I occasionally read of new models that "the interior looks dated". Or "too much like last year's". Why should have to look an undefined, indeed undefinable, "this year's"?
Dated compared with what? Is there a dating system for interiors? Is it because compared with last year's it doesn't look enough like the flight deck of Startrek or one of the gaming machines the gormless airhead kids hereabouts spend half their lives playing on?
Or is it that upholstery still resembles last year's catwalk fashions, i.e. oh my goodness dahling, it's just so 2003 Gucci don't you think? Kiss of death presumably among the cognoscenti.
Perhaps for some it needs to look a bit more like the waiting room sofas in Madame Claudine's Palace of Delight in Beirut? Or a bit less.
I mean if it's got seats and a dashboard with the needful thereon so what? Does it need to look like the flight deck of an A340-400? Come to think of it those have been around a while so they must be a bit dated too.
Such comments mystify me since I can't find a frame of reference which says what an interior is supposed to look like, so I am led to the inescapable conclusion such a remark is entirely subjective and therefore to be completely ignored.
Like art, I know what I like.......
|
I think you've pretty much answered your own question there.
It's 'fashion' - whatever that is.
|
give me the "dated" look anytime, to me proper style never goes out of fashion, the old car look (real leather and real wood dashes) ooze so much more quality than todays flashy lights and plastics. they also kept that nice leathery new car smell a lot longer as well.
billy.
|
|
Have vauxhall sacked the ex coal miner they employed to design the interiors over the last few years?
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Know what you mean about those stupid comments. I take it that you read them from one of the usual Autocar etc magazines. For some time now, I have scrolled through some of them and realised that they can speak a load of rubbish. They seem to think that they are the be all and end all of the car buying public, and that what they say goes, and that?s final. Heaven help someone have an opinion on something.
I think that they must have a book of "Random insults" If the motoring press decide they don?t like something, they can really pick it to shreds, and to bolster up their report, they refer to their book and insert vague comments as necessary. The deciding factor of whether they like a car is usually linked to its manufacturer.
Looking back to Autocar/Motor reports of the 70s, they haven?t changed much and if anything, have became worse. (the reports were always very thorough)
Sadly, they are also becoming rather biased, with them picking out certain manufactures all the time while others go unnoticed for ages.
However, some of their reports aren?t really that bad and can actually be very interesting.
Shame its not consistent
Roberson
|
I remember reading some advice to beware of buying cheap helmets at bike shows because dealers might be trying to flog off "Last Year's Colour Schemes."
Be devastating to be caught like that, wouldn't it? You'd think the government would pass a law against it.
|
|
Doesn't the tarmac say something like "that organ donor's in a seriously hip helmet - go easy on him boys"?
|
|
|
Tom:
You must know that old biker adage:
"$5 helmet = $5 head........."
|
|
|
|
I aggree 100% the road tests of autocar, what car etc are a load of rubbish take thier claim on car relaibility, for example they will always say that vaulxhall's are reliable. Of course in the time span they keep thier cars say 1-2 years upto 15-20k any car would be reliable.
kal
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I blame the dead hand of marketing for all this, that sinister language that goes any which way to avoid calling a spade a spade, does not acknowledge poor quality (it's 'value for money'), and tries to make you believe that if you haven't got the latest thing then it is, as Growler says, so last year.
Marketing people feed into the press, which has an unfortunate tendency to adopt the language of the manufacturers so that it appears knowledgeable (and, as I'm sure HJ will tell you, not all of them are knowledgeable).
Safety (materials and positioning) or technology (new methods of display or new information) are the only practical reasons for changes in dashboard design. Everything else is fashion froth.
The only time in the last few years when I've really been struck by a sensible new idea for the dashboard was when Saab introduced its 'Black Panel' for dials at night. And what did that do? Switched most of 'em off...
|
|
|
