Supercars - What's the point? (aka The nature of beauty)

[MOWOG]

Actually, the degree of government regulation imposed on car designers in all countries - particularly when it comes to pedestrian protection standards - imposes a degree of homogenization on today's cars that is unprecedented. Some low volume manufacturers may be able to get exemptions from some of the more onerous restrictions, but in most cases, all big trucks, all sedans, all coupes, all minivans and all SUV's look pretty much the same.

Here are two cars. Which one would you rather have?

[autogyro]

Thanks MOWOG that basically encapsulates my point.
A flying brick for brainless grolly ball players or part of the art nouveau period.

[Andres125sx]

I agree some vintage cars are absolutely amazing and unique...





But I can´t say modern cars are all similar bricks...

Not at all!







We humans are very prone to glorify past times. Also, when you love a car for some decades, it becomes a myth. Modern cars can´t compete with that... yet

Anycase I agree today they focus too much on perfomance, when 99.99% of people will never test their limits. No sense.

[SectorOne]

Here are two cars. Which one would you rather have?

http://image.motortrend.com/f/wot/serio ... veyron.jpg

Left one. Right one is beautiful but the other one will deform my face every time i press the happy pedal.

Maybe this is more up your alley? i have to say i love it.

[autogyro]

Here are two cars. Which one would you rather have?

http://image.motortrend.com/f/wot/serio ... veyron.jpg

Left one. Right one is beautiful but the other one will deform my face every time i press the happy pedal.

Maybe this is more up your alley? i have to say i love it.

http://i.imgur.com/K7QPXe4.jpg

So Hitler was right, you can build a car for under £100.
I bet it costs a lot more to have all that aerodynamic damaging chrome on your bug.
Seriously, the original split screen VW peoples car did have some raw art.
This thing is simply a modern cheat stealing from past glory and using brute force to baffle the masses.

[Andres125sx]

This thing is simply a modern cheat stealing from past glory and using brute force to baffle the masses.

And I was thinking it was most powerful and fastest car ever (when it was released) with some interesting innovation like carbon fiber survival cell replacing traditional frame... stupid me!

[Moxie]

Frankly, I love the interplay of science and art, form and function, and not just in cars. The people in this forum may enjoy my pintrest boards "Vintage Formula One" and Art Deco Cars". My user name is Joe Hill. I'll post links as soon as I can figure it out.

http://www.pinterest.com/jpslotus1978/art-deco-cars/


http://www.pinterest.com/jpslotus1978/v ... rmula-one/

[FrukostScones]

I blame Hot Wheels and Matchbox. I grew up with F40 and Countach pictures on my walls. Super cars remind me of being young. It's like asking little girls why they like princesses. It's just part of life

[Ringleheim]

[...]
For sheer beauty, I'd probably go for an Aston, or perhaps the no longer produced Ferrari 612.
[...]

I think the 612 is criminally underrated, and it's easily the most frequent subject of my dream car fantasies. It was never the fastest car in the world or even the fastest Ferrari of its own time. But, it has quiet, understated charisma, a timeless elegance that will never look out of place. I'd feel more at home behind the wheel of a six-speed example of this car than I would in anything subsequently released in its range and above.

http://i.imgur.com/MgTcXI5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9ynZlSO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NcuHhnZ.jpg

It's all highly subjective anyway, and that's what makes cars like this art. I was told by a professor in college that "art is that which exists only to serve itself." In other words, art makes a statement. No one will ever need a supercar. But, there will always be a market for them, because there will always be people who want to make such statements.

The 612 is understandably not popular. It's a 2+2 and those are the Ferraris that no one wants. It's also a huge, bulky car with somewhat awkward design.

Having said that, its' still a V12 Ferrari and when prices come down even more, it would make sense to buy one. V12 Ferraris are never a bad investment idea. On top of that, the concept of ANY internal combustion engined Ferrari is going to be even more valuable, when the world moves to electricity.

[Ringleheim]

I agree some vintage cars are absolutely amazing and unique...
https://inspirationalplusawesome.files. ... -3-mil.jpg
http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/wp-conten ... dster1.jpg
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/l ... 0-P3_3.jpg
http://www.supercars.net/gallery/119513/2446/939994.jpg

But I can´t say modern cars are all similar bricks...

Not at all!
http://freepict.info/wp-content/uploads ... icture.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/es.autoblog.com/ ... 576311.jpg
http://www.imgbase.info/images/safe-wal ... lpaper.jpg
http://ag-spots-2014.o.auroraobjects.eu ... 5544_8.jpg
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/articles ... 1_1600.jpg
http://www.autopista.es/media/cache/art ... b5d948.jpg

We humans are very prone to glorify past times. Also, when you love a car for some decades, it becomes a myth. Modern cars can´t compete with that... yet

Anycase I agree today they focus too much on perfomance, when 99.99% of people will never test their limits. No sense.

I would suggest that Ferrari, specifically, for quite a while now, have not focused on numbers and limits but rather on driving experience.

Cars like the new mid-engined Corvette are always about numbers and stats. They don't understand that a Ferrari delivers an emotional experience which greatly transcends numbers.

Sure, the new Ferraris will go ridiculously fast and do have very impressive 0-60 times, etc., but those are byproducts and not the main goal.

The goal is driving enjoyment and a thrilling experience that can't be found elsewhere. Raw sound has a huge role in it as well. I still think shifting gears plays a big role in it, too, though I am now in the minority.

Stick shifts will return, though. For sure.

[Greg Locock]

Oh. That rather reminds me of a certain F1 driver when asked about the 'thrill' of racing.

I'm too lazy to google it.

[mertol]

This conversation in 30 years:
Remember when humans used to design cars using computers? Those were the cool cars. Not like now with these AI-designed cars they are all bland.

[humble sabot]

Aero designs on computer have gone a long way in destroying that art and have done for decades now.

I think you're mistaking marketing hype for actual aerodynamics. McLaren, only for example, go on about form and function, but it's all complete BS, which is why neither of their new cars really grab you like the old F1. They did begin the 12c that way, but the result was bland and they knew it, so they hired Frank Stephenson away from FIAT to give it some bling. Then they unleashed him on the P1. By bland, of course, I don't mean ugly - just not different/new/exciting/etc. I think many would call the final 12c bland as well, crescent shaped everything notwithstanding.

Not that I hate either of those cars - the 12c or the P1 - just that to me they aren't really beautiful, in any respect of the word.

...

I don't think this can be overstated. All these complaints about "computers doing the designing" and "regulation" are really misunderstanding the nature of capitalist fear of alienating the broadest possible customer base. Cars today look generic because they're designed by focus groups and committees to be manufactured at the highest margin, and have the broadest possible appeal. Ferrari is not innocent in its Try-Hard aesthetic committee trash. 90% of the "aerodynamic" features of these cars are about as useful as the scoops ahead of the rear wheels on the famously front engined Mustangs. I'm absolutely floored by how people buy into all these marketing lines.