Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bell
I didn't say the C was beautiful- just that I preferred it to the D, which to me isn't even close to the description. And IMHO the XKSS is worse!  (Sorry JT)
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ! How boring it would be if people didn't have different views on aesthetics......  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin McKay
C type, elegant.
D type, purposeful.
XKSS, pug ugly. If I'm generous, of its time.
|
Mike , that's the second time you have apologised to me recently and even less sure why this time!
I have tried to avoid this argument as some of it's a generational thing and I actually appreciate cars from many periods (see my response to Bob, below).
Colin, I would tend to agree with that although perhaps a bit harsh to call the XKSS 'pug' ugly. I'm not struck by the beauty of the D type, but more by the impact that the car, especially in long nosed high tailfin form would have had - positively futuristic or other worldly at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bauble
We had better include one of these before JT, blows his top. Another well proportioned classic from the '50's. So unlike those .............
|
Well, yes, I've always said it was my favourite sports racer, just 5 built and would have achieved even more had it had a decent gearbox, a real irony given the manufacturer. Brilliant around the Nurburgring though which says it all really. Probably alongside that, I would put the 917, so I am able easily to move beyond the 50s. In fact, for sheer beauty, the Ferrari P4 and Chevron B16 take some beating but as Mike says, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
All of this, however, has taken us away from the thread title a bit so I may have to alter it a bit to accommodate the change of direction although I haven't quite finished with my favourite images from 2016, yet.