Classics dwarfed by moderns

[irocfan]

Evangelion said:

Rich G said:

Breadvan72 said:

Modern cars are of course technically superior to classic cars, albeit that modern cars can be prone to computer cock ups, but I don't agree that they look better than classic cars. Most modern cars are either ugly or bland to my eyes.

Amen to that BV!!

Agree, I can't think of more than about half a dozen modern cars that aren't plug ugly!

(And I can't afford any of them)

don't agree there. I'd say that there are not many modern cars that are willfully ugly (like there were back in the day), by the same token though there are not many (any?) modern cars that are 'bite the back of your hand gorgeous' either (like there were in the day). What modern cars tend to do is not break down as regularly, be predictable (for better or worse), be comfortable, be safe and deliver all of this at a level of performance and economy un-thought of 'back in the day'

[Crosswise]

Yertis said:

Don't agree. My urQuattro is far more spacious than my wife's S1, which while technically a segment below is actually a bigger car externally (not quite as long I'll grant). If you compare the old Coupe with a current A5 then the old car wins hands down.

The S1 is a rally homologation of the UR road car though, by it's nature it's shorter and wider with only 2 seats and a lot of the rear interior space taken up by the roll cage. I think you should swap with your wife, as much as I love the UR Quattro, a 500+ hp out and out rally car with a definitive place in group B rally history is in a different league.

[Evangelion]

irocfan said:

Evangelion said:

Rich G said:

Breadvan72 said:

Modern cars are of course technically superior to classic cars, albeit that modern cars can be prone to computer cock ups, but I don't agree that they look better than classic cars. Most modern cars are either ugly or bland to my eyes.

Amen to that BV!!

Agree, I can't think of more than about half a dozen modern cars that aren't plug ugly!

(And I can't afford any of them)

don't agree there. I'd say that there are not many modern cars that are willfully ugly (like there were back in the day), by the same token though there are not many (any?) modern cars that are 'bite the back of your hand gorgeous' either (like there were in the day). What modern cars tend to do is not break down as regularly, be predictable (for better or worse), be comfortable, be safe and deliver all of this at a level of performance and economy un-thought of 'back in the day'

Agreed, but just think how much better their performance and economy would be, if they weren't so bloody heavy!

[Utterpiffle]

[Murph7355]

Crosswise said:

Yertis said:

Don't agree. My urQuattro is far more spacious than my wife's S1, which while technically a segment below is actually a bigger car externally (not quite as long I'll grant). If you compare the old Coupe with a current A5 then the old car wins hands down.

The S1 is a rally homologation of the UR road car though, by it's nature it's shorter and wider with only 2 seats and a lot of the rear interior space taken up by the roll cage. I think you should swap with your wife, as much as I love the UR Quattro, a 500+ hp out and out rally car with a definitive place in group B rally history is in a different league.

I'm not sure who the whoosh parrot belongs to, but you do realise he's talking about a different Audi "S1"....?

[Crosswise]

Murph7355 said:

Crosswise said:

Yertis said:

Don't agree. My urQuattro is far more spacious than my wife's S1, which while technically a segment below is actually a bigger car externally (not quite as long I'll grant). If you compare the old Coupe with a current A5 then the old car wins hands down.

The S1 is a rally homologation of the UR road car though, by it's nature it's shorter and wider with only 2 seats and a lot of the rear interior space taken up by the roll cage. I think you should swap with your wife, as much as I love the UR Quattro, a 500+ hp out and out rally car with a definitive place in group B rally history is in a different league.

I'm not sure who the whoosh parrot belongs to, but you do realise he's talking about a different Audi "S1"....?

I think you might be right, I just googled it and it appears a name that I thought would always be reserved for arguably one of the greatest rally cars of all time and certainly one that defined the group B era, has now been used for a slightly faster than standard, but completely generic and bland looking small hatchback. Do Audi have so little pride in their heritage that they have no qualms about using such a legendary name on a relatively mundane car? Not only that, what does it say about progress when back in the mid 80s the actual S1 could produce more than double the power of the new one with only 100cc more displacement? It also had carbon kevlar bodywork and an aerodynamically designed body to give it real advantages on the circuit, I just don't see any of this kind of innovative technology on the new one. I know I should get less annoyed by these things, but I'm beginning to find new cars about as exciting as white goods, that I have to accept, but they could at least preserve the names of the great cars of the past.

If you're wondering how I could've missed that there was a new S1, I don't live in a cave, but I do live in NZ which has to be the technological world's equivalent! I don't think Audi sell that car here.

[Murph7355]

It's apparently called progress

I guess the marketing people who saw the name being used on Audi's other line up (S3, S4, S5 etc) felt consistency was more important than history.

It actually irritates me more when marques like Ferrari do it...

[ajprice]

At least BMW know their history

[RichB]

As this is Classic Cars and Yesterdays Heroes I feel comfortable asking what that actually means in English. The car looks st, so they say it's nice. Is that idea?

[uk66fastback]

Front spoiler on that BM is shockingly bad ... Probably does what it should at 90mph but as for how it looks, just bad.

[Crosswise]

RichB said:

As this is Classic Cars and Yesterdays Heroes I feel comfortable asking what that actually means in English. The car looks st, so they say it's nice. Is that idea?

This one I do know! Unlike Audi, BMW respected the fact that the M1 was a totally different car with it's own place in their model history and therefore, named the fast version of the 1 Series the 135 M or something like that. However, that still hasn't stopped almost everyone who doesn't know or care about the previous model, referring to it as the M1.

[Yertis]

Crosswise said:

I think you might be right, I just googled it and it appears a name that I thought would always be reserved for arguably one of the greatest rally cars of all time and certainly one that defined the group B era, has now been used for a slightly faster than standard, but completely generic and bland looking small hatchback. Do Audi have so little pride in their heritage that they have no qualms about using such a legendary name on a relatively mundane car? Not only that, what does it say about progress when back in the mid 80s the actual S1 could produce more than double the power of the new one with only 100cc more displacement? It also had carbon kevlar bodywork and an aerodynamically designed body to give it real advantages on the circuit, I just don't see any of this kind of innovative technology on the new one. I know I should get less annoyed by these things, but I'm beginning to find new cars about as exciting as white goods, that I have to accept, but they could at least preserve the names of the great cars of the past.

If you're wondering how I could've missed that there was a new S1, I don't live in a cave, but I do live in NZ which has to be the technological world's equivalent! I don't think Audi sell that car here.

Murph is correct. I'll try to get a pic at the weekend. She chose the car, I wasn't even allowed to the showroom but it does suit her and her driving style very well. I agree about the heritage thing, and it has four exhaust pipes which I think looks slightly odd on a small car like this. It's lovely to drive though, very quick, probably not that much slower than an original S1 given the torque. Mainly let down by four-cylinder hatchback racket rather than five-cylinder melody.

[RichB]

Crosswise said:

This one I do know! Unlike Audi, BMW respected the fact that the M1 was a totally different car with it's own place in their model history and therefore, named the fast version of the 1 Series the 135 M or something like that. However, that still hasn't stopped almost everyone who doesn't know or care about the previous model, referring to it as the M1.

Ah right. My son had a M135 didn't look like that though. anyway we digress...

[ajprice]

RichB said:

As this is Classic Cars and Yesterdays Heroes I feel comfortable asking what that actually means in English. The car looks st, so they say it's nice. Is that idea?

The car in the picture is a 1M, as Crosswise said, they knew the M1 was a special car in their history, and didn't call the fast 1 series M1.

And apologies if I scared anyone with the picture, I forgot that this thread was in Classics.

[RichB]

ajprice said:

apologies if I scared anyone with the picture...

[Huntsman]

Utterpiffle said:

What is the little fella?

[KateV8]

A

Not the best Camera angle but even a diminutive (by today's standards) Fiat 500 made our Chimaera look under-scale.

[TR4man]

Huntsman said:

Utterpiffle said:

What is the little fella?

A Peel?

[Utterpiffle]

TR4man said:

A Peel?

It's a Mosquito.
http://www.mosquito-triad.com/
There were under 30 built, and all but 5 I think are now accounted for and still exist. Was a fun little thing.

This was my one - now fully restored by my friend Damien:
http://www.mosquito-triad.com/Restoration_Q639fad....

Edited by Utterpiffle on Sunday 8th May 12:05

[Cledus Snow]