Talk:Supermini car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Extry, Extry! Definition Defies Logic!

Just been reading about the word "supermini." The Morris Mini Metro, it seems, was cramped in the front and couldn't be driven for long distances comfortably. Lo and behold, the Fiat 128 was two feet longer, having 28% more usable volume for 14% greater weight. They called it the "Supermini."

How can you call the Fiat 500 a Supermini when it came before the Mini? This defies logic! If this were a paper encyclopedia, I'd tear this page out! --Sobolewski 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that the 'mini' part of 'supermini' comes from the Mini Metro (a 1980 car) when in fact the term comes from the Austin/Morris Mini which was first produced in 1958. The Fiat 500 started production just a few months ahead of the Mini - but it wasn't seen in English-speaking countries until AFTER the Mini splashed all over pop culture in the early 1960's. Hence (at least for English speakers), the Fiat 500 did indeed come AFTER the Mini - at least culturally.

As for the Mini being uncomfortable because of cramped driving space - I have to disagree. The classic Mini was indeed a car of microscopic dimensions - but it was VERY cleverly designed. I'm currently restoring a 1963 Mini and I can tell you that as a fairly normal 5'10" person, with the seat slid all the way back, my feet only just touch the pedals - I have to have the seat moved forwards a couple of notches in order to be comfortable. In fact, the worst problem with driving the Mini is that with fixed three-point seatbelts, you can't reach the controls on the center console (The Mini originally shipped with only lap belts). One very popular after-market part for the Mini was 4" long plastic 'switch extensions' that brought the controls a couple of inches closer to your hands! The thing that made the Mini so uncomfortable to drive was that the seats were very poorly padded. The designed (Sir Alec Issigonis) was famous for saying that drivers would be more alert if they were not sitting too comfortably - and DELIBERATELY made the seats a little uncomfortable!! Well, with modern seats and switch extensions, my Mini is now very comfortable to drive.

Now, please smooth out the page and carefully tape it back into the Encyclopedia!

66.137.234.217 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

4 adults and a child ? in a Fiat 500 ? Is it serious ? Ericd 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Being 1,80m tall and rather short-legged, I've never found a way to have my feets touching the pedals, my hand on the wheel without my knees touching the dashboard on a classic Mini. No problem in a Metro. Ericd 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro

I removed the reference to the revolutionary Austin Metro. What is so revolutionary about it? Also references to the Hillman Imp (an internationally irrelevant car), while no references to the Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV or Renault 4?

I'm not sure what was so revolutionary about the Metro either, it keep some features of the Mini (hydromatic suspension) but offered nothing radical Alastairward 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the Metro had the hatchback - but I doubt it gets the title of "first hatchbacked supermini"...so yeah - it can be dumped. Whilst the Imp may have been internationally irrelevent - it's a pretty iconic car to the Brits. But the Imp, the Fiat 500 and the 2CV were not by any stretch of the imagination "Supermini's" . The Fiat and the 2CV were both horribly underpowered, cornered like a horse and cart and were not fun-to-drive street rockets as the SuperMini class requires. Even the Mini itself wasn't really a "SuperMini" - although it needs mentioning here because it is indisputable progenitor of the Supermini - and indeed is the entire reason they are called that in the first place.

I'm not real familiar with the Renault 4 though...dunno about that one. SteveBaker 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Not really true to say, as the added template does, that "This article does not cite any references or sources." The whole of the first section is clearly and repeatedly sourced.

Sourcing the history section is more of a problem because so much of it is just general knowledge. I'm not convinced that you really need to source statements like, "The Fiat 500 and Mini were successful mass production mini-cars in Europe, going on sale in 1957 and 1959 respectively."

Rather than tag the whole article as being unsourced, I think it would be more helpful to look at the detail and add the "citation needed" tag to any contentious statements.

I propose removing the blanket "no sources" tag unless someone has a good reason for leaving it. Adrian Robson 08:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - the entire article is HORRIBLY under-sourced and tagging almost every sentence with a {{fact}} tag is unproductive and makes the article look even more messy. User:PrinceGloria felt that this rose to the level where almost the entire article should be deleted. I think that's going too far - so I reverted that bulk deletion - but without proper referencing, deleting almost the entire article may ultimately be the only way forward. We should all crack open our collections of car books - and see what we can do to better reference this article. If we don't make substantial progress, then perhaps it does need to be pruned back to a stub.
Your example statement ("The Fiat 500 and....") is PRECISELY the kind of thing that needs to be properly referenced - I recommend you read WP:V and treat what it says very seriously.
I've added a handful of cite's I had handy - but this is going to take the efforts of more people with car books than just me!
SteveBaker (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the editorial bit NOT due to of insufficient referencing, but because such discussion is only remotely, if at all, relevant in an article discussing the term "supermini". The purpose of this article is to explain what a supermini is, not to present an essay on small cars over the decades from a Britocentric point of view. The line is a thin red one, but the more we need to be wary. In an encyclopedia, often less is more. Let us make good use of the cites in respective cars' articles and not let an article on a car class become a picturesque journey through this and that. I hope you can get what you mean. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British bias

Much as I hate to admit it (I'm quite patriotic!), this article is horribly British biased. While this car class might not be common in the US, therefore there need not be that much US info, there needs to a be more Asian and European slant. Calling cars foreign in an international encyclopedia isn't really on Talltim (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a British term, so no surprise. I believe, however, we don't need the ramblings on the fate of various cars over the years, which has little to do with explaining the term "supermini". PrinceGloria (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody care to revamp this section into something acceptable? I've got the scissors ready at hand if nobody cares... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If nothing is going to be done or proposed to alleviate OR/POV woes concerning this section in the coming few days, I am going to remove it altogether. If an editor would wish to rework it, providing much-needed sources, impartiality and overall encyclopedicity in lieu of editorial style, it will always be accessible in article's history. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No reaction in a week, so here I go. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)