you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 76 points 8 months ago (52 children)

Reason: the driver wants to be heard while driving around, or "for the emotional connection" as they put it nicely in the article. Seems like prosthetic lion's roar to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    I don't think there is a more pathetic display of money. Rolex were on the top of my list with their expensive ugly watches.

    vroom_vroom.mp3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I got into a discussion some weeks ago about extremely expensive watches. I think they are stupid and just a "look at me, I'm rich" item. But, apparenty, I know jackshit about it because it's all about the quality of the materials used and "the feel". Seems a 10k watch is extremely better than a normal watch and I'm just too dumb to understand it because I don't know how better it is when a watch uses precious metals in its gears instead of less-precious metals. This, said by a wage slave, by the way.

    Suffice to say I realized it was pointless to go on with the discussion and I let it die after their "explanation" on why I was being dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    A friend of mine has a few Rolex. Those watches are way less precise than a $5 quartz watch, it's all about showing that you have money. The quality of the materials gives no advantage. They are objectively ugly too with the big round circles, and look like watches for kids who learn how read the time.

    I've been told by rich guys that you must wear the strap a bit loose so that it the watch will rotate a bit around your wrist, which forces you to "put it back" while showing to others that you have a Rolex.

    I don't remember the specific name but it is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Exactly my thoughts on it. There are things that are expensive just because they are made so rich people can show off. Is there a point on having diamonds on a watch? No, it doesn't make it better, just more expensive so you can show others how much money you have.

    Same thing witd loud cars, they are made just so the owner can be the center of attention for a split second. I kinda feel bad for those idiots thinking they need to show off the money they have. It has to be one hell of an inferiority complex if you need to tell everybody how rich you are every moment of your life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I have 3 luxury watches. I'm not rich, it took quite a while to pay off each. That's probably all, those were the only 3 I ever really wanted. I bought them because I like watches, nobody else I know cares about them at all. The ones i picked have interesting movements or history. I didn't get them specifically for their brands. None are Rolex. I would say the biggest difference is not just the materials, it is the quality and tolerances of the machining. The surface finishes.

    I like to build and mod watches. I have quite a few made with Seiko movements and aftermarket parts. Some are pretty nice, and I never thought there would be much of a difference between a $400 Seiko and a luxury watch. Until I held my Tudor for the first time. The bracelet has almost no play to it between the links. My Seikos feel sloppy by comparison. The brushed surfaces feel almost soft, they are so smooth. I find myself just rubbing it sometimes. The clasp has little ceramic balls for the detent, and they are very smooth to operate. Wearing it is an excellent tactile experience. Like a fidget toy. It's also the watch I wore during my daughter's birth, and that is primarily what I think of when I wear it.

    But yeah, long story short they do feel different. I bet there are a ton of people that only buy them as status symbols, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    And, you just don't understand that if you can afford a $40,000 watch with premium materials, it doesn't matter that they don't keep correct time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I do understand that. But I hate hypocrisy. Just say that you buy it because you want to show how rich you are, don't try to sell me the "superior quality of the gears make them better" bullshit.

    Just be honest and say it clear: "I buy it because it's expensive". It's fine. Except it's not, because you are embarrassed to admit you only want to brag about money and instead try to lie others (and yourself) about the reason why you buy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    rolexes are actually extremely well made, though. that's why they became so well-valued.

    They were the watches people used because they were reliable and bomb-proof. (sometimes literally.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A "bomb-proof piece of jewelry" is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    /sigh

    Because things have always been the way they are today.

    The point I'm making that you're either ignoring or that you're not understanding is that Rolex's weren't always so expensive, especially when you consider they're mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist's motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions... and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn't even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it's endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.

    Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.

    that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don't actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that's okay. but don't sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It's laughably not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here's my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:

    The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.

    Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let's say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient's heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.

    Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that's not the only use case for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Harley Davidson tried to be progressive and be the first large manufacturer to make an electric motorcycle. No one bought them. Who buys a Harley not to make obnoxious noise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Harley charged Harley prices (15-25k) for bikes that should have cost 5k. Thats why no one bought them.

    Emotercycles still have range issues compared to gas bikes, with most topping out at 100 miles, but other modern brands are either selling them at 5k-10k or have implemented tech like battery swapping to make that range viable. Some companies are doing both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    There are a number of EVs that make all sorts of fake engine sounds, both to the interior and exterior. The feature is surprisingly popular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (22 children)

    God, that's so pathetic on both parties tbh... Instead of focusing on the long term goals for the company and planet, they rather appeal to the short term goals for their brand and keep making combustion motors just so some vain lame can "sound cool." Although all new vehicles imo should be hybrid by now, including diesel hybrids those would get crazy range from what I've heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If they'd use synfuel it wouldn't be that bad. It's way more expensive that regular fuel but the rich fucks can pay that for the bragging rights. But every synfuel proposal gets swarmed by lobbyist trying to water it down to normal fuel with homeopathic amount of synfuel added

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Depends on the way they go, Hydrogen can be used in ICE and it's still clean.

    It's wildly inefficient, but what Lambo is efficient? If they can have the best of both worlds, good luck to them.

    If they mean lets keep with Fossil fuels, they can go fuck themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (14 children)

    You can sit on your high horse and make EV sportscars, but no one will buy one.

    Also, these are bullshit brands. Typical owners keep them 24 months or less and barely drive 2000km a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Fine, then supercars die. Big whoop, look super cars are just eye candy that would need to evolve regardless of what people might want. If they don't they die its that simple, if someone's false sense of security needs to amplified by a combustion motor rather than idk not causing an actual fucking extinction of humanity then I rather let those old farts cry in a electric Bugatti that can smoke anything but will sounds all "lame. "

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Eh, they won't die, they'll just get taxed probably. Look at Italy for example, they charge for any power over 250hp + displacement. At the end of the day if we're not talking about city pollution cars pale in comparison to the shipping industry and airlines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    In the future they would need to be banned, things aren't looking great when it comes to the climate and taxes won't make it better. As a car guy I'll weep when that time comes, but we can't sacrifice the world for a form of transportation. And by then I'll assume all city vehicles would be either very efficient hybrids or fully EVs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Pretty sure Porsche's EV models have been quite popular

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    They started with one electric model and currently have 3, 5 if you count the Taycan variants.

    So... no? Also why go off on something so easy to look up?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    This was about sports cars right? Good luck taking your cayenne to a track day, I like dumb cars as much as the next person but it's like trying to enjoy a RSQ8 on a british b-road

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    Can you read? I'm talking about the rest of the EV range.

    Taycan is mid because it's way too old tech-wise and too big and heavy. If they actually bothered to make an EV Cayman I'd call that an actual sports car.

    Taycan is just a hot executive sedan/wagon, I wouldn't really call an E63 a sports car, but my idea is something smaller and lighter, S2K being a perfect example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    Can you read? I'm talking about the rest of the EV range.

    But why? It makes no sense to do so given the context of the conversation. I assumed you'd missed the Taycan somehow rather than that you were just arguing in bad faith.

    Taycan is just a hot executive sedan/wagon, I wouldn't really call an E63 a sports car, but my idea is something smaller and lighter, S2K being a perfect example.

    Bruh. The sport variant does 0-60 in 3 seconds. 690 horsepower. Get real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    You were the one who brought up the rest of the EVs?

    edit: taycan also weighs more than a w222 while making comparable power so what? i wouldn't call an s class a sports car

    a hummer ev does 0-60 in the same amount of time, it's still not a sports car

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    A hummer EV is not a sedan. Get outta here with your no-true-scotsman nonsense. You realize the Taycan is the safety car for Formula E, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Aston were a safety car at some point and they make luxury grand tourers so that doesn't matter. It doesn't take much to make a fast EV, it takes a lot to make it drive like an S2K or a 350Z, which is my point and you'd know that already if you bothered to read my previous comment lmfao.

    Your definition is subjective, same as mine, I think Porsche and a lot of other manufacturers are muddying it further for the sake of sales which I have a problem with and I wish they'd stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    be fair to Lambo- they're not making cars for people who care about any of that. They'e making cars for people who are stupid and modestly rich.

    actual rich people drive cars that serve their needs. a very comfortable, maybe sporty, car or SUV or cross over for daily driving, maybe a sports car for fun driving and a real supercar if they want to go to a track day. lambos are for the tacky slobs that wanna be like the Ferrari drivers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's about the compensation theory. The bigger/louder the car/bike, the bigger the need to compensate for something small they have.

    People needing to be heard when they drive with their car/bike are one of the most pathetic kind of drivers. You have to be a special kind of insecure baby to need others to look at you when you drive by.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment