Not trying to start an argument, I think the car could have been a success
if the "business" end was done differently, but alas it wasn't so
technically the car (business) was a failure. I know we are talking
semantics here, and if the car wasn't as good as it was it would have never
made it as far as it did. The article was addressing Mr. Bricklin not the
car itself, he had a failure as a car manufacturer, our beloved car was it.
Yes it was a tank, it was designed as a tank so I take that as a compliment,
as well as the stylish part as well. not many cars from the mid seventies
still look stylish today.
On 6/5/06 2:26:22 PM, jwmartin37 (jwmartin37@avradionet.com) wrote:
> Well, it has taken a very long time for me to disagree with anything you
say on this site. I hate it when a guy is always right!
This business of the car being a failure is just a bit obtuse though. If
one scrutinizes the whole Bricklin thing, I think a closer, perhaps more
accurate observation would be that the guy in charge failed. I would be
happy to discuss this over a drink one day.
Thanks for all your GREAT input !
John W. Martin Vin 1973/0079
16754 E Ave X Space 25
Llano, Ca. 93544
661 944 4801/cell 317 9414
-----Original Message-----
From: "High Tech Coatings" <rick@hightechcoatings.com>
To: "bl" <bricklin@autox.team.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:06:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Fortune
> Just to set the record straight, the car was a failure, stylish and a
> tank.
> It was more than that but all those tree things are true. I know some
> enthusiasts feel different about the first and the last but the car
> did
> fail. It was a tank and was built to be one. no one can argue with
> stylish.
>
>
> On 6/3/06 5:10:06 PM, isensee@aol.com wrote:
> > They mention the SV-1 and even
> include a picture. They aren't very complimentary though. They call it
> a
> failure and a "stylish tank."is
|