“For too long, corporate strategies were warped by the delusions of green ideologues who neither understand basic economics nor the fundamental science behind energy production. Once the mandates and incentives were stripped away, demand recalibrated to match affordability, reliability, and everyday practicality, which are values far more enduring than climate cult slogans.” — Leslie Eastman
“Oh bloody hell, here goes old Kim again, bitching about how ugly new stuff is compared to old stuff.”
Well, yes. I am very aware that the new stuff is streets ahead of the old stuff, technologically speaking. I am also aware that despite this, in many cases this techno-superiority makes very little difference in terms of everyday use. Here’s an example, using this modern iteration of the venerable 1911 handgun:
…versus the traditional:
Now I know that there are all sorts of reasons why the SIG P211 is a great pistol, probably far better than the Gold Cup in terms of, well, everything, from features to function and so on. But at the end of the day, will both guns deliver a half-dozen or so rounds of manly .45 ACP goodness into the desired target area? Yes, the P211 has more rounds to deliver, and yes, it has a tacti-cool red-dot sight which I guess will make this new model x times more accurate than the old-fashioned Gold Cup. If all that floats your boat, have at it. I’ll stick with the old 1911, because it’s enough for me, and it will shoot better than I can shoot it anyway.
Consider another example of this phenomenon, using high-end sports cars this time. Here’s Ferrari’s La Ferrari:
Looks good, is super-fast, has all those holes in the body to make the airflow more efficient, etc. And hoo boy, it sure is super-fast. No argument about that, least of all from me.
So let’s look at an older version of a supercar, the Jaguar E-type Series 2:
It’s for sure not as fast as the Ferrari — hell, a tuned E-type can only manage at best ~150mph compared to the 220mph of the Scuderia creation, and its piddly little 4.2-liter straight 6 engine pushes out at best 265hp (compared to the newer supercar’s 6.3-liter V12 plus the F1-derived KERS system yielding 850hp).
So… no contest, right?
Quite right. I’d take the Jag any day of the week, six ways to Sunday. The looks of the Jag are smoother, less angular and frankly, streamlined enough for me, and the performance is frankly much more than I need. (The Ferrari’s performance is not only excessive, it frightens me because I wouldn’t be able to control the beast.)
Frankly, both the SIG and LaFerrari embody to me a “modern” style that I have come to detest — much as this example of a “modern” building compares very badly to an older one:
Your opinions on all the above examples may vary.
Great moments in bad timing, #435:
Formula 1 is going to have to cancel the two Grand Prix races in April, because the venues (Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) have become an unwitting victim of Operation Kick Shi’a Iranian Ass.
This sucks big time….
…although strictly speaking it serves F1 right because they should never have given the Arabs so many Grands Prix in the first place.
The races can’t be rescheduled because the calendar is full and there’s no room at the inn.
But in the grand scheme of things, it’s irrelevant because the new “formula” in Formula 1 has turned the races into even more boring spectacles than they were before, which is saying something.
I have a simple fix for their “boring” problem, by the way (although they won’t want to hear it):
Ditch those pathetic half-Duracell / half-tiny-turbo engines (1500cc? WTF?) and replace them with gasoline-powered 2.5-litre V16s, screaming their lungs out and deafening spectators at 18,000rpm. And let the drivers drive, instead of forcing them to be battery-power managers.
And then I’ll show you all around my unicorn garden.
Okay, I need some Murkin aficionado to ‘splain this one to me. It’s a 1963 Plymouth Sport Fury:
The engine is 512 c.i., and creates 656 hp with 662 ft-lbs of torque, while the rev counter goes up to 9,500rpm, all of which seems stratospheric for a car of this vintage.
The questions flow thick and fast, e.g. why did this beast not take over the world, did it ever race and win everything it raced in, etc.
All educated comments welcome.
Reader Mike S. sends me something about a car which lists the pros and cons of ownership thus:
Well, with all those, can the name “Morgan” be far behind?
So far, all good. But wait! What is this foul wart on a pretty girl’s face?
According to the article though, they will be available with a stick shift, as the Lord intended.
And yes: $100,000 is a lot of moolah for something that’s at best a once-a-month drive (weather permitting). But then again, I know men for whom marriage is similar (costly, with only an occasional ride), and we don’t look down on them now, do we?
The big question is: is this new Morgan a lottery car, or could one get a better toy for a hundred grand? Thoughts in Comments, with the usual caveats (i.e. I don’t want to hear from the Toyota HiLux Brigade; we’re talking playthings).
