Is usage of the term "Clinical" justified? | FerrariChat

Is usage of the term "Clinical" justified?

Discussion in 'Ferrari Discussion (not model specific)' started by mclarenferrari, Feb 16, 2011.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. mclarenferrari

    mclarenferrari Karting

    Jul 13, 2010
    178
    Is it just me, or is anyone here really tired of the trite term "clinical"? It's a cliche expression. I'm not necessarily bringing this up just because of the McLaren, as it was used before as well -- that the 458 was "clinical" compared to its ancestors of the 60's and 70's, the 599 GTO was "clinical" compared to the GTO's of old, so on and so forth. I've also read this term in reviews of the Porsche Turbo models as well.

    Do automotive reviewers tend to live in the past, and consequently every new revolutionary drive that comes along is initially regarded as "clinical"? Or are they justified in using this term?

    And on a somewhat related note, can we judge contemporary models based on their peers of the past? For instance, every Ferrari supercar is held to the F40 yardstick -- is it as brilliant and explosive as the F40, is it as good as the F40, so on and so forth. But the F40 was a product of its time, as the new supercars are a product of their time. Shouldn't these cars be viewed independently? In the future, would we continue to compare models with, say, the 458, or would we still use examples of the past, like the Daytona or the F40?

    Apologies for the long-winded post. Just trying to stir a friendly debate here ;)
     
  2. 430man

    430man Formula Junior

    Jan 18, 2011
    489
    My take is that modern cars are so refined there are few obvious flaws. Having to find some fault to remain credible, they call it clinical. YMMV
     
  3. Bullfighter

    Bullfighter Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jan 26, 2005
    22,601
    Gates Mills, Ohio
    Full Name:
    Jon
    It's a convenient way of saying that electronics and technology have replaced the raw, mechanical nature of the classics.

    Probably a fair statement overall, with drive-by-wire, brake-by-wire, automated dual clutch shifting, load sensitive traction control, etc. The difference between cars like a 599 or R8 and something like a Daytona or long-nose Porsche 911 is staggering -- you can kill yourself in the classics, whereas the new cars crunch the numbers and handle the situation. No drama.
     
  4. SrfCity

    SrfCity F1 World Champ

    #4 SrfCity, Feb 16, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2011
    "Very objective and devoid of emotion; analytical"

    They're probably referring to the "devoid of emotion" definition of the word "clinical." These writers are obviously car buffs and long for the days of more visceral feel. Those days are gone so I think the comparison is more for nostalgia and it gives readers some frame of reference even though most have never driven an F40 or the like. Still, it's not too hard to imagine driving a car devoid of creature comforts even though it's been a while if ever for most. I really don't think you can compare today's cars to yesterday's supercars no more than you can relate today's HiFi electronics to yesterday's for example unless they're just trying to get the readers attention.
     
  5. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    9,734
    You have obviously never read a British auto/motorcycle magazine. These guys lambast every little detail.

    Its only over here, that the magazines are so dependent of advertizing dollars from the exact people that are lending them the cars, that they have to parse the sentances to appear to have found a minor annoyance when in fact they have stumbed over (and ignored) a host of glaring idiosyncracies that would make any potential buyer warry.
     

Share This Page