This thread pits the soulless-Canadian deathbot, Kitdy, against the lunatical Latin, Ferrer. There have been threads like this in the past, but I think that the time is ripe for a new one as this is a very relevant discussion to our self-identification as gearheads.
Cars Have No Soul | The Smoking Tire
I think he is missing the point; a car need not explode every time you start it to appeal to us. (Though Ferrer’s love of Italian cars may be repressed pyromania) However, as he says, flaws do lend an involved and appealing imperfection. I mean, your toaster toasts shit and probably does such a stellar job that you never have to think twice about it. Whereas in a car, there is struggle and anybody will tell you that tension, strife, or what-have-you in something are what make it become more important or meaningful like in art etc…
For instance: my computer is, charitably, a soulless piece of shit. However, because it is so often overheating, crashing, and being an annoying whiny bitch I yell at it and get pissed at it. When it does work, I am grateful. Both of these actions are entirely illogical and brought on by the faults inbuilt in my computer. Now this might not be the most pleasant arrangement but it is surely more involved than a perfectly-operating computer. So, you minimize the faults somewhat so that you are not tempted to drive your car off a cliff when the engine decides to start pumping antifreeze into the cylinders every time you drive for longer than fifteen minutes. But do not completely steamroll them and you have a charismatic contraption.
We also like to be involved in what we are doing and I really don't think that one would get the same visceral rush from a GTR as, say, an equally hi-po Vette. Now the person in the Whale may be less dead than the person in the boat at the end of the day, but if they both manage to avoid that particular fate, I would wager that the Vette driver's pupils would be that little bit more dilated and his smile a little larger and more frazzled. That, to me is partially why we like cars. Throw in a little adrenaline, a little design, some engineering, and a speaking role for the driver and we're in hog heaven.
By letting us imperfect humans control and imperfect automobile, you get, in my opinion, constructive interference. You take the imperfection out of the automobile and all you have is an amazing machine with some dumbass behind the wheel.
I do not think flaws should be pursued by designers, and a good deal should be actively eliminated, but there should be the possibility for some to occur.
Personally, I was quite skeptical about cars having souls until I began to drive. I had seen people's modified creations that they had put their b, s, and t into, and it was immediately apparent to me that they had soul. However, mass-produced cookie-cutter cars still seemed a bit detached. Then I started driving my dad's 1998 American-model Ford Escort. Shittier shades of vanilla have ne'er been made, yet for some reason I loved it. It had three-an-a-half cylinders (one of the the exhaust valves would not open ultimately forcing us to junk it because the car couldn't pass smog), no amenities to speak of save LA-requisite air conditioning, skinny little tires, and gauges that took too many bathroom breaks. Yet I loved it and was quite angry to see it go, despite all its faults it was light, peppy, and in that strange-econobox fashion, undiluted and honest. Yes, it was my first car so I will probably always be a bit to nostalgic about it, but it and I genuinely clicked.
I realize that this is not exactly a very structured post so apologies if this should have gone in the Misc. section, but let's hear your arguments as to why cars do or don't have souls.
Reply With Quote
. 
.
Originally Posted by henk4
