Posted by Joe Lorenzino on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 at 0:13AM :
In Reply to: Re: A Brief Digression on Aesthetics.... posted by Matt Wilson on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 at 6:41PM :
A few more thoughts / reasons from the frozen north;
-The general public has REALLY BAD TASTE. My artist friends lament this all the time. Think it isn't true? How many Industrial yellow Pontiac Aztec's have you seen out there? (bar-none the ugliest vehicle/color combination yet. The only vehicle I can think of where bugs on the front are an improvement)
-There seems to be a lot of change merely for the sake of a model / year distinction. How can you impress people with a brand new vehicle, if it looks exactly the same as a 3 or 4 year old one? (maybe this lack of annual change is what caused low sales #’s for the FFPW?)
- the “envy factor” “Normal” people (those in the middle of the haystack curve) want what everyone else wants. They may not need, or even like something, but if it is “the thing to have”, they will make sure they get one. I wonder how many people “like” the fuel bills for their SUV’s lately.
- the de-evolution of the station wagon. Station wagons were practical, useful vehicles that our PARENTS used to drive. Minivans were invented for those who wouldn't be caught driving a wagon, but still wanted its practicality. SUV's are for people who wouldn't be caught driving a minivan, but still wanted its practicality. The 4X4 part is there to make up for the lack of a posi axle, and the prevalent use of all season tires. Just watch as the SUV continues to change (lower, sleeker, better handling, more car like) until it has morphed right back into a station wagon.
-the public's perception of safety. Air bags, antilock brakes, shift on the fly 4X4/all wheel drive were all available in the 70's, but people didn't want them. Now they don't feel safe without them. I remember reading about what was called "Volvo Syndrome": people who would buy what was thought to be the safest vehicle of the time, and drove like IDIOTS because they believed they would survive in a crash. I believe bigger SUV's are an extension of this philosophy
-trucks do not count, or count differently, towards the mandated "corporate total" fuel efficiency rating for the big auto makers. Remember the big battle over the PT Cruiser? Car or Truck? It was finally called a truck, much to the delight of the company, as it's lower fuel efficiency would have reduced the corp. total for cars to below the legal level. The more vehicles they can class. as a truck, the easier it is for them to meet the fuel efficiency standards.
Just a few of my rantings Joe L.
Follow Ups: