GTP Cool Wall: 1996-1999 Renault Sport Spider

  • Thread starter Thread starter White & Nerdy
  • 94 comments
  • 6,653 views

1996-1999 Renault Sport Spider

  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
Can't imagine this getting many looks at a car show other than from Renault/Alpine fans. Meh.
Not a boring car by any means, I'd choose many alternatives before this one.
 
I think, on balance, I'd have to go with the impression you'd give driving it about on a daily basis. Which is "bell end".

Mind you, I live near the sea and I suspect (on the one day a year it's nice enough) I'd be perpetually asked if it's a beach buggy. Which is even worse.
 
Last edited:
Yep, it's not beautiful, but it's not horrible either.

Cool. 👍
 
This has got to be one of the 5 coolest cars to ever come out from Renault, and from the 90s. Absolute Sub Zero.
 
I like this car, but it is not a cool car.

Unfortunately.
 
GTP_Ingram
I have to be honest, I'm bothered about the number of people who consider this car 'meh' - far moreso than those that think it is uncool. Meh is surely for boring, bland cars, so how can a wild looking, super-rare, mid-engined sports car ever be considered uninteresting?
Click to expand...
I voted it "meh" because it doesn't interest me, but it's not uncool. I'm right in saying that this is what the "Meh" option is for, correct?
 
GranTurismo916
I voted it "meh" because it doesn't interest me, but it's not uncool. I'm right in saying that this is what the "Meh" option is for, correct?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the "Meh" option is for, as I said myself. What I also said is that I struggle to see how someone can't have any opinion a rare, bright yellow sports car, be it positive or negative.
 
I'd generally suggest that anyone for whom a car doesn't interest them simply abstain from voting. If you're not interested enough in something or know too little about it to form a cool/uncool opinion on it then your vote is effectively worthless.

It'd be like me adding soundbites to, I dunno, the baseball thread in the sports subforum. I don't even know if there is a baseball thread in the sports subforum - I've never checked, because it doesn't interest me - but I'm pretty sure those who are interested in baseball wouldn't want me needlessly posting how disinterested I am in their favourite sport.

What a "meh" vote effectively says: "I have no opinion on this thing and I know very little about it, but I'm going to write some words here anyway because I feel my non-opinion needs to be heard".
 
homeforsummer
I'd generally suggest that anyone for whom a car doesn't interest them simply abstain from voting. If you're not interested enough in something or know too little about it to form a cool/uncool opinion on it then your vote is effectively worthless.

It'd be like me adding soundbites to, I dunno, the baseball thread in the sports subforum. I don't even know if there is a baseball thread in the sports subforum - I've never checked, because it doesn't interest me - but I'm pretty sure those who are interested in baseball wouldn't want me needlessly posting how disinterested I am in their favourite sport.

What a "meh" vote effectively says: "I have no opinion on this thing and I know very little about it, but I'm going to write some words here anyway because I feel my non-opinion needs to be heard".
Click to expand...
Further proves to me that in addition to getting rid of the silly categories the cars are ultimately defined in, the Cool Wall should remain limited to the original 4 (5 for LKI) ratings & nothing more.
 
McLaren
Further proves to me that in addition to getting rid of the silly categories the cars are ultimately defined in, the Cool Wall should remain limited to the original 4 (5 for LKI) ratings & nothing more.
Click to expand...

LKI?
 
I still say that a "meh" vote by definition is just an uncool vote anyway.
 
Tornado
I still say that a "meh" vote by definition is just an uncool vote anyway.
Click to expand...
I've suggested that in the past, but people here seem to use it as a "I don't know anything about this car and I'm too lazy to find out anything, so this is my vote". And on that basis, it's completely pointless.
 
It looks cool enough to make a great sunday drive along the coast. Wasn't this car hidden somewhere in GT2?
 
homeforsummer
I've suggested that in the past, but people here seem to use it as a "I don't know anything about this car and I'm too lazy to find out anything, so this is my vote". And on that basis, it's completely pointless.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. When I introduced it, it was meant to be for people who legitimately couldn't decide between cool or uncool. I think I've only used it a couple of times, though. At the same time the people who are too lazy to find out anything would just vote uncool because, you know, you have to vote something, right?
 
I tend not to use it, but just did for the Q50 as it feels so bland, but inoffensively so, and it has enough cool features going for it. Though @Tornado has a point; a "Meh" has always felt like the voting equivalent of a shrug to me, and if anything receives a shrug versus the thumbs-up of "Cool", well, that's uncool anyway, really.
 
I voted meh because nobody can look cool driving it, but it IS cooler than an uncool. So I chose the middle ground. I agree that meh is usually meant as a shrug-off, but what should that middle ground be called? Some cars are genuinely neither cool nor uncool.
 
TheBook
At the same time the people who are too lazy to find out anything would just vote uncool because, you know, you have to vote something, right?
Click to expand...
There is that, I guess. Lesser of two evils. Better to have people voting "meh" because they're ignorant of something than basing an actual decision on ignorance.

Though I'm not sure. "Meh, never heard of it" is probably my least favourite cool wall response, as it's narcissistic in the extreme - the concept that anything you've not personally heard of before isn't worth bothering with anyway.

I guess what I'm hoping for is that people try and emerge from their own personal bubbles once in a while and learn about the world. But then this is the internet...

@XS I can see what you're getting at, and that seems like a fair use of "meh" to me. But I'm sure if you really thought about it, you'd choose cool or uncool - based on your assumption that nobody can look cool driving it, that would be an automatic uncool in my view.
 
I use "Meh" as a dumping ground for cars I really can't decide on, or whose cool and uncool characteristics cancel each other out.
 
Meh is an option I reserve for cars that are too dull and un interesting to be either cool or uncool. It's a really a dis. If a car enthusiast can't find an emotional response to a car, one way or another, then the manufacture has failed.
 
homeforsummer
@XS I can see what you're getting at, and that seems like a fair use of "meh" to me. But I'm sure if you really thought about it, you'd choose cool or uncool - based on your assumption that nobody can look cool driving it, that would be an automatic uncool in my view.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting concept - are there cars out there that are cool just idly sitting somewhere - where the average person will see it and mutter, "oh cool!" But as soon as literally anyone gets in the car they themselves are now uncool. So which perception do you vote for? Is your car cool as long as you're not standing anywhere near it? Interesting....
 
After sometime lookign at the car, I was thinking of voting it SU, Uncool or Meh. Apparently, going with cool.

Sorry Slash.
 
XS
It's an interesting concept - are there cars out there that are cool just idly sitting somewhere - where the average person will see it and mutter, "oh cool!" But as soon as literally anyone gets in the car they themselves are now uncool. So which perception do you vote for? Is your car cool as long as you're not standing anywhere near it? Interesting....
Click to expand...
As I've said in the past, a car has to be perceived with the driver (and vice-versa), because a car that isn't being driven is just a static exhibit. A car that never gets driven isn't cool, it's just a waste.

So yes, I personally judge cars on how both car and driver are perceived.

However, I've been thinking more about the Spider. I voted it cool, and I'd stand by that. But that hinges entirely on it being the one with the windscreen. Partly because it looks better than the non-screen car, and partly because the non-screen car essentially requires a helmet to drive, and any car you drive on the road, in a helmet, is uncool.
 
TheCracker
Meh is an option I reserve for cars that are too dull and un interesting to be either cool or uncool. It's a really a dis. If a car enthusiast can't find an emotional response to a car, one way or another, then the manufacture has failed.
Click to expand...
Then wouldn't that mean every mainstream manufacturer has failed numerously? I'd expect the bulk of cars from BMW's base models to Mitsubishi aren't meant to appeal to car enthusiasts, just the average consumer. Even then, wouldn't an emotional response be dependent on each person? Unless, I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't think Ford ever meant for the F150 to garnish any emotional response from a car enthusiast besides, "It's a truck", but you have people like Slash who hold it up high.
 
My philosophy on that whole thing is that, if the typical driver can dent a car's coolness to any significant degree, the car was never very cool to begin with. The Honda Civic for example - known far and wide as the official car of people who try to fake fast with 50 foot spoilers and watermelon-sized fake bazooka mufflers. But even before the ricer stuff happened it was just a boring 1.6 liter. The loud nasty supercars and muscle cars you guys like to call uncool because they're aggressive or sporty or driven by rednecks/rich jerks or for car people, however, are cool despite the drivers. You know why?

Because Average Guy on the Street understands the appeal. You see one and just sort of reflexively go "I WANT THAT!" even if you're not quite sure what it is. Sport sedans, hot hatches, other more sublte cars that better fit this site's idea of cooless just aren't as cool, because no one even notices. Some of them, you'd have to be a carspotter just to notice anything unusual about them. They're just plain easy to miss, especially if you have your face buried in your phone like so many people these days. To the aforementioned Average Guy on the Street, there isn't even any appeal to understand, because they look like "just another car".
 
Built by Alpine. Powered by Renault. Doesn't have a roof, and the windshield's an optional.

Give me a jacket, I'm freezing. This is SZ material, period.
 
McLaren
Then wouldn't that mean every mainstream manufacturer has failed numerously? I'd expect the bulk of cars from BMW's base models to Mitsubishi aren't meant to appeal to car enthusiasts, just the average consumer. Even then, wouldn't an emotional response be dependent on each person? Unless, I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't think Ford ever meant for the F150 to garnish any emotional response from a car enthusiast besides, "It's a truck", but you have people like Slash who hold it up high.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, they play safe and produce cars that appeal to a broad range of potential punters. Which makes total financial sense. To me that's the very definition of 'meh' - They've failed to ignite the passion of a car enthusiast, which is why they produce 'M' or 'AMG' or 'Ralliart' or 'Evo' or 'RS' versions that do then spark interest either way. I'm sure there are 320 or C230 owners who think their car is cool, but i'm sure the majority of them just see it as transport.
 
Heavily driver dependent.
middle aged fat person, like myself - seriously uncool
attractive, young kid - cool
 
Back