Car trends that you hope die
Discussion
cmvtec said:
Black wheels.
Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
Agree - although is this included?Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
AppleJuice said:
cmvtec said:
Black wheels.
Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
Agree - although is this included?Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
cmvtec said:
Black wheels.
Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
I agree and I have black wheels at the moment, the problem with them is that they hide all the detailing of the wheel, and also they tend to look smaller than they actually are. Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
A nice alloy wheel can help make a car in terms of looks for me, and black ones pretty much ruin them, the only slight positive with darker wheels is that they don't look quiet as grubby as normal ones when dirty.
cerb4.5lee said:
I agree and I have black wheels at the moment, the problem with them is that they hide all the detailing of the wheel, and also they tend to look smaller than they actually are.
A nice alloy wheel can help make a car in terms of looks for me, and black ones pretty much ruin them, the only slight positive with darker wheels is that they don't look quiet as grubby as normal ones when dirty.
Filth whispers...A nice alloy wheel can help make a car in terms of looks for me, and black ones pretty much ruin them, the only slight positive with darker wheels is that they don't look quiet as grubby as normal ones when dirty.
Mr2Mike said:
Weight doesnt help in a crash, its just more energy to be absorbed. Crumple zones and a rigid passenger cell are needed, and they can be done without the obesity of new cars.
Indeed:AppleJuice said:
Is it really the case that a car made within the last ~20 years is safer than a car from 30-40+ years ago because it's larger? I don't think so; sure, this is just one (I am open to it being labelled as s
e) example, but it highlights my point:
Rover P5 3.0 Litre (Series I) (1958)
Length: 4737 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1530 mm
Weight: 1613 kg
Rover R40 2.5 Litre (1998)
Length: 4747 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1424 mm
Weight: 1425 kg
Statistics: Carfolio
The R40 is near as makes no difference (height aside) the same size as the P5, yet - due to (obvious) advancements in construction and CAD during the design process - it is safer. Under the old Euro NCAP programme it would have scored 5 stars if curtain airbags had been standard rather than on the options list - as a result it only recieved 4 stars (higher than the E60 on its first run).
If (a properly funded) Rover could make a car the size of its grandfather (and a mite smaller than an E39) safe enough for someone to have a head-on collision at 60 km/h/40 mph and walk away in 1997 (tested in 2001), why is it so difficult for everyone else to make a sensibly proportioned car today? A G30's length is knocking on the door of the E38 (4936 mm > 4984 mm) for God's sake.
e) example, but it highlights my point:Rover P5 3.0 Litre (Series I) (1958)
Length: 4737 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1530 mm
Weight: 1613 kg
Rover R40 2.5 Litre (1998)
Length: 4747 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1424 mm
Weight: 1425 kg
Statistics: Carfolio
The R40 is near as makes no difference (height aside) the same size as the P5, yet - due to (obvious) advancements in construction and CAD during the design process - it is safer. Under the old Euro NCAP programme it would have scored 5 stars if curtain airbags had been standard rather than on the options list - as a result it only recieved 4 stars (higher than the E60 on its first run).
If (a properly funded) Rover could make a car the size of its grandfather (and a mite smaller than an E39) safe enough for someone to have a head-on collision at 60 km/h/40 mph and walk away in 1997 (tested in 2001), why is it so difficult for everyone else to make a sensibly proportioned car today? A G30's length is knocking on the door of the E38 (4936 mm > 4984 mm) for God's sake.
AppleJuice said:
Mr2Mike said:
Weight doesnt help in a crash, its just more energy to be absorbed. Crumple zones and a rigid passenger cell are needed, and they can be done without the obesity of new cars.
Indeed:AppleJuice said:
Is it really the case that a car made within the last ~20 years is safer than a car from 30-40+ years ago because it's larger? I don't think so; sure, this is just one (I am open to it being labelled as se) example, but it highlights my point:
Rover P5 3.0 Litre (Series I) (1958)
Length: 4737 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1530 mm
Weight: 1613 kg
Rover R40 2.5 Litre (1998)
Length: 4747 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1424 mm
Weight: 1425 kg
Statistics: Carfolio
The R40 is near as makes no difference (height aside) the same size as the P5, yet - due to (obvious) advancements in construction and CAD during the design process - it is safer. Under the old Euro NCAP programme it would have scored 5 stars if curtain airbags had been standard rather than on the options list - as a result it only recieved 4 stars (higher than the E60 on its first run).
If (a properly funded) Rover could make a car the size of its grandfather (and a mite smaller than an E39) safe enough for someone to have a head-on collision at 60 km/h/40 mph and walk away in 1997 (tested in 2001), why is it so difficult for everyone else to make a sensibly proportioned car today? A G30's length is knocking on the door of the E38 (4936 mm > 4984 mm) for God's sake.
e) example, but it highlights my point:Rover P5 3.0 Litre (Series I) (1958)
Length: 4737 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1530 mm
Weight: 1613 kg
Rover R40 2.5 Litre (1998)
Length: 4747 mm
Width: 1778 mm
Height: 1424 mm
Weight: 1425 kg
Statistics: Carfolio
The R40 is near as makes no difference (height aside) the same size as the P5, yet - due to (obvious) advancements in construction and CAD during the design process - it is safer. Under the old Euro NCAP programme it would have scored 5 stars if curtain airbags had been standard rather than on the options list - as a result it only recieved 4 stars (higher than the E60 on its first run).
If (a properly funded) Rover could make a car the size of its grandfather (and a mite smaller than an E39) safe enough for someone to have a head-on collision at 60 km/h/40 mph and walk away in 1997 (tested in 2001), why is it so difficult for everyone else to make a sensibly proportioned car today? A G30's length is knocking on the door of the E38 (4936 mm > 4984 mm) for God's sake.
DoubleD said:
You should get a job working in the car industry then. They spend millions trying to keep the weight of new cars down, they should just ask you how to do it.
Read my post again; I'm supporting Mr2Mike's point:Mr2Mike said:
Crumple zones and a rigid passenger cell are needed, and they can be done without the obesity of new cars
I've made the typeface bold at the specific point of which I am supporting. Some may think that I'm using an extreme example (40 years apart) and yet it is nearly half of that timeframe since the newer of the two cars was launched - have advances in engineering and materials ensured that, despite evermore safety equipment, cars are as light as those 40 years ago, if not lighter?My example shows two cars (from the same manufacturer) of pretty much the same size and 40 years apart, yet the newer car with its (weight-increasing) safety systems and crash structure is nearly 190 kg lighter. Both are monocoque designs constructed out of steel.
If that could be done in 1993-1998 (the 75's development period) with CAD software of the time - which is probably a little dated now - then with more up-to-date CAD tools could today's engineers do something similar, if not better?
PS Is your post constructive towards this thread or does it detract from it?
Edited by AppleJuice on Wednesday 29th November 15:46
Edited by AppleJuice on Wednesday 29th November 15:57
anonymous said:
[redacted]
?I've owned nearly every brand on your list. When they ask you and you say you own a Jaguar, the responses are clearly more of a "wow, rich guy".The fact is that you can buy a sub 25k merc/vag/bmw, but not a Jag.
Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 29th November 19:10
talksthetorque said:
Yes they do, That's exactly what they do.Are you TarpaTow's Considerably Richer cousin?
I'm just saying that by the general public, in my experience, people respond to "owning a jaguar" a lot different than a BMW or Merc.
ZesPak said:
AppleJuice said:
cmvtec said:
Black wheels.
Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
Agree - although is this included?Every time I see a car with black alloys, it reminds me of the MG TF which had a black non-directional spare wheel to differentiate it from the directional road wheels.
They look gash on most cars, specifically dark blue ones.
I think they look fairly mediocre on most cooking model cars, and they indicate something about the driver's demographic on "premium" cars.
Lance Catamaran said:
Sporty, i.e. rock hard, suspension. Just what you want if you're driving an Elise around Castle Coombe, less so when it's a Mondeo along a pot holed b-road
Elises are softly sprung and roll quite a bit. Elise has both ride and handling whereas the mondeo has neither Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff