I use my phone for messaging all the time. It took me a while to get it down, and each T9 system is a bit different. It's amazing how the people like to make excuses about how it's really difficult yet they manage to type faster than the majority of the population who has a problem typing on a regular keyboard.
Yes, it has a learning curve. No, it isn't impossible. If you can't push a number on a keypad than how do you dial the phone? T9 messaging is really easy to get the hang of if you just try.
The key is don't use T9 when you shouldn't, and use it when you should and hope your phone has a good way of switching between them. My latest phone (Panasonic GU87) has the easiest switch and probably the best messaging features yet. My second favorite is a Nokia, before the stupid circular keypad. Their T9 system is really good.
Sony-Ericcson sucks horrible goat balls.
Keep trying to get the hang of it, inside of 6 months you will be amazed at how fast you can type an SMS. Keep in mind they are called Short messages for a reason though;)
Given that what makes google great is well-known, who says that Microsoft can't emulate them?
Patents? That and google has a strong following. Microsoft can't emulate the nature and feel of google because it's not what they do. Just read up on their search R&D.
They could make MSN search unobtrusive, and they probably will, for just long enough to take a big chunk of the search "market" (ad impressions) away from Google.
You say "wrong" without even addressing the point I'm talking about. I am suggesting a future version of MSN search, which actually works, and which does things Google does not currently do. This thing does not exist, so what your girlfriend uses (mine uses Google also) is completely immaterial in this case.
Microsoft can't emulate google successfully because what makes google so freaking great is it's non obtrosive nature, taht just gives you want you want. There doesn't need to be two googles, as long as google does this. Microsoft could emulate it perfectly, and people would still use google purely out of habit.
My girlfriend is perhaps the furthest from a technical user you can get. If you ever want to test your software for the average user, she's the one to talk to.
She used to use MSN search, until I just went to Google's page and typed in a quick query. Now, she uses Google exclusively and hates anything else. She uses it in two languages, from everything from media to news to recipes.
She loves that it does the right thing, reliably. MSN doesn't, it's slower and often doesn't give the best results. This is why Google is the leader.
And if you hadn't noticed, Google is the number one search engine by far. This means that not just geeks use it, but everybody uses it. Everybody I know uses and relies on Google, regardless of their technical aptitude. Google just isn't a secret of the geeks anymore.
Especially in that case, the design and engineering go hand in hand, so one was like the v-rod we all know and love, with black paint and extra parts to disguise it. It was actually pretty cool how the lamp on one was just flat out bolted on.
Did you read the thread? I was saying that they don't disguise prototypes due to people waiting to buy it.
I also said that most prototypes are seen by the public, if they want them to be seen. Which entails most prototypes that are actually finished. If a prototype never makes it out the door, it means it wasn't worthy of showing off (flawed) and wouldn't reflect highly on the brand name.
You don't even understand the point of a prototype do you? What do you call the Le Mans prototypes? Or the 16, or the Cien? Congratulations, you live in Detroit. Did your daddy get laid off and does that make you an expert on this? News flash, too, factory workers don't know shit.
That last line shows you apparently don't leave california that much. I'm not sure they even sell that magazine here in the midwest.
Except I don't live in California.
Speaking of the midwest, guess where I lived for a while........Detroit.
Yes, Home of Shitty American Cars! Oh wait, most of the factories closed down.
I'm also not really sure what you are talking about with the whole 'high-end auto shows.' There must be some 'low-end' ones where you live, but here in the midwest we don't try to make it so complicated. Basically, it either has hit the press or it hasn't.
New York, SF, LA car shows have the most unveilings. So... where do you live again?
Go to borders and pick up a car magazine and you will see photos of next week's vehicles heavily disguised. I'm confused why you are arguing about something so extremely well-known.
We aren't talking about pre-release cars. Did you miss that? We're talking about R&D productions, otherwise known as "prototypes." You know, that word that has been popping up in this thread.
Besides, they don't hide their models before hand. I saw the 350ZX, pretty much the same release candidate, about 10 months before launch. Same thing with the RX8. Those were the two biggest launches. Oh, and the G35 was available in Japan as the Nissan Skyline.
Cadillac was pimping out their new line for 6 months before release.
Start reading real magazines and not IMPORT XTREMES! Honda's aren't that cool.
I guess you want to do Dynamic Fluid Calculations, and simulate some nuclear reaction on the road, so you really *need* that G5 Powerbook...
I do want to do hefty programming. I haven't used a Mac at length, but I do know that I can't use a 1.4Ghz CPU and be pleased with the performance. I run 2Ghz - 2.4Ghz P4s (or AMD equiv) and that strikes my fancy just right. I get all the desktop fluff I want, at the right speed.
You obviously haven't grasped the difference between a Prototype (Which is an engineering testbed) and a Show Car (Which is _often_ a mock up or has an onlder driveline). The Cadillac 12 and Cien Show cars were just that, one offs for the show circuit, not prototypes.
Right, go talk to Cadillac and see what they are calling them. The Cadillac 16 is billed as a prototype that will never hit the streets.
Engineering and Marketing do NOT use the same vehicles, and prototypes are rarely pretty enough for Show use anyways (Since the SHeet metal is finalized late in the design cycle anyways.)
I think that you just need to go read the Weekly World News some more.
Actually according to this article, prototypes routinely cost $250K or more, and you need to build 100-200 of them for a product line (to try out the various styles and combinations). This information is direct from Ford.
That is including the designer/developers salaries, I think. But, it is feasible and very doable to build a prototype for $100K. It really depends upon what level you are doing. A complete ground-up build, with a new engine and everything will run more than $100K. Most prototypes share components though.
But I agree with you; they don't want to show these too widely partly because they don't want their competitors to know what they are doing, and partly because they don't want to show off any possible flaws.
This is why they show them at the high-end car shows, because the competitors also show off what they have. It's too late for people to copy or get inspiration from their designs, and it's a great mechanism for promoting their R&D labs, which do matter for cars. I love going to prototype/concept shows. Great fun stuff.
What you see at a car show is a mock-up not a prototype.
What is the Cadillac 12 then? A Mock-up? Except it does run, and runs with a new engine that has never been in a vehicle before. Same with the Cadillac Cien.
The original Viper prototype was built on top of a shortened Durango fram and driveline. These are generally used for testing out the reaction to the styling.
That isn't a prototype.
Chrysler did do this a couple of times (Prowler & Viper) due to extremely good reactions and easy engineering (Viper is heavily Durango based, Prowler's drive line is almost straight from an LH car).
Yes, Chrysler does do this. They share chassis often. The new Chrysler roadster is built on the Mercedes SLK chassis.
Prototypes are used for enjineering and performance testing.
Yes, yes they are. Which is what I am saying. And companies show them off because it bolsters sales when they show how cool they can design something.
CLK vs. Aristo... I still don't see it. Although if you want to see something pretty amusing check out the BMW 6 series vs. the Mazda 3.
I agree that the Supra engine swap is the way to go, but I think the V8's never got any respect or aftermarket parts because they never were available with a manual. But then it could be that driving honda's has sort of warped my brain around the goodness of NA.
I agree that NA V8s can be the way to go, but with the Soarer it was never there. The V8 never pushed enough power to really be worth it. The 4.3L V8 in the CLK430 is a good engine to go with. I don't think that Toyota has enough R&D in the V8 line to be really successful with it. They can make engines with a lot of torque for their SUVs but for performance they are lacking.
But then it could be that driving honda's has sort of warped my brain around the goodness of NA.
Go test-drive a Camaro SS. That'll revive it, but don't try to turn:)
Urgh, I need to buy a laptop and I'm seeing the TiBooks in the horizon. The best news for me is seeing the G5s and waiting for the G4 TiBooks to be low in price.
That'll be nice, because I can't justify spending $3K on a laptop. $1K is as high as I go, because they are disposable. Shelf-life or not, when I'm on the go, things get banged up. Luckily I don't travel so much anymore.
I don't know who was inspired by who but the Cadillac Deville DTS and Benz S class are remarkably similar.
Cadillac DeVille DTS, 4 door. Benz S500, 2 door. Very different body lines, even under the hood they are completely different.
The Lexus GS is the Toyota Aristo. And I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about comparing the GS and the CLK. The CLK has 2 doors, and the GS is a standard 4 door model. The GS is also a sport sedan, the CLK is a sport coupe. Have you ever ridden in either one of those cars?
but the CLK and GS both came out with a new model in 98.
The Aristo design changes are very sublte, with exception of the rear end. The rear end assembly of the Aristo is so drastically different than anything Mercedes has even dreamed about.
The Toyota and CLK simlarities are probably just a similar sense of style, both good IMHO, since there really wasn't time for either company to get a process running on a new design that quickly.
Again, I don't see the similarity there. The 98 Aristo isn't drastically different. As I mentioned, the front end is virtually the same from 97 and the tail light assembly was the biggest change. The Aristo line actually accomplished a very smooth transition into what it is now, without any drastic model changes. Unlike the Mercedes CLK line, which has had a running since 98 and has undergone no major design changes (only making it a touch wider and squat in appearance.)
Competely off the point, what I really wish is that Toyota had put a manual in the V8 Soarer and shipped it over here, or shipped the twin turbo version over.
I have a SC (Soarer) -- first, the V8 is a waste. You are better off to just wire a 2JZ-GTE from a Supra. You can replace the engine for about $6K including labor and parts. They also did release, in a very limited capacity, 6-speed manual SCs. I've only seen two in the US, to give you an idea of the rarity.
Oh shit, do not even start on that Lexus (Which is Toyota, so lets call it Toyota) design stealing.
All the people who are going off about that doesn't have a clue as to the history of the Toyota autoline and think that Mercedes was the one who originally came up with the designs in the first place.
Cadillac has always maintained their original "this is a boat" design, as well. Go back and look at the Cadillac's as they have evolved since the 50s.
Jaguar was much more close to the Mercedes line. Which Mercedes was close to Bentley.
You need to spend some more time looking at cars, mate.
Re:Well, they don't want to hurt current sales...
on
G5 PowerBook "Challenge"
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are you saying that auto manufacturers come up with a design and then spend a zillion bucks to retool a production line without first hand building a few and taking them out for a spin?
You can build a consumer vehicle prototype for around $100K. Even going up to the Cadillac Cien you are going to be less than a million. You don't retool a production line, you just custom build a car, though.
What you see at auto shows, real, high end, or otherwise, are most often meant for use at... auto shows.
Uh... yes, which is the purpose of a prototype.
Yes, I expect that most of these also don't generally make it onto the street, but instead spend their short lives on test tracks (one purpose of which, by the way, is to hide works in progress, i.e. prototypes, from public view).
By showing flawed designs to the public you dillute the quality of your brand name. That is why they hide them, don't you get that?
Others do get driven around quite a bit to test performance in real world use, and you can bet that they don't carry bumper stickers that say "This vehicle is a prototype of the 2005 Mazda RX-8."
Doesn't need to. By the time it hits the streets it's been in a few shows and anybody who can recognize it without badging will.
All I'm saying is that manufacturers do not hide prototypes because people will wait until they come out, they hide them because if there are problems they don't want it damaging their name.
I and (perhaps) all the rest of the Europeans out there thought: Old enough to drink... For a nice burgandy that probably means '94.
I thought the same thing. I was really curious why they were equating the age for aged alcohol. I figured I was missing something, which I was, and I'm not European.
Yes, they do. Car manufacturers will put plastic bras, duct tape, cardboard, panels from existing models, and all manner of other tricks when testing out new cars. When developing new chasis and engines they often will put an existing body on the new chasis, to try out the new stuff on real roads.
It isn't a finished prototype when they are testing it. When it is in testing, they don't show it. What's the point? They turn out like Infinium Labs. Vehicle manufacturers cannot look like vapor. When Cadillac was pushing their new engines for the Escallade, there were rumors going around for a long time about it. Then they started showing it off at carshows after they got the kinks out. Escallade sells increase. What happens if they show off an engine that sucks because they haven't properly fixed all the issues? Sales go down.
They are demonstrating their engineering capabilities with prototypes. That's what the public wants to buy.
Look in any car magazine and you'll find photos of "heavily disguised spy pics" or "photoshope enhanced pictures of lightly disguised" cars. Go to Death Valley in the summer and you can see disguised prototypes live and in person, getting tortured.
You need to start reading real car magazines... not the Weekly World News of Cars. They don't need sensationalism to sell, and most of the car companies will say, "We are working on a new engine, blah blah blah, with this chassis." but they don't release details until it works. I'd rather see details and a finished project. Until it's finished and works, it's not a prototype. It's a piece of metal.
So yeah, car companies do disguise their prototypes, and for the same reasons: they want to surprise the buying public and the competition with a cool new product at the introduction, and they don't want to hurt the market for the existing model until that time.
Uhm, no. They really don't hide them. Go to real car shows, and I mean the high end car shows. You will see pretty much everything under the sun that they want to push out within the next 5 years.
The thing is, prototypes never hit the streets. Prototypes that turn into vehicles do so 5+ years down the road. They show that technology off to show how good their company is at engineering. People go, "Wow, if this is what their labs build the cars must be good, too!"
Racing vehicles are different, which are the ones that they hide. They keep those under wraps so that when the time comes to race, the competition doesn't know what they are up against. Psychological tactic.
Also, your geocities link is just idiotic. He's showing a BMW Z3 from 1995 which was in a fucking movie. Some spy he is. I also just read a nice article on the new LS430 about 2 months ago talking about the new features. The car only sells 16,000 a year anyway. They don't care, as their target market is men over 50 who have an annual income exceeding $235K.
I follow the car industry more than most car salesmen do. I can assure you, you can see any prototype in a show or on the internet if you know where to look.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is more impressive: owning a lot of expensive hardware, or turning outdated junk into useful tools?
Translation: Having a bigger dick, or knowing how to use it?
I think the reason so many folks chime in is that there are so many of us who don't fit this stereotype.
"Thousands of geeks stood up in protest of the stereotype, and then sat down again quickly out of breath."
No reason for stereotypes, people!
I use my phone for messaging all the time. It took me a while to get it down, and each T9 system is a bit different. It's amazing how the people like to make excuses about how it's really difficult yet they manage to type faster than the majority of the population who has a problem typing on a regular keyboard.
;)
Yes, it has a learning curve. No, it isn't impossible. If you can't push a number on a keypad than how do you dial the phone? T9 messaging is really easy to get the hang of if you just try.
The key is don't use T9 when you shouldn't, and use it when you should and hope your phone has a good way of switching between them. My latest phone (Panasonic GU87) has the easiest switch and probably the best messaging features yet. My second favorite is a Nokia, before the stupid circular keypad. Their T9 system is really good.
Sony-Ericcson sucks horrible goat balls.
Keep trying to get the hang of it, inside of 6 months you will be amazed at how fast you can type an SMS. Keep in mind they are called Short messages for a reason though
Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Perhaps you're just exaggerating? But most mp3 files are no bigger than 5MB. How does that not fit in 64MB?
"For any amount of MP3s", as the grand-parent poster put it, would equate to at least more than a CD.
64MB, with everything else, won't store more than a CD.
Understand?
Given that what makes google great is well-known, who says that Microsoft can't emulate them?
Patents? That and google has a strong following. Microsoft can't emulate the nature and feel of google because it's not what they do. Just read up on their search R&D.
They could make MSN search unobtrusive, and they probably will, for just long enough to take a big chunk of the search "market" (ad impressions) away from Google.
I think it will just prove to be a wasted effort.
"Hey, look over there it's bluetooth!"
"What, where?"
"Oh, sorry, you missed it."
You say "wrong" without even addressing the point I'm talking about. I am suggesting a future version of MSN search, which actually works, and which does things Google does not currently do. This thing does not exist, so what your girlfriend uses (mine uses Google also) is completely immaterial in this case.
Microsoft can't emulate google successfully because what makes google so freaking great is it's non obtrosive nature, taht just gives you want you want. There doesn't need to be two googles, as long as google does this. Microsoft could emulate it perfectly, and people would still use google purely out of habit.
Wrong.
My girlfriend is perhaps the furthest from a technical user you can get. If you ever want to test your software for the average user, she's the one to talk to.
She used to use MSN search, until I just went to Google's page and typed in a quick query. Now, she uses Google exclusively and hates anything else. She uses it in two languages, from everything from media to news to recipes.
She loves that it does the right thing, reliably. MSN doesn't, it's slower and often doesn't give the best results. This is why Google is the leader.
And if you hadn't noticed, Google is the number one search engine by far. This means that not just geeks use it, but everybody uses it. Everybody I know uses and relies on Google, regardless of their technical aptitude. Google just isn't a secret of the geeks anymore.
Especially in that case, the design and engineering go hand in hand, so one was like the v-rod we all know and love, with black paint and extra parts to disguise it. It was actually pretty cool how the lamp on one was just flat out bolted on.
Did you read the thread? I was saying that they don't disguise prototypes due to people waiting to buy it.
I also said that most prototypes are seen by the public, if they want them to be seen. Which entails most prototypes that are actually finished. If a prototype never makes it out the door, it means it wasn't worthy of showing off (flawed) and wouldn't reflect highly on the brand name.
You don't even understand the point of a prototype do you? What do you call the Le Mans prototypes? Or the 16, or the Cien? Congratulations, you live in Detroit. Did your daddy get laid off and does that make you an expert on this? News flash, too, factory workers don't know shit.
That last line shows you apparently don't leave california that much. I'm not sure they even sell that magazine here in the midwest.
Except I don't live in California.
Speaking of the midwest, guess where I lived for a while........Detroit.
Yes, Home of Shitty American Cars! Oh wait, most of the factories closed down.
I'm also not really sure what you are talking about with the whole 'high-end auto shows.' There must be some 'low-end' ones where you live, but here in the midwest we don't try to make it so complicated. Basically, it either has hit the press or it hasn't.
New York, SF, LA car shows have the most unveilings. So... where do you live again?
Not really - it's less than 21 years old, so it would still (legally) be considered a minor :o)
There goes Slashdot being US-centric again. You insensitive clod.
Go to borders and pick up a car magazine and you will see photos of next week's vehicles heavily disguised. I'm confused why you are arguing about something so extremely well-known.
We aren't talking about pre-release cars. Did you miss that? We're talking about R&D productions, otherwise known as "prototypes." You know, that word that has been popping up in this thread.
Besides, they don't hide their models before hand. I saw the 350ZX, pretty much the same release candidate, about 10 months before launch. Same thing with the RX8. Those were the two biggest launches. Oh, and the G35 was available in Japan as the Nissan Skyline.
Cadillac was pimping out their new line for 6 months before release.
Start reading real magazines and not IMPORT XTREMES! Honda's aren't that cool.
I guess you want to do Dynamic Fluid Calculations, and simulate some nuclear reaction on the road, so you really *need* that G5 Powerbook...
I do want to do hefty programming. I haven't used a Mac at length, but I do know that I can't use a 1.4Ghz CPU and be pleased with the performance. I run 2Ghz - 2.4Ghz P4s (or AMD equiv) and that strikes my fancy just right. I get all the desktop fluff I want, at the right speed.
You obviously haven't grasped the difference between a Prototype (Which is an engineering testbed) and a Show Car (Which is _often_ a mock up or has an onlder driveline). The Cadillac 12 and Cien Show cars were just that, one offs for the show circuit, not prototypes.
Right, go talk to Cadillac and see what they are calling them. The Cadillac 16 is billed as a prototype that will never hit the streets.
Engineering and Marketing do NOT use the same vehicles, and prototypes are rarely pretty enough for Show use anyways (Since the SHeet metal is finalized late in the design cycle anyways.)
I think that you just need to go read the Weekly World News some more.
Actually according to this article, prototypes routinely cost $250K or more, and you need to build 100-200 of them for a product line (to try out the various styles and combinations). This information is direct from Ford.
That is including the designer/developers salaries, I think. But, it is feasible and very doable to build a prototype for $100K. It really depends upon what level you are doing. A complete ground-up build, with a new engine and everything will run more than $100K. Most prototypes share components though.
But I agree with you; they don't want to show these too widely partly because they don't want their competitors to know what they are doing, and partly because they don't want to show off any possible flaws.
This is why they show them at the high-end car shows, because the competitors also show off what they have. It's too late for people to copy or get inspiration from their designs, and it's a great mechanism for promoting their R&D labs, which do matter for cars. I love going to prototype/concept shows. Great fun stuff.
What you see at a car show is a mock-up not a prototype.
What is the Cadillac 12 then? A Mock-up? Except it does run, and runs with a new engine that has never been in a vehicle before. Same with the Cadillac Cien.
The original Viper prototype was built on top of a shortened Durango fram and driveline. These are generally used for testing out the reaction to the styling.
That isn't a prototype.
Chrysler did do this a couple of times (Prowler & Viper) due to extremely good reactions and easy engineering (Viper is heavily Durango based, Prowler's drive line is almost straight from an LH car).
Yes, Chrysler does do this. They share chassis often. The new Chrysler roadster is built on the Mercedes SLK chassis.
Prototypes are used for enjineering and performance testing.
Yes, yes they are. Which is what I am saying. And companies show them off because it bolsters sales when they show how cool they can design something.
CLK vs. Aristo... I still don't see it. Although if you want to see something pretty amusing check out the BMW 6 series vs. the Mazda 3.
:)
I agree that the Supra engine swap is the way to go, but I think the V8's never got any respect or aftermarket parts because they never were available with a manual. But then it could be that driving honda's has sort of warped my brain around the goodness of NA.
I agree that NA V8s can be the way to go, but with the Soarer it was never there. The V8 never pushed enough power to really be worth it. The 4.3L V8 in the CLK430 is a good engine to go with. I don't think that Toyota has enough R&D in the V8 line to be really successful with it. They can make engines with a lot of torque for their SUVs but for performance they are lacking.
But then it could be that driving honda's has sort of warped my brain around the goodness of NA.
Go test-drive a Camaro SS. That'll revive it, but don't try to turn
Urgh, I need to buy a laptop and I'm seeing the TiBooks in the horizon. The best news for me is seeing the G5s and waiting for the G4 TiBooks to be low in price.
That'll be nice, because I can't justify spending $3K on a laptop. $1K is as high as I go, because they are disposable. Shelf-life or not, when I'm on the go, things get banged up. Luckily I don't travel so much anymore.
I don't know who was inspired by who but the Cadillac Deville DTS and Benz S class are remarkably similar.
Cadillac DeVille DTS, 4 door.
Benz S500, 2 door. Very different body lines, even under the hood they are completely different.
The Lexus GS is the Toyota Aristo. And I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about comparing the GS and the CLK. The CLK has 2 doors, and the GS is a standard 4 door model. The GS is also a sport sedan, the CLK is a sport coupe. Have you ever ridden in either one of those cars?
but the CLK and GS both came out with a new model in 98.
The Aristo design changes are very sublte, with exception of the rear end. The rear end assembly of the Aristo is so drastically different than anything Mercedes has even dreamed about.
The Toyota and CLK simlarities are probably just a similar sense of style, both good IMHO, since there really wasn't time for either company to get a process running on a new design that quickly.
Again, I don't see the similarity there. The 98 Aristo isn't drastically different. As I mentioned, the front end is virtually the same from 97 and the tail light assembly was the biggest change. The Aristo line actually accomplished a very smooth transition into what it is now, without any drastic model changes. Unlike the Mercedes CLK line, which has had a running since 98 and has undergone no major design changes (only making it a touch wider and squat in appearance.)
Competely off the point, what I really wish is that Toyota had put a manual in the V8 Soarer and shipped it over here, or shipped the twin turbo version over.
I have a SC (Soarer) -- first, the V8 is a waste. You are better off to just wire a 2JZ-GTE from a Supra. You can replace the engine for about $6K including labor and parts. They also did release, in a very limited capacity, 6-speed manual SCs. I've only seen two in the US, to give you an idea of the rarity.
Oh shit, do not even start on that Lexus (Which is Toyota, so lets call it Toyota) design stealing.
All the people who are going off about that doesn't have a clue as to the history of the Toyota autoline and think that Mercedes was the one who originally came up with the designs in the first place.
Cadillac has always maintained their original "this is a boat" design, as well. Go back and look at the Cadillac's as they have evolved since the 50s.
1950 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, vs the equivalent Mercedes line.
Jaguar was much more close to the Mercedes line. Which Mercedes was close to Bentley.
You need to spend some more time looking at cars, mate.
Are you saying that auto manufacturers come up with a design and then spend a zillion bucks to retool a production line without first hand building a few and taking them out for a spin?
You can build a consumer vehicle prototype for around $100K. Even going up to the Cadillac Cien you are going to be less than a million. You don't retool a production line, you just custom build a car, though.
What you see at auto shows, real, high end, or otherwise, are most often meant for use at... auto shows.
Uh... yes, which is the purpose of a prototype.
Yes, I expect that most of these also don't generally make it onto the street, but instead spend their short lives on test tracks (one purpose of which, by the way, is to hide works in progress, i.e. prototypes, from public view).
By showing flawed designs to the public you dillute the quality of your brand name. That is why they hide them, don't you get that?
Others do get driven around quite a bit to test performance in real world use, and you can bet that they don't carry bumper stickers that say "This vehicle is a prototype of the 2005 Mazda RX-8."
Doesn't need to. By the time it hits the streets it's been in a few shows and anybody who can recognize it without badging will.
All I'm saying is that manufacturers do not hide prototypes because people will wait until they come out, they hide them because if there are problems they don't want it damaging their name.
I thought I was the only one that had images of an old melted C64 slushee in a cup... /weird.
I think that is more valid than people dreaming of sitting next to a C64
I and (perhaps) all the rest of the Europeans out there thought: Old enough to drink... For a nice burgandy that probably means '94.
I thought the same thing. I was really curious why they were equating the age for aged alcohol. I figured I was missing something, which I was, and I'm not European.
Yes, they do. Car manufacturers will put plastic bras, duct tape, cardboard, panels from existing models, and all manner of other tricks when testing out new cars. When developing new chasis and engines they often will put an existing body on the new chasis, to try out the new stuff on real roads.
It isn't a finished prototype when they are testing it. When it is in testing, they don't show it. What's the point? They turn out like Infinium Labs. Vehicle manufacturers cannot look like vapor. When Cadillac was pushing their new engines for the Escallade, there were rumors going around for a long time about it. Then they started showing it off at carshows after they got the kinks out. Escallade sells increase. What happens if they show off an engine that sucks because they haven't properly fixed all the issues? Sales go down.
They are demonstrating their engineering capabilities with prototypes. That's what the public wants to buy.
Look in any car magazine and you'll find photos of "heavily disguised spy pics" or "photoshope enhanced pictures of lightly disguised" cars. Go to Death Valley in the summer and you can see disguised prototypes live and in person, getting tortured.
You need to start reading real car magazines... not the Weekly World News of Cars. They don't need sensationalism to sell, and most of the car companies will say, "We are working on a new engine, blah blah blah, with this chassis." but they don't release details until it works. I'd rather see details and a finished project. Until it's finished and works, it's not a prototype. It's a piece of metal.
So yeah, car companies do disguise their prototypes, and for the same reasons: they want to surprise the buying public and the competition with a cool new product at the introduction, and they don't want to hurt the market for the existing model until that time.
Uhm, no. They really don't hide them. Go to real car shows, and I mean the high end car shows. You will see pretty much everything under the sun that they want to push out within the next 5 years.
The thing is, prototypes never hit the streets. Prototypes that turn into vehicles do so 5+ years down the road. They show that technology off to show how good their company is at engineering. People go, "Wow, if this is what their labs build the cars must be good, too!"
Racing vehicles are different, which are the ones that they hide. They keep those under wraps so that when the time comes to race, the competition doesn't know what they are up against. Psychological tactic.
Also, your geocities link is just idiotic. He's showing a BMW Z3 from 1995 which was in a fucking movie. Some spy he is. I also just read a nice article on the new LS430 about 2 months ago talking about the new features. The car only sells 16,000 a year anyway. They don't care, as their target market is men over 50 who have an annual income exceeding $235K.
I follow the car industry more than most car salesmen do. I can assure you, you can see any prototype in a show or on the internet if you know where to look.