them so similar I have to see the badge to know what I'm looking at that seems just a tad "Off" due to the dimensions being out of proportion.
Belt lines too high, mail slot windows, squinty front group with undersize lighting, oversize wheels, etc. :cry:
I know I'm not alone in my assessment as "The market is always right" and REAL Pony/Muscle cars easily sell at twice to several times the sticker price of the pretenders.
Same with the new Alfa-Romeo's, there are no Jaguars I would accept as sporting, add Lotus to the looks like a bad kit car lot too.

When we get down to "Economy cars", I just have to hold from back retching. :ack:
"SCION" apparently means indescribably ugly, the Honda Element looked like it was shipped out unfinished during a strike!
After seeing so many soulless jellybean lookalike cars on the road I am more determined than ever to complete my projects, and to NEVER drive such wheeled appliances.

Have the 79 Alfa Spider almost on the road, waiting for the %$#! snow to END.
Not my all-time favorite Alfa but it will be a fairly nice beater while I complete projects.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: September 22, 2005, 10:29 am
Posts: 414
Seriously? First of all, styling is subjective, so unlike 0-60 or such, all we have to offer are opinions, which like smelly orifices are ubiquitous. That said, from a styling perspective I'd gladly own 90 percent of modern cars over the clunky creations of the 70s. I'm pretty on board with modern styling.

Also, we may be a suspect sample, as most people find Locosts to be pretty funny looking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 11, 2013, 4:47 am
Posts: 958
Location: No. Nevada
Madison Avenue has no sway with me, I'm immune to their blather.
I can only conclude that most folk are more susceptible to having their taste manipulated than I would have thought possible.
I'm truly old school, I know what I like and don't, no amount of advertising or magazine articles are going to change me.
Anyone is welcome to embrace the jellybeans, "Self Driving" cars, unavailability of manual trans, OBD, etc., so long as I am left alone to avoid all of that.
Even the old cars I thought were ugly decades ago now look good to me by comparison to the new bland offerings.
I never liked the '58 Chevy, now I would have a one over any of the new cars!
70's, the beginning of the end as Big Gov. took over car design, limiting style and performance to "Save us" from, ourselves!

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: September 22, 2005, 10:29 am
Posts: 414
You're certainly welcome to your curmudgeonly views, but by any objective standard, cars are far superior now than in the 1960s. As for the subjective matter of styling, I think that you are not allowing yourself to see the details. Can you look at the rear end of a Prius or the front of a Lexus and call them "Jelly Beans"? Your modern supercars have creases and bulges aplenty whereas by comparison, it's the E-type that looks like an elongated jelly bean.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Subjectivity is fine. It's largely what make people interesting. But when aesthetic judgements are used in declarative statements like the headline of this thread, it bugs me. Now I'm happy to discuss specifics. For instance, modern cars tend to have somewhat pronounced noses for two reasons: It allows for more front impact protection, and in many cases (Trucks in particular) it can exude a macho aspect. Neither of those things change the fact that I don't like lots of front overhang. It clashes with my aesthetic preferences.

FWIW, my favorite cars were made between 1930 and 1970, so we probably have similar tastes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 15, 2011, 10:39 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Dallas, PA
RichardSIA wrote:
The new "Pony Cars" make me sad as I recall the real deal.
What have they done to the Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Mustang and whatever similar I've missed?



I've said the same thing for years, since they came out. They have a vague resemblance to the original but I guess that I'm just resistant to change. I get why they do it, but my heart is in the 60's & 70's design.

I will admit though, for some reason, I do want a 2002-2005 Ford Thunderbird!

_________________
Dan Lipperini Jr
www.RaceLabz.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: March 30, 2011, 7:18 am
Posts: 1430
Location: central Arkansas
RichardSIA wrote:
Sure 260 MPH is nice, in the same way my machine guns are nice, but even less practical for common use.


My bike only ran 175, but it was still a hassle to find a place to open it up. It's a lot easier to find a place to shoot my MG.

Of course, the bike didn't cost over ten dollars per second to run, either...

"Internal combustion: the most efficient way to turn money into noise!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 4, 2006, 5:40 pm
Posts: 1927
Location: Novato, CA
It doesn't bug me if people want to declare all new cars ugly. I sort of agree, although maybe not with the "all". I would be hard-pressed to buy a new car these days, mostly because of all the gadgetry, but I kind of like the looks of the Mazda 3. OTOH if I could afford a supercar, I'm sure I could manage to ignore how it looks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2017, 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 11, 2013, 4:47 am
Posts: 958
Location: No. Nevada
My personal yardstick for a "Supercar" only requires 150 MPH.
So if I were rich enough there are older and better looking cars available.
Lambo Muira S (but not SV), Jag XKE (up to '67), Alfa Romeo Stradale, Ferrari 330 TR (the original race car), Ford GT40 Mk. 1, and many more.
As this short list illustrates I prefer my cars with rounded organic body lines and round headlamps.
The too angular designs look like bad "Modern" sculpture or a scrap pile to me, the modern jellybeans mostly just fail to get my attention at all.
The overly "Aero device" laden modern supercars seem almost insect like with their weird multiple projector systems, diffusers, strakes, mandible looking chin spoilers, etc.

Years ago I knew a guy who was trading ugly "Art", paintings and sculptures, for Ferrari and other exotic cars that had failed their TUV for trivial reasons.
Was a nice racket for him as the "Art" pieces were virtually untaxed here or there since they were antiques, and he got them cheap to begin with.
If he could have found a way to get aircraft parts into the ME he would have gotten some truly fantastic cars.
So far as I know those cars are still sitting in air-conditioned warehouses, ignored and slowly rotting away, as they are not the current requirement for one-upping everyone else.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 12, 2017, 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1288
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Got to agree with the uglyness of new cars. Could not possibly care less about super cars, but the high belt lines, massive look and lack of visibility in production cars is a downer. I think Ford started it all when they tried to make the F150 look like a Kenworth. Don't even get me started about SUV's and their imaginary "practicalness".

We just purchased a 2017 Outback. A great car, sorely in need of redesign. They could start by looking at a first Gen Escort wagon. Now that is a station wagon.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 12, 2017, 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: September 10, 2016, 12:50 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Austin TX
For the most part I agree. But there are some exceptions I think. In my opinion the Subaru BRZ/Toyota 86 and the Mazda Miata are 2 of the best looking cars out there at a reasonable price. Of course Im biased to the BRZ ;-)


Attachments:
BRZ nite sm.jpg
BRZ nite sm.jpg [ 415.82 KiB | Viewed 2222 times ]

_________________
John Jacobsen
Taylor, TX (near Austin)
Haynes frame Miata bits and pieces
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 12, 2017, 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 22, 2005, 10:29 am
Posts: 414
I think that most people gravitate towards that which we liked (or disliked) during that period of our lives when we were most receptive to the outer world in general, which for most people is their teens through mid-twenties. After which we tend to "like what we like". I grew up in the 70s when cars were going through a dark period, which is why my favorite cars were the ones made before that time. Probably the most effecting one that I saw on a regular basis was a first generation Mustang fastback lowered with flares and practically zero body roll. On those rare occasions that I saw something exotic and italian, I'd go out of my head with excitement.

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much when people post a "modern cars suck" thread, because it's just human nature to feel that way to a certain extent. I try to "get" what turns each generation on. That's why I was listening to my 17 YO son's latest interest - heavy metal/rap fusion (yes that's actually a thing) yesterday and had him explain it to me along with it's cultural basis. It's kind of fun tracing how something came about and appreciating it on its own terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 12, 2017, 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 11, 2013, 4:47 am
Posts: 958
Location: No. Nevada
Stuck in traffic yesterday behind KIA* "SOUL", :ack:
At least the lines were not all angles, but still horrid.

I lay a lot of the blame for this situation on Gov. Org., who now mandate all automotive design parameters.
Headlamps must be so high, so far apart, no narrower than, must not sit too far forward or back, etc.
Same for the too high, in your face, oversize tail lamps.
Then we get to bumpers, mileage standards, crash standards and "Option's" that cannot be deleted.
So the manufacturers go with the cheapest design that will pass the standards and the science, and everything tends to look the same. :BH:
High-end makers can use different solutions, but only within the limits imposed by Gov.
We had better get our non-conforming cars built while we still can!

* When I was younger everyone knew that KIA means Killed In Action, but it's the Chevy "NOVA" that gets jokes made of it's name?

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 12, 2017, 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1288
Location: Connersville, Indiana
RichardSIA wrote:
Stuck in traffic yesterday behind KIA* "SOUL", :ack:
At least the lines were not all angles, but still horrid.

I lay a lot of the blame for this situation on Gov. Org., who now mandate all automotive design parameters.
Headlamps must be so high, so far apart, no narrower than, must not sit too far forward or back, etc.
Same for the too high, in your face, oversize tail lamps.
Then we get to bumpers, mileage standards, crash standards and "Option's" that cannot be deleted.
So the manufacturers go with the cheapest design that will pass the standards and the science, and everything tends to look the same. :BH:
High-end makers can use different solutions, but only within the limits imposed by Gov.
We had better get our non-conforming cars built while we still can!

* When I was younger everyone knew that KIA means Killed In Action, but it's the Chevy "NOVA" that gets jokes made of it's name?

I'll bet that a car will be produced within 5 years that meets all the above criteria and does NOT look like todays cars. Lets face it, car designs are, have been and always will be look alikes. Cars that don't comply are usually pointed out as something less than desirable. Anybody remember the Chrysler Airflow?

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY