Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Heh.
This very same debate can be found on sailing forums, where some of the older crowd will still decry the dwindling popularity of classic wooden boats as compared to the new-fangled "plastic tubs".
"Sure, the new boats are cheaper, safer, faster and much, much easier to maintain, but they lack soul, they lack verve, they lack pizzazz, they lack style." Generally from people who had formative experiences in wooden boats, of course. And as they age out of the sport (and sadly, of the population), wooden boats become less and less attractive - to the point where they now, quite often, literally can't be given away.
A hard core of the most attractive wooden boats will survive, among those who cherish them - just as there are still people enjoying horse-drawn carriages or flying biplanes. But by far the majority will go away. And the same will happen to cars. Classic cars will still be around - but fewer and fewer, as the definition of "classic" will become narrower and narrower. So it goes.
Guess you missed all the references to "classic plastics" then.
I think you should read it for the first time with your eyes open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Well, point of order: Crash damage to cars doesn't really matter, as compared to damage to the occupants. If you abruptly stopped an M113 armored personnel carrier - by driving it into a (thick) wall, say - the M113 would look pretty unscathed as compared to a random 2015 sedan hitting the same wall. The occupants, though...
I see the point you are trying to make (rather badly) but you're still wrong.
Take a look at the picture Fleet posted of a front end collision going 35 mph. The entire front end is destroyed. A car from today would have weathered that accident infinitely better, and so would the passengers. Cars today are designed to distribute the force of an accident. You have crumple zones, hydraulic bumpers, and high strength steel. On the inside, you have front airbags, side airbags, smart restraint systems... All keeping the occupants safe, while the car itself holds together better. Older cars had none of these things.
Crash damage to cars most certainly DOES matter. Take a look at this pic from another thread going on now:
I don't think millennials have interest in any cars, classic or modern. Recently saw a study how millennials don't need cars because of social media. They can just facebook their friends instead of visiting them. I think the classic car business will go bust soon, just like the horse and carriage did.
You really want to make a false statement that crash damage to cars doesn't matter regarding occupant safety???
I probably worded that badly.
How about this: Visible damage to cars say little of the damage the occupants may of may not have suffered. A car may come apart like wet cardboard and offer no protection ("Trabant" design philosophy), it may be extrememly robust yet a collision will leave the occupants smeared across the inner surfaces ("Armored box" design philosophy), or it may be engineered to crumple and break apart in a controlled manner designed to absorb and redirect the energy from the collision away from the occupants - I'll call that "Volvo" design philosophy, being Scandinavian.
I'm essentially warning about making assumptions on survivability based on external damage to the car.
So I suspect we sorta agree and I made a mess of my point.
I think you should read it for the first time with your eyes open.
Open your eyes really BIG for this one!
This Chevy was hit by another car going 60 mph. 60 mph is not a "low-speed" accident. Not only did the driver of the Chevy survive, his injuries were nowhere near life-threatening. (Minor laceration on the forehead requiring four stitches, bruises on the right shin, left knee and finger of the left hand.)
I guess I don't understand you having to slam Millennials politically. There are many reasons they are not interested in classic cars.
Hell, I'm 54 and owned a couple of classic cars back when I was young and I'm not really that interested.
Today's cars are just so much better that I'm losing interest in the old ones more and more.
Maybe in the 90's, when in my opinion, all the new cars sucked, no power, looked ugly; 1994 Pontiac Grand am,
But not when I can buy a used 2010 Camaro V8 with 400+ HP for less than $20,000 with all the new features, including the breaking, and handling ...
compared to a 1960 that can't stop, turn, and needs the engine rebuilts before 80,000 miles ? no thanks. .. not to forget its probaly a rust bucket, unless I want to do frame of restoration .. .
Millennials don't like anything unless it's ugly (hipster/dirty 90s style grunge), loud (what the heck is EDM?), and communist-friendly. Kids today have an attitude that states, "if I can't have anything nice, NOBODY else can". This current generation of 20-something neo-nazis is ruining everything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
