|
|
Dec 17, 2004 11:59:29 GMT
|
Lets say we put an arbitrary limit of 20 years on "Retro". What if a car was introduced 22 years ago, but you have an example of that exact model that is only, say, 12 years old. If the model wasn't substantilly altered in the intervening years is your car still retro?
For example take the K10 Micra. If an 82 Micra could be classed as Retro, could a 92 K10 also be classed as Retro. It's essentially the same car after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 12:05:18 GMT
|
I think rather than age, it is a theme. There is a certain feeling involved. Some new cars could be retro styled, some can't.
New Micra - never Old Micra - works
|
|
Peugeot 307sw - Suzuki SV650S - MX5.
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 12:06:14 GMT
|
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2004 12:06:41 GMT by iRocco
I like long walks, especially when they're taken by people I don't like.
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 12:49:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 13:07:51 GMT
|
Not new and interesting.
|
|
|
|
Higgim
Part of things
Posts: 269
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 14:06:43 GMT
|
For me, its a car which makes me think twice "Well actually, yeah.." More of an idea than actual fact.
It why, I think I will view the Focus as a retroish car in the next 5 years, however I never have and don't believe i will look back on the MkV Orion as Retro.
But thats only my take on it.
|
|
Vorsprung Dub Technik
|
|
|
How old is Retro?BenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
Dec 17, 2004 15:37:23 GMT
|
I used to define the word "retro" as something brand new that's designed to look old - such as the new Beetle and Mini. It seems to have taken on a different meaning in the past few years though, being used to describe (in this case) cars that are from a different era. I think cars can be retro before they are considered classics, especially the more common cars like the Ford Cortina Mk5 or the Mk3 Escort - not widely viewed as classics, but are definitely retro in my book. I don't necessarily think that there's a time limit of when a car becomes retro - I think that depends on the age of the person rather than the car. I tend to look back at cars I used to see when I was a kid in the '80s and think of them as being essentially retro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 15:55:40 GMT
|
I think it's more of a mental thing than a genuine limit really, I mean some people don't say 80s cars are retro, but personally I do, for a start I think 80s Volvos are great, and are retro since they're more from Volvos big, rear wheel drive and boxy era, rather than their later front wheel drive curse word they moved onto during the 90s and only made by the mid 90s when the 9 series went out of production. In the same style I think almost any Lada Riva or Niva could be retro, since most of them were fundamentally like the earlier ones, especially the Riva which has changed very little but is still being made, and I like modern Caterham 7s, since they are still in many ways like the original Lotus, just are an evolution of them, whearas something like the more recent Micras, ie the new ones and the ones before that, are modern in their design approach, driving experience and look as well as their date of manufacture, so they aren't really retro. I think a car often needs to look and drive retro in order for people to accept it as a retro car. Give it a few years mind you, and we might start seeing people warm to some of the newer stuff, for example I thought the mk3 Astra was a nice little car, but it's not by any means retro yet and I wouldn't take one to shows. Nice, but not retro. Now this on the other hand!
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
HytestA
Part of things
Cant beat a good bit of rubbing :D
Posts: 539
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 16:08:57 GMT
|
The noun "retro" has 1 sense in WordNet. 1. retro -- (a fashion reminiscent of the past) I wouldn't class retro as new but looking old i.e New Beetle or New Mini, otherwise the term retro-gaming would not work as no-one makes new Commodore or Sinclair computers. I like to think of retro as somewhere between new and classic just my 2pence worth
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 16:21:49 GMT
|
I'd say a true retro car has related advertising featuring people with hair styles you woudn't be seen dead with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 16:29:59 GMT
|
The noun "retro" has 1 sense in WordNet. 1. retro -- (a fashion reminiscent of the past) I wouldn't class retro as new but looking old i.e New Beetle or New Mini, otherwise the term retro-gaming would not work as no-one makes new Commodore or Sinclair computers. I like to think of retro as somewhere between new and classic just my 2pence worth Ah, if we're going to start bartering semantics then consider the word "classic" that you just used. Classic used to be something outstanding for it's era, now it just means old. The best description I ever saw for the word classic was in a surfing book and it was "a cool thing with historical precedence", so to be a classic a car has to be (a) old and (b) cool. A Hillman Hunter is certainly old, but is it cool? OTOH retro did used to be a fashion term for something designed to look old. Don't think that would work with the new Beetle or MINI (spit) because neither of them actually look old, they are both cynical attempts to try to bring a given style up to date. Retro on the other hand seems to have a certain tendency towards inverse cool (retro cool if you like). So cars that definitely weren't cool in their day are suddenly cool retro cars. Most people seem to agree with what I thought in the first place. Retro is more of a philosophy than simply an age thing. As to whether a K10 Micra is actually a retro car, well that's another issue altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 17:28:30 GMT
|
We Had a Similar thing with Bikes a while back. A Couple of us on here are into Supermotos..... Dirt bikes with Fat road race rubber and little wheels. Which are mental fun to ride and throw around....... The popularity has grown because they are such good fun, but people started the old "Is it a real supermoto if it hasnt got 17" wheels ?" thing and arguing about it. One saying stopped it all, by a certain Mr Dave Lippett, "Supermoto is an attitude NOT a wheel size" See any parallels Thats what I hate about the whole VW scene, don't get me wrong they turn out some superb cars, but its the Bitchy anal way in which they do it that I cant stand They are forever falling out and setting up another "Crew" or "Cartel" or "Edition" or whatever... Life too foo*in` short Build it, ride/drive it, enjoy it, bust it, fix it, mod it, sell it, repeat to fade ;D I have modded cars since before I could officially drive, I am not in to one thing, I like Dubs, Yanks, Bikes, Chops, Customs, Rods, Eurobarges, Stoopid Horsepower, if its got a motor and you can have fun in/on it that`ll do. For Me Retro is an Attitude, I hang out here because were all very similar in attitude. Buy something, mod it on the cheap so it looks cool and handles better/ goes better whatever.... This to me is the continuation of "Hot Rodding" as opposed to the current Fad of "Maxing" Not read the latest "Performance VW/BMW/Ford/Whatever" and buy what they say is cool to bolt on your car. To coin a phrase, we tend to "Think outside the box" ;D Each to their own and that....... but Micras and Metros are a big no no for me ;D ;D I don't get it sorry 6R4 I`ll give you, but thats it Sorry for the ramble Dom
|
|
|
|
RetroMat
Posted a lot
Column Shifting!
Posts: 3,444
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 18:11:36 GMT
|
I think where K10 micras are concerned the pre facelift is retro (82-89) the face lift (like mine) is only borderline, but then again if the 205 is retro and featured in retro cars why isn't the Micra after all the last 205's were M-reg whilst the K10 was only built til '92. General whether a car is retro or not is your own opinion, I class most pre 90's car as retro, maybe because these are the cars i grew up with.
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2004 18:21:29 GMT by RetroMat
|
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 19:52:25 GMT
|
Like the look of your Micra. Anybody know where I can get a K10 turbo cheap? No, thought not. I don't agree with some of the cars they feature in Retro cars, but like I said before, it would be a boring world if we all agreed. The 205 is also a year younger than the Micra (1983 against 1982), but there's something else about it that makes it seem un-Retro to me. Partly I think it's that it was something of a revolution when it was introduced, drive one today and it feels more modern than say a Mk2 Fiesta. The looks are pretty retro though, so I suppose that's important. Actually I always thought they stole the look from the K10. Now if I could make a K10 handle like Sarah's K12 I'd be laughing. Don't believe what they tell you in the motoring press, a K12 Micra will outhandle any of it's competition. You have to really abuse it to make it understeer, even then on a dry road sometimes it will just seem to dig in and find more front end grip. Getting the back end out on a trailling throttle in the wet is a cinch. Don't tell Sarah I said that though!
|
|
|
|
RetroMat
Posted a lot
Column Shifting!
Posts: 3,444
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 22:38:51 GMT
|
I recon my K10 would give any K12 or modern hatch a run for its money in the handling stakes its like a go cart atm with SPAX springs, all new brushes, gas shocks and anti roll bar. ;D As for the K12 i would rather take my chances in my 10, my local nissan garage are having so many problems with them, suspect electrics, trim falling off and the other day i found that a common problem on early K12s is the spare wheel wells fill up with water, 1 1/2 buckets worth!
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2004 22:42:46 GMT by RetroMat
|
|
RetroMat
Posted a lot
Column Shifting!
Posts: 3,444
|
|
Dec 17, 2004 22:46:20 GMT
|
try this place they will import you one: www.j-garage.coman there are quite a large number living in Ireland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2004 17:06:50 GMT
|
I recon my K10 would give any K12 or modern hatch a run for its money in the handling stakes its like a go cart atm with SPAX springs, all new brushes, gas shocks and anti roll bar. ;D As for the K12 i would rather take my chances in my 10, my local nissan garage are having so many problems with them, suspect electrics, trim falling off and the other day i found that a common problem on early K12s is the spare wheel wells fill up with water, 1 1/2 buckets worth! Interesting you should mention K12 reliability. Sarah's K12 is one of the very first, it's second birthday is rapidly approaching and we have only had one problem. A failed airbag module in the drivers seat. When it comes to handling you mention an anti-roll bar. At the front is it? Well therein lies a problem. Think about what an anti-roll bar actually does, or rather what the end result of it's action is. It actually reduces grip by increasing weight transfer in a corner. On the front of a front wheel drive car they will increase understeer. Why are they fitted to production cars? Well one major reason is that they restrict body roll without having to have harsh suspension. Often they are fitted as a band aid cure. The suspension geometry may be bad in roll. There are two solutions to this, you could sort out the suspension geometry for roll or you could restrict roll. A production engineer will tend to do the latter, a race engineer would favour the former. In that situation you may actually improve grip by fitting an anti-roll bar, but you would improve it a whole lot more by correcting the suspension geometry for roll. There are some situations where fitting an anti-roll bar will improve grip, but more often than not there is a better solution. A common misconception is that they must improve handling because they are often fitted to competition cars. Well the ones on competion cars tend to be adjustable, and you'd be amazed how often they are set to zero, and their resistance is only increased from there in order to counter other problems, for example a bumpy track requiring softer suspension. Remember the 205GTI? When it came along it's big leap over the previous hot hatch king, the Golf, was in it's handling. The Pug was much more neutral than the understeery VW because the 205 had more rear roll restriction than front. This leap forward was a revelation in front drive handling. Once upon a time front drive cars understeered everywhere other than on a seriously trailing throttle, so you could really tell the difference between front and rear drive cars. Modern front drive cars are barely distinguishable from their rear drive brethren, except in extremis. Sorry about the essay, but my first approach to improving the suspension on a car is to look at the geometry and see if it can't be improved in some way before I start spending money on springs, shocks or whatever. And I would never add an anti-roll bar unless it was fully adjustable.
|
|
|
|
RetroMat
Posted a lot
Column Shifting!
Posts: 3,444
|
|
Dec 18, 2004 17:43:38 GMT
|
my anti roll bar is on the rear, they were fitted as optional extras on some K10's, the one i got came of my spares car so i didn't spend any money, wether it makes a difference or not (it will cock a wheel MK1 golf style on some corners) . As for the other suff (shocks and springs) i got them cheap off fleabay because the existing shocks were nackered so i though i would upgrade ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2004 21:15:06 GMT
|
my anti roll bar is on the rear, they were fitted as optional extras on some K10's, the one i got came of my spares car so i didn't spend any money, wether it makes a difference or not (it will cock a wheel MK1 golf style on some corners) . As for the other suff (shocks and springs) i got them cheap off fleabay because the existing shocks were nackered so i though i would upgrade ;D Nice to hear you put the a/r bar on the right end. However when you are upgrading your shocks and springs you are fundamentally changing the behaviour of the suspension. As such you may find that an a/r bar designed for the standard suspension may do more harm than good. With upgraded suspension on any car you will have increased roll stiffness anyway. In which case for any car in this situation I would recommend giving the car a try without bars fitted at all. Remember a primary function of an anti-roll bar is to reduce roll while allowing a relatively soft ride. If you were to stiffen up the ride then would the bar be needed at all? Or would it be needed as much? A less stiff bar may be the answer. In which case making the bar adjustable may help. Also watch out for the feel versus results problem. Without measurement a car can feel as if it handles better, or indeed worse, simply because something has been changed. If you want a car to handle better find a nice twisty bit of road and time yourself over it with different setups, that way you will know if any handling mods are making a difference. Remember something like an anti-roll bar and it's fittings add a fair bit of weight. No point in it reducing your power to weight ratio if it isn't improving your handling. A friend of mine once bought a rear a/r bar for his mini. After fitting it he was convinced the handling was improved. So he cranked up the stiffness on the principal that if a little bit of extra roll stiffness helps then a lot will be better. After he spun the car when he lifted off in a bend he wasn't so convinced. Mini racers like a really twitchy back end so it will oversteer into a corner, they then balance this with power induced understeer - resulting in the classic four wheel drift. On a road car where conditions, surfaces and traffic are less predicatable this sort of twitchyness is not a good idea. Likewise adding a non-adjustable bar to the rear end of a car whose handling was previously OK may give you more roll stiffness than you need. Me, I'm all for the full rear beam conversion on a FWD car. Five link or two and an A-frame.
|
|
|
|