RE: PH Footnote: Less is more
Discussion
Ex Boy Racer said:
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
Wouldn't that be great! 
But I can't see it happening somehow even though they normally put all those details together in one place (which is fine) they still keep referring to them in their text. Surely the whole point of a road test is for the tester to give us some personal insights into how the car feels?
You used to get all that technical stuff in a brochure - now you just go online! You certainly don't need to read a road test!
Don't underestimate the value of a great sound track. Early 70s 911s in particular had this nailed in a way which is almost completely alien to most people these days. In this regard less is not really more as one wants as a minimum 6 of Gods finest naturally aspirated cylinders (10 or 12 Italian ones even better!)
Superb. Superb article. I do like reading a little common sense, based on real world driving experiences from time to time. The world is too easily swayed by drivel.
My own experiences of this are the inherent 'rightness' of the E39 M5 suspension set up vs the M135i's deeply flawed chassis disguised behind a myriad of electronic trickery.
More clearly still was stepping out of an R35 GTR into a 996 GT3 RS at Silverstone. I'm sure I could get a faster lap at home on my playstation but I'll take the GT3 thanks
My own experiences of this are the inherent 'rightness' of the E39 M5 suspension set up vs the M135i's deeply flawed chassis disguised behind a myriad of electronic trickery.
More clearly still was stepping out of an R35 GTR into a 996 GT3 RS at Silverstone. I'm sure I could get a faster lap at home on my playstation but I'll take the GT3 thanks
Edited by Niffty951 on Tuesday 20th March 22:59
NJH said:
Don't underestimate the value of a great sound track. Early 70s 911s in particular had this nailed in a way which is almost completely alien to most people these days. In this regard less is not really more as one wants as a minimum 6 of Gods finest naturally aspirated cylinders (10 or 12 Italian ones even better!)
Yes. More sense still. Sound creates the theatre that brings the driving experience to life, the vibration of a great engine note through the seat and steering wheel taps it directly into your cerebral cortex...and as for the finger tip light response of the steering in those classic 911's. No car I've driven made post 1985 comes close
DevonPaul said:
don logan said:
My biggest disappointment? My GTR which I sold and have never missed!
I tried a GTR - the salesman was rather disappointed when I said it was probably the most uninvolving car I'd ever driven. All very competent, blisteringly quick, but I wasn't entirely convinced I wasn't playing a video game.It's a RELATIVELY cheap Top Trumps car but taught me a big lesson that's echoed in this feature!
30 years ago this month I handed over £3200 to Fishers Garage in Edinburgh (Alfa dealer) for a pretty tired Alfa Alfetta GTV6 2.5.It had @ 160bhp back then and fuel injection! Close relationship with dealer a “given” but back then a 130mph that couldn’t crack 60 in 8 seconds gave all of the fun that you could responsibly have on public road. Legendary V6 yowl a bonus.
30 years later I acquire a Porsche Cayman 2.7 manual with “only” 18” wheels for £32k. The limiting factors? Pot holes and my average driving ability. 60 in under 6 seconds is fast enough in the real world. A top speed north of 160 is irrelvant to drive on publi roads. It feels lovely to drive, sounds as good as the Alfa and easily gets 30mpg on a normal run.
Read in awe the Ferrari 800 superfast article but in real world UP GtI, MX5, GT 86, base Caymans etc have so much to commend them. Was a passenger in a Golf R. Hugely able and fast car but involving? Not driven one to be fair..
30 years later I acquire a Porsche Cayman 2.7 manual with “only” 18” wheels for £32k. The limiting factors? Pot holes and my average driving ability. 60 in under 6 seconds is fast enough in the real world. A top speed north of 160 is irrelvant to drive on publi roads. It feels lovely to drive, sounds as good as the Alfa and easily gets 30mpg on a normal run.
Read in awe the Ferrari 800 superfast article but in real world UP GtI, MX5, GT 86, base Caymans etc have so much to commend them. Was a passenger in a Golf R. Hugely able and fast car but involving? Not driven one to be fair..
D.no said:
I can't help thinking that the ethos of the article is best fulfilled by older cars. Applied to current offerings, the shortlist gets very sparse indeed
Exactly, just buy an older car (90's) if you don't like shiny glimmy packed with technology brag about numbers cars.Edited by D.no on Tuesday 20th March 13:11
I drive an E91 335d with chip as a daily but got a 420 Coupe for a day while it was in for a service. What an unbelievable horrible car it was to drive... And they only are 8 years apart.... Steering awfully light and without any feel, engine really rubbish, chassis also, really a very very very big disappointment. But everybody in my neighborhood praised me with my very beautiful new BMW ;-(
FTW said:
Question:
Which is harder to buy right now, and Alpine A110 or 991.2 Porsche GT3?
In all seriousness, are there any Alpine dealers in the UK?
Not a huge dealer network admittedly, but...Which is harder to buy right now, and Alpine A110 or 991.2 Porsche GT3?
In all seriousness, are there any Alpine dealers in the UK?
https://alpinecars.com/en/our-alpine-centres/
I haven't actually attempted to part with any money, but it appears deposits are being taken by Alpine at least, via the mobile app.
In contrast, attempting to get a GT3 would be entirely futile, and would leave a very bitter taste whether paying overs, or "building a relationship" with a Porsche Centre. That whole GT-car scenario is such a shame.
Aren't there some other factors why we have more fun in simple cars?
- Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
- Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
TWPC said:
Aren't there some other factors why we have more fun in simple cars?
- Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
But would I swap my 2016 SEAT Leon for my first car, 106 Quicksilver, which was simpler and more entertaining to drive? No, well not for 360 days of the year as my only car. The SEAT is less fun but doesn't have a back breaking driving position, tinnitus inducing lack of refinement, has twice the power but is 10mpg better and is considerably safer to boot. - Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
Not everyone has the luxury of a second fun car, I'd have a 106 Rallye (assuming I my fictitious money won't stretch to a 911) in a heart beat if I could find & justify the funds.
But the Up! GTI seems to offer a great blend of the great bits of the modern and the simpler side of the less modern too - shame its too small as my only car, I've only waited 5 years for it to be release when it was original tested by magazines as an Up! GT.
Dale487 said:
TWPC said:
Aren't there some other factors why we have more fun in simple cars?
- Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
But would I swap my 2016 SEAT Leon for my first car, 106 Quicksilver, which was simpler and more entertaining to drive? No, well not for 360 days of the year as my only car. The SEAT is less fun but doesn't have a back breaking driving position, tinnitus inducing lack of refinement, has twice the power but is 10mpg better and is considerably safer to boot. - Cheapness: since simple, modern cars are going to be cheaper than complex ones, aren't we more likely to enjoy them because (1) having less money invested leads to less stress and (2) as less treasured, lower stress possessions we are likely to use them more so more likely to come across road conditions that lead to enjoyment.
- Modern road conditions, i.e. congested and poorly maintained: since simple cars have lower limits and many cars are most fun near their limits, nowadays we are far more likely to get close to a simple car's limits and thus have some fun.
- Lower expectations: like the point above about the opportunity of approaching lower limits, a simple car often invites lower expectations. So when a 30 year old 800kg supermini with wind-up windows and a four speed box achieves 95% of what you expect a modern 2 tonne £40k SUV to do, i.e. exceeds expectations, doesn't it make you happy?
- Escape from the norm: doing something extra-ordinary is often fun. The article suggested that simple cars are those which eschew mechanical and electronic complexity. Life is always becoming more complex (not a complaint, just a fact). As electronics become cheaper and the internet pervades every part of our lives (and who understands how the internet works? What happens to your signals once the LAN cable leaves your house...?) and even the speakers in our home are listening to us, isn't it satisfying to drive a car that is not complex? It may not be as reliable as a modern car but you know exactly how it works (& why it breaks), have control over it and that represents a break from the norm.
Not everyone has the luxury of a second fun car, I'd have a 106 Rallye (assuming I my fictitious money won't stretch to a 911) in a heart beat if I could find & justify the funds.
But the Up! GTI seems to offer a great blend of the great bits of the modern and the simpler side of the less modern too - shame its too small as my only car, I've only waited 5 years for it to be release when it was original tested by magazines as an Up! GT.
As you say, the ancient Peugeot was more entertaining but entertainment is not the principle asset most buyers look for in a car, and particularly when they own only one car.
The car industry understands this. Most cars sold are like a SEAT Leon. There is a small market for simple cars and it is supplied by niche manufacturers (e.g. Caterham, Morgan, Dacia) and niche products from the mainstream manufacturers (e.g. GT86, Up! GTI, A110, Alfa 4C, MX-5).
I just wanted to make the point that there are more reasons than just dynamic competence why simple cars are enjoyable.
I like the idea of "less is more", for years I had a Morgan as my daily driver. A motoring journalist suggest that a Morgan was the "minimum acceptable car", with additional bits detracting from the experience rather than adding to it.
As the Morgan rebuild is a long way from finished, my current daily driver is a 1989 Land Rover 110 CSW; again very, very basic.
I driven various modern vehicles as hire cars, company cars, pool cars or loaners and not found one I actually liked. A modern Defender TDCi 2.2 was too expensive, a Qashqai too dull, a 3 series BMW too claustrophobic. My test drive of an Alpine will have to wait, but I am hopeful!
As the Morgan rebuild is a long way from finished, my current daily driver is a 1989 Land Rover 110 CSW; again very, very basic.
I driven various modern vehicles as hire cars, company cars, pool cars or loaners and not found one I actually liked. A modern Defender TDCi 2.2 was too expensive, a Qashqai too dull, a 3 series BMW too claustrophobic. My test drive of an Alpine will have to wait, but I am hopeful!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff