RE: Ferrari Portofino: Driven
Discussion
Probably the Ford F-150 article. Proper mess of words that one!
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/ford-f-...
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/ford-f-...
Gameface said:
What was the other one out of interest? I don't read them all.
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/ford-f-150-raptor-driven/37528Follows the usual template, but I haven't read his earlier offering of the Megane RS - although there's little hope of it being slightly closer to expectations, as his non-driven articles are in the same vein.
ReverendCounter said:
Gameface said:
What was the other one out of interest? I don't read them all.
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/ford-f-150-raptor-driven/37528Follows the usual template, but I haven't read his earlier offering of the Megane RS - although there's little hope of it being slightly closer to expectations, as his non-driven articles are in the same vein.
- Plainly the Raptor's iteration, mated to a ten-speed auto and variably driving all four wheels, is in a much lowlier state of tune, but forced induction still ensures that it modestly outboxes its larger predecessor, and the switch from a steel body to an aluminium one means that there's over 200kg less kerb weight to shift.
Dan Trent said:
HeMightBeBanned said:
Come back Dan Trent. All is forgiven.
Forgiven? What did I do?!Dan
FWIW - I find Hackett Cackett's articles mostly unreadable. Not because I am incapable if reading the words, but because I find the prose utterly hideous. Hyperbole or long-winded or whatever you want to call it, his articles just do not sit well with me. I gave up on this one after a few paragraphs...should have known who the author was without looking.
Definitely being paid by the word.
suffolk009 said:
andy43 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
article said:
Its follow-up is much more comely,....
....For the Portofino, the engineers have again delved into the details; chiefly to chivvy at the passage of air through the engine....
... it gurgles a little too gassily and wants for the seamlessness....
... In Sport mode, with the paddles in play, the gear ratios suddenly shunt together with heft and speed, complimenting an engine that never demeans itself with too much linearity or mid-range paunch, but instead revs progressively and impeccably - and perhaps a little more vigorously than its forbear...
...The net effect is not unlike the inability of the drivetrain to make peaceable, blameless progress; Ferrari's persistence with a taut and edgy handling character ultimately handicapping fulfilment of the brief at the opposite end of the scale. Of course that rather makes the car sound like a chip off the old block: neither one thing or the other, doomed by a mandate just broad enough for Maranello to fail to wrap its collective head around...
I can just hear the gentle rhythmic thud of derestrictor's head on a wall somewhere.......For the Portofino, the engineers have again delved into the details; chiefly to chivvy at the passage of air through the engine....
... it gurgles a little too gassily and wants for the seamlessness....
... In Sport mode, with the paddles in play, the gear ratios suddenly shunt together with heft and speed, complimenting an engine that never demeans itself with too much linearity or mid-range paunch, but instead revs progressively and impeccably - and perhaps a little more vigorously than its forbear...
...The net effect is not unlike the inability of the drivetrain to make peaceable, blameless progress; Ferrari's persistence with a taut and edgy handling character ultimately handicapping fulfilment of the brief at the opposite end of the scale. Of course that rather makes the car sound like a chip off the old block: neither one thing or the other, doomed by a mandate just broad enough for Maranello to fail to wrap its collective head around...
FWIW, I really like the author's style - not too far off a combination of the best bits from James May (when he used to predominantly write) and Anthony fFrench-Constant.
It's a shame that many here can't cope with a professionally-written article that's written specifically to entertain those who consume free content, but with refreshingly complex prose.
Perhaps Nic could spoon-feed the content for this audience, by also writing a summary of the article with sentences of no more than six monosyllabic words, then summarise it to 140 characters and tweet it to that esteemed audience. Something like: "not a GT, not a sports car. Nicely done but roof too slow"
SpeckledJim said:
F150 article, but F350-sized sentences!
Try making your way through this:"The follow-up - only the fourth engine ever built by Lamborghini - is a fitting baton-carrier for its unapologetic, stand-back ethos. It's lighter and more sophisticated than its predecessor of course, but its vast proportions and naturally-aspirated grandeur remain inimitable. In many ways it is no less fantastical than the body draped on top of it - and that's the ratio you rather hope to locate at the nucleus of any car commanding 'hyper' status. In fact, for a good time, the pairing of power plant and power chord looks was the definitive reason to buy: the Aventador being savagely fast on its all-wheel-drive chassis, but bereft of anything you might call deftness."
Three sentences of largely nothing.
sideways sid said:
Looks like a great car - notwithstanding slight identity crisis - and one that will sell well.
FWIW, I really like the author's style - not too far off a combination of the best bits from James May (when he used to predominantly write) and Anthony fFrench-Constant.
It's a shame that many here can't cope with a professionally-written article that's written specifically to entertain those who consume free content, but with refreshingly complex prose.
Perhaps Nic could spoon-feed the content for this audience, by also writing a summary of the article with sentences of no more than six monosyllabic words, then summarise it to 140 characters and tweet it to that esteemed audience. Something like: "not a GT, not a sports car. Nicely done but roof too slow"
We each have our own preference, but in this case I think the author confuses 'complex prose' with 'using lots of words'. One does not equal the other.FWIW, I really like the author's style - not too far off a combination of the best bits from James May (when he used to predominantly write) and Anthony fFrench-Constant.
It's a shame that many here can't cope with a professionally-written article that's written specifically to entertain those who consume free content, but with refreshingly complex prose.
Perhaps Nic could spoon-feed the content for this audience, by also writing a summary of the article with sentences of no more than six monosyllabic words, then summarise it to 140 characters and tweet it to that esteemed audience. Something like: "not a GT, not a sports car. Nicely done but roof too slow"
ReverendCounter said:
sideways sid said:
....It's a shame that many here can't cope ... spoon-feed the content for this audience .. summarise it ... tweet it ...
And there we go - those who have an issue with the writer's style are knuckle dragging moroonz with short attention spans!Surely the opposite is true.
To recognise the overexuberance of Cackett, you must first understand well structured writing.
PhantomPH said:
You left us - that's what! The heartache is not fully healed, but it's eased enough for us to forgive you that initial trauma!
FWIW - I find Hackett Cackett's articles mostly unreadable. Not because I am incapable if reading the words, but because I find the prose utterly hideous. Hyperbole or long-winded or whatever you want to call it, his articles just do not sit well with me. I gave up on this one after a few paragraphs...should have known who the author was without looking.
Definitely being paid by the word.
Well, it was probably time to let someone else have a go, though it was fun while it lasted. FWIW - I find Hackett Cackett's articles mostly unreadable. Not because I am incapable if reading the words, but because I find the prose utterly hideous. Hyperbole or long-winded or whatever you want to call it, his articles just do not sit well with me. I gave up on this one after a few paragraphs...should have known who the author was without looking.
Definitely being paid by the word.
And Nic, Matt and the rest of the guys are doing a great job. For what it's worth I enjoy Nic's writing too - it's nice to have someone with a bit of creativity and imagination standing out from the often formulaic stuff you see elsewhere.
We all live under the shadow of Queef though. He's a brilliant parody and Porter's genius is to do a better job when taking the piss than most of us can dream of doing when being serious. The unintended consequence of Queef is, however, that too many fear comparison and end up playing it very safe, resulting in an awful lot of dull, by the numbers writing. To Nic's credit he lets rip and has some fun with the genre, though I realise it won't always be to all tastes. I think we could all do with unleashing a little of the inner Queef though. I'll take a bit of passion and being entertained over plodding methodically through stats, forensic dissection of the spec levels and how much bigger/smaller the boot capacity is compared with the previous version.
Now, please excuse me. The asphalt is calling.
Dan
E65Ross said:
TWPC said:
Looks similar to a C7 Corvette to me.
front engined RWD 2+2 sports car looks similar to another front engined RWD 2+2 sports car surprise. When you actually look at them closely the differences are most certainly there.The most telling thing though, if you parked both side by side, would someone confuse the corvette for the Ferrari. I doubt it.
Even if it is in the same colour
The C7 Corvette weighs less than the newly-launched Portofino. The C7 is also shorter in length and more narrow. In what must rank as one of the best values in automotive history, the C7 is priced at about 25 percent of the Portofino.
Below: "naked" view of the two-seat C7 Corvette chassis
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff