Pistonheads vehicles you don't "get"
Discussion
FastRich said:
This. I used to have a full fat Range Rover - ok, so not as quick as the Porker but in terms of safety and the ability to read the road ahead, it was fantastic. I'm sure that by seeing the brake lights come on 4 cars ahead and merely backing off, rather than not seeing the brake lights until they were on the car in directly front and then having to hit the brakes, I saved the nation many hours of traffic jams. 
You think that increasing your visibility while decreasing the visibility of the cars behind makes your journey safer? The only conclusion from that is that you are a higher crash risk than the cars behind. When I'm driving, I'm far more concerned about someone hitting me than me hitting them.
Nickbrapp said:
4 Doors more w
es
There are no weses. Just a 6 year old who is being taught that a big petrol engine is the right choice and the NissoHondaVolVW miserable diesel option is for people who have made the worst possible choice. Come the big call up I can't imagine the annoyance of having to wonder why I wasted my time driving a s
t car, I don't plan to wonder.I guess we're all different.
Kamox said:
Ferrari F40. One of the ugliest sports cars on Earth. I'm maybe the only Italian who will say that.
I way prefer the McLaren F1, the best supercar ever imho.
MX-5. Not so funny to drive, underpowered. If your previous cars have been cheap city cars, I can see why you may find it nice. Otherwise, go seek a cheap Boxster.
BMW M3. I reckon it's a great car, but I still see it as an ordinary 3er, with a much bigger engine, less elegant, and they age terribly. Accept the fact that you need room, and buy a diesel Volvo *and* a purpose-built sports car.
Aston Martins. I like the shape, but they're all the same, poor build quality, haven't been able to sort a decent transmission for 30 years.
Caterhams. Way, way overpriced. I'd buy one, new, for £10k.
No! Yes! No! NOOOO! Yes! No! No! Maybe ? Noooooo!!!I way prefer the McLaren F1, the best supercar ever imho.
MX-5. Not so funny to drive, underpowered. If your previous cars have been cheap city cars, I can see why you may find it nice. Otherwise, go seek a cheap Boxster.
BMW M3. I reckon it's a great car, but I still see it as an ordinary 3er, with a much bigger engine, less elegant, and they age terribly. Accept the fact that you need room, and buy a diesel Volvo *and* a purpose-built sports car.
Aston Martins. I like the shape, but they're all the same, poor build quality, haven't been able to sort a decent transmission for 30 years.
Caterhams. Way, way overpriced. I'd buy one, new, for £10k.
Kamox said:
BMW M3. I reckon it's a great car, but I still see it as an ordinary 3er, with a much bigger engine, less elegant, and they age terribly.
I am biased but my '07 has a private plate (came with it - not my doing) and people find it hard to believe it is nearly 9 years old.Certainly looks like a pretty regular 3-series to most though.
alock said:
FastRich said:
This. I used to have a full fat Range Rover - ok, so not as quick as the Porker but in terms of safety and the ability to read the road ahead, it was fantastic. I'm sure that by seeing the brake lights come on 4 cars ahead and merely backing off, rather than not seeing the brake lights until they were on the car in directly front and then having to hit the brakes, I saved the nation many hours of traffic jams.
You think that increasing your visibility while decreasing the visibility of the cars behind makes your journey safer? The only conclusion from that is that you are a higher crash risk than the cars behind. When I'm driving, I'm far more concerned about someone hitting me than me hitting them.
I'm not purposefully decreasing the visibility of the cars behind me am I?
As for being a higher crash risk - not really. By using the increased visibility to read the road and back off gently early, I'm causing far less of a crash risk than jamming on the brakes at the last moment. It's called early intervention. Avoiding having to brake heavily at the last minute is far better than actually braking at the last minute. Having increased visibility and therefore increased road reading ability, results in increased early action which reduces the liklihood of having an accident - who'd have thought?
Of course I'm concerned about someone crashing into me - that explains avoiding the unnecessary brake jabbing but I'm actually more concerned about hitting someone else and being the cause of an accident.
If someone is unable to stop and goes into the back of me, it's their fault, their no claims bonus, their problem really. If I'm going to be in an accident, I'd rather it not be my fault.
FastRich said:
If someone is unable to stop and goes into the back of me, it's their fault, their no claims bonus, their problem really. If I'm going to be in an accident, I'd rather it not be my fault.
drifting thread a little...isn't it also your NCB?
Unless police or insurance company investigate and apportion blame then it'll just be knock-for-knock.
i have very little experience of insurance claims thankfully but i hear a lot of people getting a harsh realisation that it's no claims, not no fault.
Robert Elise said:
drifting thread a little...
isn't it also your NCB?
Unless police or insurance company investigate and apportion blame then it'll just be knock-for-knock.
i have very little experience of insurance claims thankfully but i hear a lot of people getting a harsh realisation that it's no claims, not no fault.
If someone goes into the back of you it's not your fault and you claim off THEIR insurance, not yours.isn't it also your NCB?
Unless police or insurance company investigate and apportion blame then it'll just be knock-for-knock.
i have very little experience of insurance claims thankfully but i hear a lot of people getting a harsh realisation that it's no claims, not no fault.
However, you have still made a "non-fault claim" which means SOME insurers (not all but usually the cheaper ones) will raise your future premiums when you declare this.
I think.
I have no trouble seeing the brake lights on cars far ahead of the one directly in front of me.
Follow at a sensible distance and this will almost always be the case - roads are very rarely perfectly flat, and cars don't normally line up in perfectly straight lines!
You don't need to drive a bloody tank to see far ahead, just don't tailgate!
Follow at a sensible distance and this will almost always be the case - roads are very rarely perfectly flat, and cars don't normally line up in perfectly straight lines!
You don't need to drive a bloody tank to see far ahead, just don't tailgate!
FastRich said:
Yep, of course.
I'm not purposefully decreasing the visibility of the cars behind me am I?
As for being a higher crash risk - not really. By using the increased visibility to read the road and back off gently early, I'm causing far less of a crash risk than jamming on the brakes at the last moment. It's called early intervention. Avoiding having to brake heavily at the last minute is far better than actually braking at the last minute. Having increased visibility and therefore increased road reading ability, results in increased early action which reduces the liklihood of having an accident - who'd have thought?
You are purposefully decreasing the visibility of cars behind by buying a vehicle that blocks that visibility.I'm not purposefully decreasing the visibility of the cars behind me am I?
As for being a higher crash risk - not really. By using the increased visibility to read the road and back off gently early, I'm causing far less of a crash risk than jamming on the brakes at the last moment. It's called early intervention. Avoiding having to brake heavily at the last minute is far better than actually braking at the last minute. Having increased visibility and therefore increased road reading ability, results in increased early action which reduces the liklihood of having an accident - who'd have thought?
All the reasons you are giving for why improved visibility is better apply to the driver of the car behind you as well. Buying a vehicle that increases your visibility at the expense of others is selfish.
FIREBIRDC9 said:
S10GTA said:
I wasn't aware a Juke was a PH car of choice...
The fact you can buy a Juke R and a Nismo Juke RS suggests they are trying to market it as one.Why are Nismo wasting time on the Juke when they could be developing better things!
alock said:
You are purposefully decreasing the visibility of cars behind by buying a vehicle that blocks that visibility.
All the reasons you are giving for why improved visibility is better apply to the driver of the car behind you as well. Buying a vehicle that increases your visibility at the expense of others is selfish.
What cars are you advocating then? I'll probably be able to come up with an equally crap way of explaining how your choice is selfish. All the reasons you are giving for why improved visibility is better apply to the driver of the car behind you as well. Buying a vehicle that increases your visibility at the expense of others is selfish.
And a tip, follow at a safe distance and don't feel you have to follow anything so closely that your visibility compromises your safety.
Kind of agree with the MX5
It gets so much hype on here, I just bought a mk2.5.
It's OK. considering its the top 1.8 Vt 145 bhp engine its corse and lacks power.
They have a big problem with rust
Handling, while is fun enough it isn't as good as a Mk3 MR2. it only trumps that on having a boot.
S2000 was a disappointment too. Poor build, common faults. around a track its about the same as a Civic type R.... so what's the point?
Stereo is rubbish too.
Civic EK9, again.loads of hype and I enjoyed it but it wasn't great to drive day to day, and that's kind of the point of a hot hatch. Gutless unless you rev its nuts off
Oh, and Audi's. We all know they are Golfs, and all look the same .... just saying
It gets so much hype on here, I just bought a mk2.5.
It's OK. considering its the top 1.8 Vt 145 bhp engine its corse and lacks power.
They have a big problem with rust
Handling, while is fun enough it isn't as good as a Mk3 MR2. it only trumps that on having a boot.
S2000 was a disappointment too. Poor build, common faults. around a track its about the same as a Civic type R.... so what's the point?
Stereo is rubbish too.
Civic EK9, again.loads of hype and I enjoyed it but it wasn't great to drive day to day, and that's kind of the point of a hot hatch. Gutless unless you rev its nuts off
Oh, and Audi's. We all know they are Golfs, and all look the same .... just saying
nottyash said:
Kind of agree with the MX5
It gets so much hype on here, I just bought a mk2.5.
It's OK. considering its the top 1.8 Vt 145 bhp engine its corse and lacks power.
They have a big problem with rust
Handling, while is fun enough it isn't as good as a Mk3 MR2. it only trumps that on having a boot.
S2000 was a disappointment too. Poor build, common faults. around a track its about the same as a Civic type R.... so what's the point?
Stereo is rubbish too.
Civic EK9, again.loads of hype and I enjoyed it but it wasn't great to drive day to day, and that's kind of the point of a hot hatch. Gutless unless you rev its nuts off
Oh, and Audi's. We all know they are Golfs, and all look the same .... just saying
Agree on S2000's massively disappointing car. MX5's the same, we had a stock sport model and my DC2 was far more entertaining. R32 Golf, dull, not very quick and drinks fuel. Audi TT, numb and not very quick. It gets so much hype on here, I just bought a mk2.5.
It's OK. considering its the top 1.8 Vt 145 bhp engine its corse and lacks power.
They have a big problem with rust
Handling, while is fun enough it isn't as good as a Mk3 MR2. it only trumps that on having a boot.
S2000 was a disappointment too. Poor build, common faults. around a track its about the same as a Civic type R.... so what's the point?
Stereo is rubbish too.
Civic EK9, again.loads of hype and I enjoyed it but it wasn't great to drive day to day, and that's kind of the point of a hot hatch. Gutless unless you rev its nuts off
Oh, and Audi's. We all know they are Golfs, and all look the same .... just saying
Off topic. One thing I don't get is this apparent hate for large vehicles whatever you want to call them, SUV, 4*4 whatever. It's on this thread and a number of others.
Re the above argument on increased visibility. Drive regularly in areas with plentiful drystone walls or hedges or crops right up to the road verge and you'll soon see the point that the particular poster is trying to make.
Just let people get on with what they want to drive without all the venom. If, say, I want to drive a motor home based on a Unimog, as long as it's legal, driven with care and not tramping across your front garden then frankly it's none of anyone else's business.
Re the above argument on increased visibility. Drive regularly in areas with plentiful drystone walls or hedges or crops right up to the road verge and you'll soon see the point that the particular poster is trying to make.
Just let people get on with what they want to drive without all the venom. If, say, I want to drive a motor home based on a Unimog, as long as it's legal, driven with care and not tramping across your front garden then frankly it's none of anyone else's business.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
skyrover said:
GravelBen said:
On the flipside, you could drive a Nissan Patrol of similar age which would also have character and be great off-road, but drive far better and not fall apart.
Maybe I just don't 'get' Landrovers.
Both will rot and fall apart.Maybe I just don't 'get' Landrovers.
Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 29th July 01:44
The land rover however can be restored to like new for very little effort/cost and has a massive aftermarket.
There is a reason so many commercial mining operations use land Cruiser or Patrol over land Rover products. As a classic car I can understand the attraction, tinkering etc. But as a commercial vehicle or even private vehicle, I do not get the attraction.
Solution?... put the Japanese oily bits into the Defender frame/body and you have yourself a cockroach
alock said:
FastRich said:
Yep, of course.
I'm not purposefully decreasing the visibility of the cars behind me am I?
As for being a higher crash risk - not really. By using the increased visibility to read the road and back off gently early, I'm causing far less of a crash risk than jamming on the brakes at the last moment. It's called early intervention. Avoiding having to brake heavily at the last minute is far better than actually braking at the last minute. Having increased visibility and therefore increased road reading ability, results in increased early action which reduces the liklihood of having an accident - who'd have thought?
You are purposefully decreasing the visibility of cars behind by buying a vehicle that blocks that visibility.I'm not purposefully decreasing the visibility of the cars behind me am I?
As for being a higher crash risk - not really. By using the increased visibility to read the road and back off gently early, I'm causing far less of a crash risk than jamming on the brakes at the last moment. It's called early intervention. Avoiding having to brake heavily at the last minute is far better than actually braking at the last minute. Having increased visibility and therefore increased road reading ability, results in increased early action which reduces the liklihood of having an accident - who'd have thought?
All the reasons you are giving for why improved visibility is better apply to the driver of the car behind you as well. Buying a vehicle that increases your visibility at the expense of others is selfish.
Regards your second point, that's a tad silly don't you think?
The opposite of what you said is "people who buy small cars such that they can't see over the car in front are stupid and have no care for their own life" which perhaps even you might be able to agree, is utterly ridiculous, nonsensical and totally irrelevant.
Of course, I do understand your point - it can be frustrating being stuck behind a bigger vehicle which obstructs the view ahead but vehicle choice is not the point to attack here, it's driving style. RR's and the like sat out in lane 3, not actually overtaking is probably the single most frustrating thing I come across on the roads. Not the vehicles themselves.
Hungrymc said:
What cars are you advocating then? I'll probably be able to come up with an equally crap way of explaining how your choice is selfish.
And a tip, follow at a safe distance and don't feel you have to follow anything so closely that your visibility compromises your safety.
And a tip, follow at a safe distance and don't feel you have to follow anything so closely that your visibility compromises your safety.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff