Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Monday July 28, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-27-2012, 06:44 PM   #101
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceywilly View Post
but they are confusing emotional attachment to a design with objectively good looks.
No offense but you are confusing objective with subjective. You meant to use "subjective."

Objective means something that can consistently be measured to be the same by two separate individuals/groups. Say the height, weight, length, hp...etc. of a car. Those are all objective values. The height of a stock Impreza WRX will be the same in NYC as it will be in LA. Same with the weight of a stock car. Those are objective values. They are independent of any opinions.

Subjective is the opposite. It takes into account your personal feelings, beliefs, past history, perspective...etc. and allows you to come to a conclusion. Like stating MBP or DGM are the best colors on a car. That is subjective. So I laugh when you state that something has objective good lucks. That is an oxymoron.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 06:46 PM   #102
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: NWIC<-1<3->BAIC
Vehicle:
'14 Twatever fits
in your narrowtive...

Default

I have to agree with the opinion that EVERY SINGLE SUBARU looks good lowered. Next gen Foz not an exception...the uglier the Subaru the better it looks 2-5 inches down.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 06:49 PM   #103
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
I have to agree with the opinion that EVERY SINGLE SUBARU looks good lowered. Next gen Foz not an exception...the uglier the Subaru the better it looks 2-5 inches down.
Sure the Foz XT looks good lowered, but for many (even on NASIOC) it defeats the purpose of getting a vehicle with ground clearance due to winter's or off-roading capabilities.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 07:27 PM   #104
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: NWIC<-1<3->BAIC
Vehicle:
'14 Twatever fits
in your narrowtive...

Default

Got through 10 inches of fresh snowy goodness in a lowered Forester. No sweat. Looked damn good doin it. Purpose: Wins!

Looking forward to the same in this new ugly stick designed failure of a model!
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 08:08 PM   #105
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Got through 10 inches of fresh snowy goodness in a lowered Forester. No sweat. Looked damn good doin it. Purpose: Wins!


Sure, but could you go through 20 inches of snow? Could you take your lowered Forester off the asphalt and onto an off road trail without taking off your front lip or bottoming out? I don't think so.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 08:17 PM   #106
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Which is why we need a full blown XTI alternative!
WRX4US is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 08:28 PM   #107
chanomatik
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Anchorage (...for now...)
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

I live in Alaska and travel 1,500 each month on average. We have an average snowfall of 75.5 inches. My 2008 Forester Sports XT was lowered throughout the winter and it was FINE. I do agree with having enough ground clearance for crappy parking lots and such, but 20 inches of snowfall is kind of a ridiculous example. Lowered or not, 20 inches will still need to be overcome. This past winter was record-setting snowfall and my 2011 WRX was fine. It wasn't the snow that got it, but the ice.

Current Forester is VERY nice and the 2014 just looks like everything I enjoy about the current Forester and current Impreza. Keep those pics coming, Hip! They're on-topic. A Forester is a Forester is a Forester, sons!

lolobjective
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 11:16 PM   #108
staryoshi
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 299690
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado
Vehicle:
2014 Subaru Forester
Jasmine Green Metallic

Default

I hate 95% of lowered anything. I like the tall, rugged stance of a crossover and do not see the merit in lowering anything that's meant for daily-driver purposes. (Track uses and such are fine) Those are my two cents, anyway.

I also want pics... but only of the new Forester.
staryoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:33 AM   #109
spaceywilly
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 174268
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Providence
Vehicle:
2002 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
No offense but you are confusing objective with subjective. You meant to use "subjective."

Objective means something that can consistently be measured to be the same by two separate individuals/groups. Say the height, weight, length, hp...etc. of a car. Those are all objective values. The height of a stock Impreza WRX will be the same in NYC as it will be in LA. Same with the weight of a stock car. Those are objective values. They are independent of any opinions.

Subjective is the opposite. It takes into account your personal feelings, beliefs, past history, perspective...etc. and allows you to come to a conclusion. Like stating MBP or DGM are the best colors on a car. That is subjective. So I laugh when you state that something has objective good lucks. That is an oxymoron.
No, I meant objective. I know the difference, I was not born yesterday. The SH Forester is a conservative design that does not mess with the traditional SUV looks like past subaru models have. It has a traditional 2 box shape, rectangular non-bulbous headlights, and normal looking wheel arch lines. It doesn't have the "WTF were they going for here" looks that subaru models usually have with curves that go nowhere, random shapes thrown in for no reason, and headlights that stick out the side of the car. Subjectively, many people have emotional attachments to Subaru's designs so they think, in their opinion, they are good looking. In reality they are hideous but they grow on you because you form emotional attachments to the car itself, so in your mind it becomes better looking. This is why whenever a new Subaru is introduced, people think it is the ugliest thing ever, then after it has been out for a while rallying in the mud and having crazy melon launcher exhausts stuck on it, people think it is the best looking car ever. There is an objective aspect to design.

Last edited by spaceywilly; 09-28-2012 at 11:38 AM.
spaceywilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:55 AM   #110
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

If I get an SH Forester or an 08-11 5-seat Tribeca... it will get new wheels and tires, and a modest profile that is not bulbous, nor low-profile electrical tape wrap on the wheels... Probably 17 or 18 on a Forester, 18 likely or 19 at most on a Tribeca.

It will get a wheel design that isn't ridiculous, isn't dowdy, but isn't spider-web thin sports-car wheels, either. I'd like to hope that I can find a nice set of *forged* aluminum wheels. meaty SUV-suitable 5, 6, or 7 spoke. Maybe BBS-CH or RE style... if they would look just right.

The tires will not be stretched... conversely, they will be substantially WIDER than the wheel rim, and protect the wheel. Widest tire tread with that is rated to fit on the wheel rim width... the wheel rim and tire width will be closer to 9" wide than 7" wide, and offset to fill the depth of the wheel wells, without sticking out of them.

With a little bit of additional rolling diameter, it might actually lower cruising RPMs a tad bit, which is good for distance highway mileage.

It will also fill out the fenders better, height wise.

With that wheel and tire I am not sure it will need to be lowered. But maybe a very slight lowering (an inch at most perhaps) on the front, to rake the vehicle just a little bit to look less dowdy than stock and not have a saggy-butt stance, but not really to impact ground clearance effectiveness much.


Which Forester I choose to consider will depend on the 2014 specifications... and so far, aesthetics, and inference of what the drivetrain is likely to be... it will probably be an FB25-powered SH, instead.

I would consider the XV Crosstrek if it gets a performance model, such as a turbo engine and a stick shift together, like a proper rally car... but until then, no consideration.

It would be easier to raise the suspension of a GR STI hatchback than to put a whole performance drivetrain under an XV crosstrek after it has already been manufactured and sold.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:59 AM   #111
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceywilly View Post
No, I meant objective. I know the difference, I was not born yesterday. The SH Forester is a conservative design that does not mess with the traditional SUV looks like past subaru models have. It has a traditional 2 box shape, rectangular non-bulbous headlights, and normal looking wheel arch lines. It doesn't have the "WTF were they going for here" looks that subaru models usually have with curves that go nowhere, random shapes thrown in for no reason, and headlights that stick out the side of the car. Subjectively, many people have emotional attachments to Subaru's designs so they think, in their opinion, they are good looking. In reality they are hideous but they grow on you because you form emotional attachments to the car itself, so in your mind it becomes better looking. This is why whenever a new Subaru is introduced, people think it is the ugliest thing ever, then after it has been out for a while rallying in the mud and having crazy melon launcher exhausts stuck on it, people think it is the best looking car ever. There is an objective aspect to design.

Nope you still don't know the difference. Why don't you go to an online dictionary and post the definitions of the two terms. Because I'm not convinced you know the difference.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 12:04 PM   #112
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Spacewilly is right.

An emotional response to a design is subjective. Liking it, or dis-liking it... being indifferent... hating it with a white-hot fury... obsessed with it like a love-sick puppy-dog... whatever. The response is subjective.

The traits of the design, the lines, the surfaces, the angles, the density of changes, the linear flow that the eye physiologically follows when looking at the design... are objective traits of the design, they are facts of the rendering, and exist regardless of the emotional response they generate with people who see it.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 12:08 PM   #113
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
Spacewilly is right.

An emotional response to a design is subjective. Liking it, or dis-liking it... being indifferent... hating it with a white-hot fury... obsessed with it like a love-sick puppy-dog... whatever. The response is subjective.

The traits of the design, the lines, the surfaces, the angles, the density of changes, the linear flow that the eye physiologically follows when looking at the design... are objective traits of the design, they are facts of the rendering, and exist regardless of the emotional response they generate with people who see it.


Apparently you missed this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceywilly View Post
but they are confusing emotional attachment to a design with objectively good looks.
There is no such thing as objective good looks. That would be subjective good looks.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 12:32 PM   #114
EGGS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 268011
Join Date: Dec 2010
Default

I object on the subject !


Back to foresters and possible sti goodness !
EGGS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 12:43 PM   #115
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

I guess the study of aesthetics, design, and the engineering aspects of design are just un-founded opinion then?


An object has an appearance. It's appearance is factual. It can be dimensionally measured, it's color, texture, hardness, and other aspects can be measured. The looks are objective.

A set of appearance traits that generates the same opinion in almost all, and certainly the vast majority and plurality of viewers... that they think it looks good... is considered to be objective good looks.

The plurality of viewers having a BAD reaction to a specific set of traits would be considered to be objectively bad looks.

A mixed reaction, is something of more controversy.

Saying that object A, compared to object B, has more objective traits in common with other objects that are widely accepted as good looking is a valid estimation, and an objective evaluation. It is objective because the person making the evaluation is doing so without a high degree of personal investment in favoring A over B.

In this case... SH Forester is object A, Previous Foresters would be Object B or C. Saying that A has more design traits in common with other vehicles that are considered by almost everyone to be good or great designs, is an objective evaluation.

Saying that you like Object B or C, because perhaps you used to have one, and you though it was a good car for you, is subjective, because you are basing it on your internal opinion, and not comparing it on an aesthetic level to other archetype vehicles.

So, YES there are objective, analytical evaluations of aesthetics, even if there are subjective aspects of human response to an object.

There is truth in beauty. Truth is objective at it's core, even if it is surrounded by subjective opinion.

Nature has pristine examples of truth in beauty. Human enterprises and constructs can approach truth in beauty, some things closer than others. That is aesthetics.

There are contrarians who have negative subjective opinions about what others think is classically and truly beautiful, including examples of designs considered masterpieces.

A contrarian opinion disagrees with, but does not disprove the truth in aesthetic beauty.

Let me guess... you probably don't believe in objective truth (things exist regardless of perception, not as a function of perception), or morality either. (there are things that are actually right or wrong for anyone and everyone, not self-determined)'

You sound like a relativist in more than just aesthetics.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 01:01 PM   #116
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

HTBS, read the quote again. "Objective good looks". There is no objectivity to "good" looks. What looks good to one car owner is ugly to another. Sure color and shape are objective. But what looks good as he was referring to is subjective. There is no definition for "what looks good for all mankind." There is a definition for color codes, shapes and designs. But not what looks good.

Btw HTBS less is more. If you can't state your point in 4-6 sentences in a concise manner you probably don't have anything to say.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 01:29 PM   #117
Brahmzy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3293
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: CO
Vehicle:
'14 FXT-T
'15 WRX? '15 STI?

Default

Holy crap y'all know how to wreck a thread...
Brahmzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 01:57 PM   #118
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: SE Mass/RI
Vehicle:
2013 Crosstrek XV
00 Honda S2000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
HTBS, read the quote again. "Objective good looks". There is no objectivity to "good" looks. What looks good to one car owner is ugly to another. Sure color and shape are objective. But what looks good as he was referring to is subjective. There is no definition for "what looks good for all mankind." There is a definition for color codes, shapes and designs. But not what looks good.

Btw HTBS less is more. If you can't state your point in 4-6 sentences in a concise manner you probably don't have anything to say.
Aestetics ("looks") i.e. how something appears to one person, is completely subjective to the viewer. There is nothing objective about aestetics.

Example, a certain curve could appear appealing to one person, but not an other. While the curve itself is an object, the appeal to one's senses (vision) is wholly and completely subjective.

Quote:
The plurality of viewers having a BAD reaction to a specific set of traits would be considered to be objectively bad looks.
INCORRECT. It's still subjective. Because on the other end you have a plurality of viewers (using your terminology), that have a GOOD reaction to it. You can't have objective BAD and GOOD looks when talking about the same item, and by the very definition, 2 people seeing something differently doesn't equal objectivity. Hence.. it's subjectve looks/aestics of an object.

Can we just ban H2BS now and get it over with? He's vomited on his keyboard again and this time, proven that he's been NASIOCs longest troll. Jokes all on us.

--kC

Last edited by KC; 09-28-2012 at 02:02 PM.
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:11 PM   #119
lark6
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2715
Join Date: Oct 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: where GW crossed the Delaware
Vehicle:
70 911T

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
Holy crap y'all know how to wreck a thread...
That's for sure. Looking for '14 Forester info and I get The Elements of Style.
lark6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:14 PM   #120
geddesk2
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119397
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Snoqualmie
Vehicle:
2012 STI
WRB (The only color)

Default

Where is a moderator when you need one...seriously lets get this thread back on topic.

Anyone have anymore imges they can post in here?
geddesk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:17 PM   #121
Juege
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 37088
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Switzerland
Vehicle:
2004 Outback 2.5 i m
silver

Default

"Objective good looks".


Shut up!
Juege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:39 PM   #122
bWRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 6672
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: murland
Default

Is the new Forester going to have a manual transmission option?

No.

Therefore this thread is pointless.
bWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:40 PM   #123
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default



Two Foresters...

Wait. Check that.

One of them has an H on it... I guess maybe that one is a Honda instead.



Not sure which interior this is... they all look about as bland and the same as all the others... so it probably *is* the Forester interior, then.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 03:57 PM   #124
SoDealer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67960
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post


Two Foresters...

Wait. Check that.

One of them has an H on it... I guess maybe that one is a Honda instead.



Not sure which interior this is... they all look about as bland and the same as all the others... so it probably *is* the Forester interior, then.
was there any reason for reposting these old photos?
SoDealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 04:05 PM   #125
banyan
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 181013
Join Date: May 2008
Location: いいいいいい
Vehicle:


Default

^^^ It is Friday afternoon. He is just keyboard happy, hitting all the threads in N&R. Must be a slow day at work
banyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.