What's a technology that was cooler in its older iterations?

Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 448 points –

I don't mean BETTER. That's a different conversation. I mean cooler.

An old CRT display was literally a small scale particle accelerator, firing angry electron beams at light speed towards the viewers, bent by an electromagnet that alternates at an ultra high frequency, stopped by a rounded rectangle of glowing phosphors.

If a CRT goes bad it can actually make people sick.

That's just. Conceptually a lot COOLER than a modern LED panel, which really is just a bajillion very tiny lightbulbs.

476

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

Cars used to be cool. Every car company had some kind of sporty car, a couple cheap cars, a big luxury sedan and, a while ago, a station wagon.

Now every car is an SUV or CUV. Sedans are getting phased out. Cool sports cars don't make money so they don't make them. People don't buy station wagons so they don't make them. And they're pushing big, angry trucks on everyone.

This, so much this. As a car enjoyer, seeing cars slowly mutate into giant bloated expensive iPads on wheels is painful. I don't want to buy any car made past 2010 and I know that won't be a viable option soon.

In the last episode of The Grand Tour Clarkson said that he's done with cars because they've become appliances, and it's no fun reviewing microwaves.

And we can't get small trucks due to a loophole in EPA regulations. I just want something like an old-school Ranger, light, easy on gas, two jump seats in the back for the kids.

The old Ford Rangers were definitely not easy on gas, and those back seats were extremely unsafe. But we could absolutely have trucks that size now that are fuel efficient and safer, and I would buy one in a heart beat. Hell, I tried to buy a Maverick but it's been impossible every year and now they don't even come with the hybrid drivetrain standard so I've lost interest.

Compared to any of the bigger trucks of the dame vintage? They were cheaper on gas

I think that some of that is fuel efficiency requirements forcing convergence.

The sedan thing weirded me out too -- I mean, when I think of a "car", I think of a sedan -- but as I understand from reading, that related to people wanting larger maximum cargo space in the car, like if they had to shove a piece of furniture or something in it. I'm in the sedan camp -- in the very rare case that I need to move something really large, I'm just gonna U-Haul it. But I can at least understand the concern people have.

The truck and generally-large vehicle thing, I think, related to a combination of:

  • The chicken tax. American auto manufacturers have a 25% protective tariff covering the "light truck" class, making it much more profitable for domestic sales.

  • Fuel efficiency exemptions granted that class (which I suspect may have something to do with regulations resulting from lobbying from said manufacturers and them having incentives surrounding the above chicken tax).

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

    CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca developed the idea of marketing the minivan as a station wagon alternative, while certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance with less-strict CAFE standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the promotion of the SUV.[106][107]

    The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler PT Cruiser was defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.[2] Under then light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser had have a lower fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.

  • High American towing requirements. That is, American vehicles have far more restrictive towing requirements than in most other countries -- you need a larger vehicle to legally tow a given load than in many other countries. I suspect that the regulations may also have something to do with American automakers lobbying for protective regulation; it pushes American consumers to buy from that protected class of vehicles.

Long story short -- I think that you can probably chalk a lot of that up to rent-seeking out of Detroit.

Fuel economy is ruining the sedans and wagons that still exist. Volvos are getting really long and really wide, because CAFE standards take to the area underneath the wheelbase into account, and the bigger that is the less economical they have to be.

I've got a 2015 v60 and while I like the new ones they're just too damn wide and long.

The length I figure mostly isn't an issue aside from maybe street parking. But the width thing seems like a hassle.

I drive a (by American standards) narrow sedan, but I have to say that I keep seeing people have trouble getting out of their cars in older parking lots because there isn't enough clearance between two wide vehicles. Lot of people just lapping over two slots or avoiding parking next to another car.

I suppose that some of that is self-solving -- I mean, if there's enough inertia, parking lot operators will reallocate space in their lots. Or maybe vehicle manufacturers will step in and minivan-style sliding doors will just become the norm (like a two "sliding door coupe", maybe?)

I'd rather just have either (a) the protectionism go away, or (b) if that's not possible for political reasons, at least slash the misincentives associated with it. Just outright say "if it's an American-made vehicle, it gets a subsidy" if that's what industrial policy actually is. All of the associated regulatory stuff is creating inefficiencies of its own.

I've got a house built in the 70s and a new Volvo wagon won't fit lengthwise in it without gutting the garage.

Meanwhile my GTI can fit in front of my workbench with almost six feet to spare.

Oh, good point, hadn't thought about the changes to garages over time. Hmm.

I'd take it even further: Cars used to be cool - in the 50s to late 60s. Modern cars look so bloody bland in comparison. I'm sure there were duds as well, but the models that show up in period pieces look way cooler than anything we have today.

The engine compartment of a really old car, say pre-1970s, is almost comically empty. Anything newer has so many ducts and hoses you can't see the ground.

I'm tired of fuckin hatchbacks, I just want a regular car, not an SUV, not a truck, just, a fucking car car.

Sedan or coupe?

I mean really I'd prefer a four door but more for carrying... A little more stuff? I don't know, I really want a Rivian but they're like 80k and all.

I mostly want a four door so I can throw shit in the back.

A rear door is handy for throwing shit in the back tho - I wouldn't even buy a car without a hatchback for that very reason.

I'm a fan of (five door) hatchbacks, but station wagons were fucking cool

People don’t buy station wagons so they don’t make them.

Hatchbacks are just renamed station wagons. Change my mind.

I'd say a hatchback is a sedan with the trunk/boot removed, while a station wagon has the trunk/boot extended to the roofline. Hatchbacks would end up shorter than the sedan or wagon version of cars.

I do think that branding is also a factor. I remember once reading something saying that that people who get married and have kids and need a family vehicle don't like driving what their parents drive, that it'd be boring and stodgy. So avoiding the station wagon that their parents drove, the next generation drove minivans. The next generation avoided their parents' minivan, and drove SUVs. The next generation avoided SUVs and drove hatchback CUVs.

They all kinda fill the same role, as a large enclosed vehicle with a fair bit of cargo space accessible via a rear door.

Here's a generation-old article from when SUVs were the hot item on the way in:

https://www.chiefmarketer.com/are-we-there-yet-minivan-marketing-is-driven-by-the-changing-needs-of-american-families/

For a period starting in the early 1980s, when Chrysler couldn’t make enough Caravans and Voyagers, the minivan was a suburban status symbol. Baby Boomers claimed it as their preferred mode of family transportation, replacing the stalwart station wagon that had dominated for decades. Nearly every auto maker added a minivan to its line, and the category topped the auto sales charts throughout most of the ’90s.

Times have changed. Boomer offspring have grown up and out of their car seats and started driving their own cars. More and more moms, notably those from the older end of Generation X, are working. Sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) are all the rage in suburbia, with many a maturing mom abandoning her minivan, opting for liberating style over utilitarian substance. Along the way, the minivan has developed a stigma, and now brands its owner as pragmatic and sensible – not to mention a little bit square.

“Minivans are out of favor,” says Gordon Wangers, managing partner of Automotive Marketing Consultants Inc., Vista, CA. “Many former minivan moms wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan [now]. They want an SUV. It’s a major trend that will not go away.”

I think it also has to do with the population getting older and fatter. People aren't able to get into and out of traditional sedans anymore, so they need something with more ride height.

That would explain why station wagons didn't come back into fashion.

All the station wagon I ever owned I could comfortable sleep in the back of, with a partner. Hatchbacks are way too short.

It’s because people want a big boot. In Europe hatchbacks/cross overs are favored over sedans for that reason. And people just don’t like the look of a station wagon/estate car. Only the luxury brands still make sedans.