This is an interesting subject. As technologies get more and more refined, they inevitably lose more and more distinction -- by the necessity of the case; there is only 1 best way to do things. But this also makes technology less interesting.
Perhaps it's just age and repeated disappointment (that's only half serious, fellas) but I find much modern technology excruciatingly boring precisely because of its perfection; one facet of this perfection is its tolerance of user error or, at least, crudity. Computers are a good example. I have 2: a scavenged 2009 13" Macbook, and a new-to-me 13" 2014 MacBook Pro. The 2014 is wonderful to use; the 2009 is slow and -- trackpad -- clunky: irritating. But I have absolutely no interest in either except as a middle term to produce YYY results from XXX inputs. Be seamless, or get tossed -- what happens in between is of no practical interest. Cars: I've rented 2015 and 2016 fleet cars for drives to CO: 2015 Impala, 2016 Chrysler 300. Big 4 cyl -- 2.4 or 2.5 l -- with 6 or 8/9 speed automatics and induction systems and valves and cams that produce close to 200 hp from this displacement. My personal 2006 PT Cruiser has a 2.4 that makes a torquey 140 with 4 speeds. Amazing the difference in 9-10 years: cruise at 90, average 31 mpg; climb Raton Pass at 80 (5-6000 rpm in 3d-4th). But all of them are effing boring: do you job and shut up, basically. I should think that that the current Mustang, 300 bhp for the *base* engine, would be even more boring -- why think when all you have to do is push the right pedal a bit more? OTOH, my 1984 Passat Wagon, 88 hp, manual 5 speed was interesting to drive. It took advance planning to maintain revs, - this could be interesting at 85 on I 40 in rolling terrain with lanes cluttered with semis and Winnebagos; and it cornered very well, too -- all this involves user input. Even more fun was the 29 hp also 1984 Citroen Acadiane: 4 speeds, 4th over drive, 4" wide tires: planning and concentration required -- every drive became a game. Even the 1990 Plymouth Voyager -- torquey 140 hp Mitsubishi 6, 3 speeds -- required enough input to make it mildly interesting, at least as far as cornering went -- it was basically a covered pickup with all rear seats and cladding and carpeting and spare tire removed. Technology always seems to involve a moving choice point between user skill and effort, and ease of results. At a certain point -- stone axes to cut down a 2 foot thick tree -- an improvement adds to the enjoyment of skill; good tools make your agency more precise and interesting. After a certain later point, you gain efficiency but lose interest. I used to like sectioning 18'24" logs with an axe, for recreation. I would use a chainsaw to fill a woodshed, but I daresay I'd find the process less interesting. Using a mechanical log splitter? On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Garth <[email protected]> wrote: > > The day of the "generic bike" is fast coming indeed ! Like how so > many cars and SUV's all tend to look alike these days within their certain > "category" . I honestly cannot tell what's what other than the name plate. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
