Stupid things PETROL HEADS say

Stupid things PETROL HEADS say

Author
Discussion

Gilhooligan

2,214 posts

144 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Using acronyms such as ATR, CTR, ITR to describe a fast honda.

kambites

67,575 posts

221 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Lefty said:
The s1 Elise with 118bhp is a lovely little thing. Does that make the more powerful variants bad cars because the owners "don't get it"?
There's a big difference between saying "I wouldn't buy it because it doesn't have enough power for my tastes" and "it needs more power". The former is perfectly sensible, the latter is an indication that the person doesn't understand the point of the car. The market needs powerful cars, but that's not the same as saying that the market needs (or even wants) all cars to be powerful.

It's not really any different to someone saying that the Mclaren P1 is rubbish because it doesn't have seven seats, which I would also say is somewhat missing the point.


Edited by kambites on Thursday 17th April 11:42

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Gilhooligan said:
Using acronyms such as ATR, CTR, ITR to describe a fast honda.
I wouldn't use them in conversation, however I dont see the problem when typing?

Gilhooligan

2,214 posts

144 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Pebbles167 said:
I wouldn't use them in conversation, however I dont see the problem when typing?
Maybe I was just annoyed that I had to google what they meant initially lol.

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Gilhooligan said:
Maybe I was just annoyed that I had to google what they meant initially lol.
Hmm... Could be worse, I used to think there was a "Honda Integer" Oh how they laughed! laugh

shoestring7

6,138 posts

246 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Pebbles167 said:
Gilhooligan said:
Using acronyms such as ATR, CTR, ITR to describe a fast honda.
I wouldn't use them in conversation, however I dont see the problem when typing?
Not when the idea is to communicate as opposed to obfuscate. As KOKWTFYTA.

SS7

shoestring7

6,138 posts

246 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
"£30,000 for a Golf!!!!!!!?"


SS7

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
Not when the idea is to communicate as opposed to obfuscate. As KOKWTFYTA.

SS7
As long as i've previously stated the car is for example, an integra type R, why not abbreviate it to ITR from then on? wink

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

182 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Pebbles167 said:
Hmm... Could be worse, I used to think there was a "Honda Integer" Oh how they laughed! laugh
Well, that's kind of half true...

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
HereBeMonsters said:
Well, that's kind of half true...
Please explain!

cobra kid

4,946 posts

240 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
"Bork factor"
"Strong money"
"Spanish"
"Gingers"

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

182 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Pebbles167 said:
HereBeMonsters said:
Well, that's kind of half true...
Please explain!
It was a maths joke.

Howard-

4,952 posts

202 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
A lot of things already mentioned in this thread annoy me, but then many of them don't because they're just part of being an "enthusiast"... I.e. the mention of "geeky" model numbers for BMW / Porsche etc... What's wrong with that? It's much easier to say "The E92 M3" than it is to say "The 2007 to 2013 BMW M3 Coupe"


...But there are a couple of little niggly annoyances that I have:

- track "work", town "work", etc.. It's just driving confused

- To be "in" a car, in reference to owning or acquiring one... I.e. "This time next year I hope to be in an M3"... You mean you hope to own one? Because anyone can be "in" one if they visit a dealership or know a friend or has one. Getting in the car means to enter it via the doors.


I also hate 'pet' names such as Scooby, Porker, Beemer, etc., too.

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
HereBeMonsters said:
It was a maths joke.
Being relatively new to pistonheads, I can't be sure, but I think this is where I would insert a picture of a parrot getting blown off its perch? laugh

Actus Reus

4,234 posts

155 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Pebbles167 said:
Being relatively new to pistonheads, I can't be sure, but I think this is where I would insert a picture of a parrot getting blown off its perch? laugh
I'd say you were picking this st up quite quickly wink

P-Jay

10,565 posts

191 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Lefty said:
P-Jay said:
"The GT86 is underpowered by at least 100BHP" - you just don't get it
In fairness, maybe they do get it. Assuming "they don't get it" because they have a different opinion to you is a bit arrogant.

Plenty of reviewers, professional motoring journalists, thought it needed more power. Are they missing the point too?

The s1 Elise with 118bhp is a lovely little thing. Does that make the more powerful variants bad cars because the owners "don't get it"?
The ethos behind the car was that modern performance cars now have so much grip and so much power that to actually get to the point where you're involved in the driving process over and above pointing the wheel in the direction you want to go the huge likelihood is that you'd be traveling at a speed not only illegal, but social irresponsible.

So they took a brave step, built a balanced car with 200bhp or so, which isn't a small amount by any means and designed enough grip into the car that you can do all the sideways stuff some people like and enjoy the sensation of it moving around underneath you.

The result was a fun car to drive, that didn't drink fuel, and could be fun at more sensible speeds, was cheaper than most sports cars etc etc - it was a win win win and a concept I personally thought was brilliant.

But some people can't see past the stats, they think it should have 300bhp, or 400bhp and of course if it did you'd need things like massive fat tyres, fancy diffs and 4wd to keep the balance and of course that costs a lot of money and makes it heavy - so you'd end up with another £40-60k Sports Car that does 180mph and can pull 4G in the corners before ever looking like it might lose grip, which is won't because you'd never dare turn off the ESP, unless you were one of those sad souls who thinks he's Jenson Hamilton because we once went to the motorshow and owns some German saloon with more power than it can use and crashes it.

"it" is a 'modestly' powered, affordable coupe with a chassis set-up to match, by giving it 50% more power it's no longer balanced, and that's not the point.

Disastrous

10,083 posts

217 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
It's a bit slow though. I reckon it needs a bit more power.

*Fletch*

289 posts

183 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
It's a bit slow though. I reckon it needs a bit more power.
hehe

Mastodon2

13,826 posts

165 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
On the subject of fast Honda naming convention, the worst has to be when people start making cringe-worthy portmanteaus to describe a Honda with an engine swap, such as "Teglude", "Civteg" or "intorrd".

Pebbles167

3,445 posts

152 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Mastodon2 said:
On the subject of fast Honda naming convention, the worst has to be when people start making cringe-worthy portmanteaus to describe a Honda with an engine swap, such as "Teglude", "Civteg" or "intorrd".
Agreed. Nothing wrong with saying "b18" Civic or "k20 Civic" no need for silly hybrid naming.

Obviously someone who's not familiar with honda's id just say "civic with an integra engine"