Cartoons and cars

There are a few miscellaneous items that I didn’t know where to put.  First, readers George, jsp, and many others (first one below) sent cartoons:

Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller:


From Facebook (I’m wondering whether this will satisfy Diana MacPherson, or whether she’d go into the bathroom on the right and reverse the toilet roll):


From reader Barry:

Atheism copy 7

From Off the Mark by Mark Parisi—a wonderful idea!


Finally a car I saw on a walk yesterday: a gorgeous 1941 Buick Super 8 coupe: 75 years old! Why don’t they make cars that look like this any more? There’s a YouTube scan of a very similar model (missing the amber front lights) here.

IMG_1065 (1)




  1. Glandu
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Why don’t they do cars like that anymore? Because they are insanely unpractical. The usable volume is very small, the parking place used is very high in comparison, aerodynamics is crap(despite the bubble look), modern cars don’t need that much place for their optimized engines, etc…..

    • GBJames
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      I thought it was because Al Capone and his colleagues are all gone now. No gangsters left to drive them. 😉

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:55 am | Permalink

        Eh? The gangsters – or at least John Dillinger – famously favoured Ford cars.


        (Glandu’s right about 1941 cars vs modern ones, though)


      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        Ha! I thought gangsters too. Gangster taste has evolved along with the gangsters.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

          Now all the gangstas (at least here) drive black Mercedes with tinted windows, lowered to an inch off the ground so they have to negotiate speed bumps at 2 mph (I do love passing them over said bumps in my old grotmobile), with 5000 watt sound systems installed in the boot (‘trunk’) so there’s no room for luggage.


          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

            Jeez, the sound system would make for a difficult situation if they had to whack a guy and out his body in the trunk. They must have special cars for whackings.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted June 1, 2016 at 2:19 am | Permalink

              I’m not sure our ‘gangstas’ are quite the same as ‘gangsters’, to be honest.

              (Urban Dictionary seems to agree with me 🙂


    • steve oberski
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      I was going to say gas consumption but a very cursory check with Mr Google says they got 36 miles/gallon hiway which compares favourably with modern cars.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        I would have said gas consumption too. I’d seriously doubt whether low-compression engines with relatively unsophisticated carburettors could get anywhere near the economy of a modern fuel-injected motor with computer-controlled ignition timing.

        I suspect the testing regime to establish fuel consumption may have changed quite a lot in the interim.


        • Randall Schenck
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:32 am | Permalink

          I would have a very hard time with that 36 miles per figure. What specific car are we talking about…surely not that Buick? My 51 dodge would get roughly 20 mpg on the highway. Not in town. It was a flat head six cylinder and not a V-8 which the Buick probably was.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:37 am | Permalink

            It may have been a steady-speed figure. You can get very good mileage at steady speed without stops or acceleration.


            • colnago80
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

              The optimum steady state speed has gone from 45mph to about 55mph due to improvements in aerodynamics and the advent of computer controlled fuel injection and multiport quad engines.

              As a point of comparison, I once owned a 1967 Pontiac that put out 265 SAE HP on a displacement of 6.9 liters. My current Honda Civic puts out 127 SAE HP on a displacement of 1.7 liters.

            • colnago80
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

              Modern cars look the way they do because of optimization of aerodynamics.

          • robert bray
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

            Pretty sure this Buick would have been powered by a straight eight.

            • Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

              Yeah, it says on the car that it’s an eight.

              • Hempenstein
                Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

                Yep, overhead valve straight eight.

              • dorcheat
                Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

                Classic car gearhead here that owns a 1969 Buick Riviera. The first Buick V8 engine was the semi famous “Nail Valve” V8 produced in 1953. Gear heads now call these engines “Nailheads”. Buick Nailheads were made from 1953 through 1966. From 1931 through 1953, Buick produced the straight eight with overhead valves, only Dusenberg during their brief run that ended in 1937 produced a straight eight with overhead valves along with dual overhead camshafts!

                Through 1948, only Buick, Chevrolet, and Dusenberg made engines with overhead valves: that is valves in the cylinder head over the the top of the pistons. Every other automaker produced “flatties” with the valves in the engine block next to the cylinders.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

              My one (passenger) experience of a Buick was a straight-eight hearse, probably this vintage. Ex-hearse, actually, it was painted orange, and it impressed me by going straight up Shore Road hill** in top gear with eight students in the back.

              (**on which I drop my Escort down to third or even second gear since I don’t like flogging a motor at low revs in high gear)


        • darrelle
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

          The 36 mpg could certainly be incorrect or just not comparable to current mpg values because of different methods, but another difference that is surely a factor is that modern car engines are much more powerful per cc than engines from the 1940s. You can increase power without increasing fuel consumption by increasing efficiency, up until you reach the limits of efficiency achievable with the available technology. Beyond that it just takes more fuel and more air being pumped through the engine to produce more power.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            Also pollution controls. If you’re ever behind a car like this you start cursing because you feel like it’s emissions are going to asphyxiate you on the spot.

            • Hempenstein
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

              Well, if that was the case, everyone at the Hershey meet would be walking around with a gas mask.

              A long while back I remember reading that (IRC) a ’53 Hudson in good tune surprised everyone by passing CA emissions, but I couldn’t find any reference to that. So I asked some of my fellow Packard fans on FB, and got this reply:

              Way back in 1975, when Colorado was still considering requiring emissions testing, a member of our local club brought testing equipment to our weekly meeting. There had been concern that our old cars could not meet the standards being considered! My well maintained ’38 Buick opera coupe passed with room to spare, despite having 82k miles on it! A member’s ’39 Packard V-12 Formal limousine with 68kmiles also passed with no adjustments. I think 8 of us had our cars tested and all but 1 were in compliance. Only a ’53 Buick Skylark greatly exceeded the guidelines which brought on a badly needed valve job and new guides. We had always made him last in line on tours so we didn’t have to eat smoke!

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted May 31, 2016 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

                I think “good tune” is the operative here.

                Also, do they have catalytic converters?

              • Posted May 31, 2016 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

                Catalytic converters are a very new accessory, not common until the ’70s. I don’t think any mass-manufactured vehicles had them in the ’60s. Indeed, if I remember right, leaded gasoline quickly destroys catalytic converters, so their use couldn’t have been widespread until after the big reformulation of gasoline.

                Pretty much everywhere, vehicles model year 1966 and older are excluded from emissions requirements. Some states are less restrictive and use the mid-70s for a cutoff or a sliding window or the like, but 1966 and older should be exempt everywhere. As such, older cars typically either have original engines (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) or something more modern that would otherwise typically be restricted to the racetrack. In neither case are emissions ever a direct concern…

                …but, at the same time, you get the best performance out of a well-tuned engine, and a well-tuned engine is one that gets the most energy out of the gasoline. That means completely burning it, which leaves very little to come out the tailpipe except CO2 and H20. Which is why such cars typically would pass emissions tests anyway.

                The big footnote there would be idle emissions; the only design consideration for older and racing engines is that the engine not die and, especially for racing, quickly respond to throttle input. But, even then, idling takes almost no fuel; even if the percentages of emissions are bad at idle, it’s a large percent of a small figure.




            • Hempenstein
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

              Another post from the same FB thread I started with the Packard gang:

              This is first hand knowledge. My father brought our 1923 Model T into the lobby of Merchants National Bank in Syracuse NY for display. Alongside was a brand new 1973 Ford LTD. Both cars were drove out of the bank lobby just before the 6pm news cycle. The New York State EPA was there to show 50 years of improvement in emissions. There was a tube inserted in the Model T. The news cameras showed the reading. Then the news cameras showed the probe in the brand new 1973 Ford LTD on live TV. You guessed it….it failed miserably against the Model T. The EPA did the test again and got worse results. It just goes to prove our older well restored cars are not polluting the air as much as some think.

          • Posted May 31, 2016 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            The EPA also cracks down on faulty reports now. A few years ago, they changed the requirements for testing and reporting MPG figures. Lo and behold, all the stickers you see in the dealerships suddenly had lower numbers. Without any regulatory oversight or even stringent industry standards 75 years ago, 36 MPG may well mean anything. My Honda Pilot frequently clocks in at 40 MPG+ while cruising over short distances (even without taking my foot off the accelerator and coasting), but I certainly can’t claim it gets 40 MPG.

            • darrelle
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

              Yes indeed. Depending on type of riding I can get 45 mpg on my current bike, or less than 15 mpg. And the 1 liter engine produces 185 hp, compared to the 125 hp produced by the 1941 Buick Super’s 4.1 liter straight 8.

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

          I recall, though can’t cite, due to iggorance, that the back – pressure inherent to passing exhaust gasses over various catalytic surfaces is what “did for” carburettors. It makes sense to me, but provides a Q for motor heads out there.
          Would a carburettor work adequately between a torbocharged air supply and a turbo (obviously) engine.
          If true, does anyone actually do that, or are the benefits of direct injection sufficient that no one would do that in the real world?
          Not ever having taken an engine further apart than I needed to, is there a significant difference between direct injection (to the cylinder) and indirect injection (to the inlet manifold). I remember my Engineering & Geometrical Drawing teacher using diesel injectors as examples of why/how to specify fits, tolerances and temperatures (for assembly), but the engine effects weren’t a topic of discussion.
          (Yes, there was a diesel manufacture & design place in town. Marine diesels, despite being as far from a coast as possible.)

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

            “the back – pressure inherent to passing exhaust gasses over various catalytic surfaces is what “did for” carburettors”
            I don’t think so. Cat convertors came in long before fuel injection. It was necessary to recalibrate carburettors to allow for it, but no more than the difference between, say, a racing exhaust system and domestic car plumbing.

            “Will a carburettor work between a turbo (/supercharger) and an engine?”

            Probably it could be made to, BUT you’d have to ensure that all the carb’s air inlets (including the float chamber) are pressurised by the same supply. Carbs are set up to work by the venturi effect creating a partial vacuum that draws fuel and air in, in carefully metered proportions. The major snag I think is that as you change the pressure (and hence air density) the careful fuel-air ratio metering drifts off setting.** Compensating for that can be quite tricky. Aircraft carburettors (of which I know little) had complicated aneroid things in them to do just that.

            So all the (mechanically) supercharged car engines I can think of had the carb on the blower inlet. The problem there is that you get a bit of throttle lag at low speed – but no worse than turbo lag.

            **Back in the 70’s, the Rally of the Incas (?) in Peru ran from the coastal plains to the high plains at 13,000 feet. This caused extreme problems for the engine tuners because a carburettor set ‘right’ for sea level would be impossibly over-rich at high altitude. They had to use a compromise setting, too weak at sea level, too rich at height. IIRC, Hannu Mikkola blew up his Escort motor because running a motor on full power at weak mixture tends to melt things.


            • Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

              In a similar vein, it’s worth noting that turbochargers and superchargers long predate electronic fuel injection.



              • darrelle
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

                And are an excellent way to deal with just the issue of large changes in altitude that infiniteimprobabilit related. Variable boost on a supercharger or turbo will do the job nicely.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 9:08 am | Permalink


                Variable boost will compensate for loss of charge density (hence power) at altitude, *provided* the mixture is adjusted appropriately. Hence its use in WW2 fighter aircraft. But an uncompensated carburettor in the usual place ahead of the blower would not do this, a supercharged car would suffer exactly the same mixture problem as a naturally aspirated car would.

                How an injected car would fare I’m not sure, I think the injection senses unburned fuel in the exhaust (among other things) so it probably would compensate for altitude.


            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

              Though a bit of Googling refreshed my memory – the first superchargers, introduced by Mercedes in the 1920’s, blew through the carburettor. So it could be done.


            • gravelinspector-Aidan
              Posted June 2, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

              I knew there was a reason for paying the garage last week for a service.
              I have actually had to re-tune carbs – well, a carb – many years ago when the thieves had my car and ran it so dry (after mucking with the carb set-up for some reason) that there wasn’t enough petrol left in the tank for an anti-fingerprint bonfire. So I got the car back and had the joys of getting it bac running, and thn finding they’d done for the last 1/4 of the expected life on the clutch. Last significant car work I’ve done.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

            Oh, and there is a big difference between direct and indirect injection.

            Indirect injection (into the inlet manifold) is into a low-pressure zone – sub-atmospheric. Timing is probably not too critical, just the quantity. It mixes with the air as it is sucked into the cylinder.

            Direct injection – usually on diesels – is into an extremely high-pressure area, and the timing is critical in that the fuel delivery has to start (and self-ignite) at the precise correct moment. The injection system has to work at very high pressure.

            Direct injection on spark-ignition car engines is considerably less common I think, it’s into a high-pressure area (but much lower than diesel), I’m not sure when it’s timed but the gasoline has to vaporise and mix adequately with the air in the right proportions before the spark lights it. Also, of course, there has to be room in the cylinder head to fit the injector nozzle and spark plug. Post-war Mercedes used it, maybe others.


            • darrelle
              Posted June 1, 2016 at 8:19 am | Permalink

              I don’t know much but I can say that the three fuel injected motorcycles that I’ve owned in the past 14 years that the fuel injection has to be pretty precise, at least for best performance. I have some experience from the tuning side. Tweaking engine management maps (programs that consist of tables of values for various things at various rpm ranges), that is the equivalent of tuning older engines, that includes pulse width (duration) and timing.

      • Posted May 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

        My parents’s 1955 VW Beetle (parked in my driveway at the moment) gets a very consistent mid-20s MPG in town and low-30s MPG on the freeway. And this is with old-school little-black-book accounting of recording odometer and gallons at every stop at the gas station, not some sort of hypothetical EPA computation. The (original) speedometer is accurate to within a needle’s width of GPS readings.

        My 1968 VW Westfalia Campmobile would get upper teens in town and lower 20s on the freeway, not far off from what its modern SUV descendants get.

        My 1964 1/2 Mustang…well, we’re still in the post-renovation tuning phase. It’s getting lower double digits right now, but I’m hoping that, though it’s got the proverbial roaring monster V8 (a 302 bored and stroked to 347 cu. in, made over 460 HP and still climbing at 6000 RPM on the builder’s break-in dyno), with the throttle-body fuel injection and soon-to-be-plumbed-in water / methanol injection, it should eventually be about the same as the Camper.

        To a first approximation, fuel economy can almost entirely be estimated by vehicle weight. Newer cars have better aerodynamics, but aerodynamics isn’t a significant factor below 45 MPH; only weight, with a slight nod to rolling resistance (mostly tire design). The overwhelming majority of American miles driven are at and below 45 MPH.

        The hybrids like the Prius get their efficiency by using the electric motor somewhat like a turbocharger. The electric motor has fantastic low-speed torque, so the cars use the electric motor for low-speed acceleration. The designers can then optimize the gasoline engines for constant operation at a steady power output; by sacrificing the low-end torque of the gasoline engine, they can get a lot more fuel economy out of cruising conditions.

        The real efficiency gains are to be had from all-electric drivetrains, especially now that battery capacity is starting to get out of the “range anxiety” figures. Well-to-wheels, you get more miles per barrel of crude in the ground by burning barely-refined oil in high-efficiency industrial-sized generators, transmitting the electricity to your house, and storing it in your car’s battery than you get from refining the shit out of the stuff, pumping and trucking it to the corner gas station, and burning it in your pathetic-efficiency featherweight jack-of-all-trades car engine. And, of course, if the electricity instead comes from solar panels on your rooftop, your efficiency is essentially infinite.

        I completely agree about aesthetics, obviously. Cars from the ’40s and ’50s were sculptural masterpieces, and the ’60s had some great modern variations on the old themes. The early ’70s had some striking innovations like the Boss Mustang and the Lamborghini and the DeLorean…and then the oil crisis hit and we got the K Car and endless indistinguishable variations thereon. Then they took sandpaper to the K Car and everything turned into a worn soap bar. For a while, the only way you could tell the difference between a Mustang and a 2-door Toyota Corolla was by the configuration of the taillights. And then came the puffy SUVs and pickups that look as boated and overweight as their occupants. At least some of today’s muscle cars aren’t quite so bad…but the way the designers made them not so bad was by closely echoing the original ’60s-era pony cars they’re descended from.



        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

          I think this 2017 car looks beautiful.

          • Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

            Not bad at all!

            …but, in no small part because it’s a strong echo of one of the great classics:


            What I’d really love to see is a design as elegant (or striking or whatever) but that isn’t paying such obvious homage to a classic. Even Tesla, the most innovative designer today, is making soap-bar cars — and even the modern Rolls Royces and Bentleys are cut from that same block. You have to look to limited-production quarter-million-dollar-and-up exotic “supercars” for new designs, and those designs don’t at all filter down to the mass market.



            • Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

              Some bars of soap have better aesthetics than others!


              • Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

                The aesthetics of this soap are pretty darned good, I think:



            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

              I’d say like all miatas its more closely related to the British roadster. What I like is it doesn’t exactly pay homage as it makes it better.

              • Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

                Yeah; it’s more MGB than 911!


              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

                Yes. Totally MGB. An engine that is not overpowered so you’re not fighting the car but enjoy nimble handling.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

                And more Lotus Elan than either (MGB or Porsche 911). Both in looks and in handling.

                (Though a friend of mine has a well-worked-over MGB that he uses for rallying and autotests – limited slip diff, hydraulic handbrake, de-castered front alignment – it’s a match for my old Elan in balance and controllability. Just a revelation to drive on a winding course)


          • Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink



          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

            I very much like the Mazda MX-5 (all vintages of them). They quite closely resemble the legendary Lotus Elan (one of which I was once privileged to own, and the car I most regret ever selling).


            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

              Yes I think it shares some history with the Lotus. Those are nice cars too. I worked with a guy who had one so I got to see it up close.

              I have a Miata that I store for the winter so it is never exposed to harsh winter conditions of snow and salt.

            • darrelle
              Posted June 1, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

              One of the most impressive cars I’ve ever driven of that type, small nimble sports cars, was a last generation MR2. I had driven early MR2s and they were all fun, but that last one was nearly as fast as a 2004 STI through mountain roads (with me at the controls on both, so YMMV), and faster than everything else except the STI. And it had completely dumb suspension and rear wheel drive compared to active suspension and all wheel drive with traction control on the STI!

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 9:19 am | Permalink

                That’s the mid-engined Toyota? Yes, they’re quite a formidable vehicle in our autocrosses**, partly because the engine position (hence weight on the rear wheels) gives them excellent traction on loose surfaces.

                ** which are held in a variety of farmers’ paddocks, mostly quite undulating.


              • darrelle
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

                Yes, that’s it. From what I have been told Toyota spent a lot of time refining the MR2 to maximize handling by balancing the car nearly perfectly rather than utilizing more advanced aids like active suspension and traction control.

                Several years ago I spent a few months driving a large variety of cars through very nice mountain roads. Everything from new gen Chargers (hah!), to RSX Ss & Rs, Evos, STIs, and more. Only two had “old school” “dumb” suspension, a 2001 MR2 and a slightly older Miata. The Miata was really bad. Don’t know if that was inherent or if this particular one was just in bad shape. It didn’t appear to be in bad shape. But the MR2 was a complete surprise. It felt very nearly as effortless as the STI (easily the best of the bunch) when cornering. When pushing most of the cars you really felt like you had to work them, but the MR2 felt like it was on rails, no front end push, no rear end drifting. I found myself carrying more speed through the corners without even trying.

                But keep in mind, while I do have some experience at riding bikes hard, including track riding, I’m not particularly experienced at driving cars hard.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

                You must’ve had a bad Miata. They are a real pleasure to drive and it’s almost as if just thinking about what you want to do, gets the car to move which is the Jinba Ittai it was built upon. The cars are 50/50 balanced.

              • darrelle
                Posted June 1, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

                It is certainly possible. I have had no other experience with Miatas but I know that they have a following.

                My only other experience with Mazda period was a 1980 626. I’ve never regretted buying any vehicle more than that one. But that was a long time ago.

    • Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      Because form now takes a back seat to function.

      • kevin7alexander
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        Yes. Look at the size of the cabin compared to the outer dimensions. It would take twice the parking space as a modern car with the same cabin space.
        Still, damm, that’s beautiful!

        • Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

          That fireball straight eight engine needed a long front end.

      • Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

        Form follows function!


        • GBJames
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:53 am | Permalink

          Sometimes form follows fiction.

          • infiniteiprobabilit
            Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

            Well, if one was building a container ship to house thousands of critters, something like a floating barn is what one would end up with…


  2. barn owl
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    If you like the 1940s style, you could consider buying a roadster that has the antique body, but modern engine and interior comforts like A/C. A friend’s husband has renovated a 1940 Ford in that manner, which they drive to various car shows, and has sold others that he’s worked on.

  3. Randall Schenck
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    The Sunday comics were especially good. Best part of the Sunday paper actually.

    The pre-war models are most valuable. However, soon as they started up after the war many of them looked similar. My first car in 1966 was a 1951 Dodge 2 Dr coup. You could probably make three cars out of the metal in one car made back then. By the way – that first car had a fluid drive transmission. Probably not too many know what that is.

  4. Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    Nowadays bishops of mainstream churches and rabbis rarely stand in the way of science. Evangelicals do, but the main enemies of science (in Western societies) are secular.

  5. Diana MacPherson
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Ha ha! Ant put that toilet paper picture on my FB.

    It’s a hard question…I think I’d really hate seeing that picture of the frontwards toilet paper so much that I don’t think I’d be able to go in there. I’d only reverse the roll if confronted with it.

    • Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Of course, other orientations are possible. We shouldn’t impose binary choices!


      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:13 am | Permalink

        You’re only saying that because of your accommodationist vertical TP.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      Yo, D-Mac, you gonna let ’em get on up wid dis? You might maybe hafta cut-a-bitch here, girlfriend. Show ’em that legendary Canuckistan grit.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        No switching the TP around in another bathroom, is quintessentially Canadian.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted May 31, 2016 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

          Not. Darn finger.

  6. Posted May 31, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Some say, car designers had to work with new constrains and saving fuel. I still think they collectively lost their taste somewhere in the 1990s (the latest), or so I concldue looking back at car design history. They not only gave up on the size, which is understandable, but lost aesthetic. But it’s also that people seem to prefer cars that “blend in” and don’t say too much.

    • Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      Anodyne styling is widespread, but there are still mainstream cars that make a statement. (With high end cars, aesthetics costs you! But a modern Jaguar is a thing of beauty.)


      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

        Some of them are quite nice, but they can never recapture the original E-type Jaguar.


        • Posted June 1, 2016 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

          Well, as long as you’re thinking of the soft-top. The coupé was nowhere near as pretty.


          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted June 1, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

            Not only the looks, but it had the performance of a Ferrari at a price people could actually contemplate affording.

            And the most classic dash (in the traditional style) ever:

            (they really should have straightened the wheel for the photo!)


    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      I, for one, allow my car to say as much as it likes. It has rather strong opinions on free will. 🙂

    • Dave
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      I can barely tell one model from another these days.

      • darrelle
        Posted June 1, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        I call it the baked potato effect.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      I agree about the loss of taste. They all went blobby (‘jellymould’ styling).


  7. harrync
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    I belive those amber lights were “fog lights”. I can see how being close to the ground helped reduce reflective glare, but not sure the amber tint made any difference. In any event, sometime about the 1950’s, amber tint driving lights were outlawed.

  8. Walt Jones
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    In that era of cars, form was function. The curved sheer metal gave the car its strength. Now cars use a more efficient–in terms of weight and material–unibody design. As a result, a Maserati sedan doesn’t look much different from an Oldsmobuick.

  9. Cormacks & Crawfords
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Hullo PCC(E), I’ve never from reading your posts thought of you as a “petrol head” but having shown a very beautiful Buick I feel that I can now “shoehorn” in a photograph of my own car. A fine old 1965 Jensen CV8. It was a U.K. manufactured car but with a U.S. Chrysler 6.2 litre engine (hence the CV8). Nothing to 60 m.p.h. in under seven seconds in 1965 was and still is impressive. It would then reach a downright scary 140 m.p.h. I have to admit that whist I enjoy driving at speed I don’t have enough of a death wish to try and reach the full 140 on Scottish roads. Re- a previous post of yours – Scotland, and the Highlands in particular, would be a grand place to wile away a week or two.

    Thanks and keep posting, Regards, Reggie Cormack

  10. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Funny thing is, to me the ‘What Christians think atheism is..’ cartoon would work better if the captions were switched between the panels.

    • Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Well, it depends what you think “🚫” means.

      To my mind, the first picture accurately represents a not uncommon misapprehension that atheists “know” God exists but reject Him.


  11. jay
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    The classic lines are not completely dead. Morgan lives on.

    [Though my personal project car is a ’47 Jeep CJ-2A — That old engine still kicks over after sitting through cold winter]

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

      So does the Lotus / Caterham Super Seven in various guises.


%d bloggers like this: