SEAT & Cosmo have designed car especially for women

[NNChangeAgain]

I was hoping this was satire. Sadly, I don't think it is.

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/technology/car-made-especially-women-looks-like/

Is this really what society wants?

Where have we (that is, feminists) gone wrong?

Thing is, gender specific cars have a shite resell value. I don't have the statistics but I read this years ago when they first introduced the Ka.

Oh God, it burns my eyes. Some poor women will have had to work on this as a project. Aargh!

Seriously, this is a joke right?

I thought it was. I hoped it was. I trawled the Internet in order to find something that indicated it was.

It isn't.

The car was launched at a Fashion Week event.

I'm struggling to understand it. The more the feminist movement fights to eliminate gender stereotyping, the more prevalent it becomes.

What is going on?

Does it have a vagina operated steering lock?

perhaps it's for that proportion of the trans community who think being a woman is about the makeup and heels?

It's a fugly car too.

It's just marketing shit.
Cosmo (not exactly a nation of feminism) will have paid a fortune to get their logo on the back and very depressingly what sums up women to car technicians is sparkly shit and an underpowered engine.
Wasn't the Range Rover evoque similarly aimed at women with an interior finish designed by Victoria Beckham? Or is that one of my weirder dreams.
Marketing and advertising is responsible for most of the sexist crap we come up against tbh. They need to create new markets to create new revenue streams. Load of old bollocks really.
I'm surprised they haven't put "xxx" on the boot.

Quite frankly this is insulting.

With a 1litre engine I wouldn't go near it. Even girls do long distance journeys on motorways you know.

Oh, but it has a handbag hook. Thank goodness for that.

FFS!

This is the car some sexist twat thinks women want rather than actually asking them... Like the car salesman that insisted that I really wanted to pick my car by colour rather than engine size 🤔, Funnily enough I've never been back to that dealership.
Cars can bring out the most crappy stereotypes in marketing sometimes and I do wonder how they don't realise how much it makes people like me have a knee jerk reaction of nonononononono! So I never try their brand.

This is the car some sexist twat thinks women want rather than actually asking them

No, no, it's been designed in consultation with Cosmo readers - this is what they said they wanted!

tribpot: roll this turd in some glitter

Reaching somewhat for plus sides, it's nice to see it isnt pink...

With a 1litre engine I wouldn't go near it. Even girls do long distance journeys on motorways you know.

My baby blue Fiat 500 has a 1 litre engine and does long journeys on motorways. It does just fine. Don't know where you are getting the idea an engine which isn't a gas guzzler is rubbish.

My focus estate is only a 1.5 and got us to Paris and back carrying 2 adults, 2 children and a bloody heavy powerchair

I am resisting clicking on the link. I too was hoping for some actual useful ergonomic adaptations.

I only recently realised I haven't been putting the handbrake on all the way because I actually can't do it without using both hands and really pulling. Not very practical at the traffic lights. Luckily I can get it on enough to hold it but it would be nice to not struggle with it to get it on fully.

Don't know where you are getting the idea an engine which isn't a gas guzzler is rubbish.

I was the first to say 1L is pants, Lass, but that was mainly in reply to a PP pondering whether this was ok (and trying to save her the bother of asking a manly man! ).

Oh, and it's pants for me and my uses - we haul a lot of crap in our weird weekends and I need the power (mind, I do all least drive a diesel). But I recognise it's not needed or wanted by everybody, so no disparagement was intended.

I have think my overriding about the 1L is that that's the only size it mentions - even if bigger-caoacity was available (I didn't drill through further and don't intend to) they specifically mention 1L in this "look what we have for tou, girls!" article. And I took away that that's all they think we can handle or will ever need. Because we've got our big strong men to drive the "real" vehicles.

From carbuyer.co.uk

If you buy a car with a small engine but try to run it in a way less suited to its strengths, like on long motorway journeys, it will have to work much harder than a larger engine. Not only it will be louder and less refined than an engine suited to motorway cruising, it’ll also be less efficient and is likely to suffer from more wear and tear because it’s under more strain than a larger engine at higher speeds.

Yes, larger engines use more fuel, but having to replace parts (and eventually the car) because of wear and tear also has an environmental (not to mention economical) impact.

It would be interesting to know exactly what the input was from the Cosmo women they asked...

It could have been a simple survey on their website that had questions along the lines of 'what is your favourite colour' and 'rate these factors in importance to you - powerful engine, economical, fun to drive' - basically a load of leading questions designed to get the answer they want, having already decided on what they want from a marketing point of view.

Alternatively they could have taken a representative sample of 100 or 1000 readers, carefully selected to ensure good balance of age and views, and done a detailed ergonomic study to ensure an excellent product that made a positive difference to the driving experience of the women that drove it, even at the expense of men...

As an ergonomist I would say it's fairly clear it wasn't the latter approach that was taken.

But even if I wasn't an ergonomist it's obvious that it's not much more than a bit of a marketing spin job

Engines have evolved, I don't really understand but my partner who is an engineer tried to explain but I can't remember. I've copied and pasted something that sounds familiar.

Turbo charged engines are designed to deliver power and torque consistent with larger engine displacement, naturally aspirated engines while also lowering fuel consumption by 20% percent if not more. The company even goes as far as to say its 1-liter engine is as good as any equivalent diesel.'

So basically I have a lawnmower engine currently powering my 500L and it's fast! I imagine this new 1L is not the equivalent of the 1L engines I grew up with in the eighties.

Alternatively they could have taken a representative sample of 100 or 1000 readers, carefully selected to ensure good balance of age and views, and done a detailed ergonomic study to ensure an excellent product that made a positive difference to the driving experience of the women that drove it, even at the expense of men...

Are there different ergonomics? My own cars have always been small, cute Fiats chosen entirely for the aesthetics of their appearance. Husband's have been a mix but we have always driven each others cars.

Husband has had a Rover (we both thought it was ok but nothing special) Saab (we both thought it a bit dull) Audi (both found it dull to the nth degree, clumsy and heavy) a gorgeous 2 seater Fiat sports car and a gorgeous 2l Alfa Romeo which we both loved (chosen by him almost entirely on its looks and it was as much a pleasure to drive as it was to look at)

I didn't particularly notice anything specifically good/ bad with any of his or mine that made them a better or worse drive for him or me.

I think that is a very pretty car

The idea of a car 'for women' though is rather insulting.

I think it's quite pretty too, although not as pretty as a Fiat 500 .

Aren't modern cars engineering wise all much of a muchness anyway? Picking one on looks seems as good as any other reason. In fact the car we picked on looks , the Alfa, turned out to be the best car we ever had, far better than the Audi where far more consideration was given to the engineering spec.

Like elephant I was quite excited when I opened this thread, I'm short, I drive a lot of different vehicles with work and do find certain makes disastrous from an ergonomic POV.

I DONT WANT SPARKLES

Apparently the Volvo XC90 was also designed to appeal to women. Which is why it has a built in fold out booster seat in the back, 7 decent seats with seat belts (2 extra proper seats that fold out of the boot), a fold down bit of the boot that you can sit a child on to take their wellies off, lots of chargers and cup holders - and it is as safe as anything.

I am on my second - the first one lasted 9 years and 200k miles before it started to look a bit worn out. It isnt pink or covered in sparkly shit - but I dont think the swedes go in for that sort of stuff

Maybe some people will like it. I don't like it, it's too small.

My first response to this sort of crap is "ugh, not again"... As one Guardian article put it, its along the same lines as the women's Bic and Sellotape.

On the other hand, I thought about it a little more and I'm thinking maybe it is good for people to have the choice of a more 'feminine' car. Hear me out... Bic and Sellotape being gendered is completely pointless as they are purely utilitarian. Whereas cars are not purely utilitarian tools - they are also about comfort, looks, prestige, status symbols etc. Modern cars are designed with a very macho, aggressive look. Cars look like they have angry macho faces...

www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/41gbvs/why_do_so_many_modern_cars_have_an_aggressive/

www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3158161/Cars-with-angry-faces-are-more-appealing.html

Maybe it's a good thing to have a purple sparkly option. There's nothing wrong with liking 'feminine' things. It's just a bit patronising when these things are marketed towards women as an entire gender, that's where I have a problem. If they just marketed these things as being for "people who like a bit of sparkle in their life" or whatever, I would be happier. After all, surely there are men out there who like purple sparkly things too.