casdave expresses an opinion that pops up quite frequently when discussing supercars: they are impractical for doing things they weren’t designed for. This is true of all things, including cars. Electric guitars are horribly inefficient for chopping down trees. Bottle rockets are poor for transatlantic cargo delivery. And a $200000 supercar isn’t very practical for schlepping your kids around town while you’re watching your budget. It’s a good thing they weren’t designed to do this.
The GT40 was the best car in the world at Le Mans from 1966-1969, because it was built to do that. Modern supercars are quite good at showing other people you have lots of money. Judge a tool for how well it serves its function.
And feel free to speculate about whatever psychological issues plague motoring enthusiasts here in the pit, rather than shitting all over every thread that mentions sports cars.
I though people reacted kind of strangely to that post. All he said that unusual/performance cars aren’t really practical, so the things that make one “better” than another are just intangible preferences that have nothing to do with utility.
Amen! While I myself am not a fan of supercars/muscle cars/tuners and the like, I see no point in nitpicking about features which they are not built for. I rebuilt a Ferret Mk1/2, and it’s the only armoured vehicle in my cruising club. Would you pick at it for not being able to hit 70mph? Hell no, it’s an armoured scout car. Speed is not what it was built for. Should I pick at you in your SmartCar, which you so lovingly put a Hayabusa engine in because I could shred you with machine gun fire? Hell no, it’s a riced-up bubble, meant for speed and show. Surviving Northern Ireland is not what it was built for.
As for douches who say otherwise, what are THEIR hobbies, and how practical are they?
It works both ways. I’m always amused to read car reviews about cars that are designed for shlepping around town, and seeing them criticized for not being sporty.
No. That’s actually the exact opposite of what I’m saying. He said performance cars aren’t practical for day-to-day applications. I say they’re perfectly practical if you go to a race track every day. For many uses, the qualities that make one car better than another are almost ridiculously tangible. 0-60 times. Engine placement. Weight distribution. Power lap times. It all depends on what you want from a car.
I wouldn’t say that’s what most people think of when they say practical. By that definition a horse is a perfectly practical vehicle too, if you go trail riding every day. I love horses, and I’ve owned horses, but they’re about the least practical thing on earth as far as modern living.
You’re right, I phrased that wrong. The differences are tangible, but the preference is subjective, and I think you’d agree, since “it all depends what you want from a car.” One thing is not inherently “better” than another, except for your preference (let’s say, one person prefers the muscle car look, while another prefers the roadster look).
See, and that’s farked up too. If I’m reading a review for a minivan, or a commuter car, I couldn’t give a shit if it’s sporty. If I’m looking at a sports car, I want to see what someone has to say about it being a sports car. Nobody buys a sports car to pickup little Johnny and his Little League team. On the other hand, nobody buys a freakin’ minivan for speed. It really is an apples to oranges comparison.
What I’m saying is look at the vehicle for its intended purpose. If a guy has a modified speed machine, I don’t expect it to be able to take small arms fire. Its not made to. If I’m driving a modified armored fighting vehicle, I don’t expect it to be able to take a supercar in the quarter-mile. Casdave makes the all too common error of looking at a supercar and noting the ‘flaws’ it has, when in reality those ‘flaws’ are inherent to a design for something specific. If you want cargo capacity, buy a van or a truck. If you want fuel economy, buy a hybrid or a compact. If you want speed, buy a supercar. Don’t expect it to do one thing, and then do another.
I don’t understand your point, so I would like to mention that while I have a few marvellously impractical, stupidly fast cars, for me a properly beautiful moving object is something like a Class 37 locomotive. Sadly I can’t really fit a railway in my garden, so I don’t have one
P.S. When I admit this in real life I am often called a sexual deviant
Nothing is inherently better than any other thing until you define what good and bad are. It’s silly to use the same definitions of good and bad for minivans and maseratis. Similarly, the definition of practical refers to how something is used. Station wagons and supercars are used for different things, so they’re designed differently. casdave is using the same definitions of good, bad, and practical for things that are not used in the same way.
And I even thought about the title before I posted.
I’m not disputing his statements. I’m more against the “it’s pointless because its not practial” attitude of his posts. From the original thread, post 10:
These cars are little more than big toys. If that is their stated purpose, and everyone knows it, why gripe about it? To you it may be a waste of money and resources, but if it’s not hurting you and I can afford it, who are you to complain? Hell, that can be said for almost any leisure activity. Whether it’s watching TV, playing sports, collecting items, or even reading, it’s a waste of money and resources (at some level.)
I’m simply saying that casdave’s attitude towards supercars and the like is wrong because he’s approaching the impractical with a practical mindset.
Just curious , but what do you think scout cars were built for ? Speed was one of the things those vehicles had when they did find the enemy, assuming of course that the enemy is heavy infantry or mech armor.
Speed relative to a commercial passenger car , I would agree. But the scout cars were supposed to be the hotrods of the army.
How come he’s not over in cafe society butting into every discussion of novels and movies and informing us that there’s no difference between them because they’re all fictional and not educational?
That was great… Heh.
