The synchros in the transmission were worn down to almost nothing, shifting truly was a dark art, like closing one’s eyes and feeling their way through a drawer of silverware.
Otherwise in better condition but I guess I had twenty years less wear on it!
(my current car dream is to find another 914 and do an electric conversion… not a car where it behooves one to keep the original anything)
I had a 1973 2.0 for much of the 90s. It was definitely the most fun car I've owned. I foolishly let it go and "upgraded" to a Boxster, which may have been faster and more comfortable (stuff like A/C was a cool innovation for me then), but was a lot less fun.
The 914 cornered like it had talons with which to grip the road. You could be going up curvy roads like Las Flores Canyon in Malibu, cornering at a speed where any other car would let go, crank the wheel over, and the 914 would just happily go exactly where you pointed it.
It wasn't nearly as fast as the Boxster that replaced it, but it felt faster. That rattling acceleration off the line, especially being so low to the ground, that smell of hot oil, the sound of the engine right behind you ... I miss that car.
Yeah, it was in the shop a lot. So was the Boxster. The difference was, of course, that you'd buy your replacement parts from the VW parts catalog rather than the Porsche parts catalog and save yourself 600-800%. I still remember getting a replacement VW window crank for $2 when the Porsche dealer quoted me $75.
I got old and "responsible." I eventually ditched the Boxster for a reliable, truck-like Subaru. And I now live in a city where transit and bike infrastructure is great - I don't even own a car. I don't miss it much. But there's one day a year, when the weather reminds me of that first springtime ride up Angeles Crest Highway in the 914 with the top down, and then I'll admit to some small regret.
I went '67 MGB to boxster and while air conditioning and having a working radio is nice (and it was just a much more practical car all around... which isn't saying much), there's something about classic cars that is just fun
I did an electric conversion with an old Vespa, it was literally just a shell I got for about $300, packed it with a beefy BLDC motor and a driver (from a standup electric scooter) that let me change the speed based on the thumb throttle. I wanted to use the original throttle on the Vespa but that got kind of messy at the time. The LiFePO4 batteries were the most expensive thing here and I regret not getting larger capacity ones.
The neat thing about an electric motor vs an ICE, that you pointed out, is the torque curve is linear so no need for a transmission.
For 4-wheelers, I really want to see electric conversion kits get more popular, specifically ones where the electric motor mounts to the transmission spot - either transverse and have attachment points for two half shafts or conventional where it points to the rear. Then we can use the engine bay as a additional storage, assuming we put the batteries where the gas tank is. I really want to do this conversion with a older, rear-engine VW bug. I hate ripping out original parts but I can find so many shells now where they’ve taken the engine out.
Did double clutching not help, or were you not aware of the technique? My dad drove over the road semi tractors for a few years and taught it to me, and it's just habit now.
> Porsche seems to be the only vehicle manufacturer who doesnt believe in the electric car
i think you just completely made this up out of thin air because you hate sports cars. they're one of the first manufacturers to sell an electric sports car, and their work on performance hybrid drivetrains is probably the best in the industry.
they also race in formula E and are working on synthetic fuel replacements for their classic cars.
That’s the story the FDP is trying to sell - we should be „open“ on technology, because synthetic fuels will supposedly be just as environmentally friendly as EV cars. Never mind that well-to-wheel, they’d use 5x the energy of EVs and still have most of the other issues of ICE cars, like noise and local pollution (e.g. nox).
In reality, it’s about keeping fossil fuels and ICE cars around as long as possible.
No, it’s the whole automotive industry that needs to get out of fossil fuels, and is not able to maintain and evolve multiple drive technologies at once. But also, the e-fuel debate is a Backdoor to keep fossil fuels around much longer. Getting rid of ICE cars isn’t a matter of reasonableness, it’s a necessity.
As someone who lives along a very busy thoroughfare in San Francisco (where there are a lot of Porches & other supercars) I can say that they are the quietest of all the gas powered supercars.
While I myself am partial to noisy vibration generators, it should be noted that vintage Porsches are the most common form of classic car EV conversions.
I seriously considered the all electric Porsche Taycan as my next car before eventually relenting got a Tesla Model S Plaid. The Taycan was arguably higher quality and a funner drive though and I would have been very happy with it.
You might want to double check whether the second drive is properly
connected, or the display manager will refuse to start. In this case
typing `exit' in the console should still let you log in, unless
it locks up for some reason. (Then you will have to reboot.)
Now that you are logged in, a few things to note:
* The mouse buttons do not work. Pinch the touchpad to click.
* The keyboard layout is a mixture of the US English, Japanese, and Teletype
33 keyboards. By the way, its key labels are German.
* If you need a modifier key, try sequentially going through tab, caps,
control, alt, super. Maybe you will find it.
* The only text editor on the computer is nvi. No, that's not `nvim'.
* Firefox works, but has scripting disabled, routes everything through
Tor and clears cookies on exit. Also, each new tab is opened in a
separate temporary container that routes through a different Tor
circuit.
As an alternative, we have w3m too.
A few things before using my Linux laptop with amdgraphics... If you want to shut the lid, or otherwise use sleep make sure it is powered off USB, if it is powered by the battery or the barrel jack it will wake up, but the screen won't - be prepared to his Alt-PrintScreen REISUB.
Get used to doing that multiple times a day, or it may be time to setup USB debugging and try and add some info to the bug report at...
It was on my 2015 Intel MacBook Pro when I last used it with Linux a couple years ago. I ended up disabling all lid triggers and just manually hibernating it when needed.
I believe linux 5.x kernel fixed a lot of these, or maybe it was something else, definetely something when i moved the mac air to ubuntu 20. Sleeps works like a charm.
I'm on the latest kernel (Arch btw) and I still have to manually "sleep" my Dell XPS 9500. To add insult to injury, it's not even "real" S3 sleep. It's Microsoft, "we want access to your machine 24/7" S1 sleep.
To be fair, I haven't spent much time in the last year messing with any of that. I do miss the days when I could shut the lid on my old Thinkpad, it'd sleep, and I'd open it a day later to an i3lock screen, and it would have only drained a percentage point.
(Cool. I've moved on from ergodox to lily58 and have a cst trackball.)
This last weekend I pulled out my 12 year old Thinkpad running custom qtile window manager to transfer old DV movies to mp4s. Sadly my muscle memory was mostly gone and I had to revert to gnome... (Hanging my head in shame.)
I quantum entangled some atoms in my brain with some atoms in each of the starlink satellite's networking gear and use that to respond to comments. Don't tell elon.
My old team used to buy donuts on computers that were left unattended and logged in, as a game to get people to lock their screens. Dvorak alone saved me a couple of times!
My whole computer is like this. I use sway/i3. On my home computer I don't use a login manager so you have to type "sway" to get something graphical. At that point you probably don't know the key combos to open a shell, much less a web browser. And, yes, I do use emacs...
My girlfriend simply calls my computer "broken".
One time my brother was in my study and I needed to shut down my computer. After bashing on the keyboard for ten seconds or so he commented "THAT is how you shut down your computer?!" It honestly hadn't even occurred to me it might seem weird from the outside.
I wouldn't have it any other way, though. Sure it's nice if a machine "just works", but machines don't just work. They are layers upon layers of complexity and if I have to understand them then I might as well interact with those layers directly.
Strongly disagree here on the "machines don't just work." 99% of the machines in my life just work for 99% of the tasks I throw at them. I spend an inordinate amount of time fixing/working-around the 1%, but directly interacting with the lowest layers is a massive waste of my very limited time.
My primary reason for not using Linux for my desktop is that when I connect a bluetooth device, headphones, a monitor, a keyboard or a mouse, when I want to run a GPU intensive application, or when I need to connect to a VPN and have my DNS requests correctly routed through the VPN it just works on Windows or MacOS.
I don't have the time or energy to work out those issues in a community supported environment where half the time the community support treats you like a half-witted imbecile for needing support and where the environment itself uses a CLI tool that my wife or kids can't use to manage the settings.
Ease of Use, Dev Tooling, or Cheap. Pick two. Linux is consistently harder to use. With WSL-2 I've found windows eases the dev tooling pain that existed a few years ago. A Mac is not cheap.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I work with Linux which, you admit, does not "just work". Your Windows/Mac systems just work because you pay someone to make it work for you (you don't skip the latest bug/security fixes do you?) That's the same as taking your car to the garage. I take my car to the garage too. But with Linux, I am the garage.
> Sure it's nice if a machine "just works", but machines don't just work.
I want Linux to be great as a desktop, but I’ve given up. I use Windows (with WSL2 for a Linux dev environment) because it is not my experience that “machines don’t just work.” It’s just that _Linux_ doesn’t ;)
Windows doesn't just work either. You've invested years upon years of learning to make it work. If you had instead used Linux full time exclusively for over a decade like me you'd be able to make it work too.
MacOS doesn't work by design. It's by far the worst choice there is.
Nope, I’m pretty ambivalent about my OS… Used Linux professionally for several years, Mac OS for several and only recently switched back to Windows with the advent of WSL 2.
Having spent multiple years on all three I promise you that my experience does not bear out your assertion. And to point it out: I am more than capable of making Linux do most of the things I want it to (tar flags be damned) I just prefer the UX on MacOS or windows
> After bashing on the keyboard for ten seconds or so he commented "THAT is how you shut down your computer?!"
This is exactly why I love to use my Linux machine. When I have a thought, I simply command it to the computer in written language and it immediately obeys.
I don't have to figure out where Johnny Ive hid the toggle switch in an attempt to make things more minimal. In fact, I don't have to figure out where anything is hidden at all because everything is right there at my fingertips. I shutdown the computer by saying "shutdown". I lock it by saying "lock". I open firefox by simply typing "firefox". It's a simple system, but I love it.
These posts are really funny because its people like us who love contraptions, and people going "wow linux doesn't work huh"
yet I typically run weird systems(xmonad, arch) and they're infinitely more reliable after the initial couple hours of setup than my windows install.
My thinkpad with a 7 year old Antergos install and i3wm "just works", but without a hint of irony. Literally the only issue with the laptop happens equally in windows and linux, and that's the USB ports going to sleep and never waking up until reboot.
The big thing about playing around deeper in the system, is you can fix it relatively easy. It's like a 90s honda civic where you can step into the engine bay vs doing any kind of maintenance on a modern audi or bmw. Sure you can see the guts but if a bolt loosens on both, which one would you rather have to fix?
I'm similar, but `startx` to get to GUI, and dwm instead of i3/sway. My girlfriend is somewhat used to it, I've added some convenience scripts for her in rofi to switch keyboard layout and setup the screens. She still asks me to remind her how to access her menu though.
Spot on. “My life is a constant barrage of belligerently fielding foolish questions and foolish answers from comically ignorant children.” I wish I didn’t know quite so many guys for whom this is their main shtick.
I was this colleague to my first CTO, was amusing back then and I didn't get it. Today I do the same and my pinky loves me. I also use a US layout on Scandinavian keyboard, it's fun watching people scratch their heads.
A few things to know before stealing the laptop my work gave me that I still keep around on the off chance I need to check something on an old, near unusable machine - if there is something preventing it from working there is a little hole on the bottom of the laptop that you can cause a hard reset and restart by sticking a safety pin or toothpick inside.
I’ve got a Zenbook flip 13 OLED. I don’t worry about any of that suspend/hibernate stuff. It turns off the screen and, I’m pretty sure, the wireless interface when I close the lid. I think this is mostly Ubuntu default behavior, although I did some customization when I first got it.
Sitting idle, I get an estimate of ~12 hours of battery left right now (starting with 80%). This is why I don’t worry about hibernate; idle power consumption is low enough on modern hardware.
When I actually start working, it depends on what I’m doing; actively using wifi seems to bring me down to more like 5 hours remaining. I’m sure I could burn through the battery by cranking up the CPU, but the, it isn’t like Windows will somehow make the CPU consume less power in C0.
When I am travelling, I have limited charging capabilities and want to continue working wherever I left - even if I did not open the laptop for 2 days. That only leaves hibernation. I had a linux laptop that could do that reliable, but for whatever reasons, the newer models of different brands I tried always had hickups and this is unaccaptable for me. I want to work with my laptop, not work on my laptop.
Suspend seemed to work out-of-the-box. I’m not sure how long the battery would last in suspend; the 12 hours estimate was with the screen on and wifi on, just not actively in use.
I just set up hibernate; since I don’t care about hibernate, I didn’t set up my swap partition large enough. Using a swapfile instead is slightly trickier but still pretty trivial. The steps listed here worked fine: https://askubuntu.com/a/1367244
I don't think I had any linux references - the parent to mine had emacs and vim maybe that's what you were thinking of - at any rate being a crappy work computer it of course runs Windows. It's a Lenovo.
On an "old, near unusable machine"? Be happy if Windows doesn't run out of memory when opening the menu. There are Linux distributions that come packed with all the firmware you could want if that's your cup of tea. This is not a Windows vs Linux issue, but even so you can get a stripped down distribution to give old hardware new life.
A bartender told me that he had connected the fuel pump to a switch hidden. He lived in a rough neighborhood and his car was an easy target for thieves. More than once he had found his car a hundred or so meters down the road.
Adam Carolla likes to talk about how he did this with his truck way back in the day. You could drive as far as whatever gas was in the carburetor and fuel line.
He also painted his radio brown like the interior of the truck. It was so ugly nobody ever stole the one thing that had any value in the truck.
Were Webers ever on the car from the factory? I thought they were all fuel injected.
Disclaimer: Back when we were mechanics (and before we became technicians) I earned a living working on these, but I seldom had the opportunity (?) to work on one this old.
They were interesting beasts - actually more Porsche then the later 924. Except for the /6 which had a real Porsche engine, the engine was the flat four adapted from the Type 2 (bus) and Type 4. Suspension, transmission, electrics and so on were all Porsche. (For better or worse.) The 924 had a lot of parts that would have been comfortable on a Rabbit/Golf.
I actually think the reputation of early Bosch FI systems being horrible is pretty overblown. I haven't had a hard time diagnosing L-jet issues (I haven't touched D-jet). It's pretty simple and while you can't plug a scan tool in, you can use an oscilloscope to see what's going wrong. Also it's so simple, there are really only a handful of things to check. Some friends and I do endurance racing in a Fiat with the original L-jet system and it has been reliable.
I can understand a shop not wanting to touch them because you'll likely lose money tracking down issues as opposed to plugging in a scan tool, but for a hobbyist it's really not that hard.
It's also a matter of who integrated it. In the Volvo's they are rock solid because of the way the wiring is routed (and the quality of the wiring), in the DS they are nothing but trouble and you're better off assuming it's all gone and completely rewiring and re-calibrating it than to try to fix it as is because that will almost always be a very temporary job.
That system had a flap in an air passage that metered air flow. If the car backfired, the flap could change position relative to the indication that went to the control unit and that threw off the air/fuel mixture. They were also more sensitive to air leaks than a carbureted car.
I owned a 914/4, and at one fully overhauled its engine and so had a close look at its transmission and drivetrain.
A small correction on point of fact: On all the 4s the entirety of the drivetrain was VW, down to the CV joints and lug bolts. You can see this in photos, with 4s having a four-bolt pattern. 914/6s OTOH had five bolts, as on the contemporaneous Porsche 911s.
There was a further wrinkle with some six-bangers being badged as "914/6" and others as "916" -- but I was regrettably never in the market for either of those, so have forgotten details.
The synchros in the 914 transmission were the same as in the 911 (and other Porsches.) Not like the brass ring and cone that is more common (and used in VW transmissions.)
You're probably right about the half shafts. However if I search for parts, all of the ones I can find show a 6 bolt CV joint for the 914.
Oh. In that case the hub assemblies are probably VW, but the spindle itself would probably be Porsche (since I don't recall VW ever using 6 bolt CV joints.)
But the overall point that the 914 was a mix of VW and Porsche bits is absolutely correct and in fact some pretty significant parts such as the engine were VW. I suppose that goes back to the first Porsche which was derived from a VW.
In Norway, this car would be very unlikely to pass the mandatory roadworthiness test.
You would be forced to fix the car, or sell it to someone who will fix it, or remove the plates and deregister it, or scrap it. If you don’t do anything the police will remove the plates.
I would advice fixing the car or selling it to someone who will fix it because it has some value.
The 914 in the picture looks like a 1970 or 1971 so since it's over 50 years old it looks like it wouldn't be inspected anymore. [0]
A lot of states in the US also require safety inspections (including North Carolina where the author teaches) but often make exceptions for antique cars.
Interesting. It seems to be possible to skip the check for vehicles worthy of preservation. It requires the vehicle to not be modified (original design), which seems to be the case there, but also the safety equipment must function satisfactorily, which may be up for debate there.
> are in virtually original design
> Devices/equipment that are important for safety must function satisfactorily
> Must only be used
- on special occasions such as motor history gatherings and races
- otherwise occasionally when the use does not cause undue danger or inconvenience to other traffic.
> You would be forced to fix the car, or sell it to someone who will fix it, or remove the plates and deregister it, or scrap it. If you don’t do anything the police will remove the plates.
> I would advice fixing the car or selling it to someone who will fix it because it has some value.
Your comments were quite confident when you weren't actually familiar with the basics of the topic. Most countries have relaxed road worthiness tests or complete exemptions for classic cars, and I think this stands to reason.
> Most countries have relaxed road worthiness tests or complete exemptions for classic cars
I doubt the exception extends to having non-functional brakes.
The exception is from things like inspections and compliance with modern standards, but you still have a duty to maintain your vehicle to its original level of safety.
Indeed I as wrong as I wasn’t aware about the exception for old worth preserving vehicles. If I was the king I wouldn’t allow old death traps to drive on open roads but I guess it makes sense to some.
Plenty of new vehicles are a danger to others, and quite possibly far more so than an old 914. The driver of a 914 is probably going to be pretty careful about damaging it and will drive it prudently as a result, it also weighs (much) less than a modern vehicle and as a consequence will do less damage. Lack of built in safety and mid engine (so no engine between you and your partner in a collision, coupled with a nice hammer behind you that will use the other car in that accident you're in as the anvil and you as the workpiece) will be yet another reason why an owner will be careful about the situations they put themselves in. They'll likely do fewer km per year in than they would in a modern car.
As a cyclist I'd rather encounter someone in their classic 914 than the local lawn service jockey in his Dodge RAM flooring it at every corner.
Especially new “Eco Friendly” cars like the 7,000lb Rivian which, if it hits another car, is going to completely obliterate it and kill any occupants inside.
People with vintage cars like that generally take care of them, so it's a very low risk.
Same with motorcycles (also doesn't need regular inspections in Norway) - the riders generally have a very good reason to keep them safe for their own wellbeing.
As someone who owns a 1970 car and several motorcycles from the 70's, I would say that this is not true in the US. If you're imagining a wealthy guy with a spotless garage that pays top dollar to keep his antiques maintained in excellent condition, then you're thinking of the minority of antique vehicle owners. I bought my car for $14k and it would cost more than that to restore it (which I don't have). I do my best to keep it in acceptable roadworthy condition, but I also frequently test drive it around the neighborhood knowing full well something isn't working properly.
In my state, vehicles registered as antiques are not required to have the annual safety inspection performed, and it is the owner's responsibility to keep the vehicle in safe operating condition, which is never checked by anyone.
In California there are about five different classic car rallies. Fifty to a hundred people in pre 1975 cars get out on curvy roads and drive around for a few days.
No inspections, no smog tests. No shiny paint. Cars are for driving so drive them. There are mechanical problems and there’s joy in that, breaking down and fixing things, stopping to help/heckle.
The cars could be more safe, but we’re all mechanics by necessity. Failure also reminds us that these are all human made systems. Each can fail. Each can be fixed. In some ways being aware of the systems that make a car go (and stop) and being aware of the failure modes makes the classic car drivers more safe than their counterparts in driving appliances.
> I also frequently test drive it around the neighborhood knowing full well something isn't working properly.
That's wildly irresponsible of you. How will you look yourself in the eye if you cause an accident like that? If you can't afford to keep a car maintained you can't afford it, period.
I think if you read it like that, sure it may sound irresponsible.
But in reality it'll look a lot more innocent than that, and I am sure that OP does it carefully enough.
You just gotta make sure the brakes work and that you don't do any silly things. Doing test rides and listening for sounds etc is key to figuring out what's wrong and what to improve next.
Right now the thing that isn’t working properly is the oxygen sensor, so the engine struggles to rev past 3000rpm. I don’t worry much about the potential danger that puts others in.
Air mass sensor failure can often be determined by unplugging the thing completely, O2 sensor failure could be the cause of your problem but if it only starts to fail at very high revs I'd check the fuel system first to make sure that there is enough flow.
Those can get clogged up pretty badly, especially in vehicles that have been standing for a while with ethanol based fuel in them, it takes forever before that gunk clears out without some work, if at all.
If it really is the O2 sensor (of which you usually have two) then I'd suspect the pre-cat one first, it runs in a much hotter environment and is more critical to the engine working properly.
Another option is the crank sensor, they may not give enough signal at a high number of revs so you start to miss if enough pulses fail (one or two in an otherwise consistent signal isn't going to cause the PLL to lose lock but if it is more erratic then it will and then revs would drop back to a regime where the sensor is still working reliably).
Good thing the author isn't in Norway, I guess. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to keep his car which clearly has a lot of sentimental value to him.
Also, Norway should consider dropping mandatory passenger vehicle inspections as mechanical malfunctions are a tiny percentage of accident causes (and might be lower than officially reported by police) and it has been shown that they do nothing to increase actual on-the-road safety:
Your data says about 2% of the crashes. Seems very much worth it.
And the test also checks the pollution or reduces the annoyances to other drivers (such as too high headlights, broken light indicators, smelly vehicles,…).
It sounds like the author is perfectly capable of maintaining the car and takes pride in it. I doubt you could really “fix” it so that it runs like a 2014 Corolla unless you build it from the ground up
It's just a tickle at the back of the article, but for anyone who wants a first sportscar that is fairly affordable and rewarding to drive an older Miata is a wonderful starter vehicle.
I'm not familiar with this car, but it is not at all unusual for reverse gear to not be constant mesh, and to instead operate like an old nonsynchronous gearbox. Indeed the very same article you linked has a reverse gear section literally saying as much.
In high school, my friends and I managed to resuscitate a 914 that had been stowed away in a garage for over a decade. We towed it to the top of a hill with a pickup truck and attempted a clutch start after we'd picked up some speed. None of us (especially me in the driver's seat) expected this to work, but amazingly it fired right up. One of my friends managed to jog alongside and jump into the car as I tried to keep it puttering along, and we ripped a few laps around the neighborhood. Soonafter, we stopped the engine and were never able to get it started again. Thanks for bringing up this memory. Cool article.
When I was much younger, I had a '76 MGB, which I only gassed up at a certain local gas station --- because the pumps overlooked a slope which was just tall/steep enough to start it thus if the starter wasn't cooperative --- it was all good except for the one time I didn't notice once of my shoe laces was untied. Exciting times.
I tripped, almost lost my grip on the door, was dragged along for a few feet, managed to haul myself up, and eventually jump into my seat and managed to push the clutch in, drop it into gear, and release the clutch, and it was purring like a kitten at the bottom of the hill.
[1] Reminds me of this video where a guy humorously simulates someone coming in to steal his military "Deuce and a half" 6x6. These things have no locks on them because the military doesn't want people to be locked out. But getting one moving is not easy...
i'm disappointed by the amount of concern trolling in the replies here. i'm not sure whether it's people can't tell that this is humorous/exaggerated or that they are just dismissive of people with hobbies/interests different from their own.
My friend had a car that would have needed a guide like this to steal. At one point someone jammed the wrong key into the ignition and messed up the mechanism. He ended up bypassing that and wiring a pushbutton switch into the circuit instead to power the starter motor.
I just got the dual webers running on my VW beetle. I'll have to try that pedal pumping routine, because it sure as hell won't start without at least one pump, even if it's 110 degrees outside.
While talking about Hagerty..
Does anyone else find their videos obnoxiously annoying and catered for high schoolers? Boring and repeating cut scenes, slow-mo shots every few seconds..
I haven't watched beyond Jason Cammisa's videos but they feel as though they wink back to Top Gear with the May, Clarkson, Hammond lineup: a show meant to be a little crazy, something Michael Bay would approve of and easy to take what you want out of them.
In both cases though the presenting personality is key as they have interesting knowledge that they share in an engaging way; it might be childish but their excitement is infectious.
The tone of this article is always a bit off to me and I can never figure it out. This seems like some sort of bragging, boasting and I don't understand why that is appropriate. I'm not a car person, I don't have the same draw to then as a lot of folks, I've lived in Toronto for the past decade and don't know anyone who owns a car...
With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition. The drastically increased cognitive load, poor stopping performance, and lack of modern safety features makes this vehicle a lot more likely to hurt strangers when you hit them"
I never understood old car culture, let alone old and broken car culture displayed here. Surely a vehicle operator would have reduced response time with the increased cognitive load to any divergent situation and be placing other's lives at risk by not having their equipment maintained to an expected performance standard.
Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.
I understand being into old technology, I've been involved in restoring old tape machines and vinyl cutting lathes, broadcast audio consoles etc, but I don't understand ignoring the fact that you are exposing unconsenting members of the public to an increased risk of injury or death because of your interest in old technology. I don't understand accepting the freedom of that choice when it exposes unconsenting others to more risk just for your own personal interest.
I can't help but harshly judge the author for their reckless decisions because the car isn't restricted to a closed course and can severely impact others lives simply because they enjoy the thrill of it.
> The tone of this article is always a bit off to me and I can never figure it out. This seems like some sort of bragging, boasting and I don't understand why that is appropriate...
...
> With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition..."
Because it's not bragging or boasting. I don't even think it's meant to be taken literally. Especially seeing that the author is an engineer and professor. It's like a car guy pastiche of folk tale/tall tale. Just like I wouldn't respond to a story of Paul Bunyan to criticize him for eating 50 pancakes a minute I don't feel the need to point out that this car sounds unsafe.
I used to feel the same way about a stick shift: “why would we encourage people to take one hand off the steering wheel and spend and extra second or two fucking with a knob while also feathering two pedals at once to move the car when instead you can just press the gas and go”
It just ain’t that simple. Maybe when I’m 70 and shouldn’t be driving a lot of these assists that are in cars nowadays will help me. But I was driving my aunt’s car recently and it thought it saw someone in the lane I was going to merge to and literally jerked the steering wheel back to stop me from hitting nothing. I almost got in a wreck because that stupid fucking car thought it knew more than me. I now drive a 98 Nissan Frontier 5-speed and couldn’t be happier with it. When and if it breaks down, I’m buying a 94-2008 Nissan Frontier 5-speed, a 94-2000 Ford Ranger with a 5-speed or a 76-85 square body with (hopefully) a 5-speed.
Do I really care about the old car? No. Do I just not want all of the new garbage? Yes. If they remade my truck EXACTLY as it is but with a better, newer engine, better, newer airbags, more durable modern suspension, etc, and sold it for 60k I would take out a loan fucking right this instant. But modern cars fucking suck. They’re all shitty and people have been disillusioned into thinking a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 2023 hitting someone going fast is going to hurt the someone more than a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 1973 going fast is severely disillusioned about what makes a 3000lb hunk of fast moving metal dangerous.
> They’re all shitty and people have been disillusioned into thinking a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 2023 hitting someone going fast is going to hurt the someone more than a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 1973 going fast is severely disillusioned about what makes a 3000lb hunk of fast moving metal dangerous.
That's the thing with crash resistance progress - two cars colliding into what would have been a fatal crash in 1973 have pretty good chances of everyone leaving alive with barely more than a concussion trauma.
My argument was not that cars are more safe for the driver (they aren’t), but OP said that by me driving a 70s truck, others are less safe… a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones, and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck. By driving an old car, the only person I am endangering more is myself and my passengers.
> a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones
That depends on the design as well. A flat "sports"/sedan style car just levers a pedestrian with the hood - the legs will be broken, yes, but in most cases the pedestrian survives. A SUV or particularly American "truck" style cars in contrast just smashes the pedestrian's whole body to a pulp - see e.g. [1] for a visual.
On top of that, modern cars have a ton of automated systems doing stuff like pedestrian detection visually indicating pedestrians and bicyclists in the dead spot(s) and automated brake assistants, not to mention ABS/ESP assisting the driver in emergency braking to not lose control. An old car does not have these features and thus has a higher chance of the driver injuring others on the road.
> and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck.
A modern car/SUV absorbs a significant portion of the crash energy in its own body, additionally so does the other vehicle. An old car does not.
Driving an old vehicle makes others less safe. The risk of collision decreases with safety features like ABS. The 70s truck doesn't have these safety features.
Right on. Though the safety features built in to modern cars these days are light years ahead of what they were back then. The primary safety feature of my 1960 MGA is a foam padded bar for the passenger to bounce their head off of during a front end collision. Whereas my 2013 G Wagen has front and side air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance and so on.
Relevant - Mercedes missed out on a $250k G Wagen sale because they build so much electronic crap into the new models that I personally cannot stand (like you!). I don't need a distracting touch screen or Alexa built into my car, thanks.
Exactly. And to be clear, my argument is for the other people: my car hitting them will do arguably the same amount of damage if it’s a half ton pickup from the 70s vs today, it’s just about how safe I am in a crash, so the only person that gets to determine that and weigh the odds is me.
Automatic transmissions are now good enough that we can just conceptually bundle all that stuff up in the “let the car deal with it” box. (For normal drivers at least).
These driver assist tools they interfere with your steering evidently aren’t as flawless. And anyway, in general the “steering” task will be primarily in human hands for the foreseeable future, mixing ownership of the task seems like a bad move.
I don’t think all changes that put the car in charge of more of the driving process are bad. They just need to be careful about what they transfer over, the car needs to take the whole task and do it perfectly.
To tell the computer that you intend to change lanes and aren't unintentionally drifting.
You are, furthermore, required by law to signal lane changes, regardless of if you happen to notice other cars around you or not, at least in every state in the US.
Edit: rereading you comment, you claim to have nearly hit another car when it pulled the wheel, so it sure sounds like you weren't actually correct that there wasn't anyone else around. Please consider that automobiles are heavy machinery, you take on a great deal of responsibility when you get behind the wheel, and that safety code have been written in blood.
At least in my state, ARS 28-754 sb. 1 at the end specifies “if any other traffic would be affected”.
If you aren’t near any other cars, like no other cars in sight, you cannot get in trouble for not signaling if a cop is sitting off the roadway and wants to pull you over for it. Nearly every state has a clause like this.
> Surely a vehicle operator would have reduced response time with the increased cognitive load to any divergent situation
Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.
> and be placing other's lives at risk by not having their equipment maintained to an expected performance standard.
> Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.
I'd bet that all of that adds up to less endangering of others than the mass and size of today's popular vehicles.
> I don't understand ignoring the fact that you are exposing unconsenting members of the public to an increased risk of injury or death because of your interest in old technology. I don't understand accepting the freedom of that choice when it exposes unconsenting others to more risk just for your own personal interest.
I take it you don't understand the legality of driving cars on the public road at all then? In fairness neither do I, but if you figure that one out then this one will likely follow.
> I can't help but harshly judge the author for their reckless decisions because the car isn't restricted to a closed course and can severely impact others lives simply because they enjoy the thrill of it.
Fun is the one thing that justifies everything else we do. While I agree that it's bad to endanger other people, IMO fun is a much better reason than simple carelessness or keeping up with the joneses.
> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.
This is one of the best arguments for stick shifts: even if the extra layer of control may take extra effort, the thought process of having to shift, feather the clutch, think about what gear you should be in, rev match, engine break, etc makes you a better driver
Having driven stick shift since I started driving (22 years ago), it becomes totally automatic: you simply start relying on the engine noise to switch gears when needed and are not really thinking about it.
I'd say noise plays a major role. I've driven a noisy car for years and now that I'm driving a quiet one I frequently switch a bit too late when I'm distracted.
Ditto. Every car I've owned for over 20 years has been a stick. It's not more work than an automatic at this point and it's not forcing me to pay any more conscious attention to the road.
I can carry a full technical conversation while I heel-toe to rev-match the downshift into second at 60mph so the engine braking bleeds enough speed that as I throw it through the corner into town and lose a bit more momentum I hit the city street at exactly 30mph and can shift back up to third and tap the cruise control and coast to wherever I'm going. I'm not going to test it, but I'm pretty sure I could do it drunk and with one hand.
For me, being stuck in traffic with an automatic is more cognitive load than a stick. I'm always overthinking my inputs..."if I'm extra light on the throttle here, it may stay in gear and not shift since I know I'm stopping in 100m and I don't want constant up/down shifts"
In my truck (automatic), when I'm climbing up to the Eisenhour tunnel, I want it to stay in 4th gear and I'll just give it more throttle, but it won't do that, it thinks it's smarter than me and downshifts to 3rd and I need to hear the engine scream all the way up the mountain. I always try to find the sweet spot for throttle input to keep it from down shifting which means that I'm running about 5mph slower than traffic, and that's annoying.
Since my only inputs are throttle and brake, I'm always trying to find the combination of those to put the transmission in the gear that I want it in rather than just sliding the stick and putting it in the right gear.
I can confirm this - had for 11 years manual shifting bmw (3 series e46), some 2 years ago it sorta died and we bought automatic (5 series f11). The amount of cognitive load is much much lower (also thanx to laser projection of speed and other info on windshield, this is by far the best security car feature in last couple of decades) to the point it becomes boring way too easily.
Once or twice I got into situation where I was very tired and was almost getting sleepy, this would never happened with manual shifting and the need to be more engaged with vehicle. Also, for 98% of the situations, 1 hand on steering wheel is enough so you can handle stick, and the rest of situations you should be able to anticipate if you are a seasoned sane driver.
Another data point - once I had to take my wife's car for 1500km drive to take it back home. It was old Toyota without any cruise control, not ideal for such long drives on European highways full of speed radars. It was the only time in my life when I could drive this run through whole night alone with basically only stopping to refill, buy vignettes or go to toilet (5pm-8am drive). Normally on this road, I get too sleepy around 3-4am and my eyes literally start to close even if mind still can go further, and I have to sleep a bit. Was way too pumped from all sensory input. But I am sure I don't want to repeat this.
I like automatics but learning on stick turns it into a skill game. Mind you not too much skill because basically everybody is doing it fine. But it does give the learner a clue that you're operating something serious, not something where you can push a pedal and be done. With that kind of attitude comes overconfidence. Like the manufacturer would have thought of everything. If I can reach 100mph easily, it will stop just as easily etc.
This was the reasoning my friends parents gave for getting her older sister a stick shift. After driving stick a while it just becomes habit. You don't even think about it. Though i do prefer being able to drop down a gear for extra acceleration on the highway, rather than waiting for the automatic transmission to figure it out and change gears 20 seconds after i needed it.
My plan is to get my son some really underpowered old stick-shift car when he learns to drive. If you're always rowing gears, you won't be texting and driving.
While I prefer driving a manual transmission as well, modern automatic/DCT transmissions are much better at engaging gears quickly when you ask them to than they were even ten years ago. In my current daily driver, one flick of the downshift paddle and the car instantly shifts down.
Partially related, low speed parking lot and shop window accidents are much less common in manual-dominant countries (although those are less frequent yearly).
The usual cause is hitting gas instead of brake, followed by disorientation (expected = braking, result = acceleration, usually strong acceleration). Humans, especially elderly, can't reorient quickly enough. With a manual, you're depressing the clutch as well, so the mismatch is much lesser.
> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.
While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.
But to support your point further, reaction times for each of us on the road differ depending on the circumstances (personal, vehicle, road and traffic). Safe driving is when we are attentive enough to react to common "failures" in traffic and avoid any catastrophe.
"Common" as in there is no fast enough reaction time when someone decides to eg. head-on you at the last second in regular traffic conditions as you are passing them in the other direction on a two-way street. Or someone jumping in front of you at exactly the moment you are passing by (even driving at 20 mph is enough to kill a pedestrian jumping in front of a moving car, even with the driver breaking as quickly as possible). It's useful to remember that we are all participating in traffic (and life) together, and we rely on general sanity of each participant to avoid disasters.
> While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.
True, but "just pay more attention" is no more actionable than "just drive better". AIUI e.g. aeroplanes have deliberately cut down parts of the automation because it ends up doing more harm than good.
> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.
someone once told me: "i'm a safer driver when drunk because then i driver slower and pay more attention."
Superficially plausible, but the statistics suggest it's unlikely. Drunk drivers get into a lot more collisions than average; meanwhile sports car drivers get into a lot less.
sorry, i didn't mean to present it as a honest argument. this guy was pretty much a criminal on the roads. suicidally speeding driver when sober and a drunk driver when drunk.
what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better(and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions).
> what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better
Whether you could matters a lot less than whether you would. As an extreme, your logic would suggest that the "dead man's switch" used on trains would make them less safe.
> and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions
So if you yourself do the thing you're claiming is less safe, do you actually believe what you're claiming?
tbh, i've only driven an automatic maybe a few hundred kilometers, so my data for comparison is limited. furthermore, my manual and the automatic are not quite the same model, so it's all quite anecdotal. now, the automatic sometimes shifts at an unexpected moment which from a safety standpoint is probably a bigger problem than the concentration. apart from that i think that in most situations there is not difference, but in fiddly edge cases, e.g. low speed city maneuvering with lots of pedestrian traffic and starting on ascents, not having to worry about shifting might help.
as i didn't take part in a controlled experiment i wont claim that, though.
Here is a message that will resonate with you: Old cars avoid wasting natural resources and the pollution that comes with creating new cars. Also, recycling isn't nearly as effective as you think.
> The things you do for fun almost certainly has an externality as well.
About 45k people died in car accidents in the US in 2022, which if treated as it’s own category outside of accidents would be just outside the top 10 in causes of death. 2x more death than firearms.
Lots of things have externalities, very few things have as severe externalities as cars.
Said differently, go to a sporting event of 30k people. Statistically, five of them will die in a car accident this year (45k/300mn =0.015% or about 1 in 6500).
Edit: I guess it’s not fashionable to cite statistics on here. I get it, the drivers won the debate a long time ago, but at least articulate why your disagreement with words.
> About 45k people died in car accidents in the US in 2022, which if treated as it’s own category outside of accidents would be just outside the top 10 in causes of death. 2x more death than firearms.
> Lots of things have externalities, very few things have as severe externalities as cars.
> Said differently, go to a sporting event of 30k people. Statistically, five of them will die in a car accident this year (45k/300mn =0.015% or about 1 in 6500).
> Edit: I guess it’s not fashionable to cite statistics on here. I get it, the drivers won the debate a long time ago, but at least articulate why your disagreement with words.
You're being downvoted because you are attempting to mislead with statistics.
1. The leading cause of deaths is heart disease, more common amongst people who smoke (very few) and obese people (very many) = 635k people, or about 14x more people die due to heart disease than motor vehicle accidents.
2. Accidental deaths = 161k. IOW, you're 3.5x more likely to die from a non-vehicle accident than from a vehicle accident.
You know which type of deaths match the numbers for auto accidents? Suicides!
All-in-all, that 45k number you give is almost statistical noise: vehicles account for a mere 1.8% of deaths in the US.
>You're being downvoted because you are attempting to mislead with statistics.
How?[0]
Your implication is that 100% of deaths are preventable and the 2% of those deaths that are car accidents are therefore unimportant? It's inherently misleading to look at deaths as a % vs. absolute figures (since we all die eventually).
People have to die from disease, it's the human condition. People do not have to die in car accidents (or suicides, we should prevent those too, but that's not really a hobby/activity).
The other way in which equating heart disease death with car accident death (or suicide death!) is extremely misleading is that the heart disease victim age chart does not look like this [1] even remotely. People lose a lot of years of life to car crashes.
I half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile).
Of course, copying these countries will take time, especially because half the problem is the terrible drivers education and lax enforcement which precludes quite a few measures.
Things that could be done right now are:
* designing roads to calm traffic (bends and such): highly effective at reducing pedestrian/cyclist accidents
* building proper separated bike paths
* mandatory inspections in all states. a non-negligible % of accidents are caused by defective vehicles
* mandating and actually enforcing minimum following distance on highways
* banning modifications like steel plate grills (basically a human-crushing ram)
* scrapping the entire tax and regulation scheme that lead to the size wars in trucks and SUVs
Then there are things like replacing more STOP signs with YIELD, roundabouts, giving bike paths green lights together with turning traffic (requires drivers to look in their blindspot and yield) and lane discipline. Those broadly reduce frustration and fatigue which helps people stay calm.
> half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile).
We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?'
Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?
First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed to different measure which might work but have side effects.
That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society).
So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
>That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society).
>So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried?
Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?
>The US death rate is 1.04% per year. So in that sporting event example, statistically 313 of them will die within a year's time.
Yeah but only some of those deaths are randomly distributed across the population and not correlated with age. Car accidents being a major example of that (unless there's a bunch of 70+ year olds at Yankees games that I'm not seeing).
Could also say the same thing about car accidents. The death rates for car accidents is different based on gender. What is the gender ratio at those Yankees games? :)
I'm willing to hand-wave over a lot of this stuff as otherwise it gets way too overcome with pedantry which likely doesn't matter...
Perhaps your reactionary pearl clutching is severely misplaced. The author didn’t say he drove it anywhere busy or that he really drove it much at all.
I can’t help but judge you harshly for actually thinking the author is careening down a street at any speed with the windows up “light headed on fumes”.
> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in
> his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio.
The author is not your typical automotive enthusiast. He is an expert in the field, and knows very well the perils of this car. Those old Porches are an experience unto themselves, separate from the experience of getting from point A to point B. You would drive one for the same reason that you would climb Mount Everest. Not because it is fun or useful, but rather for the adventure and uncertainty about ever returning home.
This article does a terrific job of conveying that adventure.
Take your complaints about licensing unsafe vehicles to the state - far more unsafe vehicles are licensed to owners who are ignorant of the vehicle's condition than to those who are aware.
I don't understand why you (and others in these comments) are so judgmental; it's an old-timer, it's a hobby.
Nobody has these replies when it comes to older computers, electronics or software. I mean the equivalent in more usual HN posts is how to exit vim or do anything in emacs, but people get super excited about it even though the software is as old and complicated to use as this car is.
many have the replies with new self driving cars. Public roadway vs. private basement activities.
I grew up in a family of car enthusiasts and basically I lost interest in driving them once kids arrived. I still love the machinery and Donald Healy’s 100-4 is my all time favorite vehicle and designer.
The rawness of early development and the intuitive bonds of the machine is very similar to 8 bit computing. The whole thing is Knowable.
My 78 year old uncle still races 49 MG TC he took a 50 year break after High school. He loves old car problems.
I'd much rather have enthusiasts with a strong mechanical sympathy driving clapped out 60 year old sports cars than angry idiots in SUVs with twice the weight and power and controls that feel like a video game.
As for the pride aspect, it's cool to be able to understand how a vehicle works from top to bottom. You can't do that with modern cars. You certainly can't use your knowledge to coax a modern car into working in the same way. The author truly owns and is the master of his vehicle. Could you say the same for any of your machines?
Admittedly, their is some masochism there, maybe due to some unresolved childhood trauma.
But it's also about taking something that once had good value but is now old and decrepit and deciding to live with it as it is for what's left of it. The challenge is not fixing it but rather changing ones perception, expectations and behaviours around it, making it a proxy for the real world and also for your own body which will let you down eventually. You could call it a form of stoicism?
It's about a car but it could be about a blender or software with which you have a love/hate relationship and yet decided to keep using as a test of your own emotional, physical and mental resilience.
I get the feeling that the author is a car enthusiast, and the vehicle in question is a hobby project and not something to be driven on public roads. I think the fact that it is unroadworthy is the point of the whole article i.e. "good luck stealing this car, here's a big list of all the things wrong with it that make it a nightmare to drive".
> Some people don't drive them, they just enjoy working on them
Yep, I bought a '72 Triumph GT6 a while ago and drove it just enough to get it the few miles home. That thing really was a death trap and made this 914 look brand new. This was about five years ago, and it's still not back on the road. I'm working on it as I can put money into it and enjoying every moment.
> And then yes, some people drive them.
For fun, I drive my '86 Porsche 951. I put about six months of work into that, and it is reliable and drives beautifully.
> "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition.
Maybe you have point, but its not quite sharp enough, because condition is but part of the problem. You see here in the UK we something called MOT tests which vehicles have to pass every year once a vehicle reaches its 3rd or 4th year.
A minimum standard of braking force has to be achieved by each wheel, irrespective of road conditions or whether the vehicle has ABS to avoid it skidding, increasing the odds of an out of control crash. Sure the minimum braking force is a blunt instrument, but its a starting point before we get into the finer peculiarities of how to stop a vehicle in different situations, like on ice, something I understand Canada has plenty off!
So are you telling me, that all the combined wit and intellect of the Canadian govt and people results in a failure to have a mandated annual road worthiness tests for the vehicles on their road?
And then when you go on about the lack of crumple zones, braking performance and fume emissions, maybe you have a point here, but then we only have to look at the logging equipment to fell the Canadian forests are hardly helping the greenhouse gas problem of the planet.
Crumple zones, do Canadians wrap their buildings and street furniture with pillows to ensure they have crumple zones for cyclists, or is this just stealth victimisation of someone who cant afford the more popular 911 let alone retromod it like a million dollar 964 Singer Porsche?
I dont understand accepting the freedom of the choice of people like you when it exposes unconsenting others to more half baked ideas and illegitimate govts for their own dislike of an internet article.
I will still commend you on your dadaism, but sadly I fear I might just be able to out dada even more prominent adherents to the movement like salvador dali himself or the majority of the LLM AI's on display today.
FWIW, the author's 914 would be exempt from the MOT requirement, as it's over 40 years old (and assuming that no "substantial changes" have been made in the last 30 years).
Probably much safer to have around that a juggernaut SUV from 2019, driven by a soccer mom running to do errands like her life depends on it while texting on her phone with her friends about last night.
Sorry for the oddly specific and somewhat sexist example, but I got clipped twice on a bike by such a vehicle.
I know you are aware of this, but I'll still insist :)
How did you establish it was a "mom" (as opposed to an aunt or someone taking care of someone's kids), that she was texting with "her friends" or even texting at all, and what the topic of her texting was (if it even was texting)?
Maybe it was a girl borrowing her brother's (who is a dad: I am assuming you noticed child seats or kids) car looking at the weather forecast at her phone driving recklessly?
Yeah, I get annoyed at people using their phones while driving (both when they drive recklessly and when they drive too slow making everyone around them nervous). So you should too. Moms running errands should not be the target of your anger :)
Having driven my share of vehicles that I would describe as "having character" and my wife would describe as "a shitbox" I can answer.
All the quirks eventually become part of your muscle memory for driving that car. At first while you're figuring out the quirks maybe it takes your mind off of traffic a bit.
After a while though, you know that you have to hesitate and wiggle the gear lever just so to get 2nd, and do it without thought.
Conpare it to using vi or emacs. At first it's a lot of thought to just move the cursor around. With practice, it's fluid and second nature.
> Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple
> zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.
Actually, the 914 did have crumble zones. The car was very advanced for its time, with a mid-engine layout and even fuel injection in the late 1960s. I won't excuse the author's refusal to fix his brakes, windows, rust holes, or clutch linkage, but the car itself could be brought to a relatively safe standard for cars of that period.
No, only the four cylinder models did, but the point being was that the technology in the VwPorche was very advanced for its day and general criticisms of typical cars of the period (no crumple zones) do not apply.
I could argue that stupid people are a larger danger to society than this old car, and harshly judge anyone who doesn't support eugenics. But it turns out that having an extreme opinion backed by a meager rationale with no evidence isn't a great way to go through life.
Tech we use is us (see: EMT and embodied cognition), and so we care about it like we care about ourselves. Phone is our memory and communicative capabilities, bicycle or car is our feet, and both are visible to other people.
Car culture will be a problem for as long as cities are built for them and people feel the need to regularly morph into car-persons (plus a couple of generations after), because a car is literally part of its driver.
Good public transport and getting rid of private cars in the midst of us will help, but it will be a slow road to get there, especially in countries that place premium on freedom of movement (they don’t want to be beholden to government-run public transit in case government goes rogue).
Meanwhile cities will continue to intersperse walkable areas with private vehicle accessible roads. Proximity of private cars to people means people are always in danger, and the desire to show off, like others show off nice attire or haircut and geeks show off custom mechanical keyboards (as well as to satisfy own childhood examples, if parents drive) by driving expensive or weird cars sadly increases bad outcomes (because such cars are generally fast, large, or broken).
That all said, the guide to stealing Porsche 914 was an entertaining read.
> ... by driving expensive or weird cars sadly increases bad outcomes
Just saying: of all the brands in the US the one that has the least average accident by brand ownership is... Porsche.
At this point, seen the sheer car hate all around, I don't drive a Porsche because I care about what other people think. I drive a Porsche because I don't give a fuck what they think (and I know they wrongly think it's a car creating lots of accidents, when it's actually the brand driven by the safest drivers out there).
It’s true that a driver who cares about their car may be using it better and safer, consistent with my argument above, so perhaps I am incorrect, who knows. (Although I believe larger SUVs and trucks are more deadly if they run into people.)
On the other hand, I know for a fact that there is so much more noise specifically from showoff cars (and motorcycles, but mostly cars). Not all showoff cars do it, but almost all cars that do it are showoff cars. Not sure about their brands, because I just hear the noise which you can’t really escape from. As someone sound-sensitive, this caused me countless anxiety waves, which I reckon is consequential for health.
Also, I have seen many examples where drivers of more expensive cars force pedestrians (and other drivers) to yield, bending rules in ambiguous situations, but I am not prepared to say whether I have perceptual bias on this (and in which direction).
> Good public transport and getting rid of private cars in the midst of us will help, but it will be a slow road to get there, especially in countries that place premium on freedom of movement (they don’t want to be beholden to government-run public transit in case government goes rogue).
Honestly, I don't think cars are going anywhere. Granted, I understand your sentiment if we're talking about the city.
I live in a rural area, in Europe. Its mountainous, and generally only a 4x4 works when going somewhere close to the rivers. Even more so for people with olive trees or vineyards doing agricultural work. And that's ok, but these people also need to be able to go back to the city/town, where they live.
Hell, I need to use a donkey to get to some places :)
If you're on old car guy, you'll know he's purposely exaggerating for effect and pulling many issues across the car's time and placing them all together. Many of us have faced the issues he's describing at different times with older cars and so we can relate and nod our heads. The fact that he's a professor of automotive engineering, and has pictures of the drivetrain out of the car and a welder in hand doing bodywork shows that he doesn't actually drive a neglected 914 like a foolish teenager.
I've bought many an abused old car, including a 951 a couple years ago that had many similar issues. So I know what he's talking about. That doesn't mean I didn't fix the car and have it running smoothly now.
i'm old enough to need GI exams, and yeah cool flex, i understood that reference, i'm also a watercooled porsche guy, except this nostalgia about broken cars is not something i participate in. never have, never will. i don't get wishy washy over when i was so broke i couldn't fix everything (cars, house, computers, etc.) as soon as they developed issues. those weren't the good old days. the good old days were when i first started making enough money to make sure all of the stuff i owned was always in excellent condition and not a danger to myself and everyone else.
Don’t conceal your hatred behind a mask of a desire to understand something novel, you just don’t like it. Consider being more open to viewpoints that differ from yours, instead of setting up ad-hoc verbal jousting games that make actual communication impossible like, “Oh my, I simply do not understand why somebody would want do such a thing!”. Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?
In my own foolishness, I will say something sincere to your insincerity. Risk-aversion varies wildly among people, and everything you choose to do exposes unconsenting members of the public to risks that could have been avoided. For example, getting in an 8000-lb NPC mobile that is designed to numb you from the outside world with 25” touchscreen infotainment centers might (in some ways) be more hazardous to the health of pedestrians and other vehicles that a 2000-lb car that was designed, engineered, and is now driven for the sole purpose of engagement between driver, machine, and road.
And with respect to the matter of maintenance, the only cars of vintage that are in perfect condition are those that are never driven. These machines are incredibly complex, and as they age, they take on many problems that have varying degrees of seriousness, any owner that can afford to will take reasonable steps to bring the car into a drivable state, but there are many quirks, odds, and ends of operation that the machine will exhibit that are either too mysterious at present or too expensive to fix, and so the operator does exactly what any rational person faced with using a legacy system that is complex and undocumented, they make an attempt at patching the problem imperfectly and dealing with some technical debt in the future instead of rewriting from scratch today.
I'm not concealing my hatred of this, sorry if I somehow gave that impression. Let me say this clearly then;
I hate when people make selfish and reckless decisions that can severely impact the lives of others without their consent. It's unfair and should not be allowed, and I think they should be judged harshly for it.
I always try to maintain an open mind however, so stating that I don't understand the appeal of making such decisions isn't some game I'm playing. I legitimately don't understand the appeal and am open to hearing arguments for those decisions.
You’re talking past the conclusion because your own hatred is making you blind to your own assumptions.
List specifically what you think the driver of this car does with this car that is more dangerous than a typical driver distracted by a cell phone, or even an Uber driver staring at the app instead of the road.
Your false premise is that the author is doing anything at all here that is more dangerous than “drive a modern SUV in a normal way”.
With a car as tiny as the 914, the risk is nearly entirely shouldered by the driver and his (presumably consenting) passengers. I had a 944 Turbo for a long time that had a number of similar... let's say eccentricities. Those unique qualities did not make it a danger to anyone else on the road--quite the opposite. When you sit in a car that old and bring it up just to highway speeds, it is abundantly clear that you are taking your life into your own hands.
Think about people who ride motorcycles, or small single-engine airplanes, or skydive. These are risky hobbies, and there usually isn't a practical reason for doing them. If something goes wrong, yes, passersby can potentially be harmed. Should we judge them harshly for these hobbies?
> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.
He probably knows a thing or two about car safety and risk. All the issues he described are around starting the thin and parking.. It probably drives safely.
Your just projecting your own narrative on this situation.
After all, percentage wise, sports cars kill fewer people than any other category of car, so this reckless decision is a lot less reckless than you think it is.
I have mentioned some of the reasons in an edit to my above reply, but to partially restate: All actions have unintended consequences on unconsenting passersby. To some, it is inconceivable to, if it can be avoided, get behind the wheel of an automobile when doing so actively increases the danger and probability of collision and injury. You are blind if you do not see this in your own life, or if you fail to see that the privileged life that you do enjoy is only possible because of the tragic conditions of life and strenuous labor that the rest of the world endures for your pleasure.
Owners of older cars work hard or spend a great deal of money to maintain their vehicles in good operating condition, but the machines have quirks, some of which are impossible or not worth solving. That does not make them unsafe. That does not make them oblivious endangerers of the unconsenting co-users of the roadway. You have one notion of what it means to be a safe driver, others have different ones. Should people be allowed to drive 5000lb luxury barges, an unregulated and unpermissioned doubling of the amount of force at play in any collision that has been forced upon pedestrians and cyclists and drivers by motorists’ unquenchable thirst for increasingly sedate, massive, and insulated driving experiences, where visibility is almost 0, and drivers are completely dependent on the onboard sensors and warning lights to indicate to them whether or not switching lanes will end someone else’s life
Much like going 5 or 10 over speed limit, it's a risk he's willing to make. I much prefer someone driving a sketchy car because he's having fun than someone who doesn't really know how to drive safely in a modern SUV. Turns out they both are dangerous but one of them is aware of the dangers and how to mitigate them.
This is a false dichotomy. The commenter above would probably also prefer to not have someone who doesn't know how to safely operate their modern SUV on the road either (and would similarly suggest it's not a thing to brag about).
My point is this car is not much more dangerous than a lot of regular drivers out there.
Can't speak for everywhere obviously but in my area some age groups didn't have to go to any class to get there licence (and not just old people here). We don't all need to be race car pilots but some behaviors I see regularly should not be acceptable on the road. That machine is not something I would be concern about.
> Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?
"I like my hobby because X, Y, and Z. It poses no danger to anyone".
Seems a bit rude to accuse OP of concealing anything. The owner of the Porsche is proud of the shoddy state of his vehicle, and this rubs him the wrong way. It's not hard to see why.
Car culture forces us into daily contact with folks who are also proud of their vehicles, and their blinding lights, their lifted suspension, protruding rims, tinted windows, overpowered engines, etc. I am reminded of this vehicle [0] and its owner. Running "beaters" is one facet of that same culture.
It's a very public hobby, which puts the public at real risk. That makes it fair game for criticism.
My guess is that operators of cars like this kill far fewer people per hundred million miles traveled than soccer moms in their SUVs texting with their Frappuccinos but I'm willing to be proven wrong with data.
> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.
Being a recognized expert in the field, he might understand how safety works.
Every car guy has an attachment to a car the empirically doesn't return the value of what is put into it. Some are able to get past this and be "productive" with their car hobby. A lot will have a car that sits in the garage and doesn't move, but is always worked on. Some have a car (like this 914) that can only be driven by one person.
Specifically referencing 914', they are incredibly fun to drive. The mid engine places the weight between all 4 wheels in a way that it handles like magic. There is always the dream of this car returning to it's glory. This guys is facetiously admitting it's just a dream.
Exact reason why I think it should be illegal to own anything other than a Volvo XC90. It’s objectively the safest car, and anyone who purchases anything else is reckless and unethical.
Man, repairing my XC90 sucked. I remember ripping the busted blower motor out through the passenger footwell because the service manual called for a full removal of the dash and A/C system which exceeded the value of the car. And the rear four spark plugs were horrible to replace.
Anyway, no, I don't think everyone should be required to drive a huge SUV with either a notoriously fragile transmission or a gas guzzling V8 motor. To say nothing of the unreliable sensors in the engine bay.
No parking brake is the one that gets me. How do you do a hill start? I guess you need to use the actual brake, clutch and accelerator at the same time?
How hard to fix the gearbox and retrofit a choke too?
Hillstart problem is when you're pointed uphill, stopped, and need to start going. Without the handbrake, the car will fall backwards when you lift off the brake. So you'll need to be good at working the clutch, or use your heel and toe on the gas and brake at the same time, or risk going backwards into the car behind you.
That's how it's taught initially, but everyone I know who drives a manual thinks of it as a crutch to be discarded as soon as you learn how to drive it.
Same way we stop crawling as soon as we learn how to actually walk.
I've been driving manual for 20 years and never heard of hand brake method being considered a crutch. Although I use it only on the steepest hills, I can usually time the clutch/brake/gas pedal to not need it.
I also don't use heel-toe - don't know what I'd use that for. I only heard about it on the internet several years ago.
Almost everyone drives a manual car, except for a few countries. The vast majority of hill starts I've witnessed as a passenger have been with the handbrake.
We're probably talking the difference here between enthusiasts and non-enthusiast drivers. I learned stick so I could drive sports cars, and I've never felt the need for the handbrake for hill starts because I can just heel/toe. But my wife who knows how to drive stick but only learned because that's what her family had when she learned to drive and doesn't really care about it, always uses the handbrake.
I have a manual-transmission sports coupe (1988 Ford Thunderbird) and the parking brake is useless for hill starts. It's a ratcheting pedal to the left of the clutch pedal. Releasing the parking brake requires leaning forward and pulling a release lever on the left side of the foot well. I do hill starts by taking my foot off the brake and pressing the gas , and balancing on the clutch.
Most people use the parking brake for hill starts only for the first couple hours of learning to drive manual. Once you know how to do it, you don't need it (especially with modern engine management which makes the car less prone to stalling than old carbs, but even on old carbs, it's relatively easy).
This logic is always funny. Fun fact: Motorcycles don't have a reverse gear, and lots of motorcycles are extremely heavy. So if you end up facing down hill and something is blocking your way? You're stuffed. You can't even get off and walk away because the bike is liable to roll forward off it's stand.
Do you know how motorcycles solve this problem? Don't do it! Just don't get into that situation. How do you do a hill start? You don't. If you're really forced, you can try, it'll be difficult but often it's just easier to avoid the situation.
- Uphill starts are easy compared to a manual car as you operate the rear brake and accelerator using different parts of the body
- Stopping facing down a slope requires the use of the brakes and a supporting foot, same as a bicycle
- Getting off a bike facing down a slope typically is done by leaving it in gear which keeps the back wheel locked
- OP is correct that some forethought is required on very steep or highly cambered surfaces when leaving a bike to ensure it is stable on the side stand
I never use the parking break for hill starts and I've been driving manuals since I got my license in the 1989. Not that I particularly want to but whenever I'm looking for a car that's all I can seem to find in my price range.
Back in the day I used to have to parallel park my old Bug on a hill and the parking brake didn't even work -- it's just something you get good at after a few times.
Though... my current car does have a "hill assist" mode that automatically applies the brake on hills to help out which is kind of nice.
Hill starts with a clutch can be tricky for beginners, but they're not a big deal once you're comfortable. Left foot on the clutch, right foot on the brake. Start letting out the clutch until it just begins to engage, and transition the right foot over to the throttle and ease into it. The clutch will hold the car while you make the transition. A little slippage of the clutch, but nothing outside its normal operating parameters as long as it's done reasonably well.
When pointed uphill, lift your foot off the brake and gas it while at the same time working the clutch. If you're precise with the clutch, you'll move forwards without sliding backwards too much. If you're not, you'll fall backwards, into the car behind you. If you're not very skilled with the clutch, you can cheat and use the handbrake, but you'll get judged for that.
I have a modern-ish manual (Acura RSX) and never need the parking brake on a hill. Left foot on clutch, right toe on brake, release brake, add gas and clutch together, roll up.
Your concerns are not entirely unreasonable, and I say this as a car enthusiast temporarily in remission (parent of young children). Some of the things you mention do indeed make the vehicle less safe to those around it. However:
Where I believe you are missing a critical point is in assuming that the overall situation with a modern and “safe” vehicle is better. You’ve got entertainment systems, touch screens, driver aids (reducing the need for concentration), quite possibly child-sourced distractions (even when they are not screaming, they can be plenty distracting).
Now add to that the weight of a modern vehicle and the owner’s relative lack of concern/awareness/love for it, and to assume that someone driving around in a somewhat ragged antique is necessarily the bigger hazard could… potentially be open to debate.
Just because a thief would find themselves driving the car on public roads in the state described doesn't mean that the owner would actually do the same.
It's amusing that the car is lacking in security features, but that doesn't make it easy to steal. It's funny that it's hard enough to drive that a previous thief gave up and (essentially) gave it back.
The biggest hint is in a caption: "I’ll make sure the drivetrain is in the car, by the way." He's obviously working on the car to try to make it better, and there's no way he's actually going to put the drivetrain back in the car just in case someone wants to try stealing it.
Of all the things I read on the internet today, this might be the most mind blowing one - you lived there for 10 years and don't know a single person with a car in Toronto?
It is! But like New York City, if you live in the built-up urban area, a car is often more of a hindrance than a benefit. Ridiculous parking rates, a good transit system, a mostly-flat city with an okay cycling network, dealing with car ownership isn't worth it.
I lived in Toronto for 14 years, sold the car I arrived with after two years, and bought a car a couple years before the pandemic after we moved into a less central, but still urban, neighbourhood. Neither car had dedicated parking, we had a street parking permit which meant I could usually park within a block of home.
I did know people with cars, but I knew a lot more people without.
The main reason we bought a car in 2018 was that Car2Go, which offered one-way car share trips in Smart cars, pulled out of the city.
On the other hand, if you live in the suburbs, you virtually have to have a car. The 401 at rush hour is filled with people coming in and out of the city core.
If you live in a Western city and genuinely don't know anyone who owns a car, it's not much of a surprise that you never understood old car culture - how would you?
And, if you read his bio you'd see that this guy is not a mere car guy, but in the pantheon of car guys. When he takes it for a spin around the block he's doing what any mechanic does when diagnosing cars - driving it to see why the car doesnt: steer well, stop well, move well, etc.
My first car was a manual, and several cars since then. I can assure you not only is it possible to drive stick and text, it is possible to concurrently drive stick, text with T9 word, adjust the radio, and put fire sauce on a chalupa while it's snowing at night.
I am not a car person, but I have to deal with cars and drivers 99.9% of the time I am outside.
I would rather not, but they don’t allow me that choice, and they will also fight to the last man and beyond 4C warming for their „right“ to endanger me and my kin, as well as accelerate the rapid destruction of the only known habitat.
That car would be illegal to operate on public roads in the EU. You can't pass the annual inspection without working brakes. The inspector will also ask you to wait outside while he checks the brakes, suspension and other stuff under the car. If he can't start the engine himself - the inspection will be over.
While you're correct about the brakes, the rest is made-up nonsense; the inspector is going to be a mechanic that knows these cars, not an ignorant clipboard warrior going down a ticklist. They'd fail it on the brakes, but starting it is a matter of asking or familiarity with the car / model.
And you wouldn't take your oldtimer to any random mechanic, you'd take it to a specialist.
The synchros in the transmission were worn down to almost nothing, shifting truly was a dark art, like closing one’s eyes and feeling their way through a drawer of silverware.
Otherwise in better condition but I guess I had twenty years less wear on it!
(my current car dream is to find another 914 and do an electric conversion… not a car where it behooves one to keep the original anything)