Classics dwarfed by moderns
Discussion
a8hex said:
I'm looking to get my youngest a VW Up! as a first car and one of my nephews sent me a link to a PH review of the up coming Up! GTI where they compare it to the original Golf GTI, we tend to view the Up! as being tiny these days, well it's wider, taller, has a longer wheel base and heavier than a Mk1 Golf. These days a Golf is several cars up VW's range from the entry level model. No wonder we were pleasantly surprised at how spacious it was in the back
How's this for a fact then (something I learnt on PH last week): The Ferrari Daytona has a shorter wheelbase than the VW Up!2420 mm (Up! vs 2400 (Daytona). Quite incredible
Whitean3 said:
a8hex said:
I'm looking to get my youngest a VW Up! as a first car and one of my nephews sent me a link to a PH review of the up coming Up! GTI where they compare it to the original Golf GTI, we tend to view the Up! as being tiny these days, well it's wider, taller, has a longer wheel base and heavier than a Mk1 Golf. These days a Golf is several cars up VW's range from the entry level model. No wonder we were pleasantly surprised at how spacious it was in the back
How's this for a fact then (something I learnt on PH last week): The Ferrari Daytona has a shorter wheelbase than the VW Up!2420 mm (Up! vs 2400 (Daytona). Quite incredible
The Up! is a lot shorter overall, 3540 against 4425, so shorter by a yard and so I guess it has lower polar moments of inertia. I'm pleasantly surprised at how much fun it is to pootle around in locally. The word nimble seems to spring to mind.
AstonZagato said:
They certainly have
They haven’t got that much bigger really, have they?The older car is 300mm shorter, 100mm narrower and about 25mm lower. To be fair the old car is smaller, but hardly dwarfed.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to;
“Cars in the background of pictures look smaller to those in the foreground. This is mainly due to perspective, but also linked to the small but noticeable increase in overall vehicle dimensions over a couple of decades”
Admittedly it’s not as catchy though.
Yes, there is an element of Father Ted but I was genuinely quite struck by how small the P38 looked in real life compared to the L405. When I owned a P38, I thought it was huge.
At this end of the market, I guess there is less pressure to increase in size - small hatchbacks need to pass crash regs etc which add bulk. I suppose the pressure is upward - Evoque is the bottom end of the possibility for the Velar size, Velar size dictates the Range Rover Sport Size, RRS puts upward pressure on the full fat Range Rover.
At this end of the market, I guess there is less pressure to increase in size - small hatchbacks need to pass crash regs etc which add bulk. I suppose the pressure is upward - Evoque is the bottom end of the possibility for the Velar size, Velar size dictates the Range Rover Sport Size, RRS puts upward pressure on the full fat Range Rover.
robemcdonald said:
They haven’t got that much bigger really, have they?
The older car is 300mm shorter, 100mm narrower and about 25mm lower. To be fair the old car is smaller, but hardly dwarfed.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to;
“Cars in the background of pictures look smaller to those in the foreground. This is mainly due to perspective, but also linked to the small but noticeable increase in overall vehicle dimensions over a couple of decades”
Admittedly it’s not as catchy though.
There's no fun in that though, is there? The older car is 300mm shorter, 100mm narrower and about 25mm lower. To be fair the old car is smaller, but hardly dwarfed.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to;
“Cars in the background of pictures look smaller to those in the foreground. This is mainly due to perspective, but also linked to the small but noticeable increase in overall vehicle dimensions over a couple of decades”
Admittedly it’s not as catchy though.
Here's another one for perspective.
Same car, one with lowered suspension.
robemcdonald said:
AstonZagato said:
They certainly have
They haven’t got that much bigger really, have they?The older car is 300mm shorter, 100mm narrower and about 25mm lower. To be fair the old car is smaller, but hardly dwarfed.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to;
“Cars in the background of pictures look smaller to those in the foreground. This is mainly due to perspective, but also linked to the small but noticeable increase in overall vehicle dimensions over a couple of decades”
Admittedly it’s not as catchy though.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff