Why were 90's supercars so aesthetic?

>>15812542
aesthetic isn't an adjective

>>15812545
it's a meme you dip

>>15812542
So hawt. That positive camber tho.

>>15812559
sick king pin inclination

File: Screenshot_20160913-090235.png (234KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1080x1920px

>>15812545
Better let Google know that.

>>15812542
aged like shit

jesus thats ugly

>>15812588
looks so satisfied

File: bait-image-if-you-seriously-reply-to-this-kill-yourself.jpg (180KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 970x647px

>not liking modern supercars

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

>>15812630
Disgusting.

>>15812542
elegance and some rule that it has to look vaguely like a road car
and another that says you need a passenger seat for your mechanic\navigator
also a spare tire (no pit)
+some road going versions just to stop makers from getting too specialised in track only performance cars that no one can afford

File: 1998GT1_car3.jpg (227KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1024x768px

because they were actually built for racing and not for arab oil princes

>>15812671
The wheel well shapes ruin the whole car.

File: imgres.png (7KB, 196x257px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 196x257px

>>15812542
This fucking shitbox is about as aesthetic as my dog's turd dispenser, and that says a lot cause it's a fuckin Bulldog

>>15812542
Because numales were made to cower in corners by the stronk alphas designing cars.

If a numale got out of line and suggested safety or practicality was important, they ended up with a dick up their ass.

>>15813663
i think you need to take a break from the internet

>>15813675
I think you are 14 and have no idea what the world was like. People used to get into car accidents intentionally because what didn't kill you made you stronger. Not everybody survived but the strong sure did. Good thing it is 2016 or your weak ass would have already been darwined out.

>>15812542
>CLK-GTR
>in snow

This guy has some huge cojones

>>15812717
you fit them with road racing slicks/wheels when you drive it to the track with your support entourage

the window lines in this thread are doing serious things to my dick.

Especially this one
>>15812671


you >>15812630

You can fuck off

File: Nissan-R390-7.jpg (173KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1200x803px

Are we posting 90s homologation cars itt?

File: jaguar-xj220-buying-guide-review-1993-1994-4883_12395_640X470.jpg (45KB, 626x470px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 626x470px

Sup?

>>15813691
I know this is trolling but I really do get the sense half of /o/ only hates modern cars just to come off as "hardcore" as older cars supposedly were.

>he parked the truck exactly in the parking spot
what a cuck

File: Cerbera_Speed_12.jpg (394KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2048x1365px

well...

>>15813793
>>15813837
>>15813897
>>15813915
The gods of the 90s.

File: Mercedes-Benz-CLK-GTR-8.jpg (131KB, 1287x900px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1287x900px

>>15812611
you take that back

File: sad car.jpg (119KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x480px

>>15812542
Better question: why were 90s cars so god damned ugly?

You can practically see the designer screaming 'KILL ME PLEASE' through the design of this car

File: mmmm.jpg (33KB, 308x313px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 308x313px

>>15813915

>>15813956
The issue is that modern cars have to have giant pillars to support the vehicle in a rollover. Also pedestrian safety. So modern designs right now all look kind of weird. Eventually engineers and designers will figure out how to make cars look better again.

>>15815332
Saabs had great rollover safety without resorting to that bullshit

File: GT90.jpg (664KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1600x1200px

I know it was actual shit, but fuck me, look at this. Ford really had something here.

File: 349634967.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>15815050

No, he's right.

CLK GTR and all the homologation specials of the late-'90s look awful and totally out of place on the street. Not to mention that every journo that has reported on them said that they drive like shit.

>>15815332
Or we will again stop giving a shit about people stupid enough to get hit by cars.

>>15815506
It's goofy cute
I love it tbqh

File: 1996 Lincoln Gustiva.png (4MB, 1914x1246px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1914x1246px

>>15815474
Almost seems like a 90's version of a buggatti with the body style.

90's supercars had a certain class about them

>>15812542
someone tell me if im banned plz. my shiity archer c7 isnt giving wifi

File: 1472809846236.gif (1021KB, 421x389px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 421x389px

>>15815266
>>15815306
>>15815506

File: 1448911436322.jpg (11KB, 238x207px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 238x207px

>>15815736
Na ur good alphonse

>>15815725
>All those photoshops

File: v1.jpg (192KB, 799x1066px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 799x1066px

>>15812549
>using meme's likely based on something said by an idiot to justify furthering the stupidity.

Real life really is becoming Idiocracy, isn't it?

>>15815865
too bad aesthetic actually is an adjective, idiot
so why don't you go brawndo your plants?

>>15815883
Just because it's an adjective doesn't mean it's being used correctly.

Also, I'm not >>15812545
because he's also an idiot.

File: aesthetic.png (36KB, 726x476px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 726x476px

>>15815908
>doesn't mean it's being used correctly.
Too bad it is

File: 588355.jpg (202KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1024x682px

>>15813793
>>15813837
>>15815474
and rounding out the A class of NFS 2

>>15815969
>aesthetic appreciation
>aesthetic grounds
>aesthetic benefits

>>15812542
>aesthetic ----

You don't even know what a fucking adjective is.

ad·jec·tive
ˈajəktiv/
nounGRAMMAR
a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it

Since OP has not included a noun that the word aesthetic is modifying, it's a blank adjective. And he isn't using aesthetic as a noun and "supercars" isn't being modified by his use of aesthetic, because if you re-phrased the sentence TO modify "supercars", it would go like this "Why were 90's aesthetic supercars?" Which doesn't provide a subject.

Therefor, his use of aesthetic is wrong, and opening your mouth to shout "LOL MEMES" is only sending humanity on a downward cycle of stupidity.

I get that languages evolve, but this is taking a step back, not a step forward.

File: lm.jpg (138KB, 1306x815px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1306x815px

>>15812542
best version coming through

>>15816144
>not accidental airplane version.jpg

>>15816084
>completely ignoring the 2nd definition

>>15816222
Aesthetic, technically, can be used that way, but it is not meant to be.

Think of it like this, a farmer has a truck and a tractor. He needs to pull his trailer down the road and decides to use the tractor, even though the truck is perfectly fine.

"Why were 90's supercars so aesthetically beautiful?" would be the correct way to use aesthetic, OR "Let's talk about the aesthetic of 90's supercars." etc.

So, yes, in your little troll brain, you can 'win' this by me saying that it's not wrong, but it's not the correctly/typical/socially normal way to use the word. So I guess, if you want to troll for responses and spark this debate every time you use it, knock yourself out. Or you could not argue semantics on a Laosian weaving board about why your attempt at fueling a meme is a bad idea.

>>15816303
Dude, you're wrong and you got BTFO. You can stay assmad about "fueling a meme" but that doesn't make what you say correct.

>Aesthetic, technically, can be used that way, but it is not meant to be.
>but it's not the correctly/typical/socially normal way to use the word.
According to who? You? lol

>>15816222
>functional furniture
>aesthetic furniture
OP
>aesthetic ----

"The 90's Supercar aesthetic" is correct.
"The 90's Supercars aesthetic" is also correct.

"Why are 90's supercars so aesthetic?" is not correct.

>>15816334
I haven't actually received any constructive counter-arguments. Just copy-pasted images and witty responses, usually peppered with green text.

It's like mic-drop central in here.

If someone would like to demonstrate a better understanding of English to me while telling me I'm wrong, then we'll be okay.

So the point of me staying in this thread is moot, I guess.

Let Idiocracy reign.

>>15816337
It is correct. Stay mad.
The way you're using there is as a noun, not as an adjective. But it's both. However, you're using the apostrophes wrong. It's '90s, not 90's.

>>15816352
>copy-pasted images
Yeah, ignore that I took a screenshot from fucking Oxford dictionary.
Have the link so you can get even more butthurt.
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/aesthetic_1

is being pedantic on the internet aesthetic?

>>15812542
90's cars in general were cool because they were basically the final culmination of the auto industry of the 50's. Also the last decade that any of the people who were designers in the 50's were remotely involved.

>>15816664
I was just thinking to myself that my favorite decades were the 50s and 90s. What's their commonality?

File: cizeta-v16t.jpg (204KB, 1408x1056px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1408x1056px

>not having 4 flip headlights

>>15816368
The veracity of your source is not in question here. The delivery of your argument is, however. Or I should say was, goodnight anon.

>>15816708
lol just because you don't use a word in a certain way it doesn't mean it's not supposed to be used like that.
We were told that, when we had a fellow anon, we'd see a giant global linguistic figure: the man that would be the linguistic leader for five hundred million shitposters; the man that would represent all of us on the quickest boards; the man whose job was so important that of course you're paid more than the janitors. Well, I'm afraid what we got was you. And I am sorry, but after that performance earlier that you gave… and I don't want to be rude, but... but you know, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask... the question I wanna ask... that we're all gonna ask is: who are you? I've never heard of you; nobody in the Anglosphere had ever heard of you. I would like to ask you, Anon: who made you an authority on English? And what mechanism? I know democracy is not popular with you lot. What mechanism do the English speakers have to remove you? Is this English lexicon? Well I... I sense... I sense, though, that you're competent and capable and dangerous, and I have no doubt that it's your intention to be the quiet assassin of the English lexicon, and of the English language. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of words with multiple meanings; perhaps that's because you come from Burgerland, which of course is pretty much a non-country in terms of education. But since you took over, we've seen the word "aesthetic" reduced to nothing more than a noun. Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I can speak on behalf of the majority of the English-speaking people in saying: we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass, the better.

ITT: College educated FAGGOTS try to reach a conclusion

>>15816813
I'm plowing thru college, I'm not college educated yet. And everything after the first line of my last post is satire.
Look up "farage who are you". Top tier banter.

>>15812630
Why does every super car manufacturer have to add gay ass 3edgy5me angles to everything?

>>15816830
Why do I give a fuck about this? I earn high 5 figures with out having spent time learning esoteric bullshit.

>More like you are getting plowed by college

>>15816898
this is an edgy period in history, I hope you have a tampon

>>15815050
Someone post the roadster

>>15812630

MOM I JUST TURNED V16 OKAY?

*throws rod at door*

File: 1424685612874.png (216KB, 393x391px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 393x391px

>>15816974
where did you steal this from

>>15812588
it looks like a fat rx7 that ate a bunch of doritos.

File: tips fedora.gif (809KB, 270x205px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 270x205px

>>15816974

>>15812559
this only happens when the vehicle is turning, the other wheel has negative "camber" when the adjacent wheel is in this position to create a tighter turning radius

>>15812630
I'm 12 and I like it

>>15816303
>Think of it like this, a farmer has a truck and a tractor. He needs to pull his trailer down the road and decides to use the tractor, even though the truck is perfectly fine.

Who's to say which is the truck and which is the tractor in this scenario? Do we default to the most commonly used one?

> So, yes, in your little troll brain

Let's not drag the discourse down.

>>15812542

cars from 90s look like shit... absolutely disgusting

File: autowp.ru_saab_9-3_sport_sedan_aero_2.jpg (233KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1024x768px

>>15812542
>>15813793
>>15813837
>>15813897
>>15813915
>>15814030
>>15815050
>>15815458
>>15815474
>>15816004
Best supercar era. The transition between 6 speed gearboxes to sequential transmissions, no dual clutches. Big naturally aspirated engines developed by the same companies that raced in F1. Wind tunnels assisted designers, but overall looks weren't sacrificed in favor of drag coefficient or maximum downforce. And pop-up headlights were still allowed.

>>15815407
Sweet. What was their secret? I suppose it's the C-pillar.

>>15817142
I learned something. Thanks anon.

>>15816337
It's correct. Aesthetic as an adjective can modify a noun, just like the word "pretty" or "ugly". Yes, it does modify "supercars", and OP said it correctly. Just because it sounds strange doesn't mean it's wrong; OP has dictionaries and grammar to back up his wording. And even if it was wrong, he has the right to say it the way he wants. You know why? Native speakers can make some grammatical mistakes and still "pass" them as correct sentences.

On the top of that, this is 4chan, and every faggot here maims english language in whatever way they can. That's why Internet memes and expressions are popular ("be like", "based", etc.): they are contagious expressions that work under certain contexts.

All in all, I don't expect normal to people to word their sentences such as OP in a normal conversation, so you can sleep well tonight.

>>15815865
Aesthetic is an adjective and a noun. A car can be "aesthetic". It's valid english. Unlike much of this post. I slept through most of class and never talk to other human beings outside of 4chan, so i speak the dialect meme, but i assure you that "this car is aesthetic" is a valid sentence.

File: im4ymrlztv9j1befkpoa.jpg (66KB, 800x406px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x406px

because 90s (and some 80s) technology and pop culture are literally the definition of vaporwave/synthwave aesthetic (sadboys aesthetic extends up to 2006)

https://youtu.be/zcmk4qvye90

>>15815474
Wasn't that thing capable of 400km/hr too? long before the veyron.

>>15812542
They look like shit desu.
Too eccentric to have the classiness you'd expect
Not that it's a bad thing.

>>15812630
That thing looks horrendous

>>15817520
And every other modern supercar is that crossed with a stealth fighter made of wax and a heat gun.

And please don't mention sportbike design

>aerodynamics? nah we just wanna ride freaky mechanical dolphins

>>15813915
>tfw they're making tyres for these again

File: images_panoz_gtr-1_1997_1.jpg (429KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 800x600px

I loved these when i was little kid, probably played too much mid town madness

File: Large Image_10190.jpg (244KB, 1960x1101px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1960x1101px

Modern supercars are overdesigned and look like something out of a video game. Where are the curves?

>>15818012
Because they are over designed.
The difference is designing a car to look nice then putting it in a wind tunnel vs designing a car in a wind tunnel.

>>15816974
Pissing myself
10/10

File: 1004262122210gts2.jpg (201KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x768px

Supercar or not, this design will never be replicated or beaten... At least imhpo
>one day snek...one day

>>15812630
>filename
kek. Nice job

>>15818012
this is a 10/10 car in Yurop

File: xjr15.jpg (37KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x286px

The XJR is cute. CUTE.

>>15817584
What did he mean by this?

File: jaguar-xj220s-vystavlen-na-auktsion-1326698100-1.jpg (102KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x853px

>tfw jaguar will never be the top speed record holder for production cars again

>>15812545
All of you falling for this bait

Kek

>>15818513
Were they ever??

>>15818530
Yes. It held the title for a few months before the F1 buried it.

File: 11099148_10-supercars-from-the-821790s-you-probably_tc999fe61[1].jpg (119KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x600px

INTEGRATED
SPOILERS

>>15816681
greatest generation.

>>15816681
the 50's were the peak of the greatest generation, right after the war, and before shit like regulation.

and 90's were the last hurrah of the Greatest Gen before they passed gently into the good night and Boomers completely took control. And they had all their accumulated automotive knowledge since the 50's, but with all the advances made since then at their disposal. since the turn of the millennium, boomers have been in charge of cars. And boomers are shit at everything.

greatest gen knew how to style and design within and around regulations- thats why pop ups exist, but boomers have no such talent. nor do they care, because they have little passion and only care about profit.

File: lotec-c1000.jpg (37KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x450px

>>15815474
Was that thing a blind designer with a ruler?

>>15817478
It would barely do 40kph as the prototype was heavily restricted and never fully tested, they made lots of BS claims about it though given it was just an XJ220 with a bodykit and two of those engine bolted together.

This Lotec C1000 would on the other hand do 268mph in 1995, almost exactly the same top speed as the Veyron.

>>15812542
variety

>>15819827
Veyron SS. Base Veyron does 253.

Is the Lotec's speed confirmed?

>>15818530
The old xk120 was a beast for its time

>>15819879
It never did a return run at it, the confirmed two way run it did complete was an average of just 242mph

>>15815506
does it hurt to be this much of a pleb?