How do you define a 'COOL' car?

[Famine]

I was starting to doubt if anyone else really knew how to judge cool, I'm glad to see someone else understands.

It's 'cos we're so cool.

 

[Lucas]

Wow. I guess I upset you recently since you're now travelling thread to thread just to disagree with me.

Perhaps it has anything to do with you saying something I don't agree with in the threads I am used to visit?

Good, since I haven't said whether I do or not.

Correction: I don't have any problems on what vote a car (cool, uncool, etc.) but how you vote them, as long as the logic doesn't make sense to me, or better said, when you contradict yourself.

Why?

Must everyone agree with you on what makes a car cool?

No. But at least I want them to give an explanation on how does it make sense to them to vote a car the way they do.

Being ugly doesn't make something uncool - check out the Holden Monaro (with nostrils), Pontiac Firebird (with nostrils), Escort RS Cosworth (with bulges and the most ridiculous spoiler since the Superbird Roadrunner), MG XPower SV (whew) and Lamborghini Countach (designed to have mumps by someone with a ruler) all sitting in the Cool section. And, for that matter, the SportKa. And the very pretty Rizk DBR2 replica in Uncool.

Being awkward doesn't make something uncool. I have no examples because I have no idea to what he was referring.

Being slow doesn't make something uncool. The fastest car we've ever voted on is in the Seriously Uncool section. The Mini Cooper 1.3i and Golf Mk1 GTi are both in cool and neither is any use past 100mph. The Bigfoot Monster Truck is there also and is geared to about ten. And there's three separate muscle cars in cool which would be embarrassed over a flying mile by a Ssangyong Musso.

And on the same basis, being good doesn't make something cool. We've only actually been asked to vote on one bad car so far, and that's rated "Sub-zero" currently.

Being a Hyundai doesn't make a car uncool. It's not a fact that every Hyundai is an uncool car. But it's your opinion, and to you, opinions are facts, so the Genesis is uncool, and you used the "it's a Hyundai" argument. Why argue with this guy on the subject, then? They are his opinions, and as such are facts. He can vote however he wants. I have come to realize that I have no problem on what you do. But at least keep it the same way for every person, and don't argue with people if they use the same logic as you do.

Except when there is no objectivity in the subject matter.

You would be right, if you then hadn't started to argue with him about what's slow and what's not... I mean, if you knew there was no objectivity on the subject matter, why bother arguing with him? You knew it would lead nowhere, right?

 

[Famine]

No. But at least I want them to give an explanation on how does it make sense to them to vote a car the way they do.

Go badger ericdemory then.

17%.

Why argue with this guy on the subject, then?

Read Jondot's post. Better yet, here it is:

MatskiMonk is allowed to think whatever he wants about the SportKa. The subsequent argument wasn't about his decision to class it as uncool, but about the fact that he'd brandished it as 'slow'. Which a considerable number of people disagreed with.

 

[Lucas]

Go badger ericdemory then.

17%.

I'm impressed neither Joey D or me asked him what is the way he uses for voting. I'd rather don't know.

I'm asking you because I know you are one of the smartest persons in the forum, so I was really perplexed when I saw you "voted" the car uncool just because it was a Hyundai.

Read Jondot's post. Better yet, here it is:

And that considerable amount of people, in my opinion, went on to see the objective side of "slow". And that's my point, anyways: that you can judge a subjective matter (considering the car slow) with an objective point of view. That's why Scaff later cited a dictionary on the meaning of the word speed, and used it to show Adamgp that he was "wrong" (in an objective point of view, he is, but Adamgp is right in saying that he can think of the car whatever he wants to. That he did not accepted Scaff was right, however, is a whole different thing).

In the end, Adamgp was wrong: the car is not slow (objective). That it is slow by his terms is another thing (subjective).

 

[Adamgp]

And that considerable amount of people, in my opinion, went on to see the objective side of "slow". And that's my point, anyways: that you can judge a subjective matter (considering the car slow) with an objective point of view. That's why Scaff later cited a dictionary on the meaning of the word speed, and used it to show Adamgp that he was "wrong" (in an objective point of view, he is, but Adamgp is right in saying that he can think of the car whatever he wants to. That he did not accepted Scaff was right, however, is a whole different thing).

In the end, Adamgp was wrong: the car is not slow (objective). That it is slow by his terms is another thing (subjective).

The car is still slow.

 

[Leonidae]

for a supercar, it would be superslow. for a hypermini, it's a rocket ship in it's own class.

 

[Joey D]

I'm impressed neither Joey D or me asked him what is the way he uses for voting. I'd rather don't know.

I'm bored with the argument, that's why I haven't bothered to ask him.

 

[Lucas]

I'm bored with the argument, that's why I haven't bothered to ask him.

I want to protect the world from being exposed to ericdemorygt's brain, that's why I haven't asked either (and will never ask him). Even for the Internet... it's pretty shocking.

 

[Jim Prower]

I was starting to doubt if anyone else really knew how to judge cool, I'm glad to see someone else understands.

It's 'cos we're so cool.

Those. Those hurt, right there.

What am I doing wrong? Explain this. Because I've seen you bellyaching so freaking often, I need to know what the heck you find wrong with what I'm doing.

I mean, If there's a right way and a wrong way to go about this, then I should be able to correct it, right? No? If I'm NOT doing something wrong, then you're lying, because you're obviously pissed about the way this is going. If I am, then you should tell me how to correct it. Solve my problem, because I obviously don't know how.

 

[Joey D]

Coolness should be judged on the entire package, not just one element. I'm not saying you are doing that I'm just saying a vast majority of members are. Look through all the threads and you get "It's good looking, cool" or "It's fast, cool". That makes no sense to me.

 

[Jim Prower]

Still, when you make broad, general comments like that...It hurts. alot.

 

[Jondot]

And that considerable amount of people, in my opinion, went on to see the objective side of "slow". And that's my point, anyways: that you can judge a subjective matter (considering the car slow) with an objective point of view. That's why Scaff later cited a dictionary on the meaning of the word speed, and used it to show Adamgp that he was "wrong" (in an objective point of view, he is, but Adamgp is right in saying that he can think of the car whatever he wants to. That he did not accepted Scaff was right, however, is a whole different thing).

In the end, Adamgp was wrong: the car is not slow (objective). That it is slow by his terms is another thing (subjective).

...which is all lovely, but you can't pull the same trick on deciding whether or not a car is cool. There's not really an objective side to back it up with. Which is what makes this such a minefield, I'm afraid.

The car is still slow.

Of course it is dear.

 

[daan]

How do you define a 'COOL' car?

I quite clearly make it up as I go along...

 

[CarBastard]

My ways of defining a cool car:

Pros:
1. Is it outrageous?
2. Is it revolutionary in it's styling or it's engineering? 💡
3. Does it have sexy, agressive, fast, or interesting/curious looks?
4. How is it's character?
5. Does it's looks match it's character?
6. Does it's performance/sound match it's character?
7. Is it reasonably fast?
8. Is it a fire-breathing monster? (Absolutely mad car or a racing car).
9. Is it a Lamborghini? (Being one makes it automatically Sub-Zero. Exceptions apply though).
10. Is it a recognizable car/legend/head-turner?
11. Does it have some sort of "Surprise/History factor" or any special deed done? ("It has a rotatory engine"/"It's the first 4WD Porsche"/"It, or it's closely related race version won the 24H of Le Mans").

Cons:
1. It has a dull, boxy, or "wanna-be" styling.
2. It looks like it has been riced.
3. Cant manage to make a graceful left-right turn at a corner. (See: Some Muscle cars and Dragsters).
4. It is a "Sober and elegant" car, but with high performance. (See: RR Phantom/Maybach 62).
5. It's an SUV/CUV/MPV/Pick-Up or any niche of the market that resemble one of those. Doesnt apply if it's a pure, purpose built, off-roading vehicle.
6. Cars that dont go outside the box both in styling and/or performance terms.
7. Cars with lazy engineering (8.0L engine developing...250HP! 👎).
8. Cars that are prone to attract gold diggers (He's driving a Ferrari...maybe i could have his life insurance).
9. Heavy cars.
10. Cars owned by bussinesmen or anyybody that would produce a boring and uninteresting conversation.
11. Ford cars. There is a reason why Henry Ford is criticized and is a god-like character in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", and unless it's a race car, a Ford GT, or a muscle car, this rule deems it automatically seriously uncool (Much like "Pro" rule #9).

I select the rules (the Pros and Cons) that apply, add them and take that as 100%. Then i work out the actual "cool" percentage the car has.

<55=Seriously Uncool
Between 56 and 69=Uncool 👎.
Between 70 and 85=Cool
85-95=Sub-Zero.
95-100=Lord Kelvin's Ice Box! .

EDIT 11/11/09: Added two more rules and slightly edited others. 1 con and 1 pro.
EDIT 09/12/90: Modified the percentages to make them less steep.
That's just my opinion .

 

[Lucas]

That makes no sense to me.

Like "It's a Hyundai, -insert level of coolness-"?

...which is all lovely, but you can't pull the same trick on deciding whether or not a car is cool. There's not really an objective side to back it up with. Which is what makes this such a minefield, I'm afraid.

You are right, we can't argue about that. I never argued the fact that Famine voted the car Uncool, but rather, I argued on why could he base his vote on a brand, regardless of the car's merits (which is why I gave an example using a different car and situation). And I'm amazed Joey D didn't said anything to him about it.

 

[Famine]

Because "cool" is not related to a car's merits.

Still, when you make broad, general comments like that...It hurts. alot.

Well, mine was sarcastic. Given that any car I'd buy is automatically uncool.

 

[Joey D]

Still, when you make broad, general comments like that...It hurts. alot.

It's not my intention to, it's just that I've grown weary of people voting based on design or performance instead of coolness.

 

[Jim Prower]

Okay, then, I'm in a bit of a better mood, now. :3

 

[Lucas]

Because "cool" is not related to a car's merits.

To you it's not (or depends on which car you are voting, at least). To me it is. To Joey...

Coolness should be judged on the entire package, not just one element.

...it is. And that part which I bolded is exactly what you didn't do in the Genesis thread, Famine. And why some people are being called out for their reasons to vote for a car in a certain way and you aren't, is something that goes beyond my understanding.

It's clear as crystal here. You are taking your opinion as a fact. Not as your personal fact, as an opinion of yours, but an universal fact: that car's beauty is not related to coolness, that car's speed is not related to coolness, etc.. Last time I checked, coolness is subjective, right?

Oh, and:

Cool
Small car
Beautiful
Older supercar
Roadster

If being ugly doesn't make a car uncool, then how being beautiful makes one cool?

 

[Famine]

To you it's not (or depends on which car you are voting, at least). To me it is. To Joey...

...it is.

Again, read what he wrote. How you arrive at that conclusion from what he wrote... is... just wow.

And that part which I bolded is exactly what you didn't do in the Genesis thread, Famine.

You don't get much more "entire package" than "It's a Hyundai".

It's clear as crystal here. You are taking your opinion as a fact. Not as your personal fact, as an opinion of yours, but an universal fact.

Yes. Unless you want to tell me that what I think is wrong and what you think is right. And I don't think you want to do that.

that car's beauty is not related to coolness, that car's speed is not related to coolness, etc.. Last time I checked, coolness is subjective, right?

Look at the cool wall. Find a correlation between speed and cool. Apparently it's not just me...

If being ugly doesn't make a car uncool, then how being beautiful makes one cool?

It doesn't.

Again, reread the post you quoted that from. Then consider that I voted the Ferrari F40 cool. Sub-zero in fact. Go back and cross check that, yes, I put "Ferrari" and "supercar" under the "Uncool" heading.

Then have a think. Think why I can do that. If you get any answer which says "You can't", you're wrong, so think harder.

 

[Lucas]

Again, read what he wrote. How you arrive at that conclusion from what he wrote... is... just wow.

Car's merits are a part of the entire package. Or aren't they? They form a part of the car, and thus, are part of the package.

Yes. Unless you want to tell me that what I think is wrong and what you think is right. And I don't think you want to do that.

I can't be wrong when voting in a subjective way. You can't be wrong when you vote in a subjective way. However, when you say uglyness is not related to coolness, it's your opinion. Mine is certainly different. You, however, continue to say that uglyness is not related to coolness, and you put it as an universal fact, which it isn't. That some people vote based on it and others not is proof of the fact it isn't.

When you vote in a subjective way while claiming an objective fact that is false, however, you can be wrong.

Look at the cool wall. Find a correlation between speed and cool. Apparently it's not just me...

But I'm not in that group (as other people), and thus it's not a rule. I find it's worse to vote on a brand than on the speed of the individual car, since the brand is a whole. Each car is different. But that is irrelevant to this.

It doesn't.

But it is related. And that's what matters, since you say it isn't related. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a factor for determining coolness.

Again, reread the post you quoted that from. Then consider that I voted the Ferrari F40 cool. Sub-zero in fact. Go back and cross check that, yes, I put "Ferrari" and "supercar" under the "Uncool" heading.

You are right. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Famine]

Car's merits are a part of the entire package. Or aren't they? They form a part of the car, and thus, are part of the package.

Not really.

A car can be useless, ugly, slow and even pointless - yet cool.

I can't be wrong when voting in a subjective way. You can't be wrong when you vote in a subjective way. However, when you say uglyness is not related to coolness, it's your opinion. Mine is certainly different. You, however, continue to say that uglyness is not related to coolness, and you put it as an universal fact, which it isn't. That some people vote based on it and others not is proof of the fact it isn't.

Look at the cool wall again. Can you find any correlation between beauty/ugly and cool/uncool?

But I'm not in that group (as other people), and thus it's not a rule.

And why is your opinion relevant to objectivity?

See, you're having issues separating subjectivity from objectivity. If I say a car is uncool, that's subjective. It's my opinion. If I say speed isn't related to cool, that's objective. The data (the cool wall) backs me up.

But it is related. And that's what matters, since you say it isn't related.

No it isn't. I might think that beauty plays a role in my opinion of cool, but it plays no role at all in the cool wall's opinion of cool.

 

[the_fatadder]

For a regular car I break it down into:

Looks - Pretty self explanatory really, but I am quite fussy with how cars I find cool look, and a couple of wrong details will have a huge impact.
Manufacturer / model name - Certain brands are instantly very uncool, others instantly cool. For me most European manufactures fall somewhere in the middle, most US/Japanese brands fall average to below average, and most other brands are very uncool.
Then there is the girl on a date test (again pretty self explanatory, would the car impress, put off etc)

Finally is there something extra special about it, a car on which everything is horribly wrong can still be cool if the one thing that it does well is so awesome that it makes up for everything else.

For race cars its a bit different, with the design, livery, performance and success all having a major impact, along with the driver. For example I would class anything driven by James Hunt as cool simply because of the driver being so ridiculously cool, conversely anything driven by Ralph Schumacher is seriously uncool through associational

 

[Lucas]

Not really.

A car can be useless, ugly, slow and even pointless - yet cool.

It's part of the package anyways (as far as I understand from Joey D), unless some people don't take they in account.

Look at the cool wall again. Can you find any correlation between beauty/ugly and cool/uncool?

I have said it before. Not everyone takes the same aspects in mind when voting. Some people vote solely based on speed. Some people vote solely based on looks. Some vote based on various aspects. I can guarantee you that if we asked people to vote only based on looks, then we still wouldn't see a correlation between beauty/ugly and cool/uncool, because looks are subjective too. I find, for example, some Ferrari's to be hideous, regardless of what people say.

Just because the results don't show it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

See, you're having issues separating subjectivity from objectivity. If I say a car is uncool, that's subjective. It's my opinion. If I say speed isn't related to cool, that's objective. The data (the cool wall) backs me up.

Objective would be to say that we all have different opinions, because it is a fact. Anyone disagreeing with that is simply wrong.

Saying that speed isn't related to cool is objective in most people's cases (as demostrated by the cool wall), but not everyone's. And thus, it is not objective, it's subjective. You said it yourself: "If I say speed isn't related to cool...". I have to be able to replace that I by everyone for that statement to be objective.

I don't care what the data on the cool wall says. As long as someone relates speed to coolness (as Adamgp does and me too, to a certain extent), then it's not a fact that speed is not related to coolness, because some people take it in mind when voting. That you don't, and other people (apparently the majority) don't either doesn't take away the fact that speed is related to coolness in some people's cases.



Anyways, I consider something to be objective when everyone can agree with it, and one's opinions don't take place on the matter. Thus why "A Ferrari F40 is a Ferrari" is objective, and "A Ferrari F40 is ugly" is not.

 

[homeforsummer]

Predictably, I'm siding with Famine on this one. If someone asks you what you drive and you reply "Hyundai" it's already too late. They've already made up their mind, Hyundai is an uncool brand and although you may then follow it with "Genesis Coupe" and they see your car, they'll probably still think "hmm, looks nice... for a Hyundai".

Turn this around - you pull up in your lovely new Genesis Coupe and people crowd around it "ooh"ing and "aah"ing. Then you tell them it's a Hyundai "Oh..." they'll say "It's quite nice for a Hyundai". Their opinion on the car is still then spoiled (if only slightly) by the brand. If you'd said "it's the new Volkswagen whatever" then the nice car would be backed up by a respected and arguably cool brand. But saying that your flash new sports car is a Hyundai is the same as saying your flash new trainers are made by Hi-Tec, rather than Nike or Adidas, or your flash new watch is made by Casio rather than Omega. Brand is very, very important.

No matter how hard you try you cannot separate brand from product and unless Hyundai have a massive turnaround and their whole product line is filled with sports cars and chic family and city cars for, hmm, maybe a decade or so, they'll remain uncool.

Hyundai Genesis Coupe? Uncool because of the first word. And though it doesn't necessarily need repeating, it still appears to be falling on a few deaf ears - "Good" does not necessarily equal "Cool".

Those. Those hurt, right there.

What am I doing wrong? Explain this. Because I've seen you bellyaching so freaking often, I need to know what the heck you find wrong with what I'm doing.

I mean, If there's a right way and a wrong way to go about this, then I should be able to correct it, right? No? If I'm NOT doing something wrong, then you're lying, because you're obviously pissed about the way this is going. If I am, then you should tell me how to correct it. Solve my problem, because I obviously don't know how.

Really? Famine bellyaches? You'd best dust off that mirror of yours...

Still, when you make broad, general comments like that...It hurts. alot.

Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Jim Prower]

Now why all the sudden do you have to come to Famine's defense? We've covered this and made amends, it's over. I'm an Idiot, I understand this, don't rub it in.

 

[Gil]

I was thinking about this yesterday post the Mondeo 'hot or not' thread, and wondering just how a car is defined as being cool or not.

Can it be as simple as one entire brand being cool or not... eg; Ford not cool, Audi cool. Does a car have to have a certain level of performance to be considered cool (could be super fast or have sublime handling)? Are all 4 door saloons costing less than RS4 or M5 money uncool by definition? Are all red Ferraris or Yellow Lambos uncool just because they are flashy?

So how do you rate a car as being cool? What are the qualities/features/attributes that make one car cool and another that offers similar levels of functionality uncool?

Glance to your left. That is a cool Ford.👍
For back-up evidence You-tube up the vid for Silver Thunderbird, by Marc Cohn.

I define it the same way that I define women that are smokin' hot.
If I look at either, and promptly forget my main reason for being where I am...That car/girl is firmly in the "highly attractive" category. Simple as that.
You just know sometimes that a car, bike, or girl is "special" at first look.
There is the occasional "sleeper" that crops up.
And you know they are special right after they kick you in the stones.(literrally and/or figuratively)

 

[homeforsummer]

Now why all the sudden do you have to come to Famine's defense? We've covered this and made amends, it's over. I'm an Idiot, I understand this, don't rub it in.

Sorry, I was unaware I wasn't allowed to comment on things said barely a few hours ago. How unacceptable of me.

 

[Jim Prower]

Look, I feel bad about it as it is. I know I screwed up...

How would you like it if people kept rubbing it in your face that you did something stupid, okay? I've lost a lot of respect just now...

 

[Lucas]

Turn this around - you pull up in your lovely new Genesis Coupe and people crowd around it "ooh"ing and "aah"ing. Then you tell them it's a Hyundai "Oh..." they'll say "It's quite nice for a Hyundai".

Which is why (if that's his exact point of view) I don't like when he said:

"It can't be a cool car made uncool by its brand. It's an uncool car because of its brand."

Which to me, sounds exactly like the first part of your story. Everyone drooling over the car, until the owner mentions it's a Hyundai.