When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes, it is 25% less of a boat. While both XK and F-type are grand touring cars, XK is closer to old land-yacht side of things and F-type is close to a race car side of things.
Now, if one frequently suffering from hemorrhoids and have bad rheumatic knees in the winter of life and needs trunk space for folding walker, it is clear why would one prefer XK over F-type. For the still-vigorous and vital among us, F-type is the preferred choice.
:P
Hey! I resemble that remark!
The Roma is nice. To me. the front end resembles the Maserati GT.
Yes, it is 25% less of a boat. XK is closer to old land-yacht side of things.
Now, if one frequently suffering from hemorrhoids and have bad rheumatic knees in the winter of life and needs trunk space for folding walker, it is clear why would one prefer XK over F-type. For the still-vigorous and vital among us, F-type is the preferred choice.
You are right. There was a time though values were flipped, guy with the xjs would walk out with 2 girls and the guy in the TRV was giving his mate a ride home.
Have you put your finger on why the 911 and XK is ageless to you and the Ftype is not??
I have a theory I stumbled upon(open to correction). The product I designed 20 years ago is unchanged, nothing can be changed because it was modeled purely around airflow. To our surprise, its still as acclaimed for its looks as it was when released.
I think in the long run people are attracted to a shape where they can identify the purpose but it cannot be abrupt, it must flow gracefully, particularly how it transitions from one dimension to the other.
The parts of the XK that I consider unattractive were the ones designed for aesthetics and not purpose.
No you dont want a grand tourer that sounds like a harley on an 8 hour journey.
It would be a grand farter.
The front end on the XK was designed to fit the legendary oval grill that fit the Etype perfectly, its disproportional on the XK, and clearly not functional as other intakes are required and they all fight each other.
Last edited by Queen and Country; 11-15-2019 at 11:35 AM.
Actually, I tend to drive with the loud exhaust switched on all the time for very much the same reason Harley riders do - it is much safer to do so as people can hear you before they can see you. F-type convertible with top down does not have large profile and people in SUVs and F150s are not that vigorous at checking blind spots. It got better since blind spot detection tech proliferated, but still not every car has it.
Yes, it is 25% less of a boat. While both XK and F-type are grand touring cars, XK is closer to old land-yacht side of things and F-type is close to a race car side of things.
Now, if one frequently suffering from hemorrhoids and have bad rheumatic knees in the winter of life and needs trunk space for folding walker, it is clear why would one prefer XK over F-type. For the still-vigorous and vital among us, F-type is the preferred choice.
:P
I'm pretty vigorous and I prefer my XKR to an F-Type. But that is mainly because I wanted a GT (XK) not a sports car (F-type) this time around. They serve different markets and snarky remarks about the customer base of the XK don't really add much of value to the discussion.
I'm pretty vigorous and I prefer my XKR to an F-Type. But that is mainly because I wanted a GT (XK) not a sports car (F-type) this time around. They serve different markets and snarky remarks about the customer base of the XK don't really add much of value to the discussion.
Have you put your finger on why the 911 and XK is ageless to you and the Ftype is not??
I have a theory I stumbled upon(open to correction). The product I designed 20 years ago is unchanged, nothing can be changed because it was modeled purely around airflow. To our surprise, its still as acclaimed for its looks as it was when released.
I think in the long run people are attracted to a shape where they can identify the purpose but it cannot be abrupt, it must flow gracefully, particularly how it transitions from one dimension to the other.
The parts of the XK that I consider unattractive were the ones designed for aesthetics and not purpose.
One of the guiding principles of timeless, iconic design is that form must follow function. I have, as I hinted at, a house full of beautiful, classic furniture designed decades ago by people like Florence Knoll, Charles and Ray Eames, Marcel Breuer, Arne Jacobson, Eileen Gray, and so on. Each piece looks as beautiful today as the day it was designed, and because it has looked beautiful for decades, it will always do so. It is timeless. I think that 'getting it right first time' is an important principle here, and the original 911, designed by Ferdinand Alexander Porsche an astonishing 56 years ago. exemplifies that. All that has been needed subsequently is to bring it 'up to date' as tastes, regulations, practicalities and so on change. With the 911, form followed function beautifully - the engine was to be in the back, so the rear-end shape was set by that. The size of the car was 'just so' for a 2+2 (in theory at least), neither bigger nor smaller than it needed to be. Subsequent updates have built on that foundation with each iteration flowing into the next, all immediately identifiable as a '911'. No other car has achieved such longevity, still looking fresh more than half a century after it was first created. I feel the same about my Charles Eames dining chairs, or my Florence Knoll coffee table and so on. I think all truly great design, in any field, shares these characteristics of having been got 'right first time' and where form has followed function.
The XKR is, similarly, a classic, iconic shape for a 2+2 (theoretically) GT front-engined motor car. That the Roma echoes so many of its design cues is symptomatic of this. The F-Type though, is clumsier. It is more 'of its time' than 'timeless'. As such, it looks very good today, but I do not think it will look as good in 20 or 30 years time. It will look dated IMO. As you have observed, the XK is a more 'flowing' design, with gorgeous transitions from one shape to the next. Just look at how the line flows from the front to the rear for example. And one thing is certain to my mind: if something has looked very, very beautiful for many years, then it will continue to do so for many more. Just as I will never feel any need to change my furniture (but may well add to it) I will never feel any need to change the XKR - at least not because of the way it looks. I may, of course, move on to another car one day - but it will not be because I have found one that is more aesthetically pleasing. The echoes of the current Roma design in the XKR of almost 15 years ago confirms this to me.
One regret I do have is that many years ago I had the good fortune to own a Ferrari Dino 246 - possibly the most beautiful car ever made. I let that car go, to my eternal regret and now I can no longer afford to buy another. The 246 design looks as good as the day it was conceived back in the early 70s!
The thing that great designs had in common was they were beholden to nothing but authenticity. Unfortunately in today's world its commerce and following trends, if one person uses slim horizontal lights, all must regardless of functionality or uniqueness. That's the pitfall of the Apollonian system.
There is something else, which the XK shares, Eames is a perfect example of it; it must be an allrounder. Eames made it a point that it should be easy to manufacture, from sustainable materials, easy to ship, be formal and casual and affordable. The XK is quite unique in that it can be an exotic that is actually used, affordable, great mileage, reliable, a brute and sophisticated luxury when it needs to be. I honestly do not know another exotic that I can say four of those things about, including the Ftype. It all comes together and its all there in good timeless design.
Yes Ferrari knew what they were doing to add the 2+2 capability to the Roma- it puts it in another class and functionality to the Ftype.
On the flowing lines and intersections, yes the glass trim on the XK makes a beautiful transition in the rear as it curves, course Ian had some help in this from his predecessor, but in the Ferrari it makes a sharp and abrupt triangle.
I think they are all terrific cars and beautiful in their own right. Just like having a pretty girlfriend, it doesn’t mean there are no other beautiful and terrific women out there, just take good care of the one you have and be happy you are so lucky.
One of the guiding principles of timeless, iconic design is that form must follow function. I have, as I hinted at, a house full of beautiful, classic furniture designed decades ago by people like Florence Knoll, Charles and Ray Eames, Marcel Breuer, Arne Jacobson, Eileen Gray, and so on. Each piece looks as beautiful today as the day it was designed, and because it has looked beautiful for decades, it will always do so. It is timeless. I think that 'getting it right first time' is an important principle here, and the original 911, designed by Ferdinand Alexander Porsche an astonishing 56 years ago. exemplifies that. All that has been needed subsequently is to bring it 'up to date' as tastes, regulations, practicalities and so on change. With the 911, form followed function beautifully - the engine was to be in the back, so the rear-end shape was set by that. The size of the car was 'just so' for a 2+2 (in theory at least), neither bigger nor smaller than it needed to be. Subsequent updates have built on that foundation with each iteration flowing into the next, all immediately identifiable as a '911'. No other car has achieved such longevity, still looking fresh more than half a century after it was first created. I feel the same about my Charles Eames dining chairs, or my Florence Knoll coffee table and so on. I think all truly great design, in any field, shares these characteristics of having been got 'right first time' and where form has followed function.
The XKR is, similarly, a classic, iconic shape for a 2+2 (theoretically) GT front-engined motor car. That the Roma echoes so many of its design cues is symptomatic of this. The F-Type though, is clumsier. It is more 'of its time' than 'timeless'. As such, it looks very good today, but I do not think it will look as good in 20 or 30 years time. It will look dated IMO. As you have observed, the XK is a more 'flowing' design, with gorgeous transitions from one shape to the next. Just look at how the line flows from the front to the rear for example. And one thing is certain to my mind: if something has looked very, very beautiful for many years, then it will continue to do so for many more. Just as I will never feel any need to change my furniture (but may well add to it) I will never feel any need to change the XKR - at least not because of the way it looks. I may, of course, move on to another car one day - but it will not be because I have found one that is more aesthetically pleasing. The echoes of the current Roma design in the XKR of almost 15 years ago confirms this to me.
One regret I do have is that many years ago I had the good fortune to own a Ferrari Dino 246 - possibly the most beautiful car ever made. I let that car go, to my eternal regret and now I can no longer afford to buy another. The 246 design looks as good as the day it was conceived back in the early 70s!
Interesting, though probably overlooking the fact the our specie's, at least in its more modern forms, say the last 2000 years, responds favorably to certain sensory inputs, that is the brain processes certain
sensory input to the mind (meaning the physical and the resulting product of brain matter activity ( I don't want this to get sidelined by ideology or belief(s), This is true of sound, touch and most weighted, sight.
Certain predictable proportions, are more favorable to us, as well as found throughout our natural world. By the Renaissance, this magical proportion (which is essentially a math equation so it's applicable across
all disciplines from music to literature to Tai Chi Quan, and has been applied since Euclid, known as the Golden Ratio, Or Golden Mean, Golden Proportion...etc., etc., etc. Basically it claims certain mathematical
equations are mote aesthetically pleasing.
I was just at Warner Brothers for a project, and of course the new logo was a topic. The design firm took three years (I want that gig) to strategize and develop the new WB logo and corporate ID,
The new design deliberately conforms to the Golden Mean. The development drawings are an eye-opener to human nature and behavior. And it is more pleasing a shape than the old one.
Now for the crazy part. One can apply the GM to most lines of the XK and see how closely it conforms to the principles and theories (yes, it's only a theory since it cannot be quantified as fact).
As do most cars of its nature. XK, DB9, the new Piech, the ZKE, the 250 GTO and 599. The F-Type does not. The Roma may, or not.
Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but natural experience is priceless.
I imagine if we looked backwards with any intensity, we'd find less well known examples of visionaries and yet conformists, pouring their essence into trying to make a car, and only a...car, to conform
completely and totally to the ideal of aesthetic perfection.
From an aesthetic POV, a day at the Peterson might be revealing.
If we are going to speak of primordial psyche, and be mature about it, we cannot sweep under the rug the universal phallic attraction, and how that fits with the Golden 2-1 ratio.
"Without mincing words, the E-type is the best automotive expression of the ***** to date. Museum-goers would benefit from the viewing of such a shiny, shiny phallus."
11-15-2019, 10:36 AM
