Hacker News Reader

Comment by NeedMoreTea | Hacker News Reader

The sad thing is an original Isigonis style 1980s mini estate gives more chance to put a full size dog in the back, with the rear seats up, than the current massive Mini Clubman estate that's cramped for a Yorkie with the back doors closed. It really is comical seeing original Mini and new next to each other -- the new one is not, by any stretch, "mini".

I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...

View on HN

Yea... is it just me or are cars just plain ugly these days (yuck).

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoqu...

https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-...

Draconian safety laws for manufacturers mean less visibility with narrow windows on the front, barely back window (backup cams required), and huge a-pillars.

So apparently we get safer cars but can see anything infront of us.

https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-...

Video of child not being seen by new car (he is unharmed though) https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9p7iH_1570391082

So many cars built within the last ten or so years look like the same boring identical bar of soap on wheels. Minus trivial details like the headlight cluster and grille, you really can’t tell most 4 door sedan brands abart unless you look closely. I wish the Cybertruck succeeds, not because I need one (I don’t) but because finally someone out there is trying to get a little creative with styling again!

I actually go an opposite approach. I am buying old cars - the market is great here in the US.

I got a 47k mileage 1991 Mazda Miata for 4500$! And the girlfriend loves how cool it is and shifting stick. You should try to snag something from the 90s before people realize how nice they are.

Modern cars are spy machines needing constant software updates and nonsense features like "push button start" which is probably just a ploy to no longer have to make complicated ignition switches.

that's nice and all. But if you collide with one of these new spy machines, you'll figure out why it's not the greatest idea to prefer old cars when you can afford newer cars. Safety is not something it's worth being a luddite for. I agree with you, even as a software engineer, I find it disgusting the amount of computing power my Honda has for that matter. However, if I run off the road, I would rather be in my current Honda than in my previous Honda (pre 2000).

I think the 2010-2012 strike a sweet spot for what you're saying. Reasonable safety, not a lot of software.

True, it is dangerous to drive a cool sports car. But its light and it handles well - its even modular with a huge aftermarket meaning I was able to easily spend an extra 1k and get both upgraded brakes and rotors installed.

Besides, if my girlfriend and I want to take a risk an enjoy a nice car I don't like the government telling me otherwise.

You're right about that date range, probably the best without software that thinks its better than you. Its going to be bad when cars have full electronic steering with no mechanics - you will essentially be holding an xbox controller and have no idea about your cars alignment lol

The trend to sameness is probably due to two main factors, more comprehensive collision safety laws and the push in many markets for fuel efficiency.

The collision safety regulations appear to have caused side and rear windows to get smaller (probably to improve side impact intrusion protection) and pillars to get wider (rollover protection).

Aerodynamic drag is a major contributor to fuel efficiency. To my eye there has been a trend (in Australia at least) to blur the line between sedans and hatchbacks. Sedan boots/trunks are getting taller and more sloped to smooth the transition from the rear window. The rear of hatchbacks have been also getting more sloped. Both are attempts to get a more tear-drop shape without overly compromising utility.

After many iterations working within the same industry wide constraints, it is not surprising that designers all optimise their designs to similar shapes and sizes.

The same effect can be seen in road bicycles. The UCI imposes limits on wheel size and other physical dimensions on bikes that are allowed to be used in UCI events (pro and amateur racing). Above 30km/hr aerodynamic drag starts to a major effect on the power a cyclist needs to output to maintain speed or accelerate. In recent years bike manufacturers have been wind tunnel tuning their designs more rigorously. This has resulted in the aero road bikes from the major manufacturers converging to almost identical designs. Cycling commentators and journalists have started agitating for relaxation of the UCI rules to try to get some innovation happening again.

The car magazines were calling them "jelly beans" as early as 1999, maybe earlier. The late 90s/early 2000s were full of blunt boring cars

yes, if you pick one of the ugliest modern cars, and compare it to one of the best-regarded car designs from the last 50 years, modern cars are ugly.

however if you compare these two, we can only conclude that cars are getting better looking: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2019/03/28/17/00DE283D000...

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images...

Worth pointing out that the Reliant Robins on Top Gear were modified so that they flip (more) easily [0].

[0]: https://jalopnik.com/clarkson-reveals-bombshell-top-gear-mod...

Oh dearie me. Hadn't seen one of those before. That over muscled slab fronted steroid abuser is not a patch on a DB5. Or 6. Or even a mid 70s Vantage. It doesn't look deserving of an Aston badge.

Actually, that's a really odd car. I looked around for more pictures ... it looks fine looking head on toward the front, as does a perfect side view. Every other angle looks oh so wrong. I have no idea how they achieved that! :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB5#/media/File:A...

Yeah, that new vantage is actually not that great looking, is it. I didn't look too closely, just grabbed a random shot off image search. The previous iteration of that car looked so good.

Which I think is a neat summary of current cars all having got over fat and bloated. The Jag F type is similarly too big (for my taste), but is one of a very few that manages to wear it well. An E type it is not, but it manages that "certain something".

My impression of modern cars is that they usually look like over-inflated balloons or gamer mice with wheels.

The fact that Fiat sell an SUV version of the 500 does my head in. It's about wringing everything you can from your brands, I guess.

I drove my 500e next to the four-door 500 this morning, and was astounded. I don't see how that huge thing is in any way related to my tiny car!

That's because it isn't, other than the badge.

Different platform, different engines...

I once saw an original Mini, a BMW Mini and a Hummer H2 waiting next to each other at the traffic lights. The latter two looked almost same size next to that original Mini.

As a driver, I would rather have larger crumple zones or places to put curtain airbags and such than space to be able to fit a full size dog in the back. Regulations aren't always bad or a burden on the industry (or for that matter on the dog owners). Having an EV 80's chassis would be a great idea for a hobby build or something to take out for a Sunday drive to the country. But I would'd drive that death trap daily.

Agreed. I think it's important to include safety in the conversation when making comparisons between today's vehicles and those of decades past. It's apparent that pursuing safety over things like "max # of canine accommodations" has yielded positive results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

At the expense of increasing pedestrian fatalities.

Pedestrian fatalities are included in the linked stats, but the proportion of pedestrian fatalities has been increasing. There are a number of potential explanations, including the increased prevalence of SUVs and trucks against which pedestrians fare worse, but nothing concrete yet. Vehicles are being designed with pedestrian safety in mind, but if a greater proportion of people are driving SUVs and trucks to get around, I think it's logical that more pedestrian fatalities would follow.

> Vehicles are being designed with pedestrian safety in mind

They're kind of not. The US still doesn't require any pedestrian safety ratings on cars sold there.

The majority of vehicles sold in the US are vehicles also sold elsewhere, e.g. Asia and Europe, which do have pedestrian protection rules in place. I found a short article that elaborates a bit on the relationship between these safety regs and design:

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15118822/taking-the-h...

Do the statistics on pedestrian fatalities include whether or not the pedestrian was distracted, such as talking on/looking at their phone? Or what about jaywalking/ignoring signals.

Cars arent solely to blame. Pedestrians need to held responsible for their reckless behavior in the presence of cars, too.

Rather irrelevant considering the increasing chance of dying if you're hit. That's nothing to do with phone or pedestrian signals which can only affect the chance of being hit.

Speaking as a car driver, in nearly all of those situations a car driver would be deservedly held responsible, as you're expected to be able to stop short of unexpected hazards. In built up areas that's going to include pedestrians. Drive slower.

Mass producing affordable small cars with modern safety and features is 100% a dream of mine as well.

I don't see myself selling my 2018 Fiesta because I doubt any other new car could replace it - objectively speaking based on specifications.

I put a couple of greyhounds in my Mini (I think it's still the same basic size as the current gen). It is certainly much larger than the original, but smaller than a Clubman so I have to wonder what your Yorkie looks like ;-)

I've only seen a Clubman in the street from the outside, and the estate bit looked like 20cm or so with the seats up. Obviously that's at the windows line so there's probably a bit more room lower down... So with seats up less than a Shepherd (or greyhound) shoulder width. Seats down, sure...

The idea of loading up that suspension ‘system’ with batteries makes me twitchy, but it’s such a great car that the extra effort that would be required would definitely be worth it.

That's true, so now it needs all new running gear, and becomes an insane labour of love like the Eagle E type.

Still fancy a try though. :)

Mini owner here, often think about this too. There’s an MGB that gets around my area which has been converted to electric.

It’ll be interesting to see if converting classics will become more common. Here’s hoping.

> It’ll be interesting to see if converting classics will become more common

It'll depend on the owner, really. Some folks want the style of the older vehicle but the technology of the future, so they go the EV (or at least Restomod) route.

Many folks like the simplicity, the sounds, the smells, and the looks of the classics, so they leave them original (or make minor mods to make them more "livable" without sacrificing the original intent).

As for size, I have a '71 MGB GT which can fit quite a lot in the back. But I like how it smells, how it rumbles, how it sounds, and that B-series motor, so it'll stay mostly original (though I have a hotter engine ready to go in it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com