I got to thinking tonight, about modern "supercars". I got to thinking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qvHJBMHK8 I have heard alot of people talk about how some supercars dont feel like supercars... Does anyone think, that perhaps supercars today, are how supercars are supposed to be? I have heard people complain about the technology, and how the cars feel to "drivable" (too soft and un-involved). However, in the past, were the supercars not built with the best technology at the time? Which brings me to my next point, if these cars can accelarate faster, and turn into corners faster, does the ride/feel matter? If it all accounts to faster times around a track, is it fair to call a car "un-involving"? I guess people like scott and pp may have a good insight, as to how the ride compared in a F40 compared to a TR? or a F50 compared to a 512? I know its hard to compare, but I imagine the technology in an Enzo gave rise to the tech in the F430s? OR does it all simply come down to the individuals interpretation of a supercar. Is a california a supercar to some, and not to others, even though it may be nearly as quick as a 430 etc.? Even though a cali may be more appropriare as a DD than a 430, does it make it any less of a supercar? Hope it makes sense... :S
