[Palomine]

Fugly 

No, it's not beautiful. But at that price, how could it be? You do yourself a disservice if you ignore that it's not targeted at North American consumers, who routinely spend three to four times that much money on the basest of domestically-available entry-level cars (Nissan Versa/Sentra, Toyota Yaris, etc...). The Nano is a plastic-bodied car with minimal features designed to be the first car for people who've only ever been able to afford scooters before.

Context is all.

[solvegas]

No, it's not beautiful. But at that price, how could it be? You do yourself a disservice if you ignore that it's not targeted at North American consumers, who routinely spend three to four times that much money on the basest of domestically-available entry-level cars (Nissan Versa/Sentra, Toyota Yaris, etc...). The Nano is a plastic-bodied car with minimal features designed to be the first car for people who've only ever been able to afford scooters before.

Context is all.

Yes, that is all very true and correct Palomine. Like the original people's car, the VW bug or even earlier, the Ford Model T, it is a entry car for those who just earlier could only dream of car ownership. But all three cars share a common trait, there are fugly.

[gOOber]

Yes, that is all very true and correct Palomine. Like the original people's car, the VW bug or even earlier, the Ford Model T, it is a entry car for those who just earlier could only dream of car ownership. But all three cars share a common trait, there are fugly.

Sometimes the interior makes up for the exterior.

[solvegas]

Sometimes the interior makes up for the exterior.

Well, if you can get that option in any car, IT'S A BARGAIN !!! 

[pedonbio]

 

[solvegas]

Such a beautiful car. In my opinion though, the modern wheels and paint scheme detract from the original beauty of a classic car when the most technological, advanced and  best cars in the world, bar none, were made in the USA. 

[Palomine]

Yes, that is all very true and correct Palomine. Like the original people's car, the VW bug or even earlier, the Ford Model T, it is a entry car for those who just earlier could only dream of car ownership. But all three cars share a common trait, there are fugly.

The original Beetle was ugly?!? The Model T? Is your sense of aesthetics so thoroughly separated from any appreciation of form following function, or are you just so easily persuaded by marketing photos that any car that doesn't look like your personal favorites is deemed 'fugly' by default? Neither the Beetle nor the Model T were beautiful in the traditional superficial sense (and the Nano certainly isn't) but both of them demonstrate ample visual appeal in that they're very clever designs that accomplish their intended goals with a minimum of muss, fuss and materials. To me (and to many automotive designers, reviewers and collectors) this makes them very beautiful indeed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... though your posts here illustrate why some guys are so wild about generic/identical implanted blondes so heavily processed and made-up that they're almost completely devoid of any trace of personality or uniqueness, even when photographed sans photoshop. Give me a sexy, wholesome unretouched woman and a car that's designed to look like it's suited for its purpose any day.  

Pic of the woman from my big IDQ thread is linked from a prior post, so no 1-1-1 violation.

[solvegas]

The original Beetle was ugly?!? The Model T? Is your sense of aesthetics so thoroughly separated from any appreciation of form following function, or are you just so easily persuaded by marketing photos that any car that doesn't look like your personal favorites is deemed 'fugly' by default? Neither the Beetle nor the Model T were beautiful in the traditional superficial sense (and the Nano certainly isn't) but both of them demonstrate ample visual appeal in that they're very clever designs that accomplish their intended goals with a minimum of muss, fuss and materials. To me (and to many automotive designers, reviewers and collectors) this makes them very beautiful indeed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... though your posts here illustrate why some guys are so wild about generic/identical implanted blondes so heavily processed and made-up that they're almost completely devoid of any trace of personality or uniqueness, even when photographed sans photoshop. Give me a sexy, wholesome unretouched woman and a car that's designed to look like it's suited for its purpose any day.    

Whatever. Guess we won't agree. The 1962 Jaguar XJE is extremely beautiful. The 1967 split window Corvette is a gorgeous classic. The Porsche 911 IS a a beautiful classic. The 1937 Cord above ( and all Deusenbergs for that matter ) are classics. To me form and function are beautiful but do they have to be ugly like Hitler's favorite little car ? And obviously you don't care for Amy Andersen, Beshine or Chelsea Charms. To each his own. But it is obvious you have never met Chelsea or you wouldn't imply or say she has no personality. You are a good moderator but it's obvious we won't see eye to eye ( and not just because I'm a short man ).

[Palomine]

Whatever. Guess we won't agree. The 1962 Jaguar XJE is extremely beautiful. The 1967 split window Corvette is a gorgeous classic. The Porsche 911 IS a a beautiful classic. The 1937 Cord above ( and all Deusenbergs for that matter ) are classics. To me form and function are beautiful but do they have to be ugly like Hitler's favorite little car ? And obviously you don't care for Amy Andersen, Beshine or Chelsea Charms. To each his own. But it is obvious you have never met Chelsea or you wouldn't imply or say she has no personality. You are a good moderator but it's obvious we won't see eye to eye ( and not just because I'm a short man ).

Yes, we're not likely to agree it seems. And I never said that models who look generic/overly processed have no personality, just that in photos, they often look devoid of it... there's a difference. Further, I didn't mention Chelsea at all in this regard... though I'd not consider myself a fan of hers (at least not recently) I'd never suggest that she looked generic: on the contrary, her angular facial structure lends her some uniqueness, and I believe I've said so many times.

Finally: yes the original Beetle was part of Hitler's propaganda effort. But so what? What bearing does that have on the aesthetics of the car? The Porsche 911 you regard as beautiful (and there, I agree with you 100%) descends from the Beetle... it's ancestry can be traced easily albeit indirectly to Hitler too... yet that doesn't seem to count against it in your view.

Methinks you are conflating aerodynamics with beauty. While I agree that aerodynamics is a crucial consideration in the efficiency of a car, it alone doesn't make a vehicle beautiful (see VW's recent 200+ MPG prototypes for example... they're slippery and sleek as hell but not particularly pretty).

[gOOber]

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9985670.0.html

[Cris_H]

Yes, that is all very true and correct Palomine. Like the original people's car, the VW bug or even earlier, the Ford Model T, it is a entry car for those who just earlier could only dream of car ownership. But all three cars share a common trait, there are fugly.

I would prefer to say that the original VW Beetle, Ford Model T and this Tata Nano are not beautiful cars (nor possibly, even good-looking cars), but neither are they ugly (much less f**king ugly).  They are too plain to be truly ugly.  Unattractive, perhaps, but ugly?  To me, ugly has more character, like a Pontiac Aztec or one of the lemon sucking Plymouths circa 1960.  Beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder, of course.  Personally, I appreciate all three of those cars that Solvegas mentioned as ugly.  To me, they're interesting (well, maybe not so much the Tata), whereas an Aztec will always just look bad to me.  Personal opinion.

[solvegas]

The Aztek was .... bizarre. What kind of shitty dope did those designers get a hold off ?  And the upper management dopes that approved it ? 500 floggins would not suffice. Of course, the AMC Pacer and/or Gremlin conjure up no good feelings either. So the Model T, VW bug and Tata Nano are not the ugliest ever by a long shot but they are still fugly IMO.

[Tugboatcap]

What most people do not realize is that the Model T Ford was WAY ahead of it's time compared to most cars of the day.  Ford was one of the first, in the Model T, to offer an optional ignition/steering lock to prevent theft.  Also, the Driver's door did not exist, but was merely a pressed outline of a door.  The only one that opened was the passenger side.  This continued through a lot of the production vehicles in one form or another into the 40's as Henry Ford believed that getting out of a parked car on the drivers side into traffic was a danger.  Even in the late 40's/early 50's, many Ford vehicles could only be locked from the outside on the passenger side.  You would have to lock the driver door from the inside (pulling up on the handle that opens the door) and slide over and out on the passenger side. The drivers door did not have an outside lock to unlock it from.

Tugboat"You have to do that on my '49 Ford F-1 Pickup...It's a pain!"Cap!

[mcgarp]

Never been a huge fan of GM or even Vette's, but the 2014 Corvette Stingray looks awfully sexy to me.

[Eliza D]

What most people do not realize is that the Model T Ford was WAY ahead of it's time compared to most cars of the day.  Ford was one of the first, in the Model T, to offer an optional ignition/steering lock to prevent theft.  Also, the Driver's door did not exist, but was merely a pressed outline of a door.  The only one that opened was the passenger side.  This continued through a lot of the production vehicles in one form or another into the 40's as Henry Ford believed that getting out of a parked car on the drivers side into traffic was a danger.  Even in the late 40's/early 50's, many Ford vehicles could only be locked from the outside on the passenger side.  You would have to lock the driver door from the inside (pulling up on the handle that opens the door) and slide over and out on the passenger side. The drivers door did not have an outside lock to unlock it from.

Tugboat"You have to do that on my '49 Ford F-1 Pickup...It's a pain!"Cap!

Is that right?  That's fascinating.  Ford was probably right, especially in the early days when all you had to do was sneeze to get a license.  Too many unskilled drivers who could easily take your car door off.  I wonder, though, how many sales it cost him for people who didn't want to deal with that silliness.  I can hear the board meetings now: "Henry!  You can't keep dictating to people how to live or they won't bother buying one of your cars!"