h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ah yes, those trials and tribulations of owning a classic car, eh!

I made a presentation the other day about the semantics of classic cars with particular interest in hips, something that is a strong feature of my spitfire and naturally the GT6.

Although there is a revival of drop head cars and roadsters and the like, they can't really be sports cars, because none of them have hips. They also have no unconscious relationship between driver and rear (driven) wheels - which on a semantic level may be more important than having the most powerful engine.

If you remove the caterham type cars from the list the spit may actually be the last hipped sports car...

This is an interesting concept. Are you saying that the MGB is not a sports car because it hasn't got hips, but the MGA is, because it has? Or have I missed the point of what hips are?

Either way, why?

I think you understand the idea of automotive hips perfectly and the example of the MGB is quite interesting because of the change in realtionship to the driven end. The MGA you mention is all about exposure. That is the (semantic) meaning, the feeling of being with the elements - the noise, the wind, the smell (?) and whilst it could be argued that the MGB tries to offer this, it is somehow subdued. The effect is dimished by adjustment of seating in relation with window sill and indeed the distance and sheer bulk that is present behind you.

I would say that the MGB is not a sports car but it is something more of a 2-seater touring, purely based on the degree of capsule around the driver.

There is blurring of the concept in the BMW Z1 from the '80's, with doors that slide down into the sills. The exposure here is very MGA or Caterham but, instead of hips it has shoulders.

I'm not sure how to classify this because it's slightly anthropomorphic details do give you something to relate to in that the shoulders arch over specific areas of contact, typically aggressive ones from BMW. It's long nose to short behind is also effective and present in the Z3. What do you think?

Anyway, I ended that presentation intentionally abruptly with an example of an MGF. It's brochure quotes something about the car being just what true enthusiasts have been waiting for in a sports car but, to the semantic eye how can it be? Hipless, high silled... yet the engine is right behind you - can you hear it? Barely. Mostly just wind rush.

It's not that I don't like the car, if I could have one I probably would but, I'd always know that it isn't a true sports car. Not that there's anything wrong with being a fast touring car...

Ooh, I was just getting the hang of hips and you introduce shoulders! I'd have said that Z1 was a sports car, but I've never before questioned why. That said, I'm always telling my friend that his MR2 isn't a proper sports car, but I've relied on the argument that it hasn't got a proper soft top and is altogether too civilised. Your suggestion of the overall capsule around the driver (or its absence) is an interesting take and supports my view. If you want to be with the elements, as you put it, then metal work gets in the way. I'm trying to picture that new Lotus (I'm interested in older cars and sometimes don't keep up with the new ones so well) - the one that's all tubular frame and no body work. To me that's an archetypal sports car, but I'm afraid I have no idea if it's got hips.

I can see how the hips would have an effect on the onlooker or in the showroom, but I'm not too sure how it affects the driver whilst he's driving (which is surely the point of a sports car). After all, he or she can't see the hips, even peripherally, particularly as older sports cars often lack wing or door mirrors. Low door sills would seem a more defining feature, but then there's the big Healey, a sports car if ever there was, with hips and high sides. To me the Lotus Elan is a sports car, and it lacks hips and shoulders. Perhaps you would see it as a roadster.

I can see how the original sports car shape (as in running boards and cutaway doors as in the Morgan) was always 'hipped', but is that the main pointer? The upward swoop of the rear wing was also there in pre-war saloons.

I'm going to be looking for hips everywhere now. To me, sports cars need a variety of ingredients - soft top, two seats, front engine, rear wheel drive - but some cars can have all these attributes and I still don't think they're a sports car.

I've always operated on the principle that whilst I can't necessarily define a sports car, I know one when I see one. And the MGF, nice car though it undoubtedly is, isn't a sports car.

it's interesting that you mention the MR2 - this is a car that in it's original form (sharp and pointy) had the flavour of a sports car because of the unconscious relationship between car and driver - as you say the important bit of a sports car - yet when it was upgraded around 1990 it lost pretty much all the the sportiness both from a visual angle and also a driving perspective.

If your friends MR2 is a mk1 I'd say it's quite close to being a sports car. The mk2 simply has a higher top speed, basically irrelevant.

It's a mk 2. Mind you, the latest one is even worse - another friend who worked for a Toyota dealership (he's a company man) tried to persuade me that it didn't have a boot / trunk because it was a sports car and the kind of person who drives a sports car doesn't have any bags. I'm sure it goes like stink, but that doesn't make it a sports car.

I'm dissappointed by the new model. I had a poke around in one at the Motorshow last year and couldn't believe the interior, I find it hard to believe that it has been designed at all, it was almost back to the 'raid the parts bin' days.

It does have the strangest material for the hood though. The texture feels like paper and it's really thin so if they couldn't make it look like a proper sports car from within at least the hood feels good!

I agree that pure speed does not make a sports car, most of what we see as sports cars are pretty slow. It probably handles nicely so it does make it up to the driver slightly.

Is it just something to do with the car's origins, I wonder? I remember when the Ford Scorpio was released and there was a story about it being designed in three parts, with three studios; one in Detroit, one in London and the other in Japan (I think). And we all know the mess the combination made of it, I remember the 'banana shoved up it's exhaust pipe' phrase being amazingly accurate.

As far as lack of boot space goes, everyone seems to think of sports models as having none but, my Spitfire has loads - something else that isn't echoed anymore, real space behind the seats and very low boot floors.

Hmmm, maybe thats the next semantic idea? The bodywork is getting too thick - reducing the relationship with the outside world, changing the interior pod experience whilst reducing the actual space inside. What does that mean?

I shall give this some thought...

It might seem a bit late to mention this, as we seem to be understanding each other quite well, but I'm not altogether clear on what you mean by 'semantic', which I have always taken to be related to the meaning of words. That doesn't seem to be the context in which you are using it. Although I think I have a feel for what you are saying, 169208, (if I may use the abbreviation!) I could do with being a bit clearer.

Turning to your comments about luggage space, I suppose a lot of the sports cars of the 30s and 40s had very little - the boot area tended to consist of fuel tank and spare wheel, although there was usually an area behind the seats which could be used, from my observations at classic car shows. It's also true to say that saloon cars in those days were pretty limited in boot space too.

I agree that bodywork appears thicker in many modern cars, but I'd like to raise another memeber of the awkward squad, the Lotus Europa. It's one of those cars that breaks many of the rules of being a sports car. It's a hard top, of course, the body, although light, looks 'thick', and as it is glass fibre is physically thicker than steel - but I'd suggest that all that bulk behind the cabin fulfils the role of hips admirably without ever being hips. The driver's cabin is very much enclosed - I believe that Lotus's original concept did not even have windows that opened - and the driver is insulated from the outside world, yet, according to all I have read (I've never been in one) he or she feels very much in touch with the road, through Lotus's much-vaunted handling, and also with the mechanicals roaring immediately behind. It's one of those that I feel is a sports car, though I can't necessarily justify it.

right ho... seman'tics is a branch of philosophy that deals with meaning, the actual subject matter should not er, matter as you say most people only regard it as a study of word meaning but it applies very greatly to the design of objects and so in this instance we are talking about the meaning of form.

The problem we get here is that any branch of philosophy is subject to almost unstoppable counter argument and as Designers we have to be extremely careful in the semantic levers we choose to take advantage of.

That might be putting it a little too bluntly. It's a very subtle game we can play that gives objects an inate sense of place - it's never an accident, reagrdles of what may be said.

So, with this in mind you can probably see how irritating I sometimes find it when for example, MG walk in and announce their new sports car for enthusiasts, when all the real tricks have been missed, that would have positioned the car perfectly as a sports car.

Thanks for that, I can understand what you are driving at (pun not intended) a lot more clearly now.

I can see how you would be frustrated with MG, too. I may not necessarily appreciate the subtleties of design as a professional would, but as I've said before, I know a sports car when I see one and no amount of being told that something is a sports car can make up for a car not just being one. Obviously you'll have realised that I'm a car enthusiast, especially a classic car enthusiast (not just sports cars, I have a Morris Minor for everyday and a Hillman Minx for trips out and holidays, neither is remotely sporty) but I've never really thought with any depth about the meaning of a car's design, just whether it's fit for purpose and whether I like the look of it.

Of course you may well tell me that I am picking up on the subtle cues that have been put in there, I just don't know what I'm responding to, and I'd probably be happy to accept that. There wouldn't be much point putting in all those tricks, as you call them, if only the favoured few could appreciate it. Only now I'll be watching out for it.

Here's an aside. I had a discussion recently with a colleague at work about swage lines in bonnets. I have always assumed that the slight hump im most car's bonnets, even the flattest, was a suggestion of the separation of the bonnet and wings which was there in vintage cars, and was gradually smoothed out into the unitary body. I thought it may also be there to suggest the power under the bonnet. Have I spotted one of your levers?

...Yup.

The TVRs have hips of a sort, although not quite the shape of the Spit/GT6s. Also, the new Porsche has hips - but the wrong way around!...

You're right but I tend to think of TVR's as being slightly embarassed by their hips! There seems to be some need for the coventry uni grad's that style them to take huge boy racer chunks out of the bodywork - instead of sculpting beautiful hips, they ultimately beecome overly aggressive or even in the best hitch hikers sense try to outweird everything else on the road! (Can you spot the competition between our universities?!)

What do you think of the new generations of Porsche? To begin with I thought the 911 had simply become fat but, I'm tending to think that it might have grown up and left the playful-ness to the boxster.

169208

What about the Fiat X19? Very pointy, mid engine, rear wheel drive two seater?

Built at the Bertone factory at Torino along-side Ferrari.

Sid

I think that cars such as the X-19, the Countach, the Esprit and even the much maligned TR7 show that there is a type of sports car that doesn't have 'hips'.
However, I saw a pristine E-Type last night which shows how much better a shape is made by hips.

Hips are subconscious "womanly curves"

Child bearing hips ????

Talking of shape, what about an agressive front/nose?

Count the frog eu=yed sprite out!!!
The old E-Type is a beutiful example... reminds me a a shark.

Sid

Sorry, Frog-eyed .

Not for me - I prefer a bit of a smile. (i.e. a curved front with a nice chrome bumper).

Interestingly my SO sees the Triumph's "hips" as "cheek pouches" and cosnequently thinks my car looks like Daffy Duck.

X19, eh?

One view says that through a styling job that packaged a basic fiat engine, in the middle of a pointy italian supercar-esque shell should give the associated values of the prancing horse and be of the same ilk.

It isn't but, yes it is quite fast, considering. Now fast doesn't necessarily mean sporty. Is a BMW M3 a sports car? It is fast. A sports car, no. The same applies to hundreds of cars given huge power and so on , yet, they will always be saloons with big engines.

I have always liked the x19 as an entity in itself but, for me it will always epitomise the change from elegant curve, and yes sensuous hips to the progressively vulgar wedge that became the Countach - a car I am less than fond of, despite having a nice history of being a product of the bertone studios where Flaminio Bertone gave the job to one of brightest young talents (at 25!) - one Marcello Gandini!

Incidentally, can you really call a countach or even esprit a sports car? These must surely be opposite ends of the supercar league?

None of the TR range really have hips - and, with the exception of the TR7, I'd call them all sports cars.
Also there are several great sports cars that have the "old" shape, i.e. the Lotus 7/Caterham range.
The Cobra seems to be half way between these and the "hipped" sports cars.