b3nson
Part of things
Posts: 886
Club RR Member Number: 22
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 20:07:59 GMT
|
Anything with at least 3 of the following 13" wheels or smaller - family cars 15" wheels or smaller - executive cars Pop up headlights Rust - proper age induced not faked Over sills 4 resprays using different paint system Free tax RWD - via a live axle Chrome "wing" mirrors - Not door Separate steel bumpers with or wothout overriders Bumpers that can be removed and improve the appearance Glass fibre bodies Everything operated manually Produced by a British owned company A carburetor Starting handle hole No encap safety rating No Front seat belts No air bags No ABS No requirement for MOT It's Friday and I'm just working on my post count..... Yay looks like the Sprint qualifies under this criteria!
|
|
'99 Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo '08 Panda 100HP
|
|
|
ianmk2
Part of things
Posts: 116
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 22:59:13 GMT
|
Sad that the only item I can tick off that list is rust
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 23:47:47 GMT
|
I see this simply. I think a classic/retro car is pretty much anything made before or just after you started driving... I disagree with this, I think that only works if you are of the right age for the cars to be properly old. I started driving in 2005, but I definitely see anything made after about 1997/8 as "modern". I was 14 years old when my 2002 Subaru was made, but it's still not retro or classic. I think pre-1990 is retro and classic would have to be the "chrome bumper" era from roughly pre-1975, or basically before the boxy 1980s shapes. I'm flexible with the dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anything with airbags and / or traction control is too new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait for a few hours (maybe until tomorrow) and all this will be answered by Podcast #5, and will then never be spoken of again. ....... along with never having another 'are stretch tyres legal' thread again .......... This would be a good one, this simple question always creates havoc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anything with at least 3 of the following 13" wheels or smaller - family cars 15" wheels or smaller - executive cars Pop up headlights Rust - proper age induced not faked Over sills 4 resprays using different paint system Free tax RWD - via a live axle Chrome "wing" mirrors - Not door Separate steel bumpers with or wothout overriders Bumpers that can be removed and improve the appearance Glass fibre bodies Everything operated manually Produced by a British owned company A carburetor Starting handle hole No encap safety rating No Front seat belts No air bags No ABS No requirement for MOT It's Friday and I'm just working on my post count..... hooraaah!!! My ten year old car qualifies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2016 20:47:19 GMT
|
I see this simply. I think a classic/retro car is pretty much anything made before or just after you started driving. I don't see anything that came out new after I started as retro let alone classic. My step dad seemed to be the same. Its not intentional, but from what ive observed, that seems to be how it works out. Never thought of it that way but that certainly works for me. That's all well and good until (like me) you are over 60! The ONLY car I have ever owned that was older than me was a 1954 Humber Hawk - which predated my arrival by a massive 2 whole days! Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2016 21:01:21 GMT
|
A classic car, to me is a car that has an outstanding quality, be it 'the first of its kind' for example. I consider some newer cars to be classics based on this idea, classic isnt an age thing to me, but if its older (pre '80), its probably more likley to be a classic. Retro is more of an attitude thing. If you like it because you think its retro, then it probably is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2016 21:02:13 GMT
|
Never thought of it that way but that certainly works for me. That's all well and good until (like me) you are over 60! The ONLY car I have ever owned that was older than me was a 1954 Humber Hawk - which predated my arrival by a massive 2 whole days! Steve
My step dad would have been your age and he didnt see anything 60's as classic really, unless it had been in production a while like morris minors. He had 2 mk2 consuls in the 90's but they werent really considered classics by him. His idea of classics was pre or just post war stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 11:14:34 GMT
|
whats retro or classic about a peugot 406 GLX ? nothing.
meanwhile a DC2 inetgra type R is both
my point, age really has nothing to do with it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 11:49:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 18:26:29 GMT
|
Why are people still discussing this?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 22:04:08 GMT
|
I see this simply. I think a classic/retro car is pretty much anything made before or just after you started driving. I don't see anything that came out new after I started as retro let alone classic. My step dad seemed to be the same. Its not intentional, but from what ive observed, that seems to be how it works out. This probably works quite well for you young 'uns. But at my age....
|
|
|
|
andyborris
Posted a lot
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Posts: 2,170
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 22:12:06 GMT
|
Slow day at work today, so how about this as a definition?
When your car is worth more than it's original price, it's a classic.
And if your car is worth more than a second hand version of the model that replaced it, it's retro.
Example, A Sierra Cosworth is a classic because they fetch more (good ones!) than when they were in the dealers showroom, a Sierra 1.6L is retro, because a usable Mondeo can be brought for less money.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,712
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 22:35:36 GMT
|
Why are people still discussing this?! The voices told me to do it..... or was that me falling asleep during the podcast !
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 22, 2016 22:41:34 GMT by Darkspeed
|
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2016 10:10:15 GMT
|
Why are people still discussing this?! because you cant have a conversation with a pre-recording of someone elses opinion ?
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 23, 2016 10:10:30 GMT by darrenh
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Mar 23, 2016 10:37:59 GMT
|
Why are people still discussing this?! because you cant have a conversation with a pre-recording of someone elses opinion ? But the entire premise of the conversation is pointless. It's just the same opinions churned out again and again with no conclusion reached. Retro is not a definitive term you can apply to a car in the same way as 'classic' or 'vintage', so everyone needs to stop trying to pigeon-hole it into a specific set of criteria. It's already been explained to us that for the purposes of this forum, it's cars from 1965 to 1995, or other years if they are interesting, so why can't we just leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2016 10:47:23 GMT
|
Slow day at work today, so how about this as a definition? When your car is worth more than it's original price, it's a classic. And if your car is worth more than a second hand version of the model that replaced it, it's retro. Example, A Sierra Cosworth is a classic because they fetch more (good ones!) than when they were in the dealers showroom, a Sierra 1.6L is retro, because a usable Mondeo can be brought for less money. Hi, That's a fair point but the value or price doesn't tell the whole story. Cars go through a banger stage before they become a classic. During the banger stage if it goes wrong and costs more than twopence to fix it would get bridged in a heartbeat. When it's a classic and it goes wrong it's the case of how or what can we do to fix this. Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2016 10:54:56 GMT
|
because you cant have a conversation with a pre-recording of someone elses opinion ? But the entire premise of the conversation is pointless. It's just the same opinions churned out again and again with no conclusion reached. Retro is not a definitive term you can apply to a car in the same way as 'classic' or 'vintage', so everyone needs to stop trying to pigeon-hole it into a specific set of criteria. It's already been explained to us that for the purposes of this forum, it's cars from 1965 to 1995, or other years if they are interesting, so why can't we just leave it at that? Ha funny, You say don't pigeon-hole them, then go and pigeon-hole them by a set time period.
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Mar 23, 2016 11:06:21 GMT
|
But the entire premise of the conversation is pointless. It's just the same opinions churned out again and again with no conclusion reached. Retro is not a definitive term you can apply to a car in the same way as 'classic' or 'vintage', so everyone needs to stop trying to pigeon-hole it into a specific set of criteria. It's already been explained to us that for the purposes of this forum, it's cars from 1965 to 1995, or other years if they are interesting, so why can't we just leave it at that? Ha funny, You say don't pigeon-hole them, then go and pigeon-hole them by a set time period. Nope, not what I said at all. That's why I prefaced it 'for the purposes of this forum'. Plus not my 'pigeon-holing' at all; as defined by the bosses. The term 'retro' isn't defined by that criteria in general terms, but to stop this questions from perpertually being discussed, as applied to this forum those are the criteria. So now, when the inevitable question comes up again; "What is a retro car/Is my car retro?", the simple answer is as follows. People have different opinions on what defines a retro car, however for the purposes of this forum, a retro car is one manufacturered between 1965 and 1995, and preferably modified. Exception outside of that date range is given for something particurly interestingOf course, that does open up a seperate discussion about 'What defines interesting?', but that's a whole other can of spaghetti.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 23, 2016 11:15:19 GMT by VIP
|
|
|