mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fashion Gods Dictate Terminal Ugliness

To: "Lundy, John D." <JOHN.D.LUNDY@saic.com>
Subject: Re: Fashion Gods Dictate Terminal Ugliness
From: Geoffrey Gallaway <geoffeg@sloth.org>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
Sorry, wont cross-post..

Ive always wondered if the current safety and other regulations that are
all currently imposed on new cars limits auto-makers flexibility in the
appearance. Bumpers must be a certain height, size and withstand a certain
impact; seat belts have to come to a certain height; lights have to be at
a certain height and position; a car has to be a certain range of heights
from the ground, etc. Is it getting impossible to make a trully unique
car?

Geoff

This one time, at band camp, Lundy, John D. wrote:

> David notes below the attractiveness of his BGTs...
> 
> One reason I could not resist a "unique fixer-upper opportunity" that has
> become 
> my 79 RB Midget Project and has already started to drain my bank account is
> that 
> every day on the road you see nothing but UGLY, UGLY, UGLY.... 
> 
> It seems that all the cars made today are cut from the same mold, with only
> minor tweaking.  
> Gone are the days of my youth, where you could easily tell a Mustang from a
> GTO from a 
> Camaro from a Monte Carlo from a Z Car.  They all look about the same now.
> I know they are
> also much more reliable and last longer, but gee whiz, eventually you have
> to be SEEN in them!
> 
> I think the source of this problem is the fashion gods, who really think
> that people are so dumb 
> that if they change the "look" every 5 years, we will all rush out and dump
> what we have in order 
> to look like all our friends.  You see this with clothing fashions (which
> must of necessity rotate, 
> since there are only so many practical variations to dress the human body),
> even with eyewear 
> (when did little glasses become required?), and now with automotive
> fashions.
> 
> I would like to think that we are not so gullible as to let a handful of
> fashion gods dictate what
> is attractive, but it seems that, in general, the public DOES rush in to
> fill their pockets by
> "biting" on these.  In the aggregate, we really ARE that dumb...
> 
> As for cars, there have always been the terminally ugly ones (like, say,
> Pacer or  Gremlin), but
> I seemed to note the "rounded" look started with the Ford Taurus, which I
> deem to be brutally
> ugly, but I'm sure some others will adore.  All recent model cars seem to me
> to be morphing 
> toward fusion with the Taurus....and the mini-vans, well, don't get me
> started....
> 
> SO................
> 
> When you see a little car that is UNDENIABLY ATTRACTIVE, and that you just
> have to look at 
> a second and even a third glance, well, you just can't resist.  It's a
> natural survival instinct - 
> a reaction to the mass of ugliness on the road!
> 
> When it promises to eke out the $20 - 30K over many painful weeks, months,
> and years (I paid only 
> $1,000, but have already doubled that just to "fix it up") instead of one
> big bank-financed bite, 
> it's even more attractive!
> 
> The younger generation, while of course steeped in massive compliance
> exercises all in the name of 
> non-compliance, still might recognize the spark of genuine, natural,
> attraction, and I really think we 
> all know deep down when we see a great-looking car like the MG....
> 
> Just my opinion.  I offer it as a Friday observance, but I'm sure if I am
> thinking it, maybe millions are.
> 
> So when will they bring out the 2000 MG line?
> 
> JL
> 
> 
> 
> >On the bright side, I make it a point that my BGTs get seen around town. 
> >And I make sure when I am at work, my 67 BGT is parked so it is visible to 
> >traffic on one of the main streets going into the downtown area. It draws 
> >some attention - oddly enough, it seems to be quite the draw to some of the
> 
> >teenage crowd, more so than to the older generations.
> 
> >David
> >67 BGT
> >71 BGT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > ********************************
> > John Lundy
> > Senior Astrodynamics Engineer
> >         Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
> >       PHONE: (719) 637-8740 x248 FAX: (719) 573-7936
> >       EMAIL: john.d.lundy@cpmx.saic.com
> > 
> > ********************************
> 

-- 
Geoffrey Gallaway || I dunno, I dream in Perl sometimes.
geoffeg@sloth.org ||
D e v o r z h u n ||                            -- Larry Wall


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>