over the decade of its production, minor changes in the body are evident to the discerning enthusiast. The earliest 356s, made in Porsche's first, tiny, factory in Gmund, take the design to its extreme -- sacrificing aesthetics and cargo space to aerodynamics.Basically, the car was shaped like a drop of water: the shape most
efficient for a liquid to take when traveling through air. A problem with this is that, when someone asks me to imagine a generic "car," I picture a Volvo 240.I don't want a car shaped like a rocket. I don't want a car shaped like a teardrop. I want a car that looks like a car. Especially if I'm going to drive it everyday.
So, yes, it's a Notchback for me. Case closed.
But I was thinking. What does the regular 356 remind me of? I was looking at a picture of an early, aerodynamic Gmund-era 356 when it suddenly struck me: it looks just like a time-trial bicycle helmet! It's the sort of thing that makes hard-core cyclists drool in appreciation, and that makes everyone else in the world ask, "what is on your head?!"
I understand the appeal of each. But when it comes down to it, I want something I can drive to work every day.
Notch wins again!
2 comments:
I still don't understand the argument that aerodynamic != drive to work every day. If anything, you've made the argument that a drive to work should be mediocre and fuel-deficient.
The argument being made was purely aesthetic -- I would rather drive a car that looks like my Platonic Ideal of what a car should look like. Cars that deviate from this Ideal too much (cf: Lotus Elise) begin to lose their appeal. The goal is not mediocrity but, rather, Beauty. Of course, this is purely subjective.
On the objective side, however, www.notchbacks.org puts forward "the little known fact that they are more aerodynamic and somewhat faster than their Coupe brothers." I cannot personally verify this information, but it seems like a strange assertion to invent out of thin air!
Post a Comment