RE: Prior Convictions: Back to the Future
Discussion
rudecherub said:
Niche marketing is great. If not for niche marketing we'd all be driving black Model Ts
The biggest niche in the Classic Car market has always been looks - retro-cool; design aesthetics.
Arguably the prettiest cars of all time were almost all designed in few years during the 60s.
The biggest bone of contention has always been how far restoration should go into modification. I've always been firmly in the resto-mod camp. Caveat being how rare is the car and the condition it begins with, because when there are only a handful of examples of a car then radical changes are probably unwarranted. But if it's that rare it becomes an exhibit, and not a car. A car is to be driven.
But when there are lots of any given model then why not?
Of course some parts of a car are consumable, and destined to be replaced, if so why not replace with better?
Dramatically changing the exterior appearance is another question altogether and takes the argument into customisation, which is a subjective, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. If you pays your money, you takes your choice - again the caveat of rarity is worth applying here, but otherwise more power to variety. I don't have to like it, to approve of the choice in principle.
In short making a car - any car, old or new out of the box, go better, stop faster, go faster, well that just seems right to me.
But then again I am of an age ( meaning I'm grown up enough now to be able to use the phrase, I am of an age) to remember the miserable era of the late 70s to 80s.
As a kid in the 90s, driving a Classic actually got you more bangs for your buck. Faced with the choice of Triumph GT6 vs a MkIII Ford Escort at the same price point, for me there was no choice.
In fact if you wanted a convertible there was a very limited choice, the only mainstream manufacture IIRC was Mercedes. For a young lad wanting an affordable car with go and style, you pretty much had go old. Old got you a more involving rear drive, and thanks to a Jensen Healey in my case wind in your hair. Back in the day when I wasn't grown up I had that hair ( of course it was the 90s so long at the front curtains style, so I wore a cap to keep it out of my eyes ).
Legislation, economics, and the industry consensus had all but killed the convertible, and stifled the sports car.
Legislation and wage costs made cars boxy, and ugly - IMO. The Jaguar XJ6 had curves, the XJ40s box shape was easier ie cheaper to press.
A lot changed. #MX5 And of course a certain British Sportscar maker gave birth to Pistonheads.
Tech changed these things. Last 20 years has seen more interesting shapes, and the convertible came back. But it wasn't because not having a roof suddenly became so much safer. (although Mercedes did that snap up in a micro-seconds roll bar) but because we the consumer were happy to compromise, and Marketing was a thing now. Welcome to segmentation.
But in reality we bought TVRs not because they were safe, or quiet, etc., but because they were fast, and looked great standing still.
To be honest the driving experience between an older - often relatively more expensive car, now depreciated vs a modern but newer box in the 90s was not so different, weight of powerless steering, heft of the gear lever, etc.
Today when the average super-mini satisfies the Classic definition of a GT car, 300 miles range at over 100 miles an hour, the difference in driving dynamics is less clear cut. Once luxury options, like power steering, windows, and air con are now so standard kids today don't know they are born, said my Granddad who never took a driving test about syncromesh.
Classics provide driver involvement, manual box, direct steering and brakes, but again these things are only as good as the aged components, which brings us back to restoration to modification.
And to looks.
While things are better than the boxy days of old, mostly, Bangle BMWs I look at you, for shame the ugly, the industry/safety/ and rounding from better aerodynamics has given us a new boxy, a mean look. ( I mean average not angry )
With the fat blocking your view pillars, and enlarging crumple zones - cars are often harder to see out of, and generally bigger.
I parked my Audi 80, that someone in Stuttgart had stuck Porsche bits on in the 90s next to a current 3 series, it look positively wee next to the Beemer, which probably has the foot print of the 90s 5 series.
My conclusion is that there is a market for resto-mods, (and I suspect coach building is coming back for the same reasons) because I want great looking ( subjective as that value judgment maybe ) cars that were designed to snap nicker elastic* not to please the passage of air in a wind tunnel. Great looking cars that stop faster and go faster, and start in the morning, because I am willing to trade passive safety, for active safety of better brakes and a great glass house ( or no glass house in the way of the convertible ) all in a smaller package, because size isn't everything. Actually check that, in the real world of my UK, size is a actually a great deal, if like me you want to be able to overtake on B roads.
Although it seems many people aren't old enough to remember overtaking. But that's another topic.
Great post. Enjoy your RS2! Great car.The biggest niche in the Classic Car market has always been looks - retro-cool; design aesthetics.
Arguably the prettiest cars of all time were almost all designed in few years during the 60s.
The biggest bone of contention has always been how far restoration should go into modification. I've always been firmly in the resto-mod camp. Caveat being how rare is the car and the condition it begins with, because when there are only a handful of examples of a car then radical changes are probably unwarranted. But if it's that rare it becomes an exhibit, and not a car. A car is to be driven.
But when there are lots of any given model then why not?
Of course some parts of a car are consumable, and destined to be replaced, if so why not replace with better?
Dramatically changing the exterior appearance is another question altogether and takes the argument into customisation, which is a subjective, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. If you pays your money, you takes your choice - again the caveat of rarity is worth applying here, but otherwise more power to variety. I don't have to like it, to approve of the choice in principle.
In short making a car - any car, old or new out of the box, go better, stop faster, go faster, well that just seems right to me.
But then again I am of an age ( meaning I'm grown up enough now to be able to use the phrase, I am of an age) to remember the miserable era of the late 70s to 80s.
As a kid in the 90s, driving a Classic actually got you more bangs for your buck. Faced with the choice of Triumph GT6 vs a MkIII Ford Escort at the same price point, for me there was no choice.
In fact if you wanted a convertible there was a very limited choice, the only mainstream manufacture IIRC was Mercedes. For a young lad wanting an affordable car with go and style, you pretty much had go old. Old got you a more involving rear drive, and thanks to a Jensen Healey in my case wind in your hair. Back in the day when I wasn't grown up I had that hair ( of course it was the 90s so long at the front curtains style, so I wore a cap to keep it out of my eyes ).
Legislation, economics, and the industry consensus had all but killed the convertible, and stifled the sports car.
Legislation and wage costs made cars boxy, and ugly - IMO. The Jaguar XJ6 had curves, the XJ40s box shape was easier ie cheaper to press.
A lot changed. #MX5 And of course a certain British Sportscar maker gave birth to Pistonheads.
Tech changed these things. Last 20 years has seen more interesting shapes, and the convertible came back. But it wasn't because not having a roof suddenly became so much safer. (although Mercedes did that snap up in a micro-seconds roll bar) but because we the consumer were happy to compromise, and Marketing was a thing now. Welcome to segmentation.
But in reality we bought TVRs not because they were safe, or quiet, etc., but because they were fast, and looked great standing still.
To be honest the driving experience between an older - often relatively more expensive car, now depreciated vs a modern but newer box in the 90s was not so different, weight of powerless steering, heft of the gear lever, etc.
Today when the average super-mini satisfies the Classic definition of a GT car, 300 miles range at over 100 miles an hour, the difference in driving dynamics is less clear cut. Once luxury options, like power steering, windows, and air con are now so standard kids today don't know they are born, said my Granddad who never took a driving test about syncromesh.
Classics provide driver involvement, manual box, direct steering and brakes, but again these things are only as good as the aged components, which brings us back to restoration to modification.
And to looks.
While things are better than the boxy days of old, mostly, Bangle BMWs I look at you, for shame the ugly, the industry/safety/ and rounding from better aerodynamics has given us a new boxy, a mean look. ( I mean average not angry )
With the fat blocking your view pillars, and enlarging crumple zones - cars are often harder to see out of, and generally bigger.
I parked my Audi 80, that someone in Stuttgart had stuck Porsche bits on in the 90s next to a current 3 series, it look positively wee next to the Beemer, which probably has the foot print of the 90s 5 series.
My conclusion is that there is a market for resto-mods, (and I suspect coach building is coming back for the same reasons) because I want great looking ( subjective as that value judgment maybe ) cars that were designed to snap nicker elastic* not to please the passage of air in a wind tunnel. Great looking cars that stop faster and go faster, and start in the morning, because I am willing to trade passive safety, for active safety of better brakes and a great glass house ( or no glass house in the way of the convertible ) all in a smaller package, because size isn't everything. Actually check that, in the real world of my UK, size is a actually a great deal, if like me you want to be able to overtake on B roads.
Although it seems many people aren't old enough to remember overtaking. But that's another topic.
- olde Clarkson reference.
PhantomPH said:
I thought that one was the one that was based on an F430...or is that a different one?
The car shown is the Hrabalek/Stoschek Stratos based on the Ferrari 430 and conceived as a project at Pininfarina under the expert management of Paulo Garella (a fascinating bloke) who was also responsible for the early Glickenhaus cars amongst many bespokes:http://www.paologarella.com/cars.php?id=3
He has now formed a company to produce limited run sports cars called Manifattura Automobili Torino who will take on the limited run of new cars:
http://www.manifatturaautomobilitorino.it/
Full story here:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/lancia/strato...
cookie1600 said:
PhantomPH said:
I thought that one was the one that was based on an F430...or is that a different one?
The car shown is the Hrabalek/Stoschek Stratos based on the Ferrari 430 and conceived as a project at Pininfarina under the expert management of Paulo Garella (a fascinating bloke) who was also responsible for the early Glickenhaus cars amongst many bespokes:http://www.paologarella.com/cars.php?id=3
He has now formed a company to produce limited run sports cars called Manifattura Automobili Torino who will take on the limited run of new cars:
http://www.manifatturaautomobilitorino.it/
Full story here:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/lancia/strato...
PhantomPH said:
RedAndy said:
theholygrail said:
The Lancia Stratos thingy 
a tweak/bodykit and bigger tail lamps on a Lotus Evora and it's yours...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff