A Classic Debate
Discussion
Do you take your car for granted? I do. It’s not really anything special, but it accelerates reasonably briskly, has a top speed well in excess of 130, its warm and dry inside and it brakes and steers how and when I want it to. It’s also reliable and would (I believe) look after me to a certain degree in the event of an accident.
For anyone who drives a car made in the last 20 years or so, this is pretty much the case with any car, irrespective of the manufacturer, but it wasn’t always so.
I started driving in the mid 1980’s. It doesn’t feel that long ago, but in those days, your first car or two would be at least 10 years old, if not older, so my mates and I started our driving career in cars which were new in the early to mid-1970s.
My first car was a white “K” reg (1972, not 1992!) Mini Clubman. In my uneducated 17-year-old eyes, it looked the part, with a ground-scraping front spoiler and one of those black slatted covers on the rear window. It also came with, at no extra cost, collapsed nearside hydrolastic suspension, brakes which needed several firm pumps before they would even begin to start the slowing process, and a manually-switched reversing light which I religiously forgot to switch off every single time I used it.
It also leaked in water. Badly. Oh, and It also had a musical air horn which played “La Cucaracha”.
Barry.
It cost me £350 and probably about the same for my first years TPFT insurance.
It was unbelievably unreliable. Apart from having to bump-start it on almost every occasion I used it (remember the reversing light I always left switched on), it had a dynamo rather than an alternator, so even when it was running, the electric were weaker than my mum’s tea. A previous owner had fitted a tiny air filter which sounded great, but iced up at the first hint of an open throttle on a cold day. The floor was a patchwork quilt of welded patches-on-patches interspersed with holes through which you could clearly see the road. And did I mention the brakes? Drums all round and a very shonky set of brake lines meant that sometimes the brakes were “there” and sometimes they simply were not “there” at all. First press would often push the pedal to the floor and I’d then have to frantically pump the pedal a few times to build up enough pressure in the system for the brakes to work.
Looking back, the combination of that car and a 17-year old Reg was potentially a very serious accident waiting to happen. The fact that the car had some egg-shaped bearings somewhere in the driveline which made such a racket above 50mph (WOWOWOWOWOWOW), that it created an unofficial speed limiter probably helped save me from a fiery death.
But the thing to bear in mind was that this wasn’t unusual in the 1980’s. Most of us started our motoring careers in something similar. My parent’s cars, although a bit newer, were almost equally as shonky – a front nearside hub, complete with wheel and tyre, came off my Mum’s Morris Marina on a roundabout, and my dad spent most weekends patching up his Triumph 1500 with body filler and gun gum.
Compare my experiences with those of my children, all of whom are now starting their driving adventures courtesy of the Reg Local free driving school. Since stepson number 1 got his first car – a non-turbo diesel Peugeot 106 – 8 years ago, none of my children have ever experienced a roadside breakdown. One of them had a flat battery at home, but then had no comprehension whatsoever as to how to bump-start or jump-start the car. There have been a couple of minor bumps, inevitably, but those were down to driver error rather than any kind of mechanical fault with their cars.
I was trying to imagine what it would be like for a new driver from 2014 if they had to drive my 1972 mini clubman. My kids laugh when I tell them what cars used to be like, as though I’m exaggerating & telling a tall dads tale. But in reality, I’m sure they would choose to walk rather than drive my old shed.
The question though, is whether dealing with (and surviving) life with an old shed made me a better driver? The brakes certainly required extremely good forward observations and planning, and there was nothing like ABS, traction or stability control fitted to the car so I had to develop a level of car control. I was also acutely aware that the car would crumple like a crisp-packet if I hit anything more substantial than a small hedge, so the concept of maintaining a zone of relative safety around the car became second nature.
Over the years, I’ve been lucky enough to drive a whole range of classic and vintage cars, and the more I’ve driven them, the more I’ve thought that everyone – particularly relatively new drivers – should run a classic car as a daily driver for a period of time.
I ran a Morris 1000 as a second car in the mid-1990s. Now, this wasn’t a show quality car, but it certainly wasn’t as sheddy as my first Mini, and everything was in perfect mechanical order. I also had access to two vintage cars owned and operated by the police driving school which employed me. A 1922 Bentley 3-litre was the oldest, and the school also owned a 1936 Lagonda 4.5 litre drophead, which had been gifted to the Force when it was new by Lord Cottenham.
The Bentley really took some concentration to drive. Everything you’ve heard about Bentley gearboxes from that era is true, and combined with the centre-throttle and almost non-existent brakes, it was probably the most knackering car I’ve ever driven.
The Lagonda, by comparison, was a real old gent of a car. A smooth straight six engine, a part-synchro gearbox and brakes which almost worked. I had it up to 100mph on the Longton by-pass once, and it felt like it still had some left in reserve.
Driving older cars requires much more effort, but the result is a much greater sense of satisfaction. Cars these days are great, don’t get me wrong – they’re far, far safer than they used to be and require much less effort and concentration to physically “drive”, but I can’t help feeling that, somewhere along the way, some of the actual skill of driving has been lost, together with the ability to carry out basic maintenance and repairs which used to be essential.
Older cars smell different when you first get in – they have a musty, lived in smell which can’t really be described, but smells like the 1950’s. They feel different to sit in – designed before ergonomics and soft-feel plastics had even been dreamed of, the surfaces are often hard and metallic, with any plastic usually being of the brittle Bakelite variety. Steering wheels are large. And very, very thin.
They feel substantially different to drive, too. The driving position will never be ideal in an older car for a start, so you’ll have to compromise by scooching down or sitting on a cushion. Then when you drive them, there is no power assistance – certainly with the steering and often with the brakes. Every input requires a positive, substantial push or pull on the controls when compared with the effortless controls in modern cars.
On the move, the first press of the brakes will remind you how far brakes and tyres have come on in the last few decades, and you’re forced, almost immediately, to re-assess your braking and following distances in traffic.
One of the other things you notice with an older car is the feedback though the wheel, pedals and backside. This is one area where modern cars have definitely not improved and most people who drive a classic for the first time will notice just how much detailed feedback you get from all the cars controls.
Despite the increased weight of the controls, driving a classic also requires far greater delicacy with the controls. Traction control and ABS are generated by the driver’s right foot only. Any loss of grip with the road surface can and must be recognised and controlled solely by the driver. Wipers and lights need to be switched on and off. With a switch.
So what are your thoughts? Have modern cars generally reduced the overall skill levels of normal, everyday drivers? Does experience with a classic (shed or otherwise) make you a better driver? Were you ever subjected to “La Cucaracha” by a spotty 17 year old in a sheddy white mini clubman in Preston in 1986?
For anyone who drives a car made in the last 20 years or so, this is pretty much the case with any car, irrespective of the manufacturer, but it wasn’t always so.
I started driving in the mid 1980’s. It doesn’t feel that long ago, but in those days, your first car or two would be at least 10 years old, if not older, so my mates and I started our driving career in cars which were new in the early to mid-1970s.
My first car was a white “K” reg (1972, not 1992!) Mini Clubman. In my uneducated 17-year-old eyes, it looked the part, with a ground-scraping front spoiler and one of those black slatted covers on the rear window. It also came with, at no extra cost, collapsed nearside hydrolastic suspension, brakes which needed several firm pumps before they would even begin to start the slowing process, and a manually-switched reversing light which I religiously forgot to switch off every single time I used it.
It also leaked in water. Badly. Oh, and It also had a musical air horn which played “La Cucaracha”.
Barry.
It cost me £350 and probably about the same for my first years TPFT insurance.
It was unbelievably unreliable. Apart from having to bump-start it on almost every occasion I used it (remember the reversing light I always left switched on), it had a dynamo rather than an alternator, so even when it was running, the electric were weaker than my mum’s tea. A previous owner had fitted a tiny air filter which sounded great, but iced up at the first hint of an open throttle on a cold day. The floor was a patchwork quilt of welded patches-on-patches interspersed with holes through which you could clearly see the road. And did I mention the brakes? Drums all round and a very shonky set of brake lines meant that sometimes the brakes were “there” and sometimes they simply were not “there” at all. First press would often push the pedal to the floor and I’d then have to frantically pump the pedal a few times to build up enough pressure in the system for the brakes to work.
Looking back, the combination of that car and a 17-year old Reg was potentially a very serious accident waiting to happen. The fact that the car had some egg-shaped bearings somewhere in the driveline which made such a racket above 50mph (WOWOWOWOWOWOW), that it created an unofficial speed limiter probably helped save me from a fiery death.
But the thing to bear in mind was that this wasn’t unusual in the 1980’s. Most of us started our motoring careers in something similar. My parent’s cars, although a bit newer, were almost equally as shonky – a front nearside hub, complete with wheel and tyre, came off my Mum’s Morris Marina on a roundabout, and my dad spent most weekends patching up his Triumph 1500 with body filler and gun gum.
Compare my experiences with those of my children, all of whom are now starting their driving adventures courtesy of the Reg Local free driving school. Since stepson number 1 got his first car – a non-turbo diesel Peugeot 106 – 8 years ago, none of my children have ever experienced a roadside breakdown. One of them had a flat battery at home, but then had no comprehension whatsoever as to how to bump-start or jump-start the car. There have been a couple of minor bumps, inevitably, but those were down to driver error rather than any kind of mechanical fault with their cars.
I was trying to imagine what it would be like for a new driver from 2014 if they had to drive my 1972 mini clubman. My kids laugh when I tell them what cars used to be like, as though I’m exaggerating & telling a tall dads tale. But in reality, I’m sure they would choose to walk rather than drive my old shed.
The question though, is whether dealing with (and surviving) life with an old shed made me a better driver? The brakes certainly required extremely good forward observations and planning, and there was nothing like ABS, traction or stability control fitted to the car so I had to develop a level of car control. I was also acutely aware that the car would crumple like a crisp-packet if I hit anything more substantial than a small hedge, so the concept of maintaining a zone of relative safety around the car became second nature.
Over the years, I’ve been lucky enough to drive a whole range of classic and vintage cars, and the more I’ve driven them, the more I’ve thought that everyone – particularly relatively new drivers – should run a classic car as a daily driver for a period of time.
I ran a Morris 1000 as a second car in the mid-1990s. Now, this wasn’t a show quality car, but it certainly wasn’t as sheddy as my first Mini, and everything was in perfect mechanical order. I also had access to two vintage cars owned and operated by the police driving school which employed me. A 1922 Bentley 3-litre was the oldest, and the school also owned a 1936 Lagonda 4.5 litre drophead, which had been gifted to the Force when it was new by Lord Cottenham.
The Bentley really took some concentration to drive. Everything you’ve heard about Bentley gearboxes from that era is true, and combined with the centre-throttle and almost non-existent brakes, it was probably the most knackering car I’ve ever driven.
The Lagonda, by comparison, was a real old gent of a car. A smooth straight six engine, a part-synchro gearbox and brakes which almost worked. I had it up to 100mph on the Longton by-pass once, and it felt like it still had some left in reserve.
Driving older cars requires much more effort, but the result is a much greater sense of satisfaction. Cars these days are great, don’t get me wrong – they’re far, far safer than they used to be and require much less effort and concentration to physically “drive”, but I can’t help feeling that, somewhere along the way, some of the actual skill of driving has been lost, together with the ability to carry out basic maintenance and repairs which used to be essential.
Older cars smell different when you first get in – they have a musty, lived in smell which can’t really be described, but smells like the 1950’s. They feel different to sit in – designed before ergonomics and soft-feel plastics had even been dreamed of, the surfaces are often hard and metallic, with any plastic usually being of the brittle Bakelite variety. Steering wheels are large. And very, very thin.
They feel substantially different to drive, too. The driving position will never be ideal in an older car for a start, so you’ll have to compromise by scooching down or sitting on a cushion. Then when you drive them, there is no power assistance – certainly with the steering and often with the brakes. Every input requires a positive, substantial push or pull on the controls when compared with the effortless controls in modern cars.
On the move, the first press of the brakes will remind you how far brakes and tyres have come on in the last few decades, and you’re forced, almost immediately, to re-assess your braking and following distances in traffic.
One of the other things you notice with an older car is the feedback though the wheel, pedals and backside. This is one area where modern cars have definitely not improved and most people who drive a classic for the first time will notice just how much detailed feedback you get from all the cars controls.
Despite the increased weight of the controls, driving a classic also requires far greater delicacy with the controls. Traction control and ABS are generated by the driver’s right foot only. Any loss of grip with the road surface can and must be recognised and controlled solely by the driver. Wipers and lights need to be switched on and off. With a switch.
So what are your thoughts? Have modern cars generally reduced the overall skill levels of normal, everyday drivers? Does experience with a classic (shed or otherwise) make you a better driver? Were you ever subjected to “La Cucaracha” by a spotty 17 year old in a sheddy white mini clubman in Preston in 1986?
I think we young'uns are spoilt with new cars and it leads to poor driving, no sense of mechanical sympathy and a general ignorance to mechanical faults.
I'm coming up for 21, have been driving for 4 years.
First car was a 1987 mk2 golf 1.3 carb, it taught me everything i currently know about driving. No abs so braking was thought out a lot more rather than slamming on the anchors. Gearbox was quite stiff so rev matching helped, 55bhp teaches you a lot about joining motorways and overtaking! I drove it though a flooded lane rather quick and the car died, what did i do? Whipped the air filter off and dried it all out with some kitchen towel at the side of the road, it started 5 minutes later and all was well.
Then on the very cold days it took an age to warm up, if you tried to drive it in anything below -2 without a warm up it would die.
Experienced my first real break down on the m5, blue smoke and no power. Nursed it to the next off ramp and coasted into a business park, opened the bonnet to see a burst coolant pipe and knew the HG will have gone with it.
After this i bought a 2003 seat Ibiza, i never broke down, it was full of electric assists and as a result i wasn't as careful at times. Your first few motoring years are were you learn the most, give a young person a new car and they will abuse it and complain when it breaks.
I'm coming up for 21, have been driving for 4 years.
First car was a 1987 mk2 golf 1.3 carb, it taught me everything i currently know about driving. No abs so braking was thought out a lot more rather than slamming on the anchors. Gearbox was quite stiff so rev matching helped, 55bhp teaches you a lot about joining motorways and overtaking! I drove it though a flooded lane rather quick and the car died, what did i do? Whipped the air filter off and dried it all out with some kitchen towel at the side of the road, it started 5 minutes later and all was well.
Then on the very cold days it took an age to warm up, if you tried to drive it in anything below -2 without a warm up it would die.
Experienced my first real break down on the m5, blue smoke and no power. Nursed it to the next off ramp and coasted into a business park, opened the bonnet to see a burst coolant pipe and knew the HG will have gone with it.
After this i bought a 2003 seat Ibiza, i never broke down, it was full of electric assists and as a result i wasn't as careful at times. Your first few motoring years are were you learn the most, give a young person a new car and they will abuse it and complain when it breaks.
Back in 2008 I wrote an article for PH under the heading of "My First Car": http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=164&i=188...
Certainly, there's no doubt that driving an old car - and especially one in the banger category - ensures a degree of mechanical sympathy and a much greater awareness of the basic relationship between the road and car than a modern vehicle gives. The good news was that typically everything happened at much slower speeds so while cars were nowhere near as safe, the accidents were generally slow speed affairs. In a Morris Minor van on 5.20x14 cross ply tyres, oversteer in the wet was a way of life but it all happened at the kind of speed that a lycra clad cyclist would regard as embarrassing. Still, all things are relative and it seemed pretty exciting at the time while car control skills learned at slow speed are readily transferred to more powerful kit. (Mind you, reaction times might have slowed a little...)
With our kids, the first had a Rover 100 as a first car and did thousands of miles in it, including many commutes from Berkshire to university in Edinburgh. No ABS or PAS but really a very reliable car that she loved dearly. Known as Ethel and only sold when the rusty wheel arches became just too bad to bodge any further.
Kid number two had a Ka which, being of the male persuasion, he bent a couple of times, albeit not seriously. I think I appreciated that car more than he did - great steering and handling. However, being something of a petrol head he moved on from the Ka to a 1275 Mini and then an MG Midget so in effect, from his own choice he went down the old banger route and did indeed learn to cope with cars that stopped in the middle of roundabouts (condensor), failed their MOTs (rusty subframe) and just plain refused to start (many and various reasons). Moreover, he seems to have enjoyed the experience, given that he now supplements his Kawasaki Ninja with an old VW camper van. And yes, I do think that driving these older cars has made him a better driver with more mechanical sympathy and a better ability to drive according to the road and traffic conditions (the bike helps there as well).
Fact is, to explore any modern car's performance limits you need to be travelling too fast for most public roads. If you do then lose it, the chances are that you'll not have time to recover and you'll hit whatever is in the way pretty hard. I think I was lucky to have learned car control skills from messing about (including doing road rallies) in low power cars with limited grip. I guess the modern equivalent is track days and both my son and I certainly enjoy doing those from time to time (gives him the chance to thrash my car!).
As a perfect example of how useful "old car skills" can be, at Le Mans for the Classic last month my brother's clutch master cylinder on his MG ZS180 went. With no chance of a replacement in France, he drove it the 500 odd miles home to Huddersfield without the clutch, starting in gear and then changing up and down the box clutchlessly. Not only did that call for great mechanical understanding, he also had to read the road as far ahead as possible to anticipate and smooth out speed changes and, so far as humanly possible, to avoid stopping (tricky going through Rouen and then around the M25). I guess that not many drivers brought up on modern cars could have done that!
Certainly, there's no doubt that driving an old car - and especially one in the banger category - ensures a degree of mechanical sympathy and a much greater awareness of the basic relationship between the road and car than a modern vehicle gives. The good news was that typically everything happened at much slower speeds so while cars were nowhere near as safe, the accidents were generally slow speed affairs. In a Morris Minor van on 5.20x14 cross ply tyres, oversteer in the wet was a way of life but it all happened at the kind of speed that a lycra clad cyclist would regard as embarrassing. Still, all things are relative and it seemed pretty exciting at the time while car control skills learned at slow speed are readily transferred to more powerful kit. (Mind you, reaction times might have slowed a little...)
With our kids, the first had a Rover 100 as a first car and did thousands of miles in it, including many commutes from Berkshire to university in Edinburgh. No ABS or PAS but really a very reliable car that she loved dearly. Known as Ethel and only sold when the rusty wheel arches became just too bad to bodge any further.
Kid number two had a Ka which, being of the male persuasion, he bent a couple of times, albeit not seriously. I think I appreciated that car more than he did - great steering and handling. However, being something of a petrol head he moved on from the Ka to a 1275 Mini and then an MG Midget so in effect, from his own choice he went down the old banger route and did indeed learn to cope with cars that stopped in the middle of roundabouts (condensor), failed their MOTs (rusty subframe) and just plain refused to start (many and various reasons). Moreover, he seems to have enjoyed the experience, given that he now supplements his Kawasaki Ninja with an old VW camper van. And yes, I do think that driving these older cars has made him a better driver with more mechanical sympathy and a better ability to drive according to the road and traffic conditions (the bike helps there as well).
Fact is, to explore any modern car's performance limits you need to be travelling too fast for most public roads. If you do then lose it, the chances are that you'll not have time to recover and you'll hit whatever is in the way pretty hard. I think I was lucky to have learned car control skills from messing about (including doing road rallies) in low power cars with limited grip. I guess the modern equivalent is track days and both my son and I certainly enjoy doing those from time to time (gives him the chance to thrash my car!).
As a perfect example of how useful "old car skills" can be, at Le Mans for the Classic last month my brother's clutch master cylinder on his MG ZS180 went. With no chance of a replacement in France, he drove it the 500 odd miles home to Huddersfield without the clutch, starting in gear and then changing up and down the box clutchlessly. Not only did that call for great mechanical understanding, he also had to read the road as far ahead as possible to anticipate and smooth out speed changes and, so far as humanly possible, to avoid stopping (tricky going through Rouen and then around the M25). I guess that not many drivers brought up on modern cars could have done that!
I learned to drive in my mother's 1954 Series II split screen Moggie convertible.
It just about managed 60mph flat out downhill. Quite terrifying as the brakes were utter s
e
When I had saved enough money to get my own car I acquired a s/h bog standard Mini.
With limited funds I couldn't afford to pay a garage to service the car so it was d-i-y or nothing.
I then got bitten by the motor sport bug and started competing in autocross.
I learned a heck of a lot in relatively short time.
Soon the quest for more power started and I subsequently graduated to road rallying.
The club championship was dominated by a guy who drove an A35 estate!
It took me a while to figure out how. A tuned Sprite motor and tweaked suspension.
Plus a VERY good navigator.
No fancy driver aids whatsoever in any mass market car from that era.
It just about managed 60mph flat out downhill. Quite terrifying as the brakes were utter s
eWhen I had saved enough money to get my own car I acquired a s/h bog standard Mini.
With limited funds I couldn't afford to pay a garage to service the car so it was d-i-y or nothing.
I then got bitten by the motor sport bug and started competing in autocross.
I learned a heck of a lot in relatively short time.
Soon the quest for more power started and I subsequently graduated to road rallying.
The club championship was dominated by a guy who drove an A35 estate!
It took me a while to figure out how. A tuned Sprite motor and tweaked suspension.
Plus a VERY good navigator.
No fancy driver aids whatsoever in any mass market car from that era.
SV8Predator said:
No "fancy" driver aids in any car, mass market or otherwise, in that "era".
ABS, traction control and four wheel drive in a high performance car were introduced at the 1966 Motor show at Earls Court.
ABS, traction control and four wheel drive in a high performance car were introduced at the 1966 Motor show at Earls Court.
in the classic car forum SV8Predator said:
... I've never read such a load of pretentious bo11ocks in many a long day.
...it almost reads as if you have experience and know what you're talking about!
...Please mate, stay over on your little niche "Advanced Driving"
area
Decided to pay us a visit then?...it almost reads as if you have experience and know what you're talking about!
...Please mate, stay over on your little niche "Advanced Driving"
areaCome on in, you're welcome. Make yourself at home.
Choccy biccy?
SV8Predator said:
Red Devil said:
No fancy driver aids whatsoever in any mass market car from that era.
No "fancy" driver aids in any car, mass market or otherwise, in that "era".ABS, traction control and four wheel drive in a high performance car were introduced at the 1966 Motor show at Earls Court.
Read it again - particularly the bit in bold.
What is your point? It's utterly disingenuous of you to insert the words "or otherwise" into what I wrote. I didn't need to look that one up btw. My (older) sister used to date a 'country set' toff* who had a brand new Jensen Interceptor. If you regarded it as a mass market car in 1966, I think we inhabit different universes. There is no way a Jensen could be classed as your average shopping trolley/family day trip to Skegness machine.
* She ended up marrying him but didn't discover his selfishness (and violent streak) until quite some after they had children. You can guess how that turned out.
SV8Predator said:
Red Devil said:
No fancy driver aids whatsoever in any mass market car from that era.
No "fancy" driver aids in any car, mass market or otherwise, in that "era".ABS, traction control and four wheel drive in a high performance car were introduced at the 1966 Motor show at Earls Court.
Incidentally, my uncle had one from new (to follow on from his CV8). He preserved it until he passed away, and his son still has it, just about running, but in a rather poor state. Amazing how much less valuable these cars are now than contemporary Astons, which could be considered much less advanced or special.
BTW, I agree with the poster who pointed out that these were not exactly mass market cars.
Without a doubt modern cars have deskilled drivers - advanced as well as "regular" drivers in my view. I know it to be true because as my cars have got more modern and advanced I have deskilled in some areas. For example:-
Parking sensors - I no longer use the old skills to judge how far away to park. Get in a car without and I am useless. I wasn't. So any new driver starting with sensors will never get that skill.
Traction control - All my cars were front wheel drive and you learned how to apply power with sensitivity and as my cars got more powerful I honed these skills. Then I got TCS and I no longer fear full throttle on a wet road, but I will have lost my touch now after so many years. I now drive a powerful rear wheel drive car - I suspect without modern TCS I'd have had a few tank slappers by now as I never learned any RWD skills as a young driver.
But the bottom line - would I therefore want my kids to go out in cars with no TCS, ABS, stability control, just so they could learn the old way? No I would not!
This is not necessarily a bad thing unless some kind of purist. No one can cadence brake like an ABS equipped car. And top gear proved that the best TCS systems could work on an icy slope that no rally driver could climb. Some technology is better than any driver of any skill can ever hope to better.
Parking sensors - I no longer use the old skills to judge how far away to park. Get in a car without and I am useless. I wasn't. So any new driver starting with sensors will never get that skill.
Traction control - All my cars were front wheel drive and you learned how to apply power with sensitivity and as my cars got more powerful I honed these skills. Then I got TCS and I no longer fear full throttle on a wet road, but I will have lost my touch now after so many years. I now drive a powerful rear wheel drive car - I suspect without modern TCS I'd have had a few tank slappers by now as I never learned any RWD skills as a young driver.
But the bottom line - would I therefore want my kids to go out in cars with no TCS, ABS, stability control, just so they could learn the old way? No I would not!
This is not necessarily a bad thing unless some kind of purist. No one can cadence brake like an ABS equipped car. And top gear proved that the best TCS systems could work on an icy slope that no rally driver could climb. Some technology is better than any driver of any skill can ever hope to better.
Edited by Thirsty33 on Thursday 7th August 00:35
The OP seems to be making a mistaken case that older cars were st compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.It is certainly not the case that all modern cars are capable of well over 130 mph performance for example.While a Mini Clubman was in the lowest of the low class of cars in the day.
In my case my first car was an early 1970's Triumph 2.5 PI in the mid 1970's followed by a mid 1970's BMW 3.0 Si in the early 1980's.Both of which were easily affordable on an average working class wage.The Triumph certainly wasn't one of the quickest in it's class but was still capable of well over 100 mph.While the Rover P6 V8 was capable of 120 mph performance and the BMW was certainly capable of 130 mph + peformance with the typical modern discs all round braking formula.While Jaguar had been providing similar if not even more performance since the 1960's together with even better value for money in the used market.
As for now I'm still using a 1970's design Jaguar with a few modifications which would have been available in the 1980's at least.All of which provide the type of performance which it would probably take something like an E39 BMW M5 to beat if not match.Both of which still needing something better than average to beat them even by present day standards.
The fact is the older cars actually provide/d more performance for less money in real terms in the used market than can be found in today's cars.Especially and at least by the standards of the day.
t compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.It is certainly not the case that all modern cars are capable of well over 130 mph performance for example.While a Mini Clubman was in the lowest of the low class of cars in the day.In my case my first car was an early 1970's Triumph 2.5 PI in the mid 1970's followed by a mid 1970's BMW 3.0 Si in the early 1980's.Both of which were easily affordable on an average working class wage.The Triumph certainly wasn't one of the quickest in it's class but was still capable of well over 100 mph.While the Rover P6 V8 was capable of 120 mph performance and the BMW was certainly capable of 130 mph + peformance with the typical modern discs all round braking formula.While Jaguar had been providing similar if not even more performance since the 1960's together with even better value for money in the used market.
As for now I'm still using a 1970's design Jaguar with a few modifications which would have been available in the 1980's at least.All of which provide the type of performance which it would probably take something like an E39 BMW M5 to beat if not match.Both of which still needing something better than average to beat them even by present day standards.
The fact is the older cars actually provide/d more performance for less money in real terms in the used market than can be found in today's cars.Especially and at least by the standards of the day.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 7th August 04:12
XJ Flyer said:
The OP seems to be making a mistaken case that older cars were st compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.
Could you please point out where in the thread I said that?t compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.XJ Flyer said:
It is certainly not the case that all modern cars are capable of well over 130 mph performance for example.
Or that?I love older cars, but the point of the thread was that they require a greater level of driver skill than modern cars, despite the fact that average everyday modern cars are much faster than average everyday cars from my early driving days.
Interesting, I am not sure that older cars require more skill than modern, but then as my first car was 1979 Escort held together with filler that rarely started if it was wet I am not the person to judge.
I currently own a modern fast car and a couple of 80s classic sports cars, one of which has no power steering, no ABS, RWD with a massive rearward weight bias and the need to actually use ones leg muscles to use the brakes. I don't think that any one car requires more skill than the other, the ABS or TCS systems are rarely activated on the modern car and the older cars haven't done anything scary. You do have to learn to "drive" them and they require more effort to drive fast, which is ultimately more rewarding than just pressing the loud pedal and holding on.
I suspect that someone who has learnt to drive in modern nannying machinery might have a different opinion about how much extra skill is needed to drive older cars. In reality they skill set is just different, you have to place your trust in the tech rather than purely on judgement. I just can't trust those parking radar systems, especially when they going into red alert mode when driving on country roads in the dark.
I currently own a modern fast car and a couple of 80s classic sports cars, one of which has no power steering, no ABS, RWD with a massive rearward weight bias and the need to actually use ones leg muscles to use the brakes. I don't think that any one car requires more skill than the other, the ABS or TCS systems are rarely activated on the modern car and the older cars haven't done anything scary. You do have to learn to "drive" them and they require more effort to drive fast, which is ultimately more rewarding than just pressing the loud pedal and holding on.
I suspect that someone who has learnt to drive in modern nannying machinery might have a different opinion about how much extra skill is needed to drive older cars. In reality they skill set is just different, you have to place your trust in the tech rather than purely on judgement. I just can't trust those parking radar systems, especially when they going into red alert mode when driving on country roads in the dark.
R_U_LOCAL said:
XJ Flyer said:
The OP seems to be making a mistaken case that older cars were st compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.
Could you please point out where in the thread I said that?t compared to later ones based on some stereotypical and selective comparisons.XJ Flyer said:
It is certainly not the case that all modern cars are capable of well over 130 mph performance for example.
Or that?I love older cars, but the point of the thread was that they require a greater level of driver skill than modern cars, despite the fact that average everyday modern cars are much faster than average everyday cars from my early driving days.
If I read it right you said that you're now driving something which can run at 'well in excess of 130' and that is the case for 'any' car made in the last 20 years or so ?.
As I said technology has moved on but things like ABS and traction control etc are no replacement for less actual ultimate levels of stopping power,traction and grip.IE a good old car can still stop and get off the line better than an ABS or traction control equipped one with less ultimate capability in that regard.By that comparison my old RWD Jag with 235 tyres and big racing brakes actually stops better and gets off the line better than the Zafira daily driver.
Therefore the old classic v new modern debate is often more a case of what is being compared with what rather than just a blanket stereotype that can sometimes exaggerate the benefits of that obvious technology advance.In which case a knackered early 1970's Mini being used in the 1980's is the last thing to base such a comparison on.
As I said that comparison would have looked ( a lot ) different 'if' it had been based on that mid 1970's BMW 3.0 Si for example with it's 130 mph + performance and reasonable braking to match.Which considering the price even in the 1980's showed what just an extra £600 bought over that £350 spent on the Mini in the case of my old BMW.Let alone just an extra £200 in the case of my Triumph back in the day.Therefore the most surprising thing in the post was how much was paid for that knackered old Mini in the day !.
But XJ, he wasn't talking about the cars and their capabilities, he was discussing the skills needed to drive one. Not stated, but implied perhaps, along the same section of road at the same speed.
Perhaps the skills should be the same, because without them you are as likely to crash in either, but I think it's hard to argue that the average modern car isn't easier to drive than one 20 years old. This is because the mass market is driven by lazy people not really interested in driving. So manufacturers have a vested interest in making things as easy as possible. Now I think most would agree that is one thing is easier than another the former needs less skill than the latter.
That is not to say that young drivers cannot become very skilled and safe in a modern car. This should not be about old buffers crying about how the youth have it so easy......... But I think they need less mechanical skills, but arguably more brain skills and certainly more self control to avoid distractions in the cossetted world of the modern car.
Perhaps the skills should be the same, because without them you are as likely to crash in either, but I think it's hard to argue that the average modern car isn't easier to drive than one 20 years old. This is because the mass market is driven by lazy people not really interested in driving. So manufacturers have a vested interest in making things as easy as possible. Now I think most would agree that is one thing is easier than another the former needs less skill than the latter.
That is not to say that young drivers cannot become very skilled and safe in a modern car. This should not be about old buffers crying about how the youth have it so easy......... But I think they need less mechanical skills, but arguably more brain skills and certainly more self control to avoid distractions in the cossetted world of the modern car.
Thirsty33 said:
But XJ, he wasn't talking about the cars and their capabilities, he was discussing the skills needed to drive one. Not stated, but implied perhaps, along the same section of road at the same speed.
Perhaps the skills should be the same, because without them you are as likely to crash in either, but I think it's hard to argue that the average modern car isn't easier to drive than one 20 years old. This is because the mass market is driven by lazy people not really interested in driving. So manufacturers have a vested interest in making things as easy as possible. Now I think most would agree that is one thing is easier than another the former needs less skill than the latter.
That is not to say that young drivers cannot become very skilled and safe in a modern car. This should not be about old buffers crying about how the youth have it so easy......... But I think they need less mechanical skills,
I can only say that comparing the experience between the 1970's BMW 3.0 Litre which I drove during the 1980's or the type of 1980's ( 70's designed ) Jaguar I drove since the late 1980's and still drive today,as opposed to the modern Zafira daily driver.Both the BMW and the Jag were/are very civilised comfortable and easy cars to drive at least as easy as the Zafira.Both had/have good power steering and braking ( very good braking in the case of the Jag's non standard set up ).Perhaps the skills should be the same, because without them you are as likely to crash in either, but I think it's hard to argue that the average modern car isn't easier to drive than one 20 years old. This is because the mass market is driven by lazy people not really interested in driving. So manufacturers have a vested interest in making things as easy as possible. Now I think most would agree that is one thing is easier than another the former needs less skill than the latter.
That is not to say that young drivers cannot become very skilled and safe in a modern car. This should not be about old buffers crying about how the youth have it so easy......... But I think they need less mechanical skills,
While in general driver aids like Traction control and ABS are only there to help to stop drivers exceeding the capabilities of the car not to increase those capabilities.Which is a seperate but really irrelevant issue in the case of comparing the driving experience of older cars with newer ones.As I've said in many cases the differences are exaggerated often on the basis of comparing the worst of the older car scenarios.
Interesting perspectives since I've alternated between the modern, old and just plain rubbish in my car career so far.
My first was a Hyundai Sonata of 1994 vintage - 2 litre NA four, no ABS, no traction control, but a decent-enough steer if shonky electrics. Power steering was the only 'modern' assistant. So had to be handy with the electrical tape and re-routing wires. Also done all maintenance on this myself, including new discs and pads not long after I bought it. Unfortunately a harsh winter and alternator failure "killed" it, I was unwilling to sink half the price I paid for the car into a repair. Silly really. On the other hand, despite learning in a Focus with all the safety gubbins, I was determined to get a non-ABS/TC car in order to a) teach myself car control without electronic aids and b) know not to push it since I had nothing there to save me if I overcooked it (nearly did anyway and overshot a junction after approaching far too quickly).
Then a Pug 607 - into the 21st century here, ABS, traction control, no stability aids. Acquired taste but I liked them.
Then a Volvo S80 with everything you can imagine on it, which was then given to the wife when her Clio (Mk I facelift, PAS/ABS only) blew up.
Funnily enough, I went straight out of left-field for a station car and bought a Ford Sierra. Back to no gubbins (apart from power steering again, was a late model), on to rear-wheel drive. Nice drive that, was forced to get rid by the wife after spinning it at speed on the motorway in snow and ice after the trains stopped working. Driver error and a tank-slapper to blame (but still saved it from the ignominy of the central reservation), but it was a car that gave you the confidence to push on winter tyres. Lots of oversteery fun too if a little difficult to provoke where it was safe.
Now I've got nothing old in the garage, with a modern supermini and a Volvo estate. I like electronic aids as a backup but don't use them as a crutch. If they're activated, then I've done something wrong is the way I see it and I'm lucky that they could save me on that occasion. First chance I get though I'm putting a Saab 900 OG in there (preferably an Aero T16, if I can find a decent/restorable Carlsson back home I might just ship it back from Tilbury, but need to have some spare cash first!), but with the later models they had at least PAS and ABS as standard.
My first was a Hyundai Sonata of 1994 vintage - 2 litre NA four, no ABS, no traction control, but a decent-enough steer if shonky electrics. Power steering was the only 'modern' assistant. So had to be handy with the electrical tape and re-routing wires. Also done all maintenance on this myself, including new discs and pads not long after I bought it. Unfortunately a harsh winter and alternator failure "killed" it, I was unwilling to sink half the price I paid for the car into a repair. Silly really. On the other hand, despite learning in a Focus with all the safety gubbins, I was determined to get a non-ABS/TC car in order to a) teach myself car control without electronic aids and b) know not to push it since I had nothing there to save me if I overcooked it (nearly did anyway and overshot a junction after approaching far too quickly).
Then a Pug 607 - into the 21st century here, ABS, traction control, no stability aids. Acquired taste but I liked them.
Then a Volvo S80 with everything you can imagine on it, which was then given to the wife when her Clio (Mk I facelift, PAS/ABS only) blew up.
Funnily enough, I went straight out of left-field for a station car and bought a Ford Sierra. Back to no gubbins (apart from power steering again, was a late model), on to rear-wheel drive. Nice drive that, was forced to get rid by the wife after spinning it at speed on the motorway in snow and ice after the trains stopped working. Driver error and a tank-slapper to blame (but still saved it from the ignominy of the central reservation), but it was a car that gave you the confidence to push on winter tyres. Lots of oversteery fun too if a little difficult to provoke where it was safe.
Now I've got nothing old in the garage, with a modern supermini and a Volvo estate. I like electronic aids as a backup but don't use them as a crutch. If they're activated, then I've done something wrong is the way I see it and I'm lucky that they could save me on that occasion. First chance I get though I'm putting a Saab 900 OG in there (preferably an Aero T16, if I can find a decent/restorable Carlsson back home I might just ship it back from Tilbury, but need to have some spare cash first!), but with the later models they had at least PAS and ABS as standard.
My first little car was a Hillman Imp.
Cheap to run, problem with overheating do.Modern cars are faster more safety features and more complex.I used to enjoy working on the few VW Beetles I drove.Settin the tappets points and plugs,oil change was easy to work on.Mine did over 150000 miles on a small 1200cc Engine.
I had change to buy a 2CV the ugly Duck.I didn't always regret it a car with character.>
Cheap to run, problem with overheating do.Modern cars are faster more safety features and more complex.I used to enjoy working on the few VW Beetles I drove.Settin the tappets points and plugs,oil change was easy to work on.Mine did over 150000 miles on a small 1200cc Engine.
I had change to buy a 2CV the ugly Duck.I didn't always regret it a car with character.>
Until I re-modernized (with a '96 Pug estate) last year, my and my partner's daily transport were 1970s Dafs. Mine was a 746cc, 30BHP, Daf 32 from 1966 with non-servo drums all round and the front crumple zone is your face.
Hers still is a 66 coupe (1300cc, 59BHP, no power steering but does have servo to the front disks (non-servo drums at the rear). We also still have a '72 33 (a 32 with an extra 2BHP) which is currently off road until I get around to sill replacement. That was her first car after she passed her test (in a modern Colt diesel) and she far preferred the "in touch" driving experience of the Daf.
All 3 would happily give over 90% braking efficiency, which is pretty well the limit of most road tyres, so (for practical purposes) both would stop just as well as any modern car. All 3 would lock all 4r wheels if you wanted, so the tyres are the limit rather than the brakes themselves.
The two differences were that (a) they would't do that repeatedly, so you learn to use them when needed, and (b) the pressure you have to put on the pedal is actually proportional to how hard you want to stop. That means, if you get into an emergency stop situation, you really need to push the pedal that tends to stop you getting in that situation in the first place.
The only real technical "improvements" in pure stopping power in all that time is to do with heat dissipation (which is the advantage of disks over drums) and non-proportional servos that modify the "feel" of the pedal to make them appear sharper in use.
All 3 have sat happily at 70(ish) on motorways for 300+ mile drives in modern traffic - although the 32 wasn't all that happy over about 65 for long periods - and we've even used the 33 to tow a trailer loaded to 250kg from Anglesey to the New Forest and back, detouring to Colchester via the M25 on the way home.
Visibility is excellent in all of them because the roof pillars are upright, collapsible, matchsticks and there are no headrests to get in the way. The lack of creature comforts actually help keep you awake, and you han hear, smell or feel everything that's going on. Any breakdowns are unlikely to need a tow truck.
I've had moderns in the past but found them soul-less, boring, and ultimately bad for my driving standards. Switching back to oldies for a few years was probably one of the best driving decisions I ever made!
Hers still is a 66 coupe (1300cc, 59BHP, no power steering but does have servo to the front disks (non-servo drums at the rear). We also still have a '72 33 (a 32 with an extra 2BHP) which is currently off road until I get around to sill replacement. That was her first car after she passed her test (in a modern Colt diesel) and she far preferred the "in touch" driving experience of the Daf.
All 3 would happily give over 90% braking efficiency, which is pretty well the limit of most road tyres, so (for practical purposes) both would stop just as well as any modern car. All 3 would lock all 4r wheels if you wanted, so the tyres are the limit rather than the brakes themselves.
The two differences were that (a) they would't do that repeatedly, so you learn to use them when needed, and (b) the pressure you have to put on the pedal is actually proportional to how hard you want to stop. That means, if you get into an emergency stop situation, you really need to push the pedal that tends to stop you getting in that situation in the first place.
The only real technical "improvements" in pure stopping power in all that time is to do with heat dissipation (which is the advantage of disks over drums) and non-proportional servos that modify the "feel" of the pedal to make them appear sharper in use.
All 3 have sat happily at 70(ish) on motorways for 300+ mile drives in modern traffic - although the 32 wasn't all that happy over about 65 for long periods - and we've even used the 33 to tow a trailer loaded to 250kg from Anglesey to the New Forest and back, detouring to Colchester via the M25 on the way home.
Visibility is excellent in all of them because the roof pillars are upright, collapsible, matchsticks and there are no headrests to get in the way. The lack of creature comforts actually help keep you awake, and you han hear, smell or feel everything that's going on. Any breakdowns are unlikely to need a tow truck.
I've had moderns in the past but found them soul-less, boring, and ultimately bad for my driving standards. Switching back to oldies for a few years was probably one of the best driving decisions I ever made!
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff