Interesting viewpoint re: awful design of the 80's and the modern bubbles...
And one I'd agree with wholeheartedly, except that you happen to pick
examples that I view 100% oppositely. If you'd mentioned the K car, or the
Ford Fairmont or Tempo, or the (shudder) Mazda 626, I'd be right there with
you... But...
I considered, and consider, the VW cabriolet to be very pleasing,
aesthetically, and one of the cars with the most character out there (though
don't ask me 'bout the new beetle -- eeeew).
I also have a fond spot for the older civics, celicas and corollas. Good
solid cars, very good design, nice look for the price level they came in at,
and certainly innovative look for their day -- especially the civic. They
really didn't turn into generic-mobile Camraccordaximas until the 90's.
Sure, In retrospect, they look a little boxy, clunky, or otherwise flawed,
but so do a good portion of our beloved LBCars, IMHO. Put a TR3 next to a MG
T-series... The 3 looks front-heavy to me. Like two different cars stuck
together in the middle. The elegant rear portion of a t-series with the
front-end of a... I dunno... Studebaker? Something big and tanky, anyhow...
I think the TR3's a great, classic car with a distinctive look, but not a
look I care for.
So now I will step up for flaming by giving our final area of disagreement.
I consider the B (particularly the BGT) the worst looking car of any MG ever
designed. MASSIVE aesthetic step down from the A. Appearance is bulbous,
heavy, amazingly ponderous looking for such a small car... Not at all
comparable with the TR6, which was a much better iteration of the
rounder/streamlined look of that era. (And I'm an MG buff saying that!). I
consider it the second-worst-looking LBCar on record -- after the TR7. Yeah,
I see how many are out there lovingly kept and restored and realize I'm in a
minority, but hey, free speech, ya' know.
Of course, YMMV. Probably YMDoesV... Vive la difference.
Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garner, Joseph P." <JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu>
To: "'Lundy, John D.'" <JOHN.D.LUNDY@saic.com>; "MG list (E-mail)"
<mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Fashion Gods Dictate Terminal Ugliness
> Hi John,
>
> MY ha'penny's worth:
>
> 1. Yes all the new-look round cars are cut from the same mold. But at
least
> they're not the ugly as sin boxes on wheels of the mid 80s (witness the
most
> ugly car in the world IMHO- the VW convertible rabbit or whatever it's
> called, it's hideous, it looks like a skoda with the top cut off; or the
> 80's corollas or civics or celicias). One of the joys of owning an MGB is
> that it is one of the most beautiful cars in the world (i won't tell you
> what i think the best looking car in the world actually is... cos i'll get
> flamed)
>
> 2. I'm glad someone else has spotted the fundamental irony of
multinationals
> like GAP, seling pre-packaged individuality.
>
> cheers
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lundy, John D. [mailto:JOHN.D.LUNDY@saic.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 9:08 AM
> To: 'MG List'; 'Spridgets List'
> Subject: Fashion Gods Dictate Terminal Ugliness
>
>
> 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
> >
> > ********************************
>
|